“Our main objective is to stop the FDA from ever approving this science project that will potentially harm wild Alaska salmon, while posing human and other environmental health risks.”

Civil society groups have highlighted the undemocratic passage of the proposal through regulatory procedures. No comment period was provided (although the labelling question did receive a look-in), and, like many other GE products, the salmon was classified as a veterinary drug to streamline its passage. The biotech firm behind the product, Aquabounty Technologies (an ever so-appropriate name for a group of nature-plundering biocolonists), have done everything in their power to lubricate this slimy ascent through the halls of power: no environmental impact assessment was carried out, and all scientific data (carried out by Aquabounty themselves) were based on a ridiculously small sample size. In spite of this, they claim that:

AquAdvantage® Salmon is a well defined and unique product. It has been thoroughly studied and its attributes clearly established. Its properties and benefits stem from the regulated expression of its specific gene construct, integrated in a specific and stable location in the Atlantic Salmon genome.

AquAdvantage Salmon involves three species: first you stitch some genes from the eel-like ocean pout into a Chinook salmon, and then you stuff that inside an Atlantic salmon egg. This high science witchcraftery has, inter alia, been sold on the promise of increasing food security, since the manipulation supposedly makes the AquAdvantage Salmon grow faster than non-altered fish. However this orthodoxy has been challenged by a new report released by the NGO Food and Water Watch, entitled ‘GE Salmon Will Not Feed the World’. Using information provided by Aquabounty, they argue that the environmental and economic impacts of unleashing mutant fish onto the US market far outweigh the efficiency gains within the industrial model.

Aquabounty’s research argues that where it takes wild salmon approximately 800 days to reach their harvest weight of 8.8 pounds, the altered species will reach that weight in only 600 days, an efficiency gain of 33%. However the claim that reducing the time to market renders GE Salmon more efficient should not be taken at face value. The eggs are to be produced in Canada, then shipped to a captive facility in Panama where the fish would be raised before being shipped back to the US. And, while Aquabounty expound the effishiency (bahaha…) of the GE Salmon, their enhanced growth is only triggered when the animals are fed to “satiety”, meaning they can eat as much as five times more food than natural salmon. Feed costs represent about half of Salmon’s production costs, meaning that to trigger the faster growth period would require significantly higher investment. GE Salmon also require more oxygen to sustain higher growth, meaning more equipment to aerate tanks, and there is also a greater susceptibility to deformities. Indeed, the total lifecycle cost for the GE Salmon provided by Aquabounty does not differ from the cost for its non-GE counterpart – between (USD) $1.65 and $1.80 per pound, while the eggs themselves will be more expensive.

The feed for these fish is also of questionable origin. Food pellets for aquaculture fish primarily comprise prey fish, the animals at the base of the ocean food chain that provide a critical food source for much of the world’s hungry. Increasing numbers of these fish have been worked into the global protein chains that characterise industrial agriculture, depriving the local populations of “low-income food deficit countries” of important protein sources.

What’s more, the meat provided by GE Salmon is of an inferior quality. I’m hardly one to propound the nutritional benefits of meat products, but I do think we should be realistic about the argument we’re having here. On a biological level, meat can be a very efficient source of energy for the consumer, and even farmed Salmon has a reasonable load of proteins and fatty acids. However the equation become sloppier with farmed GE Salmon, as Aquabounty’s own research shows the mutants display a 10% loss in vitamin composition, notably B6. They also demonstrate higher levels of insulin-like growth factor 1, increasing the risk of breast colon, prostate and other cancers.

