Today was such a good last day to this incredible trip. We got to start by going to the Friest farm and learning all about their hog operation. We went from sows that had just been inseminated, to pigs that had just been born, to weanlings, to “teenagers,” to finally full-grown hogs. It so fascinating hearing just how much care and effort Brent puts into his animals. I learned that the pig’s birthday is identified both by their ear tag and the number and location of ear notches. I got to hold baby and “teenage” pigs, and it was amazing that they were so curious about us. It took them about three minutes before they came up to us and started sniffing and nibbling on us. We got to see Brent feed the pigs and even watched him artificially inseminate two sows. Artificial insemination made me uncomfortable with one of the pigs, mainly because it seemed like it was in pain and it bled, but Brent reassured me that that hardly ever happens. I think I would feel better if I saw it more often. The first pig obviously didn’t care and stood there peacefully, though, and that makes me feel better. Experiences like this, like the day we castrated cows, are definitely the days that I like better.

After that, we went to Ames to talk to Liz Kolbe from Practical Farmers of Iowa. I liked the different perspective she provided about pesticide. Basically, she insinuated that lots of farmers were almost forced to buy pesticide and herbicide resistant seeds to protect themselves from drift incidences. I had assumed that vegetables were covered under crop insurance and was shocked to learn that they are not. It is amazing to me that anyone chooses to grow vegetables and fruits when there is hardly any safety net available, if they should fail. I was also appalled at the Minnesota Supreme Court decision that Liz referenced where the victim of herbicide drift was given no help or support legally.

We finished the day by getting 130 baby chicks for Dalona. We brought them to the Fiscus chicken house, 30 future layers and 100 broilers, and dipped each of their little beaks into some water. They were so small and soft. They’re cute when they’re that age, and the layers stay cute, but I know the broilers will turn pretty ugly, pretty quick. I’m glad none of the chicks died, and we didn’t have to see any dead pigs today because I’ve seen enough dead animals these past three weeks. Now its time for a final dinner by Dalona finished by a delicious vegan chocolate cake!

Well, it’s the last day here at the farm in Iowa. No more long road trips.   Today was Practical Farmers of Iowa and the neighbors’ pig barn. We did the pig barn first and were lucky to even get in since the PED virus has been going around and contaminating hog barns. It’s a diarrhea virus that kills piglets, and when it hits, PEDv results in nearly 100% mortality, and it spreads fast. Luckily the neighbors let us in so we could see a hog building and how it operates. The pigs were more than content in their cages once they got the food, no squealing or bumping around like some things make it seem. He also doesn’t give them any antibiotics unless they’re sick, other than a probiotic-like feed to support complete digestion. We saw the few different barns he had for different stages of growth and the farrowing crates for the younger piglets to nurse while minimizing the risk of the sows laying on them (which happens in nature and with this system, it occurs less often). We even got to see two sows being artificially inseminated! We talked with the neighbor for quite a while about some of the questions that we have been blogging about and also about some issues within agriculture. One of the things continually coming up is science and how it can back things up or be ignored due to public opinion. There is little science saying GMOs aren’t safe, but the public fears them and calls them unsafe. This is true in a lot of situations and I feel that Liebman’s policy of going through journalists and public outreach with his research helps mitigate this situation, but people will always have ethics or opinions regardless of science and others will not see or disregard science for their personal beliefs. One thing that I though was very interesting to hear was his mistrust of research that made blanket statements for how to run land. He felt that it was difficult to believe research about how to do things when it might not apply as well to his particular land. Researchers may say that no-till is better and doesn’t harm yield, but no till is difficult on the neighbors’ property and when they farmed a portion of land as no-till they saw losses. The family themselves test trialed a number of different practices and will trust their data after a few years of trials, but I feel this shows one of the biggest difficulties with science, mainly environmental science. There are so many different factors from soil to weather and brand of fertilizer to the plant being used that affect how the system may perform that there is no way to make a blanket “this is best” statement. Science has been going more towards saying this is the best method for this area, but that’s something that has to continue and in the case of agriculture we need to focus on disseminating a number of methods and reasons or incentives to adopt them.

