Red to Green Food Sustainability 🥩🔬♻‪️‬ Marina Schmidt

Have you heard of the writer Rachel Carlson before? She is one of the most important writers who indirectly shaped how you, I, and many people in the West view industrial agriculture. Many would date the beginning of the modern environmental movement to September 1962, when her book “Silent Spring” began to roll off the presses.

The work of Rachel Carson shaped how the public sees modern agriculture. It has created an awareness that we aren’t separate from nature, and that what goes around comes around.

Monsanto and many other agrochemical companies got into PR trouble due to Carson. When genetically modified crops were introduced thirty years later, the news landed on the fertilized ground—blooming into a lot of ugly media attention. 

In this episode, we talk about the nature of the debate about Genetic Engineering. We touch on GM labeling, how to think of agriculture as a system instead of looking at the solutions individually

And whether positioning anti-GMO activists as anti-science is fair or not.

My co-host Frank Kuehen is the Managing Director of the Adalbert Raps Foundation, funding food science research for a sustainable future of food. And he also is the Chief of the Advisory Board at the herb and spice producer RAPS. 

I’m Marina, a science and technology historian focused on agrifood. To get an introduction to GM and pesticides, consider checking out episodes 7.7 - 7.9.

Connect with the host, Marina ⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/⁠⁠⁠

Connect with the host, Frank ⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/⁠⁠⁠

Get funding for your food science research: ⁠⁠https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung⁠⁠

Support Red to Green ⁠⁠⁠ https://www.patreon.com/RedtoGreen⁠⁠⁠

More info and links to resources on⁠⁠ https://redtogreen.solutions/  ⁠⁠

Seeds of Science ⁠https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987⁠



Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! 3



DISCLAIMER - The podcast and article represent the personal opinions and interpretations of the participants). The statements may be exaggerated for entertainment and/or comedic purposes. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per the cited sources. However, the participants do not guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. Readers are encouraged to verify the information presented and conduct their own research independently. The participants acknowledge that Bayer Crop Science and/or other parties mentioned have the right to an alternative interpretation of matters discussed.

Let’s finish discussing our book “Meals to Come- The History of the Future of Food.” 

If you haven’t listened to the previous episode, no, But it’s not required; I will summarise the key points.



 You will hear about 

 - how modern solutions of cornucopias, Malthusian, and egalitarians look like

 - why it can be useful to add an ecological perspective

 - a tapestry of some of my favorite quotes from the book discussing how belief systems and rhetoric have shaped the future of food predictions. Super, super interesting.



 And after about 10 minutes of that, we will get into the summary of the entire season.



I am joined by my cohost if Frank Alexander Kuehne, the Chief of the Advisory Board of the herb and spice producer RAPS and the Managing director of the Adalbert Raps Foundation, funding research on sustainable food science. More on that later



Here is a quick reminder from last episode describing the three types of food futurists - cornucopias, Malthusians and Egalitarians.

1. Cornocopians believe "innovation will fix anything" and throw tech at any problem. We need to go better, faster, and stronger with new approaches.

Main theme -> Innovate (biotech in food, cell ag, novel fertilizers, etc.)



2. Modern Malthusians believe we need to reduce our consumption, respect the earth's limits and find ways to reduce, reuse and recycle.

Main theme -> Save (AI to reduce food waste, CSR)



3. Egalitarians believe we would have enough if we would share it better. Environmental issues are a reflection of social inequality. Local is beautiful.

Main theme -> Share (Local markets, local food production, foreign development)



4. Ecologists (a category I added) believe we must live in line with nature again. Get off the chemical, agricultural treadmill and think in ecosystems.

Main theme -> Restore (agroforests, regenerative agriculture)



Ultimately, the solution is not an either-or but an "and." It helps to be aware of one "default" view and recognize which other perspectives may be good to develop.



Support Red to Green ⁠⁠ https://www.patreon.com/RedtoGreen⁠⁠

Get funding for your food science research: ⁠⁠https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung⁠⁠

More info and links to resources on⁠⁠ https://redtogreen.solutions/  ⁠⁠

Seeds of Science ⁠https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987⁠

Connect with the host, Marina ⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/⁠⁠

Connect with the host, Frank ⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/⁠⁠

Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! 3



DISCLAIMER - The podcast and article represent the personal opinions and interpretations of the participants). The statements may be exaggerated for entertainment and/or comedic purposes. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per the cited sources. However, the participants do not guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. Readers are encouraged to verify the information presented and conduct their own research independently. The participants acknowledge that mentioned parties may have the right to an alternative interpretation of matters discussed.