It’s clear that the GE Salmon is a product of dubious efficiency claims, requiring more inputs, depriving developing populations of a critical food source, and providing inferior meat with greater health hazards. Given these impediments, there is little surprise that its preparation for market has involved such legal duplicity, a terrain often explored by major biotech firms. Biotech corporations play a direct role in determining US policy, both at home and abroad. They have consistently played a significant role in domestic US politics: another recent report from Food and Water Watch details how biotech firms have spent $572 million USD ($762 million in NZD) in campaign contributions and lobby expenditures since 1999. On a global scale, they were also instrumental to the globalisation of intellectual property norms through the WTO-administered TRIPs as part of the coalition of industrial capital that shaped the Uruguay negotiations. Biotech companies hold enormous sway and their interaction with issues of law and public morality are obscured by a veil of secrecy, buttressed by the commercial nature of their work. However the public impacts of GE Salmon in particular, and genetic engineering in general, are too important to be excluded from public debate, and must be channeled through strong, accountable regulatory procedures; procedures that, if necessary, are able to say NO to products that, like GE Salmon, do more harm than good.

New advertisement from the Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine advocates vegetarianism.

I bet it’s nice to be right every now and then. Good for the self-esteem, at any rate. However I’m not sure where you stand when publicly falsifying your own previous positions. There is a certain degree of comfort in knowing that if the new me wasn’t right, then sure enough the old one was.

This is where British environmentalist George Monbiot now finds himself. Despite previously proclaiming that the ‘only’ ethical stance in the face of coming food and climate crises was veganism, he has recently published an article dramatically titled ‘I was wrong about veganism. Let them eat meat – but farm it properly’.The article is broadly in support of a new book by British farmer/activist Simon Fairlie called ‘Meat: A Benign Extravagance’, which considers the debate on the environmental impact of livestock. While the book is not yet available in New Zealand, the essential argument is that while the industrial model of meat production carries with it significant environmental impacts, most of these stem from its industrial nature. He makes the case that integrating animals into sustainable farming systems can ameliorate many of the excesses of industrial production.  It’s not the game, it’s the player. Or rather, it’s a certain kind of player that happens to be bigger than all the others (industrial agriculture), and uses this power to shape the rest of game.

While, for sure, there is merit in getting the facts right, the ultimate conclusion of the article (that meat production is not as bad as we thought) seems at odds with Monbiot’s dramatic initial claim.

My reasons for veganism are broadly similar to Monbiot’s, what I would call a broad anthropocentric framework. My concern lies with the fact that I can’t see an equitable future of social reproduction amidst the ecological impacts of industrial agriculture of which meat production is a central concern. However, in the article Monbiot appears to move beyond anthropocentricity to pure meat-centricity, valorising pigs as merely efficient converters:

Whaling is one of New Zealand’s oldest industries and much of the earliest colonial experience was comprised of contact between Maori and Pakeha whaling and sealing crews. This era of New Zealand’s colonial history centred on Kororareka, by the 1830s it was the largest whaling port in the Southern Hemisphere, popularly known as the “Hell-hole of the Pacific“. Our domestic whaling industry collapsed in 1964, and in resuming our membership in the IWC the NZ government issued the uncompromising view that “…whales should not be killed even if it could be shown that whaling does not threaten the existence of the species.” This proclamation was backed by the declaration of an international moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982, coming into effect in 1986. However, a new approach has been mooted in light of the previous failures to agree at the IWC, a compromise approach (reducing the total number of whales slaughtered) that envisions an eventual cultural transformation. Labour MP Chris Carter has been extremely critical of the limited commercial whaling promoted by the Key administration, despite recent suggestions that Carter and Phil Goff had engaged in diplomatic negotiations along the same terms. Amidst this mess, Foreign Minister Murray McCully and Sir Geoffrey Palmer spent the week in Agadir, Morocco, attempting to reach an agreement, despite McCully’s fears that the IWC is presiding over a return of “anarchy” to the high seas.

