# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Crop biotechnology has reduced agriculture's environmental impact and stimulated economic growth in the countries where the technology is used says a new report released today by PG Economics titled GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996- 2015.

The report unveils the global socio-economic and environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops in the twenty years since they were first commercially planted on a significant area. It focuses on the farm level economic effects, the production effects, the environmental impact resulting from changes in the use of insecticides and herbicides, and the contribution towards reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Below are highlights from the report:

Crop biotechnology has reduced agriculture's environmental impact:

Crop biotechnology has significantly reduced agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions by helping farmers adopt more sustainable practices such as reduced tillage, which decreases the burning of fossil fuels and retains more carbon in the soil. Had biotech crops not been grown in 2015, for example, an additional 26.7 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide would have been emitted into the atmosphere, which is the equivalent of adding 11.9 million cars to the roads.

From 1996 to 2015, crop biotechnology reduced the spraying of crop protection products by 619 million kilograms, a global reduction of 8.1 per cent. This is equal to more than China's total crop protection product use each year3. As a result, farmers who grow biotech crops have reduced the environmental impact associated with their crop protection practices by 18.6 percent.

Crop biotechnology has reduced pressure to use new land in agriculture and contributed to global food security:

Biotech crops allow farmers to grow more without needing to use additional land. For example, if crop biotechnology had not been available to farmers in 2015, maintaining global production levels that year would have required the planting of an additional 8.4 million hectares (ha) of soybeans, 7.4 million ha of corn, 3 million ha of cotton and 0.7 million ha of canola. This is equivalent to needing an additional 11 percent of the arable land in the United States, or roughly 31 percent of the arable land in Brazil or 13 percent of the cropping area in China.

Crop biotechnology enables farmers to increase crop yield.

Insect resistant (IR) crop technology used in cotton and corn has consistently improved yields by reducing the damage caused by pests. From 1996 to 2015, across all users of this technology, yields have increased by an average of +13.1 percent for IR corn and +15 percent for IR cotton relative to conventional production systems. Farmers who grow IR soybeans commercially in South America have seen an average +9.6 per cent increase in yields since 2013.

In some countries, herbicide tolerant (HT) technology has improved yields through better weed control. For example, in Bolivia, HT soybeans increased yields by +15 percent. In Argentina, HT technology has helped farmers grow an additional soybean crop after wheat in the same growing season.

Biotech farmers in developing countries, many of whom are resource-poor and farm small plots of land, continue to see the highest yield gains from using the technology.

Over 20 years, crop biotechnology has been responsible for the additional production of 180.3 million tonnes of soybeans, 357.7 million tonnes of corn, 25.2 million tonnes of cotton lint and 10.6 million tonnes of canola.

Crop biotechnology supports improved livelihoods, especially for poor, smallholder farmers in developing countries:

By better controlling pests and weeds, crop biotechnology helps farmers increase their yields, which leads to higher incomes and better lives for themselves and their families. In 2015, the net farm level economic benefit was $15.5 billion, equal to an average increase in income of $90/hectare. From 1996 to 2015, the net global farm income benefit was $167.7 billion.

Crop biotechnology contributes to global economic success.

Crop biotechnology continues to be a good investment for millions of farmers. In 2015, for each extra dollar invested in biotech crop seeds globally, farmers netted an average $3.45.

In 2015, farmers in developing countries received $5.15 for each extra dollar invested in biotech crop seeds, whereas farmers in developed countries received $2.76 for each extra dollar invested in biotech crop seeds.

Read the full report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biotechnology Crops Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions - The U.S. Sustainability Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Crop biotechnology has reduced agriculture's environmental impact and stimulated economic growth in the countries where the technology is used says a new report released today by PG Economics titled GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996- 2015.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every year, nations come together to work out solutions to mitigating/adapting to the devastating effects of our changing climate. Biotechnology has an important role to play in this debate.

The most obvious manifestation of climate change is found in weather conditions; many countries are now experiencing more heat waves, storms and floods. In Nigeria, we are losing about 350,000m2 of land mass yearly to desert condition, which is advancing southwardly at an estimated rate of 0.6 kilometers a year, thanks to a change in our climate.

Agriculture is a key contributor to climate change, and 30 percent of the world s agricultural land is affected by the drastic effects of climate change. If nothing is done, climate change could cost the world the loss of at least 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) each year; if more dramatic predictions come to pass, the cost could rise to more than 20 percent of GDP.

Our own research has found that a temperature increase of just 2 degrees could drastically affect seed germination and seedling growth of maize, rice and sorghum three important cereal crops in Nigeria.

Other studies have shown that the agriculture sector contributes greatly to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Fossil fuel for farm inputs and equipment, animal agriculture, land clearing and preparation are significant contributors to GHG emissions. No wonder the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that farming is responsible for over a quarter of total global greenhouse gas emissions. There is therefore an important need for interlinkages between agriculture and climate.

There are model reports that combined agronomic and economic variables to show that global agriculture will drop in production by 6% in 2080 when compared with models that do not take climate change into consideration. As temperatures become hotter and precipitation rates change, access to water supply for agriculture becomes a problem. We might just have a drastic shortage of water for irrigated lands, while farms with no access to water supplies may have no water at all.
Biotech solutions
Biotechnology can contribute positively by mitigating the impact of climate change in agriculture through greenhouse gas reduction, crops adaptation and increase in yield using less land. As a matter of fact, agricultural biotechnology can provide solutions which include tissue culture, conventional breeding, molecular marker-assisted breeding and genetic engineering. Advances in breeding help agriculture achieve higher yields and meet the needs of expanding population with limited land and water resources.

As a result of improved plant breeding techniques, the productivity gains in worldwide production of primary crops, including maize, wheat, rice and oilseed, has increased by 21 percent since 1995, while total land devoted to these crops has increased by only 2 percent.

Crops are now bred to be herbicide tolerant, which means that farmers have the opportunity to reduce the level and efforts in ploughing. Thus a resultant reduction in tractor use also helps to protect the structure of the soil which reduces erosion.

Scientists have used marker assisted selections to accurately identified plants carrying desirable characteristics, hence conventional breeding can be conducted with greater precision. The Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) varieties, a project of the Kenyan-based African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and Howard G. Buffet Foundations, was developed through marker assisted breeding.

Since climate change could also increase plant disease infestation, biotechnology enables development of disease diagnostic kits for use in the laboratory and field that could be used to detect plant diseases early, by testing for the presence of pathogen s DNA or proteins produced by pathogens or plants during infection. Even as new pest and diseases emerge due to climate change, farmers are still able to mitigate this with insect-resistant crops. Theses crops require fewer insecticide treatments, resulting in a reduction in fuel use and lower CO2 emissions.

In Europe, insect-resistant biotech maize has been grown since 1998. In 2008, 107,719 ha of land were dedicated to insect resistant maize in seven EU countries, with Spain having the largest cultivation area of GM maize (approximately 20 percent of its total maize area), followed by the Czech Republic, Romania, Portugal, Germany, Poland and Slovakia.

So it will be wrong to say that European countries are rejecting GM crops, especially since applications for GM field trials in the EU have come from Spain, Poland, UK, Finland, Belgium, Sweden, Slovakia, Romania, France in 2013 alone. These applications are for trials in maize, wheat, poplar, sugar beet, cotton, and cucumber. The EU obviously knows the benefits of agricultural biotechnology; if not, why have committed over 300 million euros to fund research into GMO safety over the past 25 years? As a matter of scientific fact, the EU assessment identified no risk to human health or the environment from these crops.
Carbon uptake
Good management practices when adopted in agriculture can play a large part in ensuring global carbon sequestration. Crops developed with modern agricultural biotechnology reduce the need for tillage or ploughing, allowing farmers to adopt conservation or no-till farming practices. As a result, over time soil quality is enhanced and becomes carbon-enriched. In addition, less carbon in the soil becomes oxidized through exposure to the air since the soil is not inverted by ploughing, and therefore less CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

Those soil carbon savings have arisen from the rapid adoption of new farming systems for which the availability of GM herbicide-resistant technology has been cited by many farmers as an important facilitator.

Research shows GM crops were being grown on roughly 12 percent of the world s arable land in 2012, with a total reduction due to both the direct and indirect emission effects of GM crops of over 26.7 billion kg of CO2. This is equivalent to removing nearly 12 million cars from circulation.
Reduced fertilizer use
It is a fact that nitrous oxide or N2O has a global warming potential (GWP) of 296, which is said to be about 300 times greater than carbon dioxide. What this means is that one kilo of nitrous oxide is equivalent to 296 kilos of CO2. In addition, nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for more than 100 years.

Nitrous oxide forms when nitrogen fertilizers applied to crops interact with common soil bacteria. It is estimated that nitrogen fertilizer accounts for one-third of the GHGs produced by agriculture. Reduced fertilizer use will also mean less nitrogen pollution of ground and surface waters. If the addition of fertilizers can cause these problems, why not go organic?

This prospect informed Russian President Vladimir Putin s statement during his recent address to the Russian Parliament. Putin proudly outlined his plan to make Russia the world s leading exporter of non-GMO foods that are based on ecologically clean production. He went further to say Now more than ever organic produce is in high demand with consumers willing to pay far more for such products. Countries such as Uganda are benefiting from the global high demand of organic products. Organic products can go into all markets

Unfortunately, the speech writers have forgotten that even if we have the best of organic farming, if crops don t respond to change in climatic conditions, they will totally fail. We can still have genetically modified crops which can be grown in the most organic manner, contributing less to greenhouse effects.

