This past holiday weekend, hundreds of people gathered for a free conference, called Food Justice, hosted by the University of Oregon’s Wayne Morse Center for Law and Politics. In the words of the conference organizers the purpose was to, “Explore the history and future of our food system with a focus on three themes: community, equity and sustainability.”

With a heavy hitters Fred Kirschenmann and Dr. Vandana Shiva offering inspiring plenaries and a host of academics and practitioners sharing their latest research and ideas, the event was as stimulating as it was frustrating. As Dr. Shiva so eloquently said in her closing plenary, “No other species has achieved the amazing success of depriving itself of food.”

As I was manning the Civil Eats table at the food fair in the student union all day Monday, I wasn’t able to attend as many sessions as I’d like, but I do want to offer a few notes and ideas that I gathered. There is no way to capture everything, clearly, and the following may seem out of context, but hopefully something will spark new ideas and actions.

I’m particularly interested in the language we use to express this movement and advocate that we all get on the same page, so to speak, especially with terms that will resonate with consumers, therefore new or recommended terms always peak my interest. To that end, some of the words I overheard: The word local isn’t cutting it, we should use instead, “resilient” and “foodshed.” We need no longer say “climate change” when we should call it “climate destabilization” and need to refer to GMOs as “transgenesis.” The best wheat to buy is “small wheat” and fish from the Pacific Northwest should be “troll caught” to ensure the future for farmers and the fish. And, finally it looks as if almost everyone has started to say “Food and Farm Bill” in reference to the 2012 Farm Bill.

At Saturday night’s opening plenary with Kirschenmann, we heard from Pete Sorenson, Lane County Commissioner, who started the evening off saying, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” Kirschenmann followed and framed my experience for the conference when he said, “We are all just citizens of the biotic community and we need to start [designing a just food system] from this perspective.” He continued by saying, “Not all local systems are the same size … therefore it’s about community engaged as a local ecosystem as a part of a larger ecosystem … so it’s about the health of each impacting the health of the whole and about a network of healthy foodsheds.” He also talked about “coming into the foodshed” and that “our first priority should be to make food for people in the foodshed by people in the foodshed.”

There were conversations about: Measuring the cost of food by its nutrition value; a resurgence of the concept of food commons; the idea that we’ve become too linear in our thinking as a result of the industrial food system – that it causes us, as humans, to think in terms of either this or that, one or the other, rather than holistically and bio-diversely; that there is no one definition of food justice.

Net neutrality, a free Internet, should be a second priority to any food security solutions we work towards.

What if deliciousness were the solution to the problem? How would that re-order our priorities? What would that food system look like?

As citizens participating in food, we have obligations, we have power and our resources are supposed to be equitable, so it’s up to us to fight for them. (There were a lot of references to Egypt … when will Americans stand up for what’s truly just?)

Chuck Benbrook, a leading scientist at The Organic Center told us, “Our community needs to up its game in terms of how we respond to our current food system.” He and University of California Berkeley’s Ignacio Chapela presented on my favorite panel entitled, “Sustainable Agriculture & Emerging Research in Plant Genetics.” Chapela, whom I’ve heard speak on transgenesis in the past, is a total anti-GMO bad ass. He presented, in detail, how the scientific community was derailed and high jacked by the promises of the Manhattan Project and how a small group of people created a national program, in secret, to push technology as the new frontier and led us inevitably into what he calls a “bio ponzi” scheme, or “faciscm as they call it in Italy” – the GE era. He advocates for science that is free and independent (more reason to support the Union of Concerned Scientists) and says “we are bundling when we should be diversifying.”

There was a riveting presentation about wheat production and seeds that lead to the question, do you want to rent your seed or own it? Resulting in a call for revitalizing local mills and keeping wheat in county; as well as breeding our own varieties so Monsanto can’t sue everyone for saving, cleaning, or supposedly stealing seeds.

Our very own Naomi Starkman presented, with Leslie Hatfield on New Media & Food Activism. In “Digitally cultivating food justice” they explored the impact of Twitter (“it’s the tool”) and Facebook, advocated for everyone to use Wikipedia to define their work, and told us that the Huffington Post is our friend. Naomi encouraged anyone interested to become one of their bloggers because, “If we don’t frame this debate, they will.” Plus, it’s quite easy and once you do, “the doors are open.”

