Justmeans

Ramps at Risk: Is Overforaging a Problem?

Christina Filipovic — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:40:03 GMT

Ramp season is officially upon us. Across North America, ramp festivals are in full swing bringing together foragers, gourmands, wild foodies, and the gastronomically curious to enjoy wild leeks at their peak.Over two million ramps will be consumed in the United States this year, and as foraging becomes an increasingly popular trend, long-time wild food advocates are warning that unsustainable foraging may be putting ramps at risk.Ramps, also known as wild leeks, are a type of spring onion that have a pungent garlicky odor, and taste much like a combination between garlic, scallions, and leeks. As the sustainable food movement grows, organic and upscale restaurants are putting ramps on the menu, and increasing the demand. What is now a foodie trend, once was a plant used primarily by the poor who prized it as a tonic that could ward off the lingering ailments of winter.The city of Chicago was named after the ramp. The name "Chicago" derives from a word used in a Native American language meaning "striped skunk" - a word they also used to describe the stinky plant. Ramps were also popular amongst many Native American groups, who used the plant to treat coughs and cold, as well as to treat bee stings.This recent resurgence in popularity has some worried over the sustainability of foraging for ramps. EthnobotanistLawrence Davis-Hollander explains:It's the most ironical question. There are two major food movements running through this county right now. One is the heavily industrial-based processed food trend. The other is the locally grown, sustainable, supposedly environmentally friendly food movement - the farm-to-table movement, as it's often called. Unfortunately this idea of foraging has morphed into 'what can we get out of ramps?' It's become commercialized in many circles. Like anything else, if you start harvesting millions of them, how long are they going to be around?Davis-Hollander compares ramps to ginseng, which is now almost extinct in the natural woodlands of North America. As ginseng's popularity grew, it became commercialized and was carelessly harvested. Ramps are slow-growing plants, and many novice foragers and those taking economic advantage of the increased demand are harvesting bulbs that are much too young, threatening the future of the plant.In many ways, the recent ramp debate serves as a microcosm for the sustainable food movement itself. The tension betweenpreserving the environment andmaking real, affordable, and tasty food available to as many people as possible is strong. Organics are becoming increasingly commercialized, reaching more people, but oftentimes losing the spirit of the organic vision in the process. "Sustainability" means different things to varied interests, and these interests are all trying to squeeze onto the same stage.Purists and pragmatists have much to learn from each other, and understanding the delicate balance required to preserve and protect food that is not only salubrious, but an integral part of a historical and cultural narrative is a necessary starting point for any discussion.Photo Credit: Danielle Scott

Ryan Budget to Cut Food Assistance for Poor

Christina Filipovic — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:33:30 GMT

An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities revealed that US House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's proposed budget would cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding by $127 billion over ten years.The SNAP program, once known as "food stamps" is targeted at low-income families who require help meeting basic dietary needs.Ryan's proposal is hardly surprising, given the behavior and demands of the Republicans leading up to the last budget agreement.While Ryan claims that the plan is "protecting assistance for those in need," the reality is that the plan would create block grants and place time limits on SNAP, the nation's most effective nutritional safety net. SNAP expenditures increased in the last several years not because the program was spinning out of control, but rather because families hit hard by the recession required temporary assistance.The $127 billion dollar cut will serve to "throw millions of low-income families off the rolls, cut benefits by thousands of dollars a year, or some combination of the two." according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.Ryan has failed to give offer details on how the cuts would be reached, or the timing of the proposed cuts.While it is likely that Ryan is proposing block grants in order to push off tough decisions on to the states, it is clear that eligibility for SNAP and benefits will most likely both be impacted.The Center explains that if cuts in eligibility were the only tool used, more than 8 million people would be cut from the program, assuming cuts began in 2012. If cuts were pushed back to 2015, 10 million people would need to be cut from the program to achieve the required savings.If benefits were targeted as a way to achieve the cuts (without changing eligibility requirements), the maximum SNAP benefit would be set a 88% of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) - the USDA estimate for a basic, nutritionally adequate diet. This means that the average family of four on SNAP would see their benefits cut by $147 per month, or $1,764 annually.The SNAP program does not contribute to the nation's long-term budget problem, as the program is expected to grow no faster than the economy does.The SNAP program primarily serves the very poor, seniors, children, and the disabled. Over 40% of SNAP households live below half the poverty line.It is important to note that these SNAP cuts do not take place within a vacuum. The Ryan budget would gut Medicare, Medicaid, housing support, and educational assistance programs that primarily help the poor and middle class.Creating a sustainable food system requires all citizens to have access to basic nutritional assistance. In the US, this goal is becoming increasingly difficult to reach.Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

New Foraging App for Adventurous Eaters

Christina Filipovic — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:51:12 GMT

