“Meat” grown in a lab is a hot trend right now, with manufacturers jumping over each other in a quest to be in on the next big food craze. Scientists, environmentalists, and entrepreneurs are extremely excited by the prospect of meeting the world’s growing demand for meat with only a fraction of the resources needed by our current factory farming system. One company, Impossible Foods, has been carried away in that excitement. They began selling their soy leghemoglobin derived Impossible Burger in 2016, despite not being generally recognized as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.
Putting Sustainability First
Cultured “meat” is an enticing proposition. The Impossible Burger uses 95% less land, 74% less water, and creates 87% less greenhouse gas emissions than its cow-sourced counterparts. It’s also free of antibiotics, artificial ingredients, and hormones. This particular cultured meat is made from soy leghemoglobin genes and a genetically modified yeast not unlike that found in common Belgian beers.
Leghemoglobin is a hemoprotein found in the root nodules of leguminous plants – in this case, soy. Once these hemoproteins are broken down, they release heme. Heme contains iron and carries oxygen in the blood, making the veggie burger “bleed” and giving it a meaty texture and flavor. Making the burger entirely out of these root nodules would be expensive and would increase its negative environmental impact, but Impossible Foods, the company behind Impossible Burger, combines the soy leghemoglobin gene to a yeast strain and then grows the yeast via fermentation.
Can You Eat It?
Sustainable? Yes. But is it safe?
Impossible Foods says yes. The burger has been reviewed by a panel of experts, with scientists from the University of Nebraska, University of Wisconsin and Virginia Commonwealth University generally recognizing it as safe. Rats studies have been conducted, and there were no adverse effects from the soy leghemoglobin protein, even when feeding the rats 200 times the amount a human is expected to consume.
But the magical yeast that allows the company to produce their burger causes other problems. There are more than 40 other unidentified proteins in the impossible burger. In the words of Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumer’s Union, “It’s only 73 percent pure, the other 27 percent is from proteins from the genetically engineered yeast that produces it, and these [proteins] have an unknown function…” Due to these unidentified proteins, the FDA told Impossible Foods that the burger was unlikely to be recognized as safe.
What is Progress?
The Impossible Burger has been available at select restaurants since 2016. Impossible Foods does not need the FDA to categorize the burger as generally recognized as safe to sell it. This isn’t actually illegal, as the FDA’s self-affirmation program does not require new ingredients to be approved. We only have any of this information because Impossible Foods tried to go one step further in the regulation process, applying for the FDA’s GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status.
Impossible Foods has a mission, and that mission is an admirable and necessary one. Forget about figuring out if it’s real or not, climate change is here. Factory farming is not sustainable, even as the demand for meat is still growing. More consumers are looking for quality sustainable or vegan/vegetarian options, and Impossible Foods wants to serve that market. Their website emphasizes their sustainability.
They also make a point to push transparency and encourage questions. That will be crucial for a generation that is looking for corporations to step in where the government is not addressing their needs and concerns.
The food system has to change or it will collapse. Many companies have been stepping up their environmental bona fides in response the Environmental Protection Agency’s current irresponsibility. It remains to be seen if the FDA can cope with the demands of the rapidly evolving demands and realities of a sustainable food system.
In this day and age, you’re either pro-vaccine, or you’re an “anti-vaxxer.” And if you have one problem with one vaccine, or even just one vaccine ingredient, you are labeled not only anti-vaxxer but also anti-science.
Consider a person in the “pro-vaccine” camp. Let’s say this person approves of all of the vaccines from the CDCs Immunization Schedule page, and of course, they also get the flu shot.
Would said person mind, say… “drinking” additional vaccines? Not a specific amount or at a specific time, and not in any way that can be measured. Would it be ok if those vaccine concoctions were developed for livestock, and deemed not fit for humans?
Of course, we’re not drinking vaccine ingredients, but chances are very good that meat eaters are eating them.
If you’re anti-GMO, you can get organic meat. If you’re anti-antibiotics, that’s another good reason to buy organic meat (supposedly). But what if you don’t want to consume vaccine ingredients?
So what kind of animal vaccines are you eating? It depends.
The amount and type of vaccines given to an animal depend on what animal is it. Currently, there are vaccines on the market for pigs, cows, sheep, goats, poultry (chicken, ducks, and turkeys), and fish. There a few different vaccine delivery systems, from injections to spray droplets and through drinking water.
