What do you think?
Rate this book
Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food
"Tomorrow's Table" argues that a judicious blend of two important strands of agriculture--genetic engineering and organic farming--is key to helping feed the world's growing population in an ecologically balanced manner. Pamela Ronald, a geneticist, and her husband, Raoul Adamchak, an organic farmer, take the reader inside their lives for roughly a year, allowing us to look over their shoulders so that we can see what geneticists and organic farmers actually do. Readers see the problems that farmers face, trying to provide larger yields without resorting to expensive or environmentally hazardous chemicals--a problem that will loom larger and larger as the century progresses--and they learn how organic farmers and geneticists address these problems. The book is for consumers, farmers, and policy decision makers who want to make food choices and policy that will support ecologically responsible farming practices, and for anyone who wants accurate information about organic farming, genetic engineering, and their potential impacts on human health and the environment.The first edition was published in hardcover in 2008 and in paperback in 2009. This second edition reflects the many and varied changes the fields of farming and genetic engineering have seen since 2009. It includes a new preface and three new chapters-one on politics and food-related protests such as the Marin county anti-vaccine movement and the subsequent outbreak of whooping cough, one on farming and food security, and one containing various recipes. Existing chapters on the tools of genetic engineering, organic vs. conventional foods, the tools of organic agriculture, and food labeling and legislature have all been updated.
377 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 18, 2008
42 people are currently reading
1830 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews
February 18, 2011
I first became curious about this book after reading that it was co-authored by an organic farmer and a plant geneticist who also happen to be husband and wife. Given how polarized the conversation about organic food and genetically engineered food tends to be, I hoped this book would provide me with some more balanced information on the topic than is generally available, and that is precisely what it does.
Pam Ronald works at UC Davis, where she has been using the techniques of genetic engineering to create strains of rice that can better survive flood conditions and thus lower starvation rates in places like Bangladesh. Her husband Raoul runs the university's student organic farm. They have each written chapters individually to educate readers about various aspects of their respective disciplines and conclude the book with a jointly written and compelling argument that genetically engineered, organically grown food is going to be an important tool in the fight to end world hunger and environmental degradation.
Pam starts the book with what I think is supposed to be a simple introduction to the science of plant genetics. I was a little concerned when I read this chapter since it was rather more technical than I was expecting (it includes a recipe for how to extract DNA from a strawberry). But after laying that foundation, the book becomes highly readable as it addresses the arguments against GE plants one by one.
Pam makes a compelling case that what geneticists do to modify plants in the lab today is not very different from what humans have been doing to selectively manipulate plants ever since we started domesticating them thousands of years ago. She also effectively addresses each of the safety concerns about GE plants, from concerns about the impact on human health (despite GE plants having been in wide use for over 30 years, there isn't a single documented case of health problems from them) fears about pollen drift and the unintended creation of "superweeds" (theoretically possible but exceedingly unlikely due in part to the fact that domestic crops can't survive without human tending) and questions of corporate ownership of patents and how intellectual property concerns limit the ways in which these plants can be used to alleviate hunger in the parts of the world that need them the most.
Raoul also chimes in with a candid discussion of both the benefits and very real limitations of organic farming. While there are some things organics can do very well, it will never be a complete solution to the world's food problems. His chapter on the economics of saving seed was an especially interesting contribution, as it explains why the inability to save GE seeds isn't as much of a threat as its been made out to be (in a nutshell, simple economics prevent all seed companies - organic as well as GE - from gouging farmers - if buying expensive patented seed doesn't pay for itself, farmers can use seed banks to go back to doing things the old fashioned way.)
In one of Pam's chapters, she addresses the monarch butterfly scare that was widely reported in the press a few years ago, in which butterflies were dying after consuming a GE crop. What was never reported in the press was that follow up studies demonstrated that the damage to the butterfly population from conventional pesticides currently in use was far greater than the damage that could be done from GE crops.
Herein lies one of the major arguments of the book - that, contrary to what the environmental movement claims, GE crops have astoundingly positive environmental benefits. Engineering a plant to be resistant to its most dangerous pest can dramatically reduce the amount of pesticides required to grow it. In just one example, pesticide use in the Chinese cotton crop has decreased 80% since the introduction of GE varieties.
In addition, GE may provide the only way to prevent some of our more vulnerable crops from being wiped out by a devastating viruses. The domestic papaya industry was nearly destroyed by one such virus until a resistant GE strain was created. Bananas, peaches and plums are just a few of our crops that face similar risks.
You can still buy non-GE organic papaya here because Hawaiian farmers have learned to work together to produce both. Rings of virus-resistant GE papaya have been planted as a protective barrier around the more vulnerable, organic crop. This is a good metaphor for the argument the authors make that solutions to our food and environmental problems lie not in either GE or organic, but in a thoughtful combination of the best of both.
At a time when the government's recent approval of GE alfalfa has caused what can only be described as a hysterical reaction among those who fear this is going to infringe upon their "right" to buy organic food uncontaminated by GE, I think this message is a crucial one. Those who genuinely care about the environment need to expand their perspective to include not just their own desire to buy boutique organics, but the food needs of developing nations and the environmental needs of a planet stressed by conventional farming techniques. This book is an excellent place to begin debunking the fear-mongering about GE and understanding what its risks and benefits really are.
Pam Ronald works at UC Davis, where she has been using the techniques of genetic engineering to create strains of rice that can better survive flood conditions and thus lower starvation rates in places like Bangladesh. Her husband Raoul runs the university's student organic farm. They have each written chapters individually to educate readers about various aspects of their respective disciplines and conclude the book with a jointly written and compelling argument that genetically engineered, organically grown food is going to be an important tool in the fight to end world hunger and environmental degradation.
Pam starts the book with what I think is supposed to be a simple introduction to the science of plant genetics. I was a little concerned when I read this chapter since it was rather more technical than I was expecting (it includes a recipe for how to extract DNA from a strawberry). But after laying that foundation, the book becomes highly readable as it addresses the arguments against GE plants one by one.
Pam makes a compelling case that what geneticists do to modify plants in the lab today is not very different from what humans have been doing to selectively manipulate plants ever since we started domesticating them thousands of years ago. She also effectively addresses each of the safety concerns about GE plants, from concerns about the impact on human health (despite GE plants having been in wide use for over 30 years, there isn't a single documented case of health problems from them) fears about pollen drift and the unintended creation of "superweeds" (theoretically possible but exceedingly unlikely due in part to the fact that domestic crops can't survive without human tending) and questions of corporate ownership of patents and how intellectual property concerns limit the ways in which these plants can be used to alleviate hunger in the parts of the world that need them the most.
Raoul also chimes in with a candid discussion of both the benefits and very real limitations of organic farming. While there are some things organics can do very well, it will never be a complete solution to the world's food problems. His chapter on the economics of saving seed was an especially interesting contribution, as it explains why the inability to save GE seeds isn't as much of a threat as its been made out to be (in a nutshell, simple economics prevent all seed companies - organic as well as GE - from gouging farmers - if buying expensive patented seed doesn't pay for itself, farmers can use seed banks to go back to doing things the old fashioned way.)
In one of Pam's chapters, she addresses the monarch butterfly scare that was widely reported in the press a few years ago, in which butterflies were dying after consuming a GE crop. What was never reported in the press was that follow up studies demonstrated that the damage to the butterfly population from conventional pesticides currently in use was far greater than the damage that could be done from GE crops.
Herein lies one of the major arguments of the book - that, contrary to what the environmental movement claims, GE crops have astoundingly positive environmental benefits. Engineering a plant to be resistant to its most dangerous pest can dramatically reduce the amount of pesticides required to grow it. In just one example, pesticide use in the Chinese cotton crop has decreased 80% since the introduction of GE varieties.
In addition, GE may provide the only way to prevent some of our more vulnerable crops from being wiped out by a devastating viruses. The domestic papaya industry was nearly destroyed by one such virus until a resistant GE strain was created. Bananas, peaches and plums are just a few of our crops that face similar risks.
You can still buy non-GE organic papaya here because Hawaiian farmers have learned to work together to produce both. Rings of virus-resistant GE papaya have been planted as a protective barrier around the more vulnerable, organic crop. This is a good metaphor for the argument the authors make that solutions to our food and environmental problems lie not in either GE or organic, but in a thoughtful combination of the best of both.