Researchers have already developed genetically engineered rice and canola varieties that they use nitrogen more efficiently with less fertilizer applications. This Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) technology produces plants with yields equivalent to conventional varieties, with significantly less nitrogen fertilizer. It's very unscientific for activists to say that these NUE crops are nothing more than patented pesticide delivery systems designed to increase the sales of poisonous agrochemicals. Suc claims ignore the potential of this technology to reduce the amount of nitrogen fertilizer lost by farmers every year due to leaching into the air, soil and waterways. In addition to environmental impacts, nitrogen costs can represent a significant portion of a farmer s input costs and can have a major impact on farmer profitability in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
Nigeria needs technology
Nigeria must catch a fast moving train to achieve true economic diversification, and science and technology have active roles to play. Biotechnology, a science-based solution, will not only help mitigate agricultural based climate problems but will also provide solutions for improved and increased productivity. It s time we took a critical look at developing our human capacity in biotechnology. Indeed, the benefits of biotechnology are enormous, but we can only maximize these benefits if research and development in agricultural biotechnology throughout world is enhanced.

While new traits, varieties and crops will play an important role in climate change mitigation and adaptation, the range of relevant practice and technologies is much broader than this, including water management, production practices, post-harvest technologies, information and forecasting, and insurance. Therefore understanding the policy and innovation issues raised by this broader set of agricultural practices and related technologies is important since responding to climate change genuinely demands an all hands on deck approach.
Nigeria's biotech safety
Every ideal society needs checks and balances in order to perform at its best, and GM issues should not be an exception. It would be very unfair for us as environmentalists to deny the existence of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB), which Nigeria signed in 2000 and ratified 2003. Are we also going to disagree that the convention on Biological Diversity is not in existence? If we are all in the affirmative that these protocols exist, then Nigeria is on the right path in having a biosafety management agency.

As readers are undoubtedly aware, the PDP-led government on April 20, 2015, one week before the handover, signed the National Biosafety Agency Bill into law. The bill empowers the National Biosafety Management Agency, NABDA, to regulate and open the country to the commercialization of genetically modified crops.

This agency is managed by a seasoned scientist in the current Director-General ,Mr. Rufus Ebegba. He is a professionally qualified agriculturist and environmental biologist/biosafety specialist with over 25 years' working experience in various areas of biosafety management, biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization of renewable natural recourses. With vast experience in strategic planning in biosafety and biodiversity, it is very obvious that he knows what is at stake in handling an agency saddled to regulate the practice of modern biotechnology in Nigeria. He is indeed a square peg in a square hole, having in the past chaired the development of Nigeria National Biosafety Framework under the UNEP/GEF.

It is also to his credit that the biosafety level 2 containment facility guidelines, as well as the development of Nigeria National Biosafety Risk Assessment Analysis Framework, were all developed and are now up and running. Therefore, it is very unscientific and unreasonable for Mr. Ebegba's critics to say he wants to do more harm than good to the Nigerian environment by encouraging the use of toxic chemicals, when all his working life he has been in the fore front of protecting the same environment.
The big picture
Agriculture has a crucial and unique relationship with climate and economic development. Agriculture is our primary source of food and important raw materials, it has significant potential for mitigating global GHG emissions, and it is particularly sensitive to climate change. Biotechnology innovations in agriculture will be more vital in the context of climate change. It is, therefore, very necessary that policies that will boost the development and use of the much needed agricultural biotechnologies should be in place in order to have an enabling effective technological response.

These policy and institutional responses are particularly critical as they can provide a pathway for steady progress towards climate mitigation and adaptation. Whereas short-term climate variability demands, and deservedly gets our attention, adapting to longer-term changes requires vision and discipline. A careful balance of institutional change and wise investment is required to deal with both the demands of climate change and the opportunities for the poor to continue improving their lives.
Dr. Andrew Chibuzor Iloh is a Climate Protection and Bioresourse Conservation Fellow with the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung/Foundation Germany. Dr., Rose Suniso Maxwell Gidado is the Nigeria Country Coordinator for the Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa. A version of this appeared in The Guardian's Nigeria edition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Nigerian perspective: GMO crops can reduce climate change impacts - Alliance for Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Biotechnology can contribute positively by mitigating the impact of climate change in agriculture through greenhouse gas reduction, crops adaptation and increase in yield using less land. As a matter of fact, agricultural biotechnology can provide solutions which include tissue culture, conventional breeding, molecular marker-assisted breeding and genetic engineering.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recently, Italian researchers published a review of studies concluding planting genetically modified (GM) maize (corn) over the past 20 years has increased the agricultural yield of this popular and important staple food. In this context, it is important to remember one of the most popular myths perpetuated about GM crops: that they aren't boosting yields. In fact, in 2016 the media mentioned this point when the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (NAS) published an extensive review of about 1,000 studies about the safety of GM crops. Apart from concluding that GMOs are as safe as conventional crops, the review mentioned that "there was no evidence that transgenic crops had changed the rate of increase in yields."

That phrase was enough for many journalists to erroneously publish news mentioning that GM crops "were useless to increase agricultural yield." New York Times reporter Danny Hakim even published a controversial article around that claim, which was widely criticized by academics and researchers. While this point about "no change in yield" is real, it was omitted that GM crops currently harvested at the commercial level haven't been modified to directly increase agricultural yield, such as increasing the number of grains, pods, fruits or size of the plant. The GM crops that have been commercialized since 1996 were designed for two main traits: resistance to insects (or diseases) and/or tolerance to herbicides. In recent years, new traits such as drought-tolerance and non-browning have been commercially approved.

Insect-resistant Bt crops, and those that confer virus-resistance, like the Hawaiian papaya, reduce crop losses and require fewer phytosanitary products compared to conventional susceptible crops. In the case of herbicide-tolerant GM crops, they allow a better control of problematic weeds and facilitate the adoption of more environmentally friendly phytosanitary products, as well as sustainable no-till farming practices. The reduction of losses by pests, viruses and weeds that compete for soil nutrients, together with savings in phytosanitary products and fuel, indirectly increase the final yield when compared with conventional crops.

These advantages were previously documented in two major academic reviews by agricultural economists. The first, which was published in 2014 and included the review of 147 studies, concluded that GM crops have allowed an average increase in agricultural yield by 22 percent and increased farmers' profits by 68 percent, with profit margins even larger in developing countries.

The second review is a study published annually covering the data of the global GM crops production. The last version, published in 2017, indicates that between 1996 and 2015, GM crops increased global production by 357.7 million tons of corn, 180.3 million tons of soybean, 25.2 million tons of cotton fiber, 10.6 million tons of canola and about a ton of sugar beet. In addition, the report mentions that GM crops significantly reduced the use of agricultural land due to this higher productivity. In 2015 alone they prevented almost 20 million hectares from being used for agricultural purposes, thus reducing the environmental impact cultivating forests or wild lands. This is a great environmental benefit derived from the higher agricultural yield.

Apart from these two major revisions, there is the new one referenced at the start of this post: a paper that was published a couple of days ago by Italian researchers, who reviewed more than 6,000 studies over 20 years of GM corn harvest. They concluded that GM crops allowed an increase in yield of 6 percent to 25 percent, depending on the country, with the additional benefit of reducing mycotoxin levels by one-third. These toxins contributed to major economic losses and cause serious health problems.

If GM crops didn't provide a significant yield benefit to farmers, they would simply choose to use conventional seeds. However, the amount of arable land planted with GM crops has multiplied 100-fold in the last decade, from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 185.1 million hectares in 2016. These crops were planted by 18 million farmers in 26 countries, making GM the fastest adopted crop technology worldwide in recent times. This impressive increase in the adoption rate speaks for itself, in terms of its sustainability, resilience, extra income and the significant yield benefits available to both small and big farmers.
Genes for better yield
The only GM crop designed for higher yield that has received commercial approval is a GM eucalyptus developed in Brazil, which was approved in 2015. A gene from the model plant Arabipdopsis thaliana was inserted into the eucalyptus, which produced 20 percent more wood and reduced the time to maturity from 7 to 5.5 years.

Outside the forestry sector, although there are still no commercially available GM plants specifically designed to maximize yield (in terms of, for example, grain production or plant biomass), there are already several developments at the experimental or regulation stage.

A very promising example is the so-called "C4 rice" developed by scientists from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines, with collaboration from researcher groups all over the world. Because rice has C3 photosynthesis (3-carbon pathway), which is much less efficient than the C4 photosynthesis (4-carbon pathway) of crops such as corn or sugar cane, scientists work on inserting genes to express the metabolic pathway of C4 photosynthesis in rice plants. This accelerates plant growth by capturing carbon dioxide and concentrating it in specialized cells in the leaves, allowing the process of photosynthesis to work much more efficiently.

The technology that is being applied experimentally in rice and wheat - two crops that have already reached their peak of yield and feed the majority of the world's population - would increase yield by 50 percent. In addition, it would be possible to use much less water and fertilizer to produce the same amount of food. This project has already had its first positive results.

Another project is the Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency (RIPE), an international research effort that is also engineering plants to photosynthesize more efficiently to increase crop yields. They have already succeeded increasing yields with model plants such as tobacco and Arabidopsis, and they are now transferring the technology to crops important in developing countries, such as cassava, rice and beans.

There are other projects under way that address the optimization of the photosynthesis process. For example, a University of Illinois initiative achieved a 20 percent higher yield in tobacco by overexpressing three genes protecting damage at times when more light is obtained. Other research managed to increase the yield of soy under conditions that emulate the higher temperatures and carbon dioxide levels expected in the year 2050.

There are also various GM crops in the experimental stage that can directly maximize the yield trait. These include a wheat with 20 percent higher yield, developed by Rothamsted Research in the United Kingdom, and another GM wheat with larger grains developed by the Austral University in Chile; a soybean with 36 percent more grain developed by Washington State University; a mustard with 25 to 34 percent more seeds developed by the University of Delhi in India; a corn with 50 percent larger kernels and an increased number of grains developed by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) in the United States; and a rice with a 54 percent higher yield developed by public sector researchers from the United Kingdom and China.
Other GM traits and gene editing
Additionally, a series of GM crops have modified to express traits like an efficient use of soil nitrogen, which directly increases agricultural yield while reducing the use of fertilizers, and the new generation of diverse drought-tolerant, heat-tolerant and salinity-tolerant crops, which will increase the final yield in soils that face water scarcity, warm climates or high salt levels.