"Wild Edibles" a new app for aspiring foragers provides a useful tool in identifying wild plants for human picking and consumption.The app draws on the extensive knowledge of "Wildman" Steve Brill, a well-known forager and environmental educator.The app includes up to 8 images for each plant with detailed descriptions, photos of similar plants, information on poisonous lookalikes, and medicinal information for natural health.Techniques and methods for harvesting the plants are also included in the app, which has a free "lite" version. After the harvest, recipes are conveniently offered.The search function allows the user to search by season, habitat, edible part, and type.The app covers 165 plants, plus 52 lookalikes, including fruits, nuts, roots, and greens.As foraging becomes increasingly popular, this app is designed mostly for the novice forager who needs to avoid unintentionally picking a dangerous lookalike plant. For those a bit more advanced, the same company has introduced several sets of foraging flashcards categorized by food type and season.With the rapidly changing and sometimes confusing food scene, there are several other useful apps for this trying to eat more sustainably.Seafood Watch offers free recent suggestions on fish and sushi selections.Locavore uses your phone's GPS (or personal tracking capabilities) to highlight local farms and farmers' markets nearby. The user can then browse the farmer's page to see what is in season, or to search for a specific item.The free Fooducate app allows users to scan the bar codes of grocery items and then grades it nutritionally. It then offers better alternatives. The rating system is based on the amount of processing put into any item, as well as nutritional content. Not every item in the grocery store is available in this app, but developers continue to add new products, and the app has improved over time.Whole Foods also offers a free recipe app to help users plan their meals while shopping. It features a shopping list and directions to their stores. Epicurious has a similar recipe app.Photo Credit: Seth Anderson

Industrial Organic Pressed For Transparency

Keri Marion — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:00:12 GMT

The question about organic growing practices in industrial agriculture seems almost like an oxymoron: How can the industrial complex promote healthy growing practices and still turn a healthy profit?It's true that organic food tends to fetch a higher retail price, which may compensate for some of the extra time and labor that goes into organic growing methods. But we have to remember that there are a number of other costs associated with the industrial complex that the local farmer simply doesn't have to concern himself with like major transportation, marketing and, of course, the cost of organic certification.Recently, an article in the Seattle Times Food & Wine Section exposed "A California farm that provides eggs under the Organic Valley co-op label" for shady egg production under the cover of organic methodology. The article reinforces the mantra complaint of conscientious consumers: "While federal organic standards require outdoor access and direct sunlight to promote hen health and natural behavior, the standards don't specifically define the outdoors."Another article on quotes Organic Valley as saying, "Our farmers are required to provide 1.75 square feet per bird indoors and five square feet per bird outdoors. An exception to this is made for our producer in California, where state veterinarians and the California Department of Agriculture strongly advocate that birds not have free-range outdoor access because of the risk of Avian Influenza transmission. Our California farmer-owner has screened houses with lots of natural light, and his outdoor access method is approved by his organic certifier, Oregon Tilth."Because the USDA is the enforcer of organic standards in addition to bioagriculture and other industrial agriculture practices, it's fairly simple to see how things get all bungled up into a mixture of confusion and problems.It has been well-documented in the small farm community that Certified Organic is the lowball organic standard. The costliness of becoming certified promotes a standard afforded only to medium and large farms which are accustomed to taking shortcuts for profitability; contrarily, many smaller farms naturally work in a methodology closer to permaculture because it is the most profitable for them: small farms can sell boutique vegetables at farmer's markets to help subsidize their organic practice.None of this is to say that industrial organic is a bad thing; not everyone has access to farmer's markets or CSA shares, and even if it is a lowball standard, certified organic is, in fact, a standard. Without industrial organic, many people would only have access to severely unhealthy crops, so the organic program is a good one, it just has to be enforced a little more specifically to keep companies honest.Photo credit: Kai Hendry

US National Parks Shift to Sustainable Food

Christina Filipovic — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:38:21 GMT

Preservation and enjoyment of the environment is the primary mission of the US national park system, and it is surprising that this goal does not always transfer to the food offered at the parks. As the health of citizens is reliant on both the conservation of the environment and access to healthy foods, it is laudable that the park system is advancing the profile of its food options.A recent report draws attention to a handful of parks that are setting the bar for sustainable, healthy eating in the parks system.Over 286 million people visit the National Parks each year, creating a significant market for food producers.The report explains, "Sourcing even a portion of park food and beverages from sustainable producers would drive millions of dollars into organic production, small businesses, and local economies."Case studies are presented on four park food providers: Yellowstone Lodges at Yellowstone National Park, Muir Woods Cafe at Golden Gate National Park, Crocker Dining Hall at Asilomar State Beach, and Mount Rushmore Cafe at Mount Rushmore.These four locations generally excelled at integrating healthier menu items, increasing local sourcing of food (as much as possible, depending on location), reducing energy use and creation of waste, and selling more sustainable food items. The definition of "sustainable" was not rigidly defined. Rather, specific types of food were encouraged, such as grass-fed beef, free-range and USDA organic labeled meat and poultry, USDA-certified organic produce, shade-grown coffee, and seafood listed on the Seafood Watch or Marine Stewardship Council green list.The case studies highlight the challenges parks face when moving towards sustainable food: costs, contract bidding challenges, bureaucratic obstacles, outdated and inappropriate facilities, the preferences of visitors, and location of vendors.The uphill battle the park system is fighting serves as a microcosm for the larger challenges faced by the national food system in setting priorities and redefining ideal foods. One of the challenges faced by parks is training staff to cook food that is not packaged and processed-- many of the workers were not used to preparing anything other than conventional packaged, processed food. Visitors to the park generally demanded familiar food items at a low cost.The fact that John Muir Cafe has been one of the most successful points to the need for an educated and engaged customer base-- the importance of a supportive culture committed to sustainable food.While reforming the food of the National Park System will be difficult, the purchasing power and symbolic sway of the large and influential park system will lead to more producers offering increasingly accessible and affordable food options for the general population.Photo Credit: Stephan Mazurov

Staph Infected Meat? Oh, About Half.

