Change.org's Sustainable Food Blog

Surprise! Farmers Grow Hearty Crops to Survive War

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-07T06:00:00-08:00

Subsistence farmers in African war zones keep themselves alive in dangerous circumstances by leaning on intuition and age-old farming logic that goes like this: when in tough conditions, reuse whatever field you've got, grow the hardiest plants and when fleeing, take the hardiest seeds with you. Doing this allows farmers to create the crops best adapted to their needs; a surprise stroke of agricultural genius that apparently leaves scientists reeling.

A new study reports the unexpected emergence of hybrid rice in West African countries like Gambia, Ghana, Senegal and Togo, whose African and Asian rice varieties (Oryza glaberrima Steud and Oryza sativa L.) have only previously been interbred in a lab and there produced sterile offspring, according to SciDevNet.

The authors of the study, which appears in this month's issue of PLoS ONE, report that these two species of rice are interbreeding in the fields in part because of disruptions caused by war.

The researchers say that war and similar disasters tend to speed up the selection and spread of hybrids because farmers desiring the safety of dense forest cover reuse their fields to the point where only the hardiest seeds can grow instead of slashing more forest to create more fertile land. Additionally, farmers who must flee their lands will take only the seeds of the hardiest varieties with them.

Farmers in these regions, therefore, are actively engaged in selecting and improving the varieties, whether consciously or not.

"Suppose a farmer sees a hybrid in the field: he'll think it's pretty useless and not harvest it," Edwin Nuijten, co-author of the study and member of the Technology and Agrarian Development Group at Netherlands' Wageningen University, told SciDevNet.

Those few seeds could drop in the field and if the farmer replants the field they could germinate and then pollinate the surrounding normal plants. After a few generations a plant that has full fertility could develop. The farmer may then select such plants and plant them separately to test whether they would do well as a new variety.

This conclusion lends credence to the criticisms of corporately controlled genetically engineered seed varieties; such intellectual property restriction prevents this type of spontaneous innovation, which can mean the difference between eating and starving for farmers in difficult conditions.

"The discovery shows that it is important to involve farmers in plant-breeding — so far they have generally been passive testers of scientists' inventions," the SciDevNet article concludes.

As alert reader Dawn Gifford pointed out in a comment on another post, crop varieties bred in labs and held closely by agribusiness "close the circle on the farmer’s knowledge, finally eliminating, after 10,000 years, the farmer’s role in the genetics of agriculture."

And preserving farmers' ability to control their own crop genetics may well mean the difference between life and death in a war zone.

Photo courtesy of IRRI Images via flickr

No Farms, No Food

Greg Plotkin — 2009-11-06T12:30:00-08:00

More than being a cute tag line for the organization that employs me, the phrase "No Farms, No Food" represents an often overlooked and forgotten component of maintaining a sustainable food supply.

With all the talk about Genetically Modified seeds, organic vs. conventional agriculture, and the physical and environmental horror of industrialized meat production, the one conversation that is consistently left off the table is protecting the land base that all kinds of agriculture (no matter what your definition of "sustainable" is) depends on.

Despite a surge of interest in farming in the United States, the country continues to lose two acres of farmland every second of every day. This is happening in every state in the country, and is especially significant in urbanized areas that are responsible for 86 percent of the fruits and veggies, and 63 percent of the dairy, produced in the United States.

Even in some discussions of land use, the importance of actually protecting and securing a future for that very land is very rarely mentioned. It doesn't matter if a farmer chooses to grow GM corn or organic cucumbers if the land is turned into sprawling strip malls.

What we need in the United States are strong state and municipal agricultural zoning laws that address the need to protect the country's agricultural resources, as well as adequately funded farmland protection programs at the state and federal level that help farmers preserve their land for future generations.

Supporting local agriculture is not just about stopping at the farmers market every weekend. It is about encouraging your local, state and national legislators to make farmland protection a significant priority. We can either all pay (monetarily) to protect farmland now, or we can all pay later when there's no land left to grow food.

The choice is ours, but it has to be made now.

