ISIS Report 06/22/09
US Opposition to GMOs Gathers Momentum

Scientists and physicians in the heartland of genetic modification are alerting policy-makers and the public to the dangers of GM crops. Prof. Peter Saunders

Great upheavals may be afoot in the United States, the world’s leader in genetic modification (GM), and biggest producer of GM crops. Within the past several months, doctors have issued a strong statement calling for a moratorium on GM foods on grounds of safety, and scientists have declared GM crops an agronomic failure. The evidence they presented is familiar to readers of SiS.

ISIS has submitted close to 60 reports on GMOs (genetically modified organisms, including those used for drugs) to the US’ Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drugs administration over the past ten years. But this may be the turning point, now that the Obama administration, unlike its predecessor, clearly intends to look at the evidence when taking a decision.

Two key documents issued by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AEEM) in May [1] and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in April [2] capture the rising opposition to GMOs from doctors and scientists, who are actively alerting the public.
Traditional breeding outperforms GM

The UCS report, Failure to Yield [2] confirms that after 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, GM crops have failed to increase yields. And “traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.” It also makes three recommendations

* The US Department of Agriculture, local agricultural agencies and universities should redirect substantial funding, research and incentives towards approaches that are proven and show more promise than genetic engineering for improving crop yields. These approaches include modern methods of conventional plant breeding as well as organic and other sophisticated low-input farming practices. (see ISIS report [3] Food Futures Now: *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free )
* Food aid organisations should work with farmers in developing countries to make these more promising and affordable methods available
* Regulatory agencies should develop and implement techniques to better identify and evaluate potentially harmful side effects of the newer and more complex genetically engineered crops. Current regulations are too weak to detect them reliably

Oxfam America, which explicitly has no position on GM crops as such, issued a statement broadly supporting the UCS report. They also reiterated their view that governments and citizens receiving food aid should not be forced to accept GM food. [4]

In a separate development, 26 scientists responded to a call for public comment from the Environmental Protection Agency by protesting the “technology/stewardship agreements” they have to sign, which inhibit them from doing research for the public good. And as a result, “no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology” (see [5] (Corporate Monopoly of Science, SiS 42)
“Ample evidence of probable harm” from GM food

The AAEM position paper [1] concludes as follows

“With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:

* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.
* Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.
* Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.
* For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.”

The AAEM is affiliated to Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), a group that has 35 000 members and shared the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. PSR itself has come out against the use of the genetically engineered recombinant bovine somatotrophin (rBST) [6].
Alerted consumers demand labelling

According to the polls, American consumers now want GM foods to be labelled; the US is one of the few developed countries where this is not required. And there is a movement, especially in the dairy industry, to drop GM products owing to customer demand [6].

While there is a great deal to be done before many governments, including the UK, are convinced that GMOs are not the way to feed the world, this will be a lot easier with a US administration that is willing to look at the evidence rather than blindly supporting the big corporations.
References

1. American Academy of Environmental Medicine. (2009) Genetically Modified Foods. http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html.

2. Gurian-Sherman, D. Failure to Yield. Union of Concerned Scientists, April 2009. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-y...

3. Ho MW, Burcher S, Lim LC, et al. Food Futures Now, Organic, Sustainable, Fossil Fuel Free, ISIS TWN, London, 2008. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodFutures.php

4. Pfeifer, K. (2009) Comments on UCS Report “Failure to Yield”, American Oxfam, 14 April. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/Oxfam-statem...

5. Pollock, A. Crop scientists say biotechnology seed companies are thwarting research. New York Times, 20 February 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=1
The original (anonymous) statement is Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0836. http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail...

6. Health Care Reform: Scrap GMOs. Now Public, 6 June, 2009 http://www.nowpublic.com/world/health-care-reform-scrap-gmos

Why Not Burn?
John Harder, Zero Waste Kauai
June 2009

Three years ago, as the County was developing the basic elements of the still to be finalized Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, I joined Apollo Kauai to help shed some light on the question, “Why Not Burn”. Since that time, I’ve continued to question the cost and effectiveness of including Waste to Energy as an option for dealing with our growing volumes of discards.

While there are numerous environmental and siting issues to be considered, my concern is more basic. How can a system that destroys valuable and in many cases irreplaceable resources, and recovers less than 50% of their inherent energy value be considered “sustainable”? The economic value, and the energy invested in the manufacturing of our discards is much too valuable to go up in smoke.

In August of 2006, Apollo developed a detailed response to the County’s consultant, R.W. Beck, and Solid Waste Advisory Committee, indicating that we had some serious concerns with WTE including: overall energy efficiencies, the impact on Global Warming, and how incineration compared with maximum diversion, what we then called Max 3R, in achieving our goal of island sustainability.

Our brief, but fairly definitive analysis indicated that compared to incineration, maximizing diversion through reduction, reuse, and recycling provides significantly greater benefits in both reducing worldwide dependence on fossil fuels and lessening the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Soon after our presentation to the SWAC, and with the proposal for WTE still a major component of the County’s Plan, a number of us decided to continue with our efforts and founded Zero Waste Kauai. Our initial mission was to convince the County that continuing to pursue the Waste to Energy option was a waste of valuable taxpayer time and money. In addition we took on the task of developing detailed positive alternatives that demonstrated the potential of maximizing reduction, reuse, and recycling.