There’s also a difference between modified live viruses (MLV) and killed viruses.
MLVs are a vaccine consisting of a live virus, usually freeze-dried. They provoke a stronger immune response, are less likely to contain adjuvants, and result in fewer lesions at the injection site. They are designed to be a single dose. The downside of these immunizations is a lack of stability, as they must be used within 1-2 hours of being reconstituted and are susceptible to heat and sunlight. These vaccines also shed and must be carefully monitored when given to female cows so as not to interfere with pregnancy.
Killed viruses are seen as safer than MLVs. They don’t shed and are safer for pregnant or immunocompromised animals. But without a live vaccine to provoke an immune response, killed vaccines frequently have adjuvants designed to increase that response, like oils, formalin (formaldehyde), thimerosal, and aluminum hydroxide. These are more likely to cause lesions at the injection sites and require the animal to be dosed twice. Most farmers prefer the one shot advantage offered by the modified live vaccines.
The average calf receives a minimum of three vaccines in their first 2-3 months. One of these vaccines is always a 7 or 8 shot for clostridial viruses, and another is a shot for 3-5 different bovine respiratory disorders. They receive boosters shortly before weaning. Other commonly given cattle vaccines include pinkeye, Pasteurella, Brucellosis, tetanus, and scours. Pigs are supposed to be immunized for Leptospirosis, Parvovirus, Erysipelas, E. coli, and Atrophic rhinitis. For poultry it depends, there’s chicken, turkey, and duck.
A Google search for livestock vaccines shows how easy it is to obtain these vaccines. This also makes it easier to check the ingredients, although some products are still reluctant to list anything not considered an active ingredient. Many livestock vaccines actually have antibiotics as preservatives, whereas as others use various forms of aluminum, formaldehyde, and thimerosal.
Thimerosal is particularly of note, as the human vaccine debate frequently centers around thimerosal and its role in the development of autism and other developmental disorders. There is no such debate in livestock vaccines. After all, no cares if your cow is unable to function properly in society or experiences random seizures.
The preservatives in animal vaccines also make them very toxic to humans. Workers who are accidentally injected with these vaccines deal with side effects from the oil-based adjuvants in livestock vaccines (particularly cattle vaccines) for months after an accidental injection. A dose meant for a 1,000-pound animal is clearly too much for the average person, but the vaccine is specifically designed to stimulate a response in the cattle for a period of weeks to months. Removing the oil-based preservatives from the human body can sometimes involve surgery.
The adjuvants in animal vaccines are what make them dangerous to people. Still, most of us won’t be handling livestock anytime soon. Many of the companies that make livestock vaccines make people vaccines, but those meant for people are not oil-based, even if some of the other preservatives are the same.
Livestock Vaccines Are Not Safe for People
Any insert will tell you that livestock vaccines are not safe for people.
Each year, livestock producers give thousands of injections to calves and cows. The vast majority of those injections go off without a problem. However, there are times when producers may accidentally inject the vaccines or antibiotics into themselves or other helpers. So what happens when a product, meant for a 1,000-pound cow, winds up inside a 200-pound human? The results can be deadly.” – The Prairie Star
So, vaccines given to humans are perfectly safe, vaccines given to animals are dangerous to humans if taken accidentally, but ingesting livestock vaccine ingredients randomly is acceptable.
Self-injection with veterinary vaccines is an occupational hazard for farmers and veterinary surgeons. Injection of vaccine into a closed compartment such as the human finger can have serious sequelae including loss of the injected digit. These injuries are not to be underestimated. Early debridement and irrigation of the injected area with decompression is likely to give the best outcome. Frequent review is necessary after the first procedure because repeat operations may be required.” – NCBI
We don’t value the life of livestock the way we do humans. This is why they get differing grades for feed. But beyond the stray injection or accidental interaction suffered by a handler, no one is being exposed to these vaccines. Except when we ingest the meat. The same with antibiotics being fed to farm animals. We were told that we didn’t have to worry about those… but now we have microbial revolution consisting of antibiotic resistant superbugs we are unprepared to deal with.