(Photo credit: Sam Beebe/EcoTrust on Flickr)

Global Warming's Evil Twin: Agricultural Land Use

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-06T06:00:00-08:00

The world is stuck on the tracks and there are trains coming in both directions. One headlight represents climate change. The other light is us, a booming global population that needs more and more food every year. One train demands that we preserve our forests, the other that we slash and burn them. One demands that we decrease pollution, the other that we add more and more fossil fuels to our soil.

At least unless we change things -- a lot of things -- very drastically. We are already yanking on the brake of the climate train, though not nearly hard enough. The other train, though, is barreling forward unfettered. Few of us realize the train is being driven by a madman. Few of us realize the massive crisis our global society's inattention to agricultural priorities promises to become unless something is done.

The problem, according to a new essay by Jonathan Foley, professor and director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, is that we will need to double or even triple our agricultural output over the next several decades unless we want a whole heck of a lot of starving people on our hands. But we have to do that without completely destroying our environment.

Alarmingly, Foley writes in Yale Environment 360, "we now face a global crisis in land use and agriculture that could undermine the health, security, and sustainability of our civilization" (italics his).

Our current methods of agriculture are not only insufficient but unsustainable. Foley lists problems: ecosystem degradation, freshwater decline, widespread pollution and carbon emissions. Our future, he writes, depends on whether we can address climate change and land use at the same time, since feeding 9 billion-plus people without destroying our planet in the process "will be one of the greatest challenges our species has ever faced."

The first step in transforming our agricultural systems into something that can agree with our future is to acknowledge that the way we use land is problematic. And the next step is getting serious about finding pragmatic solutions.

We cannot increase agricultural production at the expense of the environment, but we must also not prioritize preserving all ecosystems over fulfilling the most basic needs of the ever-more enormous global population. If we do simply choose one or the other, the neglected priority will eventually destabilize the system so badly as to make any progress in the other area moot.

We need to solve both problems to survive, and it is useful to remember that it's our own survival that we're ultimately fighting for. As union organizer and environmentalist Chico Mendez once said, "at first I thought I was fighting to save rubber trees, then I thought I was fighting to save the Amazon rainforest. Now I realise I am fighting for humanity."

Photo courtesy of benketaro via flickr

Today: Live Chat with USDA Official on Farm to School Program

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-05T06:00:00-08:00

Sign on to the USDA's live-chat Website at 3 p.m. EST today to join the conversation with US Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan about the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative. According to an agency press release, in this, her second chat, she will be addressing the topic of "farm to school," a program centered around serving fresh local produce and other farm products in schools.

The program connects local agriculturalists with new markets for their goods while simultaneously teaching children about regional food systems and healthy eating. "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food," which has a neat Website I previously raved about on this blog, is an effort by the USDA to repair the alienating disconnect between food producers and consumers. The effort is a result of the 2008 farm bill's increasing the agency's ability to promote local food.

You can submit a question or comment in advance of the chat on the Website www.usda.gov/live. Or, if you just want to give the agency a shout-out for all these great local-food-supporting efforts, friend USDA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/USDA.

Photo courtesy of stock.xchng

Tests Reveal Poison in Nearly All Campbell's Soup

Robin Beck — 2009-11-04T13:16:00-08:00

The food processing world is reeling right now one day after a shocking new series of tests released by Consumer Reports revealed that many leading brands of canned foods contain Bisphenol A (BPA)—a toxic chemical linked to health risks including reproductive abnormalities, neurological effects, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, heart disease and other serious health problems.

BPA is used in the lining of cans and the toxin leaches from the lining into the food. According to Consumer Reports just a couple of servings of canned food can exceed scientific limits on daily exposure for children.

The federal government is currently studying the dangers of BPA and advocates are calling on the FDA to ban the use of BPA in food and beverage packaging by the end of the year. Companies in other industries, including Wal-Mart, Target, Nalgene, and Babies R Us have already made commitments to stop using BPA.

The food industry, however, is fighting hard to stop any government regulation. They say it is too logistically complicated to move away from BPA-lined cans. And it is true that right now there isn’t a good way to produce cans without BPA. But alternative packaging does exist. You may have heard of glass, to take just one example. Or, given how much mind-blowing chemical science goes into the production of most packaged foods, with a shift in research spending the manufacturers could probably devise a technological solution.

