It's all about soil

Today, it's all about soil and its role in helping us fight climate change. In my previous posts, I have addressed the misfortunes today's agricultural soil faces due to the use of fertilisers in modern farming. Before chemical fertilisers come into play, healthy soil is packed with microorganisms, retaining nutrients and moisture to grow plants. Healthy topsoil organic matter sucks up atmospheric nitrogen, converting it to ammonia and nitrates that is consumed by the plants. This biological cycle breaks down as soon as soil is treated with synthetic fertilisers, leading to topsoil loss and the release of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas causing global climate change. So how do we stop this disastrous cycle?

Michael Pollan (author, journalist and professor of journalism at UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism) and Debbie Barker suggest that there is a way to make the soil work in favour of climate change mitigation.

(Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com)

But firstly, with the help of Pollan and Barker, let us take a closer look at what exactly has happened to our soil across the globe. Their article in the Washington Post explains: the industrialization of farming has allowed farmers to grow more crops more quickly. But modern techniques have also wreaked havoc on the earth, water and atmosphere. Intense plowing, for example, has introduced more oxygen into the soil, boosting the microbes that convert organic matter into carbon dioxide. The quest to wring every last dollar out of fields has put pressure on farmers to rely on chemical fertilisers. This often leaves fields more bare between growing seasons, allowing carbon to escape into the air. Scientists estimate that cultivated soil has lost 50 to 70 percent of its carbon, speeding up climate change.' Industrialised farming is also having a detrimental effect on water security, especially in places that are already experiencing acute water scarcity. The chemical treatment and extensive plowing of soil causes the ground to absorb water less efficiently. Any water that the soil cannot absorb becomes runoff, taking some of the chemicals and fertilisers with it to the nearest water body. This contaminates rivers, lakes and seas while putting human water supply sources at risk.

This all starts to sound very apocalyptic (as talking about climate change tends to do from time to time) but Pollan and Barker do suggest there is something we can do. It's called 'cover crops'. To all the farmers out there, try this! Cover crops (beans, rye and oats for example) are planted in between vegetable rows, keeping as much of the crop field covered and using up as much photosynthesis potential as possible. Cover crops also help to keep nitrogen and other nutrients in the soil, making it a favourable environment for the 'main crops' to grow without needing fertiliser treatment. Additionally, cover crops can be grown throughout the year to ensure the field never sits empty, leaving the soil exposed and wasting photosynthesis potential.

In reality, growing cover crops may be more difficult than it sounds. Pollan and Barker explain that current federal policy in the United States ensures that farmers do not waste their time growing crops they cannot sell, limiting growing season for cover crops. In order to allow carbon friendly farming, these policies need a revisit.

(Source: https://broadforkfarm.files.wordpress.com)

In addition to the cover crop strategy, a switch towards organic fertilisers instead of synthetic nitrogen ones should be encouraged. Research at UC Berkeley shows that 'applying a single layer of compost, less than an inch thick, to rangelands stimulates a burst of microbial and plant growth that sequesters dramatic amounts of carbon in the soil - more than 1.5 tons per acre.' All these practices fit into a lifecycle of a sustainable, organic and self-sustaining farm. Cattle are used to graze the fields, cattle manure is used to fertilise the crops and fields, plant growth increases due to manure fertilisation and the process starts again. In the meantime, cattle are fed with organic grass rather than corn, leaving out the industrialised, fossil-fuel intensive corn production from the equation. Sounds too good to be true?

Unfortunately, it probably is, for the moment. At a global level at least. As world leaders gather in Paris over the next week to address the global action plan on climate change, food production and food related climate change does not seem to be on the list of priorities. Transport and energy sectors will likely to take the front seat at the conference. However, I do hope that when the next climate change conference comes along, agriculture induced climate change will have a central seat at the table. In the mean time, change will have to come from local and government level. It seems to me that changes that can be done in the agriculture sector to slow down climate change are just too good to miss out on. But hey, that's just me.