Secondly we went to Practical Farmers of Iowa and met with Liz Kolbe, a staff member who explained that the group is a grassroots organization focused on farmers. Surprisingly they seemed to meet some of the criteria for science that I just mentioned since they have farmers come up with the things to be researched, let farmers choose what they are willing to trial, and compensate them some amount for testing. The farmers themselves are the ones who realize that their results are individualistic. Some of the trials are done by so many farmers that they can get a statistically significant result, but this doesn’t always become the case. This group works with both vegetable gardeners and corn/soy farmers so it has a lot of resources to provide everyone. The big thing we talked about was pesticide drift when one conventional farmer sprays their field and causes some spray to contaminate an organic farmers crop. This puts the organic farmer out of some crop and causes them to lose their organic certification for three years, so it is a pretty significant financial hit. They also usually plow under the field that was sprayed since any herbicides will likely kill the plants there. Practical Farmers advises its members how to react and how to proactively keep this from happening. I thought it seemed like a really good organization and would like to get to know a lot more about them and similar groups, but could really consider working for a similar organization one day.

I learned a lot today. First, we went and met with representatives from the Leopold Center at Iowa State. Fred Kirschenmann was very pessimistic and really kind of scary, especially since everything he was saying made sense. Matt Liebman, however, was much less drastic and was very adamant that things can change for the better. I liked their idea of perennial crops, but I was unsure whether they meant using plants like prairie grass or developing perennial corn and soybeans. In the middle of talking about the farm crisis, Matt said “every moment of crisis is a moment of grace.” I really liked that and it really resonated with me because I think it showed that people can have hope even in the darkest of times, and there is usually a silver lining.

After we ate lunch and hung out in downtown Des Moines, we went to the Monsanto building in Ankeny. I initially got a bad vibe, and I felt like they were rushing through the tour. We didn’t get to go in the labs like we did in Pioneer, but they did explain what they did. It seemed like they left a lot of things out, though, until we asked about them. For example, they didn’t mention genetic insertion at all until I asked about it at the end of the tour. Also, when I asked about the health pros and cons to feeding livestock stover instead of just corn they seemed to avoid the question and just focus on how they were doing what they were doing. Once we were in the conference room to talk, though, I felt better. They were very open and helpful and honestly they may have skewed my beliefs. I still would rather eat non-GMO and non-chemical food, but I’m not as afraid of it as I was this morning. I think the most interesting thing that I learned was that mandatory labeling for GMOs would raise the price of food $400 per year per family. I’ll definitely have to do more thinking, since they did a good job of shaking my opinions.

Today we got to meet with some people from the Leopold Center and Iowa State, including the notable Fred Kirschenmann and Matt Liebman. I was surprised to learn that the Leopold Center was first established as a part of the 1987 Groundwater Act, with the purpose of promoting research and providing tools to farmers to reduce pollution and explore alternative models of agriculture. Kirschenmann made the point that the farm crisis in the 80s was able to bring opportunities for change. He then compared this to the current crisis, which most everyone we have met has mentioned, that the vast majority of farmers will be retiring in the next 20 years. It is the Leopold Center’s hope that, although some sort of crisis is likely, that in the end young farmers will step up and lead to a resettling of America.

In preparation for meeting Kirschenmann we watched the 1995 documentary In My Father’s Garden.  Part of the film’s storyline featured Kirschenmann’s journey from an academic career as a professor of religion and philosophy to returning to his family’s farm in North Dakota to become a cutting-edge organic farmer.  In 1995, Kirschenmann’s ag practice was a ray of hope on the uncertain horizon of the future of farming. While during the film he mainly played the role of the farmer his philosophy and religion background still showed through. In the film, and in our discussion today, he made the argument that the Garden of Eden is not about a perfect world but rather our relationship to the earth. In Genesis, God calls Adam and Eve (translated to “soil” and “life”) to act in a symbiotic relationship with the garden. Kirschenmann mentioned the Bible verse in Genesis that calls us to till and care for the garden, which could also be translated to “serve and preserve”, and that in turn the garden will sustain us. Kirschenmann also made the comparison that eating from the tree of knowledge could refer to not thinking that you, as a human, know more than the garden. This tree of knowledge could today be seen as bio-technologies and various other scientific approaches to agriculture.

