Back in June I posted about getting the food mill and making hot pepper sauce. Because we've been shopping at Costco quite a bit this year to cut expenses, the large bottle of Tabasco we had in the 'fridge lasted quite a while. I finally drained it the other night when we had burritos. I washed the bottle out and grabbed one of the pints from June and opened it, not knowing for sure if I would be filling the Tabasco bottle or pouring the jar down the drain.
Great news! It turned out really good! It's almost identical to Tabasco except for the color which is more of a darker red as opposed to bright red (probably because I didn't use the chemicals). To be completely honest, my preference would have been something more like Frank's Red Hot (which is why I was generous with the garlic), but I am very happy with the results! One pint filled the Tabasco with a significant amount leftover. That bottle lasted several months, so the five pints I made in June should keep us covered for a good, long time.
Now our pantry is stocked with home-made ketchup, mayonnaise, relish, salsa, and hot pepper sauce!
Next I need to learn to make mustard!
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
Food And Climate Change
This is an EXCELLENT article from Grain!!
Food and climate change: The forgotten link
GRAIN | 28 September 2011 | Against the grain
Food is a key driver of climate change. How our food gets produced and how it ends up on our tables accounts for around half of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. Chemical fertilizers, heavy machinery and other petroleum-dependant farm technologies contribute significantly. The impact of the food industry as a whole is even greater: destroying forests and savannahs to produce animal feed and generating climate-damaging waste through excess packaging, processing, refrigeration and the transport of food over long distances, despite leaving millions of people hungry.
A new food system could be a key driver of solutions to climate change. People around the world are involved in struggles to defend or create ways of growing and sharing food that are healthier for their communities and for the planet. If measures are taken to restructure agriculture and the larger food system around food sovereignty, small scale farming, agro-ecology and local markets, we could cut global emissions in half within a few decades. We don’t need carbon markets or techno-fixes. We need the right policies and programmes to dump the current industrial food system and create a sustainable, equitable and truly productive one instead.
Food and climate: piecing the puzzle together
Most studies put the contribution of agricultural emissions – the emissions produced on the farm - at somewhere between 11 and 15% of all global emissions.[1] What often goes unsaid, however, is that most of these emissions are generated by industrial farming practices that rely on chemical (nitrogen) fertilizers, heavy machinery run on petrol, and highly concentrated industrial livestock operations that pump out methane waste.
The figures for agriculture's contribution also often do not account for its role in land use changes and deforestation, which are responsible for nearly a fifth of global GHG emissions.[2] Worldwide, agriculture is pushing into savannas, wetlands, cerrados and forests, plowing under huge amounts of land. The expansion of the agricultural frontier is the dominant contributor to deforestation, accounting for between 70-90% of global deforestation.[3] This means that some 15-18% of global GHG emissions are produced by land-use change and deforestation caused by agriculture. And here too, the global food system and its industrial model of agriculture are the chief culprits. The main driver of this deforestation is the expansion of industrial plantations for the production of commodities such as soy, sugarcane, oilpalm, maize and rapeseed.
Since 1990, the area planted with these five commodity crops grew by 38%[4] though land planted to staple foods like rice and wheat declined.
Emissions from agriculture account for only a portion of the food system's overall contribution to climate change. Equally important is what happens from between the time food leaves the farm until it reaches our tables.
Food is the world's biggest economic sector, involving more transactions and employing more people by far than any other. These days food is prepared and distributed using enormous amounts of processing, packaging and transportation, all of which generateGHG emissions, although data on such emissions are hard to find. Studies looking at the EU conclude that about one quarter of overall transportation involves commercial food transport[5] The scattered figures on transportation available for other countries, such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, indicate that the percentage is even higher in non-industrialised countries, where food production and delivery accounts for 60-80% of the total energy - human plus animal plus fuel – used.”[6] With transportation accounting for 25% of global GHG emissions, we can use the EU data to conservatively estimate that the transport of food accounts for at least 6% of global GHG emissions. When it comes to processing and packaging, again the available data is mainly from the EU, where studies show that the processing and packaging of food accounts for between 10-11% of GHG emissions,[7] while refrigeration of food accounts for 3-4% [8]of total emissions and food retail another 2%.[9]
Playing it conservative with the EU figures and extrapolating from the scarce figures that exist for other countries, we can estimate that at least 5-6% of emissions are due to food transport, 8-10% due to food processing and packaging, around 1-2% due to refrigeration, and 1-2% due to retail. This gives us a total contribution of 15-20% of global emissions from these activities.