Until next time,

Laura

Dangers of a standardised diet

When you walk down a city supermarket isle almost anywhere in the world, it will rarely feel like the shops are lacking in variety. When strolling through the America's king of supermarkets, Walmart, one can find 150 different ice cream flavours, hundreds of varieties of chocolate and about 30 kinds of potato chips. On the surface, the ginormous supermarkets of our time house a sea of choice but in reality the variety of base ingredients and recipes is very limited. In fact, humankind has weeded out the often most tasteful and pleasant varieties and kept the ones that are most easily transportable and least vulnerable to disease. This has led us to be highly dependable on a handful of base ingredient varieties- the Cavendish banana, the Granny Smith apple and others. And all those 'basics' have evolved to be the optimal breed of vegetable, fruit or even meat for commercial cultivation and use. 

Simran Sethi, the author of 'Bread, Wine, Chocolate: The Slow Loss of Foods We Love’, writes on food standardisation and how climate change threatens our current way of eating. Sethi accurately points out that we are all moving towards a global ‘standard diet’, often taking America as the role model. And as it turns out, the standard diet is largely made up of the basic ingredients that have come to dominate the food industry: corn, soybeans, rice, palm oil. Sethi writes: ‘globally, foods have become more alike and less diverse. As the amount of food around the world has shrunk to just a handful of crops, regional and local crops have become scarce or disappeared altogether. Wheat, rice and corn, plus palm oil and soybeans, are what we all eat now—the same type and the same amount.’

The statistics are astonishing: the FAO’s research suggests that 95 percent of the calories consumed across the planet come from 30 species. Out of the 300 000 edible plant varieties, we only use and cultivate 150. In fact, 75 percent of world’s food produce comes from 12 plant species and 5 animals. This standardisation has an obvious negative effect on biodiversity, with local plant species disappearing to make room for the megacrops. Additionally, by depending so heavily on just a handful crops and animals, the global food industry is putting itself in a very vulnerable position when it comes to climate change. If the world continues to warm, bringing along more climate extremes and changing seasonal cycles, many of these megacrops may be in danger.

Our standardised diet is making us put all our eggs in the same basket, both figuratively and literally. And unfortunately, it is not only climate change that is affecting our basic megacrops. We also need to be on the lookout for crop diseases. One of the current biggest worries in the agribusiness is wheat rust, an airborne fungus that has quickly spread from Africa to East and Central Asia, Middle East and Europe. Wheat rust is a powerful fungus dubbed as the ‘polio of agriculture’ which threatens to wipe out the wheat crop on a global scale, putting our current wheat intensive diet in danger.

In conclusion, to protect the planet’s biodiversity and ensure that we do not lose some of the most important ingredients in our food system, a more balanced and locally sourced diet is sought. Locally sourced, seasonally balanced and diversified diets will embrace the local biodiversity and benefit us in many other ways (check out the previous posts on local/organic topics).

PS. To all the food lovers, 'Bread, Wine, Chocolate: The Slow Loss of Foods We Love’ is a powerful and delicious read, a true eye opener.

Until next time,

Laura

GMO Debate

Another interesting piece by the brilliant Jonathan Foley from the Institute on the Environment. And again, on my favorite blog space- Ensia. If I haven't said this before, for anyone who is interested in anything environment-related, be it biodiversity, technology or culture, Ensia is an excellent place to follow!

(Source: ensia.com)

This time, Foley addresses the problems of GM and the polarised debate it causes in today's world. He points out the current failures of GM and reminds us that it cannot be treated as a silver bullet solution. This article goes somewhat against my previous rather positive arguments about GM, providing a balanced debate of an important question in current food system.

In theory, GMOs sound very useful. They are supposed to help us “feed the world” because they will improve food security, dramatically boost crop yields, combat weeds and pests using fewer chemicals, make crops more nutritious, and have tremendous benefits to society. But have they?

Here is the link to the article: http://ensia.com/voices/gmos-silver-bullets-and-the-trap-of-reductionist-thinking/.

Laura

Sustainable Agriculture: Agroecological practices

Having looked at all the problems that appear with today's industrial food sector, let me now move on to give some suggestions how we could produce food more efficiently and with less environmental damages. Modern agriculture has increasingly amended countless ecosystems, depleted habitats and continues to harm the environment. Sustainable agriculture on the other hand tries to bring back natural properties of ecosystems without significant losses to productivity. Many of you might think that looking at today's industrial food production, we are past the point of no return. But with evidence of climate-friendly farms popping up around the world, recovery can happen fast and be hugely successful. Of course, it takes time to undo the wrongs of the food industry's past but all is not lost yet.

