“I’m still afraid of the population monster.”

Recently those words by the late, great Norman Borlaug were repeated by Kenneth Quinn a current member of the World Food Prize Foundation, the organization Borlaug established during his remarkable career.

Quinn was one of several speakers at a conference in India last week that saw some of the brightest minds in science and agriculture, gather to discuss climate change and its impact on food production.

The topic is hardly new: just over a year ago, a report was released predicting that by the year 2100, climate change would cause mass starvation that makes our current troubles look like a picnic. The U.N. has also said six million tonnes of wheat will be kaput for every degree the temperature rises. And as that quote by Borlaug indicates, there are going to be a heck of a lot more people to feed in the future. If you consider that the temperature could rise as much as six degrees during the growing season, that’s 24 million tonnes of wheat we’ll lose that we really can’t afford to spare. Scared yet?

At last week’s conference, Lars Pedder Brekk , the Norwegian Minister of Agriculture and Food said we need to figure out a solution to climate change while also securing the long-term food supply. Oh sure Lars, when you put it that way, it sounds so easy. There are just a few minor problems to consider. Let’s look at them shall we?

First, let’s touch on the subject of climate change. Just ask Al Gore how easy it is to get people to care about global warming. Sure some concerned citizens make it a priority to reduce their impact on the earth. However with a few billion people on this planet, it’s safe to say only a small handful are mindful enough to make significant changes to their lifestyles – changes significant enough to actually solve the climate change problem. We can bike to work, use water-efficient toilets and shop local, but enough people have to commit to earth-saving measures to actually make a difference. Given the economic strife so many are facing these days, eco-concerns probably aren’t as high on the priority list of most families as say, figuring out how to make next month’s mortgage or rent payment.

Now let’s once again open the can of worms we like to call The Global Food Supply.

Food experts can at least agree that we’ll need to grow enough food for a rapidly growing global population, but nobody can agree on the most effective method of accomplishing this. Proponents of organic farming say it’s feasible that natural farming techniques could yield enough crops to keep pace with the growing population. By developing nutrient-rich soil and restricting the use of pesticides, the director of the Soil Association in the U.K. says countries like Britain could become sustainable organic systems. The U.K. banned genetically modified ingredients over a decade ago.

On the flip side, you have the opinion of scientists like Borlaug, who saw the effects of starvation up close. He prevented millions of people from starving to death in India and Pakistan over 30 years ago, and was a pioneer in the development of crops resistant to things such as drought and disease. Proponents of genetically altered crops say that when we’re talking about issues such as the severe effects of climate change, relying on organic farming won’t be enough. While areas like the U.K. the U.S. and Canada may have the capacity to grow organic and natural foods, other parts of the world don’t have that ability. Soil erosion, harsh weather conditions and lack of space make growing food a significant challenge. Unfortunately these are the nations that will suffer most if the predicted climate change and population boom do occur.

Organic farming advocates say it’s possible to improve soil conditions enough to produce food naturally. Britain’s Royal Society, a science academy, says preserving wild, natural crop varieties is important, but so is the development of genetically modified crops because the results of such crops are more predictable.

Penn Jillette once said it’s easy enough for those in developed countries to clamor for organic solutions and ban genetically modified ingredients, but such critics also aren’t the ones starving to death – at least not yet. If you handed a basket of fresh produce and bread to someone in say Haiti, it’s probably safe to assume the intended recipient wouldn’t wrinkle their nose in distaste and ask if the food was organic and free from pesticides and GM ingredients. If that’s all we had to eat, would we be so quick to turn it down?

We’re afraid of the long-term effects of climate change and terrified of the unknowns associated with GM crops. Now more and more scientists are starting to say one the former will make the latter a necessity. It poses a challenging question of which is the greater future evil: having a belly full of genetically modified foods or starving to death?

» The Hindu

For Vikings, pork was preferred over beef or any other type of meat.  And today you can buy bacon-flavored vegan soy products and even bacon flavor shakers to make everything taste like bacon.  The point is: Vikings like it, Vegans like it, and the rest of us like it so much we’d make everything taste like it if we could – I’m talking about pigs.

In the wild pigs would forage for stuff to eat on the forest floor and – much like us humans – they eat just about anything.  Domesticated pigs are fed nutritious feed so they grow nice and big.  They’re fed things like corn, barley, soybeans and other stuff.  Problem is that, much like us humans, usually what comes out the other end of pigs doesn’t exactly smell like roses.

Pig poop and swine farts are no laughing matter.  The flatulent feces of a conventional Yorkshire pig doesn’t just smell bad.  This poop is packed with high concentrations of phosphorus, which can cause problems for soil and waterways.