The worry and the question “will we run out of food?” is as old as humanity itself. And every couple decades this question seems to reappear in intense debates. 

For example it did in the 1920s, late 1940s, 1960 and 1970s, and 1990s. 

These worries are usually fired up by 4 main reasons(T) sudden inflation in food prices; (z) environmental stresses, such as urban congestion, bad harvests, or a degradation of agricultural resources(3) scary demographics, such as an unexpectedly high spike in population growth; (4) cultural anxieties about sexuality, working-class unrest or a spike of immigrants



And just as our worries about the future of food have been around for a while so have been the ideas for solutions.

Did you know that already over 100 years ago scientists and entrepreneurs believed burgers made from algae would be a thing? Looking into history can be humbling. And today we are looking into my favorite topic - the history of the future of food.



Today’s book is called “Meals to come - the history of the future of food.” It’s 400 pages thick and was published in 2006 but aye, it’s history. The author Warren James Belasco was  For more than thirty years, Dr. Belasco taught, researched, at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA writing about food history and food culture.



He is my favorite food historian, so I am clearly biased here. But dare I say - you are in for a treat. 



I am chatting about this book with my wonderful co-host Frank Alexander Kuene. Frank is the Managing director of the Adalbert Raps foundation, offering grants for food science research focused on sustainability. He is also the Chief of Advisory Board at the German herb and spice company RAPS Gmbh.



Support Red to Green ⁠ https://www.patreon.com/RedtoGreen⁠

Get funding for your food science research: ⁠https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung⁠

More info and links to resources on⁠ https://redtogreen.solutions/  ⁠

Seeds of Science https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987

Connect with the host, Marina ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/⁠

Connect with the host, Frank ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/⁠

Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! 3



DISCLAIMER - The podcast and article represent the personal opinions and interpretations of the participants). The statements may be exaggerated for entertainment and/or comedic purposes. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per the cited sources. However, the participants do not guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. Readers are encouraged to verify the information presented and conduct their own research independently. The participants acknowledge that mentioned parties may have the right to an alternative interpretation of matters discussed.

In May 2019, the husband and wife Alva and Alberta Pilliod won a federal court case against Monsanto. Both of them had developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This cancer causes white blood cells called lymphocytes to grow abnormally throughout the body. The farmers worked decades with the herbicide, which Monsanto claimed is safe to use. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorized the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, as a “probable carcinogen.” And this was the basis for the judge's decision to decide in favour of the couple.

Bayer AG had to pay a fine of $2 billion because it had acquired Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup. One year after the merger, BAYER's share price was still cut in half. 

The pharmaceutical giant had signed up for an ever-increasing burden of legal battles. In 2019, 18.000 lawsuits were pending in the US. Most of them due to cancer cases potentially linked to Roundup. 

For numerous decades, Monsanto marketed their herbicide as safe to use for farmers and individuals. Most regulatory bodies categorize glyphosate as safe, including - Health Canada

Why does the International Agency for Research on Cancer come to a different conclusion than all the other agencies? Possibly because they only consider “publicly available and pertinent studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests.”

But apparently, the amount of independent studies on glyphosate-based pesticides is rather limited. How can the world's most-used pesticide have so few independent studies? Is this really a coincidence?



The full script with all sources for this episode: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VO05Vrh37BUA9UoLnAOSJz1pdCF3tzkl/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115780270029914491641&rtpof=true&sd=true

!! Find other sources, key takeaways and links on our blog: ⁠⁠https://redtogreen.ghost.io/what-monsanto-teaches-us-about-biotech/⁠⁠



Support Red to Green ⁠ https://www.patreon.com/RedtoGreen⁠

Get funding for your food science research: ⁠https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung⁠

More info and links to resources on⁠ https://redtogreen.solutions/  ⁠

Seeds of Science https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987

Connect with the host, Marina ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/⁠

Connect with the host, Frank ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/⁠

Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! 3



DISCLAIMER - The podcast and article represent the personal opinions and interpretations of the participants). The statements may be exaggerated for entertainment and/or comedic purposes. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per the cited sources. However, the participants do not guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. Readers are encouraged to verify the information presented and conduct their own research independently. The participants acknowledge that Bayer Crop Science and/or other parties mentioned have the right to an alternative interpretation of matters discussed.

In early 2012  scientists at Rothamsted Research in England started an airfield trial of genetically modified wheat ( the first in the UK for many years ). THe research was publicly funded by a plant science centre based in the south of England. The genetically engineered wheat was sown behind a high fence and protected by 24-hour security. You will find out why all this security was needed in a second. 

The aim of the research was to test and check whether an added gene would repel aphids.  The small sucking insects are commonly called greenflies and blackflies. The wheat would exude a pheromone that repels them. A pheromone is a chemical produced by an organism that influences other individuals of the same species. We also have pheromones, which are pretty useful for dating. 

The theory was that if wheat could exude these unattractive pheromones, the insects would stop attacking it. And this way, we could save lots of pesticides. Actually, this is a great approach. 

The stakes were high because a group of anti - GMO protesters had vowed to destroy the test site before the experiment could offer any results. In response, the scientists released a passionate YouTube video appeal. They talked to the media and pleaded that their effort was >actually to reduce pesticide use. 

One of the scientists, Toby Bruce, addressed the camera directly; he said: We have developed this new variety of wheat which doesn’t require treatment with an insecticide, and it uses a natural aphid repellent which already widely occurs in nature and is produced by more than 400 different plant species. We have engineered this into the wheat genome so that the wheat can do the same thing and defend itself. Are you really against this? Because it could have a lot of environmental benefits. Or is it simply you distrust it because it’s a GMO? Another Rothamsted scientist in the video was Janet Martin, who asked quite reasonably: ‘ You seem to think, even before we’ve had a chance to test the trial, that our GM wheat variety is bad. But how can you know this? ’ She paused and uttered a weary, unscripted sigh before continuing. ‘ It’s clearly not through scientific investigation because we’ve not even had a chance to do any tests yet. 



Support Red to Green ⁠⁠ https://www.patreon.com/RedtoGreen⁠⁠

Get funding for your food science research: ⁠⁠https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung⁠⁠

More info and links to resources on⁠⁠ https://redtogreen.solutions/  ⁠⁠

Seeds of Science ⁠https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987⁠

Connect with the host, Marina ⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/⁠⁠

Connect with the host, Frank ⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/⁠⁠

Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! 3



DISCLAIMER - The podcast and article represent the personal opinions and interpretations of the participants). The statements may be exaggerated for entertainment and/or comedic purposes. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per the cited sources. However, the participants do not guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. Readers are encouraged to verify the information presented and conduct their own research independently. The participants acknowledge that Bayer Crop Science and/or other parties mentioned have the right to an alternative interpretation of matters discussed.

"The World According to Monsanto - Pollution, Corruption and the Control of our food supply" - what a book title. As an agrifood historian, I enjoyed a whole seminar just on the history of pesticides. And let me tell you - it's shady and super interesting.

!! Find the sources, key takeaways and links on our blog: https://redtogreen.ghost.io/what-monsanto-teaches-us-about-biotech/

Find out about the world's most popular pesticide Glyphosate. And about "the World's most evil company" - Monsanto, according to TopTens.

French TV journalist and documentary filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin wrote the book. She generally issues books and documentary films together on the topics she investigates. And yes, there is a freely available documentary on this topic! It's quite old-school because the content is from 2008, but well.

Hot tip: you can also find the book as a free PDF online on various websites.



LINK

Support Red to Greenhttps://www.patreon.com/RedtoGreenhttps://www.patreon.com/RedtoGreen

Get funding for your food science research: https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung

More info and links to resources on https://redtogreen.solutions/  

The book Food Politics by Marion Nestle https://www.foodpolitics.com/

Connect with the host, Marina https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/

Connect with the host, Frank https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/

Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! 3



DISCLAIMER - The podcast and article represent the personal opinions and interpretations of the participants). The statements may be exaggerated for entertainment and/or comedic purposes. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per the cited sources. However, the participants do not guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. Readers are encouraged to verify the information presented and conduct their own research independently. The participants acknowledge that Bayer Crop Science and/or other parties mentioned have the right to an alternative interpretation of matters discussed.