Change.org's Sustainable Food Blog

More GE Crops, More Pesticides

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-20T06:00:00-08:00

A new report by Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center, says that genetically engineered crops are forcing use of pesticides rapidly upwards.

The report, titled "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years" and principally informed by data from the USDA, finds that GE crops have caused an increase in the use of herbicide in the US of 383 million pounds over the 13 years GE crops have been used commercially.

But what about all that talk of GE corn and cotton driving the use of insecticides to celebrated lows? According to the report, the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds is responsible for the dramatic herbicide upswing, a phenomenon that will not be news to farmers.

"Weed control is now widely acknowledged as a serious management problem within GE cropping systems," the report's preface states. "But skyrocketing herbicide use is news to the public at large, which still harbors the illusion, fed by misleading industry claims and advertising, that biotechnology crops are reducing pesticide use."

Today's GE crops, then, have a "decidedly negative" chemical footprint. While much of the debate about the health and safety of GE crops has focused around the potential danger of the organisms to humans and the unpredictable disturbances of ecological systems, this study brings a new angle on their safety into the debate, both for human and ecological health.

These concerns are very important, considering, as the report concludes, farmers have largely lost control of their seed supplies, so there is nothing they can do about the need to use more pesticides. Benbrook writes in the report's conclusion that:

Until public plant breeding programs and seed companies re-emerge that are dedicated to producing conventional seeds, farmers will have to accept and plant what the seed industry chooses to offer, and the public will have to live with considerable uncertainty over the novel food safety and environmental risks posed by these new crops.

Before all the GM-boosters out there brush off this study as another piece of hippie drivel, let me point out that the study's author was previously Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences, and before that Executive Director of the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture, which has jurisdiction over pesticide regulation, research, trade and foreign agricultural concerns. Further, the mission of the Organic Center is "to generate credible, peer reviewed scientific information and communicate the verifiable benefits of organic farming and products to society."

Without such objective and rigorous assessments of such issues, the report's preface states, "American agriculture is likely to continue down the road preferred by the biotechnology industry." All I can say is genetically engineering our food is looking like a worse and worse idea.

Photo courtesy of andypowe11 via flickr

WTF Obama! Get Big Ag Players Out of Government

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-19T06:00:00-08:00

The fact that there's a revolving door between government and industry will come as news to no one. What is surprising (though hardly, says the cynical devil on my shoulder) is that President Obama continues to spin it around.

What ever happened to "No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years" (as stated in Obama's ethics rules)?

Whatever happened to "We'll tell ConAgra that it's not the Department of Agribusiness. It's the Department of Agriculture. We're going to put the people's interests ahead of the special interests" (speech to the Iowa Farmers Union, November 2007)?

Well, he's whistling a different tune now. The administration has recently nominated two big-ag insiders to do things "directly and substantially related to their former employers":

Islam Siddiqui — Now: VP of science and regulatory affairs at CropLife, an industry group for crop science and pesticides. Nominated for: U.S. Chief Agricultural Negotiator, a critical position that puts him in place to push chemical pesticides and biotechnology on other nations.

Roger Beachy — Then: founding President of the Danforth Plant Science Center, a nonprofit research center heavily funded by Monsanto and with the CEO of Monsanto on its Board of Trustees. Now: director of the USDA’s newly created National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), an office with a $500 million budget to shape U.S. agricultural research.

Oh, Obama, some of us had such faith in you, but it looks like it's politics as usual. (Except, of course, for the fact that the US Congress might well actually confirm someone named "Islam" for something, which is the delicious, delicious irony of this whole sordid affair.)

Around and around the revolving door goes, where it stops, no one knows.