Jules Pretty (2013) has identified the key principles of sustainable farming as follows:

• integration of biological and ecological processes such as nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration, competition and others.
• minimisation of the use of non-renewable inputs that harm the environment, farmers or consumers.
• productive use of the knowledge and skills of farmers and people's collective capacities to work together towards sustainable agriculture.

Pretty also emphasises that sustainable farming does not rule out any technologies but incorporates technologies that do not harm the environment and enhance efficiency. It is often though that sustainable farming means cutting down inputs that go into the practice, but here the focus is on changing the inputs: from fossil fuels to renewable energy, from chemical fertilisers to nitrogen-fixing vegetables, from ploughing to zero-tillage (Pretty, 2006).

(Source: http://zoisenergy.com)

Sustainable farming should fit the land and for that, soil matter should be restored through minimised nutrient leaks. A healthy soil should be rich with microorganisms and bacteria, able to absorb water and oxygen. Conventional farming degrades soil (thanks to fertilisers, pesticides and other agro-chemicals), the opposite of what we should be doing! We need to close the loop of nutrient flows: from microorganisms to soil to plants to animals and back (Fedoroff et al, 2010). Regenerating soil will also bring back the lost biodiversity as degraded soils become a hostile habitat for biodiversity. Agroecological practices that promote sustainability should include integrated pest and nutrient management. Due to the harm that is caused by chemical fertilisers and pesticides (a little reminder here). Alongside its environmental damage through greenhouse gas emissions, these chemicals undermine soil's natural ability to produce and maintain crops.

But you ask me, isn't moving away from fertilisers and pesticides going to sacrifice productivity in our hungry world where nearly 870 million people suffer chronic undernourishment? Pretty et al (2006) has showed that there is reason to be optimistic. The challenge is to seek sustainable intensification without relying on fossil fuels or chemicals. This study showed how sustainable agriculture projects (integrated pest and nutrient management etc.) introduced increased crop yields. The authors had a look at resource conserving farms in 57 poor countries covering 37 million hectares and found that with sustainable farming methods, crop yields increased on average by 79%. Although their data shows large disparities between results, in nearly all cases there was an increase with the project. In addition, projects where pesticide data was monitored, 77% of cases showed decline in pesticide use by 71%, while yields grew by 42%.  Pretty et al (2006) paper shows how sustainable farming techniques can help increase yields (without conventional food production techniques) in developing countries where hunger is most prevalent, while preserving natural ecosystems and staying environmentally sound. There remains room for criticism as these technologies are not certain to cover all future food demand but there is reason to be optimistic. The critical focus should be to give universal access to productive technologies on local, national and international scale.

(Source: http://www.maitlandmountainfarm.com)

 What we need is to move away from conventional mono-cultures (CAFOs, corn industry) towards a more multifunctional farming idea where the farm is divided between crops and livestock while ensuring healthy ecosystem services. Agriculture should be fundamentally multifunctional but let us further look at how moving away from monocultures (growing only one crop or animal rather than a diversified set of crops) can help food production become more environmentally friendly. Integrated crop-livestock systems (ICLS) are agricultural systems that take advantage of the relationship between animals and crops (Bonaudo et al, 2013). Animals are used to make use of the crops that are not suitable for human consumption (nonfood biomass) and due to animal mobility, non-farming areas can be used for 'promoting fertility transfer across diverse and heterogeneous landscapes' (Bonaudo et al, 2013). Authors look at two ICLS in France and Brazil to find out what are the benefits of designing integrated and more sustainable ICLS, coming to a conclusion that reconstructing links between soils, crops and animals is an essential mechanism that should be a focus of future agriculture. Here is a figure showing the benefits of an ICLS instead of a previous conventional farming method in one of the case studies in France, where self-sufficiency and avoidance of external inputs is common mantra:

Upper diagram showing the situation of the farm before the introduction of agroecological practices and the lower diagram showing the state after becoming an ICLS

(Source: Bonaudo et al, 2013)

One must realise that such farming methods do not eliminate all environmental damage (especially as we are talking about livestock production), but in order to start moving towards sustainable methods, gradual improvements must be made and ICLS are a good start. In addition other benefits, some argue that the main gain of combining animals and crops is the fact that animal manure becomes a resource rather than being nuisance (Dumont et al, 2013). It is rich in nutrients and microorganisms, providing soil with an essential source of energy. In many regions of southeast Asia, farmers are adding an aquaculture to an already integrated crop-livestock farm. This systems works as a cycle where animal manure fertilises the fish pond and crop land while pond sediments fertilise crops and give feed for livestock, increasing stability and sustainability. All links must work together in order to result in a healthy farm cycle. For example is there is uneaten feed in the pond that contaminates water, fish population can decline, sediment can decrease and there is little fertiliser left for the cropland. Below is a  simplified figure showing the basic workings of such integrated farms:

Interactions within farms that operate an integrated agriculture-aquaculture system.

