Forget GMO’s (although did you see Vermont voted GMO labeling into law?), food additives and the Trix Rabbit – the scariest thing to affect our food is now something more global than a single ingredient or process. A LOT more global actually: climate change. According to a new report from the Harvard School of Public Health, the same juggernaut that’s killing rainforests and marooning polar bears on itty bitty ‘bergs is now striking even closer to home by changing our food. The scientists found that increasing levels of CO2 in the air are making plants – particularly grain crops – grow bigger, faster. Yippeee! But there’s a big downside. The plants have less nutrients in them, causing the researchers to predict a growing epidemic of malnutrition – even when there are sufficient calories. “You get big plants but nothing to eat,” they wrote.
I’m an apple junkie. I love apples. Call me uncreative but they’ve always been my favorite fruit. When I was a kid I used to sneak them into my bed at night and hide the cores under my pillow. (A gross habit that my second son apparently inherited. Who knew disgusting housekeeping was genetic?!) I learned quickly as a kid that the biggest apples were the yuckiest – often mushy, tasteless and mealy – while their smaller friends (even of the same variety) were better. So to this day I look for small, firm fruit and try to avoid the super-shiny big-as-your-head beauties. Also, I look for type. Red Delicious are anything but. My faves are SweeTango followed by Honey Crisp and Pacific Rose. I also love me a crunchy green Granny! (Plus, this times ten for strawberries! Those gigantic berries are awesome for dipping but the little tiny organic ones taste the sweetest and juiciest in my opinion, Strawberries aren’t meant to have a hollow core!)
Science supports my apple habits, noting that the larger fruit grows in a shorter time, the less nutrients it has, possibly because it simply has less time in the soil and a greater amount of flesh to distribute them through. And now this effect is showing up on a much larger scale, according to the Harvard study. This is great for people selling the food, terrible for people eating it.
This is something food scientists have been worrying about for decades. It’s been known since the 70’s that thanks to soil depletion, food grown now is markedly decreased in nutrients compared to food grown 100 years ago. And concerns about global warming affecting the food supply, both with availability and transportation, have also been around for awhile. What this new report does is bring the two issues together outside of academia and show the real-world effects.
“The public health implications of global climate change are difficult to predict, and we expect many surprises,” Myers and colleagues concluded in their report. “The finding that raising atmospheric carbon dioxide lowers the nutritional value of (certain) food crops is one such surprise that we can now better predict and prepare for.”
Like many things, this disproportionately affects the poor and already nutritionally vulnerable. For example, the United Nations estimates that 2 – 3 billion people depend on the most affected crops for most of their zinc and iron, and many are already deficient. “Reductions in the zinc and iron content of the edible portion of these food crops will increase the risk of zinc and iron deficiencies across these populations and will add to the already considerable burden of disease associated with them,” the researchers noted.
So what to do besides run around in circles and freak out and/or make sacrificial totems out of plastic bags at the recycling centers? The scientists suggest developing new genetically-modified crops (um, yay?) or hybrids to take advantage of all that bonus CO2, along with new types of fertilizers and crop rotations to help boost soil nutrient availability. And hey, I’m a big fan of science and the ingenuity of mankind (and our will to survive). The educator in me would add that we should add more ag-science classes to schools and encourage more kids into STEM fields.
But for those of us not in agriculture, how should we be preparing? “Prepping” – the trend of storing food, water, medicine and other items in preparation for some kind of disaster – has taken off like wildfire. There are TV shows, books and sites dedicated to the lifestyle. I personally even know a few preppers myself (*cough*Hi Mom!!*cough*) Part of it is that my family are medical science junkies – my mom is an RN – but it’s also because we’re LDS (aka Mormons) and part of our doctrine is to have a year’s supply of food storage. (I’ll let you imagine what a year’s supply of food, toiletries and other items for a family of six looks like. It’s why we had to find a house with a basement…) While I’ve never personally gone through a disaster that necessitated cracking open a #10 can of freeze-dried whatever, when my husband lost his job a few years ago and he was out of work for 8 months it definitely came in handy!! Clearly what seemed woo-woo-out-there a couple of decades ago now just seems smart.
What do you guys think of this latest research – worrisome or over-hyped? Do you do any kind of “prepping”? What’s your favorite kind of apple?