On the bright side, he has brought the other side along some too with the appointment of organic ag advocate Kathleen Merrigan as deputy secretary of the USDA. Unfortunately she has to work under another big-ag acolyte, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, who was named "governor of the year" by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Grist food editor Tom Philpott writes that pairing the likes of Siddiqui and Beachy with Merrigan in the administration has left him with "a kind of policy whiplash." The reason, he conjectures, is that

"Obama likes cutting-edge ideas. You look at the ag landscape, and you see two distinct areas with great innovation, energy, and movement: biotech and organic/sustainable. So he’s coming out strong behind both camps, and plans to sit back and see which one develops the best ideas."

But how, exactly, is pitting one organic booster against three (and likely more) big-ag champions "coming out strong behind both camps"? Philpott does go on to say that the big-ag side of things has massive advantages — more money, dominant roles in university research, government-industry cronyism, intellectual property rights, the list goes on — so that "if Obama is setting up a kind of contest between the two camps, the game is rigged in advance."

Indeed, in this wildly uneven atmosphere, Obama's support of Merrigan seems less like "coming out strong" and more like throwing a bone to the organic crowd. Too bad Michelle isn't making policy.

ACT NOW: Siddiqui has yet to be confirmed, though his nomination hearings occurred earlier this month (here's a PDF of his statement). Sign the petition sponsored by the Pesticide Action Network North America and call your Senators to let our leaders know this is not the man for the job.

Photo courtesy of Dan4th via flickr

Ag in Africa: Foreign 'Feudal Lords' and 'Diabolical' Seed Companies

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-18T06:00:00-08:00

In looking at the world leaders gathered at this week's World Summit on Food Security in Rome, one does not except to see the eccentric Muammar Gaddafi as a beacon of logic in the storm. The unusual ruler, after all, spent part of his weekend in Italy's capital trying to convert 500 women he hired from an escort service to Islam — after, that is, he arrived in a white limo to speak to them, reports the UK's Mail Online.

He might not have persuaded very many of his female quarry to convert — "I thought we were going to a party - we didn't even get a glass of water or some salty snack," one woman reportedly said — but on the issue of global agriculture he was entirely convincing. He warned the other assembled leaders that foreign companies that are procuring massive tracts of farmland in Africa are becoming the continent's “new feudal lords," reports Reuters.

“In Africa, foreign investors buy farmland, transforming themselves into new feudal lords against whom we must fight,” Gaddafi said at the summit. Indeed many are calling the ominous development a massive "land grab," and the UK's Times Online went so far as to dub it "modern imperialism."

Investors from rich countries have snapped up some 50 million acres of land across Africa in the past year and a half, according to the UK's Independent. Just last week, Ethiopia decided to lease 7.4 million acres of farmland to investors over the next three years, Bloomberg reports. The United Nations is creating a “code of conduct” for such leasing activities, and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has called for a global watchdog "with teeth."

Not only did Gaddafi crack some skulls with his "feudal lord" comments, but he also said that his continent's other terrorizing problem is the “monopolisation of seeds by companies that I would describe as diabolical.” He called on the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation to "dismantle this monopoly in all countries."

It's just too bad most of the heads of state from rich countries weren't there to be cracked. Among the approximately 60 heads of state and government present at the summit, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was the only one from a G-8 nation.

Photo courtesy of BlatantNews.com via flickr

Kellogg Foundation Funds Local Food

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-17T06:00:00-08:00

When you think of local food, Kellogg is not the first name that springs to mind. No, instead it's sugary cereals (okay, and some non-sugary ones), which are some of the most iconic products of our industrial, processed food system.

So it may come as somewhat of a surprise to hear that the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, a foundation started by cereal maven Will Keith Kellogg in 1930 and still funded by an endowment formed by his money in 1934, has announced $32.5 million in grants to support local food systems, according to the Washington Post.

This news points to the fact that the conversation on local and sustainable foods is starting to make headway. If a foundation that enjoys a close relationship with a mainstream industry player is putting its money on local food -- urban agriculture and local-produce-heavy school lunches no less -- then we know the ground is shifting.