While more comprehensive government intervention is ultimately important, right now the companies that produce the food we feed our children could choose to be supportive partners in moving past the use of BPA.

That’s why we’ve just started a petition asking Campbell’s, the largest canned soup manufacturer, to live up to its new “nourishing people's lives everywhere, every day” slogan and lead this industry move away from the use of BPA laden packaging.

When large companies take action on their own they often not only lead their competitors to follow suit, they make is much easier for the government to craft thoughtful and effective regulations to help keep us all safe. Campbell’s, because of it’s wholesome brand and industry-leader status, is in the perfect position to have a huge impact by taking the proactive step of simply committing to phasing out BPA in their products.

So if you want to do something right now to help end the use of BPA in food packaging, start by sending a letter to Campbell’s asking them to get the poison out of our food.

photo credit: house of sims, on flickr.

Are SUVs More Eco-Friendly Than Dogs?

Mike Smith — 2009-11-04T12:50:00-08:00

Is it time to chew on the chihuahua? Robert and Brenda Vale think it might be in their new book "Time To Eat The Dog." They consider the eco-impact of pets, and determine that when you look at the emissions data of an animal's consumption of both cereals and meats, it show that an SUV is twice as eco-friendly as owning a dog. This is largely down to the amount of meat that dogs eat; you'd need to feed your dog a vegetarian diet to be absolved of some of your sins, but the eco-pawprint is still a big one.

Michael Pollan weighed it to a similar debate recently, explaining that "A vegan in a Hummer has a lighter carbon footprint than a beef eater in a Prius." He later retracted that statement, but it's a statement that, like "Time to eat the dog," questions how much we are prepared to change our lives, and how many sacreds cows we will slaughter in order to cut the damaging and unsustainable aspects of our lifestyle.

Photo credit: CJ Sorg

Local Food Initiatives Earn Accolades

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-04T06:00:00-08:00

Everyone likes a winner (except, perhaps, the losers), so it is wonderful to see that some local-food efforts have been recognized with prizes in non-food-oriented competitions. The more friends and admirers the local food movement accrues, the more attention local food systems will receive and the more progress we can make in encouraging local consumption and developing the infrastructure to enable it.

I bring news of three exciting victories:

Urban Farming, a Detroit-based NGO that commandeers unused urban land to grow food, has received second place in the Drucker Awards for Nonprofit Innovation. This plucky, green-thumbed organization plants things in unlikely places such as rooftops and in vertical gardens on "edible green walls." The group also won a MySpace IMPACT AWARD, and founder Taja Sevelle was named Grand Prize winner in the 2009 Garden Crusaders Awards from Gardener's Supply Company.

Tim Will, 61, a retired telecommunications executive from Rutherfordton, North Carolina, was named one of the winners of the 2009 Purpose Prize, which recognizes the efforts of seniors who use the second chapters of their lives to help their communities in inspiring and ambitious ways. Will is honored for establishing a Web-based service that allows local farmers to sell produce directly to the restaurants of Charlotte.

Joel Salatin of Omnivore's Dilemma fame has been named a winner of the prestigious Heinz Award in recognition of his success in demonstrating to the nation that sustainable, organic farming practices can be effective and lucrative. His 550-acre Polyface Farm in Virginia employs a complex rotational system involving beef, sheep, chickens, pigs, rabbits, turkeys and, most importantly, grass.

In food-industry-related award news, IGD, a British membership association for the food and grocery industries, has announced its 2009 Food Industry Awards. One of the accolades focuses on improving local food systems; this year the ECR UK Award for Sustainable Distribution goes to Heart of England Fine Foods, which managed to reduce the transport distance logged by two of its accounts over six month by 60,600 miles.

My only question is: what kind of trophy do they all get? I imagine you could make a really nice one out of root vegetables in honor of fall. You could even serve butternut squash soup out of it if the cup at the top was big enough. Anyone want to try their hand at it? Send me a photo of your own veggie-trophy and I'll find someone doing something great to award it to.

