The True Costs of 'Cheap' Food

Ellen Gustafson for The Huffington Post:

If I had a dollar for every time someone said that they don't buy fruits and vegetables or "healthy food" because it's too expensive, I could feed a small town all organic food for years! But, of course, it's true -- when you look at the prices of so-called "conventional" junk food compared with local, organic fruits and veggies, on a calorie per dollar basis, the junk often wins. Many people assume that it's the produce or organic foods that "cost more" than highly processed, shelf-stable ubiquitous and cheap junk food, but what if the price tags that we see don't tell the whole story?

Take the very American, $1 hamburger, for example. To produce a fast food burger you need to start with growing corn -- which requires acres of corn fields, seeds, gallons of water, gas for heavy machinery, pounds of fertilizer and sprays of pesticides, and government subsidies. Then you need to fatten cows as quickly as possible, potentially give them antibiotics, deal with their waste, transport them to slaughter, power the slaughter facility, refrigerate the ground meat and then cook it! Not to mention all the costs associated with the processed wheat bun and condiments. Are economies of scale really so efficient that all of those costs amortize over tons of ground beef and fixings to make a really cheap burger, or are there parts of that whole list of "costs" that don't actually show up in the price of our fast food burgers?

There is momentum developing around answers to this question -- that the true costs of cheap food are currently hidden and making high-impact (often junk) food seem cheaper than it should be. Examples of costs not currently factored into our food supply include the environmental outcomes of chemically-intensive and petroleum-intensive agriculture, costs for soil erosion, real water and irrigation costs, pesticide and waste runoff that creates dead zones in our waterways (like the "New Jersey-sized dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico" that stems from nitrogen runoff from our Corn Belt) and then affects the livelihoods of fishermen and shrimp farmers in the Gulf region.

Hidden health costs like our global obesity epidemic and the food-related public health issues of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer are certainly not included in the cost of your fast food meal. Not to mention unpaid externalities like low wages for food workers that often mean government subsidies like food assistance, which is what over 50 percent of fast food worker families are getting -- a study showed that fast food workers are getting $7 billion taxpayer dollars, which provides a huge, additional subsidy to fast food companies (on top of the corn and soy subsidies that allow them to buy cheap ingredients with government help.) Just this week, the Environmental Working Group released an analysis that showed correlation between areas where farmers have been enjoying rising farm subsidies and growing poverty, and a Walmart in Ohio is holding a food drive in its store... for its own employees!

The truth is that the "value" and "low prices" of cheap food that we see at the cash register, are not the whole story. We are paying today in our health and our taxes and our children will be paying tomorrow with a degraded environment, dirty water, decimated communities and jobs, and denigrated health.

So, what's the solution? A growing movement of farmers and scientists, doctors and entrepreneurs are gathering around the idea that we need true cost accounting in our food supply to help consumers make choices that include the real costs of the way food is grown and how it affects our health. Farmers and food producers should be rewarded for stewardship of our environment, producing nutrient-dense foods, providing decent jobs and improving their local economies. And food systems that pollute our water, destroy biodiversity, exploit workers, and produce high-calorie, low-nutrient foods that become junk food (or fuel) should be accountable for the true outcomes of their production systems.

On December 6th in London, the UK's Sustainable Food Trust is hosting a public conference on exactly this issue -- True-Cost Accounting in Food and Farming. I'll be there on behalf of Food Tank, which will be continuing to cover stories about the true costs of our consumption around the world. It's time to really put our money where our mouth SHOULD be -- eating foods that are healthy for us, our families, our communities, and the planet.

[via Food For Thought]

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.

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

(via Slow Food USA)

Find Farms In New York City By Looking Up

Back in the 1960s, Lisa Douglas, the Manhattan socialite played by Eva Gabor in the television sitcom “Green Acres,” had to give up her “penthouse view” to indulge her husband’s desire for “farm livin’.”

Mr. Flanner, the president and head farmer of the Brooklyn Grange farming operation, picked greens last week for a restaurant in Brooklyn.

Today, she could have had both. New York City is suddenly a farming kind of town. Almost a decade after the last family farm within the city’s boundaries closed, basil and bok choy are growing in Brooklyn, and tomatoes, leeks and cucumbers in Queens. Commercial agriculture is bound for the South Bronx, where the city recently solicited proposals for what would be the largest rooftop farm in the United States, and possibly the world.

