Showing posts with label Agriculture Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agriculture Reform. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Russia Bans GMO Corn Following French Study, Many Scientists Skeptical


Rospotrebnadzor, Russia's federal service in control of protecting consumers' rights and well-being has suspended the import of genetically modified corn made by Monsanto, following a report by the University of Caen in France. Gilles-Eric Seralini, the French scientist behind the two-year long study, says rats whose diet consisted of Monsanto's genetically modified NK603 corn,  or were exposed to it's top-selling weedkiller Roundup suffered tumors and organ damage more often than rats in the control group. 

Published in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, the study details the animals consuming the genetically modified corn developing mammary tumors as well as sever kidney and liver damage.  According to the final report, 50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats died prematurely, compared to only 30 percent and 20 percent of rats in the control group. Many Americans as well as people in other parts of the world are calling the study and Russia's decision, clear evidence that humans should not consume modified crops, especially Monsanto's corn. The study prompted Vice-Chairman of the European Parliament's commission for agriculture, Jose Bove to call for the immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import approvals of genetically modified crops. Bove spoke out about his request saying, "This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes." 
Does the study in fact prove once and for all that GMO crops are dangerous? Some scientists aren't agreeing with Bove just yet. Members of the European scientific community, not associated with the study have voiced their skepticism, with one French scientist accusing Seralini and his colleagues of going on a "statistical fishing trip."

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London says Seralini's team did not provide any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or any documentation of their growth rates. 
"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted. The statistical methods are unconventional…and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical field trip."

David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge said similar concerns arose when he learned of the study's findings, stating that the methods, statistics and reporting of all results were below standard. Spiegelhalter added that the study's untreated control arm comprised of only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also suffered mammary tumors. 

The French government, who recently decided to uphold a ban on cultivating GMO crops, has asked health and safety officials to assess the study as well as reaching out to the European Union's food safety agency, EFSA for assistance in taking a closer look at the study and its findings. The EFSA plans to deliver their initial review of the study sometime next week. 

With both sides of this study and Russia's recent decision to ban all Monsanto crops from entering their country shrouded in controversy, the only certainty at this the friction between both sides of the GMO debate is heating up.  

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Organic Brands Caught In The Middle Of Prop 37 GMO Fight


18 other states, including California have attempted to pass laws similar to Proposition 37, The Right to Know Genetically Modified Food Act and failed. With 1 million signatures, Prop 37 is the first such measure to reach the statewide ballot. If passed, genetically modified food products would include the words "Partially produced with genetic engineering" on the label. 

With voting day (Nov 6) drawing closer, giant food companies are dumping millions of dollars into an effort to stop Prop 37 before it even begins. Companies such as Monsanto and Coca-Cola, among others have donated approximately $23.5 million dollars to fund stopping Proposition 37, according to the Cornucopia Institute. Monsanto currently holds the title for largest contribution with $4.2 million dollars, followed by PepsiCo (Izze, Naked) with $1.7 million. Next is Coca-Cola (Honest Tea, Odwalla) with $1.1 million. Kellog (Kashi, Morningstar Farms, Gardneburger, Bear Naked) has contributed $632,500 to date with Dean Foods (Horizon Organic, Silk) contributing $253,000. 
(Full list of companies, subsidiaries and donations to stop Prop 37 below) 

Prop 37's opponents are attempting to stop Prop 37, citing their desire for a federal-level measure on GMO's as a more practical solution, as well as claiming that the passing of the act will burden farmers and the industry overall with exponentially higher costs and make farmers susceptible to numerous lawsuits, alleging that many growers will improperly label their food. 

Coca-Cola and Monsanto are presumably large enough to survive any perceived backlash from consumers for funding the opposition of something that two-thirds of Californians favor. However, smaller organic companies such as Odwalla and Honest Tea (both owned by Coca-Cola) are finding themselves caught in the middle of the fight and left with a lot of the stress. 

Most of the tension is from consumers, who are discovering that their favorite organic companies are owned by those opposing Prop 37. Cornucopia Institute founder, Mark Kastel told the New York Times, "They feel like they've been had." Kastel went on to say, 
"Consumers aren't always aware that their favorite organic brands are in fact owned by big multinationals, and now they're finding out that the premium they've paid to buy these organic products is being spent to fight against something they believe in passionately." 
In an age where voicing opinions online is easier than ever, many consumers have taken to the social media sites like Facebook to post messages of dissatisfaction such as, "I will no longer buy your products since you are spending the $$ on defeating Prop 37...". 