At a time when the government's recent approval of GE alfalfa has caused what can only be described as a hysterical reaction among those who fear this is going to infringe upon their "right" to buy organic food uncontaminated by GE, I think this message is a crucial one. Those who genuinely care about the environment need to expand their perspective to include not just their own desire to buy boutique organics, but the food needs of developing nations and the environmental needs of a planet stressed by conventional farming techniques. This book is an excellent place to begin debunking the fear-mongering about GE and understanding what its risks and benefits really are.
July 20, 2013
I think about agricultural ecology and human nutrition and health pretty much all the time these days, and I rarely think about genetically engineered crops. On one hand, the problems, it's not even on the radar. Simply doing agriculture is about the worst aspect of agriculture - destroying habitat for most native organisms and perpetuating that destruction every year by killing colonizing perennials and maintaining disturbance levels that exclude anybody adapted to a stable perennial ecosystem. Soil erosion, fertilizer runoff, depletion of aquifers for irrigation, and toxic pesticide use are the other big problems exported from farm fields.
And the yield sucks, too - low dietary diversity, highly vulnerable to flooding, drought, and pests, and nutrient poor foods. Whether the crops are GE varieties owned by Monsanto or just hybrid varieties owned by Monsanto is immaterial. In some situations important variables could be altered one way or another by a engineered gene - Bt corn probably did reduce insecticide use, and herbicide resistant crops probably increased herbicide use but decreased tillage. A mixed bag, not really solving the core problems with the system, but not making it appreciably worse.
On the other hand, GE seemed to offer no solutions. Crops were designed for an awful system using the shortsighted logic of the chemical arms race logic. The techniques were rarely aimed at perennial crops, and more rarely at nuts. The traits that can be expressed through genetic modification are limited and don't include complex things like increased drought resistance or adaptation to low-input, biodiverse organic systems. And how practical is it to expect the relatively few qualified labs to develop locally adapted strains of every crop for every climatic and soil zone?
A lot of that changed when I learned about the American Chestnut. The chestnut was once the staple crop of the whole eastern north American forest, feeding squirrels, passenger pigeons, native Americans, settlers, and many other species. They were essentially wiped out by an invasive fungus from China. Enough germplasm survives in a few remaining trees to supply a three-pronged effort to create blight-resistant trees. Among these is William Powell's GE program at SUNY Syracuse. The goal of all three methods is to produce a tree that is American in every respect but vulnerability to blight. Powell's current tack is to insert wheat genes that code for an enzyme that defuses the fungus' acid attack. And his method has thus far yielded better results than the other two programs. If the American Chestnut could be revived, it would be the perfect centerpiece of a forest-based restoration agriculture program. Despite the fact that its GMO status would prevent it from being certified organic, it would be by far the most environmentally beneficial food production system in use in the country.
So now I had a reason to think the techniques of GE had a role to play in restoration agriculture, and in the beautiful synchronicity of ideas and learning, my friend Alex put this book in front of me when I was most interested and open to it. I was excited to think about other ways in which GE could aid my goals, making it the ally of organic farming instead of its opposite.
Unfortunately, the book doesn't even try to go in that direction. It's actually kind of unclear what the goal of the book is. Its most salient aim seems to be using facts, stories, and the symbolically cheerful relationship between Raoul and Pamela to educate hidebound ideological readers who kneejerk-oppose GMOs in food (I once saw someone blame GMOs for the rise in gluten intolerance, despite the fact that there are no commercial GE varieties of wheat). They explain how GMOs work, how they are more precise but in most cases not qualitatively different than traditional breeding (moving genes from one variety of rice, chicken, tomato to another), and how the scientific evidence has shown no negative health impacts. Further, how there isn't really any logical speculative negative impact.
If the hopeful audience is rigidly anti-GMO organic consumers, then it's unclear why Raoul must spend so much time detailing why organic practices are important. As far as I could tell, it's because they need to show they're still on our side. Some of the facts in here might make you think they're Monsanto propaganda employees or something - "RoundUp is less toxic than table salt" - if that's the case, why doesn't Raoul use it? Or, conversely, why does he use table salt? The other reason for this section is to show that the problems organic agriculture addresses have little to do with GMOs.
I am sympathetic to their agenda - I find uninformed reactionaries of any stripe annoying, and even more so when they make me look bad - but since the book wasn't really meant for me, it was kind of disappointing. I did get some interesting perspective shifts out of it, including a better sense of just exactly how safe GE crops have been proven to be, how much difference it makes who is setting agendas for the technology's uses (ie, private v. public sector), how GE can accomplish the goals of traditional breeding with much greater precision, efficiency, and speed, and how much the patent debate also applies to organic and open-pollinated seed (I actually had no idea these were patent-protected at all, naively). All of these things were valuable.
I did wish that some other things had been explored, though, living up to what I imagined the book to be before I read it.
1. What potential is there to actually integrate GE crops into organic agriculture, solving its unique problems? What would that synthesis actually look like? Give some creative examples, other than just "resistance to this one disease."
2. If there are practical problems in this effort, discuss them. Is it, for instance, impractical to expect GE labs to help develop or even modify locally adapted genotypes of many crop plants in many production areas?
3. Discuss what would have to take place for that to happen, since at the moment GMOs are banned in organic production and consumers are becoming much more resistant to the concept.
4. What about animals? A GMO chicken appears in an anecdote at the end of the book, but otherwise they aren't mentioned at all.
5. What of modifying pest and disease organisms, like the Florida mosquito proposal?
5. Damn Monsanto et al. more. There was some light mention of how GMOs are made to look bad by evil corporations, but a lot of this was put into other peoples' mouths and tempered.
And the yield sucks, too - low dietary diversity, highly vulnerable to flooding, drought, and pests, and nutrient poor foods. Whether the crops are GE varieties owned by Monsanto or just hybrid varieties owned by Monsanto is immaterial. In some situations important variables could be altered one way or another by a engineered gene - Bt corn probably did reduce insecticide use, and herbicide resistant crops probably increased herbicide use but decreased tillage. A mixed bag, not really solving the core problems with the system, but not making it appreciably worse.
On the other hand, GE seemed to offer no solutions. Crops were designed for an awful system using the shortsighted logic of the chemical arms race logic. The techniques were rarely aimed at perennial crops, and more rarely at nuts. The traits that can be expressed through genetic modification are limited and don't include complex things like increased drought resistance or adaptation to low-input, biodiverse organic systems. And how practical is it to expect the relatively few qualified labs to develop locally adapted strains of every crop for every climatic and soil zone?
A lot of that changed when I learned about the American Chestnut. The chestnut was once the staple crop of the whole eastern north American forest, feeding squirrels, passenger pigeons, native Americans, settlers, and many other species. They were essentially wiped out by an invasive fungus from China. Enough germplasm survives in a few remaining trees to supply a three-pronged effort to create blight-resistant trees. Among these is William Powell's GE program at SUNY Syracuse. The goal of all three methods is to produce a tree that is American in every respect but vulnerability to blight. Powell's current tack is to insert wheat genes that code for an enzyme that defuses the fungus' acid attack. And his method has thus far yielded better results than the other two programs. If the American Chestnut could be revived, it would be the perfect centerpiece of a forest-based restoration agriculture program. Despite the fact that its GMO status would prevent it from being certified organic, it would be by far the most environmentally beneficial food production system in use in the country.
So now I had a reason to think the techniques of GE had a role to play in restoration agriculture, and in the beautiful synchronicity of ideas and learning, my friend Alex put this book in front of me when I was most interested and open to it. I was excited to think about other ways in which GE could aid my goals, making it the ally of organic farming instead of its opposite.
Unfortunately, the book doesn't even try to go in that direction. It's actually kind of unclear what the goal of the book is. Its most salient aim seems to be using facts, stories, and the symbolically cheerful relationship between Raoul and Pamela to educate hidebound ideological readers who kneejerk-oppose GMOs in food (I once saw someone blame GMOs for the rise in gluten intolerance, despite the fact that there are no commercial GE varieties of wheat). They explain how GMOs work, how they are more precise but in most cases not qualitatively different than traditional breeding (moving genes from one variety of rice, chicken, tomato to another), and how the scientific evidence has shown no negative health impacts. Further, how there isn't really any logical speculative negative impact.
If the hopeful audience is rigidly anti-GMO organic consumers, then it's unclear why Raoul must spend so much time detailing why organic practices are important. As far as I could tell, it's because they need to show they're still on our side. Some of the facts in here might make you think they're Monsanto propaganda employees or something - "RoundUp is less toxic than table salt" - if that's the case, why doesn't Raoul use it? Or, conversely, why does he use table salt? The other reason for this section is to show that the problems organic agriculture addresses have little to do with GMOs.