This more philosophical viewpoint really resonated with me after weeks of technical information and facts, which while great, do not speak to me as profoundly as Kirschenmann’s more “liberal arts” approach to agriculture. His point about what the true relationship between the earth and the humans who inhabit it should be really summed many of my feelings about what is wrong with our current agricultural system. I think that we should do more to evaluate how we can have a more balanced relationship that focuses on sustaining the earth and not carelessly exploiting it’s resources.

The Leopold Center was our first stop today at Iowa State College. There we met with Fred Kirschenmann and Matt Liebman. Fred was the former head of the Leopold Center and in the movie, My Fathers Garden, where he was featured as an organic farmer. He spoke with us today about the problems arising from and the negative effects of human choices on planet Earth. His main points were that we are robbing the soil of its nutrients, draining the Earth of her water, and consuming all the cheap energy. In 1987, the Iowa legislature passed The Ground Water Protection Act, creatingthe Leopold Center as well as set aside funding for research on the effects of pollutants on health, and exploring issues related to farming and water quality. This was passed after the scare of Blue Baby syndrome that hit two families in Iowa, and as Fred said, the legislation would probably not pass today. The Leopold Center cannot be advocates for a particular position, but it can make its research readily available for either side to argue. They have not solved all the problems with the water quality, which was something the Environmental Agency was working on as well, but is too complex to be easily fixed. Another thing that tied to what we talked about yesterday (with members of the Iowa House) is that farmers need incentives to change their practices and with a demand for corn high, they do not want to take acres out of production, especially if they still get paid with the insurance coverage. Fred was also focused on the crisis coming that lies down the road–when we will be out of fresh water. But as he says, “sometimes moments of crisis are moments of grace” because they wake us up and give us reason and incentives to change the way we have been acting in the past years with farming techniques. We need to treat the soil well and keep it healthy, so we can continue to get life from it, without spraying chemicals all over it. Although he had a more doomsday view on the limited water we have left and the poor soil we are creating, he was positive when it came to the fact that young people are getting into farming and that this new movement of farmers are largely focusing on farming organically. He mentioned how well Nebraska has done because the legislature there (with help from the Center for Rural Policy) created a tax benefit for farmers who sell their land to new farmers. Again with proper incentives, positive changes happen.

Matt was a bit more on the optimistic side. His background was more on the science (agronomy) side, and he was confident that whatever happens in the future, science will find a way to fix it. There will be different attempts and new ideas, but nothing will be completely gone. His focus was on re-integrating livestock, conservation of un-farmable land, and returning native vegetation to Iowa. I prefer the optimistic view for the future.

The next thing we did was go to Monsanto. There we met with Rachel and Dave who were less on the science side and more focused on taking our questions and explaining what they actually do, and discussing what they termed the misconceptions about Monsanto. I really liked that we had a lot of time for questions because that focused the conversation how we wanted it to go. What I did not know was that even though they do sell GMO seeds, they also sell organic seeds to farmers. I also liked that when thinking about their products, they begin with first with the farmer in mind. They were thinking about what they could do best for the farmer, not informing the public that it was okay, because it was known to them that if they made it and sold it to their community, it was safe. I think they are at the disadvantage of the uninformed public who just hears Genetically Modified and thinks its automatically bad. They have now created a place for people to call in or email questions about GMOs to clear the air that they are safe, but at the same time they have not lost focus on the farmer. They now have an app that is called ClimateCorp and it tells the farmer everything about his field from rain fall to heat index without him having to even walk outside. I really like that they keep the farmer at heart because it is the farmer that matters. Also, I think they relate to the argument that we talked about earlier in the day that we are running out of water. Well, if you have a plant that adapts to use less water and is safe, by all means use it! There is no need to waste resources when we do not need to. I did like visiting the Monsanto group and find nothing wrong with GMOs. That is finally the stance I have taken on them. I understand that insects will evolve, but so will the seeds they are currently making. I look at it as evolution. We evolved as humans and nobody is complaining and wishing to go back to being a homo-habilis because that was safer, so why are they complaining about seeds that we have helped to evolve? I think if the people who just buy the non-GMO label because they think it sounds better came out to Iowa to farm, they would change their mind quickly when they were out there on their hands and knees picking weeds from their non-GMO plants.

