Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Finely Aged, Well Engineered
Erica Martenson is not a scientist. Rather, she is a gardener. In her big backyard in Napa, she says, she has “several fruit trees and a small area where I have a vegetable garden. At this point, I can grow pretty much what I need for the year — I dry my fruit, and I can things.”
Until 2005 or so, one of her homegrown crops was soybeans, “for edamame. Then I saw an article that mentioned something about genetically engineered soy, and I started wondering if my soybeans could be genetically engineered. I started doing some research and found that even organic seed companies like Seeds of Change can’t guarantee anymore that their soybeans are GE-free. There’s too much contamination — partly through cross-pollination, but also because there’s so much consolidation now within the seed supply. Sometimes even the organic seed supply is contaminated. So I stopped growing soybeans, and that’s how I got introduced to the whole issue — not being able to grow something that I wanted to grow. It’s one of those issues that a lot of people don’t know about, but once you do know about it, you tend to have a strong feeling about it.”
It’s a pretty strong word, “contaminated” — the sort usually reserved for poisoned water supplies and the like. Martenson isn’t trying to be alarmist, only to indicate that GE foodstuffs have a way of insinuating themselves into the general food supply. But she is concerned. “I’m concerned about the health aspect. There hasn’t been a single peer-reviewed study to prove that GE foods are safe, for example. There are no safety tests required by the government. Most of the developers’ own studies have not been made public. A German court recently forced Monsanto to make one of its studies public, and it showed that there were problems with the lab animals. And there have been independent studies that have pointed to problems. There have been studies of GE yeast that showed — and this is a problem with GE in general — that inserting the foreign genes disrupts the genome. It can cause unexpected changes in the yeast — change its metabolism, cause toxicity or allergenicity. I think the way the whole GE thing has unfolded has been very unscientific. There’s been a lot of propaganda saying that this is going to solve people’s problems, that it’s progress, and that if you’re against it, then you’re a Luddite.”
Martenson mentioned yeast in particular because she drinks wine, because she lives in Napa, and because there are currently two GE yeasts on the market for use in wine production. (One unites alcoholic and malolactic fermentations to reduce production of the biogenic amines that cause headaches in some people. The other degrades urea and so reduces the production of ethyl carbamate, a substance found to exhibit carcinogenic activity in laboratory animals, though Martenson points out that the substance has not been shown to cause cancer in humans and that “wine has other properties that seem to counter those carcinogenic effects.” Martenson is not pro-headache/pro-cancer, but neither is she confident in the biotech industry’s assurances and disinterest.) She also mentions it because it’s a local issue. “There are lots and lots of groups that are working on this at the international and national level. I decided I wanted to do something locally — there’s so much corporate influence at the national level, and there wasn’t anything happening here in our county.”
The result was PINA: Preserving the Integrity of Napa’s Agriculture. PINA’s website identifies the group as “a grassroots organization comprised of diverse individuals from Napa County” who “share the belief that genetically modified organisms pose a serious risk to our health…and that they threaten our environment, economy, and consumers’ rights…No GMOs should be introduced into Napa County until a regulatory system is in place.”
“Our focus is education,” adds Martenson. “There are field tests going on all over the country, and nobody knows where they are. We’ve been doing lots of film showings and presentations” — things like the documentary Future of Food — “and are just trying to open up a dialogue with the whole community. Including the wine industry. We work through organizations. We went to the Native Plant Society and asked, ‘Would you be interested in sponsoring a film?’ That way we bring in all of their members and people interested in native plants.” So far, with winegrowers, “It’s been more sharing conversations. I know the grape growers have had two forums on GE grapes, but that was more for the industry.”