Photo courtesy of stock.xchng

Farming is Back

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-03T06:00:00-08:00

As I mentioned, Bill Gates is investing in farmers around the world, aiming to empower them after decades of neglect from domestic policies and measly international aid. Some assert that he's going about it all wrong, but the fact remains: the spotlight is focused on farmers.

Apparently, according to an article in Time Magazine, Gates is at the head of a new trend: the international community and national governments are again focusing on supporting agriculture. The article's author, Michael Shuman, describes how farmers came to be so ignored:

Governments equated economic progress with steel mills and shoe factories. While urban centers thrived and city dwellers got rich, hundreds of millions of farmers remained mired in poverty. Agriculture in many developing nations stagnated.

"Now," he writes, "the farm is back."

WIth the possibility of food shortages looming and the sour economy putting on the pressure, world economic policy has suddenly taken a shine to agriculture in what Shuman calls "a renewed global quest for food security and rural development."

While the international community is looking at agriculture at a meta-level, a lot of young people in the US are discovering an interest in the day-to-day life of farming.

While it might irk some that a major to-do is being made of a few back-to-the-Earthers going ga-ga with agrarian nostalgia when our country's dyed-in-the-wool farmers have been toiling away unthanked all this time, there is something to be said for the fact that increased societal interest in the ins and outs of where our food comes from will help the US in many ways.

Farms do, after all, create the food we depend on to survive, and the more the truth of that penetrates to various sectors of society, the better.

Photo courtesy of newagecrap on flickr

Science Front and Center at USDA

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-02T06:00:00-08:00

Change is in the air at the USDA; the agency has taken it upon itself, in the words of President Obama, "to restore science to its rightful place" with the creation of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), according to a USDA press release.

The new Institute, a product of the 2008 farm bill, replaces the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), and is intended, in the words of Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, to "be the Department's extramural research enterprise."

While science should indeed be incorporated back into the fold in all aspects of life, its application to agriculture is a particularly hot-button tonic, as I discussed on Friday. For those concerned with the advancement of the use of genetically modified organisms, the formation of this new Institute should hold kernels of concern.

Vilsack revealed the agenda plainly:

We can build on recent scientific discoveries - incredible advances in sequencing plant and animal genomes, for example. We have new and powerful tools -- biotechnology, nanotechnology, and large-scale computer simulations -- applicable to all types of agriculture.

Vilsack also mentioned, somewhat ominously, that Under Secretary of Research, Education, and Economics Raj Shah, who I previously pointed out was the architect of the Gates Foundation's new GMO-friendly agriculture policy, "has begun an in-depth and systematic analysis of our research programs, their goals, and their outcomes."

Another concerning tidbit is the incorporation of the USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program under NIFA. While all bureaucratic entities need somewhere to call home, and it is logical that SARE move to NIFA with the rest of the remnants of CSREES, it strikes a strange chord to house a sustainable agriculture program inside an institute focused on applying advanced science to farming practices.

Scientific advancements may well be a piece of the sustainable-ag puzzle, but co-opting SARE under what Vilsack referred to as "a research 'start-up' company" that will focus on "rebuilding our competitive grants program from the ground up to generate real results for the American people," makes one wonder whether all our farmers' age-old but hard-won wisdom about sustainability via organic polyculture methods and holistic land management will be given the credence it deserves.

Photo courtesy of kaibara87 via flickr

Industry Disavows Smart Choices Campaign

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-10-30T12:57:00-07:00

The Smart Choices campaign is heaving its dying breaths. The writing has been on the wall since last week when the campaign that had decided to label some unhealthy processed food as wise eating decisions called a temporary halt in the face of FDA scrutiny. I wrote "I think this is one 'postponement' that might well end up lasting forever," and now that looks all the more likely that will be true.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who is planning his own investigation of the campaign, announced yesterday that all eight of the industry giants involved in the campaign have decided to stop using the Smart Choices logo on their packaging. Smart Choices officials suspended the program during the investigations but left it up to companies whether to keep using the logo on their packaging.