Over the past 3 years we’ve made numerous public presentations advocating a change to Zero Waste Management. We’ve conducted workshops with the County Council and the Administration, met with community groups, and assisted a number of public events in demonstrating the principles of Zero Waste ... achieving diversion rates as high as 95% at last year’s Coconut Festival.

A decade ago Zero Waste was considered an impossible dream, the fantasy of a few overly dedicated recycling enthusiasts, but over the past 10 years Zero Waste Management has evolved to become a workable guide to sustainable resource management ... a design principle for managing our discards in the 21st Century. We just need to remember that Zero Waste is NOT about getting to zero. It is about being on the path to zero.

Zero Waste efforts, just like recycling efforts before them, will change the face of solid waste management in the future. Instead of managing waste, we will manage resources and strive to eliminate waste, and doing that will require a fundamental change in the way we view the materials and products we consume each day. Zero Waste is a part of a sustainable solution for the Island’s economy. Protecting resources, creating local jobs from the discards we currently throw away, and investing in an environmental infrastructure, not in new landfills or incinerators.

The current version of the ISWM Plan Update recommends a number of admirable diversion measures, many of the same type of programs that Zero Waste Kauai has proposed: The construction of a MRF, the implementation of curbside green-waste and curbside recycling collection, the expansion of existing organics diversion efforts, and improving existing hazardous waste diversion programs. But the R.W. Beck didn’t believe that these efforts could succeed in becoming the major element in Kauai’s waste management strategy, and made the assumption that a maximum diversion rate of 35% is the best we can do. This is with a current diversion rate of 25% and over 50% of the remaining material that is currently going to Kekaha Landfill easily recyclable (16% high grade paper, 14% food / 7% green, 15% compostable paper, 2% HI-5).

Because the Consultant does not feel that diversion rates comparable to incineration are possible through Zero Waste Management, they have proposed that the County contract for the construction of a Waste to Energy facility to deal with the combustible material which can’t be recycled. They estimate the cost of a facility capable of handling up to 200 tons per day at $45 - 50 million. But last year, an actual bid proposal received by the County of Hawaii indicated that the cost would be more in the range of $100 to $120 million. For that amount of money we could do an awful lot of recycling. In the end, this still leaves nearly 100 tons of waste per day that the incinerator can’t handle and which will require landfilling!

Let’s look at the potential for diversion if we commit to the Zero Waste Management approach. Currently Kauai diverts about 80 tons of material per day through recycling and composting, a diversion rate of about 25%. That leaves 75% or roughly 250 tons per day that end up in the landfill. By 2013 the Beck report projects that we will have increased generation to nearly 430 tons per day.

Of the 250 tons that currently require disposal, about 75% is recyclable paper, redeemable containers, other aluminum and glass containers, organics (greenwaste, foodwaste, and non- recyclable paper) and Construction Demolition waste. If we take an aggressive approach to maximizing diversion it is entirely feasible that we can pull out an additional 60% or more of the material now going to the landfill, achieving an overall diversion rate of close to 75% in the time it would take us to get an incinerator on line. And during that time we would have extended the life of the current landfill an additional 2 to 3 years. Thus, with the investment in the proper facilities and the implementation of an aggressive diversion program we have the potential to reach diversion levels comparable to incineration at far less cost.
A Zero Waste Management system won’t come cheap, just a lot cheaper than building an incinerator or continuing to landfill. So, what would it cost to implement a Zero Waste system on Kauai?

The basic elements of a Zero Waste Management System: A 150 ton per day Materials Recovery Facility. A multi-material composting facility, a Construction Demolition recovery facility, a Center For Hard to Recycle Materials, such as electronics, hazardous waste, and non-container plastics, and upgrading the community’s existing salvage operations would cost well under $50 million. Compared to the cost of an incinerator the costs of developing a Zero Waste Management system would be a bargain.

While nearly all of us agree that recycling is a good for the environment, few seem ready to invest in the necessary infrastructure. Decision makers who see no problem in floating bonds and raising tipping fees for landfills, and entering to long term “Put or Pay” contracts for Waste to Energy, show reluctance when asked to fund diversion infrastructure.

But once a Material Recovery Facility and composting facility are in place the cost of operating the system can be significantly lower than incineration, and with the inevitable return of strong Asian markets and the almost certain end of cheap oil, a MRF could even PAY the County to drop off collected recyclables. In addition, an integrated Zero Waste Management system would create many more local jobs than incineration or landfilling ... 7 to 10 times as many by most estimates.

Where would you rather take your trash ... to a MRF where the operator may pay the hauler $25 per ton to drop off clean recyclables or an incinerator where the facility charges upward of $125 per ton? If you’re a business who must pay directly for the cost of disposal the answer is obvious.

Zero Waste management can achieve diversion rates comparable to incineration while managing many of the elements in the waste stream that incineration can’t handle. In addition there are the undeniable environmental benefits in the conservation of natural resources and the reduction of our carbon footprint.

If we examine the basic economics of recycling vs incineration we find that both the energy return for each dollar invested, and the energy return for each dollar spent operating the system is much higher for recycling. In addition, if we consider the overall economic value, the benefits returned in the form of local jobs, increased agricultural production from the use of compost, and the overall impact on long term island sustainability, to me the choice seems clear.

Now, I’d like to hear from you. You tell me ... why should we even consider building a Waste to Energy facility? For input, or to help promote sustainable resource management solutions contact zerowastekauai.org.