And we can't leave aside the new breeding techniques (NBTs), which also offer tools for improving yield. In fact, at the end of last year a review was published that analyzed 52 studies using the gene editing technology known as CRISPR from 2014 to mid-2017. The results showed that 15 crops were studied for the application of CRISPR. The most studied crop has been rice, followed by tobacco, Arabidopsis and corn. The majority of CRISPR applications were to improve crop yields, followed by improved nutrient content (biofortification) and tolerance to biotic/abiotic stresses.

An example of these developments is the modification of the structure of the plant, the size of the frui, and the architecture of ramification in tomato through CRISPR by CSHL scientists.

All of these crops deliver benefits not only for farmers, but also for the environment by reducing land use and general environmental impact, and for consumers by supporting global food security. It's estimated that to feed a growing population, we will need to increase the food supply by 60 to 70 percent by 2050, which is why we need to use all possible technologies to boost agricultural production while reducing the environmental impact. However, the ability of society as a whole to enjoy the benefits of this technology depends in large part on decision makers, governments and the regulatory frameworks of each country. Let's hope they don't react too late, since it requires at least a decade and a lot of investment to take GM crops from the laboratory into the field, and the goal to significantly expand global food production is just around the corner.

Categories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMO crops have been increasing yield for 20 years, with more progress ahead - Alliance for Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently, Italian researchers published a review of studies concluding planting genetically modified (GM) maize (corn) over the past 20 years has increased the agricultural yield of this popular and important staple food. In this context, it is important to remember one of the most popular myths perpetuated about GM crops: that they aren't boosting yields.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Feeding The World Without GMOs from Gringo Starr Productions on Vimeo.

One of the most often touted benefits of genetically engineered (GE) crops [more commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs)] is that they are essential to feed the world's growing population. There are currently over 7.5 billion people on this planet and expected to rise to 9.5 billion by 2050. If consumption trends continue, in order to feed that many people, we would need to grow one-third more food. First, let's look at this argument from an agricultural perspective.

The vast majority of GE crop production does not go towards direct food consumption; rather, it is used for the production of animal feed and ethanol. These are crops engineered to withstand, work in partnership with, and self-generate pesticides. They are not engineered to increase yield or face climate-related challenges to growth, such as drought tolerance. There is one variety of corn has been bred for drought resistance, but it is likely to only be effective in 15 percent of US corn fields and is not effective in severe or extreme drought, which we are expected to have more of in the coming years.

Industrial agriculture isn't the answer.

Increases in yield from GE crops are a result of a decrease in yield lost to pests from Bt crops, pesticides, and an increase in fertilizer use (made from petroleum, defeating the purpose of ethanol). Unfortunately, growing weed and pest resistance is already decreasing their effectiveness, requiring much more dangerous pesticides and making useless one of the most used organic pesticides, Bt. These minimal increases in yield have come with major externalities, including but not limited to water pollution, pollinator loss, and soil degradation, that put future food security at risk. After decades of attempts, Big Biotech has not been successful in breeding GE seeds that increase yield or reduce water use. Conventional breeding outperforms genetic engineering when it comes to nitrogen use efficiency (the ability for crops to pull nitrogen out of soil, developing a more efficient use of fertilizer, ultimately decreasing the demand for fertilizers) and water use efficiency (WUE).

Overall, conventional breeding is responsible for most of the successful advances in yield. It also happens on a much shorter timeline at a much lower cost. Industry studies show that it takes a minimum of ten years to develop a GE crop and nearly $150 million; whereas conventional crops take only $1 million to develop, improvements WUE and drought resistance naturally occur at an estimated 1 percent each year. While Big Biotech develop GE crops in a lab, farmers are improving traditional crops in the field. Due to this drag rate by the time GE crops are finally released they are actually behind their conventional counterparts.

Conventional crops could also be more effectively bred to work in partnership with the cultural food needs and geographical climate and soil challenges unique to specific regions. Forcing GE crops into developing countries with higher existing biodiversity puts that biodiversity and future food supplies at risk by threatening native species and practices. There are an abundance of types of crop varieties (both already in use and wild) accessible to breeders and growers. It is important that we tap into this vast resource to expand nutrient diversity and accessibility.

The Solution: Agroecology

Considering the changing climate and increasing pressures on and demand for our scarce resources, expanding the industrialized system of agricultural is not the answer. Agriculture is already one of the largest contributors to climate change. In order to sustainability produce the food we will need, we must support a transition to more regenerative, agroecological methods of farming. Agroecology as a "science is the 'application of ecological science to the study, design, and management of sustainable agroecosystems.' As a set of agricultural practices, agroecology seeks ways to enhance agricultural systems by mimicking natural processes, thus creating beneficial biological interactions and synergies among the components of the agroecosystem."

It is essential to look at the entire system and how plants work with one another and their surrounding climates. Regenerative agriculture works to rebuild soil health and biodiversity; sequestering carbon, preventing soil erosion, protecting water sources, and reducing harmful pesticide and fertilizer runoff in the process. Agroecology is also a much better system of management for small holders and provides a more balanced diet with more nutrient dense crops. Smallholders already produce 70 percent of the world's food on only 25 percent of the land. More diversified planting is better for soil health and biodiversity and will better handle the challenges presented by climate change and the damage we have already done to our resources.

Lack of Equity + Poverty = Hunger

Hunger is not an issue of agriculture or food quantity, but one of poverty and equity. There is currently enough food in the world to feed 10 billion people. That means that we actually have an excess of food.

Despite that, there is still a shocking number of people who are hungry, 791 million (the majority of which live in developing nations). More than anything, hunger is a result of poverty. The World Bank estimates that there are over 1 billion poor people in developing countries. Continued hunger leads to continued poverty as those suffering from chronic hunger are unable to perform manual labor (the most common source of income in developing countries) and increase their standard of living. Much of this poverty and hunger is caused by existing economic inequity as a result of current political systems that favor those with higher incomes. The current industrial food system emphasizes the need for countries (regardless of size) to export food crops despite the local demand for basic nutrients. If poverty and livelihoods are not improved it will not matter how much food is produced if the poorest, and in turn hungriest, do not have the financial ability to access it.

At the same time that there is great hunger there is also excessive food waste throughout the world. It is even worse in the western hemisphere; the US alone wastes 40 percent of its food. In western countries, grocery stores throw out a lot of food and will not purchase unattractive produce. Food is wasted simply because it is visually unappealing or goes uneaten. In developing nations food waste is a result of a lack of infrastructure, capital investment, and basic necessities. Lack of access to road ways, storage facilities, and basic refrigeration prevents food access and increases spoilage rates. With proper investment and support these problems could be remedied.

Despite the hunger epidemic we also have an obesity epidemic as a result of poor nutrition, high meat consumption, and increased processed food consumption. Worldwide, most of the expected demand for an increase in food is not based on a baseline need for nutrients, but rather the growing trend of developing countries to adopt the western diet of meat consumption. It takes substantially more calories to produce meat and ultimately results in a number of health challenges. Not only does this require a higher production of animal feed crops, the raising of animals for meat puts a number of stresses on the environment due to the current system of large concentrated and confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.

Hunger is an issue of politics and justice.

It is a choice that we make as a nation and as group of developed countries. In order to tackle these problems of access we need to drastically change our food system. We need an international system of agriculture that supports food sovereignty, regenerative agroecological farming practices, and food security on a regional and local level. GMOs are not the answer.

If GMOs are not feeding the world, then what do we do to decrease worldwide hunger? Find out here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Feeding The World Without GMOs from Gringo Starr Productions on Vimeo. One of the most often touted benefits of genetically engineered (GE) crops [more commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs)] is that they are essential to feed the world's growing population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Charles Xu
figures by Krissy Lyon

Summary: People are concerned about the potential of GMO food to cause allergies. However, the technology used for making GMO crops does not necessarily make us more vulnerable than conventional breeding. Comprehensive evaluation for market approval, food safety surveillance, and adequate labeling could minimize the health risks of food allergies. Moreover, further development of technology might even enable us to remove the common allergens in our food.

-

In the autumn of 2000, a California woman named Grace Booth went into anaphylactic shock after eating three corn tacos; after ruling out all other food allergies, she became suspicious about the corn in the tortillas. Earlier that year, the consumer group Genetically Engineered Food Alert found that some Taco Bell shells, along with other corn products, contain a pest-repelling protein called Cry9C[2]. Originally from common soil bacteria, Cry9C can specifically destroy insect intestine and was introduced into StarLink GMO corn to kill predatory caterpillars (see this article). The StarLink corn had only been approved for animal feeding, and was never intended for human consumption because of concerns that Cry9C would be difficult to digest and cause an allergic reaction. However, it still entered the human supply due to cross-pollination when the GMO corn was planted too close to unmodified crops, and the tortillas that Grace ate were soon recalled due to contamination from a GMO product (Figure 1).

Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not find a direct link between Cry9C and allergic reactions in the consumers who claimed to have ingested StarLink corn, this recall spurred public discussion about the health risks of GMO foods. As a result, the scientific community is often asked if GMO foods make us more vulnerable to allergens, and how we can mitigate these potential risks.
Figure 1. Contamination of non-GM corn with GM corn StarLink containing the Cry9C protein may have caused an allergic reaction in one Taco Bell customer. It was not possible to prove a direct link between the Cry protein and the allergic reaction, but many believe this protien to be the culprit. Importantly, although many people ate the contaminated tacos, they were not all affected. Like any allergy, only those allergic to the allergen present in the contaminating corn would have an adverse reaction.