The extent to which veterinary vaccines pose a health hazard to humans is unclear. The increased use of veterinary vaccines may be accompanied by an increase in human exposure to the vaccine strains, thus increasing the potential for adverse effects. Also, new methods of vaccine administration may result in an increased likelihood of inadvertent exposure. For example, increased use of aerosol administration may result in greater human exposure to animal vaccines. For some animal vaccines, such as those administered to prevent “kennel cough” in dogs, aerosol administration is becoming the preferred route. Also, oral administration of vaccines that contain live agents is becoming more common. Orally administered vaccines have been developed for rabies prophylaxis in wildlife, and millions of baits have been distributed. The administration of live vaccines to animals destined for the human food supply may result in human exposure to a vaccine strain. Illness subsequent to such an exposure is unlikely to be recognized by the patient or the physician as a potential consequence of an animal vaccine exposure.” – Oxford Academic
Conclusion
What’s a meat eater to do? My wife and I shop at the local farmers market. We know our vendors. They are the farmers. We buy ground beef for our dog and the farmer is about as fond of vaccines as we are. I recommend that everyone grow as much of their own food as they can and get to know everything about the people involved in growing and processing anything else you consume.
PCBs, Roundup, and Dicamba – Monsanto’s Current Problems
They say bad news comes in threes, and biotech giant Monsanto can certainly attest to the truth of that statement right now. Their newest product line, XtendiMax (better known as dicamba), made it to market without proper volatility testing. This refers to the product’s tendency to vaporize and travel. Subsequently, dicamba is drifting, causing major damage to neighboring crops, and currently banned in one U.S. state. There have also been two separate instances of newly released documents confirming that Monsanto knew two of their products, PCBs (from 1935 and 1977) and glyphosate, are harmful and continued to defend and sell them in spite of that.
For years, Monsanto has presented unsafe products as safe with little to no repercussion. Yet it is still on track to further dominate the food supply due to the company’s merger with Bayer. So why are the agencies charged with regulating food and environmental safety ok with Monsanto’s market control in the face of their shady practices?
PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, were banned pretty much everywhere in 1979 after being linked to cancer and environmental degradation. PCBs began manufacture in 1935, and the first evidence of their toxicity appeared in 1937, after three workers who handled the chemicals died from acute liver damage. Serious health and environmental concerns continue to be reported to this day, even though the largest manufacturer of these, Monsanto, halted their production in 1977.
Monsanto is currently being sued by the state of Washington and eight cities for PCB contamination. Recently released documents have confirmed that Monsanto was aware of the effect of PCBs as early as 1969, eight years before they stopped selling them. A 1969 pollution abatement plan from the company acknowledged the product’s risks, stating “…“The evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence in the environment is beyond questioning.” In another letter from a Monsanto manager in 1975, the company knew that “There is a potential real effect to humans – including death…”
In Monsanto’s own words, PCBs are dangerous in more ways than one. Yet they made money and Monsanto is first and foremost a business. But this wouldn’t be the only instance of company records showing corporate profits trump health, safety, and environmental concerns.
More court documents exposing Monsanto’s behind the scenes manipulations were released by attorneys pursuing claims against the company in regards to the link between Roundup and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Attorneys from the law firm Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman released more than 700 pages of internal documents, detailing Monsanto’s behind the scenes activities. Numerous emails, texts, and other documents confirm that employees at Monsanto ghostwrote and manipulated scientific studies and expert panel discussions, failed to disclose conflicts of interest, discredited multiple negative glyphosate studies, and colluded with the Environmental Protection Agency. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) labeled glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans in 2015, but it’s clear from the recently released documents that Monsanto has known this since before 2008.
These documents also make Monsanto’s strategy for avoiding regulation clear: government collusion. Many of the documents released are communications with high ranking individuals at the Environmental Protection Agency, imploring them to delay scientific reviews of glyphosate multiple times. Monsanto’s has a clear modus operandi once they learn their products cause human harm – muddy the scientific waters, defend it furiously, and make as much money as possible. Their experience with PCBs was a learning experience. The lesson? Get the agencies regulating you to do the dirty work.
The Environmental Protection Agency approved Monsanto’s newest version of dicamba, XtendiMax, in November of 2016. Poised to replace glyphosate now that many weeds are developing resistance to that product, many farmers instead experienced serious crop loss after illegal versions of it used prior to that release drifted onto their fields from neighboring farms. With the product officially released, Monsanto is now facing a class actions lawsuits from farmers reporting severe losses for the second year in a row.