Raise your hand if you think there's any chance that these companies will ever again slap this hot-potato of a logo on their boxes. Thanks to alert citizens like those here at change.org, who demanded accountability on this issue, the public stink has become even less appealing to these corporations than the nasty smell of their own false advertising.

Image courtesy of √oхέƒx™ via flickr

Cuba Cracks Down on Capitalist Farmers Markets

Mike Smith — 2009-10-30T09:56:00-07:00

Cuban leaders aren't embracing farmers markets, free market "agros" where vendors control prices rather than national authorities. The communist authorities are ending that capitalistic experiment and cracking down on those profiting from the enterprise. At a market where state workers appeared for an inspection, police had to be called when customers began a shouting match with them, the AP reports.

Farmers markets take control of food supplies out of government hands, but at least it allows a variety of food to reach those who need it. After an outcry by citizens, changes to farmers markets were pushed back to the new year. It's in the interest of farmers to sell directly to sellers rather than the government because they make more money. Cuban leaders aren't happy about farmers or sellers becoming rich, so the markets are closing.

This news comes despite Raul Castro's minor reforms towards so called 'socialism lite.' Castro is restructuring parts of the country's agricultural system, allowing farmers to own land previously left idle, hoping to make the country's agricultural system more efficient. Not permitting farmers to profit from their work is no way to encourage efficiency. At the farmers markets that have been scrutinized, many sellers stay away — it simply doesn't make sense to sell produce at a loss.

A UN project aims to increase food security through decentralization initiatives, production stimulation, and increasing the involvement of the private sector, but I imagine this will become unhinged should the Cuban government remained opposed to farmers markets.

Photo credit: Birgitta Seegers

GM Food Fight

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-10-30T06:00:00-07:00

In the debate over genetically modified food, one thing is clear: we can't agree. And not only do we disagree but we disagree passionately and intransigently. Statistics are hurled back and forth, each one seemingly contradicting the last, until everyone has pie in their face and no one knows what's fact and what's fallacy.

Change.org member Dawn Gifford noted the intensity of the debate in a recent comment: "this issue is more divisive than almost any other international issue, barring war."

So what's a thinking person to do? Many people I talk to feel a sense of unease with GM foods, but don’t have a clearly defined opinion and don’t know which information to trust.

Unfortunately finding answers is not as simple as turning to the experts. A quick perusal of the New York Times opinion roundtable, released earlier this week, reveals that there are as many opinions as there are commentators (6), ranging from staunch support of GM foods to total rejection of them.

While the discussion doesn't provide us one clear answer, it is refreshing to hear a panoply of thoughtful opinions on the subject. So much of the discourse has become overheated and irrational. As Jonathan Foley, director of the new Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, writes in his entry in the Times article: "Genuine discourse has broken down: You’re either with Michael Pollan or you’re with Monsanto."

As if to illustrate this point, Paul Collier, an Oxford University economist, uses his turn in the roundtable to espouse Monsanto's viewpoint: "The debate over genetically modified crops and food has been contaminated by political and aesthetic prejudices: hostility to U.S. corporations, fear of big science and romanticism about local, organic production."

Alternately, however, one could say that the discussion has been contaminated by agribusiness dollars, blind faith in science's ability to cure all ills and categorical dismissal of the power of simple, low-tech and nature-based solutions. Hello, Michael Pollan!

Could it be that the solution lies somewhere in the middle? Could we apply the best of biotech with surgical precision while still, as Vandana Shiva wisely puts it, focusing on “biodiversity intensification, not chemical intensification . . . work[ing] with nature’s nutrient cycles and hydrological cycle, not against them”?

What about a holistic vision that acknowledges the dire problem facing us, accounts openly for all the options on the table and uses the best elements of each in the most targeted way possible? Such a solution will take discussion, cooperation, openness and, most importantly, political will. Tall order, but not impossible.

Jonathan Foley's vision is closest of all the commentators' to this idea:

Rather than voting for just one solution, we need a third way to solve the crisis. Let’s take ideas from both sides, creating new, hybrid solutions that boost production, conserve resources and build a more sustainable and scalable agriculture. There are many promising avenues to pursue: precision agriculture, mixed with high-output composting and organic soil remedies; drip irrigation, plus buffer strips to reduce erosion and pollution; and new crop varieties that reduce water and fertilizer demand.