Allergens in GMO vs. non-GMO foods

An "allergy" is a hypersensitive immune response that occurs when a person comes into contact with specific substances called allergens. Allergies can lead to red eyes, itchy rash, swelling, runny nose, and breathing difficulties. Allergies are very common, and food-specific allergies affect 240-550 million people in the world[3]. In the US, 1 in every 13 children has a food allergy[5], and the prevalence of childhood allergies has increased by more than 50% in the last 20 years[7]. A combination of host and environmental factors determine the intensity of allergic reactions: increased vulnerability can be attributed to various factors including changes in lifestyle, hygiene, diet, and physical activity. However, there is no evidence that GMOs are any more or less allergenic than their non-modified counterparts.

Ninety percent of food allergies are caused by the common allergens in peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, wheat, soy, shellfish, and fish[9]. In 1996, researchers found that the main allergen from Brazil nuts retains its allergenicity after being transferred into a GMO soybean; the Brazil nut GMO soybean has never been approved for the market, and this case helped establish the policy that any protein that has been shown or even suspected to cause an allergic reaction should never be introduced into a GMO crops. According to the international principles of food safety (FAO/WHO), before any GMO food gets market approval, the structure of the introduced protein should be compared to all known allergens. Potential allergenicity is then further analyzed with comprehensive experiments. Additionally, as part of post-marketing monitoring, randomly sampled consumers are examined to detect previously unidentified allergenicity. Currently, around 30 GMO crops have received approval in the US, and most of our corn, soybeans, and cotton are GMO crops. To date, no allergens have been found in GMO products approved for human consumption.

Regulation of Allergens

Since GMO market approval is under strict regulation, we should probably be more concerned about contamination from unauthorized GMOs (such as StarLink corn) than about allergies to common GMO foods. GMO plants can spread their genes to conventional crops through cross-pollination. To avoid such occurrences, there are guidelines stipulating that GMO plants should be physically segregated from the closely related plants by a buffer zone that is sized proportionally to how far the pollen can travel; however, it must be considered that not all farmers will obey these guidelines, and some pollen can travel unexpectedly long distances via bees or other pollinators. With this in mind, the European Union (EU) scientific committee on plants states that contamination is unavoidable[6], and therefore, the consequences of contamination should be considered before market approval. However, if contamination occurs, it is possible to eliminate the food containing the suspicious or unexpected allergens via a robust safety surveillance system. In fact, the scrutiny for common allergens in our food supply has been in practice long before the emergence of GMO foods. After the recall of StarLink corn and the subsequent ending of its planting, the presence of Cry9C residues was monitored for many years until the corn supply was essentially free of StarLink[11].

As different individuals can be allergic to different foods, the major risk of food allergy comes from unwitting ingestion of the allergen. Therefore, it will be helpful for every consumer to know the exact composition of their food, where it is genetically modified or not. Mandatory labeling of GMO ingredients, which has been required by law in the EU but not the US, could help consumers identify the potential allergens and facilitate the recall process, if necessary. However, unless it involves common allergens such as gluten and peanuts, the labeling of even non-GMO food is often inadequate. Thus, there does not appear to be particular bias towards poor labeling in GMO foods only.
Figure 2. GMOs could be used to remove allergens from food, allowing those with allergies to eat food that they previously couldn't. This technology is still in development, but it could be the future of staying allergen-free.
Charles Xu is a Ph.D. candidate in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences program at Harvard University
Removing Allergens by Genetic Engineering

With appropriate oversight, the technology used for engineering GMO crops need not cause more allergic responses than conventional breeding. On the contrary, we rely on GMO technology to overcome some of the most difficult challenges for food safety. For example, to prevent contamination, scientists are engineering GMO crops to only self-pollinate or fertilize with manual assistance[1,8]. Additionally, it has recently been reported that scientists can reduce or remove the common allergens in our crops with GMO technology (Figure 2). This was most strikingly demonstrated by an international team of researchers that suppressed the enzyme responsible for making gluten in wheat, leading to a resulting GMO wheat with a 76.4% reduction of gluten in its seeds[13]. Admittedly, there is still a long way to go before we could enjoy a roll of bread made from gluten-free GMO wheat, but such preliminary success has inspired us to believe in that future development of GMO technology could become a solution to, rather than a cause of, food allergies.

This article is part of the August 2015 Special Edition, Genetically Modified Organisms and Our Food.

References

1. Daniell H. (2002). Molecular strategies for gene containment in transgenic crops. Nature Biotechnol 20: 581-586
2. Pollak A. (2000). Kraft recalls taco shells with bioengineered corn. New York Times.
3. 2013 white book of the World Allergy Organization http://www.worldallergy.org/UserFiles/file/WhiteBook2-2013-v8.pdf
4. Celec, P et al. (2005). Biological and biomedical aspects of genetically modified food. Biomed Pharmacother 59, 531-540.
5. Gupta RS et al. (2011). The prevalence, severity, and distribution of childhood food allergy in the United States. J Pediatr 128.doi: 10.1542
6. Haslberger A. (2001). GMO contamination of seeds. Nat Biotechnol 19, 613.
7. Jackson K et al. Trends in Allergic Conditions among Children: United States, 1997-2011. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief. 2013. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db10.htm
8. Muhammad SK. (2005). Plant Biology: Engineered male sterility. Nature 436:783-785
9. NIAID-Sponsored Expert Panel. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy in the United States: Report of the NIAID-sponsored expert panel. J Allergy ClinImmunol.2010; 126(6):S1-S58.
10. Nordlee, JA,et al. (1996). Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. N Engl J Med 334, 688-692.
11. Petersen B, et al. (2006) Revised StarLink corn risk assessment and updated QCP data through October 2006. EPA Memorandum WD00702.000 B0T0 1206 0001
12. Jeffrey Smith. Seeds of deception: exposing industry and government lies about the safety of the genetically engineered foods you're eating. ISBN: 0-9729665-8-7
13. Wen S et al.(2012) Structural genes of wheat and barley 5-methylcytosine DNA glycosylases and their potential applications for human health. PNAS 109: 20543-20548

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nothing to Sneeze at: the Allergenicity of GMOs - Science in the News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Charles Xu figures by Krissy Lyon Summary: People are concerned about the potential of GMO food to cause allergies. However, the technology used for making GMO crops does not necessarily make us more vulnerable than conventional breeding. Comprehensive evaluation for market approval, food safety surveillance, and adequate labeling could minimize the health risks of food allergies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are #GMOs Causing an Increase in Allergies?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GMOs Help Farmers Keep America Growing

Genetically modified (GM) technology incorporates desirable traits from nature into crops, resulting in plants that can be healthier, more nutritious and better for the environment. This process is done without introducing anything unnatural or using chemicals.
Genetically modified crops allow farmers to grow more with less, helping them to feed the growing number of hungry people around the world while keeping food costs low. Here are the many benefits of agricultural biotechnology:
Shrinking our Environmental Footprint

GMOs enable farmers to be better stewards of the environment, allowing farmers large and small to grow more crops on less land while using fewer pesticides and less water.

In the United States, the adoption of GM crops resulted in pesticide use reduction of 46.4 million pounds in 2003. Globally, GM crops have reduced pesticide spraying (1996-2011) by 9%, or 975 million pounds.

Because they require less pesticides and plowing, GMOs help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with farming. In 2013, this reduced the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by 27 billion kilograms - the equivalent of removing 11.9 million cars from the road.

Alleviating Hunger and Malnutrition Around the World

GMOs have helped feed more than 300 million Americans and a global population of 7 billion - of which 1 in 8 suffer from hunger and malnutrition.

By 2050, the global population is expected to rise to 9 billion. Experts predict we will need 70% more agricultural production to keep pace - utilizing GM crops that increase productivity while reducing land, water and pesticide use will be critical to this achievement.

Lowering the Price of Food

Because they require fewer pesticides, land and water, GMOs help keep food production costs down resulting in lower prices for consumers. GM technology helps reduce the price of crops used for food, such as corn, soybeans and sugar beets by as much as 15-30%. Mercaris, a market data researcher, found that 2013 prices for non-GMO corn averaged 51 cents per bushel higher than GMO corn.
The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act will help protect American farmers from a costly, confusing patchwork of food labeling laws by implementing a common sense, uniform national GMO labeling law and GMO-certification standard. Learn more about this critical bill by clicking here! Urge your senators to support the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act by clicking here!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMOs Help Farmers Keep America Growing - Coalition for Safe Affordable Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically modified (GM) technology incorporates desirable traits from nature into crops, resulting in plants that can be healthier, more nutritious and better for the environment. This process is done without introducing anything unnatural or using chemicals. Genetically modified crops allow farmers to grow more with less, helping them to feed the growing number of hungry ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Toxin-Time Continuum

In this series finale of the "Health Dangers of a Plant-Based Diet" I want to zoom out and look at the big picture. The health dangers of plant-based foods should be viewed on a continuum. This scale goes from natural toxins to man-enhanced toxins to man-made poisons. And we'll look at how these have emerged and changed over time.

By the end of this post, I want to uncover what is actually "healthy" and what is "poison" and everything in between. And I want you to be armed with the insight to see through propaganda, advertising, and false beliefs that make up so much of "conventional wisdom" - the "wisdom" that has led to widespread health epidemics.

Health Dangers of Plant-Based Foods - Natural Plant Toxins

Up to this point, we've looked in detail at some of the specific natural plant toxins. These toxins cause severe issues for many people that eat a plant-based diet.

Specifically, we've looked at various plants and plant parts and evaluated some of their most potent chemical defenses against herbivory.