Not all of what the food system produces gets consumed. The industrial food system discards up to half of all the food that it produces, in its journey from farms to traders, to food processors, to stores and supermarkets. This is enough to feed the world’s hungry six times over.[10] A lot of this waste rots away on garbage heaps and landfills, producing substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Different studies indicate that somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5 of global GHG emissions come from waste, and that over 90% of them come from materials originating in agriculture and their processing.[11] This means that the decomposition of organic waste originating in food and agriculture is responsible for 3-4% of global GHG emissions.
Add the above figures together, factor up the evidence, and there is a compelling case that the current global food system, propelled by an increasingly powerful transnational food industry, is responsible for around half of all human produced greenhouse gas emissions: anywhere between a low of 44% to a high of 57%. The graph below illustrates the conclusion:
Turning the food system upside down
Clearly, we will not get out of the climate crisis if the global food system is not urgently and dramatically transformed. The place to start is with the soil.
Food begins and ends with soil. It grows out of the soil and eventually goes back in it to enable more food to be produced. This is the very cycle of life. But in recent years humans have ignored this vital cycle. We have been taking from the soil without giving back.The industrialisation of agriculture, starting in Europe and North America, replicating later through the Green Revolution in other parts of the world, was based on the assumption that soil fertility could be maintained and increased through the use of chemical fertilisers. Little attention was paid to the importance of organic matter in the soil.
A wide range of scientific reports indicate that cultivated soils have lost from 30 to 75% of their organic matter during the 20th century, while soils under pastures and prairies have typically lost up to 50%. There is no doubt that these losses have provoked a serious deterioration of soil fertility and productivity, as well as contributing to worsening droughts and floods.
Taking as a basis some of the most conservative figures provided by scientific literature, the global accumulated loss of soil organic matter over the last century may be estimated to be between 150 to 200 billion tonnes.[12] Not all this organic matter ended up in the air as CO2, as significant amounts have been washed away by erosion and have been deposited in the bottom of rivers and oceans. However, it can be estimated that at least 200 to 300 billion tonnes of CO2 have been released to the atmosphere due to the global destruction of soil organic matter. In other words, 25 to 40% of the current excess of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the destruction of soils and its organic matter.
There is some good news hidden in these devastating figures. The CO2 that we have sent into the atmosphere by depleting the world's soils can be put back into the soil. All that is required is a change of agricultural practices. We have to move away from practices that destroy organic matter to practices that build-up the organic matter in the soil.
We know this can be done. Farmers around the world have been engaging in these very practices for generations. GRAIN research has shown that, if the right policies and incentives were in place worldwide, soil organic matter contents could be restored to pre-industrial agriculture levels within a period of 50 years – which is roughly the same time frame that industrial agriculture took to reduce it.[13] The continuing use of these practices would allow the offset of between 24-30% of current global annual GHG emissions[14].
The new scenario would require a radical change in approach from the current industrial agriculture model. It would focus on the use of techniques such as diversified cropping systems, better integration between crop and animal production, increased incorporation of trees and wild vegetation, and so on. Such an increase in diversity would, in turn, increase the production potential, and the incorporation of organic matter would progressively improve soil fertility, creating virtuous cycles of higher productivity and higher availability of organic matter. The capacity of soil to hold water would increase, which would mean that excessive rainfall would lead to fewer, less intense floods and droughts. Soil erosion would become less of a problem. Soil acidity and alkalinity would fall progressively, reducing or eliminating the toxicity that has become a major problem in tropical and arid soils. Additionally, increased soil biological activity would protect plants against pests and diseases. Each one of these effects implies higher productivity and hence more organic matter available to soils, thus making possible, as the years go by, higher targets for soil organic matter incorporation. More food would be produced in the process.
To be able to do it, we would need to build on the skills and experience of the world's small farmers, rather than undermining them and forcing them off their lands, as is now the case.