One of the attendees asked a question that I must throw out there: When thinking about a new food system, it’s become apparent that we’ll have to do it with the big guys, not against them. So, if that’s the case, that we’ll have to work with Monsanto, McDonald’s, Wal-mart, etc., what are some of the non-negotiables? Panelists didn’t have any answers, but I thought of two, to start: People who work to produce food are paid a fair living wage and if commodity crops get subsidies so should soil health and bio-diversity.

These snippets are a mere tip of an iceberg of notes, fodder for my own advocacy and continued learning, all valuable indeed. But as my head spun with theories, facts, concepts and case studies, I had to wonder why we don’t use our time together more meaningfully when we gather at these conferences. Here you have rooms full of activists, academics and advocates — all concerned, interested eaters hungry for action and change and yet we do nothing but listen and ask questions. Fill our heads with more information. I’d like to challenge all future conference organizers to come up with one action that everyone can take, en masse, some galvanizing call that will give these people something to actually do when they are all together. You know, the old power in numbers theory.

On a final note, Alison Carruth, the conference organizer and resident scholar at the Wayne Morse Center for Law & Politics, said in her closing remarks, “Food justice happens when communities define it with each other.” Great. Let’s get to it!

For the sixth installment of Kitchen Table Talks on Oct. 27, about 60 people gathered at the SUB-Mission Gallery in the Mission District of San Francisco to join renowned U.C. Berkeley Microbial Ecologist Ignacio Chapela and Center for Food Safety attorney Zelig Golden for a lively conversation about the past, present and future of genetically engineered food.

For more than a decade, one of the largest genetic experiments in history has been taking place and all of us have been unwitting, or at least non-consenting, participants. According to the Center for Food Safety, up to 85 percent of U.S. corn, 91 percent of soybeans, and 88 percent of cotton (cottonseed oil is often used in food products), is genetically engineered, which means an estimated 70 percent or more of all processed foods on supermarket shelves–from soda to soup, crackers to condiments–contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Whether it’s referred to as GMO, genetic engineering, transgenic manipulation, or recombinant DNA, the process is the same — DNA molecules from different sources are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. As he provided a brief historical overview, Ignacio Chapela explained that when transgenic manipulation began in the 1970s, it was the most radical change to ever occur in the domestication of food. “We’re not talking about beer or yogurt making here. When you alter life in this way [using genetic engineering], it has a universal effect on things that are far beyond what the human eye can see or the human mind can imagine.”

Chapela described society’s difficulty to grasp what it cannot see as the first fundamental challenge to understanding the true implications of genetically engineered food. The second challenge is the abundance of disinformation being funneled through the media by corporations whose primary interest is making money through agricultural biotechnology. “From the beginning,” Chapela claimed “It’s been about making money.”

Chapela summarized the GE food business as:  4 crops (cotton, soybeans, corn and canola), 4 countries (U.S., Canada, Brazil and Argentina) and two traits (insecticides and herbicides). “Herbicide production works,” said Chapela. “It’s incredibly efficient in creating deserts where everything dies except the GE crop and the soil becomes completely barren. Insecticides, on the other hand, just don’t work.”

“Why should anyone be worried?” asked Chapela. “By the time I label the concerns, our time is up. We are dealing with something that has a life of its own. In 2001 when I wrote my paper exposing the presence of genetically engineered DNA in wild Mexican maize, I carried with me the concerns of the people in Oaxaca. There, people are corn and corn is people. These were indigenous communities where GMO was already in the DNA of corn when theoretically, there shouldn’t have been any. The result was a campaign to suppress the information and get rid of the messenger. I am a happy survivor, but many scientists who dare to ask questions aren’t so lucky. For every question asked, there’s been a career lost.”

The genetic engineering of food is no longer a just scientific issue, said Chapela. It has become a deeply political and economic issue, which Chapela attributes to the U.S’s insatiable addiction to progress. Early in his career, Chapela worked in the pharmaceutical industry. He remembers a dire letter from the CEO stating that the company was in serious trouble–profits only increased by 12 percent. “The only way to keep economic growth is by co-opting science and technology. Science has become the servant to technological gadget making. We’ve lost public science.”