Testimony from researchers, regulators, and a company employee indicate that Monsanto used its influence to bring the product to market without all of the proper tests, including a proper volatility test. In fact, testing contracts for the product explicitly forbade it. Yet the EPA approved the product without it.
Arkansas was the only state to ask for additional testing. Monsanto denied that request. Arkansas has now banned dicamba, and other states are now assessing damage from the herbicide for the second year in a row. This damage occurs when dicamba drifted to other, non-modified crops, the exact scenario further testing could have predicted. A class action lawsuit is pending.
Is It Too Late?
Monsanto wields incredible influence with government agencies, scientists, and researchers. This allows the company to continually deny and create confusion around health and environmental damages that their products are actually causing. And it’s scary. What chance do we have when those charged with upholding regulations created to protect the public are on the Monsanto Christmas card list?
It took nearly a decade from when Monsanto privately acknowledged the damage PCBs were causing for regulatory agencies to do something about it. The new formulation of dicamba, XtendiMax, has been on the market for less than a year and has been banned in both Arkansas and Missouri. The times are changing.
The rusty patched bumblebee (Bombus affinis), once such a common site in North America, is now on the endangered species list. This bee species was once abundant and thriving in 28 states and the District of Columbia. They were common in the grasslands and prairies of the East and the Midwest. Now, the bees that are left are mostly confined to small areas within twelve states and the province of Ontario Canada.
We are thrilled to see one of North America’s most endangered species receive the protection it needs. Now that the Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the rusty-patched bumble bee as endangered, it stands a chance of surviving the many threats it faces — from the use of neonicotinoid pesticides to diseases.” – Xerces Society director of endangered species, Sarah Jepsen
The bee’s population is down almost 90 percent since the 1990s. But other pollinators may reap the benefits of protecting the bumblebee as well.
“While this listing clearly supports the rusty patched bumble bee, the entire suite of pollinators that share its habitat, and which are so critical to natural ecosystems and agriculture, will also benefit. This is a positive step towards the conservation of this species, and we now have to roll up our sleeves to begin the actual on-the-ground conservation that will help it move toward recovery.” – Rich Hatfield, Xerces Society senior conservation biologist
It wasn’t easy getting the bee listed, and there is a good chance the designation of bumble bees as an endangered species will face more resistance from several industries and corporations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized the bumblebee’s listing as an endangered species on January 11th, but it took longer than expected to put the bee on the list of endangered species. The National Cotton Council, the National Association of Home Builders, and the American Petroleum Institute pushed to postpone the decision and Trump’s administration delayed Obama-era regulations that hadn’t yet taken into effect, which delayed the rusty-patched bumblebee from being listed.
The Endangered Species Act was passed by Congress in 1973 and signed into law by President Nixon in December of the same year. The legislation is considered the most significant and powerful wildlife protection act in U.S. history. The Trump administration is interested in gutting or possibly ending the Endangered Species Act.
Can Environmentalists Eat Steak? Is Grass-fed, Free-range Better?
Healthy animals mean a healthy environment, right? What about concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)? These “factory farms” must be cancerous to the environment.
This all seems like common sense, but our common sense can sometimes lead us in the wrong direction.
Gassy Cows and Global Warming
Many studies point to the fact that the production of beef pollutes the atmosphere with more greenhouse gases than the production of any other food. This is because cows are ruminants — a type of animal that acquires nutrients from plant-based food by fermenting their food in a specialized stomach. Because of this fermentation process, cows burp, fart, pee, and poop persistently throughout the day, which adds more greenhouse gases — like methane gas and nitrous oxide — to the environment.
Although fluorinated gases that are commonly used as refrigerants and aerosol propellants are the most potent and longest lasting greenhouse gasses, methane gas and nitrous oxide still have a 25 and 300 times greater impact respectively on global warming than carbon dioxide. Cows and other ruminants also eat plenty of oxygen-producing, carbon-dioxide-absorbing plants.
The Case Against Raising Healthy and Happy Cows
At this point, you may be thinking that cows that live long and healthy lives on pasture are bad for the environment, and you are not alone. Dr. Bill Ripple is a prominent ecologist known for his work researching the roles of large carnivores in ecological systems around the world, and he agrees with you.
Ripple took his expertise to climate change and found that pastured cattle contributed two to four times more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than cows raised in CAFOs.