A global shift towards an agriculture that builds up organic matter in the soil would also put us on a path to removing some of the other major sources of GHGs from the food system. There are three other mutually reinforcing shifts that need to take place in the food system to address its overall contribution to climate change: The first is a shift to local markets and shorter circuits of food distribution, which will cut back on transportation and the need for packaging, processing and refrigeration. The second is a reintegration of crop and animal production, to cut back on transportation, the use of chemical fertilisers and the production of methane and nitrous oxide emissions generated by intensive meat and dairy operations. And the third is the stopping of land clearing and deforestation, which will require genuine agrarian reform and a reversal of the expansion of monoculture plantations for the production of agrofuels and animal feed.
If the world gets serious about putting these four shifts into action, it is quite possible that we can cut global GHG emissions in half within a few decades and, in the process, go a long way towards resolving the other crises affecting the planet, such as poverty and hunger. There are no technical hurdles standing in the way-- the knowledge and skills are in the hands of the world's farmers and we can build on that. The only hurdles are political, and this is where we need to focus our efforts.
Notes
[1] The IPCC says 10-12%, the OECD says 14% and the WRI says 14.9%. See:
- IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Chapter 8: Agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/ms4mzb
- Wilfrid Legg and Hsin Huang. OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Climate change and agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/5u2hf8k
- WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe
[2] See: WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe And: IPCC. 2004. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: 3.4.2 Consequences of Land-use Change. http://tinyurl.com/6lduxqy
[3] See FAO Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products – Forty ninth Session – Bakubung, South Africa, 10 June 2008; and M. Kanninen et al., "Do trees grow on Money? Forest Perspective 4, CIFOR, Jakarta, 2007.
[4] See: GRAIN, 'Global Agribusiness: two decades of plunder', in: Seedling, July 2010.
[5] see: Eurostat. From farm to fork - a statistical journey along the EU's food chain - Issue number 27/2011 http://tinyurl.com/656tchm and http://tinyurl.com/6k9jsc3
[6] FAO. Stephen Karekezi and Michael Lazarus, Future energy requirements for Africa’s agriculture. Chapters 2, 3, and 4. http://www.fao.org/docrep/V9766E/v9766e00.htm#Contents
[7] For EU, see: Viktoria BOLLA, Velina PENDOLOVSKA, Driving forces behind EU-27 greenhouse gas emissions over the decade 1999-2008. Statistics in focus 10/2011. http://tinyurl.com/6bhesog
[8] Tara Garnett and Tim Jackson, Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of SurreyFrost Bitten: an exploration of refrigeration dependence in the UK food chain and its implications for climate policywww.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/publications/PDFs/Frostbitten%20paper.pdf
[9] S.A. Tassou, Y. Ge, A. Hadawey, D. Marriott. Energy consumption and conservation in food retailing. Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 147-156 AND Kumar Venkat. CleanMetrics Corp. The Climate Change Impact of US Food Waste
CleanMetrics Technical Brief. www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/ClimateChangeImpactofUSFoodWaste.pdf and Ioannis Bakas, Copenhagen Resource Institute (CRI). Food and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. www.scp-knowledge.eu/sites/default/files/KU_Food_GHG_emissions.pdf
[10] Tristram Stuart, “Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal”, Penguin, 2009, http://tinyurl.com/m3dxc9
[11] Jean Bogner, et. al. Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste: conclusions and strategies from the IPCC. Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation) http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/26/1/11.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc
[12] Figures used for calculations were:
a) an average loss of 4,5- 6 kg of SOM/m2 of arable land and 2-3 kg of SOM/m2 of agricultural land under prairies and not cultivated
b) an average soil depth of 30 cm, with an average soil density of 1 gr/cm3
c) 5000 million ha of agricultural land worldwide; 1800 million ha of arable land, as stated by FAO
d) a ratio of 1,46 kg of CO2 for each kg of destroyed SOM
[13] See: 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009. http://www.grain.org/e/735
[14] The conclusion is based on the assumption that organic matter incorporation would reach an annual global average rate of 3.5 to 5 tonnes per hectare of agricultural land. For more detailed calculations, see: GRAIN, 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009, table 2.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Food and climate change: The forgotten link
GRAIN | 28 September 2011 | Against the grain
Food is a key driver of climate change. How our food gets produced and how it ends up on our tables accounts for around half of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. Chemical fertilizers, heavy machinery and other petroleum-dependant farm technologies contribute significantly. The impact of the food industry as a whole is even greater: destroying forests and savannahs to produce animal feed and generating climate-damaging waste through excess packaging, processing, refrigeration and the transport of food over long distances, despite leaving millions of people hungry.