Health Dangers of Plant-Based Foods - Recap

1. Seeds (Naked vs Protected) / Antinutrients - Health Dangers of Eating Seeds

2. Roots / Glycoalkaloids - "Potato Paralysis" - Health Dangers of Glycoalkaloids

3. Stems / Glucosinolates - "Broccoli Bombs" - Health Dangers of Cruciferous Vegetables

4. Leaves / Oxalates - "Spinach Leaf Prick" - Health Dangers of Oxalates

5. Fruit / Phenolics, Cyanogenic Glycosides, Salicylates - "Peach Pit Poison" - Health Dangers of Eating Fruit

The plant toxins we have reviewed are just the tip of the iceberg. There are literally thousands of phytochemicals produced by plants to avoid being eaten. ( r) This list covers some of the major players - the ones that have been studied and recognized as harmful. And while I think these details are vitally important (and eye-opening to most people) I don't want to miss the forest by too closely inspecting the trees.

Let's zoom out for a more complete picture.

Let's look at the " Toxin-Time Continuum."

The First 23 Hours and 55 Minutes - Natural Plant Toxins

Health Dangers of Plant-Based Foods - "The Toxin-Time Continuum"

The evolution of the human diet takes place over millions of years. To gain perspective, let's assume this evolutionary history was condensed into one 24 hour day.

The beginning of the day is marked with an astonishing divergence from our hominid ancestors - our brains exploded in size. In "What did humans evolve to eat" we discovered that the selective pressures of climate change and food sources, as well as selective advantages associated with a large brain underpinned this stunning divergence from our primate ancestors. The human specie transitioned from tree-dwelling herbivore to bipedal meat eater. ( r, r, r)

And by the time 23 hours passed on the clock (~50,000 years ago) isotope studies of fossils reveal a human diet nearly indistinguishable from carnivores. ( r, r, r) Though undoubtedly, during these 23 hours, humans were opportunistic plant eaters, and included some fruit and occasional plant material in the diet when available. But evidence is strong that for the first 23 hours and 55 minutes of the clock, humans became less and less equipped to eat plant-based foods and more and more equipped to scavenge, hunt, and subsist (and depend) on a meat-based diet. ( r, r, r, r)

But as we'll see the plant-based foods eaten during this time and their natural toxins were vastly different than the plants-based foods of today.

The Last 5 Minutes - Natural Plant Toxins in Unnatural Quantities

Health Dangers of Plant-Based Foods - "The Toxin-Time Continuum"

Early in our 24 hour clock we transitioned from the plant-based diet of our herbivore hominid ancestors to a meat-based diet, more closely resembling the metabolisms and anatomy of carnivores. And for 23 hours and 55 minutes our diet was fairly consistent. It was a meat-based diet. Surely during certain seasons, in certain locations, humans supplemented their meat-based diet with some fruits and plant-based material. And in other locations and times in history, especially during glacial periods, humans subsisted exclusively on meat. But meat was a constant. And during these 23 hours and 55 minutes, no human civilization ever survived without animal food.
Then in just the last 5 minutes we radically changed the human diet.
Agricultural Revolution: The Start of the End

With the advent of agriculture at the 23 hour and 55 minute mark, we completely abandoned our meat-based diet. We even abandoned the plant-based foods we had supplemented our meat-based diets with. We began subsisting on plant-based foods that were rarely / never eaten in human history.

Every single plant specie commonly eaten today - whether fruit or vegetable - is vastly different from its pre-agriculture predecessor. We transformed these plants through artificial selection and engineering to get the biggest, sweetest, most pest-resistant breeds possible.

In fact, nearly all the plant-based foods we eat today did not exist (more than 5 minutes ago). Before agriculture there was no wheat, no corn, no rice - which now make up about 50% of all the calories eaten worldwide. ( r, r) These are modern-man inventions.

For example, grains come from wild grasses. Naturally, in the wild, these grains are small with just a few seeds per plant. And they readily fall and disperse. Humans would have basically never eaten these. But with agriculture and selective breeding, farmers cultivated these into staple foods. They began subsisting on grains and starchy crops for calories. This massive change in diet was low in protein, low in fat, and low in vitamins and minerals. It was also high in plant-based toxins.

Perhaps not surprisingly, during these last 5 minutes, our brains started to shrink - over 10% in just these last 5 minutes. Our stature shrank as well, we developed tooth defects, bone lesions, and degenerative conditions. ( r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r)

For the first time, we were exposed to significant amounts of natural plant toxins, from plant parts we had never eaten in any significant quantity. And the human body had long become ill-equipped to detox such concentrations of phytochemicals. Over the 23 hours and 55 minutes, our guts had transformed beyond recognition to that of our early herbivore primate ancestors. Our transformed gut was now optimized for the efficient absorption of meat that was dense in energy as was required to fuel our gigantic brains; it was no longer equipped for grazing 7 hours/day and using a microbiome to turn plant fiber into useable energy. ( r)

Before the Agricultural Revolution, fatness was nonexistent. With this change in food production, the wealthy gained access to plentiful carbs and, for the first time in human history, became fat. Perhaps ironically, accompanying the rise of fat people was the rise of widespread malnutrition and deficiencies. Health deteriorated.

"The Dose Makes the Poison" - Part I

Prior to the Agricultural Revolution, the opportunistic eating of plant-based foods was a relatively miniscule part of the human diet.

Natural plant-based toxins like alkaloids, oxalates, and tannins were eaten in small quantities. And even though toxic - a healthy human body, for the most part, could detoxify them without major issues.

However, some plant tissues have especially high amounts of natural toxins. These tissues tend to be of special importance to the plant for its survival. For example, seeds tend to be laced with protective chemicals. These are the plant's babies, vital for the plant to protect. Before the Agricultural Revolution, seeds made up little to no part of the human diet. But this changed just 5 minutes ago. Some of the most potent natural plant toxins, that were never eaten before, became food staples.

Our dosage of plant-based toxins drastically increased.

We began eating massive quantities of lectins, phytates, and enzyme inhibitors.

What was once a manageable dose to detoxify started to overwhelm our defenses.

We simply had not developed or evolved to defend this level of chemical warfare.

To make matters worse, the lower nutrition inherent in these foods combined with the antinutrients created a negative spiral of deteriorating health and nutrition. For example, while these plant-based foods are already lower in vitamins and minerals, they also come pre-packaged with antinutrients like phytate that further prevent absorption of essential minerals. And while already lower in protein and fat, enzyme inhibitors further interfered with fat and protein absorption. ( r)

Further, many of these toxins damage the gut, our 1st and primary level of defense. With increased intestinal permeability ( "leaky gut"), our ability to defend against an ever-increasing phytochemical onslaught got worse and worse. ( r, r, r, r, r)

To top off this cascade of damage, for the first time in history we started spiking our blood sugar, stressing our pancreas to pump out insulin, and dysregulating our metabolisms.

The Last Second - Natural Plant Toxins Transformed

Health Dangers of Plant-Based Foods - "The Toxin-Time Continuum"

The transition that took place at 23 hours and 55 minutes was catastrophic. But the changes in the last second have been just as destructive to human health, if not more so.

Industrial Revolution

During this last second in time, the Industrial Revolution caused the next blow to human health - kicking ourselves while we were down.

The Dose Makes the Poison - Part II

With milling technology, we started stripping the bran and the wheat germ away from the grain, creating ultra-fine grains - the most refined flours in human history.

We took the foods that we invented, that were completely novel to the human diet, that were loaded with antinutrients, and which we were ill-equipped to eat, and began refining them and thereby concentrating them.

At the start of the last 5 minutes we radically increased the dosage of plant toxins. In this last second we concentrated these toxins exponentially.

With the Industrial Revolution we saw the rise of technology for mass food production resulting in an even further decline in fresh food (as refrigeration was not yet available).

Accompanying these new technologies came the birth of never before seen health problems including obesity, cancers, and heart disease.

The Last Split-Second - Unnatural Plant-Transformed Poisons

Health Dangers of Plant-Based Foods - "The Toxin-Time Continuum"

As if our diet wasn't already foreign enough, in this last split-second of the 24 hour day, we've engineered synthetic food so incongruent with our body that disease and deteriorated health have become the new normal.

Asthma and allergies are almost expected among our youth. IBS, indigestion, acid reflux, is considered normal digestion. Depression, diabetes, dementia, and dental abnormalities. We are the only primates whose teeth don't fit into our own heads. ( r, r, r) We fight fatigue and brain fog daily. Acne, autism, and autoimmune disorders went from non-existent to commonplace. Osteoporosis and obesity. This became our new normal.

Technologic Revolution: Man-made Poisons The Big 3

During this last split-second we have made mind-blowing advancements in science and technology. Many used for good. Many, knowingly or unknowingly, causing serious harm.

#1 - Grains

As we've discussed, grains didn't become any significant part of the human diet until 5 minutes ago. Moreover, they are laced with plant toxins and antinutrients to prevent herbivores from eating the plant's offspring.

Just 5 minutes ago we took these plant seeds and made them a significant part of the human diet by artificially breeding and selecting for size and abundance. Then in the last second, during the Industrial Revolution, we began refining them, further concentrating toxins. In this last split-second we altered them even further. We began genetically modifying them.

We've engineered new traits into plants that wouldn't otherwise naturally occur. We've engineered higher lectin loads to deter insects. We began spraying them with pesticides, insecticides, and fungicides.

We've added preservatives, so we can store and ship these foods around the world. And all these changes come with a heavy price.

Let's consider gluten.

Gluten is an energy storage protein in grains with the purpose of nourishing the developing baby seed once it sprouts.

When some people eat gluten it triggers an immediate, severe attack on the lining of the small intestines. It's known as Celiac disease.