After I read about this a couple days ago I took the issue to my husband, the environmental economist. His response? “Oh no. Please tell me you’re not going to obsess about this now too!” lol I gather it’s like all of these stories, the truth and how concerned we should be lies somewhere between 0 and the media hype. Also, I might consider prepping (on a very small scale) but facing a third move in 3 years I’m desperate to get rid of stuff, not horde more!
For generations both sides of my family have had a “help out” attitude.
i.e. Try to not only have enough for the family but some extra for others.
And I am the only LDS (aka Mormon) in the family.
Grandparents lived through the Depression, also known as “The Dust Bowl” Thirties.
My Dad’s parent’s were farmers.
If people think the soil is lacking nutrients NOW…the soil THEN literally dried up and blew away.
But they survived it all without genetically modified crops.
Go figure.
My Mom’s parent’s were trappers and hunters and they fished.
They survived it all without any genetically modified animals too. (‘cause you know some enterprising scientist will suggest that as well.)
Around here, last spring was the coldest spring in 100 years.
This past winter was…a Canadian winter.
All due respect to Dennis Quaid, but calling the same “arctic air” we’ve ALWAYS had… a “polar vortex” like in the movie…doesn’t really change its intensity .
At all.
Okay so speaking of past weather and temperatures, there have only been accurate measurements since the 1880’s.
The rest is guesswork.
There is also one study in paleoclimatology (the study of past climates) where they use things that have some preserved characteristics from the past, (tree rings, ice core samples – like in the movie, etc.) that stand in for direct measurements…that doesn’t support the other studies.
In short, they take something that was around at that time in the past by estimating years (like in tree rings) and see the climate effects at the time.
Yes there are mistakes involved. For instance assumption on the age and history of Devon Island in the arctic was all out of whack because THEY DID NOT NOTICE that a huge (San Francisco, the bridges and part of Oakland sized) meteor impacted and the age estimates found in rocks and sediments were skewered by the meteor rock remnants.
But a study on arctic coral found that the warming trend has been happening for a couple of hundred years longer than they realized.
To put that into perspective, it was warming in a time with NO cars. NO planes. No trains. NO factories.
And there were not all that many cars in the Dustbowl thirties either.
So do we have freaky weather? Yep.
But it seems we always had freaky weather.
What was the cause of the Dust Bowl thirties?
Is there just a regular cycle perhaps people are missing?
Prepared but not panicky is my rule.
Since its just me now, I haven’t owned a vehicle for years as a personal preference of wanting to be out and enjoying the exercise walking and running.
Meditating and contemplating.
Also thinking about stuff people tell me. Especially when they force feed it.
Also Charlotte, I went to a LDS Church Orchard in British Columbia years ago and the giant crunchy green Grannie’s were STILL tasty even when they were as big as your head!
They were canned for pie-making kind so not on store shelves.
best comment ever. Thank you for sharing this.
So glad you liked it Shari!
(And I appreciate being…appreciated!)
Darwin, you are exactly right. Great information! A lot of the fear mongering going on today is flawed science. More people need to look at the actual facts before panic sets in. Love your presentation of the facts. 🙂
Thank-you so very much Sarah! I love that you loved my presentation of facts!
I added some more below, should you feel so inclined to partake of them!
Um, I’m glad your grandparents survived the dustbowl. Millions didn’t, including an estimated 5 million children who starved to death. And the population if the US grown more than 2.5 times larger since those days – that’s a heckuva lot more mouths to feed than there were back in your grandparents’ day! Saying that there is ONE study that doesn’t support the findings of the other [hundreds of] studies is misleading at best.
Hello Doggeek!
I never said the Dust Bowl thirties were great…they were far from it.
What I said was that my grandparents and those others who did survive did it without genetically modified crops.
And that is true.
Some people died of dust pneumonia…alongside those who died of malnutrition.
I said that the YEARS long drought was NOT caused by global warming.
Also true.
And it also lasted from 1931 through to the fall of 1939 when it ended.
Long time.
The response back then was to farm in a manner that prevented soil erosion.
Simple.
Soil conservation.
Nothing genetically enhanced.
Adopting plowing and planting methods that conserved the soil.
Now as those methods are mostly in place…there will not be widespread soil erosion.
And no need for genetically modified crops.
Which is also true.
AND…
…in 1932 there was Deep South Tornado outbreak which was one of the most intense outbreaks in U.S. history and was the THIRD deadliest continuous tornado outbreak in U.S. history.