This isn’t even the worst of it. Cattle have also been found to destroy ecosystems with their grazing. In 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service banished grazing cattle from a 278,000-acre refuge called Hart Mountain to try to restore the ecosystem that was presumably destroyed by grazing cattle. After two decades, trees, shrubs, and flowers flourished providing a beautiful environment for birds, antelopes, and other species to thrive.
This suggests that healthy and happy cows destroy the environment in multiple ways. They produce potent greenhouses gases with their inefficient digestive system and make it hard for ecosystems to thrive. But what do you do if you want to have a big juicy steak and stop global warming?
Bill Ripple’s findings suggest that you should get that steak from a sick and diseased cow that is confined to a jail cell and has a shorter lifespan. Or just give up steak all together and become a vegetarian or vegan. Problem solved!
Hold on, what about all of the cattle? Even if we don’t eat them they will still be grazing, burping, and farting. Should we — dare I say — kill them?
The Bigger Picture: Joel Salatin and Sustainable Farming Practices
The amount of methane emitted by fermentation is the same whether it occurs in the cow or outside.” – Joel Salatin
That’s a brief excerpt from Joel’s rebuttal to the assertion that sustainable grass-fed beef is bad for the environment.
Joel Salatin is the owner of Polyface Farms in Virginia — a farm that produces pasture-raised, beyond organic beef, pork, poultry, eggs, and rabbits.
In his rebuttal, Joel continues by explaining that “…wetlands emit some 95% of all methane in the world.” If you were to fact-check his statement you’d find it to be true, which suggests that if you are going to blame happy and healthy livestock for global warming, you should blame nature as well. Better yet, blame your trash, too — it should know by now not to produce methane gas.
But still, according to Dr. Ripples, findings at Hart Mountain, Salatin’s farm should be struggling to maintain lush green pastures. Although this may be true for other farms that Salatin claims are under “neanderthal management”, Polyface farms uses many different methods like rotational grazing to get the most out of the land while keeping it lush and fertile.
Regardless of what Joel Salatin says, CAFOs are still known to be a much more efficient use of land, and the animals they produce add much less greenhouse gas to the atmosphere due to their shorter lifespans.
Should we just give up on raising happy and healthy livestock?
CAFOs are a NONO
It is a fact that CAFO beef produces less greenhouse gas emissions than grass-fed beef, but this reductionist approach to climate change leaves out many other factors.
For example, animals raised in CAFOs are usually fed GMO soybean, GMO corn, and GMO grain feed. GMOs themselves may not be an issue for the animal (which is debatable), but these GMO crops are covered in pesticides. These pesticides contaminate the meat, the soil, and the water, while the synthetic fertilizers that are used contribute a substantial amount of nitrous oxide — the second most potent greenhouse gas — to the atmosphere.
These growing practices deplete the soil of its nutrients and mycorrhiza ( soil probiotics), which causes us to use more pesticides and fertilizers to yield the same amount of food. These poor farming practices contribute 75% of all the nitrous oxide found in the atmosphere.
The way that animal waste is handled in CAFOs is also a problem that contributes excess nitrous oxide and methane gas to the atmosphere. The manure and urine often accumulate into a “poo lagoon” that contaminates the soil and water with pesticide and antibiotic residues, methane, and nitrous oxide.
When we consider all of the evidence, both Bill Ripple and Joel Salatin are right. Pasture-raised cattle — without a doubt — produce more greenhouse gases than any other animal. But — at the same time — livestock can be raised in a way that is much better for the environment (as a whole) than CAFO-raised livestock.
The beyond organic farming practices that farms like Polyface and White Oak Pastures use are making it possible for this to happen — making it possible to have healthy meat, healthy humans, and a healthy environment at the same time.
Joel Salatin is ahead of his time when it comes to farming. He uses ingenious methods that work together with nature to create healthy meat and a healthy ecosystem.
For example, instead of letting the manure and urine sit in “poo lagoons” and contaminate the water, it is used as a natural soil fertilizer. The bugs and pests that are attracted to the manure and urine are then eaten by the chickens, who act as natural “pesticides”. This helps maintain the health of the soil and foliage while reducing the amount of methane gas and nitrous oxide that is released into the atmosphere. Joel also moves the animals to different pastures so they do not overgraze specific plots of land. By doing things in this way, he maximizes efficiency and maintains a healthy ecosystem.