Celiac disease dramatically increased in the US in the 1960s and 70s. This is the same time that genetic breeding further transformed wheat. The 4.5 foot "amber waves of grain" turned into 2 foot tall, semi-dwarf, wheat. Yields went up. Profits went up. And so did the gluten concentration. And it was not only more abundant, but the gluten was fundamentally different. The molecular structure of gluten was chemically altered. ( r, r, r, r, r, r)

We know that our digestive tract doesn't handle wheat proteins (prolamins) like gluten and other lectins very well. Genetically modified wheat and altered proteins are like foreign invaders to the body. They cause damage to the gut ("leaky gut") that can lead to widespread inflammation, autoimmune disorders, and disease.
I call it "Grain Pain."
Today, just 3 grains - wheat, corn, and rice - make up about half of the world's food.

And if the dose makes the poison...

By eating genetically altered, ultra-concentrated, high doses of grains and their toxins, meal after meal, day after day - the dose is poisoning us.

#2 - Vegetable Oils

For millions of years nearly all fat in the human diet was animal fat.

During the Agricultural Revolution we switched to a low fat diet. But still, during this time, the majority of the fat eaten (up until 23 hours and 59 minutes and 59 seconds) was animal-based.

But during this last split-second, we invented industrial vegetable seed oils.

And in short order we replaced natural animal fats with unnatural plant-based industrialized fats. ( r, r, r, r)

Cellular Disruption

Without getting into the molecular composition of fats, it's enough to know that animal fat is high in saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids, while vegetable seed oils are high in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). These PUFA originate in plant seeds, and via complex industrial processing they give us vegetable oils like corn, soybean, and sunflower oils.

After further processing (hydrogenation) these fats can become solid at room temperature and used as margarine that spreads nicely on your bread or used as shortening to keep your baked goods tender and moist. This processing creates completely unnatural fats including the notorious trans fats.

And these fats are very dangerous.

Fat is an essential component of every cell in the body. It's vital in hormone production. It's necessary for vitamins and minerals. And in fact, the brain is over 60% fat. ( r)

When we eat these unnatural fat molecules they fool our bodies. They are similar enough to natural fats that they get incorporated into our cells and tissues. But these unnatural industrialized fats don't function properly. They damage cell membranes, disrupt function, and cause inflammation. And they are strongly correlated with heart disease, cancer, and neurological problems. ( r, r, r, r, r, r)

Omega 3:6

The different ratios of fatty acids between animal fat and vegetable oils is extremely significant.

Omega 3 and omega 6s are essential fatty acids. Ideally these are balanced. Our ancestors likely ate omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids in a ratio that was close to 1:1.

The reason balance is important is that omega 3 and omega 6s produce hormone-like signaling compounds called eicosanoids that are involved in inflammation. And omega 3s and 6s have opposite effects in some processes. For example, eicosanoids from omega 3 fatty acids function through pathways that decrease inflammation, while those from omega 6 function through pathways that increase inflammation.

Striking the right balance is important.

We need inflammation for wound healing and tissue repair, but too much can lead to chronic systemic inflammation and to pathologies like autoimmune disease, IBS, and joint pain.

Vegetable seed oils are very high in omega 6 fatty acids. They are pro-inflammatory. And today, it's common to eat 10-20X more omega 6 fatty acids than omega 3s - thanks to oils like corn and soybean that are widespread and cheap.

Today the scale is steeply tipped toward inflammation.

Evidence is mounting that the overwhelming omega 6 to 3 ratio is implicit in heart disease, cancer, and even neurologic problems like depression, aggression, violent behavior, and anxiety. Which, again, is not surprising as our brains are mainly fat. ( r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r)

Oxidation

Up until this last split second in time the only fats used in cooking were animal fats. Since these fats are more saturated, they are more stable, and thus less likely to oxidize and go rancid.

The high concentration of polyunsaturated fats found in vegetable oils are just the opposite.

By the time they reach the grocery store they are likely already damaged (oxidized). Chemically this means they turn into free radicals. A free radical has unpaired electrons, and are thus highly reactive. This high reactivity can damage molecules in the body and result in a domino-like chain reaction. When a free radical damages a molecule that molecule then becomes a free radical itself to continue damaging cellular structures and interfering with proper cellular function. One after another the dominos fall.

And these oxidized oils can be sneaky. At the store they may look and smell just fine but still be significantly damaged. By the time they have a noticeable "rancid" odor they've likely been damaged for quite some time.

To speed up the oxidation, all you have to do is heat these oils. Fried foods aren't only loaded with unnatural hydrogenated fats, they aren't only high in inflammation promoting omega 6 fatty acids, but they are easily oxidized. It's like throwing a wrecking ball into your body.

Heart Disease

For 23 hours and 55 minutes we were on a high fat (high saturated fat) diet and heart disease was largely non-existent. Then during this last split second, Ancel Keys told us saturated fats cause heart disease. Thanks to his misleading association, health organizations turned this into "conventional wisdom" and animal fat consumption dropped while vegetable oil consumption skyrocketed. And so did heart disease.

This "conventional wisdom" that saturated fat is bad still permeates society today.

When really, polyunsaturated fats and the artificially hydrogenated fats like trans fats are among the most toxic "foods" in the modern world. And these fats are in everything.

Nearly all processed foods - from baked goods and breads to crackers and chips to peanut butter and pizza - all loaded with fats from plant-based foods extracted via industrial processing.

#3 - Sugar

With grains and vegetable oils we've manufactured unnatural foods into our daily food staples. We eat these in dosages that teeter on poison. And we've done the same with sugar.

Humans consumed minimal carbohydrates for the first 23 hours and 55 minutes.

This radically changed in the last 5 minutes with the Agricultural Revolution and the transition to a predominantly plant-based diet. Carbohydrate consumption changed even further in the last second when the Industrial Revolution spurred mass production of refined carbohydrate-based foods.

But sugar as we know it is even newer. When refined white sugar first came to Europe it was very expensive. It was a luxury reserved for the wealthy. Most carbohydrates in the diet at this time were still from refined grains and starches. It was not until the 1900s, after industrial processing and extraction was developed, that sugar became any significant part of the diet. And it was in this last split second that sugar became cheap and thus abundant.

We began eating massive quantities of sugar. It now makes up over 25% of our diet. And our bodies are not designed to handle this. ( r, r, r, r)

With every meal we create a metabolic panic, stressing the pancreas to unload insulin to re-establish homeostatic blood sugar. This massively unnatural carbohydrate load and blood sugar spiking wreaks havoc on human health. Metabolic hormones become dysregulated from the insulin rollercoaster, eventually cell start to give up (insulin resistance) and the pancreas wears out (Type II diabetes). The high blood sugar levels disrupt cellular water balance, impair the immune system, and damage vision, kidneys, and nerves. Obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia (which some call "Type III Diabetes") all became increasingly common stepwise with the ever-increasing consumption of sugar.

Sugar also directly damages tissues through glycation. Advanced Glycation Endproducts (AGEs) irreversibly damage molecules. This is similar to the domino effect of oxidized fats and their free radicals. When a molecule gets glycated, these AGEs can then cause damage by cross-linking with other molecules creating a cascade of damage. Glycation is implicit in a number of health problems including diabetes, hypertension, vascular damage, aging, and dementia. ( r)

Sugar Cycle

The human body has about 1 tsp of glucose (sugar) in all the blood. Only a few cells in the body require any glucose at all, all of which can be made from protein. There is no essential carbohydrate. No need to eat any sugar at all. And yet we are eating it by the truck load.

And one reason why is that it's addicting. When we eat sugar the "pleasure centers" of the brain light up. It activates the same brain regions as cocaine. And it causes neurochemical changes similar to other addictive drugs. ( r)

Sugar fuels a vicious cycle.

With a sugar surge the pancreas panics and pumps insulin. This immediately halts any fat burning. With this massive insulin dump, the blood sugar shortly drops too low and causes hormones to tell the brain to hurry up and replenish. We feel this as a strong craving for more sugar. And since fat burning is largely turned off thanks to the insulin - the craving can feel more like a panic. Our energy drops, we get tired, our brain gets foggy, and we get "hangry" for more sugar. Willpower gives way, we reach for more sugar, and feel the "reward" from the brain reinforcing this behavior. What results is binging, cravings, and addiction.

In this vicious "sugar cycle" we are always hungry and always storing more fat. We disrupt hormonal signaling and lose the ability to tap the abundant energy stored in our fat cells.

Fructose

Refined white sugar is bad. But in 1956 we made sugar even more dangerous. We discovered how to further process it to give us high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) - which was even sweeter and cheaper than refined white sugar. By the 70s and 80s HFCS infiltrated our diets. It was loaded into soft drinks and juices, snacks and desserts, syrups and salad dressings.

Fructose, "fruit sugar," has to be processed by the liver in a special way. It has to be detoxified.

Not unlike alcoholism, chronic HFCS consumption bombards the liver with a toxin in excess. This can fatten and damage the liver. In fact, it's a primary player in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

With this abuse, the liver eventually starts ignoring insulin, thereby impairing its ability to process glucose. Again, blood glucose builds up, the pancreas pumps more insulin, fat accumulates, appetite gets dysregulated, and hormonal systems dysfunction. ( r, r, r, r)

Glycation is especially dangerous with fructose - causing glycation at 7-10X the rate of glucose. And for diabetics who already have high blood sugar, this is a recipe for accelerated aging and vascular damage. ( r, r)

Technologic Revolution: Man-made Poisons - Beyond the Big 3

Perhaps the most deadly inventions are the mass production and consumption of grains, vegetable oils, and sugar. And while these may be the biggest culprits in deteriorating health - there are many other "food" inventions that are hiding in our meals and causing harm.

Food Additives

Today our food comes in a box or a bag, with an ingredient list that most biochemist don't recognize.

Pick up an item at the grocery store, and there is a very good chance you don't know what the majority of the ingredients are. We assume these chemicals are well tested with stringent health and safety research validating their consumption. But this is far from the truth.