A new food system could be a key driver of solutions to climate change. People around the world are involved in struggles to defend or create ways of growing and sharing food that are healthier for their communities and for the planet. If measures are taken to restructure agriculture and the larger food system around food sovereignty, small scale farming, agro-ecology and local markets, we could cut global emissions in half within a few decades. We don’t need carbon markets or techno-fixes. We need the right policies and programmes to dump the current industrial food system and create a sustainable, equitable and truly productive one instead.
Food and climate: piecing the puzzle together
Most studies put the contribution of agricultural emissions – the emissions produced on the farm - at somewhere between 11 and 15% of all global emissions.[1] What often goes unsaid, however, is that most of these emissions are generated by industrial farming practices that rely on chemical (nitrogen) fertilizers, heavy machinery run on petrol, and highly concentrated industrial livestock operations that pump out methane waste.
The figures for agriculture's contribution also often do not account for its role in land use changes and deforestation, which are responsible for nearly a fifth of global GHG emissions.[2] Worldwide, agriculture is pushing into savannas, wetlands, cerrados and forests, plowing under huge amounts of land. The expansion of the agricultural frontier is the dominant contributor to deforestation, accounting for between 70-90% of global deforestation.[3] This means that some 15-18% of global GHG emissions are produced by land-use change and deforestation caused by agriculture. And here too, the global food system and its industrial model of agriculture are the chief culprits. The main driver of this deforestation is the expansion of industrial plantations for the production of commodities such as soy, sugarcane, oilpalm, maize and rapeseed.
Since 1990, the area planted with these five commodity crops grew by 38%[4] though land planted to staple foods like rice and wheat declined.
Emissions from agriculture account for only a portion of the food system's overall contribution to climate change. Equally important is what happens from between the time food leaves the farm until it reaches our tables.
Food is the world's biggest economic sector, involving more transactions and employing more people by far than any other. These days food is prepared and distributed using enormous amounts of processing, packaging and transportation, all of which generateGHG emissions, although data on such emissions are hard to find. Studies looking at the EU conclude that about one quarter of overall transportation involves commercial food transport[5] The scattered figures on transportation available for other countries, such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, indicate that the percentage is even higher in non-industrialised countries, where food production and delivery accounts for 60-80% of the total energy - human plus animal plus fuel – used.”[6] With transportation accounting for 25% of global GHG emissions, we can use the EU data to conservatively estimate that the transport of food accounts for at least 6% of global GHG emissions. When it comes to processing and packaging, again the available data is mainly from the EU, where studies show that the processing and packaging of food accounts for between 10-11% of GHG emissions,[7] while refrigeration of food accounts for 3-4% [8]of total emissions and food retail another 2%.[9]
Playing it conservative with the EU figures and extrapolating from the scarce figures that exist for other countries, we can estimate that at least 5-6% of emissions are due to food transport, 8-10% due to food processing and packaging, around 1-2% due to refrigeration, and 1-2% due to retail. This gives us a total contribution of 15-20% of global emissions from these activities.
Not all of what the food system produces gets consumed. The industrial food system discards up to half of all the food that it produces, in its journey from farms to traders, to food processors, to stores and supermarkets. This is enough to feed the world’s hungry six times over.[10] A lot of this waste rots away on garbage heaps and landfills, producing substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Different studies indicate that somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5 of global GHG emissions come from waste, and that over 90% of them come from materials originating in agriculture and their processing.[11] This means that the decomposition of organic waste originating in food and agriculture is responsible for 3-4% of global GHG emissions.
Add the above figures together, factor up the evidence, and there is a compelling case that the current global food system, propelled by an increasingly powerful transnational food industry, is responsible for around half of all human produced greenhouse gas emissions: anywhere between a low of 44% to a high of 57%. The graph below illustrates the conclusion:
Turning the food system upside down
Clearly, we will not get out of the climate crisis if the global food system is not urgently and dramatically transformed. The place to start is with the soil.