And the response? Martenson goes into hopeful mode: “Um, positive. There are conversations happening. I think the wine industry here has always been very good about working with the community to solve problems that affect the industry and the environment and to find creative solutions. We have a long history of doing that, and I hope this will be the same way. I think there’s an image and reputation issue. There’s no labeling law here now that says you have to say if your product is GE, but that could change very quickly. The Food Policy Institute, a research unit of Rutgers University, conducted a poll in 2003 that revealed that 94 percent of American consumers want GE food labeled. Both presidential candidates on the Democratic side have said they support mandatory labeling, as does independent candidate Ron Paul. It’s a health and safety issue; since GE foods aren’t labeled, any health problems associated with them are impossible to trace. In Europe, there are already strict labeling laws, and even though there’s no ban on GE foods, nobody wants to market products as GE because they won’t sell. Here, the whole GE thing has been very stealth, but I think producers here have to look forward. It would be very difficult, I think, for them to go the GE route and not lose something as far as their image and market share.”
PINA is after a moratorium on GE products in Napa County; in the meantime, Martenson will settle for bringing matters into the light. She wrote an opinion piece for the Napa Valley Register on GE grapevine trials, noting that both Cornell and UC Davis “have permits to field test up to five and a half acres of experimental GE grapes anywhere in California.” The piece asks a lot of questions that may have fairly benign answers, but Martenson’s point is that she can’t get those answers, benign or otherwise. “What types of genes are they using that they feel they need to hide that information from the public?” she asks, regarding a trial using genes designated as “confidential business information.”
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the article is that the Cornell professor she quotes, Dr. Bruce Reisch, shows up several times in the comment section. Reisch takes issue with much of what Martenson writes and argues that the United States food system is “one of the very best in the world,” the success of which “includes the ongoing and widespread consumption of a multitude of products from plant genetic engineering, and these products have an excellent track record of…production of healthy food products.” Martenson counters with arguments about U.S. approval of products (such as bovine growth hormone) that are not allowed in other first-world countries and adds that “many third-world countries will not even accept GE crops as food aid.” The exchange is civil, extended, and enlightening and may be found here: http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/03/15/opinion/commentary/doc45f9480b21e0e837159310.txt
Here's something you might be interested in.
Finely Aged, Well Engineered
Finely Aged, Well Engineered
Erica Martenson is not a scientist. Rather, she is a gardener. In her big backyard in Napa, she says, she has “several fruit trees and a small area where I have a vegetable garden. At this point, I can grow pretty much what I need for the year — I dry my fruit, and I can things.”
Until 2005 or so, one of her homegrown crops was soybeans, “for edamame. Then I saw an article that mentioned something about genetically engineered soy, and I started wondering if my soybeans could be genetically engineered. I started doing some research and found that even organic seed companies like Seeds of Change can’t guarantee anymore that their soybeans are GE-free. There’s too much contamination — partly through cross-pollination, but also because there’s so much consolidation now within the seed supply. Sometimes even the organic seed supply is contaminated. So I stopped growing soybeans, and that’s how I got introduced to the whole issue — not being able to grow something that I wanted to grow. It’s one of those issues that a lot of people don’t know about, but once you do know about it, you tend to have a strong feeling about it.”
It’s a pretty strong word, “contaminated” — the sort usually reserved for poisoned water supplies and the like. Martenson isn’t trying to be alarmist, only to indicate that GE foodstuffs have a way of insinuating themselves into the general food supply. But she is concerned. “I’m concerned about the health aspect. There hasn’t been a single peer-reviewed study to prove that GE foods are safe, for example. There are no safety tests required by the government. Most of the developers’ own studies have not been made public. A German court recently forced Monsanto to make one of its studies public, and it showed that there were problems with the lab animals. And there have been independent studies that have pointed to problems. There have been studies of GE yeast that showed — and this is a problem with GE in general — that inserting the foreign genes disrupts the genome. It can cause unexpected changes in the yeast — change its metabolism, cause toxicity or allergenicity. I think the way the whole GE thing has unfolded has been very unscientific. There’s been a lot of propaganda saying that this is going to solve people’s problems, that it’s progress, and that if you’re against it, then you’re a Luddite.”