While we may have come to see Kellogg's products as unhealthful options for children -- to the point that we protest when some of them are labeled smart eating choices -- back in 1930, Kellogg prided himself on creating "better-for-you breakfast food," according to the company Website (the company apparently still does -- the question remains, however: "which products?" and "better than what?"). In line with Kellogg's vision of bringing healthful foods to families, the foundation's mission is to support children, families and communities. What is notable is that they now see supporting local food systems as a good way to do that.

The Kellogg grants will support nine projects with a range of goals, including bringing more fresh, local produce to schools, introducing mobile fruit venders to low-income food deserts and developing an unused-land inventory to help the urban farming movement in Boston. These projects bring the Kellogg Foundation's support of food and farming to almost $80 million in a bit over a decade.

Photo courtesy of ItzaFineDay via flickr

World Summit on Food Security Set to Disappoint

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-16T06:00:00-08:00

Today begins the World Summit on Food Security, organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and scheduled to run through Wednesday in Rome, Italy.

The FAO estimates that 1.02 billion people are undernourished in 2009, and with a world population set to reach 9 billion by 2050, the ranks of the hungry are sure to balloon unless aggressive action is taken on an international level.

Reuters reports, however, that the summit's progress will be no more than a token; there will be no deadlines or commitments to action despite the FAO's hope of gaining pledges of $44 billion a year from world leaders to help poor countries grow enough food. A draft of the declaration, Reuters says, includes a vague promise to fund more agricultural development with no specific commitments toward ending hunger.

Admittedly the problems are large and complex. The summit sets out to address key questions, specifically how to:

make sure the 9 billion will have food;

bolster governance around food security;

give developing counties a fair shake at competing in international trade;

safeguard farmers' livelihoods;

get public and private sectors to invest in agriculture;

find ways to solve food crises before they're out of control; and

ensure that food systems can adapt to climate change.

So while tackling all of this could be biting off more than they can chew, world leaders could at least make some concrete commitments to addressing aspects of this problem.

Humanitarian groups ActionAid and Oxfam accuse the global community of being complacent in the wake of committing $20 billion to the issue at the G-8 Summit in July. The two NGOs said in a joint statement that the "the $20 billion is a mirage" because "less than a quarter of this money is new." They also said the summit "could be a waste of time and money unless world leaders intervene now to salvage it."

Let's hope the US takes some bold move to spur more aggressive action this week, considering that President Obama, as the New York Times writes, "has made improving the productivity of farmers in the developing world a top priority since taking office." He was the one, after all, who drummed up international support for the multibillion-dollar initiative that now has everyone resting on their laurels.

Photo courtesy of stock.xchng

Meals on Wheels: the Future of Sustainable, Ethical Meat

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-14T06:00:00-08:00

Coming soon to a highway near you: the mobile slaughterhouse.

Here's the scoop: alert reader Kristen Ridley tells me that when she went to research humane slaughterhouse options, she couldn't find any. She said that there is "the occasional (very occasional) small processor out there that doesn't exploit their workers and abuse the animals," but they are few and far between. Most slaughterhouses are big, industrial, churn-em-out operations, and if you've seen "Food, Inc.," you'll know what those are like.

Welcome to the scene the Mobile Slaughter Unit! In 2002, farmers in San Juan County, Washington, set out to find a way for small farmers to work with the USDA regulations and still slaughter their own meat. The result: "the first mobile USDA Inspected field slaughter unit." The truck can slaughter 10 cows, 24 hogs or 40 sheep per day and contains a cooler that can hold up to 6,000 pounds of hanging carcasses to allow it to operate for a couple days continuously.

Those who have read Omnivore's Dilemma might recognize the topic of the trouble with slaughterhouses in this day of industrial ag. Michael Pollan discusses the problem of trying to apply "one-size-fits-all rules" created for big operations to small farmers. The result is the shuttering of small slaughter operations. Pollan gives the example of federal regulations that require each slaughterhouse to have a bathroom for the USDA inspector. "Such regulations favor the biggest industrial meatpackers, who can spread the costs of compliance over the millions of animals they process every year, at the expense of artisanal enterprises," Pollan writes.