There are however plenty of organic companies coming together with coalitions such as Yes on 37 to get the word out about voting yes on Nov 6. Organic brands on the "pro" side of the GMO labeling measure include Organic Valley, Clif Bar and Amy's Kitchen. (See a full list of Yes on 37's supporters here)

Contributors of $23.5 million to stop Prop 37 (according to Cornucopia Institute)
Monsanto: $4,208,000
PepsiCo: $1,716,300
-Izze
-Naked
Coca-Cola: $1,164,000
-Honest Tea
-Odwalla
-Simply Orange
Conagra: $1,076,300
-French Meadow
-Alexia
-Lightlife
Kellog: $632,500
-Kashi
-Morningstar Farms
-Gardenburger
-Bear Naked
General Mills: $520,000
-Cascadian Farm
-Muir Glen
-Larabar
Smucker's: $387,000
-R.W. Knudsen
-Santa Cruz Organic
Dean Foods: $253,000
-Horizon Organic
-Silk
Biotechnology Information: $375,000 each
-Monsanto
-DuPont
-Syngenta
-Dow AgroSciences
-Bayer
-CropScience
-BASF Plant Science
-Grocery Manufacturers Association

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Do certification labels really matter?

 More good information from our friends at NewHope360:

As consumers grow weary over subpar food regulations at the federal level, manufacturers are increasingly seeking ways to help shoppers distinguish their products from the sea of conventional (and often irresponsibly produced) items. Certification labels—sometimes referred to as eco labels—are skyrocketing in popularity. Among the most ubiquitous? Certified Organic, Fair Trade, Non-GMO Project, and Gluten Free. But while certifications signal something to the consumer, do they actually have tangible benefits for the farmers who grow the raw materials?

Chances are you have also seen the Rainforest Alliance Certified logo—characterized by a little green frog—on packages of natural chocolates, coffee, tea, or fruit juices. But what exactly does the logo mean? And how does it differ from the wealth of other eco labels available?

After researching the stipulations involved with the Rainforest Alliance Certification, it was time to venture into the belly of the beast and see the positive changes, if any, gleaned from sustainable agricultural methods first hand.

Destination? Guatemala.
Crop? Coffee.
Certification requirements
Obtaining and maintaining Rainforest Alliance Certification is tough. Farms must adhere to stringent standards set by the Sustainable Agriculture Network; including ecosystem and water conservation, wildlife protection, safe working conditions, and waste management, among others. There are 100 different criteria in total, 14 of which are critical, and absolutely necessary. During certification evaluation, the farm must score at least 80 percent adherence to achieve certification. Independent auditors inspect the farm every year in order to ensure criteria are upheld.

About the Rainforest Alliance Certified label
If a manufacturer wants to display the “little green frog” on their package, the product must contain at least 30 percent Rainforest Alliance Certified content on the understanding that it takes time to build supply chains. But there are a few conditions: The percentage must be labeled on package to ensure transparency, and the company must commit to scale up by 15 percent each year until the product reaches 100 percent certified materials.

Making compost
La Azotea, a coffee farm located just outside the historic city of Antigua, Guatemala, lies in the shadow of three volcanoes, one of which emits smoke almost daily. The Rainforest Alliance Certified farm follows a rigorous composting system. Workers mix coffee pulp and horse manure into long rows, and let it sit and bake in the sun.

The composting process
"After 38 to 40 days, the compost is moved into a dark indoor shed for 8 days, where it’s processed by worms—creating a rich, dark soil," says Vicente Cuyuch, compost manager at La Azotea. "The compost is applied either at the roots or sprayed directly onto the coffee plant."
Along with producing a stronger and healthier plant, using compost enhances the end product too—many say La Azotea’s coffee is perfectly balanced.


Fostering biodiversity
In the Northwest region of Guatemala, nestled deep into the mountainous landscape rests ADESC (Asociación de desarrollo Social Los Chujes), a group of 68 small coffee farms certified by the Rainforest Alliance. 5,250 feet in elevation, the farm certainly looks like a rainforest. The coffee plants are small and shrub-like, and stand no more than eight feet tall (making it easier for workers to harvest by hand).