This morning we went to the Leopold Center at Iowa State University, which focuses on research and education related to ecological preservation and sustainable agriculture. While there, we were able to have a conversation with Matt Liebman and Fred Kirschenmann about a lot of the stuff we had been learning and more about what each of them were doing with the Leopold Center. I was especially excited to be able to meet Dr. Kirschenmann after we had watched My Father’s Garden and Symphony of the Soil because I really liked a lot of the philosophies he had espoused in those movies. Matt Liebman did a lot of the talking at first because he had to leave early, and most of the stuff he had to say revolved around the research he was doing at the Leopold Center. I found his ideas regarding the farming of mixed native perennial crops to be really interesting. He told us that because of the carbon bonds in plants, basically any form of biomass can be harnessed and used as fuel. Therefore, because a lot of corn crops are grown right now in order to make ethanol, these could be replaced with polyculture native perennials instead, which could still be used for fuel. Changing much of the landscape back to native perennials could help with soil health, and it could decrease the amount of nitrogen runoff. Dr. Kirschenmann was significantly more negative about the future than Matt Liebman, but I thought he was realistic about a lot of the warnings he was giving about what the state of the Earth will be in the future if conventional farming practices are maintained. I also enjoyed talking to him about how he applied the Garden of Eden story in the Bible to modern day farming. We have to be careful to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which would be thinking that we can dominate the Earth and that we can consume endlessly without suffering any consequences for doing so.

In the afternoon we went to Monsanto to do a short tour of the facilities and talk with some representatives about some of the controversies surrounding the company. The representatives did a good job defending the company, and I do think that some of the arguments against Monsanto and GMOs are not very good, but the representatives were not able to convince me to begin supporting their company. I am still philosophically opposed to large corporations owning patents for certain seeds and genes. Plants and the seeds that they produce are supposed to be gifts from the land for all humanity to benefit from. The highlight of today however was seeing my new phrase and philosophical movement, “Life is Life”, start to gain traction in the Des Moines community. When the representative from Monsanto used the phrase, I realized it was truly a universal movement that would be unstoppable. I’m looking forward to seeing where the “Life is Life” philosophy goes in the future.

P.S. I also got Joan of Arc’s “A Portable Model Of” LP on clear vinyl at a Des Moines record store, so I was very excited about that find.

As mentioned in my post from two days ago, we will be meeting Frederick Kirschenmenn, the star of My Father’s Garden and distinguished fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University.  And so, we did just that today, joined by Dr. Matt Liebman, Professor of agronomy, and Mark Rasmussen, Director of the Leopold Center.  The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture–named after the conservationist and ecologist, Aldo Leopold–was founded as a result of the 1987 Groundwater Protection Act, which came about after there was public outcry over pollutants in the soil and water that was affecting the health of Iowa residents.  It uses a multi-disciplinary approach to analyze and recommend solutions to water pollution and soil health through four main initiatives: ecology and agricultural systems, marketing and food systems, public policy, and a cross-cutting initiative that connects and coordinates the previous three.