This is not to say that "artisanal enterprises" will never mistreat animals or their workers and will always keep things pristine and sterile, but I would venture to say it's more likely. Especially if the farmers themselves are slaughtering their own animals. And besides, shouldn't farmers have the right to slaughter the animals they raised if they can do it safely and effectively? Because of USDA rules, however, they generally aren't allowed to do so.

These mobile butchery trucks present great options to small farmers. Co-ops can own them collectively, or an entrepreneurial butcher can make rounds to small farms on a regular schedule offering the truck's services, to name just two ideas. In Kristen Ridley's opinion, "this is the future of sustainable, ethical meat." Do you agree?

Photo courtesy of stock.xchng

My $80 Thanksgiving Turkey

Greg Plotkin — 2009-11-13T11:08:00-08:00

The argument can be made that paying $80 for a turkey this Thanksgiving is just a typical example of elitism in the sustainable food movement. And that might be somewhat true.

However, I say that it is an example of paying for what's important to you, and for me, that's knowing not only who raised the bird on my table but how it was raised as well.

This Thanksgiving, I'll be serving a 10-12 pound heritage breed turkey from EcoFriendly Foods, a cooperative that sources sustainably produced meat from small farms throughout the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia; and here's why.

Somewhere around 99% of the turkeys consumed in America every year are the genetically engineered "Broadbreasted White" variety. These turkeys, the ones you find in the grocery store, are raised in (I omit "on" for a reason) factory farms, and have been manipulated to the point that they cannot even stand on their own most of time.

While significantly cheaper (right now, Wal-Mart is marketing 12-pound Thanksgiving turkeys for under $5.00) than their heritage counterparts, traditional turkey's do not have the same flavor and do not come with an assurance of sustainability.

For those that aren't familiar with the term "heritage," it's basically what heirloom means in the produce world -- a species that has been saved and passed down through generations.

Although I'm sure this will seem ironic to some readers, the best way to save rare breeds and preserve broad genetic diversity is to return these animals to our dinner table (pdf). This won't be a popular view in some circles, I know, but it's the truth.

There are many reasons why genetic diversity in livestock production is important, and even the United Nations sees the extinction of animal species as "alarming" and has warned the international community that diversity will be a key resource in dealing with climate change.

For these reasons, and many more, I feel as though the $80 turkey I'll be picking up next week is worth every single penny.

Feel free to leave a comment and tell the Change.org community about what food choices are important to you this Thanksgiving season.

(Photo credit: tuchodi on Flickr)

Two GMO Questions, One Big Muddle

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-13T06:00:00-08:00

We've been discussing genetically modified foods like it's going out of style here on change.org's sustainable food blog.

There is, indeed, much to discuss; there are many threads to the conversation, which, when not teased apart, can lead to a muddled confusion about what we are all actually discussing.

Critics of GM foods tend to focus on two important concerns: the uncertain safety of the crops and the intellectual property (IP) rights of the companies creating them. So these are the big questions: (1) are GM foods safe? And (2) will companies maintain a financial stranglehold over the users and would-be researchers of GM seeds?

These questions are closely related, as the safety of these organisms generally cannot be properly studied because IP restrictions allow companies to restrict scientists' ability to publish independent research on these crops, according to the Scientific American. (Hmm, do you think we might be getting a hint on the answer to question 2?)

Though these questions are closely related, however, an honest debate on the topic requires that we distinguish between the issues raised by each. People with an objection based on one of these two arguments are in danger of developing a general, free-floating distaste for the subject, effectively closing off discussion about the other point. For example:

Jim: What do you think about GM crops, Martha?

Martha: They're the devil's spawn!

Jim: Why do you think so?

Martha: Because Monsanto is going to own the world eventually. Let's just hope they're benevolent overlords.

Jim: But what if we had GM crops that were in the public domain so that anyone could use them freely?

Martha: When pigs fly, Jim. This is corporate America we're talking about.