Keri Marion — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:00:49 GMT

A new study by the Translational Genomics Research Institute shows that, "nearly half of the meat and poultry samples 47 percent were contaminated withS. aureus, and more than half of those bacteria 52 percent were resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics."The study published in the journal,Clinical Infectious Diseases, (April 15), brings attention to an overwhelmingly avoidable problem. Staph infections are typically caused by poor hygiene and poor diet. If almost half of meat carried in grocery stores are infected with Staphylococcus, it's not difficult to deduce that at least half the meat being raised in farms that supply the grocery stores are both unclean and undernourished. In considering the antibiotic qualifier to this study, we can safely assume that animals have been pumped with so many antibiotics that the staph has acclimated as well. The study cites, "Densely-stocked industrial farms, where food animals are steadily fed low doses of antibiotics, are ideal breeding grounds for drug-resistant bacteria that move from animals to humans ...Although Staph should be killed with proper cooking, it may still pose a risk to consumers through improper food handling and cross-contamination in the kitchen."The study also points out that, "The U.S. government routinely surveys retail meat and poultry for four types of drug-resistant bacteria, butS. aureus is not among them." And this just six months after the passing of S510, our food safety bill which promises to make all industrial foods safe.Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is concerned about the overuse of antibiotic drugs in our food supply. In February, she said, "4 out of 5 antibiotics sold in this country were for use on animals, many of whom are not even sick, and that is dangerous to all of us. We know that the widespread use of antibiotics on healthy animals is contributing to the growth of bacteria resistance to the drugs we use to treat humans." In the following video, she reiterates, "[Using antibiotics on industrial meats] would be like a mother, sprinkling antibiotics on her childrens' cereal every morning, in hopes the child would not get sick." She confirms the "unspeakable conditions" by which animals are kept in effort to laud a profit.On March 17, 2009, Rep. Slaughter introduced HR 1549, The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA) in the House of Representatives. This critical legislation is designed to ensure that we preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics for the treatment of human diseases.Food safety is equanimous with accountability. Infectious meat can be avoided by providing proper sanitation, proper space and proper diet. Industrial food producers continue to think of their items as product, not food for others' consumption. And with that mindset, the holy dollar is the capital by which all rules bay. The best way to avoid tainted meat is to more personally know those that raise and produce meat for food.Photo credit:bymrgarin

Final Budget Agreement Cuts Food Aid, Water Quality and Stewardship Programs

Christina Filipovic — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 20:37:36 GMT

The new agreement recently passed to avoid a government shutdowncut programs that promote land stewardship, help poor mothers buy food, and assist in the delivery of clean water around the country.The US Department of Agriculture suffered from cuts of $2.6 billion for this fiscal year, ending September 30. As half of the fiscal year is already over "it becomes twice as hard to make cuts" according to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.Congressional leaders disingenuously focused on nonsecurity discretionary spending for cuts, as opposed to tackling tax breaks, capping skyrocketing defense spending, or having a serious conversation about Medicare and Social Security. The new cuts will do little to reduce the deficit, or tame national debt. It will lead to more children going to bed hungry and malnourished.The deal included a $504 million cut in the Women, Infants and Children, or "WIC" program that provides food aid to low-income pregnant women, new mothers, and children. The entire program is normally funded at $7.2 billion and covers 9.3 million people.Over 4,000 people joined together in a fast to protest the proposed cuts to WIC, but to no avail.The WIC program is a joint federal-state program, managed and paid for by the USDA and state governments. As states are becoming increasingly squeezed financially, they too are proposing to cut WIC. Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is looking to slash his state's program even further.The cuts to WIC highlight the reality that on Capitol Hill, women, children and the poor are being thrown under the bus, while the super rich grow richer. One in four children in the US already go to bed hungry some nights, and 50 million Americans suffered from food insecurity in the past year. Corporate profits grew at the highest rate in 2010 since the 1950s, and the richest 1% of Americans account for 24% of the nation's income.The WIC program not only helps families access food, it helps them with nutrition and meal planning. With malnourishment a bigger threat to the health of children in the US than undernourishment, the focus on nutrition in the program is key. Malnourished children, of which there are many in the States, grow up with worse health and stunted educational achievements-- poor nutrition in the first two years of a child's life leads to irreversible harm.In addition to chiseling away at nutritional support for families, the agreement cut $1.6 billion from the Environmental Protection Agency, a 16% decrease. The majority of these cuts are aimed at the Clean and Safe Drinking Water Revolving Funds (SRDFs), used to improve the quality of the nation's waterways.Stewardship spending was axed at as well. The Wetlands Preserve Program, which pays landowners to preserve wetlands was cut by $119 million. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which prevents runoffs from field and feedlots was cut by $80 million and the first "green" payment program, the Conservation Stewardship Program was cut by $39 million.This agreement only funds the government for the remaining six months of the fiscal year, and serves as a warning of the future fight over raising the debt ceiling.As it becomes increasingly apparent that Tea Party Republicans are controlling the narrative of the fight, those interested in clean water, healthy families, and safe food systems must start paying attention now. With the Obama administration consistently failing to take charge, the vacuum needs to be filled by groups and individuals committed to setting a progressive and pragmatic tone on the next budget fight.It is high time sustainable food advocates moved from simply promoting awareness to dynamic and active advocacy.Photo Credit: Johan Ohrling

Cigarettes and Chocolate Milk: New Study Explores Link Between Food and Drug Cravings