Martenson mentioned yeast in particular because she drinks wine, because she lives in Napa, and because there are currently two GE yeasts on the market for use in wine production. (One unites alcoholic and malolactic fermentations to reduce production of the biogenic amines that cause headaches in some people. The other degrades urea and so reduces the production of ethyl carbamate, a substance found to exhibit carcinogenic activity in laboratory animals, though Martenson points out that the substance has not been shown to cause cancer in humans and that “wine has other properties that seem to counter those carcinogenic effects.” Martenson is not pro-headache/pro-cancer, but neither is she confident in the biotech industry’s assurances and disinterest.) She also mentions it because it’s a local issue. “There are lots and lots of groups that are working on this at the international and national level. I decided I wanted to do something locally — there’s so much corporate influence at the national level, and there wasn’t anything happening here in our county.”
The result was PINA: Preserving the Integrity of Napa’s Agriculture. PINA’s website identifies the group as “a grassroots organization comprised of diverse individuals from Napa County” who “share the belief that genetically modified organisms pose a serious risk to our health…and that they threaten our environment, economy, and consumers’ rights…No GMOs should be introduced into Napa County until a regulatory system is in place.”
“Our focus is education,” adds Martenson. “There are field tests going on all over the country, and nobody knows where they are. We’ve been doing lots of film showings and presentations” — things like the documentary Future of Food — “and are just trying to open up a dialogue with the whole community. Including the wine industry. We work through organizations. We went to the Native Plant Society and asked, ‘Would you be interested in sponsoring a film?’ That way we bring in all of their members and people interested in native plants.” So far, with winegrowers, “It’s been more sharing conversations. I know the grape growers have had two forums on GE grapes, but that was more for the industry.”
And the response? Martenson goes into hopeful mode: “Um, positive. There are conversations happening. I think the wine industry here has always been very good about working with the community to solve problems that affect the industry and the environment and to find creative solutions. We have a long history of doing that, and I hope this will be the same way. I think there’s an image and reputation issue. There’s no labeling law here now that says you have to say if your product is GE, but that could change very quickly. The Food Policy Institute, a research unit of Rutgers University, conducted a poll in 2003 that revealed that 94 percent of American consumers want GE food labeled. Both presidential candidates on the Democratic side have said they support mandatory labeling, as does independent candidate Ron Paul. It’s a health and safety issue; since GE foods aren’t labeled, any health problems associated with them are impossible to trace. In Europe, there are already strict labeling laws, and even though there’s no ban on GE foods, nobody wants to market products as GE because they won’t sell. Here, the whole GE thing has been very stealth, but I think producers here have to look forward. It would be very difficult, I think, for them to go the GE route and not lose something as far as their image and market share.”
PINA is after a moratorium on GE products in Napa County; in the meantime, Martenson will settle for bringing matters into the light. She wrote an opinion piece for the Napa Valley Register on GE grapevine trials, noting that both Cornell and UC Davis “have permits to field test up to five and a half acres of experimental GE grapes anywhere in California.” The piece asks a lot of questions that may have fairly benign answers, but Martenson’s point is that she can’t get those answers, benign or otherwise. “What types of genes are they using that they feel they need to hide that information from the public?” she asks, regarding a trial using genes designated as “confidential business information.”
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the article is that the Cornell professor she quotes, Dr. Bruce Reisch, shows up several times in the comment section. Reisch takes issue with much of what Martenson writes and argues that the United States food system is “one of the very best in the world,” the success of which “includes the ongoing and widespread consumption of a multitude of products from plant genetic engineering, and these products have an excellent track record of…production of healthy food products.” Martenson counters with arguments about U.S. approval of products (such as bovine growth hormone) that are not allowed in other first-world countries and adds that “many third-world countries will not even accept GE crops as food aid.” The exchange is civil, extended, and enlightening and may be found here: http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/03/15/opinion/commentary/doc45f9480b21e0e837159310.txt
Comments