Jim: Come on, humor me. If we took Monsanto out of the equation, don't you think GM crops would be a good idea to think about?

Martha: GMOs just suck.

Jim: Do you think they're unsafe?

Martha: What's wrong with Mother Nature, anyway?

Martha has dug in her heels and can't free her feet in time to do the nimble side-step needed to enter a new portion of the conversation.

For an example of some good nimble stepping, check out the video below of Michael Pollan discussing GMOs with The Long Now Foundation, in which he says "if we had open-source genetic engineering, if we had genetic engineering that was really being applied to making the system more sustainable rather than more brittle -- which is essentially what it's doing -- I'm open to learning about it" (quote starts at 3:28).

This is not to say we all must share this opinion, but distinguishing between the various questions involved in this discussion will help us figure out what our opinions really are.

Photo courtesy of Orin Zebest via flickr

Harvest Boon: Satellites Help Farmers Boost Yield

Mike Smith — 2009-11-12T17:15:00-08:00

Farmers have long looked to the sky to predict the weather, the chance of a good harvest, and the likelihood of rain. Now, the skies are looking back, and talking back, with satellites helping farmers boost crop yields. Satellites are able to give quick and relatively cheap analysis of what the optimal amount of seed, fertilizer, pesticide and water is. Even those opposed to use of industrial pesticide must agree that using a little as possible is a good thing. It's the same with water: this advance will reduce the need of water, or increase it where water is necessary to guarantee a good harvest, and avoid wasting a crop.

The satellite provides an analysis of the spectrum of radiation which can help reveal properties of the soil, levels of minerals and moisture, and by adding weather patterns, indicate "how, where and when crops should be grown." The cost is as low as $15 a hectare, and by improving yields by up to 10% it's just another way that science can help farming without destroying the environment or using genetic modification to increase yields. France leads the way in the use of this technology, and governments in Canada are even getting in on the act, using the information to see where farmers are creating too much nitrate fertilizer. It'll soon help developing countries too, with African soil samples being taken to build and initial digital map that will be given free to farmers and supplemented with satellite imagery.

Photo credit: Brykmantra

How You Can Help Women Get Land Rights

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-12T06:00:00-08:00

Earlier this week I wrote about how women grow the majority of the world's food but own a tiny fraction of the world's land. This major imbalance makes women — and thus families — more insecure and effectively leaves a major segment of daily natural resource users out of our global conversations on issues such as global warming, sustainable agriculture and food crises.

Alert reader David Mastroianni asked what we can all do to help fix this situation. Here are some ideas.

Advocate for Congress to pass the Global Food Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 3077) , introduced by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) in the House of Representatives, which calls for a food security strategy that will “prioritize and support the central role of women in agricultural production” around the world. This will be a step in the right direction of recognizing women's monumental contribution to our world's food systems. Senators Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) have introduced a companion bill (S. 384) in the Senate.

Learn more about the issue. Start with the short "Fact Sheet on Women and Land" (PDF) from Rural Development Institute (RDI) for a down-and-dirty overview. The Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook from the World Bank is an excellent starter-kit for those looking to learn a little more. The 16 modules will give you a comprehensive understanding, complete with extensive bibliography and suggestions for further reading.

Once you've learned all there is to know, tweet, blog, chat or otherwise spread the word about the importance of this issue. To take your involvement further, attend or help plan an event for International Women's Day on March 8.

Support organizations that are fighting this fight, including the one I mentioned in my previous post, RDI's new Global Center for Women's Land Rights, and the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW), which is currently spotlighting the issue of women in agriculture. Your help can take the form of a donation check, an offer to volunteer or a simple commitment to spread the word to other would-be donors and helpers.

Photo courtesy of IRRI Images via flickr

Vote for Your Local Food Heroes

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

Edible Communities Publications, which publishes a range of free magazines on local and sustainable food and eating in communities across the nation, is calling all food enthusiasts to vote on their own favorite local heroes.