Christina Filipovic — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:19:50 GMT

A new study published byYale's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity shows that people who struggle with severe food cravings exhibit similar brain activity as those who are addicted to drugs or alcohol."This past year, we got interested in the idea of food addiction and the neural process," said lead author Ashley Gearhardt, a clinical psychology doctoral student at Yale University. "We just wanted to get down and deep into whether people really experience food addiction."Using brain imaging technology, the researchers tested the responses of 48 women to the temptation, and later reward, of a chocolate milkshake. The women, with an average age of 21 and ranging from lean to obese, took a survey on food addiction based off of a similar test on drug addiction. The women who showed stronger signs of food addiction as determined by the survey had a brain response to the milkshake similar to the neural responses of drug addicts. In drug addicts and pathological eaters, the area of the brain associated with cravings showed more activity, while the region that controls urges experienced less activity, compared to individuals who reported no problem with addiction.The study has several important implications.First, just the image of the milkshake inspired the same brain response in food addicts as the image of a margarita might create in the brains of alcoholics. A tempting image of a hamburger may not only create psychological, but also physiological desire to seek out some beef. Food advertisements are frequently for the least healthy, hardly sustainable food products-- fast food and processed foods. This neural response encourages people struggling with food addiction issues to eat food that is both unhealthy and bad for the environment.Second, high-fat, high-sugar foods trigger particularly strong reward responses in our brains. Sugar, salt, and fat were very important flavor triggers for human evolution over the past several million years, but processed foods have nutritionally jumped the shark. Gearhardt explains that "...today, foods are so much more rewarding than anything our brains have evolved to handle...These are foods that really can sort of hijack our brains." Food addicts are not bingeing on arugula.The timely study was released while the psychiatric community is struggling with whether to consider food addiction as akin to alcoholism. The American Society of Addiction Medicine will be voting this month to determine whether pathological eating will be considered a genuine addiction, for policy purposes.Photo Credit: Arnold Inuyaki

Urban Gardening Movement Grows Strong Communities

Keri Marion — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:31:22 GMT

If there's one thing we can say we've been lacking in industrial American society, it certainly is the structure of a functioning community. But all of that is changing as urban gardening reconnects the dots of living in a society where we share values, ideas and the booty of community gardening.PBS Atlanta put together a wonderful and informative 10 minute segment about urban gardening in Atlanta, one of our nations most critical sectors for nutritive eating.At approximately 7:15s into the video speaks Kifu Faruq. She literally encapsulates the energy and need for community gardening, "especially in an urban setting," by stating the following:"Food is an opportunity to talk about other things; to talk about sustainability and what it means to buy your food locally, and how you keep resources in a neighborhood. So connecting people with their food is one of the functions of a community garden; especially in an urban setting, where, really, the concept of how things look in the ground - people don't even have that concept."In a society where oil is our greatest exploited resource it is more important than ever before to connect people with the process of how food is grown, how it is delivered and the effects of long distance food.There's an old Native American saying: "We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors; we borrow it from our Children." Our children are the ones who will have to deal with all we have served them. It's best we teach them, now, how to recover it. The way we can help our children is two fold: First, we can show them how to care for themselves after we are gone and have left them with this shambled and toxic landscape; simultaneously we can teach them to eat well, keep fit and care for the elements the way many their great grandparents did. Atlanta hosts a special concern: it is one of the "fattiest" places in the United States. According to Georgia Health News, "Georgia ranked 43rdfor child health among the states and the District of Columbia in the 2011 report card developed by the Commonwealth Fund."Childhood obesity is at an all-time high in the United States for a number of reasons, but much of it is because we have lost the connection between our food and the work in which is necessary to provide it. We've been segregating ourselves from the land as if we've been ashamed of it, when in fact, it is everything.Photo credit: screenshot fromThe Commonwealth Scorecard

Market Trends: Greenwashing

Keri Marion — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 23:32:11 GMT

Walmart sells organics; sets up a fruit stand in front of their automated doors. Hundreds of thousands of re-useable bags decorated with pre-war iconography; sold for $1 apiece, made in China. McDonalds: jumping on the sustainability bandwagon, claiming it has had interest interest in sustainability for over 20 years. Really.There are two camps in this argument of sustainability and marketing sustainability: One is that any step a company takes to improve on their business model to make for a more sustainable product is a good one. The other is that any company that uses the word "sustainable" and produces a product made by machinery or by factory or uses power other than manpower is inherently lying, no matter how clean their intentions. This is greenwashing.So the two ideas of major corporations and better practices are -in my mind, anyway- mutually exclusive. Walmart can sell organic produce, but it is only organic by USDA standards, which, doesn't necessarily take into consideration a number of different factors that are implied by the term, "organic." Organic still uses pesticides and fertilizers; organic still usest ractors and they certainly push the limits of production for profit, of course. It's a better choice than nothing at all, but it's not necessarily sustainable. Organic is a methodology of raising materials; sustainability is the ability to continue to produce them.Consumers can buy retro-styled graphic bags made in China under sweatshop conditions and sold for $1 at the checkout lane of Whole Foods, but that doesn't make it a good thing to do. Better might be to get a couple from an artisan using reclaimed materials, diverting the material's ultimate destination of the landfill, if even for just a little while.McDonalds can claim they have "taken many positive steps" toward sustainability for 20 years; meanwhile, they have contributed to deforestation of the Amazon in a myriad of ways, from clear cutting for cattle to clear cutting for soybeans.The trouble in the argument is in the consumer: The consumer wants to feel good about his purchases, despite the very real outcome of his choices. Companies want to cash in on this feeling and they, rightly so, will capitalize on it as best they can. For some companies, it may mean real change; and that's good. But we have to be critical as consumers; we have to ask questions and we have to think further than our immediate pleasures. We can't always have everything we want when we want it. At least, not if we want to be contributing to a solution. That is fact.As much as all of us can applaud companies that make better choices with less carbon, it's important to remember that any company that produces any product that requires manufacturing of any sort really can't call itself "sustainable" without lying even a little bit. By its very nature, manufacturing is not sustainable. Baby steps are good, but we need more than that now.If you're going to buy anything at all: buy accountable, not hype.Photo credit: mattymatt