Representatives from Te Ohu Kaimoana, the Maori Fisheries Trust, praised the efforts of McCully and Palmer to broker a deal between polarised factions. In particular, the Trust’s Chief Executive Peter Douglas leveled criticism at so-called, “recalcitrant anti-whaling members who refused to move from their unreasonable and unacceptable position of an immediate and complete cessation of whaling”. While clearly a question of strategy, a united multilateral consensus of 85 countries (out of 88) that opposed continuing whaling activities doesn’t seem too absurd a position. Surely the pressure of such a coalition of countries carries with it heavy political ramifications in and of itself. The only real advantage from compromise would be a short-term pecuniary interest, an area the Trust’s representation doesn’t mind discussing. Ngahiwi Tomoana, the trust’s chairman stridently opposes, “wealthy, non-government green, organisations” whose commercial interest lies in the “continued dysfunction” of the IWC. While the commercial might of environmental groups seems to me somewhat unreal, Tomoana reveals how, “…NGOs have worked to keep indigenous whaling peoples in an 18th Century subsistence category. It is time to recognise there are two types of whaling”, Tomoana believes, “sustainable whaling based on science and unsustainable, unregulated and unreported whaling. Te Ohu Kaimoana supports the former and opposes the latter.”

The failure of the IWC to come to an agreement to stop commercial whaling should come as no surprise, considering the IWC’s raison d’être, to “…provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.” More interesting is the language of the Maori Fisheries Trust promoting their new approach. In particular, they invoke an objective “science”, a superior mode of knowledge that renders subjective political viewpoints unscientific; science can rationalise anything since it is objectively verifiable. According to this logic it is not only scientifically acceptable to engage in certain scientific whaling activities, it’s economically absurd not to. Despite public guarantees not to appropriate Maori fisheries money for commercial whaling, the Trust has previously hosted commercial whaling organisations and presented papers over the trade in whale. The NZ government’s position on whale conservation seems to be vacillating, and the acceptance of limited commercial whaling was communicated to the public in a NZ Herald editorial in March this year, promising, “a new way of Saving the Whales…” that allowed commercial whaling in small measure.

The Trust has used this strategy to discredit opposition to the funneling of NZ money into whaling activities. In September 2009, Douglas published an op-ed in the NZ Herald that threw out a ‘no-nonsense’ response to those “extreme elements of the conservation movement” whose agitation over depleting marine life suggested it was perhaps “…simpler to vilify those you wish to draw in simplistic terms as rapers and pillagers of the sea. Perhaps it’s easier to ignore the science that doesn’t suit you, and play to emotions and ignorance.” Science appears again in the piece as a rhetorical device, with Douglas proclaiming, “We do need better science and more of it.” Here, “science” is treated as a non-contestable universal domain, perhaps on a scale of zero to the Platonic ideal “peak science” (I dread the day…), something we are always blindly struggling towards. The mention of science alone raises the argument to a position of ideology, indicating a degree of objectivity and individually verifiability. Interestingly the only scientific evidence cited by Douglas is an article published in Nature that places NZ among the countries least-threatened by overfishing. A brief review of the report reveals that NZ’s coveted position means that only a tenth of our marine life is in serious danger at the moment; take what you want from this statement, to me it seems a bit premature to celebrate the threatening of a tenth of the regional marine biosphere.

Regardless of how scientific, whale slaughter remains whale slaughter, and for New Zealand to walk away from its abolitionist position at the multilateral bargaining table could spark major fragmentation within the IWC, the anarchy that McCully so feared. And anarchy is very unscientific. The IWC’s ethos has always been rooted in the regulated commodification of nature and its collapse could lead to some new more efficient bargaining machinery, although at this stage the outcome is unclear. Either way, our own government’s position must be carefully monitored, lest it become the quiescent pawn of private capital.

Garth begins his post by enumerating the three things he still cannot get his head around. In his own words:

The first is child abuse, paedophilia and cruelty to domestic animals; the second is male homosexuality; and the third is vegetarianism.

I will refrain from commenting on the second point since this is not the appropriate forum (although I do find the specific phraseology ‘male homosexuality’ fascinating), the first and third of Garth’s big confusions reveal a fascinating contradiction. Interestingly, he spends little time actually commenting on the relative merits or otherwise of vegetarianism or veganism (a distinction he admits ignorance of), and when he meets a member of this strange breed, he, ‘..simply shake[s his] …head in wonder.’ The rest of the editorial is devoted to shaming the perpetrators of some of the more heinous instances of animal cruelty over the recent past. Throughout the post, George makes it clear that he has no practical or comprehensible ethical or philosophical grounding from which this set of arbitrary rules are derived.