As Joel Salatin’s methods — and the methods of many other farmers like Will Harris at White Oak Pastures — continue to evolve, we will be able to ensure a happy and healthy life for us, the animals, and the environment without the need for CAFOs and mono-cropping.
But we still didn’t figure out how to stop global warming, and the solution is not to keep cows from burping, farting, pooping, and peeing.
Although this article focuses heavily on the effects that meat production has on the environment — here’s the punchline — agriculture (including livestock) only contributes 9% to the total greenhouse gas emissions.
This is why you can’t blame the cow for burping and farting so much — the problem is us.
We dug out fossil fuels that weren’t a part of the environment anymore and added them back to the atmosphere at such rapid rates that we are causing the planet to change just as rapidly. Even 7.5 billion cows burping and farting at the same time couldn’t do that.
The solution to global warming doesn’t solely rely on our meat consumption. Saving our planet requires a multi-faceted approach.
How To Stop Global Warming
It all starts with using less electricity and gas and using more energy from renewable resources. Rather than driving to the gym to get your exercise, combine exercise with other activities you will do anyway. To conserve electricity, use natural light or lights that are powered by a hand crank or the sun.
When it comes to food, buy the highest quality food that is as local as possible. High-quality, bio-dynamic, or beyond-organic foods are much better for your health and the health of the environment, and eating local ensures that less gas will be used to get the food to your house. But what about meat?
When it comes to eating meat, moderation is key. Meat — without a doubt — is packed with nutrition, but most of us consume much more meat than is necessary.
An NPR article from 2012 found that the United States had the second highest meat consumption in the world — consuming 270.7 pounds per person every year. This works out to 3/4 of a pound of meat per day. But how do we know how much meat is enough?
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations — “…to effectively combat malnutrition and under-nourishment…” — they suggest consuming 20g of animal protein per person per day.
This means that eating around 1/4 pound of lean meat or fish or 3 eggs a day is just enough to prevent some vitamin and mineral deficiencies. It would be even better for the environment, however, to limit your consumption of beef and replace it with other animal proteins that have the lowest environmental impact like eggs, mussels, and oysters.
A Better Lifestyle for You and the Environment
Let’s make the complex topic of climate change simple. Here are some practical steps you can use to build a life that is healthy for you and the environment:
Source all of your foods from local organic farms
Combine your daily exercise with practical tasks to cut down on gas and electricity
Get all of your fruits and vegetables from beyond organic and/or bio-dynamic farms
Get all of your animal products from sustainable farms like Polyface or White Oak Pastures
Limit your animal protein servings to a quarter pound of meat a day
Eat most of your animal proteins from animals that have the lowest environmental impact like eggs, mussels, and oysters.
Reuse, repurpose, and recycle as many food scraps as possible to limit the amount of methane produced by landfills. To find out how, read our article on how to reduce food waste.
Limit your use of air conditioners (especially in cars) and aerosol sprays to reduce the amount of fluorinated gas that accumulates in the atmosphere.
By making as many of these adjustments as we can, we will improve our health, animal health, and environmental health — so that we can clean up the mess that we created.
Monsanto is currently embroiled in a lawsuit from farmers claiming that glyphosate caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, contradicting the EPA’s finding that the chemical is “…not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” On Tuesday, documents from the case were unsealed, including an internal email exchange at Monsanto that implies they wrote portions of EPA studies on the herbicide. According to one email, “…we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak…” Another email specifically mentions portions of studies that would be ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, as opposed to regulatory agencies.
Suspect Everyone
Federal judge Vince Chhabria, who is based in Northern California and is overseeing the litigation against the company, has indicated that, “My reaction is when you consider the relevance of the EPA’s reports, and you consider their relevance to this litigation, it seems appropriate to take Jess Rowland’s deposition…” Previous documents released in the case included a letter from a long-time EPA employee, alleging that Rowland and other colleagues played “political, conniving games with the science to favor the registrants.” Other emails directly from Rowland indicated that he would quash another assessment of glyphosate from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, among other things. Rowland’s testimony will be key for the plaintiff, as his time as the chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee coincides with the release of the EPA memo that disputes the World Health Organization’s classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic. A subpoena will likely be necessary to interview Rowland, as he has declined a previous, voluntary request.