I would add to that list all manner of low-tech innovations, like the Kickstart Super MoneyMaker Pump, that target the “bottom of the pyramid” market and provide affordable solutions to basic agricultural problems.

The World Summit on Food Security is coming up; world leaders will meet in Rome on November 16 to discuss the best ways to invest in agriculture in developing countries and thereby reduce hunger. Let's hope, at the very least, for an open and honest discussion among the Monsantos and Michael Pollans of this world.

Photo of the Tomatina Festival courtesy of revolution cycle via flickr

Brouhaha Over Meat’s Impact on Climate

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-10-29T06:00:00-07:00

The discussion of reducing meat consumption as a means of fighting climate change is ruffling some high-profile feathers in several places. This attention is good news for those of us concerned with sustainable food: clearly the message is gaining widespread traction if people in positions of power are up in arms.

UK’s Times newspaper reported a couple days ago that Lord Stern of Brentford, I. G. Patel Professor of Economics and Chair of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, recommended cutting back on meat intake as an effective method of mitigating climate change.

“Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases,” he told the Times. “It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

Not surprisingly, industry leaders and their allies were outraged.

British meat industry anger flared in part because Stern’s comments came on the eve of an important breakfast in the House of Lords, where they showcased the many climate-related improvements in the pig industry for Farming Minister Jim Fitzpatrick, himself a vegetarian, the Times reported in another article. The technology that the industry is using to reduce its carbon footprint includes large-scale anaerobic digestion of manure.

Lord Stern’s shot across the meat industry’s bow was heard all the way cross the pond, where South Dakota Republican Senator John Thune called it hogwash and accused Lord Stern of not being a vegetarian himself, which is true.

"With falling beef prices, higher costs of production, and onerous cap-and-trade legislation looming, the last thing ranchers and employees of America's meat industry need right now is elitist lecturing and misinformation," Thune told US News and World Report.

Well the bellyaching is all very well, but according to Stern, people might soon be forced into a decision on their high-impact dietary ways: if the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December produces a workable agreement, the price of meat and other high-emissions foods will skyrocket, he declared.

Stern believes that the process of weaning ourselves from meat will be a matter of reexamining our priorities and doing the right thing. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student,” he told the Times. “People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”

Methinks the winds of change are a-blowing, but be ready: out in Big Sky Country, they won’t go down without a fight.

Photo courtesy of imnop88a via flickr

Mistrust of Science Won’t Help Create Sustainable Agriculture

Mike Smith — 2009-10-28T06:47:00-07:00

When it comes to food and farming there is no 'natural' ideal to which we can possibly strive. Though organic food and sustainability helps us reacquaint ourselves with where our food comes from, are we fetishizing the idea of 'natural' and 'real' food? We've never agreed what these words mean, leading us to oppose and mistrust science, to the detriment of a growing population that we'll need to feed. That's the argument of a recent piece in Seed Magazine, asking us to rethink broad and vague terms that have little scientific merit.

Political scientist Robert Paarlberg explained in his 2008 book, Starved for Science, that whilst the productivity of our farms has risen through the application of science, we don't need any more of it; “This turn against new agricultural science is an affordable attitude in rich countries, but it becomes dangerous if exported to science-starved poor countries,” he explained.

It isn't enough to assume organic food is a universal good for the world. If it's shipped half way across the country or planet, conventionally grown local food is better. Similarly, the article speaks favorable of biotech firms and makes the compelling point that shouldn't we mustn't automatically distrust science in the name of 'natural food' — especially when it comes to feeding a growing population.

Photo credit: Unhindered by Talent

In Ohio, Local Food Is In Business

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-10-28T06:00:00-07:00

In an abandoned building in Wooster, Ohio, the future of local food is taking shape. Thirteen intrepid souls have formed a board to direct the Wooster Local Foods Cooperative, which will operate Local Roots Market and Café in what used to be, appropriately, a CorningWare store, according to Farm and Dairy.