Bt Corn: Fail.

Keri Marion — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:00:30 GMT

The International Journal of Biological Sciences claims that three varieties of GMO corn have now been linked with organ failure in a study performed on rats.Specifically, the study notes that,"Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded."The gist of the study is that when using RoundUp Ready crops, some of the herbicide is left-over on the food itself and inadvertently consumed. In Bt crops, the crop itself is a pesticide. Since the three crops that were studied are all corn, one has to recognize that the crops can seriously affect a large amount of people who continue to consume products made with corn, which is almost everything that comes by box or butcher.Reports of respiratory health problems in farm workers have occurred due to breathing Bt corn pollen. Bt corn pollen is also blamed for allergic reactions in neighboring communities:In 2003, approximately 100 people living next to a Bt cornfield in the Philippines developed skin, respiratory, intestinal reactions and other symptoms while the corn was shedding pollen.And there are a number of problems with the use of GMO corn outside of the alleged health effects. First, corn is wind-pollinated, which means the wind carries pollen from one stalk to the next. For many corn fields it's actually a requirement to have a "buffer zone" of non-GMO corn to catch the pollen spray, but what happens when THAT corn gets overwhelmed and it leaks out into the rest of the world.BioAg companies seek to absolve themselves of responsibility for the misuse of their products,; however, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, with each year farmers continue to use Bt Corn, their compliance in its usage has declined considerably. If what BigAg wants us to believe to be true actually is true, then it can only be proven when farmers use the technology correctly - and even then, it's not perfect.With the continuing disappearance of beneficial insects, the allergic reactions, the possible organ failure from consumption, the cross pollination, the inability to save seed (though this is also the case with other hybrids, but not for legal reasons), it raises serious question about what benefits growing GMOs can provide: It doesn't really seem like there are any at all.Photo credit: Alton N. Sparks, Jr.

Organic Farmers Flip the Script on Monsanto

Christina Filipovic — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 18:42:50 GMT

A growing block of organic farmers and agricultural organizations have joined forces to sue biotech giant Monsanto.The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), which filed on their behalf on March 30 in New York, argued that the plaintiffs must sue preemptively in order to avoid potential future patent infringement accusations by Monsanto.Monsanto has a history of suing farmers for "patent infringement" when their crops are unwittingly and unwillingly infected by Monsanto-patented GMO seed. As Tom Laskawy explains over at Grist:...the federal government 'insists the food revolution will be genetically modified.' Well, what biotech companies want more than anything is for the food revolution to be patented. Why is that? Because, unlike pharmaceuticals, patented genes will never go "generic" after some number of years. Monsanto and its biotech buddies can keep milking that transgenetic cow for decade after decade.GMO crops have another interesting quality -- you can 'use' a patented gene without even knowing it. When you download and share music and movies on peer-to-peer networks or plagiarize blog posts or books, let's face it -- you know what you're doing. But if you're a farmer, GMO seeds can literally blow in to your fields on the breeze or just the pollen from GMO crops can blow in (or buzz in via bees) and contaminate your organic or 'conventional' fields. And if that happens, Monsanto or Syngenta or Bayer CropLife maintain the right to sue you as if you had illegally bought their seed and knowingly planted it.Organic farmers are not only concerned about lawsuits, but concerned about the integrity and future of their crops as GMO pollen and seed permeate their land.Dan Ravicher, PUBAT's Executive Director said:It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients.Indeed, the fact that these organic farmers are the ones in fear of being sued for "stealing" seeds, rather than Monsanto worrying about their biotechnology invading and altering other crops is notable.While the terms of the current debate are quite depressing for sustainable agriculture advocates, this lawsuit is one of a handful of bright spots in the fight over the future legal framework for world agriculture practices.Photo Credit: Ton Rulken