I am sympathetic to their agenda - I find uninformed reactionaries of any stripe annoying, and even more so when they make me look bad - but since the book wasn't really meant for me, it was kind of disappointing. I did get some interesting perspective shifts out of it, including a better sense of just exactly how safe GE crops have been proven to be, how much difference it makes who is setting agendas for the technology's uses (ie, private v. public sector), how GE can accomplish the goals of traditional breeding with much greater precision, efficiency, and speed, and how much the patent debate also applies to organic and open-pollinated seed (I actually had no idea these were patent-protected at all, naively). All of these things were valuable.
I did wish that some other things had been explored, though, living up to what I imagined the book to be before I read it.
1. What potential is there to actually integrate GE crops into organic agriculture, solving its unique problems? What would that synthesis actually look like? Give some creative examples, other than just "resistance to this one disease."
2. If there are practical problems in this effort, discuss them. Is it, for instance, impractical to expect GE labs to help develop or even modify locally adapted genotypes of many crop plants in many production areas?
3. Discuss what would have to take place for that to happen, since at the moment GMOs are banned in organic production and consumers are becoming much more resistant to the concept.
4. What about animals? A GMO chicken appears in an anecdote at the end of the book, but otherwise they aren't mentioned at all.
5. What of modifying pest and disease organisms, like the Florida mosquito proposal?
5. Damn Monsanto et al. more. There was some light mention of how GMOs are made to look bad by evil corporations, but a lot of this was put into other peoples' mouths and tempered.
August 10, 2023
I really enjoyed this book. It’s a chill, 1/4 memoir book that focuses on organic farming and GMOs. It balances perspectives related to developed and developing nations. Everything is explained simply and clearly, going down to almost first-principles understanding.
There’s lots of stats in this book (which I love), but many are now outdated, just a warning.
Overall, great read. Learned a very solid amount.
There’s lots of stats in this book (which I love), but many are now outdated, just a warning.
Overall, great read. Learned a very solid amount.
May 2, 2014
A must-read for anyone interested in the GMO debate or just curious about how organic farming and genetic engineering can intersect to reduce environmental impact, enhance food production, and reduce herbicide/pesticide application. This book refreshingly addresses both the benefits and pit-falls of genetic engineering and the organic movement, resulting in a well-rounded examination of both approaches.
This book touches on the details of genetic engineering in an easy-to-understand way, clearly describes its practical application, and even delves into the ethics of the debate by carefully addressing the difference between corporate interests, social implications, environmental impacts, and regulatory costs. It is rare for these distinctions to be so well articulated in the GMO debate. Distinctions are also made between to different applications of agricultural biotechnology and makes important and necessary distinctions between the various applications (viral resistant strains, flood resistant strains, herbicide resistant strains, vitamin fortified strains, etc) - important distinctions that are often overlooked or completely ignored.
Highly recommended.
As a side-note, persons unaccustomed to technical papers may find the writing a bit dry. I also could have done without the "the other guy is an idiot" anecdotes that always seem to make their way into these types of books, and the recipes seemed a little out of place (though I am tempted to try a few myself). I do not agree with Pam's endorsement of herbicide-resistant strains, since I think they lead to over-application of herbicides, of which many have been shown to have harmful effects on humans and ecosystems.
This book touches on the details of genetic engineering in an easy-to-understand way, clearly describes its practical application, and even delves into the ethics of the debate by carefully addressing the difference between corporate interests, social implications, environmental impacts, and regulatory costs. It is rare for these distinctions to be so well articulated in the GMO debate. Distinctions are also made between to different applications of agricultural biotechnology and makes important and necessary distinctions between the various applications (viral resistant strains, flood resistant strains, herbicide resistant strains, vitamin fortified strains, etc) - important distinctions that are often overlooked or completely ignored.
Highly recommended.
As a side-note, persons unaccustomed to technical papers may find the writing a bit dry. I also could have done without the "the other guy is an idiot" anecdotes that always seem to make their way into these types of books, and the recipes seemed a little out of place (though I am tempted to try a few myself). I do not agree with Pam's endorsement of herbicide-resistant strains, since I think they lead to over-application of herbicides, of which many have been shown to have harmful effects on humans and ecosystems.
July 24, 2020
Organic agriculture or genetic engineering? Tomorrow's Table is a powerful and well-reasoned plea to combine the best of both worlds. See my full review at https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2018...
February 27, 2025
Excellent, although they need to get a better editor to catch the numerous typos and grammatical errors
October 1, 2024
I liked this book! Good introduction. Interesting points. Skimmed some parts as I was familiar. Really great survey book to see what you’re into
March 4, 2023
Buku ini seperti cerita dari pengalaman, dan cukup bisa dinikmati.
Kutipan ulasannya seperti cerita bersambung namun membahas pertanian.
Di akhir kelas, para siswa yang berhasil bertahan melalui musim panas Davis yang panas akan mengalaminya belajar bagaimana produksi organik berbeda dari praktik konvensional dan cara bertani secara organik. Selama musim panas para siswa akan mengikat empat tingkat berikutnya agar buah yang matang tidak tenggelam ke tanah. Saya menjelaskan bahwa buah-buahan dan sayuran yang ditanam di sini akan dijual kepada staf UCD, fakultas, dan mahasiswa, serta ke rumah kopi yang dikelola mahasiswa di kampus. Milik mereka bagian dalam yang lembut dan hampir lengket terlihat seperti ratusan tentakel pendek kemerahan.
Meskipun dianggap sebagai buah, buah ara sebenarnya adalah bunga yang terbalik. Seperti lebah yang ditenangkan oleh Sayang, kelas yang sedang asyik makan buah ara segera siap untuk mendengarkan. "Pertanian organik muncul sebagai tanggapan terhadap masalah lingkungan dan kesehatan yang terkait dengan penggunaan bahan kimia yang berlebihan di pertanian konvensional," saya menjelaskan saat saya memperhatikan bahwa siswa menjadi tenang, merasa nyaman dan mulai memperhatikan. " "Ini paling baik digambarkan sebagai 'pertanian yang lebih baik melalui biologi' karena didasarkan pada penggunaan organisme hidup daripada bahan kimia sintetik." "Pertanian konvensional, sebaliknya, dapat digambarkan sebagai ‘pertanian yang lebih baik kimia, karena banyak petani konvensional menggunakan pestisida dan pupuk sintetis yang tersedia pada tahun 1940-an .
Rotasi tanaman, budidaya mekanis, pra-irigasi, dan penyingkiran gulma sebelum menjadi benih, semuanya adalah pengurangan gulma strategi yang digunakan pada pertanian organik. Mereka bekerja dengan baik ketika ada cukup tenaga kerja untuk tinggal di atas semua yang perlu dilakukan. Strategi lain, yang lebih bersifat teknologi daripada biologis, adalah solarisasi tanah. Saya menggunakan solarisasi tanah untuk tanaman seperti wortel yang paling sensitif terhadap gulma kompetisi, dan yang paling padat karya untuk menyiangi.
Latihan kita hari ini adalah menutupi enam belas hamparan tanah yang baru digarap dan lembab dengan bersih plastik. Bukan ukuran yang sempurna, karena tempat tidurnya berukuran enam kaki lebar dan kereta luncur yang dipasang di traktor dimaksudkan untuk gulungan selebar enam kaki. Namun, plastiknya dilipat jahat-tumpang tindih sendiri sedemikian rupa yang membuatnya sangat memakan waktu buka dan potong, yang tidak ideal di hari yang panas. Saya kemudian mencoba mencari cara untuk memberi makan plastik yang telah kami potong menjadi kereta luncur.
Itu cerah matahari menyilaukan karena memantulkan terpal plastik yang terbuka. Sebagian besar waktu, ketika Anda adalah instruktur di kelas, siswa tahu lebih sedikit dari Anda dan miliki begitu sedikit pengalaman sehingga mereka hanya melakukan apa yang Anda katakan, meskipun itu sedikit liar dan gila. Berbeda dengan tipikal mahasiswa muda dan idealis, yang memandang pertanian organik sebagai alternatif ekologis yang diperlukan untuk pertanian konvensional, Sang Min adalah penanam tanaman konvensional dan sebagian besar tertarik pada keuntungan potensi produksi organik. Dia berusia enam puluhan, yang sulit dipercaya karena dia terlihat berusia 45 tahun dan bekerja seperti berusia 35 tahun.