The idea is to create a year-round onsite and Internet farmers market based on a cooperative model. “Our goals,” the Local Roots blog states, “are to encourage healthy eating, expand local economic development, promote community involvement, and sustainable living.” Hurrah!

With a $60,000 Specialty Crop Promotion grant from the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, the venture is slowly taking shape — the organizers are busily procuring refrigerators, cash registers and sorting bins, and plan to start opening on Saturdays in November.

Will customers knock down the door?

The board will get a sense of the public's level of interest at an open house on Saturday, where they will introduce the establishment to the community with coffee, cider, baked goods and music.

And the community would be wise to jump on board — the market will be more than just another food pantry; there are plans to offer live demonstrations on food preservation and cooking skills once the licensed commercial kitchen is installed. If the winds blow right, the market might even be able to offer a butcher counter. In the meantime, the board is sponsoring screenings of food-related films, “Food, Inc.” on November 7 and “Polycultures” on November 21.

The more interest communities have in buying their produce, dairy and meat from local farmers, the more likely such ventures are to sprout up around the country. And if this is what the future of food in our country looks like, count me in. What about you?

Photo courtesy of Petit Deuxmont via flickr

Bill Gates Enchanted by the GMO Idol

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-10-27T06:00:00-07:00

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.

So what's the big deal? Grist food editor Tom Philpott, in a thorough examination of the Gates-GMO issue, describes how the original Green Revolution was an unmitigated disaster for smallholder farmers in India. He goes on to list several problems with Gates's seeming enchantment with GM as a solution:

a) GM agriculture’s much-hyped ability to boost yields, taken as a given by Gates, has thus far proven purely spectral; b) there’s serious evidence, despite a paucity of cash for critical research and heavy-handed control of research by seed companies, that GMOs cause health problems; and c) GMOs have so far proven quite proficient at generating unintended ecological consequences, such as the rise of “superweeds.”

Significantly, Philpott believes Bil Gates understands that there's "no zero-sum tradeoff between productivity and sustainability" in agriculture. Unfortunately, however, Gates is too busy gazing at the GM idol to notice that the healthy soils created by organic agriculture tend to boost productivity at the same time as increasing sustainability.

Stay tuned; Philpott is trying to get in touch with someone at Gates and will report back to readers.

Photo courtesy of OliBac via flickr

Trouble Down At the Food Co-op: Sustainability Isn't Easy!

Mike Smith — 2009-10-26T18:48:00-07:00

The story of being suspended from the Park Slope Food Co-Op in Brooklyn, exiled from the borough's hub of environmentally friendly groceries where members get up-to 40 percent off is featured in today's Times. But of course, such a saving comes at a price — every member must work one or two shift a month, along with 15,000 other members. Alana Joblin Ain missed one too many shifts, and told her story — one of slipping away from the store, but not from sustainability altogether. Alana isn't bitter, explaining that the co-op is "a place that raises aspirations for society, makes us raise aspirations for ourselves."

She notes that not everyone is enamored by the cost cutting community atmosphere, with one ex-member explaining the co-op is "something between an earthy-crunchy health food haven and a Soviet-style re-education camp." Many of the exiles, cast out, end up shopping at a grocery store two blocks down from the co-op's HQ.

Sustainability, of course, is no drive-through. You've got to makes sacrifices — whether it's making the extra effort to get to a market, or searching out farmers box scheme. Making a positive change requires an active contribution.

Photo credit: Steven Damron

The New Traditionalists: Young Small-Farmers

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-10-26T06:00:00-07:00

A friend recently told me she sits in her cubicle daydreaming about the charm of an agrarian life. She finds it ironic that she now longs to do precisely what her Lithuanian ancestors struggled so mightily to escape. They worked their fingers to the bone as peasant farmers to provide better futures to successive generations, on down to my present-day friend who has had the opportunity to get an education and become a well-paid professional with a comfortable life away from the hot sun and taxing fieldwork.

"It's funny," she mused, "that now I just want to go work on a farm."