I don’t mean to pick on George (although it definitely is fun), but rather use George as a representative of a wider trend, a truly confused culture. George’s arbitrary and unthinking preference for certain classes of animals (what he calls ‘domestic animals’, although there are myriad other names for this class) over ever other kind of animal is difficult to rationalise when given more than a moment’s thought. Clearly, many people share mutually beneficial relationships with their pets, and over time can develop a deep reverence and respect for these animals; implicit in this relationship is the injunction on harming that animal. Extending this sphere of compassion to other animals means refusing to adhere to a mechanism of food and clothing production that systematises and normalises abuse as a necessary part of its mission. Garth’s assertion that he has no time for vegetarianism fails to acknowledge either the presence or the injurious nature (or both) of this system – it is simply not an issue.

One possible explanation for this stems from the practical experience of the individual – we are, by and large, not involved in our food system, and accordingly what happens within that system is not within our sphere of providence. However as individuals we are involved in the lives of our domestic animals – they have a tangible impact upon our lives (where we can live, our exercise regimes, who we socialise with etc.) and accordingly we are bound to protect that relationship, since it directly and immediately benefits our own lives. The suffering of animals within our food system also carries direct and immediate benefits for many people (although over time these impacts become illusory).

Personally, I believe these pandemic cultural neuroses develop from an attitude of possessive individualism, broadly structured within a capitalist framework, although I accept that this moves us into political debate, something I don’t wish to broach here.

I would be interested to hear other peoples’ comments on George’s editorial though, perhaps we can try to get to the bottom of this twisted web of cultural preferences…

Quantifying the importance of biodiversity is no easy task. Last year, in the journal Nature a group of 29 scientists created a scale for assessing environmental threats in terms of global ecological health. Ranking climate change third in importance, biodiversity emerges as the greatest threat, arguing, ‘…humanity has already entered deep into a danger zone where undesired system change cannot be excluded, if the current greatly elevated extinction rate … is sustained over long periods of time.’ Biodiversity encompasses the expressions of life through genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity, and has a fundamental impact on human well-being. Understanding the grinding ecological halt engendered by a loss of biodiversity requires a truly global mindset, however its implications are regional and pervasive.

The 2006 UN Report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, describes some of livestock farming direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity. The major category threat to global biodiversity is the destruction, fragmentation and degradation of habitats. This process began with the deforestation and fragmentation that occurred when humans began domesticating animals 10000 years, however the scope and efficiency of modern livestock systems have significantly accelerated this process. A WWF study shows that 306 of the world’s 825 terrestrial ecoregions is currently threatened by livestock farming. Increasingly large tracts of forest are being felled for the production of feedcrops, and many of the most biodiverse regions, such as the Neotropical rainforest stretches of Latin America, are being integrated into the framework of industrial agriculture. Fragmented and smaller habitats host fewer and fewer species, provide opportunities for invasive species to intrude with natives and disrupt natural equilibria between predators and prey.

To compound the problem, between 1990 levels to 2050 global meat and milk production is expected to double. So what does it mean that 2010 is the international year of biodiversity? Like climate change, biodiversity is a global phenomenon and accordingly requires an individual response, as well as systemic change. If you’re already a vegetarian or vegan, there are plenty of ways you can try and encourage the increase of regional biodiversity which I will look into in coming posts. And if you’re not, how bout trying to reduce the amount of meat you do consume each meal? Surely we can sacrifice our steak dinners for the sake of planetary survival?

The current swine flu story begins in Vera Cruz, Mexico, but beyond that the details seem quite hazy. This is unsuprising. Influenza seems to be a part of life and epidemics an occasional fact of history, and our collective consciousness has treated swine flu accordingly. In 1918, the H1N1 pathogen killed between 50 and 100 million around the world.  These influenza strains seem to just pop up out of nowhere every so often, and this time it just happened to pop up in Mexico. Despite the swine flu containing human and bird influenza components, pigs have unwittingly been implicated as among the biggest public health villians in recent history.  The question inevitably arises: what did the piggies do?