Saya selanjutnya membawa siswa ke rumah kaca yang dikelola secara organik untuk menunjukkan kepada mereka cara menanam bibit. Kapan bibit tanaman cukup besar, kita dapat memindahkannya ke tanah, dan mereka akan melakukannya memiliki awal yang besar melawan gulma. Meskipun ada mesin yang dapat menempatkan benih di semua 128 sel baki secara bersamaan, saya meminta siswa menabur benih dengan tangan. Ini sedikit lebih lambat, tetapi merupakan proses kontemplatif yang kondusif untuk percakapan.
Sang Min, yang punya senang menggunakan pupuk sintetis selama bertahun-tahun, bertanya, "Ada apa dengan pupuk kimia? Dan, apa alternatif organiknya?" Saya mulai dari awal dengan jawaban saya yang menjelaskan bahwa tanaman membutuhkan nitrogen, fosfor, dan kalium, serta kalsium, belerang, magnesium, dan sejumlah mikronutrien untuk tumbuh dan berkembang. Nitrogen adalah komponen penting dari kedua DNA dan protein, yang diperlukan untuk hampir semua proses tanaman. Jumlah nitrogen yang rendah di dalam tanah menyebabkan tanaman kerdil. Kalium mengaktifkan enzim yang mengontrol fungsi tumbuhan dan penting dalam mengendalikan stomata dalam daun.
Sebaliknya, model organik berusaha menyediakan tanah dengan nutrisi itu akan dibutuhkan oleh tanaman, dan biarkan mikroorganisme di dalam tanah "memineralisasi" mereka bahan organik menjadi bentuk yang dapat diserap oleh tanaman. Selanjutnya saya akan menjelaskan bagaimana cara petani konvensional menggunakan pupuk N, P, K yang telah dibuat secara sintetik diproduksi menggunakan bahan bakar fosil. Dibutuhkan energi yang setara dengan tiga puluh galon bensin untuk menghasilkan N, P, K sintetik yang dibutuhkan untuk menanam satu hektar jagung . Tanaman penutup adalah tanaman yang ditanam untuk dikembalikan ke tanah untuk nutrisi dan bahan organik.
dua tanaman penutup yang paling sering kami gunakan, vetch dan buncis, ditanam di musim gugur dan digarap di bawah di musim semi. Tumbuhan ini termasuk dalam famili kacang-kacangan dan bersimbiosis dengan bakteri yang hidup di dalam tanah. Hebatnya, kemitraan ini menarik nitrogen dari udara dan mengubahnya menjadi bentuk nitrogen yang dapat digunakan tanaman. Kita juga bisa tanam legum musim panas, seperti kacang polong, yang menyediakan nitrogen yang dibutuhkan tanaman musim dingin.
Dalam uji coba tanaman penutup lahan yang dilakukan di dekat Davis, tanaman vetch musim dingin menggunakan energi antara 46 dan 67 lebih sedikit daripada lahan yang dipupuk dengan pupuk kimia. David Pimentel, seorang profesor ekologi dan pertanian Universitas Cornell menganalisis percobaan pertanian organik versus konvensional selama 22 tahun yang dilakukan di Institut Rodale di Pennsylvania. Dia menyimpulkan bahwa pertanian organik menghasilkan hasil yang sama jagung dan kedelai sebagai pertanian konvensional, tetapi menggunakan energi 30 persen lebih sedikit . " "Memang benar bahwa ketika tanaman penutup berada di tanah, tanaman pangan penghasil uang tidak dapat ditanam di ruang yang sama.
"Bagaimana petani organik mendapatkan P dan K serta unsur hara lainnya?"
Jawaban saya adalah, "kompos", yang merupakan pupuk organik penting lainnya. Dibutuhkan waktu yang sangat lama bagi setiap orang untuk menyelesaikan penaburan terakhir, mengumpulkan botol air dan buku catatan mereka, dan pergi ke tumpukan kompos,tumpukan mengepul besar berwarna coklat tua.
Kutipan ulasannya seperti cerita bersambung namun membahas pertanian.
Di akhir kelas, para siswa yang berhasil bertahan melalui musim panas Davis yang panas akan mengalaminya belajar bagaimana produksi organik berbeda dari praktik konvensional dan cara bertani secara organik. Selama musim panas para siswa akan mengikat empat tingkat berikutnya agar buah yang matang tidak tenggelam ke tanah. Saya menjelaskan bahwa buah-buahan dan sayuran yang ditanam di sini akan dijual kepada staf UCD, fakultas, dan mahasiswa, serta ke rumah kopi yang dikelola mahasiswa di kampus. Milik mereka bagian dalam yang lembut dan hampir lengket terlihat seperti ratusan tentakel pendek kemerahan.
Meskipun dianggap sebagai buah, buah ara sebenarnya adalah bunga yang terbalik. Seperti lebah yang ditenangkan oleh Sayang, kelas yang sedang asyik makan buah ara segera siap untuk mendengarkan. "Pertanian organik muncul sebagai tanggapan terhadap masalah lingkungan dan kesehatan yang terkait dengan penggunaan bahan kimia yang berlebihan di pertanian konvensional," saya menjelaskan saat saya memperhatikan bahwa siswa menjadi tenang, merasa nyaman dan mulai memperhatikan. " "Ini paling baik digambarkan sebagai 'pertanian yang lebih baik melalui biologi' karena didasarkan pada penggunaan organisme hidup daripada bahan kimia sintetik." "Pertanian konvensional, sebaliknya, dapat digambarkan sebagai ‘pertanian yang lebih baik kimia, karena banyak petani konvensional menggunakan pestisida dan pupuk sintetis yang tersedia pada tahun 1940-an .
Rotasi tanaman, budidaya mekanis, pra-irigasi, dan penyingkiran gulma sebelum menjadi benih, semuanya adalah pengurangan gulma strategi yang digunakan pada pertanian organik. Mereka bekerja dengan baik ketika ada cukup tenaga kerja untuk tinggal di atas semua yang perlu dilakukan. Strategi lain, yang lebih bersifat teknologi daripada biologis, adalah solarisasi tanah. Saya menggunakan solarisasi tanah untuk tanaman seperti wortel yang paling sensitif terhadap gulma kompetisi, dan yang paling padat karya untuk menyiangi.
Latihan kita hari ini adalah menutupi enam belas hamparan tanah yang baru digarap dan lembab dengan bersih plastik. Bukan ukuran yang sempurna, karena tempat tidurnya berukuran enam kaki lebar dan kereta luncur yang dipasang di traktor dimaksudkan untuk gulungan selebar enam kaki. Namun, plastiknya dilipat jahat-tumpang tindih sendiri sedemikian rupa yang membuatnya sangat memakan waktu buka dan potong, yang tidak ideal di hari yang panas. Saya kemudian mencoba mencari cara untuk memberi makan plastik yang telah kami potong menjadi kereta luncur.
Itu cerah matahari menyilaukan karena memantulkan terpal plastik yang terbuka. Sebagian besar waktu, ketika Anda adalah instruktur di kelas, siswa tahu lebih sedikit dari Anda dan miliki begitu sedikit pengalaman sehingga mereka hanya melakukan apa yang Anda katakan, meskipun itu sedikit liar dan gila. Berbeda dengan tipikal mahasiswa muda dan idealis, yang memandang pertanian organik sebagai alternatif ekologis yang diperlukan untuk pertanian konvensional, Sang Min adalah penanam tanaman konvensional dan sebagian besar tertarik pada keuntungan potensi produksi organik. Dia berusia enam puluhan, yang sulit dipercaya karena dia terlihat berusia 45 tahun dan bekerja seperti berusia 35 tahun.
Saya selanjutnya membawa siswa ke rumah kaca yang dikelola secara organik untuk menunjukkan kepada mereka cara menanam bibit. Kapan bibit tanaman cukup besar, kita dapat memindahkannya ke tanah, dan mereka akan melakukannya memiliki awal yang besar melawan gulma. Meskipun ada mesin yang dapat menempatkan benih di semua 128 sel baki secara bersamaan, saya meminta siswa menabur benih dengan tangan. Ini sedikit lebih lambat, tetapi merupakan proses kontemplatif yang kondusif untuk percakapan.