In in 1936 the Tupelo-Gainsville Tornado outbreak was the SECOND deadliest continuous tornado outbreak in U.S. history.
Monster storms ALSO without the need for global warming.
One should note a pattern :
Cold winters-followed by drought conditions equals monster storms and deadly tornadoes.
Does this sound reminiscent of present day?
For more information:
Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950
A paper by Tony Brown
Quote:
“Satellite observations that provide an hour by hour picture of every part of the Arctic make it easy to forget that large areas of it had not even been even explored 80 years ago – let alone its ice extent minutely observed. This paper explores the controversy surrounding the period 1920-1950, which was a period of substantial warming in the Arctic.”
Goes hand in hand with the warming of the “Dust Bowl Thirties” doesn’t it?
How reliable are the sea ice observations during the first half of the 20th century?
The reality is (as is logical in the days before satellites) that in the period between 1920-1940, the Arctic Ocean was comparatively unexplored when contrasted with the satellite age.
Quote:
“The lack of data from Russia and other areas because its sheer remoteness made accurate data gathering problematic, large gaps in knowledge due to WW2 i.e no DMI maps (Danish Meteorological Institute) during this period, a hiatus in cooperation during the Cold war, uncertainty over final summer amounts as DMI did not usually record data after August, and estimates by climatological methods means historic sea ice data is fragmented and incomplete. This is not helped by the different sea ice data bases often being at considerable variance with each other and changes in the way in which ice concentrations were calculated…”
Anybody else see the problems?
Continuing Quote further down:
“In trying to determine the true extent of sea ice during the period we run the risk of comparing apples-physical observations, and oranges- satellite altimetry, and the different methods employed over the years creates uncertainties over whether each accurately picked up what is ice, what is water covered ice and what is open water. This makes it difficult to determine how modern ice extent compares to the past with any certainty.
This paper provides evidence that supports a conclusion that the official sea ice data bases covering 1920-1945/50 appear to very substantially overstate the ice area extent. Some of the thinning of the ice and reduction of glaciers noted today appears to have had their genesis in the period.”
Continuing to quote the article further down again:
“In trying to determine the true extent of sea ice melt during the period 1920-1940, we run the risk of comparing apples to oranges, since the different observing methods employed over the years makes it difficult to determine how modern ice extent compares to the past with any certainty.
However, the conclusion must be that drawn that warming was more widespread in the Arctic – not just the Atlantic side – than is currently noted in the official sea ice data bases covering 1920-1945/50 and that the official records appear to very substantially overstate the ice area extent during this period.
So in the 1930’s:
– we had drought from 1931 to fall 1939
– we had record high temperatures
– we had cold winters
– we had monster storms with killer tornadoes
– and the artic ice caps were melting too
The natural pattern has already been established.
And I have already provided examples of how “climate proxies” not only differ, but can be skewered.
Just because more scientists have jumped on the bandwagon is not evidence.
If they all said that the earth was flat…it wouldn’t make it any less round.
Since all of this same stuff is all happening again, why would it suddenly be for a different reason?
That’s the point they have no backed up with any substance.
Which sadly suggests “agenda“.
Sorry, I prefer to get my data from peer-reviewed research, and not blog posts. There is literally SO MUCH data out there from hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed research studies, from hundreds and hundreds of scientists that for you to assert that it has not been “backed up with any substance” shows me that this is a losing battle, and I have no wish to continue it on Charlotte’s blog comments. Peace.
Peace back at you Doggeek.
I’m gathering that you don’t believe in climate change. Might I ask if you also believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, that homosexuality is a choice, that vaccines cause autism and that evolution is a crock? There are plenty of things out there that people site “significant evidence” for that are rejected by the great part of scientific community. The counter argument that will always come up to the bulk of scientific data? It will always be “agenda” or “there’s no way we can know”. It works, but it undermines every other major scientific discovery that has been reached by much the same means. People once thought the existence of germs was completely improbable, and look where listening to them would have gotten us.
Hey there Dora!
Your response kind of reminds me of the song “Sidestep” someone once pointed me to.
It was sang by Charles Durning in the film “Best Little Whorehouse in Texas”
“Governor! Have you seen the evidence of the disgraceful situation of the Chicken ranch?”
To which Charles Durning as the Governor replies:
“Fellow Texans…I am proudly standing here to humbly say…
I assure you…And I mean it!
Now who says I don’t speak out as plain as day?
Fellow Texans…I’m for progress!