Professor of Anthropology, Robert Wallace, author of the recently-released book ‘Farming Human Pathogens: Ecological Resistance and Evolutionary Process’, describes swine flu as the ‘NAFTA flu’, referring to the North American Free Trade Agreement, a liberalising arrangement between Canada, the US, and Mexico. The argument goes that prior to NAFTA, livestock farming in Mexico resembled pre-World War Two US livestock farming.  That is, Mexico’s farming was in small, family operations, with populations of about 20 to 60 animals. After World War Two, US farms merged into larger corporate entities while animal populations where condensed into smaller areas and larger numbers, with populations around 30,000. In 1994, when NAFTA entered into force, subsidised US agribusiness corporations started buying up small farms throughout Mexico, making the most of weak environmental regulations to build these larger and dirtier pork cities throughout that country. These large industrial farms are hotbeds for the development of pathogens like swine flu, as Wallace explains:

…industrial livestock appear ideal populations for supporting virulent pathogens. Growing genetic monocultures removes whatever immune firebreaks may be available to slow down transmission. Larger population sizes and densities facilitate greater rates of transmission. Such crowded conditions depress immune response. High turnover, a part of any industrial production, provides a continually renewed supply of susceptibles, the fuel for the evolution of virulence.

The drive to produce ever-cheaper sources of meat has created conditions in which these virulent pathogens thrive, and the massive populations provide ideal grounds by which these pathogens can spread easily.

One of President Obama’s campaign pledges was the renegotiation of NAFTA, and in recent meetings with the Mexican President Felipe Calderon it was one of the three major issues discussed (along with immigration and Mexico’s bloody drug war). However the profound influence of the economic crisis and public consciousness has relieved pressure to reform, and renegotiation is off the table for now. NAFTA is problematic for a large number of reasons that are outside the scope of this entry, but the damage it has done to the lives of millions of animals and many humans by the development of pig cities is a matter of immediate international concern. Of course, the simplest solution to preventing another epidemic of this kind is the promotion and adoption of veganism and vegetarianism. Obama’s got a lot on his plate at the moment, so why don’t we try and take the pork chops off so he can rest a bit easier?

The logic is compellingly simple. In the 1950s, humans effectively ran out of arable land suitable for farming, so if we want to produce more food we have to use our existing land base more efficiently. Indeed this area is falling due to the soil degradation engendered by industrial agriculture, but that is for another post. Some figures: it takes 3¼ acres of land to produce enough food to sustain an omnivore, whereas a vegan can healthily survive off as little as one sixth of an acre. Livestock production currently accounts for about 70 percent of all agricultural land on the planet. Judging by these statistics, every omnivore that goes vegan clears up enough land to feed about another 18 vegans. Going vegan has a palpable impact on the amount of food available for other people, and it is just as well. Current projections predict that, by the year 2050, the world population will have reached 9 billion. Eight billion of these people will live in the developing world. One of our greatest hopes for combating world hunger both now and in the future lies in the worldwide proliferation of the vegan diet.

I hasten to add that while the developing world is worst hit by hunger, the problem affects all of us. The 2009 UN Human Development Report placed New Zealand sixth in terms of wage inequality for developed countries and it is getting harder and harder for New Zealand’s poorest to feed themselves. Too much of our agricultural land is devoted towards animal production, filling our supermarkets with expensive slabs of bloody catastrophe, while finding an affordable head of broccoli is getting increasingly tough. While I agree with the FAO about the importance of agricultural investment, social safety nets and the right to food, these measures don’t address the fundamental massive expense involved in meat production, and this refers not only to financial investment, but the huge amounts of land we have invested in this dietary addiction. Going vegan isn’t just about saving the lives of innocent animals, it’s also about saving innocent people and not just people in the developing world, but people in our own neighbourhoods.