Most coffee in Guatemala is grown in the shade a portion of the year. Tall, feathery gravilea trees are planted to provide shade and humidity during the dry summer months. Other vegetation like mango and banana trees are planted to encourage bird populations and butterflies. When standing in the coffee grove you can hear wildlife in the area. The presence of spiders on the coffee plants is a hallmark of a healthy forest, says Mario Lopez, agriculture project coordinator for the Rainforest Alliance. ADESC sells all of it's coffee to Nespresso—a company that encourages sustainable coffee agriculture.

Water filtration
Cultivating larger trees amidst smaller coffee plants fosters a stronger root structure, which prevents erosion of the mountainside. Here, we see when soil contains more plants, it filters water better, leading to clearer rivers. This demonstrates the importance of having a complex plant system (multiple types of plants growing in one area rather than one species).

Dual fertilizers
Farms aren’t required to be organic in order to be Rainforest Alliance Certified. But they are prohibited from using most pesticides or planting GMOs (more on this later). Organic coffee in the Guatemalan highlands actually has lower yields and lower quality: the berries are smaller, and the acidity is unbalanced. One farmer said organic coffee must be grown in 100 percent shade all the time—which leads to more bugs.

Some conventional farmers are untrained in responsible agriculture: fertilizers are often overused because they assume the more chemicals, the better. At ADESC, soil samples are collected and analyzed every year to determine what type and how much fertilizer—a combination of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium—is needed. Organic fertilizer, made from the outer layer of the coffee beans (called parchment or pulp), is used to improve the quality of the soil. Farmers apply both types of fertilizer in a half-moon shape around the base of the coffee plant, and cover it with soil to prevent runoff into rivers.

Meet Latissia Monzón Gómez
Latissia Monzón Gómez has been working with the coffee association for twelve years. She owns a beautiful 8.6 acre parcel of land in ADESC that she calls The Garden. It’s a steep farm, and it contains step-like terraces built in order for farmers to access the plants. Prior to obtaining Rainforest Alliance Certification, Latissia saw climate change first hand: it used to rain a little bit every day, but now there are large storms, followed by long droughts—and she felt helpless against it.
“We don’t have to be a part of this program, but we do it voluntarily because we have to adapt to and mitigate climate change,” explains Gómez. “To mitigate means to reduce our impact—we are responsible for the environment. Although my farm is tiny, maybe it can inspire others to be more sustainable.”
Gómez frequently gives speeches to other coffee farms in the area to advocate for environmentally friendly agriculture.

Non-GMO
While there are no genetically engineered crops the Rainforest Alliance normally certifies, the organization takes a strong stance against GMOs—especially considering there have been transgenic experiments in coffee, albeit with no field deployment.
“Potential health impacts aside, there are significant ecological risks that we believe have not been sufficiently studied,” says Chris Wille, chief of sustainable agriculture fore the Rainforest Alliance. “These include possible impacts on pollinators and other wildlife, potential runaway hybridization, and the risk of GMOs turning invasive. The study results are all over the map.
“Anyways, with a large percentage of consumers and even entire countries (for example, Germany) avoiding GMOs like the plague, green-minded food companies and retailers don’t want GMOs, certified or not.”

Certification challenges
Apart from following the practices required, many farm owners think training their workers is the hardest aspect of sustainable agriculture.
“You have to get the workers to understand the impacts agriculture has on the environment,” says Oscar Ramos, farm manager at La Azotea. “If someone has been farming with agrochemicals for decades, it’s a lot to ask to have them change their methods. Once they understand sustainability, they start to care. And then they start to take pride in their work."