And the Flag! Long may it fly!
I’m a poor boy…come to greatness!
So it follows that I cannot tell a lie!
*Thus he really didn’t say anything. Just like you, Dora. You comment was a shell game that didn’t address any of my points.
Just like the song.
“OOOoooh I like to dance a little side-step!
Now they see me/now they don’t…I’ve come and gone.
And OOOooooh I like to sweep around the wide-step!
Cut a little swath and lead the people on.”
Which IS what I feel the global warming promoters are doing.
You Dora…did NOT address the evidence I presented. Instead you “cut a little swath and led the people on.”
I am saying that , as an Indian, I am used to people thinking that I do not know what I am talking about.
Therefore I ask that you do me the honor of addressing my evidence directly instead of trying to cloud and muddy up the issues while sidestep my presentation of facts.
The iron of your response is laudable, but I would be happy to address your points!
1) The dust bowl happened
An environmental microcosm in one area in the 1930’s is not comparable to what scientists in nations all over the world are witnessing happen to the planet as a whole. Apples to oranges.
2) My grandparents survived the dust bowl without any intervention
This is like saying that because no one you know died of a car accident in the past year means that the statistics on deaths from automobile accidents are overblown and we can all stop wearing seatbelts. The exception does not make a good example.
3) It was really really cold this winter
The reason why everyone has shifted from calling it “global warming” to calling it “climate change” is exactly this kind of confusion, so you’re not alone in this. Ocean currents create weather patterns, melting ice caps change ocean currents, weather gets more extreme. Extreme weather can mean extreme cold snaps, but again you cite the exception– 1 cold winter doesn’t disprove much.
4) Not all scientists agree-
This is true of every major scientific breakthrough ever. There are a handful of outliers in this country who disagree, and they are an even smaller group of outliers when you take into consideration scientists in other countries. The bulk of scientists in the world agree that climate change is real. In many nations. All over the world.
5)We haven’t been collecting data for long enough. Besides, one study doesn’t support the rest
We’re going to go with my example of microorganisms here. People didn’t believe that microbes existed for centuries. When they were discovered, people didn’t believe it because we hadn’t known about them for centuries. The logic doesn’t hold. You have the worlds’ smartest people across a wide variety of scientific disciplines working daily to collect data and refine their methods of collecting data to get better data. You can’t ignore the majority of them– it goes against the principals behind all scientific progress we have ever made. Citing the one outlier, again, does not prove the rule.
6) We had big, delicious apples when I was a kid
Childhood memories make things seem bigger and better than they really were. Maybe it was a rare varietal. Maybe your area had freakish amounts of soil nutrients. Maybe the farmer was a genius. Who knows? I’m not sure that seeing big apples as a kid proves much.
Bottom line, I know I won’t change your opinion. It’s foolish to even try. You believe what you believe. We’re hard wired to do so. I just can’t help but take offense at you being willing to bet the lives of future generations of my family, your family, and everyone else’s families on your opinion. Particularly when you do so because it’s just easier than hedging your bets and taking action to prevent something awful from happening just in case. You don’t have to change your beliefs, but you can be a better person by being responsible just in case you are wrong.
Good morning Dora!
Responding to your points:
!. The Dust Bowl happened
“An environmental microcosm in one area in the 1930′s is not comparable to what scientists in nations all over the world are witnessing happen to the planet as a whole. Apples to oranges.”
– You are correct, in normal circumstances drought only hits “one area”. But my grandparents (and thus myself) are Canadian. So the U.S. and Canada with evidence of arctic ice cap melting.
That’s a BIG area.
In the thirties, this weather event EXPANDED, which is what made it stand out.
Just like today.
2) “My grandparents survived the dust bowl without any intervention.”
– Not what I said.
What I said was that The response back then was to farm in a manner that prevented soil erosion. Simple. Soil conservation. Nothing genetically enhanced. Adopting plowing and planting methods that conserved the soil.
3) It was really really cold this winter
“Extreme weather can mean extreme cold snaps, but again you cite the exception– 1 cold winter doesn’t disprove much.”
– What I said was that in the 1930’s there were cold winters that were followed by drought conditions which resulted in monster storms and killer tornadoes
In fact, I pointed out where this happened more than once in that decade of the thirties.
And as you noted THIS past winter was really really cold. Thus monster storms and killer tornadoes.
