In honor of our blogger-on-the-road, Lisa, we’re going geeky with this week’s Earthlinks.

Should Biotech companies Blog? Are blogs by biotech companies a good idea from a corporate standpoint? Maybe if more companies had open blogs, there might actually be some real communication.

Animal Research, Giving the Gift of Life: a guest post on noted Ethicist Terry Etherton’s blog, by Barb Glenn, (a wonderful woman and friend from the Bio Industry Organization) .

Guaranteed Tender Steak: from Feedstuffs Foodlink. Technology to the rescue–University of Nebraska scientists have developed a method of identifying tender beef while it is in the processing plant.

Plants have Social Lives: also from Feedstuffs Foodlink. Plant behavior is more complex than you think. If plants are sentient, does that affect how we should grow, harvest and eat them?

Kudzu-A Potential Biofuel: from Ecogeek. The “plant that ate the South” may be the answer to Suzanne’s biofuel headache.

And as always, one slightly less serious link to end:

Make your own icecream drumsticks:  Does this make icecream count as “local food”?

A Labor of Love: From What’s Fresh. I couldn’t express better myself the philosophy and motivation behind growing and selling local food. Be sure to check out the double chocolate zucchini cake recipe, too.

Jumping on the Healthy Food Bandwagon: from Marketing Profs Daily Fix. Food companies (i.e. Kraft, General Mills, Sara Lee) are answering consumer demands for “Less” everything and the perception of healthier product. Along with this is usually a higher price tag. Is this a good thing?

Ecogeek’s Guide to Saying Thanks to Dad: A green giving guide for Father’s Day. This entry begs the question: Can one buy one’s way to environmental responsibility?

Cloned Meat: A logical next step: From Word of Mouth. An unusually non-emotional discourse on the place of cloning in our selective breeding practices. Here is someone who gets that this is more of a non-issue than one worth “media hand-wringing and deep moral debate about Frankenstein Friesians”.

Food Safety During an Emergency: From Momify. Loss of power during an emergency can endanger the food in your refrigerator or freezer. The USDA has published a Guide that includes tips on what to do in floods, power outages and removing odors from freezers and refrigerators. I wish I had seen that last bit last Thanksgiving, when I forgot to turn my frig back on after cleaning it out and then left for a week out at the ranch!

Safe vs. Organic Personal Care Products:  from BlogHer’s Green and Ecoconscious section.  We touched on this in last week’s Earthlinks.  The author (who also blogs on greenLAgirl) points out there is safety and eco-friendly on both sides of the organic fence in this excellent review.

Celebrating Extinction: From Ethicurean. This is a spoof on bluefin tuna extinction so well written that I took it seriously. After my recent mistaking of the “Obesity Causes Global Warming” for a spoof, I’m convinced that it is hard to tell in today’s world what is outrageous and real and what is outrageous and fictional.

All of this back and forth on the value of food-based fuel seems to be one of the central issues involved in how the world is handling the crippling food shortages lately. The U.N. held its food crisis summit in Rome and couldn’t make heads or tails of how to resolve this “biofuel debate” in the world community.

The only thing every can agree on is that there’s no future in using biofuels:

A June 9 Editorial from the New York Times said that:

“The International Monetary Fund estimated that biofuels — mainly American corn ethanol — accounted for almost half the growth in worldwide demand for major food crops last year.”

Jeffrey Sachs from Time Magazine was even more direct:

“Much as we need alternative forms of fuel, paying our farmers to fill our gas tanks with their crops is a foolish policy–with catastrophic results for the world.”

And with evidence coming out that biofuls may be bad for the environment anyway, the drawbacks just keep on coming.

So, we either use food to create biofuels and keep our fingers crossed that we don’t cook the earth while we starve millions of people. Or, we use that food to feed the hungry and let the world heat up with all the CO2 we’re pumping in it from fossil fuels.

Swell.

But what other solution do we have? It may be a bad option, but right now it’s the only option, and you’ve got to work with what you’ve got. Or do you?

There’s got to be a viable alternative-fuel out there, right? Any ideas?

Ethical Eating, part 2: Looking for Answers from What Would Jesus Eat?: Our tendency to look for magic bullets and instant answers only substitutes one problem for another. Global vegetarianism won’t save the world, neither will going totally local.

Study: Healthy ‘Depots’ Discovered in Beef Brisket: from Beef Myths. the fat in beef brisket from corn-fed steers contains nearly 50 percent oleic acid, and oleic acid increases the longer cattle are fed a corn-based diet, according to research by Steve Smith at Texas A&M University.

Obesity and Climate Change? from economic sense. Something that sounds like it could have come out of the Onion; Environmentalists claim the obese are major contributors to global warming. So how does how an obese individual’s carbon footprint from sitting on the couch all day compare with that of “some skinny Barbie girl” driving to a smoothie bar after work, having an organic smoothie, then driving to a climate controlled gym to spend 2 hours utilizing their electric powered equipment before stopping by the local organic market? [Sara’s n.b. I am NOT implying that obese people all sit on the couch all day, nor that I agree with the conclusion] A pretty good summary and discussion can be found on Blogher.com

Is it possible to Eat Healthy on a Budget? Another Blogher discussion about how the least healthy foods are often the least expensive. Lots of good links here and some encouraging words.