Our foods are loaded with synthetic chemicals - acidity regulators, anti-caking agents, antifoaming agents, antioxidants, bulking agents, dyes and food coloring materials, emulsifiers, flavor enhancers, and artificial flavors, gelling agents, glazing agents, humectants, preservatives, stabilizers, artificial sweeteners, and thickeners. ( r)

Many are potentially toxic and very little is actually known about their combined impact. What happens when these chemicals are mixed together, or taken with medications, or how do they interact within a complex environment - like the human body? We don't know.

But evidence is growing that these chemicals aren't harmless.

Artificial Sweeteners

Astute observers witnessed the damage associated with our massive consumption of sugar.

The obvious answer was to create artificial sweeteners.

In the 70s, one such sweetener called cyclamate was pulled from the market due to its association with testicular atrophy and cancer. But not to be deterred, others have popped up. Today saccharin and aspartame have gained widespread appeal and use. Though research suggest this may not be such a great thing. ( r)

Aspartame is a classic example of money and politics winning over health and science. The aspartame industry funded numerous studies on the sweetener, all of which showing its safety. Yet over 90% of independent studies showed problems with the sweetener including increased risk of brain tumors and lymphoma. ( r, r, r, r)

It's thought that these artificial sweeteners also confuse the brain about energy consumption. With the sweetness the brain thinks calories are coming in. But they don't. And this misinformation interferes with proper hormonal signaling. When sweetness sometimes accurately reflects energy consumption and sometimes does not, appetite gets dysregulated. And evidence suggest this is leading to overeating and more sugar cravings. ( r, r, r)

Artificial Colors and Dyes

There are big marketing dollars in bright colors. Artificial colors and dyes are added to make products more appealing. Some of these come from petrochemicals and coal tar like Blue No. 1 and Citrus Red No. 2, and Green No. 3. ( r)

In animal studies many of these have been shown to be toxic, cause tumors, and are associated with other health problems like allergic reactions. Human clinical trials even show evidence that they may contribute to hyperactivity. Artificial dyes are classified as excitotoxins, which can damage nerve cells by excessive stimulation. In fact, doctors have successfully treated hyperactivity by eliminating artificial colorings. MSG (monosodium glutamate) is another example of an excitotoxin that is widely used as a flavor enhancer. ( r, r, r, r)

Emulsifiers

Human are known for trying to make substances behave in unnatural ways - like getting oil and water to mix. Well that's what emulsifiers, also known as surfactants, do. They allow the mixture of substances that normally wouldn't mix. Many processed foods are made possible by complex emulsions. For example, the chemicals that allow the food to have a long shelf life have to mix with the chemicals in the food. And it takes high concentrations of synthetic emulsifying agents to get it all to stick together.

Obviously our bodies are not adapted to deal with these novel synthetic chemicals. They are thought to cause damage to the digestive tract and contribute to "leaky gut" (intestinal permeability).

A case in point - pharmaceutical companies actually use emulsifiers in their pills to help oral drugs move across the intestinal barrier. ( r, r)

Food preservatives

Fresh food goes bad. This is not good for shelf life or profits, so food preservatives were invented to prevent the growth of microorganisms and avoid chemical changes associated with exposure to oxygen (i.e. oxidation).

If you look at the ingredients on a bag of food you'll likely see chemicals like sodium benzoate, calcium propionate, disodium EDTA, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), sulphites, sodium sulfite, sodium and potassium bisulfite, sodium and potassium metabisulphite. ( r)

Little is known about their effects on human health. Though we do know that some people are seriously affected by these. For example, allergic reactions to sulfites are quite common.

Processed grains need preservatives like BHT to block the oxidation of the PUFA in the oils. It's also an endocrine disruptor that acts like estrogen. This is a trifecta of damage - grains and oils mixed together with a synthetic preservative. ( r, r)

What scares me is that we know how essential our microbiome is to our health. Yet we readily add these chemicals to our food...chemicals specifically designed to hinder bacteria and other microorganisms.

Today - Toxins Transformed to Poison

Health Dangers of Plant-Based Foods - "The Toxin-Time Continuum"

For 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds the human specie did not eat any refined sugars, refined grains, or refined vegetable oils.

Plant-based natural toxins were cultivated into unnatural doses, and transformed into poisons.

Our staple foods, which many consider "health" foods, include grains and soybeans, which are loaded with antinutrients and plant defense phytochemicals that damage our guts and cause disease.

Our carbohydrate intake flipped from minimal to the majority of our calories. Simple sugars, fructose, and refined carbohydrates dysregulate our hormones and appetites, lead to overeating and obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes, and are implicit in the most deadly diseases today including heart disease, cancer, and dementia.

We replaced natural animal fats for industrialized plant-based fats that get incorporated to our cells, ruining their structure and function. Omega 6 fatty acids overwhelm omega 3s promoting inflammation. The PUFA are readily oxidized, and thus readily damage those who eat them.

We replaced nutrient dense meats with nutrient poor grains and sugars. Although we are fat, we are deficient in nutrients, lacking essential vitamins and minerals necessary for health.

We have widespread artificial toxin exposure. Insecticides and additives are all over and in our food.

We do know that all of these "foods" were invented in less than 1 second on the human history clock.

And we know that grains, sugar, and vegetable oils make up a majority of all the calories eaten.

Yet somehow, we have propaganda that meat, the very food our species evolved eating, suddenly started to cause diseases and epidemics in the modern world.

It seems obvious there might be a mismatch between what we are designed to eat and the food inventions of the last 5 minutes.

We have powerful human engines designed to run on a specific fuel, and we not only diluted this fuel, but we completely changed it. And we wonder why we are getting weighed down, running slower, getting sicker, and developing disease at an alarming rate.

Technologic Revolution: The Fuel Weighing Us Down

To recap the "Toxin-Time Continuum" I think looking at a couple examples will highlight the issues we face today with our plant-based diets.

Soy

Let's say you eat a soybean - the body can handle its ill effects, detoxify it, and in general not cause any issues.

Let's say you eat soybeans everyday - so now the body is detoxifying on a continuous basis. Still the dosage at any one time is low enough that you don't recognize any ill effects.

Now let's take those soybeans and refine them and process them to give you soy milk, soynut butter, soy protein, and soybean oil. All of a sudden soybeans are hiding in concentrated forms in all your food.

There are a number of issues with eating a soybean. It's high in antinutients like trypsin inhibitors, phytates, and tannins as well as bioactive compounds like isoflavones and phytosterols that have estrogenic properties. But when its refined and concentrated in these food-like-products, products which are everyday staples, the dosage inches closer and closer to poison. We see hypothyroid effects and goiter, testosterone and fertility problems, and even promotion of breast cancer. ( r)

Corn

There's a big difference between eating an organic ear of corn vs high fructose corn syrup extracted from genetically modified corn.

That said, an ear of corn is quite unnatural itself. Originally corn was small, about the size of your little finger. The seeds of this wild grass easily fell off and dispersed. Today we've engineered it to give us massive ears of corn. The seeds cling to the cob so tightly it can't even exist on its own in the wild.

So although an ear of corn is quite unnatural today, it's not even close to the other versions of corn that make up so much of our diets. Today most of us eat the version after we steep it, take the starch, refine the syrup, and further process it to yield HFCS. This is the version of corn that we eat in massive quantities.

Corn is a good example of what we tend to do with many plant-based foods. In the wild the plant part is relatively scarce, small, and low in sugar. It would be difficult to eat in large quantities. But we selectively breed, genetically modify, and change these natural plants into unnatural variations for bigger versions, sweeter versions, higher yield versions.

We then take it a step further.

We process and refine them. The low dose toxin gets transformed to a high dose unnatural breed.

We take the corn starch made from the endosperm and using it as a thickening agent. Oh it's also the main ingredient in biodegradable plastic.

We squeeze the germ of corn and get oil, that we use to fry our food in. It gets further hydrogenated to make margarine.

We use corn to make cereals, snack foods, salad dressings, soft drink sweeteners, gum, peanut butter, and flour products.

When we eat these end products, the fact that we are eating plant-based foods become obscured.

The Confusion

The whole world is already on a plant-based diet. We just don't realize it.

And this is where so much of the nutrition confusion arises.

Someone on a whole food plant-based diet that is eating unrefined, minimally processed plant-based foods, is eating a diet far better than most of the world that is eating the more refined and processed versions of these foods.

But just because it's unrefined doesn't make it healthy - it makes it less unhealthy - a toxic dose that the body may be able to handle in low quantities when eaten infrequently.

It's why if someone switches from a Standard American Diet (SAD) to a vegetarian whole food diet they notice improvements - they ditched the worst offenders.

More confusion arises when we see that there are so many other confounding variables, biases, and deceptions. Health science is not immune to profit motives and popular press incentives. It's not immune to dogma ingrained in government agencies, health organizations, and taught to professionals who then pass it down as "conventional wisdom" repeated and reinforced in echo chambers. It's not immune to faulty assumptions and poorly done research. The fact remains, there is a lot we don't know about nutrition and health.

Health Dangers of Plant-Based Foods

As we can see in our 24 hour human history, our diets have drastically changed in the last 5 minutes, even further in the last second, and even further in the last split-second. Almost no food today is free from the impact of the Agricultural, Industrial, and Technological Revolutions.

Eliminating the 3 biggest offenders will go a long way. Get rid of grains, vegetable oils, and sugar.

Soy is a close 4th.

An interesting thing happens when you do this. You start eating a meat-based diet.

A healthy diet is one build around meat.

I hear good health advice every-so-often, one such statement is "Don't eat anything that wasn't around 100 years ago," or "Don't eat anything your grandparents didn't eat."

Better advice:

"Only eat what was eaten during the first 23 hours and 55 minutes,"

or

"Don't eat anything that was eaten for the 1st time within the last 5 minutes."