4) Not all scientists agree-
This is true of every major scientific breakthrough ever. There are a handful of outliers in this country who disagree, and they are an even smaller group of outliers when you take into consideration scientists in other countries. The bulk of scientists in the world agree that climate change is real. In many nations. All over the world.
– This is my FAVORITE!
And we can combine it with the essence of your #5: ” Citing the one outlier, again, does not prove the rule.
A few years ago I happened to encounter a couple of wolf biologists, which excited me, because I had some personal experience with wolves, and I asked each of them what recommendations they in this particular field of study had come up with to prevent wolf attacks.
Their response: “No need. Wolves are benign.”
They went on to say that the data they gathered from North American history backed them up.
I asked if they had conversation with any Indians on the subject.
At that point in time, they had not.
“Well that’s a big hole in your data.” I pointed out.
I also informed them that I myself had been attacked by a pack of five wolves, not once, but several times during the course of the night. Repeatedly. All night long.
They said: All of the peer reviewed papers, every scientist in the field, without exception, agreed that wolves are benign. No outliers. Thus the wolf attack on me never happened.
Smiling, I asked about worldwide historical wolf attacks.
Again, the united scientific voice on that subject was that historical wolf attacks were only made by rabid wolves.
Curious, I asked about the historical wolf attacks were the person who was attacked actually survived. Because before the advent of modern medicine there was no cure for rabies. Thus a person who was attacked by a RABID wolf would have died from rabies. And yet, there were wolf attack survivors who DID NOT die of rabies.
The wolf biologists had no explanation for that.
I n Saskatchewan, Canada a coroner’s jury in a coroner’s inquiry into the death of 22 year old Kenton Carnegie on November 8th, 2005 concluded that he was killed by wolves.
The March 13 2010 issue of THE LOS ANGELES TIMES included a report of a fatal wolf attack on 32 year old Candice Berner, a special education teacher and avid jogger in Chignik Lake, Alaska that took place on March 10, 2010. It was also the first fatal wolf attack in North America in which DNA evidence was gathered to confirm wolf involvement.
This is not “benign“ behavior.
Thus the wolf biologists, all in agreement, with no outliers, were wrong.
And it was obvious.
In animal biology circles there is something known as animals habituation to humans.
The animals stop seeing us humans as a source of fear, and instead view us a source of food.
Biologists who study coyotes know this is the leading cause of coyotes attacking humans, and address these issues and recommend policy so people are not attacked.
But wolf biologists had an AGENDA: Prove the dangerous image of the wolf wrong.
That’s irresponsible.
Agendas happen. This I know.
6. My point about the apples (not an observation made as a child, just so you know) was only made as an example of a large apple still tasty…in case anyone was interested.
Uglier produce usually tastes the best and doesn’t have a coat of turtle wax on it. So get those small apples and the tumorous tomatoes at the farmer’s market and skip the shiny pretty (and flavorless) ones at the grocery store.
Also, if the apples are tiny you can have two so it feels like you’re getting more for your serving. (and you can pretend you’re a horse when you can almost eat a whole apple in one bite!)
Favorite apple: anything I pick off the tree myself!
personally I couldn’t agree more about the storage. My husband lost his job at One point too and it came in very handy.
personally, I am looking forward to starting our garden this year, and having all of our brand new fruit trees.
I used to have emergency food stored in my kitchen but then one can of fruit cocktail after another leaked or exploded and I decided I will take my chances if there is a disaster. I do have the emergency kerosene heater though ’cause hungry is one thing but, cold is out of the question.
Two things to say about soil depletion: Home gardening and composting. Especially now, with all those lovely chicken droppings going in on a regular basis.
I’m not a prepper so much as I’m a pack-rat and bargain hunter. Giant tubs of coconut oil on sale at Costco? I’ll take seven!
I love pink lady apples. They’re firm and tart yet sweet.
Honeycrisp is my fave, and I definitely try to get the smaller ones (the big ones are SO HUGE around here).
I haven’t made a specific and conscious effort to be stocked up for x-amount of time, but I always have an abundance of frozen and canned food around. I could probably last a few months at least with rationing. 🙂
Jazz apples. They’re amazing. They’re smaller than honeycrisp apples, but taste similar. Which is perfect because the honeycrisp apples I find are always expensive and like three time as much food as I can eat in one sitting.
GLOBAL WARMING HAS MANY BAD RESULTS AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM.SO WE SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO CURB THE GLOBAL WARMING.