Well it turns out she's not the only one. Mike Smith reported last night that in the U.S., young people -- often college grads who might have had lucrative desk jobs -- are discovering the appeal of getting their hands dirty.

These young people believe in maintaining one of the world's oldest traditions, in protecting our agricultural legacy against the onslaught of corporate capitalism. Their task is deeply conservative -- to farm the land the way their great-great grandparents did -- though the politically charged agenda to which many of them subscribe is a fundamentally liberal ethos of pushing back against what they see as a flawed and unsustainable status quo in agriculture.

It is indeed more than fluffy idealism or the desire for a simple life that is motivating these kids who could be making bank in office jobs to work back-breaking hours in the fields for little pay. According to Alicia Jabbar, 26, a farm worker featured in the article and accompanying video published yesterday by the Washington Post, this is about a new and sustainability-focused generation taking up the mantle of growing the nation's food.

"The average age of a farmer is between 55 and 60," she says in the video. "We're all going to be in not very good shape if all of our farmers die off and nobody else has taken over."

For Susan Planck, co-owner of Wheatland Farms, where Jabbar works, it's about returning to the fundamental independence of the way humans have always lived. Doing small farming, she says in the video, means running a small business, which is the traditional thing people have done to survive for millennia. "It is industrial agriculture that is a blip, going to be a blip on the scene because it's not sustainable" she told the Post.

It is ironic that the traditional agenda these young farmers are pushing is often distrusted and even discredited by those fixated on its anti-establishment focus.

What is more traditionalist, after all, than going back to our roots and holding fast to age-old methods and priorities? What is more fundamental to our society's origins than a desire to be free to farm the earth with one's own two hands and by doing so design one's own destiny?

Photo courtesy of Mad City Bastard on flickr.

More and More Young People Take To Sustainable Farming

Mike Smith — 2009-10-25T18:18:00-07:00

Newspapers sure do love their human-interest recession stories. When those stories involve people quitting their jobs for something more fulfilling, that's even better. But the perfect story, of course, is people taking to the land, turning to farms, and making a fresh start. Of course, we love every word of it — especially as so often it's toward sustainable and organic farms.

The latest update on the trend is a long piece in the Washington Post explaining the story of a young woman who went from making $110,000 a year to making $7 an hour. But it's not all clichéd stories of going back to the land. It's reported that farmers are getting a boost and a better chance at success thanks to Community Supported Agriculture, "a system that lets customers pay in advance for a weekly share of a nearby farm's crop."

Last Spring, we heard about the young adults who are "Leaving Behind the Trucker Hat," quitting Williamsburg, and scratching an itch that wasn't relieved by a little backyard gardening. Indeed, eighteen month ago someone making a documentary on about the trend explained "Young farmers are an emerging social movement." On average organic farmers are younger, and the number of small farms is indeed growing dramatically. Perhaps the next farm census will shed statistical light on how true the trend is in farming outside of these cases.

One thing is for sure: There is a dramatic change happening. And the trend is toward sustainability. The number of sustainable farms on a list for prospective students has increased from six in 1989 to 1,400 now — 236 alone were added in the first five months of this year. It really doesn't matter who's running them, but as students from Yale report, a summer spent working on a sustainable farm provides an incredibly enriching experience.

Photo credit: Emery-Way

Smart Choices Labeling Gets the Axe

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-10-23T13:25:00-07:00

Score one for reason and honesty! Thanks in part to the intrepid efforts of Change.org and its awesome concerned citizens, the Smart Choices labeling scheme, which sought to peddle clearly unhealthy foods as wise eating choices, has been halted, reports MSNBC.

After the FDA decided to bash some skulls over this blatantly misleading marketing efffort, the food industry players in charge of the initiative, including Kellogg Co., Kraft Foods and General Mills, have decided to call it all off for now. Smart Choices officials said that they will "postpone" the program and avoid encouraging any more use of the labels until the FDA makes a judgment.

I think this is one "postponement" that might well end up lasting forever. Good work to all those who signed our petition and took other action in response to this outrageous nutri-washing campaign!

Photo courtesy of Mykl Roventine via flickr