The Leopold Center wants farmers and the public to question the status quo and help shift to agricultural practices that are more sustainable.  According to Kirschenmann, we first saw issues with the socio-economic infrastructure in the Farm Crisis of the early 1980s. As I wrote in yesterday’s post, Lance said that one of the three aspects of sustainability is social.  The powers-that-be of the 1980s were the bankers that had encouraged farmers to buy land and increase the size of their operations.  But when prices dropped and land values fell, the bankers (some of whom were now working for much larger banking operations) reassess the worth of a farmers’ holdings.  Eventually, many farmers went into bankruptcy, but they were doing exactly what the banks told them.  Those that escaped bankruptcy did so by farming commodity crops and tried to expand, lovingly deemed “get big or get out.”  Therefore, the circumstances created a perverse incentive to invest in monocultures and large-scale farming with the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides.  Because this infrastructure is so ingrained in the politics of many state capitals, the Leopold Center wants to coordinate academic research with public campaigns to pressure politicians and farmers into moving towards more sustainable practices.  Overall, Kirschenmann believes that we should farm like nature and restore the natural health of our soil.  Luckily, we have farmers who are actually aware of the trends and are willing to be educated on the newest practices.

One of these research-driven initiatives is led by Dr., Mark Liebman. While Kirschenmann prescribed a somewhat glum future, Liebman says Iowans have the technological ability and historical precedent to rapidly change their practices.  The real question is: Will we? According to Liebman, there are two main threats to environmental quality: resource depletion and the saturation of the environment with pollutants (soil, nitrates, chemicals, et cetera).  Accordingly, he sees three main strategies in combatting environmental depletion.  The first is to reintegrate crop and livestock agriculture, meaning a move towards the more natural cycle of harvest and feed.  The second to set aside land for conservation, either for habitat protection or soil health.  We should veer away from thinking we need to get a yield out of every square foot of land; some land is just bad for farming.  Finally, use the perennials and other vegetation from the second strategy as animal feed or even energy.  Just because the land is set aside for conservation doesn’t mean all of its use is gone.

Liebman caught a big break when popular New York Times food commentator, Mark Bittman, hailed Liebman’s research on restoring soil health through the use of three- and four-crop rotation, which also increased the crop yield and reduced fertilizer use.  Having read this article before the meeting, we discussed the intersection of media and scientific research.  Liebman believes–and with which I agree–that scientists need media if they want to truly change the world that they live in.  Writing academic articles is simply not enough.  The media is a powerful conduit that can drive the public to also put pressure on their politicians who can then change policy.  The only drawback is that more time must be spent in talking to journalists and the public and making sure that the facts are presented correctly.

Here is a TedX talk that describes Kirschenmann’s beliefs on soil and food.  He also talks some about Liebman’s research.

After lunch, we met with lobbyists from Monsanto at their regional office in Ankeny. Monsanto is a large multinational chemical and biotech company, particularly known for its seeds, biotech traits, and chemicals (especially glyphosate), otherwise known as Round-Up.  We met with Rachel Hurley and Dave Tierney to discuss Monsanto’s place in the agricultural and food sectors and to provide a counterweight to our exposure to many small organic farms.  There are several issues with which Monstanto currently deals.   One issue is, of course, its role in creating GMO products.  I’m in a pretty o.k. place with GMOs.  A vast number of studies endorsed by an equally vast number of organizations (including academic) have shown that GMOs in food are just as safe as non-GMO food.  It often takes over a decade, if not two, for a product to be cleared by the appropriate authorities then released to the world.  However, I believe that a level of constant scrutiny should still be had should some problems crop up in the future.  Another related issue in current politics is mandatory labeling.  Non-GMO activists want mandatory labeling on foods with GMO ingredients so customers can choose their desired food.  However, given the studies that GMOs provide no health risks, Monsanto and other food manufacturers and distributors believe that labeling foods as non-GMO will imply that foods without that label are inferior or harmful.  Nonetheless, the representatives have said that they are supportive of companies that voluntarily want to put a label on their products.