Sang Min, yang punya senang menggunakan pupuk sintetis selama bertahun-tahun, bertanya, "Ada apa dengan pupuk kimia? Dan, apa alternatif organiknya?" Saya mulai dari awal dengan jawaban saya yang menjelaskan bahwa tanaman membutuhkan nitrogen, fosfor, dan kalium, serta kalsium, belerang, magnesium, dan sejumlah mikronutrien untuk tumbuh dan berkembang. Nitrogen adalah komponen penting dari kedua DNA dan protein, yang diperlukan untuk hampir semua proses tanaman. Jumlah nitrogen yang rendah di dalam tanah menyebabkan tanaman kerdil. Kalium mengaktifkan enzim yang mengontrol fungsi tumbuhan dan penting dalam mengendalikan stomata dalam daun.
Sebaliknya, model organik berusaha menyediakan tanah dengan nutrisi itu akan dibutuhkan oleh tanaman, dan biarkan mikroorganisme di dalam tanah "memineralisasi" mereka bahan organik menjadi bentuk yang dapat diserap oleh tanaman. Selanjutnya saya akan menjelaskan bagaimana cara petani konvensional menggunakan pupuk N, P, K yang telah dibuat secara sintetik diproduksi menggunakan bahan bakar fosil. Dibutuhkan energi yang setara dengan tiga puluh galon bensin untuk menghasilkan N, P, K sintetik yang dibutuhkan untuk menanam satu hektar jagung . Tanaman penutup adalah tanaman yang ditanam untuk dikembalikan ke tanah untuk nutrisi dan bahan organik.
dua tanaman penutup yang paling sering kami gunakan, vetch dan buncis, ditanam di musim gugur dan digarap di bawah di musim semi. Tumbuhan ini termasuk dalam famili kacang-kacangan dan bersimbiosis dengan bakteri yang hidup di dalam tanah. Hebatnya, kemitraan ini menarik nitrogen dari udara dan mengubahnya menjadi bentuk nitrogen yang dapat digunakan tanaman. Kita juga bisa tanam legum musim panas, seperti kacang polong, yang menyediakan nitrogen yang dibutuhkan tanaman musim dingin.
Dalam uji coba tanaman penutup lahan yang dilakukan di dekat Davis, tanaman vetch musim dingin menggunakan energi antara 46 dan 67 lebih sedikit daripada lahan yang dipupuk dengan pupuk kimia. David Pimentel, seorang profesor ekologi dan pertanian Universitas Cornell menganalisis percobaan pertanian organik versus konvensional selama 22 tahun yang dilakukan di Institut Rodale di Pennsylvania. Dia menyimpulkan bahwa pertanian organik menghasilkan hasil yang sama jagung dan kedelai sebagai pertanian konvensional, tetapi menggunakan energi 30 persen lebih sedikit . " "Memang benar bahwa ketika tanaman penutup berada di tanah, tanaman pangan penghasil uang tidak dapat ditanam di ruang yang sama.
"Bagaimana petani organik mendapatkan P dan K serta unsur hara lainnya?"
Jawaban saya adalah, "kompos", yang merupakan pupuk organik penting lainnya. Dibutuhkan waktu yang sangat lama bagi setiap orang untuk menyelesaikan penaburan terakhir, mengumpulkan botol air dan buku catatan mereka, dan pergi ke tumpukan kompos,tumpukan mengepul besar berwarna coklat tua.
October 26, 2012
This is an important book, that I highly recommend folks check out. In the context of the upcoming vote on Prop 37, I wanted to gather further information about genetically engineered (GE) crops. Typically, we are presented with the choice between Organic farming vs. GE crops. This book is written by a husband and wife team. He is a leading organic farmer, running the student farm at UC Davis, focusing on sustainable agriculture. She is a plant geneticist working to improve the nutrition, health, and productivity of rice and other crops.
Together they catalog how each is using their practice to minimize environmental impact, and provide the best flavor, nutrition, and human benefits in the food they grow. The book is accessible and beautifully written, with lots of family recipes leveraging local, organic, and GE ingredients.
It is highly informative about the real science around GE crops, and also calls out 'big agribusiness' (especially Monsanto!) for their negative uses of GE that have caused so many people to have a bad view of this useful, beneficial technology. Highly recommended!
April 13, 2009
Assigned this book in biotech class. I was surprised and a little disappointed by the choice, pop lit instead of hard science, but it's an easy read and basically well written. The personal anecdotes aren't really helpful and have slot of smug overtones, but if you've become used to that type of smug culture (which is becoming more pervasive where I live) the anecdotes will serve the purpose the authors intended rather that just making them come off as self-superior and out of touch. I think this book should be on your reading list if you're reading all the other popular foodie books. It brings to light an aspect of our modern food culture that is widely over looked in by the other foodie authors. For someone without good scientific understanding of genetics I would think reading this book is a good way to begin understanding modern genetic technology. But just a beginning, you need to read more to really understand the impact this technology has on our diet and the diversity (or lack of diversity) of the food products available at the supermarket.
March 15, 2014
"Genetic engineering is not a panacea for poverty, and more than conventional breeding is or organic practices are, yet it is a valuable tool that farmers can use to address real agricultural problems such as pests, diseases, weeds, stresses, and native habitat destruction. Like any tool, GE can be manipulated by a host of social, economic, and political forces to generate positive or negative social results."
Unfortunately the above quote isn't a good representative of the book as a whole. Instead it's almost half of conversations with the authors that are based on real life events or something with the actual good information peppered inside those conversations. I am interested if this kind of conversational writing works for some people to keep their attention in a subject. I now know it does not work for me. As other reviewers have pointed out, it also has a tone of smugness in a few parts which isn't helpful when trying to educate people.
Unfortunately the above quote isn't a good representative of the book as a whole. Instead it's almost half of conversations with the authors that are based on real life events or something with the actual good information peppered inside those conversations. I am interested if this kind of conversational writing works for some people to keep their attention in a subject. I now know it does not work for me. As other reviewers have pointed out, it also has a tone of smugness in a few parts which isn't helpful when trying to educate people.
November 25, 2020
This book provides an intimate and in-depth exploration of the benefits of organic agriculture versus conventional farming practices. The authors offer both advantages and disadvantages of both means of production but Adamchak and Ronald are two individuals that strive and long for a better alternative for food production—Raoul Adamchak is an organic farmer and Pamela Ronald is a geneticist. The book covers about a year of research and teaching that they undergo. The authors provide background of their expertise and firsthand accounts of their experiences in researching organic farming techniques, namely gene editing or genetic modification. They discuss the history of agriculture and gene editing and provide an extensive amount of information on human rights related to agriculture, public opinion regarding genetically modified organisms, and how the global governments have responded to this technological/biological advancement. Ronald and Adamchak believe that genetically modified organisms are a viable solution to food security issues in areas where climate change is taking the worst tolls.
Genetic engineering is a process by which we can introduce precise genetic changes in an efficient way by creating mutations or to insert or delete genes in specific genomes. This mechanism gives us the ability to create crops that are able to withstand harsher weather conditions in a time of climate change. Crops can also be modified to contain more nutrients to help with disease and general human health. Genetically modified crops have been shown, in the research done by these authors and many other specialists, to reduce food loss and waste, improve crop breeding, and to improve soil and water management. The authors provide countless examples of GMO success in providing solutions to food insecurity, extra nutrition, or increased yield. Golden rice is mentioned in this book and is just one example of a success story for genetically modified organisms. Golden rice is a strain of rice that has been genetically modified to contain beta carotene that is a source of vitamin A. This crop has the potential to help people in areas like the Philippines where vitamin A deficiency, (which causes child blindness), has been a prominent issue in areas where food insecurity is at large.
Before reading this book, I knew only of the skepticism surrounded by genetically modified organisms. I never knew of the potential this process could play in perhaps solving the world’s food insecurity issue in various regions until now. I thoroughly enjoyed the narratives provided by both Raoul and Pamela and the recipes that were embedded in the novel. They are firm believers in the power of genetically modified organisms, but they point out that the best way to move forward is to utilize organic farming methods as well as biotechnology such as genetic modification hand in hand.
Genetic engineering is a process by which we can introduce precise genetic changes in an efficient way by creating mutations or to insert or delete genes in specific genomes. This mechanism gives us the ability to create crops that are able to withstand harsher weather conditions in a time of climate change. Crops can also be modified to contain more nutrients to help with disease and general human health. Genetically modified crops have been shown, in the research done by these authors and many other specialists, to reduce food loss and waste, improve crop breeding, and to improve soil and water management. The authors provide countless examples of GMO success in providing solutions to food insecurity, extra nutrition, or increased yield. Golden rice is mentioned in this book and is just one example of a success story for genetically modified organisms. Golden rice is a strain of rice that has been genetically modified to contain beta carotene that is a source of vitamin A. This crop has the potential to help people in areas like the Philippines where vitamin A deficiency, (which causes child blindness), has been a prominent issue in areas where food insecurity is at large.
