Organic
-
WTF Obama! Get Big Ag Players Out of Government
-
Science Front and Center at USDA
-
Agriculture's Nitrogen Fix
Bill Gates Enchanted by the GMO Idol
Published October 27, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
I wrote last week about the Gates Foundation's efforts to help improve agricultural systems in the developing world. Gates's conclusion: the Foundation's investment should empower poor farmers to grow more crops and get them to market, which will help them pull themselves out of poverty.
Sounds like a plan, right? Not so fast, says alert reader and fellow blogger Greg Plotkin, who pointed out an important thread underlying the story: "Gates is hoping to prompt a second Green Revolution and has shown very little concern about the potential negative impacts that [genetically modified (GM)] crops could bring."
This is a crucial point to bring to light, not least because the architect of the Gates Foundation's plans, Rajiv Shah, is now a part of the Obama Adminstration. In April, he became Under Secretary of Research, Education and Economics and Chief Scientist at the USDA, a position in which he can work to entrench this particular "green revolution" agenda into national policy priorities.
Where Dairy Isn't Cruel
Published August 05, 2009 @ 02:27PM PT
Before I even start getting into this post, I want to make one thing clear: I think that factory farmed dairy is just as, if not more, cruel than factory farmed meat production.
But with that said, the fact remains that not all dairy is cruel. I promise you.
I work for the first and (currently) only organic, grass-fed farmstead creamery in the state of Maryland. They produce organic creamline milk, yogurt and cheese that is sold at various farmers markets in the Washington, DC area.
Admittedly, I only sell for the family who owns the farm at farmers markets (and thus, do not actually work on the farm). But I've seen the farm, watched the cows being milked and cared for, and have never seen the slightest hint of cruel or inhumane treatment.
Even though more milk could be obtained with more intensive milking, cows on the farm are milked one time a day. No more, no less. This results in less product for the family, but happier (and healthier) cows.
Also, the cows diets consist almost entirely of grasses, as well as other plants and insects that are found in the fields where the animals are grazing. In years with lots of rain (as we've had on the east coast this year), the cows can survive on practically a 100 percent grass-based diet (as nature intended).
These cows are loved. More than (unfortunately) I've seen people loved in my lifetime. So, how can this sort of production be labeled as cruel or exploitative?
I feel like many of the anti-dairy advocates out there have never stepped foot onto a small dairy farm in their entire lives. If they had, they certainly would not be making blanket statements about how ALL dairy products are cruel regardless of their source. Because, most importantly, its simply not true.
Now yes, this kind of dairy production I don't believe would ever be economically viable on a large scale. There's just a cap on how much you can produce when you take animals out of the confined spaces of industrial farm operations.
So, I will readily admit that dairy you find in the grocery store (and at the vast majority of restaurants) will most likely continue to come from factory farms where cows are not treated with the respect that they, and all animals, deserve.
But at the same time, if I'm getting all of my dairy from a family I trust and who I KNOW for a fact treats their animals well, how am I supporting cruelty?
Instead of advocating for the complete destruction of the dairy industry, I think animal rights activists should also (I say also because I do think their time fighting the injustices of factory farming is well spent) promote and support the small farmers out there who treat their animals as well as they treat their children.
I await your comments.
(Photo credit: NickPiggott on Flickr)
Organic Complications
Published August 03, 2009 @ 12:03PM PT
So, there was a very narrowly focused literature review put out by Britain's pro-GMO Food Standards Agency that was widely reported to claim that there weren't any health benefits from organic food.
It shouldn't be a surprise that the FSA's theory of pesticide is "don't worry, be happy", as Geoffrey Lean of the Telegraph notes, and indeed the report completely ignores the potential health benefits of lower pesticide exposure. As Lean says in closing;
... It reminds me of a minister who used to complain that there was a "myth" that pesticides were "toxic". What, I asked him, would be the use of one that wasn't? Answer came there none.
Worse, the review seems to have excluded studies indicating a greater nutrient density in organic foods. Other nutrient differences reported are probably a result of the fact that conventional agriculture destroys and degrades soil, in a number of ways, and food managed solely for high yields in dying soil doesn't appear to be as good for you as food grown in healthier soil.
Has it, however, been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are nutritional differences between conventional and organic foods over and above the products of our chemical warfare industry? Some evidence suggests that's the case, but as many have pointed out, the body of research to date is minimal. So if the claim that organics are more nutritious (as opposed to less contaminated) needs more support, the claim that they aren't is on even thinner ice.
Coming Back to Food
Published July 09, 2009 @ 02:02PM PT
[Hello, folks, Natasha here. I'm getting married in about a week and a half, then honeymooning, and Melissa has been kind enough to agree to guest host full-time for the last half of July, easing into things over the course of the following week. It's my pleasure to be leaving you in her capable hands. Welcome, Melissa!]