House Bill 589: The Breakdown

Keri Marion — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 10:00:16 GMT

Nothing is more distasteful than shady business practices, except maybe shady business practices that seek protection for inherent shadiness by state and federal laws.HF589 is a bill for an act relating to offenses involving agricultural operations and providing ipenalties and remedies. It was formerly called HF 431. It is specifically addressed to the State of Iowa, which is one of the most important locations of farming for industrial purposes in the United States.Iowa has enormous farming operations which contribute considerably to the industrial food system. According to Grist, "Accounting for less than 2 percent of the U.S. landmass, Iowa churns out a fifth of U.S. corn and a sixth of our soy -- the nation's most prodigious crops, the main inputs for our industrial food system, and increasingly important sources of auto fuel. Nearly one in three U.S. hogs breathe their first and last breaths in Iowa -- and so, for good measure, do a twentieth of our beef cattle."While California may boast 25% of our consumables in roughage, Iowa, hands-down has the market in truly industrial agriculture.So lawmakers came up with HF-589. The section we are most concerned with the terms, "animal facility interference" and "animal facility fraud." Read the bill in its entirety here, but I will summarize for you:Regarding animal facility interference: anyone who produces any record that reproduces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility, not limited to photography or audio media; anyone who directly or indirectly (is associated) produces and/or distributes said record or anyone who even possesses said record can be prosecuted for attempting to make companies truly accountable for their actions.Regarding animal facility fraud: anyone who obtains access to an animal facility by false pretensesfor the purpose of committing an act not authorized by theowner of the animal facility or makes a false statement or representation as part ofan application to be employed at the animal facility, if theperson knows the statement to be false, and makes the statementwith an intent to commit an act not authorized by the owner ofthe animal facility.For a first conviction, the person can be found guilty of anaggravated misdemeanor.For a second or subsequent conviction, the person can be found guilty of a class "D" felony. And there are plenty other ways within the bill to slap felonies on grassroots whistleblowers.The punishment seems pretty steep when considering the social responsibility of any company or factory that is involved with the raising of animals, especially animals intended for food. This gives an already overwhelmingly unaccountable system even less accountability, but further, makes a stronger case for vegetarianism.After all, many of the most recent breaking stories about the unbelievably poor conditions in factory farms have been exposed due to people working in such conditions to document it.Photo credit: Public Domain

Senate & House Bills SF431 & HF589

Keri Marion — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:45:57 GMT

Lawmakers in Iowa are looking to make it legal to discriminate against activists that seek work in animal-centric food industrial plants that border on (or are completely immersed in) abusing the system for profit. The bills are titled:SF 431 and HF 589.Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) backs the idea. ""We're just saying we can't allow this. You can't have people sneaking in giving false reports. There's no business around that would want that to happen to them," reports The Des Moines Register. And he's right: sneaking in and giving false reports would be unfair; however, the term for such an act is called "slander" and it is already illegal. But working for a company to give true reports, well, if there's no wrongdoing, then what is the problem?In a time where transparency is both a trend and a commodity, it is hard to imagine how sentiments like this make their way through the political system; moreover how a bill about it can even be written. More damage to CAFOs will be wrought with this kind of shady talk than anything PETA could have riled up.Iowa is not alone in their fight to protect the abuse of animals in our industrial food systems. Missouri already discriminates against activists, Florida is on its way. In today's politically charged food climate, one might suggest to reconsider buying any meats from these areas, unless you live there and can verify the source. And that's not bad advice, even if these bills didn't exist.There's an ancient and sensible philosophy about eating healthy food. Not necessarily things outside of packages, obviously, as packaging is a 20th century invention, but food that is actually in good health when it is harvested. The animals in CAFO environments are typically not healthy. And their sicknesses are transferred to us by way of diseases and allergies.Most companies have isolated incidents of animal cruelty. This is a fact of human animals working with non-human animals; it could be considered almost a psychological explanation when a person, given the taste of animalistic power over another living being, gets drunk with that power and abuses it. But most activists have learned that the isolated incidents are not the issue: it is the prolonged, systematic inhumane treatment of animals, and then feeding those sick animals to an unsuspecting public. This is the problem.Instead of attempting to block grassroots investigations in the name of consumer awareness, maybe we should require companies to be truthful about their practices rather than shining over them with glossy labels depicting some other reality.Photo credit:Maqi

Hand In Hand: Oil And Packaged Food

Keri Marion — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:24:22 GMT

Crude oil and industrial food. Two things that don't sound like they should go together, but inexplicably do. Well, maybe not so inexplicably after all.We have everything we could ever want, but it comes at a price.And that price varies depending on its supply or demand. Currently demand is high; supply is speculatively short.In times where the oil supply was abundant (the 1980s) we became extremely efficient in many ways because we let oil do the work for us. Soon enough there was so much promise in it, that we let oil dictate bigger sized portions at the lowest possible price. Everything was bigger, more, cheaper, faster.And now, after re-evaluating the industrial sizing schema to super -sized everything, it seems that the market may be correcting itself. Packages are getting smaller, containing less product but remaining around the same price as their former larger selves.It's not such a bad idea, really. Americans obviously can't be trusted with a larger package, as can be measured by the 21st century pant size. But some of us have to ask: is the package even worth it? Only about 30% ofrecyclables are even being recycled (and fact being that recycling, as great as it is in some ways, still produces toxic byproduct and encourages an irresponsible consumerism).A New York Times article made an exquisitely stated point that acts as a good reminder as to why we should avoid labels as much as possible: "In every economic downturn in the last few decades, companies have reduced the size of some products, disguising price increases and avoiding comparisons on same-size packages, before and after an increase. Each time, the marketing campaigns are coy; this time, the smaller versions are 'greener' (packages good for the environment) or more 'portable' (little carry bags for the takeout lifestyle) or 'healthier' (fewer calories)."But they don't change in packaged price, which - as the savvy shopper understands - is the actual price. Recently, I noticed it with baby spinach. Packaged baby spinach at Whole Foods is around $9.50/lb. The package consists of a bag of spinach encased in a plastic clamshell: together the packaging weighs as much as the spinach itself! And at least 60% of that packaging is directly destined for the landfill, which is growing at a rate in tandem with the population.Food prices are going to go up, but considering that we pay less than 1/3 than our great grandparents spent 100 years ago, we can afford to brunt some of the costs that we've been shirking for so many years.Photo credit:Don Fulano