Given that there are about a billion live pigs in the world right now - half a billion in China alone – as you can imagine this is a big problem.  Yes – for some people becoming vegan or vegetarian is an option.  But for some folks pork may be one of the few sources of high-quality protein available to them.  And you can’t ignore the fact that a lot of people have a strong personal preference to eat meat products.

Luckily, about a decade ago some smart scientists at the University of Guelph in Canada developed a new genetically enhanced pig called (dun-dun-dun-duuuun) the Enviropig!  No, this pig doesn’t have super powers and can’t climb walls.  What it does do is produce a special enzyme in its saliva (the drool in its mouth) that makes it much easier for the pig to fully digest food such as cereals which are a core staple in a pig’s diet.  Since the pig can better digest its food significantly less phosphorous ends up in its manure, which is not only much better for the environment in general but it makes the manure much more useful as a fertilizer for growing crops.

You can kind of think of it in terms of how some people don’t tolerate dairy products or beans that well.  In some cases you can take an enzyme tablet that helps your body break down the food.  In the case of Enviropigs they have been genetically engineered to be able to better digest their food on their own without the need for dietary supplements.

Upon reading this you likely fall into one of two camps:
1) This is disgusting! I’m never gonna eat any frankenstein pork!  I’m calling the governor!
2) Woohoo!  Pass the pork chops please.  After all, they're eco-friendly.

Right now Enviropigs are still in the testing and approval stages.  For years now these pigs have been the subject of numerous tests to determine if they are safe for human consumption as well as other issues such as animal welfare, nutrition and if there are any differences between the make-up of a transgenic pig versus a ‘regular’ pig.  So meat from Enviropigs is not is our food supply yet, but there has been nothing so far to indicate that these little piggies won’t be approved to go to market at some point in the near future.

Human beings have been raising domestic pigs for centuries.  We’ve bred them in all sorts of shapes and sizes to suit our specifications and they’ve come a long way genetically from their wild ancestors.  Now modern science is stepping in with a genetic change that could significantly lessen the environmental impact of the Earth’s billion pigs.  It’ll be interesting to see what other types of environmentally beneficial innovations will be coming our way in the coming years.  Better pig poop may not be as sexy as a new electric car engine, but it’s still an important part of becoming a more environmentally friendly society.

» Vancouver Sun

Despite the fact that food sales at warehouse clubs such as Costco and BJ's are thriving, sales on other items sold there aren't doing so hot. That's hardly surprising news (if you want to call it that). The fact is, as difficult and stressful as the economic downturn is, it's also inherently eco-friendly simply because people actually put thought into what they buy and trim the unnecessary items from their oversized carts. To sum it up: we've gone from being super-consumers to being careful consumers.

In terms of purchasing food, your local warehouse clubs are an obvious choice for those hoping to make their dollars stretch a bit further. After all, why pay the same price for an item at a supermarket that you can get double the amount of at a warehouse club for roughly the same cost? It makes sense from a financial pespective. It can also make sense from a green perspective too, if you're smart about it. Some may argue that buying bigger portions will lead to more food waste if shoppers don't manage to use all of the food before it spoils. Just thinking and planning ahead can nip this problem in the bud - and potentially save you some money too.

Buy what you'll use
It may sound like common sense, but take it from a Costco regular - when faced with economy-size containers of products, sometimes a realistic thought process takes the backseat. That giant pail of lemon-pepper seasoning looks tempting in the moment and somehow you convince yourself you'll use it, your brain suddenly generating a dozen recipes that will allow you to do so. Chances are once you get it home and into your pantry, there it will stay until your significant other finally asks a year down the road whatever possessed you to buy such a large portion in the first place. As if you can remember.

In other words, take inventory of the ingredients and condiments you use the most at home. If you're burning through a container of ketchup every couple of weeks, there's a good chance you'll finish off the bulk bottle or can of the stuff before it goes bad. As for the things you only use periodically, such as spices, buy them in their smaller containers as they'll probably lose their potency before you even come close to finishing them off.

Rhymes with "geezer"
That's right, as shocking as it is, here we are promoting the use of your freezer again in hopes that eventually people will start taking full advantage of theirs. One of the biggest food-savers is that ice-box, known preserver of meat, fruit, leftovers and well, the list goes on. Go ahead and buy bulk, but as soon as you get home from the store, break up those packages of meat into smaller portions and freeze them. Keep only what you'll use in the next few days in your refrigerator and put the rest into the freezer for use over the next couple of weeks.

Little known fact: milk can be frozen for later use as well.

Let's get together
Call up your mom or your friend and see what's on their must-buy list. If you have some similar items, hit the warehouse club together or offer to pick it up the next time you make a run there. Then split the food - and the cost - with them.