How to teach Sustainability: from Slowfood Blog. The author of a program to teach sustainability in schools states that “Education for Sustainability” is much different from “greening.” Education for sustainability looks to integrate children with the natural world not disintegrate their relationship with it.

Are Organic Tomatoes Better? a story from NPR.org. A UC Davis study has found that organically grown tomatoes are richer in certain kinds of flavonoids than conventionally grown tomatoes. The lead scientist points out many confounding factors. The answer may be more linked to nitrogen availability (lower in organic fertilizers) than the organic process itself. An unusually balanced set of conclusions that seek not to convert the world to nor discount the value of organic growing methods.

The Onion on GM Tomatoes: As long as we’ve already mention The Onion and organic tomatoes, I thought we ought to inclue this link (found through Gristmill). Apparently Geneticists at the California Institute of Technology have developed a tomato with a 31 percent larger price tag than a typical specimen of the vine-ripened fruit through gene-splicing.

Oh yeah, like I’m going to be able to address that in a single blog post….

When you get down to it, what we eat and how it is produced is the Meta-issue of this blog. Our questions about food safety, technology, health, environment, food prices and availability, environmental impact, etc. all end up being answered by the choices we make as consumers (what we buy), and as producers (how we grow it).

So much of what I read is narrowly focused on a single problem or single solution. In a larger context there is an entire web of cause and effect around each of these single issues. We have a food system that cannot be separated from our economic, environmental, political and ethical/religious systems.

If we were to design a food system from scratch, what would it look like? Let’s start by creating a wish list. Please give us your opinions about what should be on our list, and in what order of importance.

• Safe: By most accounts we have the safest food supply in the world, in terms of food-borne illnesses. How do changes in how our food is produced affect safety (i.e. locally produced without USDA oversight, non-pastuerized milk, intensive/monoculture vs. extensive/mixed systems).
• Affordable: Americans spend less of their disposable income on food than almost any other country. Can we/should we be willing to pay higher prices in order to achieve some of our other food goals? What about the impact on those with lower incomes?
• Nutritious: The basic purpose of food is to nourish us. In reality, flavor, convenience and price probably play a larger role in our choices.
• Sustainable: We need to produce our food in a way that doesn’t rob Peter to pay Paul. Can we be truly sustainable without decreasing our food supply and having devastating effects on some of the other issues here?
• Environmentally responsible: Notice the avoidance of the term “friendly” here. If we really were going to be environmentally friendly, we’d choose not to perpetuate our species. Given that we choose to exists, how can we care for the earth and still meet our food needs?
• Practical: It’s common knowledge that fresh is best, but let’s face it, most of us ‘give’ on other issues for convenience. I bet most people wouldn’t put “easy” high on the list of food priorities, but voting with their dollars shows otherwise.
• Ethical: Food issues are tied at a gut level to our belief system. Don’t try to talk an ethically-motivated vegan out of their position through scientific arguments. What is “ethical” in food production? Do we hold our food production system to a higher ethical standard than we do our other consumer goods (sweat shops in India for textiles, environmental impact of steel/plastic/transportation)?
• Feasible: I”m a big local food supporter, but realize that a totally local food system is not currently feasible in many areas of the country. Many of the production methods I use myself on my own ranch are difficult (impossible?) to implement on a national scale.

What did I miss? How do these rank in importance relative to each other?

I love Wired magazine — love, love, love it — because it’s forward thinking, filled with new ideas, geeky-hip (like I hope I am) and, most of all, is not afraid to break taboos to get us looking at things in new, arguably more rational ways.

Case in point is this month’s cover story, “Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What It Means to Be Green,” which tells us that “winning the war on global warming requires slaughtering some of environmentalism’s sacred cows.” The article then goes on to suggest 10 “Green Heresies” we may all need to embrace if we are committed to slowing down/reversing the carbon emissions choking our planet.

Two of those heresies directly relate to our interests here at Down to Earth:

Heresy No. 3: Organics Are Not the Answer. Wired explains how conventional agriculture can be easier on the Planet.

Heresy No. 6: Accept Genetic Engineering. Feeding the more than six billion people exacts a heavy environmental toll. The only way to make it easier on Mother Earth is to use science to create super-efficient foodstuffs, which could put a real dent in global emissions.

After years of helping run an organic restaurant, no one was more surprised than I was to find out that the organic label was a marketing designation not supported by science.  The locovores (like Sara) have it right when it comes to reducing the carbon footprint.

Men are from Science, Women are from Fashion and Style: Blogher (cyber-central for women bloggers) chews through the NYT’s placement in the Style section of an article about how women are behind in science. Made me wonder about science education (or lack thereof) and how it affects our ability to think critically and intelligently about some of the food issues we discuss here.