Food begins and ends with soil. It grows out of the soil and eventually goes back in it to enable more food to be produced. This is the very cycle of life. But in recent years humans have ignored this vital cycle. We have been taking from the soil without giving back.The industrialisation of agriculture, starting in Europe and North America, replicating later through the Green Revolution in other parts of the world, was based on the assumption that soil fertility could be maintained and increased through the use of chemical fertilisers. Little attention was paid to the importance of organic matter in the soil.
A wide range of scientific reports indicate that cultivated soils have lost from 30 to 75% of their organic matter during the 20th century, while soils under pastures and prairies have typically lost up to 50%. There is no doubt that these losses have provoked a serious deterioration of soil fertility and productivity, as well as contributing to worsening droughts and floods.
Taking as a basis some of the most conservative figures provided by scientific literature, the global accumulated loss of soil organic matter over the last century may be estimated to be between 150 to 200 billion tonnes.[12] Not all this organic matter ended up in the air as CO2, as significant amounts have been washed away by erosion and have been deposited in the bottom of rivers and oceans. However, it can be estimated that at least 200 to 300 billion tonnes of CO2 have been released to the atmosphere due to the global destruction of soil organic matter. In other words, 25 to 40% of the current excess of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the destruction of soils and its organic matter.
There is some good news hidden in these devastating figures. The CO2 that we have sent into the atmosphere by depleting the world's soils can be put back into the soil. All that is required is a change of agricultural practices. We have to move away from practices that destroy organic matter to practices that build-up the organic matter in the soil.
We know this can be done. Farmers around the world have been engaging in these very practices for generations. GRAIN research has shown that, if the right policies and incentives were in place worldwide, soil organic matter contents could be restored to pre-industrial agriculture levels within a period of 50 years – which is roughly the same time frame that industrial agriculture took to reduce it.[13] The continuing use of these practices would allow the offset of between 24-30% of current global annual GHG emissions[14].
The new scenario would require a radical change in approach from the current industrial agriculture model. It would focus on the use of techniques such as diversified cropping systems, better integration between crop and animal production, increased incorporation of trees and wild vegetation, and so on. Such an increase in diversity would, in turn, increase the production potential, and the incorporation of organic matter would progressively improve soil fertility, creating virtuous cycles of higher productivity and higher availability of organic matter. The capacity of soil to hold water would increase, which would mean that excessive rainfall would lead to fewer, less intense floods and droughts. Soil erosion would become less of a problem. Soil acidity and alkalinity would fall progressively, reducing or eliminating the toxicity that has become a major problem in tropical and arid soils. Additionally, increased soil biological activity would protect plants against pests and diseases. Each one of these effects implies higher productivity and hence more organic matter available to soils, thus making possible, as the years go by, higher targets for soil organic matter incorporation. More food would be produced in the process.
To be able to do it, we would need to build on the skills and experience of the world's small farmers, rather than undermining them and forcing them off their lands, as is now the case.
A global shift towards an agriculture that builds up organic matter in the soil would also put us on a path to removing some of the other major sources of GHGs from the food system. There are three other mutually reinforcing shifts that need to take place in the food system to address its overall contribution to climate change: The first is a shift to local markets and shorter circuits of food distribution, which will cut back on transportation and the need for packaging, processing and refrigeration. The second is a reintegration of crop and animal production, to cut back on transportation, the use of chemical fertilisers and the production of methane and nitrous oxide emissions generated by intensive meat and dairy operations. And the third is the stopping of land clearing and deforestation, which will require genuine agrarian reform and a reversal of the expansion of monoculture plantations for the production of agrofuels and animal feed.
If the world gets serious about putting these four shifts into action, it is quite possible that we can cut global GHG emissions in half within a few decades and, in the process, go a long way towards resolving the other crises affecting the planet, such as poverty and hunger. There are no technical hurdles standing in the way-- the knowledge and skills are in the hands of the world's farmers and we can build on that. The only hurdles are political, and this is where we need to focus our efforts.