Being a large company, Monsanto suffers from the similar legal and business controversies as other large companies, such as Apple, Comcast, et cetera.  Here, things get a little murky.  The most common accusation against the company is the heavily publicized Monsanto Canada Inc., vs. Schmeiser court case in 2007, in which the farmer claimed that seeds blew over from a Monsanto farm onto his farm.  Therefore, Monsanto sued.  Usually, Monsanto let’s slide “trace amounts present…as a result of inadvertent means” found in a non-Monsanto contracted farm.  Briefly speaking, Schmeiser had over 60% of his crop “infected” with RoundUp-ready plants then saved the seeds from that harvest and planted them (knowing their condition) again on 98% of his land.  The courts believed these sums are far higher than what would be expected form seeds blowing over a road, and I am prone to agree.  Nonetheless, there are many other instances of very aggressive patent enforcement, that all in all does not leave me with a good taste in my mouth.

We had a very diverse set of activities on our agenda to close out our final day. We began working with hogs at the Friest farm, moved on to discuss pesticide drift at Practical Farmers of Iowa, and ended by delivering 130 baby chicks to Dalona’s homestead. I really liked that our last day as it accurately reflected the wide variety of viewpoints we have heard over the past three weeks. Many of our days have been exactly like this one starting with conventional agriculture and ending at the more sustainable end of things.

The Friest farm was interesting because Brent really enjoyed telling us how everything worked on the farm, in much detail. It was nice of the Friests to let us into their hog barn which is something not many outsiders have the opportunity to do, and they even allowed us to take photos. I was not very fond of the hog barn as it was a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO), as well as just smelling kind of gross. The highlight of the tour of the hog barns was that I got to hold a baby pig, something I have been wanting to do for awhile.

At one point Denny came over and told us how he had been reading our blog and had comments for us on some of the things we had said. Denny and Brent then expressed their opinions on animal rights and how they thought animal rights issues often got more coverage than child abuse. I disagree with this very strongly although I could see how they, as CAFO hog farmers, would be hyper-sensitive to the many animal rights messages. While I know they did not mean to come off this way I was a little offended by their comparison of animal abuse to child abuse. Probably my least favorite criticism people make about animal welfare is the generalization that people and groups who care about animal rights are placing a preference on animal welfare over human welfare issues, such as child abuse. The Friests were not the first people on this trip to make a comment to me about people worrying about animal abuse and to imply that these same people don’t worry as much about child abuse.

This treatment of animal and human rights issues as if they were incompatible areas of concern that a person must choose either one or the other to care about personally outrages me. This is especially true since I am about to devote my entire summer to volunteering at a domestic violence nonprofit that offers various services to victims such as providing safe shelter for women and children who have experienced abuse. And perhaps shocking to some of the people I have encountered on this trip, I don’t plan to one day work for PETA but instead potentially go into social work. I find it very natural that my stance on animal rights and welfare would carry into my attitude towards human rights issues. This may be why, in addition to being a member of the Furman Animal Rights group, I have ended up as President of an organization on campus that highlights various social justice issues (no animal rights issues) such as human trafficking. I am fairly certain that the Friests did not mean to suggest this about me personally (and that they meant to make a point about certain organizations and resource allocation), but I think this is an unfair generalization that critics should address with more caution and sensitivity.

After this excitement we continued our day with Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI). This visit was highly anticipated as many of the organic farmers we had met had mentioned PFI and the role it played on their farms. PFI exists to do research for and educate unconventional farmers on the issues in which they are interested. Since sustainable and organic horticulture operations do not receive the benefits that conventional monocrop producers do (e.g.,.government subsidies and opportunities to purchase crop insurance), it is great that they at least have one organization in their corner. The main topic we discussed with them was pesticide overdrift, a serious topic among a good number of the unconventional producers we had met who had been significantly affected by this issue.