Before reading this book, I knew only of the skepticism surrounded by genetically modified organisms. I never knew of the potential this process could play in perhaps solving the world’s food insecurity issue in various regions until now. I thoroughly enjoyed the narratives provided by both Raoul and Pamela and the recipes that were embedded in the novel. They are firm believers in the power of genetically modified organisms, but they point out that the best way to move forward is to utilize organic farming methods as well as biotechnology such as genetic modification hand in hand.
February 22, 2022
A light hearted literature review on the subject of organic farming and genetically engineered plants. Two trends that would seem to be at odds, and no doubt something has to give as the world population swells from the current 7.9 billion to 10 billion by 2057. Published before the CRISPR technology came on the scene, it's somewhat dated, however the reliance on genetically modified food is an inevitability.
July 17, 2024
I found that just focusing on and digesting the GE pieces of the book was the way to read it. There was a lot of liberal talking points -- comparing GMOs to vaccines etc. -- which were entirely unhelpful. I agree with the authors that GE can be a tool to improve our current agricultural practices for the betterment of people, animals, and the environment.
August 15, 2018
Tomorrow's Table is an interesting book written by a couple, Pamela is a pro-GMO university plant geneticist and Raoul is an organic farming university professor. I liked their approach to combining GMOs with sustainable agriculture practices.
January 7, 2020
This seems like a great topic and I like the way they approached it as a married couple, but I really wasn't a fan of the narration in the organic farming sections. I found it unenjoyable enough that I did not finish the book.
Read
July 25, 2022another read for class so I’m not going to rate it, but a pretty interesting read! it dragged on for a bit and was a little repetitive, but I’d recommend it to anyone against GMOs
December 4, 2022
This book changed my mind on gmos
April 30, 2014
I love this book, written by a husband-wife team, about what may strike many as an unlikely marriage: genetic engineering and organic farming. The authors' marriage is equally surprising. He is a professor of organic farming, and she is an academic plant geneticist. In this book, they bring together their interests, and point out an important synergy.
That is, genetic engineering and organic agriculture need not be at odds with each other. In fact, genetic engineering can be a valuable tool to the organic farmer. Instead of spraying dangerous insecticide over a crop, killing beneficial insects and drifting on the wind to who-knows-where, insert a bacterial gene for BT into the plant, itself, making it resistant to a very selective, targeted set of pests.
BT is short for bacillus thuringiensis, a bacteria that produces a specific toxin that kills certain insects, mostly things like cabbage loopers and cotton boll weevils. It is not toxic to humans or other “higher” animals. It’s not toxic to honey bees. The dried extract of this bacteria has been applied to crops by organic farmers and gardeners for decades. However, spraying BT on crops causes some danger to non-target species, such as butterflies and moths, even those that are not agricultural pests. Organic advocates accept this limited collateral damage.
Why not use that toxin more selectively? By inserting a gene for the toxin into a crop plant, you assure that only insects that eat that plant are in peril. BT corn and cotton are poster children for this clever approach. Before BT cotton, huge amounts of toxic insecticide were sprayed on the cotton crop to combat the boll weevil. Insecticide applied to the cotton crop worldwide constituted the lion’s share of all insecticide used in agriculture.
This weevil poses a knotty problem. The adult female lays her eggs on the surface of the cotton boll, where they are vulnerable to sprays. However, the eggs soon hatch, and the larvae quickly bore into the cotton boll, where they are unreachable by sprays. Hence, farmers must spray every few days to kill the eggs before they hatch. If we incorporate BT into the tissues of the cotton plant through clever genetic engineering, the insect is killed when it begins to feed on the crop tissues.
This approach has been a huge success. Today, almost all cotton grown in the world is BT cotton, saving literally millions of tons (!) of toxic insecticide application every year. Yes, millions. This is good for the environment, good for the farmer, and good for the consumer. And this is just one example of the magic (excuse me) of genetic engineering.
That is, genetic engineering and organic agriculture need not be at odds with each other. In fact, genetic engineering can be a valuable tool to the organic farmer. Instead of spraying dangerous insecticide over a crop, killing beneficial insects and drifting on the wind to who-knows-where, insert a bacterial gene for BT into the plant, itself, making it resistant to a very selective, targeted set of pests.
BT is short for bacillus thuringiensis, a bacteria that produces a specific toxin that kills certain insects, mostly things like cabbage loopers and cotton boll weevils. It is not toxic to humans or other “higher” animals. It’s not toxic to honey bees. The dried extract of this bacteria has been applied to crops by organic farmers and gardeners for decades. However, spraying BT on crops causes some danger to non-target species, such as butterflies and moths, even those that are not agricultural pests. Organic advocates accept this limited collateral damage.
Why not use that toxin more selectively? By inserting a gene for the toxin into a crop plant, you assure that only insects that eat that plant are in peril. BT corn and cotton are poster children for this clever approach. Before BT cotton, huge amounts of toxic insecticide were sprayed on the cotton crop to combat the boll weevil. Insecticide applied to the cotton crop worldwide constituted the lion’s share of all insecticide used in agriculture.
This weevil poses a knotty problem. The adult female lays her eggs on the surface of the cotton boll, where they are vulnerable to sprays. However, the eggs soon hatch, and the larvae quickly bore into the cotton boll, where they are unreachable by sprays. Hence, farmers must spray every few days to kill the eggs before they hatch. If we incorporate BT into the tissues of the cotton plant through clever genetic engineering, the insect is killed when it begins to feed on the crop tissues.
This approach has been a huge success. Today, almost all cotton grown in the world is BT cotton, saving literally millions of tons (!) of toxic insecticide application every year. Yes, millions. This is good for the environment, good for the farmer, and good for the consumer. And this is just one example of the magic (excuse me) of genetic engineering.
April 12, 2013
"Tomorrow's Table" is a very well researched account of organic farming and genetic engineering. Ronald and Adamchak do an excellent job of presenting the two topics side by side and merging them to show how prevailing trends in food science are affecting what is marketed and eaten. Most importantly, though, they provide a scientific context for two of today's most controversial and hottest buzz words in the arena of food. The only drawback to the book, in my opinion, is the storytelling style that pervades the text. While this is kept minimal at first, it grows in prevalence throughout the book and makes some of the factual arguments seem as though they are opinion or personal narrative rather than scientific research. This framing device is meant to help the reader relate to the authors and make an emotional appeal (since food is an emotional topic as it is), but the device is overused and takes away from the arguments in my opinion.
That said, the juxtaposition of organic farming and genetic engineering is fascinating. The reader really understands the underlying concepts of both movements, and how they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Rather than just present the standard all positive and all negative sides of organic and GE, respectively, Ronald and Adamchak provide a very balanced view of each topic. The pros and cons to farmer, scientist, and consumer are all discussed. This is especially meaningful in the deliberate and researched section on genetic engineering where the traditional arguments against GE are dissected and examined through a scientific lens. Ronald does an excellent job here of separating the emotional, social, and economic arguments from the scientific and addressing each in turn.
Overall, this book is a must-read for anyone interested in food or genetic engineering. It provides a balanced perspective that explains the science of both topics and the challenges and possibilities of each. It is a refreshing change from the perspectives of these two important food issues seen in modern media.
That said, the juxtaposition of organic farming and genetic engineering is fascinating. The reader really understands the underlying concepts of both movements, and how they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Rather than just present the standard all positive and all negative sides of organic and GE, respectively, Ronald and Adamchak provide a very balanced view of each topic. The pros and cons to farmer, scientist, and consumer are all discussed. This is especially meaningful in the deliberate and researched section on genetic engineering where the traditional arguments against GE are dissected and examined through a scientific lens. Ronald does an excellent job here of separating the emotional, social, and economic arguments from the scientific and addressing each in turn.
Overall, this book is a must-read for anyone interested in food or genetic engineering. It provides a balanced perspective that explains the science of both topics and the challenges and possibilities of each. It is a refreshing change from the perspectives of these two important food issues seen in modern media.