Carry, don't cart
As alluded to earlier, the shopping carts at warehouse clubs are especially large to hold the super-sized items. The big problem is, the tendency is to fill the cart until it's nearly overflowing. Warehouse shopping expert Clark Howard advises shoppers to lug around their items by hand - that way, when your arms are about ready to fall off, you'll start to question how much you actually need the things you're carrying or are tempted to pick up.

» Newsday.com

Most of us like to think of ourselves as smart consumers, especially when it comes to items we purchase regularly like groceries.  But are we really as smart as we think we are?  Fact is, most of us receive our ‘education’ as consumers through marketing channels.  Marketing – an activity with the sole purpose of convincing us to make purchase decisions – is hardly the place to look for real data to drive our consumer choices.

For example, let’s take a look at a food item most of us are familiar with: the ever-popular apple.  How do you choose which apple to buy?  Let’s take a look at five of the factors that contribute to this apparently simple decision.

1. Apparent Quality
You pick up two apples.  One is big and bright red, shining under the fluorescent lights of the store.  The other is small, greenish and has a dimple on it where a caterpillar took a sample before it made its way to the market.  Which one will you choose?  Simply inspecting the outside seems to give an indication of quality, but let’s face it – you don’t really know if the big apple is tastier or more nutritious than the little one - it simply looks like the better apple.

2. Origin
This time, you select two identical looking apples.  One was shipped from the other side of the country and one came from the neighboring state.  The “eat local” rule of eco-conscious shopping dictates that you should buy the apple that came from the orchard closest to your home.  But is it the best apple?

3. Value
Price is a deciding factor as well.  If you have two apples that appear to be of identical quality but one is cheaper than the other, logic dictates you buy the cheaper one.  If your choice is between buying one pound of premium-appearance apples or five pounds of mediocre-looking ones, frugality might persuade you to get what seems like more bang for your buck.

4. Variety / Brand Preference
You may have a personal preference for a specific variety of apple because you like it’s texture and flavor more than others you’ve tried, so you always pick up a couple of Fuji apples when you shop regardless of their apparent quality compared to other varieties.  You may also find you but apples based on the brand name on the sign, bag or sticker attached to the fruit.  Again, you associate this label with certain quality expectations and it makes your purchasing decision that much simpler.

5. Organic vs. Non Organic
This factor could almost be numbered “4b” since it’s so closely associated to brand preference and labeling, but it’s so important for us as eco-conscious shoppers I think it deserves its own number.  One label that might immediately affect your decision on purchasing an apple is whether or not that apple has been designated as ‘organic’ or not.  There are entire stores that only stock organic produce and often large grocery stores will segment organic produce into its own section.  If organic is your primary decision point you may even ignore quality and value to ensure the apple you buy is an organic one.

But there is a sixth factor, one that I haven’t mentioned yet and it should be the primary reason you’re buying an apple in the first place: nutrition.  Let’s face it: you’re standing there in the produce section with an apple in your hand because you think that the apple is good for you, right?
So look at those five factors above again.  Does the fact that your apple is pretty, locally produced, cheap, and labeled appropriately mean that it’s the better apple?  I’m going to say “no” and here’s why.

If you were going to purchase a container of whey protein powder for a post-workout shake and you were ignoring factors such as price and labeling you would grab two containers and look at their ingredients and nutrition labels.  The whey powder with the best nutritional profile (in this case, high protein, low sugar, etc.) would be your best choice.

So if you were going to buy an apple as a post-workout snack wouldn’t the best criteria be to be able to compare nutrition labels?

Now before you say, “an apple is an apple”, consider this: in the last 80 years in the United States the amount of calcium in apples has dropped 48%; phosphorous 84%; iron 96%; and magnesium, has dropped 82%.  In fact, back in 1914 a single apple would provide you with half your day’s requirement for iron.  Today you’d have to eat 26 apples to get the same amount of iron.

Not all apples are created equal and the quality has little or nothing to do with whether any pesticides were sprayed on the apple or not.  Environmental conditions and soil quality play a huge role in the nutritional makeup of fruit such as apples.

Personally, I buy apples not only because they’re tasty but because my expectation is that they are healthy and packed with nutrients.  There isn’t much “value” to an apple if I have to take a mineral supplement pill every time I eat one.  I don’t care if the apple is genetically modified, twice as expensive and is shipped from 600 miles away – if it packs 10 or 20 times the nutrition of every other apple on the shelves it’s worth every penny.

So as a consumer, keep your eyes open and do your Googling.  They don’t make nutrition labels for apples (yet), but don’t take it for granted that all apples are the same.

» XCap News

Fuel is an important aspect of our everyday lives; we need it to keep things running.  But, while our minds may initially scurry to images of coal and oil at the mention of fuel, it’s equally important to think of the materials that fuel our bodies:  food.  When it comes to feeding a world of 6.8 billion people, we’re talking about a lot of loaves of bread. 