Superfly: San Francisco Airport to Feature Sustainable Food

Christina Filipovic — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:33:12 GMT

Maintaining its well-deserved reputation as a forward-thinking city, San Francisco announced plans for a sustainable food program in the brand new Terminal 2 at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).The renovated LEED Gold-certified Terminal 2 will include revolutionary dining options not yet seen in other airports around the US."Designing and building a more sustainable T2 is an investment in our future," said Mayor Gavin Newsom. "Not only do our efforts help the planet; at the same time, these improvements will greatly enhance customers' experience and help to grow the Bay Area's economy."The entry of Terminal 2 will feature a 5,000 square foot cafe, wine bar, and market stocked with sustainable and local treats."Napa Farms Market" will include products from Acme Bread, Cowgirl Creamery, Three Twins Ice Cream, as well as fresh produce form local farmers.Vino Volo will be opening a wine bar in the terminal, and women-ownedEquator Coffee-- known for being the preferred roaster for chefs such as Thomas Keller and Traci Des Jardins-- will be opening up its first retail cafe. One of the biggest supporters of fair trade coffee, the roaster will be selling drip and espresso.Tastes of the Fly, a San Mateo-based company that runs Perry's and Yankee Pier concessions in the international terminal, is behind the new market. CEO Michael Levine called the market "a cross between the Ferry Building Marketplace and the Oakville Grocery." Indeed, the Ferry Building Marketplace and Terminal 2 share the same architects.In addition to the market focused on sustainable and local foods, the renovated Terminal 2 boosts a handful of other environmentally friendly credentials.Energy efficient lighting and machinery will reduce energy use by 2.9 giga Watt hours per year, and natural gas use by 116,000 therms per year. These changes will result in a reduction of 1,640 tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year.On the water efficiency front, new appliances and a dual plumbing system taking advantage of reclaimed water from the airport's water treatment facility will lead to a 40 percent reduction in water use compared to traditional plumbing systems in other airports."Hydration stations" will also be provided for travelers with personal water bottles, reducing the demand for bottled water and the resulting plastic waste.The new terminal will also feature a "displacement ventilation" system which will introduce fresh filtered air into the terminal, and use 25% less energy than most power systems.American Airlines and Virgin America domestic flights will use the new terminal.Terminal 2 is slated to open next month.Photo Credit: BG3

The Nuclear Forest Recovery Zone

Keri Marion — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:00:26 GMT

"The enormity and unprecedented nature of this combined natural and human-made disaster will require a massive and completely novel approach to management and remediation. And with this comes a never before seen opportunity for collaboration, research and wisdom."These are the words of Paul Stamets, mycologist. Hisshort essay explains how an ecological approach can use mushrooms and native deciduous trees to literally "suck up" the radioactivity from a nuclear fallout area which eventually leads to capturing with intent to refine the radioactive mushrooms into ash and thus trap in glass or other materials, rendering it inactive. He admits he doesn't know how long the process would take, but he does suggest at least "decades, even centuries." It could take that long in any case. In the meanwhile, a National Park / Study Center to learn more about the interdependence between the natural world and the effect of radioactivity. Further this area could provide a mutually beneficial environment to continue learning about the nuances within this relationship. His TED talk on 6 ways mushrooms can save the worldfollows: At around 9 minutes in, he gets into the "radioactive energy mushroom solution," but the entire talk is wonderfully enlightening and includes ideas of permaculture as a method to heal at least some of the damage for which we can be directly blamed. With all due respect to those in charge of paving the way for continued interest in nuclear energy, we must also consider ideas for solutions to the eventual, truly inevitable nuclear reactor meltdown.We've seen an increase in frequency of violent natural disasters over the last ten years; much of this is cyclical; certainly the earth has suffered many natural disasters over its lifetime. But one can't help but wonder if the intensity combined with the increased frequency of such disasters is at minimum a byproduct of the sheerquantitiesof oil being siphonedwithout reservation. And now so many people want to reduce our dependence on crude oil and turn to alternative sources of "clean" energy, in effect: nuclear. For some reason, not solar, not wind, not water, but nuclear is the poster child for "clean energy," except there's not one clean thing about it.Paul Stamets has been a dedicated mycologist for over thirty years. Over this time, he has discovered and coauthored four new species of mushrooms, and pioneered countless techniques in the field of edible and medicinal mushroom cultivation. Photo credit: still from TED talk