July 26, 2013
This is a slim book, designed to be neither too technical nor too political, covering many of the issues that put organic farmers at odds with genetic engineering, and softly knocking most of them down. It's unnatural? Well, conventional breeding permitted by the organic regulations permits modifying plants through radiation and mutagenic chemicals (such as Calrose rice). Foreign DNA? Would you rather be eating papaya ringspot virus in every bite of papaya? And so on. It's an entertaining read, alternating between Adamchak, an organic farmer, and Ronald, a geneticist, both at U.C. Davis (and married to each other).
It's also a cookbook -- about 8 recipes scattered throughout, one of them tongue-in-cheekily identifying which ingredients are GE.
It talks about some of the issues of ownership of genes and seedstock, but skirts some of the more sensitive issues such as a large producer (who shall remain nameless to avoid flamewars), that requires GE seed to be bought each season and not reused from grown stock. The answer is of course that researchers should be able to make money off of their inventions, but it also goes against millennia of tradition permitting farmers to re-use seeds.
Does this book solve the issues preventing organic farmers from using GMO seeds? No, but it does make it clear that it's not an us-vs-them thing, it should be a conversation.
Reading between the lines, it appears to me that most objections to GMO originate in the corporate sources, and those sources roles in Vietnam-era herbicides. There's good to be had from GMO, with risks no worse than conventional breeding, and significant improvements in yield and food security worldwide (one interesting anecdote, though: A GM wheat that had potential for more grain per acre had lower yields in practice because birds can perch on the stems and eat the grain). The book fails to draw a firm conclusion, attempting more to open the conversations that are, right now, quite closed.
It's also a cookbook -- about 8 recipes scattered throughout, one of them tongue-in-cheekily identifying which ingredients are GE.
It talks about some of the issues of ownership of genes and seedstock, but skirts some of the more sensitive issues such as a large producer (who shall remain nameless to avoid flamewars), that requires GE seed to be bought each season and not reused from grown stock. The answer is of course that researchers should be able to make money off of their inventions, but it also goes against millennia of tradition permitting farmers to re-use seeds.
Does this book solve the issues preventing organic farmers from using GMO seeds? No, but it does make it clear that it's not an us-vs-them thing, it should be a conversation.
Reading between the lines, it appears to me that most objections to GMO originate in the corporate sources, and those sources roles in Vietnam-era herbicides. There's good to be had from GMO, with risks no worse than conventional breeding, and significant improvements in yield and food security worldwide (one interesting anecdote, though: A GM wheat that had potential for more grain per acre had lower yields in practice because birds can perch on the stems and eat the grain). The book fails to draw a firm conclusion, attempting more to open the conversations that are, right now, quite closed.
August 7, 2014
"Ronald and Adamchak's clear, rational approach is refreshing, and the balance they present is sorely needed in our increasingly polarized world." --Science
This book is the NC State University common reading assignment this summer, and I was so excited to read it. I'm an environmentally conscious plant genetics major, so it's right up my alley. The two authors, an organic farmer and a plant geneticist, are a married couple who think that organic farming techniques and GM crops are the best way to adapt agriculture to our damaged and overpopulated planet. I happen to agree, so that is inevitably part of the reason I enjoyed this book, but I'll try to be impartial.
The style is more Silent Spring than science journal, filled with anecdotes, personal commentary, and recipes, which struck me as strange, but cool. I might have liked a little more science and a little less autobiography, but overall I think the authors picked a good way to get their point across. The science is there--facts, studies, processes explained--and cited extensively, which is what you want to see in a book like this. Less positive was the proliferation of typos. A scientific book published by a big name outfit, and yet there's at least one mistake on every other page? On pages 148-9 I counted at least three, possibly as many as five errors. That's a fairly representative tally. Tomorrow's Table has two authors, was run by Pam Ronald's writing group, and surely had editors. Someone really should have paid more attention.
In summary, the authors used a good writing style, though typos abounded, and the content is fantastic. Their arguments are solid, science-based, and much-needed in today's world, where pseudo-research and bought facts rule the media. It was definitely worth a read, and I will thoroughly enjoy discussing it with my soon-to-be classmates.
This book is the NC State University common reading assignment this summer, and I was so excited to read it. I'm an environmentally conscious plant genetics major, so it's right up my alley. The two authors, an organic farmer and a plant geneticist, are a married couple who think that organic farming techniques and GM crops are the best way to adapt agriculture to our damaged and overpopulated planet. I happen to agree, so that is inevitably part of the reason I enjoyed this book, but I'll try to be impartial.
The style is more Silent Spring than science journal, filled with anecdotes, personal commentary, and recipes, which struck me as strange, but cool. I might have liked a little more science and a little less autobiography, but overall I think the authors picked a good way to get their point across. The science is there--facts, studies, processes explained--and cited extensively, which is what you want to see in a book like this. Less positive was the proliferation of typos. A scientific book published by a big name outfit, and yet there's at least one mistake on every other page? On pages 148-9 I counted at least three, possibly as many as five errors. That's a fairly representative tally. Tomorrow's Table has two authors, was run by Pam Ronald's writing group, and surely had editors. Someone really should have paid more attention.
In summary, the authors used a good writing style, though typos abounded, and the content is fantastic. Their arguments are solid, science-based, and much-needed in today's world, where pseudo-research and bought facts rule the media. It was definitely worth a read, and I will thoroughly enjoy discussing it with my soon-to-be classmates.
February 10, 2011
One of the first things that I was reminded of by reading this book is how hard it is to farm. In addition to physically taxing work. The economic rewards are rarely enough to make it appealing from an investment standpoint. Yet the importance of growing more food for an expanding population with less pesticides on less ground has never been more obvious. The book is written from the two points of view that most people want to hear from the most, scientist and farmer. I think everyone wants to better understand the impact science has had on our food supply and those that create it. The fact that Dr. Ronald has made significant advances in the field of molecular genetics appeals to the reader who wants solid facts. The books offers a great historical account of genetic modification of crops and pesticide use, explained for the layman. The perspective of the modern farmer is something I either have not sought or not found readily available in much of todays writing. Like most everyone of medium to upper income means I consume just about any type of food I want, in the quantity and at the time of my choosing. Yet I knew remarkably little about where, how, and the drivers behind its production.
A great insight in the book is how unnecessarily confusing the debate about the science around genetically modified seeds has become. The authors lay out a good base to begin thinking about a politically charged issue again without adding in the usual rhetoric and fear mongering. I would recommend the book to friends that would be for and against GMOs. The reader that would probably benefit the most is one who wants to better understand one section of our agricultural world that has been impacted heavily by science and its future implications.
A great insight in the book is how unnecessarily confusing the debate about the science around genetically modified seeds has become. The authors lay out a good base to begin thinking about a politically charged issue again without adding in the usual rhetoric and fear mongering. I would recommend the book to friends that would be for and against GMOs. The reader that would probably benefit the most is one who wants to better understand one section of our agricultural world that has been impacted heavily by science and its future implications.
June 14, 2012
With the writing of this contentious book, the authors set in motion a very heated debate as to the nature of genetic engineering and its ability to be married with organic farming as the solution for truly sustainable agriculture. Pamela and Raoul are wife and husband, geneticist and organic farmer. “Tomorrow’s Table” is written as a memoir, dialogue with friends, and a textbook on organic farming and genetic engineering. Pamela, as a geneticist, works to distinguish between genetic engineering fact, fiction and myth. In the chapter entitled “Is GE Food Risky to Eat?”, she points out that the National Academy of Sciences committee determined that both the process of genetic engineering and traditional breeding pose similar risks of unintended consequences. Then she points out that mutation breeding and induced mutation pose a higher risk of unintended consequences and yet the Organic Standards allow for mutation breeding and induced mutation. Mutation breeding is where seeds are put in a highly carcinogenic solution and treated with radiation to induce random changes in the DNA. Surviving seedlings are selected for new and useful traits that are then adopted by breeders. Resulting fruits and vegetables can then be certified organic. This is just one example of many facts that many knowledgeable people are unaware of in the organic industry. The book follows through with describing what organic farming and genetic engineering is and how it works. Pamela also explains how genetic engineering can help in conserving wildlands and protecting the environment. The information is convincingly presented. Whether you agree with genetic engineering or not, this book has indispensable information for all concerned with organics and sustainable agriculture.