No GM Food for Zambia
It seems curious, then, that in 2004 Zambia would reject 27 000 tons of food aid despite having a population struggling with a food crisis and starvation.  The catch?  The food aid consisted of transgenic material.  In other words, it had been genetically modified (GM).  The Zambian President, Levy Mwanawasa, rejected this aid claiming that the food was poisonous.  But where’s his proof?

The reality is that genetically modified foods have been widely accepted in North America.  In the same year as the Zambian controversy the National Academies of Sciences published a report stating: “To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.”  If it is a poison, it’s not a very good one.

GM foods have done wonders for the agriculture business.  Genetically modified crops can be made pest resistant and disease resistant, both of which help increase productivity and allow for higher yields.  With the right GM crop a farmer is able to more effectively battle against the many environmental factors that beat, burn, eat, and whither a year’s growth.  This means more food production and more food available for the 15 million children dying of starvation each year.

The Green Revolution
The transformation in agriculture towards a system capable of coping with our planets population growth has been termed the Green Revolution.  Between 1943 and 1964 Mexico was able to ride the Green Revolution from total reliance on other countries for its wheat supply, to exporting half a million tons a year.  By accepting new ways of thinking in their approach to agriculture Mexico was able to greatly increase yields, thereby providing for its rapidly increasing population.

In the 1960s India followed Mexico’s example and utilized the life saving power of the Green Revolution.  By using a new rice variety, made possible through crossbreeding, India was able to prevent mass famine, saving countless lives, and has since become one of the worlds most successful rice producers.

Today technology has advanced, allowing for stronger and more resilient crops to be created through biotechnology.  By directly manipulating the genes of different crops science enables us to enhance the favorable attributes of a crop, or diminish the problematic traits.

Trouble in Africa
The Green Revolution has had a difficult time catching on in Africa.  Because of heavy corruption, difficult environmental conditions, and nay-saying politicians, the implementation of GM crops in Africa has been slow.  But, as with any new idea, education comes before acceptance.  Every bit of food sent as aid has to be cleared by the health authorities of the donor country as fit for human consumption.  The food on our tables every night has to pass these same tests, but, for some reason, forces continue to keep this form of nutrition from hungry mouths.

If genetically modified crops were allowed for not only consumption in African nations, but production as well, these severely malnourished countries could find themselves with the means to effectively feed their populations, and no longer be dependant Western food aid.

» News 24

While you may recognize many popular cereal names from the U.S. market - Cheerios, Mini-Wheats and Froot Loops all come to mind - if you visit other parts of the world, you may peruse grocery store shelves and see some names you don't recognize. Gasp! You mean, you can find cereals that actually aren't produced for North American customers? Believe it.

The list below provides a tiny sampling of the foreign breakfast cereals you probably haven't heard of if you haven't spent time in supermarkets around the world.

Force
Originally produced in the U.S. in 1901, Force cereal was the first wheat flake cereal to sell successfully. It started as a creation of Force Food Company and became recognizable thanks to the signature cartoon character, Sunny Jim. In fact it was the character and the surrounding advertising campaigns that made the cereal a success.

The original owner of the company that introduced Force eventually lost the business, and ownership of the brand changed several times as a result. In 1910, Force was one of several American cereals to be imported into Britain, where it became hugely successful, peaking in 1930 with sales of 12.5 million boxes. While the cereal was re-introduced to the U.S. market in 1932, it was not successful. Force is now manufactured in the UK for domestic sale and belongs to a subsidiary of the Nestle company. There are no longer advertising campaigns run for the cereal.

Golden Nuggets
While Golden Nuggets was a popular cereal on U.S. store shelves in the 1970s, the Nestle-owned product is now available only in the UK.

The original slogan for the Golden Nuggets advertising campaign was, "They Taste Yeee Haa!!"

Koko Krunch
Koko Krunch is a chocolaty cereal marketed and sold in Asia. It's especially popular among children in Indonesia and is manufactured in the Philippines.

The "Koko" part of the name begins with "ko" (as opposed to "co") because the cartoon character mascot for the cereal is a koala bear.

Koko Krunch is made from a combination of corn, wheat and oats, and is said to be a good source of carbohydrates and protein.

Uncle Toby's VitaBrits
Uncle Toby is a popular guy in Australia - or at least his brand of cereal is anyway. These VitaBrits contain 99 per cent whole grains and are therefore high in fiber. They are also low fat and contain no added sugar. For those who enjoy their cereal as natural as possible, the VitaBrits are processed as minimally as possible.

If VitaBrits don't sound appealing, you can always try another one of Uncle Toby's offerings, including Vita Weeties, Bran Plus, oats or even muesli bars.

» Wikipedia