If you want to know how to do that, you can check out the 30 day guide to going full carnivore - even if you have no intention - the concepts about how to succeed on that diet apply across the board.

On the Clock

The alarm should have sounded 5 minutes ago.

We hit snooze. Ignored the impact.

It sounded again 1 second ago.

We hit snooze. Ignored the impact.

It's ringing right now.

Time to wake up.

[ NOTE: You can now access the complete "Health Dangers of a Plant-Based Diet" series here]:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Health Dangers of Plant-Based Foods | Kevin Stock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this series finale of the "Health Dangers of a Plant-Based Diet" I want to zoom out and look at the big picture. The health dangers of plant-based foods should be viewed on a continuum. This scale goes from natural toxins to man-enhanced toxins to man-made poisons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many pet guardians don't realize the potential for exposing their four-legged family member to environmental toxins like pesticides and herbicides. People also don't realize that after they apply a product to their lawn or garden, the chemical residues are tracked indoors on pet paws, and contaminate surfaces throughout their home.

A pesticide known as 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, or "2,4-D", was developed during World War II. It was one of two active ingredients in the notorious defoliant known as Agent Orange, used during the Vietnam War to destroy forest cover for our enemies, as well as their food crops. A tremendous amount of herbicide was sprayed over millions of acres of land in Vietnam from 1961 to 1972. Agent Orange was the most commonly used product, and it has since been revealed to cause a wide range of serious health issues, including rashes, psychological problems, birth defects, tumors, and cancer.

These days, 2,4-D is used on athletic fields, golf courses, landscaping, timberland, rights-of-way, and various crops. A short list of popular products containing 2,4-D includes:

Bayer Advanced All-in-One Lawn Weed and Crabgrass Killer

Ortho Weed-B-Gon Max

Scotts Liquid Turf Builder

Sta-Green Phosphorus-Free Weed & Feed

Scotts Snap Pac Weed & Feed

Despite decades of scientific studies associating 2,4-D with cancer in humans and animals, the chemical continues to be one of the top three pesticides sold in the U.S. More recent studies have linked the chemical to hormone disruption that increases the risk of birth defects and neurologic damage in children.
Pesticides, Bees, and Your Pet

I'm sure many of you are aware that bee colonies across the world are disappearing in a phenomenon called colony collapse disorder (CCD). In fact, most U.S. beekeepers have lost from 50 to 90 percent of their honeybee populations.

There are several factors involved in the die off of bees, not the least of which is the unprecedented widespread use of pesticides and insecticides. Neonicotinoid pesticides kill insects by attacking their nervous systems. These are known to get into pollen and nectar, and can damage beneficial insects such as bees.

Honeybees contribute $15 billion in annual agriculture revenue to the U.S. economy alone, as a full one-third of the American food supply depends on them pollinating crops. Just about every fruit and vegetable you can think of is dependent on the pollinating services of bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre in order to be adequately pollinated. So, unless the mysterious disappearance of bees is reversed, major food shortages could result.

If we don't take action to protect bees and other pollinators from the toxic effects of pesticides and insecticides, there is no question that the survival of our pets, and our own survival, will be in jeopardy. In fact, honeybees are so crucial to our existence that a quote attributed to Einstein states: "If bees die out, man will only have four years of life left on Earth."

Pesticides and Canine Malignant Lymphoma

Most dogs love a carpet of thick green grass. They run around on it, roll on it, dig at it, and stick their noses in it. But unlike humans, who launder their clothes and bathe regularly, dogs don't change their fur or footpads every day. Whatever collects on their feet and coat outdoors stays there until the next time they get a bath. It also gets deposited across multiple surfaces inside your home, including carpeting, rugs, furniture and pet bedding.

A recently published study conducted over a six year period by the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University showed that exposure to lawn pesticides, specifically those applied by professional lawn care companies, raised the risk of canine malignant lymphoma - a progressive, fatal disease -- by as much as 70 percent.

Sadly, it's easy to envision how normal canine behavior turns risky when your dog's outdoor environment has been doused in potentially toxic chemicals.

Herbicides and Bladder Cancer In Dogs

Another study, published last year in Science of the Total Environment, indicates that exposure to herbicide-treated lawns has been associated with significantly higher bladder cancer risk in dogs.

The chemicals in question are common herbicides containing 2,4-D, 4-chloro-2-methylphenoxypropionic acid (MCPP) and/or dicamba. Dogs are being exposed through ingestion, inhalation and transdermal contact.

Since these chemicals are commonly detected in grass residues from treated lawns AND untreated lawns, it's clear there is chemical drift. This means that even if you don't use these products, if a neighbor does, your dog could still be at risk from chemicals that blow into your yard from a nearby property.

Flea and Tick Preventives (Pesticides) and Your Pet

You may not be aware of it, but most flea and tick preventives are actually pesticides, regardless of what form they come in -- spot-on treatments, pills, dips, solutions, shampoos, or collars.

Spot-on products attracted the attention of the EPA in 2009 after reports surfaced of over 40,000 adverse events the prior year, including 600 deaths of family pets. The agency called for new labeling requirements, but as recently as September, four cats were reported to have died from misuse of the products.

It's important to remember that just because a compound is applied to or worn on your pet's fur doesn't mean it's safe. What goes ON your pet goes IN your pet, by absorption through the skin or ingestion during grooming.

Protecting Your Pet from Toxic Pesticides

Don't apply pesticides to your yard, and if you use a lawn care service, don't allow them to use chemicals, either. The same goes for herbicides, and be aware that a neighbor's herbicide can potentially contaminate your property and pose a risk to your pet.

Avoid lawn care and other gardening products that contain insect growth regulators (IGRs). (And be aware that the chemical pyriproxyfen, an IGR, is used in certain flea/tick spot-on treatments.)

Don't allow your dog access to any lawn unless you can confirm no pesticides have been used.

If you think your pet has rolled around on chemically treated grass, my recommendation is to bathe him as soon as possible. If you've walked your dog in a suspect grassy area, giving him a foot soak as soon as you get home should flush away any chemical residue that may be clinging to his feet and lower legs.

If you live in a townhouse or community that applies chemicals to common areas, I recommend "detoxing" a patch of grass in your backyard by watering the chemicals down into the soil to reduce skin contact after application. Keep your pet on a leash (and on the sidewalk) until you've walked to your pesticide-free destination.

When it comes to pest control, remember -- keeping your pet's immune system healthy and strong is the best way to help him fight off parasites as well as disease. A balanced, species-appropriate diet is the foundation upon which your pet's good health and long life must be built.

Use a safe, natural pest deterrent. Also consider cedar oil (specifically manufactured for pet health), natural food-grade diatomaceous earth, or fresh garlic (work with your holistic vet to determine a safe amount for your pet's body weight).

Bathe and brush your pet regularly and perform frequent full-body inspections to check for parasite activity, and insure your indoor and outdoor environments are unfriendly to pests.

Detoxifying Your Pet

Consider periodic detoxification for your pet. The level of environmental exposure to chemicals will dictate the appropriate frequency and type of detox. If your dog has constant exposure to toxic chemicals all summer, supplying a daily detox protocol is a wise idea. But if your pet's only source of chemical exposure is heartworm pills, or if you are applying flea and tick chemicals directly on your pet, then offering a detox program the week after each pill or topical treatment makes sense.

There are many detoxifying herbs and supplements to choose from. A detox protocol should not cause any side effects or visible changes in your pet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Protect Your Pet from Toxic Pesticides

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many pet guardians don't realize the potential for exposing their four-legged family member to environmental toxins like pesticides and herbicides. People also don't realize that after they apply a product to their lawn or garden, the chemical residues are tracked indoors on pet paws, and contaminate surfaces throughout their home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today's GMO crops are developed with specific benefits in mind, both for the farmers who grow them and the consumers who purchase them. Some of those benefits include:

Fewer inputs (like water or pesticides) needed to grow food, on less land than ever before. Drought resistant GMO crops and Bt crops (which allow farmers to use fewer to no pesticides) are two examples of how GE technology can be used by farmers to farm more sustainably, in ways that positively impact their communities.

Crops that are genetically engineered to fight diseases are saving not only the foods we love, but the industries that grow them. Genetic engineering was used to save the Hawaiian Rainbow papaya from a deadly virus which threatened to wipe out the crop, and the industry. Today, the Florida citrus industry faces the same threat, and GMOs may be able to help.

Herbicide tolerant crops allow farmers to use less or no-till farming methods. These methods of farming reduce nutrient runoff and soil erosion, which helps our rivers, and requires less irrigation because it retains additional soil moisture, all while maintaining the crops' yield, safety and nutritional value.

GMOs are taking on food waste. New potatoes that are genetically engineered to resist bruising during shipping and handling are coming onto the market, and new apples that resist browning when sliced will reduce food waste in the market and kitchen!

Foods with enhanced nutritional profiles, both in the US and abroad. Today we have GMO soybean seeds that produce healthier soybean oils, eliminating trans fats and containing increased levels of Omega 3. Tomorrow we hope to have bananas in Uganda that have up to six times as much Vitamin A, or Golden rice (rice that produces and accumulate Vitamin A) available to the millions of children who suffer from Vitamin A deficiency globally every year.

And there are more potential benefits on the horizon. Scientists around the world are working on a number of GM seed varieties that could deliver several benefits in the future. For example, GE technology has the potential to create a hypoallergenic peanut.

These benefits and traits illustrate that biotechnology, conducted in a scientifically sound way, has the potential to provide more healthy and plentiful food for a growing world population.
Check out this infographic for more information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Are the benefits of GMOs, Both Today and in the Future? - Food Dialogues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today's GMO crops are developed with specific benefits in mind, both for the farmers who grow them and the consumers who purchase them. Some of those benefits include: Fewer inputs (like water or pesticides) needed to grow food, on less land than ever before.