Fed by the interest in locally grown produce, the new farm operations in New York are selling greens and other vegetables by the boxful to organically inclined residents, and by the bushel to supermarket chains like Whole Foods. The main difference between this century and previous ones is location: whether soil-based or hydroponic, in which vegetables are grown in water rather than soil, the new farms are spreading on rooftops, perhaps the last slice of untapped real estate in the city.

“In terms of rooftop commercial agriculture, New York is definitely a leader at this moment,” said Joe Nasr, co-author of “Carrot City: Creating Places for Urban Agriculture” and a researcher at the Centre for Studies in Food Security at Ryerson University in Toronto. “I expect it will continue to expand, and much more rapidly, in the near future.”

For city officials, the rise of commercial agriculture has ancillary benefits, as well. Rooftop farms have the potential to capture millions of gallons of storm water and divert it from the sewer system, which can overflow when it rains. And harvesting produce in the boroughs means fewer trucks on local roadways and lower greenhouse gas emissions, a goal of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration.

Community gardeners and educators have tended plots and grown food for years. But they have only recently been joined by for-profit companies intent on getting back to the urban land.

Gotham Greens began harvesting from its hydroponic greenhouse on a rooftop in the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn last year; it plans to open three more next year in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. The existing operation, with 20 employees, grows bok choy, basil and oak leaf lettuce, and sells to retailers like Whole Foods and FreshDirect.

Brooklyn Grange, another farming operation, incorporated with the intention of finding a site in Brooklyn. But two years ago, a one-acre rooftop became available instead in Long Island City, Queens. The partners, led by Ben Flanner, the president and head farmer, spread out 1.2 million pounds of soil and started planting. This spring, Brooklyn Grange finally made good on its name, starting a second farm on a 65,000-square-foot roof at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, where more than 100 rows feature pattypan squash, scallions and beefsteak tomatoes.
Mr. Flanner pointed out two benefits to an agricultural aerie — plentiful sun and an absence of pests. “There are a number of parallels with regular agriculture,” he said. “What we don’t have are deer or foxes or rodents.”
One challenge: wind, which can whip between buildings and topple delicate seedlings. “We have to be clever to come up with solutions to reduce the amount of wind on the plants,” he said. “We do a lot of staking and trellising.”

Plans are in the works for even larger operations. In March, BrightFarms, which develops greenhouses near supermarkets to shorten the food-supply chain, announced it would create a sprawling hydroponic greenhouse on a roof in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, that is expected to yield a million pounds of produce a year. The chief executive, Paul Lightfoot, said the greenhouse would occupy up to 100,000 square feet, making it the nation’s largest such operation when it opens next year. (Recently, the company reached an agreement with the A&P supermarket chain to sell the Brooklyn produce.)

And last month, the city’s Economic Development Corporation issued a request for proposals for a 200,000-square-foot rooftop farm on a city-owned building on Food Center Drive in Hunts Point, the food-distribution hub in the Bronx. “We’re testing the marketplace,” said Seth W. Pinsky, the corporation’s president. “It was a logical place for a rooftop farm. If we’re successful at Food Center Drive, our hope would be to replicate this elsewhere.”
While there may be a veritable prairie of empty rooftops in the city, not all are suitable for growing crops, Mr. Nasr, of Ryerson University, said. Roofs must be strong enough to accommodate the weight of either soil or a greenhouse, and if they are not, strengthening them can be costly. Access is also a challenge, with some buildings lacking stairs or an elevator to the roof. Not all roofs enjoy full sun, with shadows cast by adjacent buildings. And neighbors wary of increased traffic and noise can be prickly.

“But in New York City,” Mr. Nasr said, “even if you eliminate roofs for all those reasons, you are still left with a large number that could be considered.”

The City Planning Department recently revamped the zoning regulations to encourage green development, including rooftop farms, and the City Council approved the changes. The new rules, called Zone Green, exempt greenhouses on nonresidential buildings from certain height and floor-area limits. Such structures cannot, however, exceed 25 feet in height and must be set back six feet from the edge of the roof.

Amanda M. Burden, the planning commissioner, credited the changes with “creating more places for urban agriculture to take root in a dense, built-up environment.”

Whether the relaxation of the zoning rules will unleash a flood of new proposals remains to be seen. None, so far, are planned for Park Avenue.
(via New York Times)