We actually had a fairly mild day today. We wandered around Iowa city which is a very liberal modern town, did some shopping, book viewing, etc. afterwards we visited at the home of the Honorable Mary Mascher, a Democratic member of the Iowa House of Representatives (not the representative in Washington) from Johnson County (Iowa City).Representative Mascher invited her colleague Representative Sally Stutsman, a local farmer, an environmental activist, and a Ph.D. student from University of Iowa, which we learned is Iowa’s liberal arts university, completely separate from Iowa State University. We talked about a lot! From population to affluence to Common Core (the controversial elementary and high school curriculum).  Jim pointed out that Iowa is the most changed landscape in the US with 1-5% of the original wetlands/prairie and over 60% of the land being planted in corn or soy. I heard about WWOOF (World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms)–an experience that people can sign up for to gain experience while working for a farmer, but being housed and fed so it’s more affordable. Lastly we talked a good bit about the precautionary principle. It’s the idea that you don’t act immediately on new science after testing, but wait to see and test multiple outlying effects and long term effects before using a new technology. It’s waiting much longer to ensure that the idea is proven safe before using it. Unfortunately, the US has a bad history with this, Europe is getting one. We only talked with regards to GMOs in which Europe is waiting, and the US is utilizing them, but many historical technologies go under this idea such as nuclear energy technology (we never thought about the waste or cost until it happened), DDT (we knew the plants would be fine, didn’t realize it would kill fish, birds, and possibly harm people long term), and multiple other ideas in which we had high expectations for a technology and preliminary tests that said they were safe. The only other thing we did today was read Paarlberg’s chapter on GMOs and food safety.

In Paralberg we read that although food sometimes causes illnesses, it’s far less than it used to be and still is in some places. Deaths from them are also incredibly low and more commonly associated with personal food preparation (e.g.,undercooked meat). That’s to be expected in a place as affluent as the US. Interestingly, both consumers and producers want stricter rules for safety. Producers favor stricter regulations because any outbreak causes costly recalls, hurts image, and results in a giant drop in sales of whatever was contaminated for some time afterwards, even if only one farm caused the issue. Paarlberg also discusses irradiation as a way to kill bacteria on food for market. Proponents say irradition makes the food safe, but as a chemist I’m just curious how it may affect compounds in the food since it’s high enough energy to potentially change some compounds. It also likely kills any beneficial bacteria in foods other than meat, since most meat bacteria to my knowledge is not beneficial. Otherwise I feel this is likely an exaggerated concern since radiation sounds scary… As a chemist I can say you’re exposed to dozens of forms of radiation every single day by the sun, radio waves to send stations to your car or tv, and microwaves in your favorite kitchen appliance. Hospitals have X-rays and MRIs, which both use radiation. It’s only some types that are dangerous and only if a high enough amount of exposure. Next he goes into GMOs explaining what they are and how they’re regulated. In the US they’re tested for any possible harm like any new food, also for allergens. Otherwise they’re considered as safe as anything else, but Europe has taken a tougher stand on GMOs, requiring food containing them to be labeled as such. This worried people about eating them, so the market basically ended for GMOs in Europe. Very few countries grow GMOs and almost all of them use it for animal feed crops or cotton only. It’s because people don’t like the idea of consuming GMOs even though there is currently science saying they’re safe. I personally feel that some traits are worth scrutiny (plants with built-in pesticides), others are worth the effort (vitamin fortified plants, such as Golden Rice) but we should aim for the same effect through hybridization. My main concern is that gene insertion could cause long term effects on health or more likely cause unintended changes to plant physiology (which could cause health or environmental damage in the long term). My teacher made the point that science backs GMOs just as science backs global climate change, but political parties ignore or mistrust the science that they don’t agree with (me included). I feel that it goes to a point my sustainability course made that people are increasingly exposed only to viewpoints with which they concur (TV commercials, news companies, radio channels, even webpages are all either liberal or conservative-oriented). This makes all of us feel the beliefs and evidence are skewed towards our side when really we’re just looking at one side. Honestly having the opportunity to see both sides on this trip has been a really useful experience to hear the arguments made by proponents and opponents of a host of issues, including GMOs.