You have until December 11 to have your say in the fourth annual Local Hero Awards. Visit the Edible Communities Website to cast your ballot for your favorites in the following categories:

Farm/Farmer

Chef/Restaurant

Food Artisan

Beverage Artisan

Non-profit Organization

I particularly like the term "beverage artisan." I wonder if my top-notch gin-and-tonic mixing skills might qualify me for that particular title. Hey, I'm local. To my house.

The winners of this year's contest will be announced in January at the annual Edible Communities publishers' dinner in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Then each community publication will announce its own local heroes in its spring 2010 issue.

Celebrating our local food heroes and activists is a great way to support the future of sustainable, community-oriented food production. Cast your vote today to let them know you care.

Photo courtesy of L-plate big cheese via flickr

Winners of Ashoka's 'GMO Risk or Rescue?' Competition Announced

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-10T06:00:00-08:00

The Ashoka Changemakers Website, which describes itself as a "community of action where we all collaborate on solutions," runs a range of specific competitions on a wide variety of subject matter. Potential changemakers enter their solutions to the issue at hand, and readers vote on which twenty entries deserve accolades.

A contest of interest to us here, titled "GMO Risk or Rescue? Helping Consumers Decide," just announced its winners after over 14,000 readers helped decide on the worthiest entries.

The grand prize goes to a blog called biofortified, for its entry titled "stronger plants, stronger science, and stronger communication!" A group blog addressing issues of genetic engineering in agriculture and plant biology, Biofortified claims itself to be the most "dedicated effort to discuss genetic engineering on the web." The organizers aim to expand their blogger network to bring the conversation on genetic engineering to wider audiences. These savvy bloggers will receive a grant of $1,500 and a get to participate in a conversation with food journalist Michael Pollan.

The competition's two runners-up are Campaign for Healthier Eating in America and Non-GMO Project. The top three winners have all won an enhanced social media training session with Ashoka and will be mentioned in a one-page ad in the Stanford Social Innovation Review magazine. The 17 honorable mentions will receive a social media training session with Ashoka.

Photo courtesy of stock.xchng

Why Women's Rights Matter to Our Food

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-09T06:00:00-08:00

"Consider the daily life of the world’s typical small farmer," said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the closing session of the 2009 Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in September. "She lives in a rural village in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, or Latin America."

That's right: women grow more than half of the world's food and the lion's share (as much as 80 percent) of the food in developing countries, reports the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Despite their majority contribution, however, women only own 2 percent of the world's land, according to UN WomenWatch. Around the world, women are deprived of legal rights to the land they toil over day after day.

Zainab Salbi, founder and CEO of Women for Women International, pointed out to me that this is a bigger problem than simple unfairness. "We cannot address environmental issues, sustainable farming issues, industrial agriculture issues, food crisis, if we are going to ignore [the fact that women are over 80 percent of the world's farmers and they own about 2 percent of land in the world]," she said. "How can you have a policy that ignores the people that are doing the work on a daily basis?"

That's why Rural Development Institute (RDI), an NGO that focuses on helping farmers in developing countries procure legal land rights, is launching a new Global Center for Women's Land Rights, according to a press release. The center will research and advocate for policies that will help women gain legal access to their land.

“Women feed the world. Providing women with secure land and property rights is essential to addressing poverty, food security and violence against women," said Renée Giovarelli, founding director of the Center.

In her remarks at CGI, Clinton mentioned that women would be at the heart of the international agricultural priorities of the Obama administration. At the G-8 Summit in July, Obama pledged a minimum of $3.5 billion over the next three year as a contribution to the $20 billion pledged by all the G-8 nations toward strengthening global agricultural systems.

"We have seen again and again . . . that women are entrepreneurial, accountable, and practical," said Clinton. "So women are a wise investment. And since the majority of the world’s farmers are women, it’s critical that our investments in agriculture leverage their ambition and perseverance."

Photo courtesy of Foxtongue on flickr

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