(Source: Dumont et al, 2013)

Not only is grain-fed livestock produced in integrated farming systems more environmentally sustainable but it is also better for human health (Daley et al, 2010). Grass-fed beef is lower in overall fat content and contains a significantly improved fatty acid composition. In order to cut down on environmental impacts our food industry creates, food production needs to become more integrated, less chemical-dependent, ecosystem focused and we need to abandon the one-size-fits-all model that is popularised today (CAFOs). In the heart of sustainable farming should be the reconstruction of soil matter, integration of species, promoting biodiversity, integrated pest and nutrient management and use of renewable energy sources. There is still a long way to go but the possibilities in hand give us an opportunity to change the way our food produced in the future. In this aspect, the responsibility relies with policy makers and stakeholders around the table of food production. If consumers have the power to dictate what, where and how much they buy, the change in farming towards sustainability must come from inside the production chain. And to my great pleasure, it is evident that climate-friendly farming is on a rise and it is happening all over the world. I leave you with a video by Michael Pollan's talk about Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm, probably one of the most famous sustainable farms in the US (you might remember it from Food Inc.). Pollan paints a picture of how farmers should understand the ecosystem life-cycles they operate in, respect the natural environment of their crops and animals and other revelations he had after visiting the farm in Virginia. Hope you enjoy it!

I am now slowly coming to the end of my blog (for my university course at least) and this will bring me to conclude and recap what I have talked about so far. In my final posts I will be giving you easy pointers towards a climate-friendly diet and discussing, where this blog has led me. Thank you for reading!

Till next time,

Laura

Click & Grow

I hope everyone had a lovely Christmas break! Today, I want to focus my post on a rather different topic than usual: Click & Grow is a new technology developed in Estonia that enables us to become our own gardeners, even without a green space in our household. Inspired by my own Christmas present this year, I thought I would share this innovative technology with you on growing food in your own smart garden. There is nothing better than to pick some home-grown berries from your own garden in a summer morning to go into your breakfast. But in the absence of a garden and  persistence for caring for the plant, Click & Grow smart gardens can do the trick.

Cherry tomatoes in a Click & Grow pot (what I will be growing as well)

(Source: http://www.clickandgrow.com)

'Inspired by NASA, we've created a solution that gives plant roots an optimal amount of water, oxygen and nutrients at all times.

It's a bit like giving plants a personal trainer, a chef, Harvard schooling, loving parents and a dog.

Flowers and herbs will love growing up in our smart garden!' 

Click & Grow plants do not need any watering or fertilisation, all the work is taken care of by sensors, processor and special software in the pot itself. The fact that they do not need consistent watering means that the essential nutrients are not flushed out of the soil as in a traditional growing pot. The smart soil of Click & Grow contains required nutrients that are released according to the plant's growth cycle. The masterpiece of this all is the smart soil (nano technological growth medium) that contains pockets of oxygen even if wet and makes sure oxygen and nutrients are spread equally. Check out their website here: http://www.clickandgrow.com/.

(Source: http://www.blessthisstuff.com)

For me it sounds like a very interesting idea, but I am still to find out how it exactly works and whether it is worth the money and can it live up to its expectations. I am not a big gardener myself (due to the obvious lack of space or a garden in central London) and I do believe robot gardens are the thing of the future. Some people might find Click & Grow taking away the need for love and care in your garden. Some say a regular pot does the exact same thing. But the fact is, Click & Grow is spreading across the globe and more people are growing their own herbs, berries and vegetables with it. The inevitability of this technology is that it is more expensive than an ordinary growing pot but I will let you decide for yourself whether you are pro-Click & Grow or not. I look forward to seeing my cherry tomatoes growing in my pot already (will definitely show you an update in a few weeks)! This technology may able us to grow our own chillies, strawberries and tomatoes without shipping them in from across the globe. I believe Click & Grow is showing us a glimpse of gardening future but it still has a long way to go with the need to make this technology more affordable. I leave you with a short video of how Click & Grow works, hope you enjoyed this little detour!