The EPA is also concerned about their standing in this lawsuit. Raven M. Norris, the attorney representing them this case, stated, “The agency has legitimate concerns about being pulled into private litigation…They want to be able to maintain their impartiality.” If the already released documents are any indication, impartiality is already off the table. They are left fighting for plausible deniability.
Monsanto has maintained its defense of glyphosate, and Bill Heydens, one of the alleged ghostwriters, has given sworn testimony about his original emails, claiming, “It was things like editing relatively minor things, editing for formatting, just for clarity, really just for overall readability to make it easier for people to read in a more organized fashion…”. Rowland will hopefully provide the other side of that conversation, but it is likely his testimony will protect the company.
A Vulnerable Position for the Agricultural Giant
Complaints and studies against Monsanto and glyphosate have been piling up for quite some time now. While the WHO has reclassified the chemical after extensive research, the U.S. regulators have lagged behind with a different script. The EPA may be able to claim that they were unaware of this manipulation, though plaintiff attorneys have suggested that the EPA “may be unaware of Monsanto’s deceptive authorship practices.” But there really isn’t a good position here. If Rowland implicates Monsanto and saves the EPA, Monsanto’s $66 million dollar merger with Bayer might be in jeopardy. If Rowland follows the money (history indicates probably) or martyrs himself, the EPA looks incompetent. For the rest of us, we’ll get a better picture of who is pulling the strings when this case is decided.
What’s the next phase in omega-3 fatty acid supplementation? If biotechnology and agricultural trading giants like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and Cargill have anything to say about it, the future is soy and canola.
There is no way to meet the demand we currently have for fish oil.Peru, the world’s leader in fish oil and fish meal production, had a banner year in 2016, getting the highest recorded average price per metric ton. But those record numbers come at a time when production levels have declined 61% from the previous year. The production levels aren’t likely to improve either, as the United Nations reports 90% of the world’s fish are fully or partially overfished. Farm-raised fish are unlikely to be a good source of Omega-3s as they themselves are frequently fed other fish oils to boost their health. We are approaching the point where a big source for Omega-3s, wild-caught fish, will no longer be available, and farm raised fish currently require supplementation instead of providing it.
The Big Business Solution
The demand for fish oil products has created a 2.4 million dollar market, and many big companies have settled on grains as the solution to the problem left by dwindling fish oil supplies. One of the companies with ambitious plans in this area is Cargill, an agricultural trading company based in Minnesota. In a bid to create a fifth of current fish oil supplies, 159,000 metric tons, they’ve earmarked up to half a million acres of Montana farmland to grow their new strain of canola. Projected to be ready in 2020, the canola will contain long-chain omega-3 fatty acids from algae. Dow Chemicals has also jumped on the canola train, although they plan to grow their canola in Canada.
Monsanto, on the other hand, is sticking with what they know – soy. Soybeans are already a source of ALA (alpha-linolenic acids), and the company’s plan is to develop a soybean specifically meant to be processed into a soy oil for baked goods and soup. Other companies are launching omega-3 products with algae. Archer Daniels Midland in Chicago, a commodities trading and food processing company, created an algae-based product for fish supplementation. TerraVia Holdings Ltd is another company focused on algae, using it to convert sugar into omega-3s.
A Little People Solution
Omega 3 fatty acids are essential to any healthy diet, but other options are out there? Quality fish and fish oil are hard to find and hard to justify from an environmental perspective. Many of the proposed big businesses solutions focus on GMO crops. Both of these options are problematic.
Getting omega-3s in your diet doesn’t have to be all about fish oil. Algae is a great source of omega-3s, and it’s important to get different colors. Green algae like spirulina and chlorella, are a source of EPA. Brown algae like wakame and hijiki are sources of DHA, a key nutrient in supporting a healthy brain. Other vegetable based sources of omega-3s include flax, chia, and nuts, especially walnuts. The acids are also in a number of vegetables like spinach, winter squash, and brussels sprouts, though the amount is much less than what is found in seaweeds, nuts, and seeds.
The World is Not Enough
This is not the only important part of the food chain disappearing. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, close to 75% of plant diversity has been lost. Six different livestock breeds are lost every month. Our gut bacteria has been slowly losing its variety, leaving us more open to disease. From a health viewpoint and an environmental viewpoint, now is the time to look for different, diverse foods. How long will it be before whole nutrients groups disappear from our world like so many plant varieties or members of our gut flora?