I am excited to join Natasha here at Change.org to explore sustainable food issues during July.
For me, I've come back to food as an important issue after spending several years living off junk food with farmers markets peppered here and there. I am lucky that within my close circle of friends, I have friends working on several avenues of food-- from having their own organic farm, to adding local foods to their bagel shop, and even working on food policy in New York City.
As a little kid, I was fascinated with plants and food. I remember growing pumpkins in kindergarten, starting lettuce seeds on a sponge for a science project in second grade, and the sheer amazement of seeing a watermelon plant growing out a sink in seventh grade a few months after some seeds ended up in the trap.
As a college student, I was angered to learn that not everyone has access to healthy foods. I did not understand why there were not any real grocery stores covering most of Newark, NJ, or why Philadelphians didn't have grocery stores evenly spaced out across the city. I did not understand why farmers are given subsidies to grow corn while small, local farms have a hard time making it work.
Now, I am figuring out how to incorporate food advocacy into my everyday life. I've started an organic garden at my mom's house. There is almost nothing better than walking around barefoot, pulling weeds, and then eating the veggies I grew! I've also started to read more about food writ large, and I've started to talk with the leaders in the local foods movements, here and elsewhere.
I hope to share with y'all what I am learning. I hope to ask phenomenal questions and get incredible answers.
And, I hope we get offline more, outside more, and enjoy the beauty of a summer squash.
(Photo credit: j.e.n.n.y. on Flickr.)
California's Drought Continues
Published June 26, 2009 @ 04:46AM PT
Bad news for the Central Valley:
... Farmer Bob Dietrich said he has planted 300 of his 1,100 acres because his single well isn't enough to water his entire farm. Shawn Coburn apologized for arriving late, saying the $750,000 well he drilled earlier this year "is sucking air" as aquifers shrink under increased pumping. ...
This has been your 'sustainability moment' for today, wherein it behooves one to wonder if we can possibly continue doing what we've been doing and not suffer a major crash.
We're going to have to stop using fossil fuel and fossil water one way or another this century. We can either plan ahead for it and find other alternatives, or we can be cut off abruptly, dramatically, with little in the way of time or resources to prepare.
It's up to us. For now.
Update: Link added.
Collin Peterson, Congress in Denial
Published June 23, 2009 @ 02:24PM PT
Collin Peterson may be the only person in politics who believes in global warming and is thrilled about its prospects for agriculture. Ahem. That this suggests, as Brad Johnson points out over at the Wonkroom, that he doesn't actually believe in it must remain in the realm of conjecture for now.
But seriously, Peterson said, "We’ve just had the biggest floods and coldest winters we’ve ever had. They’re saying to us [that climate change is] going to be a big problem because it’s going to be warmer than it usually is; my farmers are going to say that’s a good thing since they’ll be able to grow more corn."
Are there actually any farmers who are pro-flood and drought? That question sort of answers itself. As further noted at the Wonkroom:
The report Peterson dismissed as being good news for farmers also shows that if no action is taken to halt global warming, the U.S. grain belt could see one to two months of heat waves over 100°F and two to three months of heat waves over 90°F by the end of the century. Corn, by the way, “will fail to reproduce at temperatures above 95°F.”
Chris Bowers amply described the political situation around Peterson's hold up of the climate bill, which got around 300 pages added to the still-fluid legislation.
Peterson's getting information in hearings and political backing from people like American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman, who thinks the only agricultural implications of climate change are higher energy costs.
Forces of Counter-Revolution
Published June 03, 2009 @ 09:13AM PT
The anti-Green Revolution is on:
Indian farmer Amarjit Sharma grows wheat and other crops on five acres in the heart of the region known as "the breadbasket of India," the fertile fields of Punjab.
Until four years ago, he was the kind of farmer whom government leaders and agricultural scientists hailed as a model in the developing world.
But now, he has gone organic and is part of a quiet but growing rebellion, which could affect the world's food crisis. ...
The article notes that Sharma initially profited from Green Revolution methods. Until the pesticides stopped working and the soil was stripped so badly that without ever-increasing quantities of fertilizer, he couldn't grow a good crop.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Yet though the article portrays Sharma's story in some detail, including the diversified cropping, nutrient and pest management steps he's taken, I have some quibbles. Such as uncritical inclusion of the statement by "Monsanto's India spokesman, Christopher Samuel, [who] says the company's advances will double the yields of major crops over the next 20 years, while reducing the amount of land, water, fertilizer and pesticides needed."
Because the question that needs to be asked when they make assertions like that is, 'Will they, really?' How do they know that? I'm sure they'd like to, but it isn't clear that they can. Yield gains often come at the price of other essential features of plant chemistry and physiology.
Can they actually produce nutritionally sound crops with doubled yields, from plants that need less water, less nutrients, less pest protection?
No one knows the answer to this question. It's a goal, not a certainty.