Farm Bill Passes, Vetoed, Veto (sort of) overridden: From American Farmland Trust. Although a seemingly dry topic, the 2008 Farm Bill has some important provisions for nutrition programs, farmland preservation, healthy and local foods and conservation progams.

Who Eats Rice, Anyway? From Chow. A discussion of how agricultural research budgets across the world have declined dramatically in the last few decades—bottoming out in time for this year’s food crisis. The US is in the midst of slashing support for research that focuses on improving crops vital to agriculture in poor countries.

Which Pots and Pans are Safest - Unearthing My Mother’s Cookware: From The Not Quite Crunchy Parent. Turns out Mom might have known best, after all.

Déjà chew: The food price crisis in context : A guest post on Ethicurean that shows the solution to the world’s food crisis is not a simple matter of people food vs. animal feed nor crops for food vs. crops for fuel.

Toilet Paper Rolls? Yes, Toilet Paper Rolls From Green Mom Finds. 101 things to do with a toilet paper roll before you recycle it (102 if you count the original intended use).

There was a very uplifting article in the New York Times this week on inner city gardens. (discovered via Chow). I find these kind of projects inspiring for so many reasons; making fresh produce available, beautification of formerly derelict spots, providing work opportunities for youth and the homeless. Not least of all, is reconnecting people with food at its roots.

I think one of the biggest wasted opportunities of the Bush administration’s tenure was Hurricane Katrina. Wouldn’t it have been a great chance to reconstruct the most devastated areas with community or rooftop gardens? My favorite chapter in “Good News For a Change” (by David Suzuki and Holly Dressel) is the one about Cuba’s move toward more urban food production, forced by their isolation from global food sources.

I spent an afternoon with Dan Rather last year during an on-site interview on cloned animals in the food supply. The best part of the afternoon was talking with him about his views on people’s disconnects with agriculture and the source of their food. He said he thought it would be great to have a series of “Ag Disneylands” where people could come and see plant and animal agriculture as it really is. Perhaps that would help bridge the chasm of understanding between producers and consumers.

We’re starting a new feature this week: a digest of links I and my partners-in-blogging-crime have come across recently. Many of which we’d love to have featured full-length analyses, but the rest of life intervened. Some are great resources and some are merely interesting.

Clash over CO2 and food miles. Is African agriculture more eco-friendly?

New Food Safety Rules May Do More Harm Than Good . The food safety regulations established in response to the spinach E. coli outbreak are threatening environmentally friendly farming practices.

The great organic myths: Why organic foods are an indulgence the world can’t afford.

Organic Myths Rebutted.

More Choice for Women Means More Sustainability. Expanding the capacity of all women to choose when to bear children is thus the surest route to achieving an environmentally sustainable population.

Eating Fresh and Seasonal. Seasonal guides to help you navigate the world of produce from the supermarket to your kitchen

And one that we will be posting more on soon, Pew Commission Says Industrial Scale Farm Animal Production Poses “Unacceptable” Risks to Public Health, Environment

New Scientist: Environment posted about a paper entitled “Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the US”. It’s also gotten coverage from National Geographic, Mother Jones and other sources. It has been quoted around the blogosphere as a mandate to reduce or eliminate red meat in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

Unfortunately, only a lay-person’s version of the paper is available online. The authors were kind enough to send me the original paper in all its science-geek glory.

The paper is very well written and fair. When the author doesn’t really have a dog in the fight, I’m much less suspect of the conclusions. In the original paper, the authors are very careful to point out that their results are, of necessity, based on industry averages for the source data. The inputs about red meat production, therefor, are based on industry standard production practices. For beef production, this means a calf is typically born and raised to weaning on one farm, sold to another producer for growing out on another pasture-based system or grain/forage mix, then finished on a high-grain diet in a concentrated facility. The total GHG footprint of red meat production under this scenario is high compared to other food types.

The “local” component of GHG emission come from the miles the food travels between final production and the point of sale. For red meat, this is a very small portion (9%) of the total GHG emissions. Much of the remaining GHG emissions are the result of transporting feed to the animal.

My argument with blanket conclusions such as “eating red meat is bad for the environment” is that locally produced red meat, or meat produced under production systems such as pasture-based, are not going to have the same impacts. I am attempting to gather unbiased data on relative impacts of tilled food (veggies and cereal grains) versus foods that are produced without tillage. I’ll post on them as I get them.

Eating red meat from a local producer that brings cattle in from all over the country and trucks in feed may not reduce your GHG as much as buying single-ranch, completely pasture-raised beef from across the country. Likewise, red meat from your local producer may be less GHG intense than eggs from a chain natural foods store.

My take-away message from the paper is that “local” is not a silver bullet for reducing your GHG footprint. Neither, however, is elimination of red meat, dairy or other food classes. Similarly, organic may not be less GHG-intense than non-organic (traditional or other alternative). As with many of the issues we discuss here, attention to what you are buying, common sense and an open mind will guide you to wiser choices than any hard-and-fast rule.