Millions Against Monsanto March, Washington DC March 26

Keri Marion — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:21:58 GMT

Consumers deserve a choice of whether or not to purchase genetically modified foods. Monsanto says that we have that choice: simply buy organic.But what about that sector of people who are truly ignorant of GMO technology in their food? The disconnect between where food comes from or how it is produces is so enormous in the United States that it is not a sizable jump to recognize: many people don't even know the problem exists, so why should they be swindled into consuming products that they don't realize contains technology that may or may not harm them.The fact is, many GMOs are presumed to be safe, but we know presumptions can go deathly awry once the inevitable unknown factors arise. Because GMOs are often bred using genes that cross species, the current side effects of GMOs are typically allergic reactions to things by which one is normally not allergic.In reality, we don't have any idea what the effects of GMOs will be in our bodies for another 15 to 20 years. Maybe it's all fine; but why should we be allow corporations to test on an unknowing and unwilling audience?This coming Saturday, March 26, at the Capitol Building in Washington DC, a rally called The Right To Know will be held.Many more rallies are scheduled to occur simultaneously around the country, so if DC is not in your area, please consider one of the others or march on your own capitol, city hall or town hall building. Invite your friends and neighbors.The rally, as many see it, is more to make aware that which is often hidden: genetically nodified foods exist in almost every box of processed food on the supermarket shelves as well as in some of the produce aisles.But as it has been noted, even in produce GMOs are only labeled if the individual farm chooses to do so with a number 8 leader digit in front of the PLU Code. I have never seen a leading 8 PLU code; leading 9s on PLU codes indicate organic, so that means that anything other than a PLU code that starts with a 9 may or may not be GMO food. That's ridiculous.Monsanto shirks its responsibility to the consumer and it's not fair. We have a right to know what we put in our bodies. Not everyone has access to CSA shares and Farmer's Markets and those people, especially those people, should not be used as unsuspecting test subjects in a game that is all about profit for big companies.If you have opportunity to march on your town, city, county, state or national capitol, please do. And contact your representatives: demand that labeling be made mandatory for all genetically modified foods being sold to the public.

Nuclear Fallout of Japan's Food System

Keri Marion — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:00:44 GMT

Early this morning, the news came swiftly: radiation had been detected on the California coast. Moments later, another article revealed that,eventually, the radiation will reach Western Europe at minimum, and probably will end up circling the globe entirely.Last Friday's earthquake inJapan has left something like 20,000 people either dead or missing. Survivors of the natural disaster are now left to face theunnaturaldisaster: radiation poisoning.People are scavenging for food, and that food is likely contaminated. Ireland's Independent says, "Increasing numbers of people are being forced to scavenge for food in the debris of their homes."ABC News gave a report claiming that milk & spinach have already been detected with radiation, saying, "The tainted milk was found 20 miles (30 kilometers) from the plant, a local official said. The spinach was collected from six farms between 60 miles (100 kilometers) and 75 miles (120 kilometers) to the south of the reactors."These examples beg the question: What will we do when the inevitable nuclear meltdown happens in The United States?25% of our nation's food is grown in California, not to mention Mexico, Guatemala, Beliz, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Costa Rica and Nicaragua in conjunction withradiationfallout from (this time) Japan and (next time, any other country), it gave me serious pause. How many reactors are set up along these industrial food hubs?In fact, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Site is located on a fault line in San Luis Obispo County, just west of South SanJoaquinValley, our nation's top industrial food region.There's very little we can do about a system that depends on manufactured energy sources outside of manpower, but one major thing we can do is urge our senators to stop supporting nuclear power and elect representatives that share your ideals.The next best thing we can do may take longer, but will be more powerful in the end, if we even make it that far: We absolutely must stop using outside energy as much as possible. Obviously it can't be completely eliminated, but what it does mean is if we can use our own energy first, that is what we should use.That means that sometimes we don't get what we want when we want it: Sometimes we'll have to wait. Sometimes we have to quit our jobs because they are too far a commute. Sometimes we have to give extra money to activists so that they can hound our senators for us. Sometimes we have to grow our own food. Sometimes we have to keep our heat at below 60 in the winter; in the Summer, sometimes we'll have to sweat. But all times we need to be conscious of our part in this play and do our best to reverse it by using our energy sources wisely enough to remove dangerous methods like nuclear, coal and oil.Photo credit:Anosmia onFlickr Image of Three Mile Island, Pennsylvaniawhich had a nuclear meltdown in 1979.

USDA Gives The OK To Japanese Food Imports

Keri Marion — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:00:24 GMT

Japanese food is delicious and usually very healthy, clean, simple and elegant. And while it isn't a significant interest of the American palate (which is far more interested in unclean, complicated, vulgar food), Japanese food does hold about 4% of the import market in the United States, mostly in the form of snack items and instant soups.The FDA says that, "based on current information, there is no risk to the U.S. food supply" regarding Japanese food imports. At the same time, Today Health reported the FDA also claimed that, "while there was no 'public health event' in the United States requiring the use of the antidote potassium iodide, it was working with companies to increase production quickly."The FDA uses the term, "based on current information" as a preventative litigious measure. This is what our country is now: people scared to say what is really going on because it may later demand a law suit, or affect commercial sales. But if you were to ask me, I'd steer clear of any imports for at least a little while. At least until we can get "more information."The United States doesn't import that much from Japan, but many other countries do. And because the global market is full of shenanigans to bypass regulatory laws, we can't really be sure from where many of our imports are truly originating.For instance, Thailand imports a large quantity of food from Japan, and we import _____ from Thailand, so who's to say there isn't some hand-changing along the way? Knowing that many products get globally laundered in order to be imported into an unassuming American consumer base (we'll buy almost anything, it seems!), we can safely assume that some companies might launder some products for profit without stating, or misleading, the products original starting point.It's fair to be clear here: Nobody wants to economically punish Japan after all they have been through. And certainly I would not want to encourage banning Japanese products unmercifully; rather, I think we all want to see Japan get back on its feet after such an awful disaster and should also use some common sense until we have the full story and a realistic account of safety with regards to imported food products from the affected areas, at minimum. But it's possible even domestic foods will be at risk depending on the information the FDA later reveals, whatever that may be.Photo credit:Byrichardmasoner