May 4, 2014
These two authors are not professional writers, and it shows. And despite this I'm giving the book 5 stars. Because at the end of the day they manage to take the complexities of food production and bioengineering and communicate pragmatically, passionately and most importantly accurately. Yes there are times when the maxim "show don't tell" is executed with far less skill than I would like in a book. But I forgive the writers for the occasional stilted dialogue or overly florid description. Because I have read plenty of books on these topics by skilled journalists (Michael Pollen for example), who may be better writers, but ultimately get the science confused and mangled. Worse they are far too prone to ignore information that does not fit their preconceived narratives, and in doing so they fail to give a complete picture that tells their largely privileged audiences what they need to know. Journalists like Pollen instead tell his audience what they want to hear. When it comes to food production we need more scientists and more farmers talking, and writing passionately about what they know, and I'm more than willing to sift through a little mediocre writing to get their point of view on such an important topic.
And what a fantastically educational and thoughtful source this is. Before you sign that next antiGMO petition, or go to the polls about a labeling law, you need to read this book. You owe it to yourself to be informed, and Pam and Raoul have the unique perspectives of an organic farmer and a biologist that deserve to be heard.
And what a fantastically educational and thoughtful source this is. Before you sign that next antiGMO petition, or go to the polls about a labeling law, you need to read this book. You owe it to yourself to be informed, and Pam and Raoul have the unique perspectives of an organic farmer and a biologist that deserve to be heard.
September 9, 2014
I think this is a good books in that it ties together the concerns that many people who "believe" in organics have with the concerns that many people who "believe" in GE have: reducing pesticide use, health, water use, etc. and highlights the concerns of GE proponents that (unfortunately, in my experience) are often second-tier concerns for organic-ists: feeding a growing population under the reality of climate change, soil depredation, dwindling water sources and quality, and preservation of remaining wild spaces.
It also highlights some of the *cough* naivete about breeding practices, genetic and biological science, and risk-vs-harm psychology of all people; and it does this while acknowledging the valid fears re: seed ownership, economic and power concentration in the hands of a few companies, etc. that are too often ignored by those who are not anti-GMO.
So why only three stars? For me, it was too conversational... no. Too "nice"...? Not exactly. Too I'm-not-sure-what. The book includes several recipes interspersed throughout that are part of the scenery as stories about mornings getting ready for work, minor confrontations with in-laws, etc. are used to, in part, narrate the book. Perhaps I am just too jaded a city-slicker, but much of the conversations seems contrived in their retelling, and it kept poking me in the eyes, so to speak.
It also highlights some of the *cough* naivete about breeding practices, genetic and biological science, and risk-vs-harm psychology of all people; and it does this while acknowledging the valid fears re: seed ownership, economic and power concentration in the hands of a few companies, etc. that are too often ignored by those who are not anti-GMO.
So why only three stars? For me, it was too conversational... no. Too "nice"...? Not exactly. Too I'm-not-sure-what. The book includes several recipes interspersed throughout that are part of the scenery as stories about mornings getting ready for work, minor confrontations with in-laws, etc. are used to, in part, narrate the book. Perhaps I am just too jaded a city-slicker, but much of the conversations seems contrived in their retelling, and it kept poking me in the eyes, so to speak.
January 8, 2013
An essential book for understanding GMOs. Tackling GM-debate from two perspectives, this work beautifully sums up almost every aspect necessary to understand the technology, applications and debate. Although written by respectively an organic farmer and a geneticist, it's very much accessible to readers without a background in the natural sciences.
The fact that it's written in the style of a dialogue makes it both engaging and personal; the genetically modified crops are no longer just the product of shadowy corporations. Instead, we see that the researchers behind them are living, breathing individuals with both dreams and concerns for the future. It tackles the foremost issues of GM crops and dispells irrational claims, but nevertheless stays relatively unbiased. That aside, it's a very moving and beautiful book. Never before have I encountered a book on science that features tables on bacterial transformation and recipes for chocolate chip cookies side by side.
In summary, I can only recommend this book. It's a quick and immensely informative read. There is no better book to turn to if you want an understanding of modern biotechnology without throwing hyperbole and politics into the mix.
The fact that it's written in the style of a dialogue makes it both engaging and personal; the genetically modified crops are no longer just the product of shadowy corporations. Instead, we see that the researchers behind them are living, breathing individuals with both dreams and concerns for the future. It tackles the foremost issues of GM crops and dispells irrational claims, but nevertheless stays relatively unbiased. That aside, it's a very moving and beautiful book. Never before have I encountered a book on science that features tables on bacterial transformation and recipes for chocolate chip cookies side by side.
In summary, I can only recommend this book. It's a quick and immensely informative read. There is no better book to turn to if you want an understanding of modern biotechnology without throwing hyperbole and politics into the mix.
January 13, 2016
This was a bit slow and meandering, but I'm glad I read it simply because it made me put more thought into my stance on GE/GM food. I can agree that a variety of corn that reduces pesticide use by millions of pounds per year is beneficial and worthwhile to pursue, but I also think it needs to be carefully studied over time to try and capture any unintended consequences. I do not think eating this corn will kill me or anyone else; I am also not convinced that replacing the worldwide crop with it is a great idea. I'm skeptical of reductionist science as applied to topics as complicated as human and soil health because we have such a history of overlooking things that end up being important.
I also find it frustrating when people say or imply that genetically modifying food is the only solution for X problem, when X problem only exists in our current monoculture-based industrial agricultural system. I thought The Soil Will Save Us, by Kristin Ohlson, did a great job of analyzing the latest trends in sustainable farming, while these authors seemed oblivious to them. Hint: most of the latest trends simply mimic nature.
I also find it frustrating when people say or imply that genetically modifying food is the only solution for X problem, when X problem only exists in our current monoculture-based industrial agricultural system. I thought The Soil Will Save Us, by Kristin Ohlson, did a great job of analyzing the latest trends in sustainable farming, while these authors seemed oblivious to them. Hint: most of the latest trends simply mimic nature.
March 26, 2009
This is a must read for anyone serious about food sovereignty. There are basically two categories of people who respond negatively to genetically modified foods: 1) people who understand GE crops, 2) people who don't.
This book is written to give people an overview of the GE crop industry and to answer some of the "myths" with facts about GE crops. I don't know what I think about it yet, but at least I know more about some of the objections to GE crops and answers to those objections by scientists. Making a rice plant that can withstand flooding for up to 12 days seems to make sense in a place like Southeast Asia where a flood can ruin a crop and people will go without. Making a soybean that isn't effected by pesticide spray, thus enabling hundreds of acres to be sprayed for pests and weeds while the plant stays alive---makes my stomach church and my fist shake a bit in the air. Both are the results of genetically modified plant species. As with most things, the discussion around how to move through the mist is not clear skies and blue...but a little gray.
This book is written to give people an overview of the GE crop industry and to answer some of the "myths" with facts about GE crops. I don't know what I think about it yet, but at least I know more about some of the objections to GE crops and answers to those objections by scientists. Making a rice plant that can withstand flooding for up to 12 days seems to make sense in a place like Southeast Asia where a flood can ruin a crop and people will go without. Making a soybean that isn't effected by pesticide spray, thus enabling hundreds of acres to be sprayed for pests and weeds while the plant stays alive---makes my stomach church and my fist shake a bit in the air. Both are the results of genetically modified plant species. As with most things, the discussion around how to move through the mist is not clear skies and blue...but a little gray.
December 19, 2010
I can't remember where I first heard about this book, but I'm glad that I read it. It is written by a married couple, the woman is a scientist who genetically engineers rice and the man is an organic farmer. They do a good job of describing what organic and GE actually mean. It struck me that even though these terms are used widely (more so organic) and seen on grocery store shelves, many don't understand them.
After reading Tomorrow's Table, I have a better understanding of GE and the benefits it can bring to society and the environment. I admire the public good approach that Pam and other public interest organizations have taken in their development and distribution of GE crops. If GE was always done at the hands of good people like Pam, I'd have no problem with it. But what happens when it's done at the hands of a private corporation that's biggest concern is making money? With hope, good public policy will keep people like Pam in business and keep large corporations like Monsanto away from monopolizing the GE industry.
After reading Tomorrow's Table, I have a better understanding of GE and the benefits it can bring to society and the environment. I admire the public good approach that Pam and other public interest organizations have taken in their development and distribution of GE crops. If GE was always done at the hands of good people like Pam, I'd have no problem with it. But what happens when it's done at the hands of a private corporation that's biggest concern is making money? With hope, good public policy will keep people like Pam in business and keep large corporations like Monsanto away from monopolizing the GE industry.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews