Keri Marion's posts on Justmeans

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

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

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.

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

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

Own The Food, Own The World

Keri Marion — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:00:58 GMT

Those that own the food, own the people. Most of us understand the dangers in patenting staple seed crops like corn, wheat, soy, alfalfa & cotton because these ingredients are key to the industrial food system. Of course, for now, there are still ways to opt out of the industrial food system.Elements of these five "mother crops" are evident in almost every kind of processed food available on the shelves of any American grocery store. Considering Americans eat more than 30% more packaged, processed foodsthan whole foods, the connection to the severity of a controlled food system on a dependent population should be quite obvious.How many people, for example, do you think know how to make something simple like peanut butter? Or how to cook oatmeal, rice or eggs without a microwave? Or how to seed a pomegranate?Not many.In fact, many people might be surprised to learn that fruits and vegetables are actually grown in dirt.Or thatfish and shellfishlive in the same water that is drilled for oil. To some of us,these accusationssounds far-fetched; however, I started working with children's gardens several years ago simply because my neighbor's daughter was surprised by the fact a pepper came from a plant. She was nine years old at the time.If this disconnect were limited to only the experiences of children, one might be able to somehow justify it. After all, children aren't exposed toagrarian livelihoodsany more. Summer vacations are simply vacations now, where in past times,children were relieved from studies primarily to help on homesteads during the growing season.Recently, a co-worker had expressed to me her frustration about the industrialized food system in which we find ourselves today. She expressed to me that it was becoming increasingly difficult to read through the marketing on grocery store products. When something says, "natural," what does that even mean?The fact is, it means nothing. Everything is natural at some level, even lead. Agribusiness has invested billions of dollars to ensure that GMOs aren't labeled because their products, they feel, are "essentially the same" as whole foods - except they're not really the same at all: they are genetically modified. We have no idea how GMOs will react in our bodies.What agribusiness is really worried about is customer withdrawal once they are informed of what they are purchasing.The question is: if it were really safe, why not label the products and disperse the safety sheets?The safety of GMOs hasn't been entirely examined. GreenFacts.org says, "The main food safety concerns associated with transgenic products and foods derived from them relate to the possibility of increased allergens, toxins or other harmful compounds; horizontal gene transfer particularly of antibiotic-resistant genes and other unintended effects."There are a number of reasons as to why a consumer may want to avoid GMOs, but it becomes increasingly difficult unless one is willing to prepare and process whole foods oneself. If ever there were an apocalypse in front of us, this might just be it. Photo credit: By lyzadanger

Organic Seed And Development

Keri Marion — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:00:47 GMT

Over the course of a conversation with a reader, there was some discussion about seed patents, development and organics. The reader said that organic seeds can be patented and insinuated that it would be in the same manner as GMO seeds, to which many people are vehemently opposed. His argument was good, in that if what he was saying was true, then it may make many people who insist on buying solely organic for the sake of preserving open-pollinated seed in the marketplace a priority, to re-think their positions.So I brought it up to my organic growing community: What is the deal? Can organic seed be patented and restricted for use by commercial growers? The answer is yes, but it is a bit more complicated than it sounds.Organic seeds can be patented, of course. This is how seed breeders make a living, and why shouldn't they? But the example is far different than GMOs for this reason: Patented non-GMO seeds are often hybrids which rarely, if ever, are grown as a seed crop because hybrids do not produce genetically identical seed; the seed will produce fruit of either parent variety, but very unlikely to be the child variety, which is the seed you planted. Therefore, this kind of patent doesn't really matter. The seed isn't kept anyway. Those seeds need to be re-purchased as necessary.This difference between seed patents is enormously huge. Hybrids are sold all the time without expectation of saving the seed. Of course, one would buy the seed again, because one wouldn't even imagine saving it. There may be a couple of cases where a particular seed is patented and is not hybrid, but because the cost of patenting is high, many seed breeders don't bother patenting, and that's a good thing for open-pollinated seeds.There is nothing wrong with people making money off of their work; proprietary ownership is a necessity in some cases where commercially grown products violate years - or even decades' worth - of research. The problem many people have with GMOs is that they are patented and are taking each staple crop one-by-one: corn, rape (canola), soy, wheat, alfalfa, cotton. These are the basic crops of our world.So while GMOs may not be the only patented product, they are the most common and the most dangerous. Because they patent staple crops and invite monocultures that neither invite nor encourage reputable growing practices, the companies that make them can't be seen in any altruistic light. I wish they could, but the more one learns, the easier it is to see that the real benefit is in controlling the food system, not necessarily a seed.Photo credit: dyogi

Accountable vs. Organic

Keri Marion — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:00:21 GMT

For the past three years I have been fortunate enough to be a shareholder in a Community Supported Agriculture plan here in Providence, Rhode Island. We renew our membership annually around this time of year when our farmer sends out an email offering the prices for the year and what we can expect. This year, he added this blurb about organics and I thought it would be a really nice place to start a discussion about what the term "organic" means and why we should buy local/ accountable first and organic second."[Our farm] is not certified organic for several reasons. Since the USDA has begun regulating organic standards, it is many people's opinion that the bar has been lowered rather than raised in terms of environmental standards, quality, sustainability, and public health. Therefore, [our farm] follows standards which were in place when [our farmer] first began working for organically-certified growers. The growing practices of [our farm] are considered to be in-line with organic standards (i.e, soil health, soil building, limited-use of botanical pesticides, non-pesticide pest and weed management, water conservation, erosion prevention, etc). We are, in accordance with our lease through South Side Community Land Trust, held to these practices."As certified organic meat & produce become more industrialized and therefore part of a system one cannot actually see or monitor, it becomes less and less accountable. In order to be certified organic, a farm may not use genetically modified seed; it may not use synthetic pesticides or herbicides, though it may still use natural ones; it may not irradiate food, etc. But certified organic food isn't regulated to do any better than what it's required to do. It certainly can be a minimum-wage mentality project: do what is required by law and nothing more. So when faced with the option of "conventional" foods vs. organics, organics is your best bet. But better exists outside the industrial system.What many small, independent farms prefer to practice are more in line of permaculture, integrated pest management, water conservation, soil health, manual labor and provide an overall tending to the farm as opposed to simply growing product.

Soil test

View more presentations from Southside Community Land Trust.

The Southside Community Land Trust has provide the means for Providence growers' voices for the last 30 years. As the Providence Metropolitan area is the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, recovering soil health for our farms has been the main priority of our community. If you have a community resource like this in your area, please consider supporting it. The benefits they provide by networking new gardeners and farmers with traditional farming methods (not to be confused with "conventional") is worth more than its weight in gold.Photo credit: Keri Marion

We're Not Responsible For Your Choices, Right?

Keri Marion — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 10:00:24 GMT

It doesn't even surprise me to hear the utter, inexcusable nonsense pasted all over Monsanto's website anymore. It seems the entire endeavor is nothing short of pandering propaganda aimed to the uninformed, the naive, or those looking to justify their own affiliations with such debauchery. In defending their right to not label GMO foods, Monsanto had the following to say:"Individuals who make a personal decision not to consume food containing GM ingredients can easily avoid such products. In the U.S., they can purchase products that are certified as organic under the National Organic Program. They can also buy products which companies have voluntarily labeled as not containing GM ingredients. The law allows for voluntary labeling so long as the information is accurate, truthful and avoids misleading consumers about the food. Monsanto supports both options."First, this doesn't say anything about how other countries can avoid GMOs. As practices of industrial farming toil the backs of third-world farmers, one can only assume that other countries don't matter.And secondly, Monsanto has avoided their corporate responsibility by laying the sole responsibility of consumer "choice" to be knowledgeable enough to purchasing organic "to be sure" that it is not infected with GMO technology. It's like having to prove innocence: It's totally un-American.Or is it?As the line between GMOs and organics blend; rather, when Monsanto finally dominates the global food market by owning, literally, all the staple crops, it won't matter. The only way we'll be able to avoid it is by growing our own, and even then you'll risk "stealing" intellectual property by pollen drift.They further pose the question: "What would be the benefits of labeling products containing GM ingredients?"Well, the benefits would be numerous.The consumer could be more informed about what they are supporting when purchasing a product.The consumer can decide if the organic option is worth the extra cost if on a tight budget (because unaccountability long-distance farms, even organic ones, can lead to profiteering either through the farm or the grocer).The consumer could make the choice as to whether or not he wants to be a testing subject for genetically modified food that haven't been sufficiently tested in human consumption.It is simply the responsibility of any producer to label what unnatural things exist in their products. That's why we have labels in the first place.To shift the responsibility to the consumer and assume the cost of organic certification onto the farm is unfair and bullish. Why should a farm be forced to certify organic just to prove it is not part of the genetically modified game? Many small farms are not certified organic because the cost in certification is prohibitive. Now their perfectly reasonable practices go by the wayside of certified organic farms.In essence, by not labeling GMO products, the small farms might as well have been sprayed with RoundUp: it kills them.This mindset is indicative of Goliath sized companies calling the shots and all the Davids of the world having to play ball. It's outlandish. If we learn anything from this experience at all, it should be that we all need to save and store heirloom seed whenever we can find it. The real green revolution is not in a petri dish; it's in our backyards, our front yards and our neighbors' farms.Photo credit: Sabisteb

GMOs, Hunger And Predatory Practices

Keri Marion — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:00:04 GMT

It's a vicious cycle, Vandana Shiva explains, how indebtedness to large seed supplying corporations puts third world farmers into precarious positions, sometimes ending with suicide seeming like the only answer to a continual problem.Monsanto agrees, but holds no responsibility for it; in fact, they say, "The reality is that that the tragic phenomena of farmer suicides in India began long before the introduction of Bollgard [Bt Cotton] in 2002. Farmer suicide has numerous causes with most experts agreeing that indebtedness is one of the main factors. Farmers unable to repay loans and facing spiraling interest often see suicide as the only solution."If farmer indebtedness is the root cause of the problem, then why compound the problem with products that promise one thing, but yield another. It is possible that on a very large scale, the company statistics of their GMO seeds have enough space and the right conditions to manufacture the numbers. They look great on paper. But in small operations, these numbers don't appear to hold up.Most important in this video, Shiva explains that "To turn the world to a dependency on staples has nothing to do with feeding the world; it has a lot to do with controlling the food supply ... The use of food as the ultimate weapon of control."We can use cotton as an example to back up what Vandana Shiva is saying. In an article titled, India's Bt Cotton Fraud, author Rhea Gala states, "[A] report entitled, The story of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh: Erratic processes and results, published by the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), documents the dubious events of three years of commercial Bt cotton cultivation in AP.It researched the economics as well as the incidence of pests and diseases, and beneficial organisms in Bt cotton and non-pesticidal management (NPM) cotton fields. It established that the cost of pest management of Bt cotton was 690% higher than in NPM farming systems. Moreover seed cost of Bt cotton was 355% higher than conventional varieties""Our goal is to take [Bt Cotton to India] and capture value and develop a sustainable business. Hopefully, in making sure that they pay for the technology, we're keeping the American grower competitive worldwide," says Randy Deaton, Monsanto's global business lead for cotton.These kinds of statements are is representative of the greedy, hyperbolic mentality that goes hand-in-hand with profiteering off of already impoverished nations that are wrapped up in a cycle of monopolist marketing. In many parts of the world, this would be considered predatory. And why would any other genetically modified crop be different? Well-over 90% of the GMO market is controlled by one company: Monsanto. Whether it be corn, canola, cotton, soy, alfalfa, sugar beets and even wheat, they are scooping up staple crops and patenting them so they no longer belong to us, they belong to Monsanto.Photo credit: video still.

Sustainable Propaganda

Keri Marion — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 10:00:18 GMT

This has to be one of the most brazen falsified statements about sustainable agriculture that has ever passed my primary auditory cortex.Reggie Dowell states in this Monsanto-produced piece of propaganda, "In approximately 1920, we produced our first billion bushel corn crop in the United States. We planted 100 million acres to do that. Last year we planted eighty-two million acres and produced 13billion bushel of corn. That's pretty sustainable"No, I'm sorry Mr. Dowell, that is not necessarily sustainable. It may be impressive. It may be interesting, but just because a crop yielded a 13-fold increase in a 12% area decrease over the course of 90 years does not necessarily make the endeavor "sustainable."It's as if to suggest that people don't progress over time. How much of that progress was made simply by having stronger lines of communication (telephones), automated irrigation (modernization) and an explosion of machinery (oil)? There's not enough data in this argument to claim that any of what the video claims could be considered "sustainable."In fact since this discussion is about corn, we can only assume that we are talking about overtaxing the land with a mono-crop. There is literally no way farmers can sustain 13 billion bushels on 82 million acres without the petrochemical industry. And that industry is sinking. Think about how industrial farming is done: planting, spraying and harvesting, all done by machine.In a backhanded way, Mr Dowell explains that fifty years ago it took, "too many people to produce the food." This is the period in which "most people consider the most sustainable" of times. But even then, sustainability wasn't the driving force of production: profitability was - and continues to be so today in large farming operations. Let's not sugar-coat it.That's not to say a farmer shouldn't be profitable; certainly he should. But the difference is the level of profitability against his exploitation of resources.We are outsourcing all our work to oil and companies, yet still find it in our minds to complain that there are no jobs for Americans. Either people are complacent in a narcissistic fog, or they're truly disconnected to their natural environment. Either way, it feels sorely like a Vonnegut nightmare.Today most Americans need guidebooks in effort to navigate the grocery store landscape. We don't need companies blurring terms of practice any more than they already have. Sustainability, by definition, means that the practice can continue naturally and fluidly.Monsanto claims they are sustainable. If Monsanto is so sustainable, why aren't they on the Top 1000 Global Companies Powered by SmartView Force Rankings?The position of environmentalists and food independents like myself isn't so much against GMOs because they're necessarily a bad idea. It's more because they don't work over the long run. With company patents that literally foreclose small farms, there is too much power given to these big companies. If GMOs really will provide what biotech companies say they will, there wouldn't be a patent. It's that simple.Photo credit: Still from the video produced by MonsantoCo.

Food: A Project Envision Documentary

Keri Marion — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:00:19 GMT

This little documentary is only about a half hour long, but it does brush across the general scope of the problem of industrial food in the United States, lightly discussing differences in opinion by other countries. Described most aptly by KPBS, the producing agency of the documentary: "Food" is a 30-minute documentary that follows your dinner from the plate to the field, farm and ocean. The investigation reveals some surprising facts about the modern food chain. You may be surprised how far your oranges have traveled, what's in your farmed salmon, and why your chicken breasts are so large these days.Filmed in California, which supplies probably 30% of all food in the United States, it makes a lot of really great points regarding food policy and comparison to how other countries manage their industrial food system.For the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, there is a captioned version on the KPBS website.The documentary brushes on all our favorite topics: product driven by consumer demand; meat production in the United States including feedlots and cramped chicken farms; local, accountable alternatives and the carbon footprint of food transportation.An interesting point they brought up that isn't often mentioned is our importing and exporting of produce for particular characteristics, for example, the San Diego Orange. The grove manager said that Americans don't like to buy his oranges because they are too hard to peel and have green shoulders; they don't "look" orange-y enough. So we ship those to Asia and then import oranges from Australia.This begs the question about organics and importing: how do we know what standards are being met by the "organic" label when the produce or meat is being imported from outside the country? In some cases, the standard may exceed ours, but in others it may not. Either way we have no true accountability.The film continued on with the shopping habits of the American consumer. It seems as if our celebrity culture has wrought its way into the supermarket: it's all about image.We can hope that with the current trendiness of shopping local and visiting farmer's markets that more local produce will be in demand. If the farmers can dedicate at least a part of their farms to local consumers, it is that much less he has to focus on exporting. It's that much carbon saved.Photo credit: still from the video, KPBS.

Water, Water Everywhere...

Keri Marion — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:00:57 GMT

Of the four classical elements, it is hard to say which is most important because they are so deeply interconnected. But if there had to be a choice, water might be the most sensible.A person can survive for a month without food, but only a few days without water of some sort.Without clean water, we literally have nothing. But instead of respecting it, we have made water our slave, piping it through streets, running it through septic systems, damming it, reserving it, pumping it out for irrigation, taxing it, hording it, buying it or selling it.Clean water can't exist in a plastic bottle. The very worst thing we've done is encapsulate water in plastic which takes more water to create than one gets to drink. Intrinsically, this makes bottled water far dirtier than tap.Those that recycle think they're doing the right thing. Their hearts are in the right place, but it would be better to not purchase plastic-bottled drinks at all. Ecology center has a list of 7 misconceptions about plastic, and the very first one concerns curbside recycling;Collecting plastic containers at curbside fosters the belief that, like aluminum and glass, the recovered material is converted into new containers. In fact, none of the recovered plastic containers from Berkeley are being made into containers again but into new secondary products such as textiles, parking lot bumpers, or plastic lumber - all unrecyclable products. This does not reduce the use of virgin materials in plastic packaging. "Recycled" in this case merely means "collected," not reprocessed or converted into useful products.In many cases, "recycling" is simply "diverting" or "prolonging" the inevitable destination of the landfill. And most plastic doesn't even get that far: 2/3 of all plastic bottles are headed straight for the landfill.I often think about the rainfall that soaks the landfill during summer storms: how contaminated that water must be, creating riverbanks of disposable toiletries, worn-out shoes and hypodermic needles, where plastic floats into an endless reserve of plastic holding yet more plastic.I imagine the rainfall doing its job: swelling materials, collecting dna, toxins; breaking down materials to be carried into the subterranean waterways, eventually landing in aquifers and reservoirs.I think about all the oil it took to make that plastic; all the toxins that swell the clouds only to later fall in pastures, farms and gardens in their wake.I think about all the plant and animal life that is damaged along the way; plant life whose photosynthetic exhalation is the basis for our clean air. I think about all the crude oil that is used to make plastic bottles and single-use drink containers and how blissfully content most of us are with using them. And for what reason? So we don't have to carry a cup.Photo credit: Nigel Homer