Photos courtesy of the Rainforest Alliance.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Grassfed vs Grainfed


Grassfed
-Cattle eat their natural diet of grasses
-No antibiotic
-No hormones
-Cattle roam open pasture to feed
-Cattle naturally take 1.5-2 years to mature

Grainfed
-Cattle eat 90% corn
10% other: forage, cheap high energy feeds like candy, starch, bakery waste, potato waste, pasta, chicken litter, meat processing waste

-Antibiotics: 29 million pounds were used on American livestock in 2009 for illness & growth promotion

-Hormones: Implants or injections are used to increase growth rate by 10-15

-Confined Feedlots: Restricting movement prevents cattle from using energy so that they fatten quicker

-1 year to maturity: The combination of high-energy foods, drugs and confinement turns cows into cheap meat in half the time








Meat Composition of grassfed cows is significantly healthier when analyzed for fat and nutrient content: 
Grassfed: 
2-4x more Omega 3
5x more CLA*
More vitamins
More minerals

Grainfed
4x more fat per 3oz serving

Monday, June 25, 2012

2012 Food and Farm Bill

Last week, Washington D.C. became the food capital of the country as the Senate debated the 2012 Food and Farm Bill, culminating in the passage of the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012. If you're asking yourself "What does this mean for me?" you're not the only one.

What it means is that our country is one step closer to the approval of the single biggest piece of legislation that governs what we grow and eat. It is a 5-year, $969 billion bill that touches every single person's life in America. Every farmer, parent, cook, eater, student, and activist is impacted by the policies addressed by this bill that only comes around once every five years. Now that the Senate has passed their version, it is up to the House of Representatives to pass their own before the bill can officially become law.

Now that you've got a little bit better idea of what it is, you may now be asking yourself, is the Senate Bill a good thing or a bad thing? The answer to that question depends on what your priorities are. Earlier this year, our friends at Slow Food USA wrote a letter to the leaders of both the Senate and House Agriculture committees outlining their priorities for the upcoming Food and Farm Bill.

The three biggest points from Slow Foods' letter were:

1. A health focused food system, an end to hunger and access to healthy food.
2. A level 'plowing' field for family farmers and vibrant regional farm and food economies.
3. Good environmental stewardship

With these requests in mind, Slow Food has broken down the top 5 wins and bottom 3 losses following the Senate's voting on a bill involving over 300 amendment requests.

Wins: 

1. The Senate passed and amendment sponsored by Senate Sherrod Brown (D-OH) that provides critical funding for rural jobs and new farming opportunities. This means, among other things, that a young person who wants to start a new farm, but lacks access to the kind of credit that would allow them to do so could now qualify for funding through the Rural Micro-entrepreneur Assistance Program.

2. The Senate passed an amendment sponsored by Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) that makes sure that farms receiving subsidized crop insurance will be required to follow basic conservation guidelines. This means that if a large conventional farm in Ohio receives insurance payments to cover against their losses for the year, they will need to follow the same conservation laws that were previously applied to farms receiving direct subsidies.

3. The Senate passed an amendment sponsored by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) which makes it much easier for organic farmers to gain access to crop insurance. Right now, if an organic farmer in wishes to receive crop insurance, they will have to pay a much higher premium than their conventional farming neighbor, despite being reimbursed at the same rate. This would change that and set the reimbursements to more appropriate levels.

4. The Senate rejected amendments by Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) that would have further weakened the already weakened SNAP program. These amendments would have made it harder for states to provide food assistance to their most vulnerable citizens.

5. The Senate Agriculture committee's bill puts an end to costly, direct subsidy programs that do nothing to support healthy farming practices. Currently, if you own farm land in New Mexico that qualifies for a direct subsidy, you will receive payments from the government even if you don't plant a single crop. This bill would end that practice.

Losses:

1. The Senate did not consider an amendment sponsored by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that would have made it unlawful for meat packers to own or feed livestock intended for slaughter. The current practice among meat packers is to slaughter their own livestock when prices are too high and buy from farmers when prices are low. This amendment would have created a fair marketplace for family farms raising livestock, not disproportionately favoring large slaughterhouses.

2. The Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) that would have re-directed some crop insurance funding to eliminate the cuts to the SNAP program. Without this amendment, an estimated 500,000 households across the country will lose $90 per month in SNAP benefits.

3. The Senate did not consider an amendment by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that would have enabled schools to purchase from local and regional producers. This amendment would have allowed school districts to continue participating in the Department of Defense Fresh Program while making their own fresh produce purchases.

Leading up to the official casting of votes, Senate Agriculture Ranking member, Senator Pat Roberts described the bill by saying, "Is it the best possible bill? No. It is the best bill possible."