They’d Rather You Eat Herbicide-Soaked GMO Soy than Grass Fed Beef

By Kitreel @ Shutterstock.com

In what seems like it should be a farce, Dr. Joseph Mercola reports on the implications made by the senior manager of impact strategy at Impossible Foods, Rebekah Moses, that her company’s herbicide-soaked GMO soy products might be better for the environment than regenerative, grass-fed beef. Mercola writes at Mercola.com:

Are genetically engineered food and lab-grown meat the most sustainably regenerative choices available? Impossible Foods, creator of the meatless bleeding Impossible Burger,^1,2,3,4 made with GMO soy, would like you to think so. After the release of its 2019 Impact Report,⁵ senior manager of impact strategy, Rebekah Moses, told FoodNavigator-USA:⁶

“We have done a tremendous amount of diligence and we’re confident that in using GMO soy, we are not taking a step backward in terms of sustainability.

Soy is really high yielding, it’s a good source of protein and it’s more efficient than wheat. You get so much more protein in a given harvest vs the amounts of water, energy and inputs needed to grow it.

Everything is very field-based, but at a high level, there is very little difference if any difference in the environmental impact of conventional vs herbicide tolerant soy and in some cases using herbicide tolerant soy enables you to adopt more sustainable practices such as the ability to reduce tillage, which is a win for the soil.

Similarly, the chemicals you spray to manage pests — that includes insects and weeds — in herbicide tolerant crops are lower toxicity than the alternatives [used to grow conventional soy].”

Impossible Foods Takes Aim at Regenerative Farming

Impossible Foods also points out that since meat from cows require about 30 pounds of corn and soy for every pound produced, GMO soy burgers reduce the net use of herbicides.

However, while this is true for livestock raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), it’s absolutely not the case for organic grass fed beef production, as pastured cattle eat grasses and never lay a nose to GMO grains of any kind.

So, while GMO soy burgers may have an environmentally competitive advantage over CAFO beef, it cannot compete with regenerative grazing as far as herbicide usage (or toxicity thereof) is concerned.

Despite such well-established facts, Impossible Foods takes aim directly at regenerative ranching in its report, claiming grass fed cattle ranching generates higher amounts of greenhouse gas emissions than cows raised in CAFOs.^7,8 What it fails to include is evidence⁹ showing grass fed ranching actually has net negative emissions after all relevant factors are taken into account.

Is Fake Food Really the Answer We’re Looking For?

Impossible Foods’ impact report is hard to reconcile with other established data showing GMO soybean and corn farms are a primary source of water¹⁰ and air pollution.¹¹ GMO soybeans and corn have also been identified as primary destroyers of grasslands and forests.^12,13

Regenerative grazing is also a key activity required for the optimal sequestering of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into our rangelands and pasturelands, while GMO soy production is associated with resistant super weeds¹⁴ and super pests and uncontrollable cross contamination.

Impossible Burger also skirts the issue of nutrition by focusing solely on the intake of protein in general, ignoring the fact that grass fed beef contains a complex mix of nutrients (including healthy fats) and cofactors you simply cannot recreate by mixing together an assortment of plant-based components.

GMO Soy Linked to Ecological Devastation

To learn more about the ecological impact of soy, check out the Greenpeace documentary “Soy: In the name of progress.” Also take a look at Dan Charles’ 2013 NPR article,¹⁵ “Pictures don’t lie: Corn and soybeans are conquering U.S. grasslands.” He writes, in part:

“Grasslands are disappearing … They’re being replaced by fields of corn and soybeans … A study¹⁶ published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows actual pictures — derived from satellite data — of that changing landscape.

The images show that farmers in the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska converted 1.3 million acres of grassland into soybean and corn production between 2006 and 2011.

‘This is kind of the worst-kept secret in the Northern Plains. We just put some numbers on it,’ says Christopher Wright, from South Dakota State University, who got funding from the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy to take a close look at this phenomenon …

Wright’s images are striking, and these changes are having profound effects on the environment of this region. For instance, it’s bad news for wildlife, because corn fields are much less inviting habitat for a wide range of wild creatures, from ground-nesting birds to insects, including bees.

Corn and soybean fields are increasingly encroaching into the Prairie Pothole region of the Dakotas and Minnesota, the most important breeding habitat for waterfowl in North America.

In southern Iowa, Wright says, much of the land conversion is taking place on hillsides. The soil of those fields, without permanent grass to hold it in place, is now much more likely to wash into streams and ponds.”

Read more here.