In my next post, I will return to the idea of sustainable farming and what we can do to make our food industry less energy intensive and reduce its impact on the environment.

Till next time,

Laura

Love Food Hate Waste This Christmas

Christmas is the time for family, home and delicious food. But whether we like it or not, Christmas also tends to be the most wasteful time of the year. The numbers are worrying! According to the Guardian's Environmental blog:

'We throw out the equivalent of 2 million turkeys, 5m Christmas puddings and a truly shocking 74m mince pies, according to the Love Food Hate Waste campaign run by the government's waste reduction advisory body, Wrap. To put it into context, that means we are binning nearly twice as many mince pies as retail giant Marks & Spencer sells every year (40m).'

Source and recipe for these cute Christmas pudding truffles made out of leftovers: http://england.lovefoodhatewaste.com

The campaign Love Food Hate Waste (read more about them from my previous post) wants to help us make the most of our Christmas meals and save money. Have a look at their pointers here: http://england.lovefoodhatewaste.com. They have instructions from Christmas Day to New Years Eve to make sure all our leftovers have a delicious recipe to go into. 

But most importantly, Merry Christmas to you all!

Till next time,

Laura

Genetically Modified Crops: Friend or Foe?

In my previous posts, I have mostly been talking about the environmentally destructive problems today's agricultural sector faces. It is now time to look at the future and what can be done to ease the burden the planet bears due to our eating habits and food production. This time I want to take on a widely controversial topic of genetically modified (GM) crops and their potential risks and benefits to our planet's health. I understand that biotechnology is a vast area of study and this blog cannot by any means cover all its ups and downs from ethical to socio-economic aspects. It is an interdisciplinary and complex issue and discussions about the future of GM crops have still not come to a conclusion. I will however try to understand whether GM crops can be a viable option for future food production in terms of its environmental impacts.

As time moves on, the world population is estimated to hit 9 billion in 2050 and we are desperate for ways to produce food in a more sustainable way ensuring higher yields and better nutrition to feed the world's population. GM crops have been considered as one of our promising options to reach our goals. If talking about genetic engineering and biotechnology, GM crops are considered as organisms whose characteristics have been deliberately modified 'by the manipulation of genetic material, especially DNA, and transformation of certain genes to create new variations of life' (Uzogara, 2000: p 180). There has been a longstanding debate between the advocators and the critics of GM crops. The proponents of GM argue that the benefits to humanity are limitless and that genetic engineering can be the answer to many of today's agricultural, health and ecological problems. They say the fear of GM crops is irrational and based on trade protectionism rather than realistic environmental and health concerns (Uzogara, 2000).

(Source:http://ecologyescapades.com)

One of the environmental concerns that GM brings along is the unintentional gene transfer to wild plants. Once genetically engineered crops are cultivated in the nature, they become harder to control and could easily cross-pollinate with wild species. This could lead to the creation of 'super-weeds': as GM crops incorporate a resistance to herbicide and insects, these characteristics could pass on to weeds that may become hard to eradicate. GM crops can therefore introduce invasive plants with potential to lower crop yields and the possibility of disrupted natural ecosystems (Uzogara, 2000).

A graph showing the global growth of biotech crops

(Source: James, 2011)

The graph above from a report on global status on commercialised GM crops shows the growth of biotech crops from 1996 to 2011 (James, 2011). Although biotech crops are becoming more common and are introduced all over the world, some critics still have their doubts. Some argue that due to the novelty of GM crops we also do not know how the new genes affect genetic diversity, nutritional values and health of humans (allergenicity) (Dale et al, 2002). Since 1996, GM crops have seen a dramatic rise in the United States, alongside with the increased health problems. But GM crops do not only affect humans (and animals) who consume them, they can impact the wider ecosystem as well. The new DNA sequence can enter the ecosystem by several means. For example, plant DNA becomes present in the soil as a result of decaying plant remains resulting in novel DNA make up in the soil (Dale et al, 2002). These small genetic alterations can lead to large-scale ecological changes. The impact of these novel DNA is largely dependent on whether it survives long enough to be transferred to other organisms (Dale et al, 2002).

Now let's look beyond the fears. If you look back a few posts, I addressed the issue of using agro-chemicals and pesticides in food production, linking them to their environmental risks. If you missed this post, here is a refresher. In addition to the potential of extended shelf-life and improved nutritional quality of GM crops, reduction in pesticide use is considered to be a benefit of genetic engineering (Phipps and Park, 2002). GM crops could be engineered to be weed and pest tolerant, leaving little room for pesticide use, leading to reductions in carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere. GM also increases the efficiency of nitrogen extraction from the soil by plants, leading to the decrease in need for fertiliser use. This eliminates the danger of wasted fertilisers leaking into waterways or evaporating to the atmosphere (Uzogara, 2000).

In addition, GM crops could introduce increased crop yields through reduced crop loss due to high-tolerance crops (to weeds, temperature, salinity and so on). GM crops would ensure an increased global food supply without losing further land to deforestation or peat destruction. 'Agricultural biotechnology will be particularly useful in land conservation in developing countries where valuable temperate and tropical forest lands are being converted to farmlands at an alarming rate' (Uzogara, 2000: p 197). To further consider the extended shelf-life of food products thanks to genetic engineering, food waste by supermarkets and individuals can shrink thanks to GM as well (you can read about impacts of food waste in my previous post here).

(Source: http://www.cooksbookblog.com)

Do you believe that introduction of GM crops will help the environment and the benefits overweigh the threats? Phipps and Park estimate that if 50% of maize, oil seed rape, sugar beet and cotton was grown as genetically modified crop, we would see a decrease of 7.5 million hectares sprayed, saving us 20.5 million litres of diesel and resulting in a reduction of approximately 73 000 tonnes of released carbon dioxide. Is that enough to overlook the risks of, as some like to call it, 'Frankenfood'? The polarisation of public debate around GM has led to huge losses in public goods, Potrykus (2013) argues in his paper published in Trends in Biotechnology. He points out that as a result of unjustified regulation, 'GMO product development is so expensive and time-consuming that it is beyond the capacity of public institutions and for public good'. Looking at the past 25 years of biotechnology research, Portykus finds no novel risk associated with transgenic plants. And if research is not enough, we have almost 17 years of practical experience incorporating 150 million hectares with no single documented case of harm related to GM crops. He takes the case of Golden Rice, genetically modified to be vitamin A rich compared to traditional rice. The invention could cure health problems related to vitamin deficiency in many countries with populations dependent on rice. However, due to tight regulation, the deployment of Golden Rice has taken 12 years, requiring up to USD 30 million, and is still largely debated and criticised.

The unknown threats to human health, biodiversity and ecosystems seem to raise still raise concerns about wide commercialisation of GM crops. Although research to date has not found any human health risk connected to GM crops, the public attitude remains negative and protected by rigorous regulation. In the longer run however, I believe that biotech regulation will start to ease and the GM crops will become a standard part of our food production (like we see it happening all over the world with the United States taking the lead (James, 2011)). If the modern food system continues in its current path (as the point of this whole blog), dramatic environmental consequences will follow.

Till next time,
Laura

Next Up: GM Crops

The next topic for my blog is GM crops and their viability for future food supply. In recent years, much of the world has been opposing GM crops from becoming commercially used. Here is a BBC Radio 5 conversation I found that mirrors the current mainstream attitude towards GM crops: Helen Wallace suggests there are better ways to improve nutrient efficiency in the future and opposes the 'golden rice'.

Before starting the discussion, I thought it would be interesting to think about the current mindset that the agriculture and policy sector has for GM crops. In the case of 'golden rice': after genetic modification, this rice contains more vitamin A than any other conventional rice, which can eradicate nutrient deficiency in many Asian and African regions. But why are so many people against it? What is your take on this?

(Source: http://www.npr.org)

I leave you with this thought and I will return next time to discuss whether GM crops can be a viable option for future food production in terms of its environmental impacts. The focus will be on its environmental costs and benefits as it is a highly controversial, multidisciplinary and complex topic and analysing all its aspects lies outside the scope of this blog. I will however try to figure out whether GM crops can be a beneficial and a sustainable farming method or are they as bad and dangerous as many (Greenpeace) want us to believe.

Till next time,
Laura