Notes
[1] The IPCC says 10-12%, the OECD says 14% and the WRI says 14.9%. See:
- IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Chapter 8: Agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/ms4mzb
- Wilfrid Legg and Hsin Huang. OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Climate change and agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/5u2hf8k
- WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe
[2] See: WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe And: IPCC. 2004. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: 3.4.2 Consequences of Land-use Change. http://tinyurl.com/6lduxqy
[3] See FAO Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products – Forty ninth Session – Bakubung, South Africa, 10 June 2008; and M. Kanninen et al., "Do trees grow on Money? Forest Perspective 4, CIFOR, Jakarta, 2007.
[4] See: GRAIN, 'Global Agribusiness: two decades of plunder', in: Seedling, July 2010.
[5] see: Eurostat. From farm to fork - a statistical journey along the EU's food chain - Issue number 27/2011 http://tinyurl.com/656tchm and http://tinyurl.com/6k9jsc3
[6] FAO. Stephen Karekezi and Michael Lazarus, Future energy requirements for Africa’s agriculture. Chapters 2, 3, and 4. http://www.fao.org/docrep/V9766E/v9766e00.htm#Contents
[7] For EU, see: Viktoria BOLLA, Velina PENDOLOVSKA, Driving forces behind EU-27 greenhouse gas emissions over the decade 1999-2008. Statistics in focus 10/2011. http://tinyurl.com/6bhesog
[8] Tara Garnett and Tim Jackson, Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of SurreyFrost Bitten: an exploration of refrigeration dependence in the UK food chain and its implications for climate policywww.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/publications/PDFs/Frostbitten%20paper.pdf
[9] S.A. Tassou, Y. Ge, A. Hadawey, D. Marriott. Energy consumption and conservation in food retailing. Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 147-156 AND Kumar Venkat. CleanMetrics Corp. The Climate Change Impact of US Food Waste
CleanMetrics Technical Brief. www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/ClimateChangeImpactofUSFoodWaste.pdf and Ioannis Bakas, Copenhagen Resource Institute (CRI). Food and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. www.scp-knowledge.eu/sites/default/files/KU_Food_GHG_emissions.pdf
[10] Tristram Stuart, “Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal”, Penguin, 2009, http://tinyurl.com/m3dxc9
[11] Jean Bogner, et. al. Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste: conclusions and strategies from the IPCC. Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation) http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/26/1/11.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc
[12] Figures used for calculations were:
a) an average loss of 4,5- 6 kg of SOM/m2 of arable land and 2-3 kg of SOM/m2 of agricultural land under prairies and not cultivated
b) an average soil depth of 30 cm, with an average soil density of 1 gr/cm3
c) 5000 million ha of agricultural land worldwide; 1800 million ha of arable land, as stated by FAO
d) a ratio of 1,46 kg of CO2 for each kg of destroyed SOM
[13] See: 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009. http://www.grain.org/e/735
[14] The conclusion is based on the assumption that organic matter incorporation would reach an annual global average rate of 3.5 to 5 tonnes per hectare of agricultural land. For more detailed calculations, see: GRAIN, 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009, table 2.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Book Report: Eating Animals
I just finished listening to Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer on audiobook (I checked out the audiobook version for a recent trip to Portland). In summary, would I recommend the book? Yes, absolutely. I think everyone should know the information contained in this book. Do I agree with Mr. Foer? No, not entirely. Despite the author's very many attempts to bully the reader into sharing his conclusions I do not.
I agree with most of what the book has to say. The factory farming that takes place in the U.S. is horrific, wholly unsustainable, and needs to stop. The fact that we have a food system whose economic concerns are primary and whose ecological concerns are nonexistent is not just unhealthy, it's insane. I agree that meat is not a required part of a healthy diet and Americans tend to eat too much of it. So, why did I not come to the same conclusions as Jonathan Safran Foer?
Let me first talk some about the book itself. I am interested to look through a copy of the book to see if the way it is presented on paper makes more sense. My experience listening to the audiobook was similar to watching Pulp Fiction the first time; I spent much of the book wondering where we were, where we were going, and trying to connect the dots. The book seems to bounce around a lot, at times trying to make a point, at other times seeming to try to present a variety of ideas and opinions so as to let the reader decide for themselves, and at times preaching from so high atop a vegan soapbox it is difficult to hear the message.