As Zelig Golden continued the presentation, he explained that genetic engineering is more than a technology problem, it’s a culture war. Just as Rachel Carson outed pesticides, the Center for Food Safety and other organizations are working to hold agricultural biotechnology corporations like Monsanto accountable. Golden then provided an overview of the five important victories won by the Center for Food Safety’s legal team. A complete list of these victories can be found here.

Golden then explained the four myths of GMOs:

• Myth #1: Genetic engineering is merely an extension of traditional breeding. Golden explained that this is the most widely believed, damaging misconception. “Transgenesis is totally novel and has unintended and yet to be fully understood consequences,” said Golden.
• Myth #2: GE foods are necessary to feed the developing world’s growing population. Quite the opposite is true. Genetic engineering could actually lead to an increase in hunger as biodiversity, local knowledge and sustainable agriculture systems are undermined by monoculture GE crops. A recent Union of Concerned Scientists report called Failure to Yield disproves the belief that GMOs produce more food.
• Myth #3: Genetic engineering can make foods better, more nutritious, longer-lasting and better-tasting. Seventy million acres of GE crops in the U.S. have been genetically altered with one singular goal–to withstand more pesticides or produce its own.
• Myth #4: GE crops eliminate pesticides and are necessary for environmentally sustainable farming. Actually, it’s likely that GE crops are the greatest threat to sustainable agriculture on the planet. Studies show that instead of reducing pesticide use, GE crops result in significant pesticide use increases.

Although Europe in the 1980s was quick to develop legislation addressing GMOs, Golden explained that the U.S. decided to stick with a patchwork of existing statutes and laws to create the U.S. Coordinate Framework, which turns out to be the most uncoordinated framework in U.S. regulatory history.  The EPA covers pesticides; the FDA covers food safety and says in all cases that GMOs are safe (if it looks like a tomato, it’s a tomato); and the USDA deals with plant pests and has never once denied a biotech company the right to do a field test or de-regulation.

The chink in the armor of agri-chemical offensive to propagate untested, unchecked GE crops is the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA requires federal government agencies to prepare Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) when an action poses a potentially damaging environmental effect. Yet, since the first introductions of GMOs into the United States, the USDA has never prepared an EIS to analyze and disclose the environmental impacts of GMOs – that is until CFS has successfully forced USDA to do so in two successful lawsuits.

Beyond the ecological, economic and political issues surrounding GE crops is the fundamental issue of patenting life. “All GMOs have a marker inside of them,” said Chapela. “This process of branding life has destroyed seed saving and is turning food production into IT–just as every PC comes with Microsoft Windows installed, every seed will hold have a Monsanto marker.”

As the evening sped by and audience members perched on the edge of their chairs in eagerness to ask questions, it was clear that one evening’s session was not sufficient to tackle the enormity of GE food. The audience had obviously done its homework and compelling questions about the specifics of pending anti-trust legislation, labeling efforts, Gates Foundation work in Africa to promote GE crops, and the Obama administration’s seemingly pro-GMO stance fueled a vigorous conversation and even more questions. Some in the audience expressed feeling overwhelmed by the pervasiveness of GMOs, lack of independent science being conducted on the implications to human health and all life, and the sheer complexity of the issues involved. Chapela reassured the audience that the most important thing to do is be dedicated to asking questions. “There are no easy or quick answers, but we must not give up asking questions.”

The sixth Kitchen Table Talk may have only scratched the surface on the GE food debate, but it was a rousing call to the fundamental philosophical questions at its root. Chapela poignantly summed it up: “DNA has come to be thought of as the operating system of life, but we are not just DNA programs walking around. There are mysteries to life we cannot understand.”

