This election day, California voters will have the added responsibility of voting on California Proposition 37 for the “right to know”. A yes vote would make mandatory the labeling of genetically modified ingredients in foods.

Genetic engineering allows genes from plants and animals with favorable traits to be incorporated into the DNA of other organisms. In agriculture, this could mean that seeds are genetically engineered to withstand extreme weather conditions and to be pest and herbicide resistant in order to ensure greater crop yields. In turn, these crops can grow in poor soil and allow for herbicide to be indiscriminately used on the field, but in smaller doses, since it will not affect the intrinsically immune crop. With more creative modifications, plants can be created to produce proteins for pharmaceutical uses (pharming), or even to create plants that remove pollutants from their environment (phytoremediation). And yet, people are against ‘frankenfoods’.

Look for the Non-GMO Project seal when purchasing food!

Opponents of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) argue that this practice is a risk that cannot be controlled and has not been adequately tested. This is further complicated because engineered seeds cost money to be produced and patented. Creating ‘suicide gene’ seeds –plants that will be sterile after one season—comes at too high of a cost in seed purchase and replanting for farmers. But with genetically engineered plants still capable of reproduction, we may inadvertently upset the ecosystem, akin to transporting invasive species that cannot be tracked, since pollen from genetically modified crops is free to travel by wind and create hybrids with non-modified plants. Thus, GMO-free farms in the vicinity are put at risk for illegal possession of patented seeds. In addition, genetically engineered foods raise the risk of allergy, and create more resistant pests and weeds (similar to ‘superbug’ bacteria created by antibiotics) that will ultimately require more herbicide and pesticide to combat.

 At any rate, Prop 37 is not a way to get rid of genetically engineered agriculture or animal farms; rather, it is to create options for the consumer to make educated purchases. It is a request for transparency, especially important as more ingredients (or shall we say chemicals?) are produced from a shrinking variety of plants. Canola, cotton, papaya, soy, sugar beets, zucchini/summer squash, alfalfa, and corn are the most often genetically modified crops. Since corn, soybeans, and cotton also happen to be some of the major crops of America, the issue becomes even more serious.

 But we all know, and those involved in the business of genetic engineering know, that Prop 37 will get educated consumers to snub more GMO labeled foods and this issue of food politics will get the ball rolling on a greater scale. There will probably be little affect on other more casual shoppers unless we provide more education…

 Technically, if Prop 37 is voted in, companies will have to produce a unique set of labels marking GMOs for California sales, while hiding the info from the other states. Since this is costly, voting and/or labeling will probably become a nationwide practice to create only one set of labels. (This should be nothing new to the big food companies who already update labels with claims of “natural” and other vague terms that go in their favor.) Another option is for the genetically modified components to be replaced by non-GMO ingredients. Penalties for failure to properly label products will go to the state. No on Prop 37, a website on the new proposition, brings up the many loopholes of the ‘right to know’, like the fact that meat from genetically modified animals will be labeled, while the meat from non-modified animals who are fed GMO feed (there goes that corn and soy crop…) does not have to be labeled. I agree that this is strange, but Yes on 37, yet another website, states that this is a process that they are not yet willing to monitor this because it really would be an impossibly immense undertaking. This same issue exists in USDA Organic labeling: approved products may not intentionally use genetically modified components in production and preparation. The Non-GMO Project label is currently the most surefire way to aid your supermarket shopping. 

As a side note, No on Prop 37 is funded by a slew of corporations invested in the GMO business, headed by Monsanto and Du Pont. They have gathered way more money than Yes on 37 which is funded by a few organic farming and pro-consumer health groups. Check out this pro-Prop 37 article by Michael Pollan for the big picture on this food movement.

 

Matthew McDermott
January 6, 2012

Thomas Kohler/CC BY-SA 2.0

Germany’s promotion of renewable energy rightly gets singled out for its effectiveness, most often by me as an example of how to do things well versus the fits and starts method of promotion common in the US. Over at Wind-Works, Paul Gipe points out another interesting facet of the German renewable energy saga: 51% of all renewable energy in Germany is owned by individual citizens or farms, totaling $100 billion worth of private investment in clean energy.

Breaking that down into solar power and wind power, 50% of Germany’s solar PV is owned by individuals and farms, while 54% of its wind power is held by the same groups.

In total there’s roughly 17 GW of solar PV installed in Germany—versus roughly 3.6 GW in the US (based on SEIA’s figures for new installations though the third quarter of 2011 plus the 2.6 GW installed going into the year).

Remember, Germany now produces slightly over 20% of all its electricity from renewable sources.

The thing that got me though, other than the huge lead in solar PV installations Germany has over the US, thanks to good policy, and the fact that so much wind power isn’t owned by utilities, is what slightly over half of renewable energy being owned not by corporations but by actual biological people means—obviously a democratic shift in control of resources and a break from the way electricity and energy has been produced over the past century.

A good thing: Decentralized power generation, more relocalization and reregionalization of economic activity, the world getting smaller while more connected and therefore in a way bigger at the same time… taking a step backwards, and perhaps sideways, while moving forwards.

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/over-half-germany-renewable-energy-owned-citizens-not-utility-companies.html

There are stand-up comics who do entire routines about trying to get a clamshell package open, and a couple of months ago we Tweeted a link to Quora’s “What is the worst piece of design ever done?” query, to which the most popular answer was Anita Schillhorn’s response:

Plastic clamshell packaging. Design should help solve problems. This packaging attempts to solve the problem of theft, but creates new problems that are far worse, principally irritating your own customers. It’s been the cause of thousands of emergency room visits, and there’s even a Wikipedia-approved term to describe the frustration you feel when confronted with an unrelenting piece of plastic between you and your product: Wrap rage.

It’s no surprise that Procter & Gamble’s Be Green Packaging was a Diamond Winner in the 23rd DuPont Packaging Awards.

In its new design, packaging for Gillette Fusion ProGlide moved away from a clamshell approach and opted instead for a formable pulp tray made of renewable bamboo and bulrush fiber-based material. This new package pushed the boundaries of pulp trays, reducing both cost and material weight. Additionally it is much easier to open, making it popular with consumers. The graphics strongly reinforce the product’s brand identity and support great shelf appeal.

P&G’s pulp and fiber design hits two marks, one for sustainability, and one that means we’ll never again literally shed blood when opening a package of safety razors or similar.

Photo credit: recycle a bicycle facebook

Recycle A Bicycle is a volunteer based bike shop in DUMBO and East Village that offers refurbished bikes and practical bicycle maintenance techniques.The proceeds of the refurbished bicycles goes to the youth job training program. Here is a video showing how the bikes are refurbished.