The book itself seemed a bit on the pro-GMO side, but made a few claims that seemed off to me. Most of these are likely because I’ve only really been exposed heavily to one side of the argument. Really the only one I can claim was a non-truth was that GMOs don’t have terminator genes. Even when talking to someone who supported GMOs she claimed that seedless plants were GMOs. This is apparently a myth, since even a quick Google search to an .edu site explains it’s a breeding process that makes seedless grape varieties, although it can sometimes be done chemically instead. It’s not an example of gene insertion or a GMO. One can chemically cause a type of plant that will birth a seedless melon, or one can breed this same type of plant which just has twice the chromosomes (so breed this four-chromosome breed with a two-chromosome breed and the three- chromosome child is sterile). The site I saw even called it making a “mule” watermelon (mules are naturally sterile hybrids between donkeys and horses). I simply believe that both sides claim evidence, make counter claims, and are heavily biased in what they believe. It bothers me that either side might be using misinformation or bad science to back its claim, and it seems that both sides do (based mainly from this book). This is my reason for disliking research that is often funded by those who want to see a specific result.

Our long trek to Iowa City to meet with Mary Mascher, Jim, and others was well worth it. I thought that after three weeks of intensively learning about all sides of food production (for what felt like all hours of the day and many evenings), that we had finally heard it all. But the people Mary Mascher had invited over to engage in a discussion with us about Iowa provided a wide range of perspectives, this included [aspiring] scientists, farmers, activists, politicians, as well as us students. Not surprisingly, putting all these people in the same room to intentionally discuss such controversial issues got really interesting really quickly.

The idea of the drastically altered landscape of Iowa contributing to climate change was another big conversation starter. Jim probably offered the most radical perspective referring to modern day Iowa as one giant field of corn and soybeans, interspersed with “postage stamp relics of streams and prairies.” While Lance, the graduate student, chimed in to add that only somewhere between 1-5% of Iowa’s native prairie lands were left, while 60% of the landscape was corn and soy. Conversation also talked about climate change outside of Iowa and the phenomenon of cities creating “urban heat islands” and micro-climates that can be up to 10 degrees warmer than surrounding areas.

I was really surprised when the conversation went so far as to turn to population control as while this seems to be the looming question no one really seems to want to bring it up, and I would expect this least of all among politicians. This provided the counter-view to what we have heard from most conventional farmers and agricultural associations that they want to “feed the world.” Jim was very willing to ask these tough questions and open the conversation to whether we could afford to feed the world without using chemicals that may be destroying the land and risking human health. Someone also brought up the interesting point of how Borlaug, the Iowan who won the Nobel Prize for Peace and started the World Food Prize (mentioned in earlier blogs), who is publicly credited with saving “more human lives than anyone else in history”, was also known for emphasizing how all his work is pointless without population control. The fact that we went to the World Food Prize and spent a significant amount of time learning about Borlaug and never heard about his feelings on population control just goes to show how unpopular a topic it is.

I am familiar with the population control debate from my Ethics of Globalization class where the ethics of the present distribution of resources was often a topic of concern. Lance presented the argument I had learned in this course that population isn’t that much an issue in terms of numbers of people (as it is stabilizing), but rather in terms of consumption per capita. This basically refers to the phenomenon that nations such as China and India are rapidly consuming more meat and animal products and catching up with America. Based off what I learned in Ethics of Globalization it is highly unlikely (if not impossible) for the resources on the earth to be able to support the entire world living the way Americans do. According to this perspective the discussion must then not be about population control but about population usage.

After much more discussion about pollution, chemicals, water quality and other environmental concerns we eventually ended on a more uplifting note. The idea that while government may not have all the answers (this was especially significant coming from politicians) we can each personally do something to promote change. Wendell Berry, (I am a fan!) was mentioned and his poem “think little”, as in don’t try and change the world but instead work on changing yourself and influencing your community. Jim gave the example of how he tries to live out this philosophy by going around and planting trees. But there are many other ways to make changes such as by consuming less or being selective about what you consume. This group was actually fairly supportive of veganism and saw increasing meat consumption as one of the contributors to our environmental crises and veganism as a legitimate way to respond and act individually. Overall it was very interesting to hear such a wide range of voices, who contrasted with many of those we had already heard from over the past few weeks. It seemed like a rare opportunity to be able to meet with such a wide range of people with the exclusive purpose of having an honest discussion about such controversial issues.