Takeaways:

• Eat organic as much as possible. Organic food by definition is made with GMO-free ingredients
• Even if digesting GMOs doesn’t concern you, be aware that GE crops have much higher concentrations of pesticides and herbicides
• Read the PLU stickers on your produce–conventional produce has a four-digit number, organic produce has a five-digit number that starts with 9, and GE produce has a five-digit number that starts with 8. The International Federation of Produce Standards publishes a full list of PLU codes here
• Films provide an entertaining, memorable way to learn about GE food. Three “must sees” are Food, Inc., Future of Food, and The World According to Monsanto
• GE biofuel crops are quickly out pacing GE food crops in pervasiveness. Keep apprised of developments in biofuels, particularly in Brazil and Africa
• Advocate for independent research in the effects of GMOs on humans by contacting organizations like the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Science in the Public Interest
• Sign up for CFS alerts
• Download the CFS Shoppers Guide
• Since this talk took place, GE Crops have been prominently featured in the mainstream media. Here are links to some of the most important and informative articles:
  • USA Today covers A report released by the Center for Science in the Public Interest found that one out of every four farmers growing GE corn is failing to comply with environmental requirements
  • Reuters released a special report on the future of food
  • Reuters asks, is Monsanto the answer or the problem to global food security
  • New York Times runs opinions from experts on every side of the debate about whether biotech food can cure world hunger
• Watch for developments coming out of the UN World Summit on Food Security happening next week, Nov. 16-18 in Rome

For its sixth installment, Kitchen Table Talks will begin to dissect the complex issues of genetically engineered foods and equip participants with knowledge and specific actions to protect themselves, our community and the environment. Two of the most laudable champions in the fight to educate and protect the public from the unregulated, untested genetic engineering of food and unchecked interests of industrial agriculture will lead the conversation: UC Berkeley Microbial Ecologist Ignacio Chapela and Center for Food Safety attorney Zelig Golden.  Kitchen Table Talks No. 6 will take place Tuesday, Oct. 27, from 6:30 – 8:30p.m. in a new location, SUB-Mission gallery in the Mission District of San Francisco.

For more than a decade, one of the largest genetic experiments in history has been taking place and all of us have been unwitting, or at least non-consenting, participants.  According to the Center for Food Safety, up to 85 percent of U.S. corn, 91 percent of soybeans and 88 percent of cotton (cottonseed oil is often used in food products), is genetically engineered, which means an estimated 70 percent or more of all processed foods on supermarket shelves–from soda to soup, crackers to condiments–contain genetically engineered ingredients. Thanks to the tireless work of GE-critical farmers, lawyers and activists, progress is being made to shed light on GE food. The New York Times via Greenwire reported last week that the USDA has been ordered to conduct an environmental impact statement for the first time on a GE crop.

Representing the scientific perspective of genetically engineered food at the Oct. 27th Kitchen Table Talks, Dr. Chapela is the lead author of the ground breaking 2001 Nature paper that exposed the presence of genetically engineered DNA in wild Mexican maize and was a featured expert in the documentaries The Future of Food and The World According to Monsanto. Providing a view of the policy landscape and the powerful role of legal action against GE food, Zelig Golden is the Center for Food Safety attorney who was integral to the recent Federal Court victory that ordered the USDA to conduct a rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of “Roundup Ready” beets in Oregon.

Need a primer on the basics of GE food? Check out this entertaining, enlightening three-part series by Bill Nye before the Oct. 27 conversation:

Check out Part Two and Part Three.

Kitchen Table Talks is a joint venture of Civil Eats and 18 Reasons, a non-profit that promotes conversation between its San Francisco Mission neighborhood and the people who feed them. Space is limited, so please RSVP to ktt@civileats.com or leave a message at 925.785.0713. A $10 suggested donation is requested at the door, but no one will be turned away for lack of funds. Sustainable food and refreshments will be provided, courtesy of Bi-Rite Market and Shoe Shine Wines.

KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING! Thursday, Oct. 29, 18 Reasons will host Kitchen Table Talks Continued in conjunction with its weekly 18^th Hour community reception. Join our guest speakers Ignacio Chapela and Zelig Golden, and Kitchen Table Talks and 18 Reasons organizers, for an informal, drop in reception open to all, 7-9pm. A donation at the door is requested ($5 for 18 Reasons members, $10 for the general public); delicious Bi-Rite refreshments including Alter Eco chocolate will be served.

Photo: USDA