Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals
Lucky for consumers that USDA publishes residue quantities, because FDA and EPA would never annoy the chemical industry by releasing such info. Anyhow, because of USDA we know that malathion residues and metabolites are more common on blueberries than any other food, according to the USDA report a couple of years back. Pretty good reason to choose organic blueberries. The other agencies love to study the health effects of chemicals one at a time, ignoring the interactions with other chemicals. Beekeepers are beginning to understand the hollowness of those studies. On Sat, 5/3/14, Jon Clements jon.cleme...@umass.edu wrote: Subject: Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals To: Apple-crop discussion list apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Date: Saturday, May 3, 2014, 9:32 PM To further add to the discussion: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/04/europe-just-banned-apples-you-eat And, I find it interesting: Cancer Treatment Center of America advertisement before the video (is everyone seeing that?); and all the talk about browning and apple longevity in the video, anyone heard of Arctic Apples? (I am sure you have.) Also, I am tangentially involved with Eco Apples (http://redtomato.org/ecoapple.php) and this subject has already come up with them. So, yes, people (Whole Foods?) do watch and pay attention. Perception is reality. Lest anyone forget: the apple-crop discussion(s) are permanently archived here http://www.mail-archive.com/apple-crop@virtualorchard.net/ for anyone to see even though they are not subscribers. (If they find it.) I think it is a good thing to have the archive, just keep in mind it is there. I truly hope it does not inhibit discussion. I try to live by the motto if I don't want the whole world to read it, better not put it in an e-mail. JC On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Weinzierl, Richard A weinz...@illinois.edu wrote: Amazing. First, I admit that I usually support new restrictions imposed by the US EPA in response to new tox data or standards because in general one can at least attribute the decisions to people who understand how to weigh scientific evidence … and I do not expect that they will always agree with me, to one direction or the other. I probably do not agree with industry opposition to the EPA as often as many on this list-serve might think I should, but that’s why we all should communicate. But … wow … Apparently TYT (the young Turks) feel free to offer compelling opinions without any need to understand the issue in any substantive way. One has to (NOT) love the web. What a bunch of arrogant talking heads. Perhaps they should launch a vendetta on nitrosamines from BBQs as David R. brought up. Or maybe even quit wearing any SYNTHETIC fabrics or burning any hydrocarbon fuels. As others have posted … those who eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, produced conventionally or organically, are the healthiest of all in our societies. I’ll probably regret posting this … but I do not understand how their opinions warrant anyone’s attention. Not Faux News, but just as faux. Ugh. Let’s hope academic freedom is a real thing, or I’ll become a retired old new fruit grower a year or two before I planned to be. Rick Weinzierl Richard Weinzierl Professor and Extension Entomologist IL SARE PDP Coordinator Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois S-334 Turner Hall, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue Urbana, IL 61801 217-244-2126 From: apple-crop-boun...@virtualorchard.net [mailto:apple-crop-boun...@virtualorchard.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Jansky Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 6:59 PM To: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Subject: Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals The YOUTUBE reaction to American Apples containing DHP Not good press for the U.S. Industry http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oEh1IbOKRBo Steve From: con.tr...@ul.ie To: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:11:27 + Subject: Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals Hello Mike and all, The backdrop to the Irish opinion was, I believe, that a number of EU countries were more reliant on DPA than some others, and that Ireland, having a small apple industry (but nonetheless one in which about 30% of the fruit could have been DPA treated), was naturally inclined to be positively disposed to its continued use (under considerable lobbying pressure from our own apple growers association, and from some other countries). I do know that strong efforts were made by the task force to fill the supposed data gaps, but in the end they did not win out. So in the end, as you say the MRL was dropped not based on a definitive assessment of risk, but because, as I mentioned, there is a general policy thrust to
Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals
Since Jon and Evan opened the door to a discussion of GMOs, I like to weigh in with a minority opinion on GMOs and some of my rationale for adopting a minority perspective. (Be forewarned that this is a rather long post!) I fully understand that many (perhaps the vast majority) of apple growers are opposed to Arctic Apple and the introduction of GMOs into the apple industry. I suspect that at least some of the opposition stems from the public relations disaster created by the Alar scare that occurred almost 25 years ago. We certainly don’t need another event like that! But I also think it would be wise to avoid painting the industry into a corner. I would like to suggest that the apple industry might actually benefit from introduction of more GMOs IF, and this is a big one, IF that approval was accompanied by legislation requiring that all foods containing GMO had to be labeled as such. The food industry (and to my surprise, many university folks) are fighting GMO labeling by saying stupid things such as “We know GMOs are safe” and “It’s the same as a fast-track system of conventional plant breeding.” Those arguments may be correct (at least for most GMOs), but they will not carry any weight with the fear-mongering media or the GMO-phobic public. (And by the way, when did universities start saying “We really don’t want people to know facts!”?) However, if all products in the grocery stores had to carry GMO labeling, those who are petrified of GMOs could buy the relatively small number of higher-priced processed products that would be labeled as GMO-free, whereas most folks would ignore the labels and buy the same products that they always bought. Eventually, society would react to GMO-labeled foods the same way that most of us react to food labels that warn “This product was processed on a line that also processes nuts and therefore may not be free of peanuts.” If you are allergic to peanuts, you avoid those products, but the majority of us ignore the label because we are not allergic to peanuts. GMO labeling would allow those who are psychologically allergic to GMOs to adjust their purchases accordingly whereas most folks would say, as they do with high-fat and/or high-salt food, “Well, it hasn’t killed me yet!” In other words, GMO labeling would defuse the issue and take the heated arguments off of the table. Most folks are already eating GMOs and just don’t know it: let’s give them the truth and then allows the free markets to adjust accordingly. The upside to GMO labeling would be that those fearing GMOs would be forced or encouraged to move away from processed foods to more fresh fruits and vegetables, most of which are NOT GMOs, and we might actually see more apple consumption. This approach is apparently already paying off for FirstFruits Marketing of Selah, WA where folks had the foresight to label their new proprietary yellow ‘Opal’ apple as a non-GMO apple (see: http://www.goodfruit.com/opal-apple-verified-as-non-gmo/ ). Following is my enumeration of reasons that the apple industry should not be overly vocal in opposing GMOs and/or should even embrace GMOs so long as they are labeled as such: 1. As noted above, most apples are NOT GMOs. In the short term the industry should be able to use that as a marketing advantage, at least for the GMO-phobes. If all GMOs were labeled, then apples other than Arctic Apples (at least under current conditions) would stand out as being OK for everyone. 2. At some point in the future, the survival of the apple industry might depend on a GMO solution. That situation already exists with the citrus industry in Florida where the disease known as huanglongbin or citrus greening is wiping out the industry. (For one recent report, see http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/us/for-florida-grapefruit-one-blow-after-another.html ). Gene jockeys have come up with a GMO solution to citrus greening (although it still needs more testing), but the citrus industry is scared to death of GMOs. And that fear of GMOs may literally be the death of the Florida citrus industry because right now there are no other viable solutions on the horizon. At the moment, we don’t need GMO apples, but who knows what might happen if some foreign pest is introduced in the future? 3. I would argue that the tide of change will inexorably push the public into accepting GMOs, just as it is now proving politically unpopular to oppose gay marriage whereas 15 years ago few politicians would have touched the subject. As I implied above, although the public does not realize it, most of the corn, soybeans, and papaya in our markets are already genetically engineered. (As noted at http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/04/a-civil-debate-over-genetically-modified-food.html?mobify=0 , Seventy per cent of processed foods now have at least one genetically engineered ingredient.”) I think the apple
Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals
On 5/4/2014 7:54 PM, Weinzierl, Richard A wrote: David and all ... I agree entirely with David's points on GMOs and the rationale behind them (and yes, I understand that the archives provide a record for all to view, including those who hope to find fault in our opinions). Transgenic technologies are not good or bad just because they usually move genes between species. Conventional breeding gave us green tomatoes that can be gassed to turn red and develop a tiny bit of flavor. No GMO-tainted reputation, just no flavor. Mutation breeding has been a part of cultivar development for decades without great criticism ... and for legitimate reasons ... but the process is definitely not understood by the public. Laboratory movement of genes by molecular methods within and among species for cultivar improvement may be essential in combatting exotic and invasive insects and pathogens and maybe even new environmental (climatic) conditions. Or the same technology may give us plants that glow in the dark or vegetables that produce compounds previously known only in arthropods or mollusks ... and allergenic to significant numbers of people. GMO or non-GMO is not the distinction that matters to the long-term well-being of humans or the planet. As Jimmy Buffet once concluded in the title track of Fruitcakes ... the gods' honest truth is, it's not that simple Rick Weinzierl Professor and Extension Entomologist IL SARE PDP Coordinator Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois S-334 Turner Hall, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue Urbana, IL 61801 217-244-2126 -Original Message- From: apple-crop-boun...@virtualorchard.net [mailto:apple-crop-boun...@virtualorchard.net] On Behalf Of David A. Rosenberger Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 4:44 PM To: Apple-crop discussion list Subject: Re: [apple-crop] apples and chemicals Since Jon and Evan opened the door to a discussion of GMOs, I like to weigh in with a minority opinion on GMOs and some of my rationale for adopting a minority perspective. (Be forewarned that this is a rather long post!) I fully understand that many (perhaps the vast majority) of apple growers are opposed to Arctic Apple and the introduction of GMOs into the apple industry. I suspect that at least some of the opposition stems from the public relations disaster created by the Alar scare that occurred almost 25 years ago. We certainly don't need another event like that! But I also think it would be wise to avoid painting the industry into a corner. I would like to suggest that the apple industry might actually benefit from introduction of more GMOs IF, and this is a big one, IF that approval was accompanied by legislation requiring that all foods containing GMO had to be labeled as such. The food industry (and to my surprise, many university folks) are fighting GMO labeling by saying stupid things such as We know GMOs are safe and It's the same as a fast-track system of conventional plant breeding. Those arguments may be correct (at least for most GMOs), but they will not carry any weight with the fear-mongering media or the GMO-phobic public. (And by the way, when did universities start saying We really don't want people to know facts!?) However, if all products in the grocery stores had to carry GMO labeling, those who are petrified of GMOs could buy the relatively small number of higher-priced processed products that would be labeled as GMO-free, whereas most folks would ignore the labels and buy the same pr oducts that they always bought. Eventually, society would react to GMO-labeled foods the same way that most of us react to food labels that warn This product was processed on a line that also processes nuts and therefore may not be free of peanuts. If you are allergic to peanuts, you avoid those products, but the majority of us ignore the label because we are not allergic to peanuts. GMO labeling would allow those who are psychologically allergic to GMOs to adjust their purchases accordingly whereas most folks would say, as they do with high-fat and/or high-salt food, Well, it hasn't killed me yet! In other words, GMO labeling would defuse the issue and take the heated arguments off of the table. Most folks are already eating GMOs and just don't know it: let's give them the truth and then allows the free markets to adjust accordingly. The upside to GMO labeling would be that those fearing GMOs would be forced or encouraged to move away from processed foods to more fresh fruits and vegetables, most of which are NOT GMOs, and we might actually see more apple consumption. This approach is apparently already paying off for FirstFruits Marketing of Selah, WA where folks had the foresight to label their new proprietary yellow 'Opal' apple as a non-GMO apple (see: http://www.goodfruit.com/opal-apple-verified-as-non-gmo/ ). Following is my enumeration of reasons that the apple industry should not be overly vocal in opposing GMOs and/or