The book includes this excerpt from rancher Bill Niman, but never adequately addresses it:
"But what about the argument that we humans should choose not to eat meat, regardless of natural norms, because meat is inherently wasteful of resources? This claim is also flawed. Those figures assume that livestock is raised in intensive confinement facilities and fed grains and soy from fertilized crop fields. Such data is inapplicable to grazing animals kept entirely on pasture, like grass-fed cattle, goats, sheep, and deer.
"The leading scientist investigating energy usage in food production has long been David Pimentel of Cornell University. Pimentel is not an advocate of vegetarianism. He even notes that 'all available evidence suggests that humans are omnivores.' He frequently writes of livestock's important role in world food production. For example, in his seminal work Food, Energy, and Society, he notes that livestock plays 'an important role… in providing food for humans.' He goes on to elaborate as follows: 'First, the livestock effectively convert forage growing in the marginal habitat into food suitable for humans. Second, the herds serve as stored food resources. Third, the cattle can be traded for… grain during years of inadequate rainfall and poor crop yields.'
"Moreover, asserting that animal farming is inherently bad for the environment fails to comprehend national and world food production from a holistic perspective. Plowing and planting land for crops is inherently environmentally damaging. In fact, many ecosystems have evolved with grazing animals as integral components over tens of thousands of years. Grazing animals are the most ecologically sound way to maintain the integrity of those prairies and grasslands.
"As Wendell Berry has eloquently explained in his writings, the most ecologically sound farms raise plants and animals together. They are modeled on natural ecosystems, with their continual and complex interplay of flora and fauna. Many (probably most) organic fruit and vegetable farmers depend on manure from livestock and poultry for fertilizer."
I agree that we (Americans, and more recently, peoples of the developed world) should generally eat less meat and I agree that we should not support factory farming in any way. Note I did not say factory ranching or feedlot operations because farming covers more than animals. Mr. Foer fails to point out the industrial mono-cropping of fruits and vegetables as being a problem to the health of us and our planet. He does not talk about genetically modified produce that raises questions of if our fruits and vegetables are really vegan at all. He doesn't talk about pest and pesticide resistant crops, the chemicals that are sprayed on them, or the resistant "super" bugs and bacteria that are being created as a result. My point is that I believe the author's intent is true, but his focus may be a little off target. I fear the book maybe missed the bigger point in favor of an emotional response.
In the end, Eating Animals provides a lot of really good information and, as I said, I would (and will) recommend it to anyone, but with a caveat. Our entire food system in this country -- not just the meat -- is broken. What we really need is an ecological food system, not an industrial one. On that, I believe the author and I would agree.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Proving It Can Be Done
A food system in harmony with nature? How crazy is this?
From Magicvalley.com:
A Hollister dairyman uses a vast network of interlocking pastures to monitor what goes into the cows that make his organic dairy run.
Grass Fuels Organic Dairy
By Cindy Snyder - For the Times-News | Posted: Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Dairyman Sean Mallett began planting pastures around his Nature’s Harmony Organic Dairy near Hollister in 2006. Grasses grown at the location play a vital role in the dairy’s functions.
It’s past 10 a.m. as cows ready to move to their new pasture mill impatiently through a delay in their routine.
But Sean Mallett, one of the owners of Nature’s Harmony Organic Dairy, wants to demonstrate how easy it is to move dairy cows from one paddock to another in an intensive grazing management system. First, he explains to a group of more than 50 visitors how he began organizing pastures and the barn at his dairy near Hollister five years ago.
It’s all part of a tour held last Thursday to show how strict grazing requirements for organic dairies are met, and how they benefit both producers and cattle. But the cows are only interested in their new pasture, and as Mallett finally lets loose a wire gate, about 500 of them move to a fresh paddock in less than three minutes.
“Even if we were a conventional dairy, I would still graze,” Mallett said. “I love what it does for the cows.”
The layout of Mallett’s dairy conforms to rules that at the time were pending for organic dairies but didn’t go into effect until this year.
Mallett — along with his stepfather and mother, John and Susan Reitsma — bought the former hog farm in 2005, intent to use it as a heifer feeding facility. But Mallett’s research showed the site had potential for organic dairy use.
In 2006, they began planting a pasture mix of alfalfa, perennial rye, fescue and orchard grass. Lately, white clover has been added to the mix. According to pasture rules for organic production, animals must graze pasture at least 120 days per year. Animals must also take in a minimum of 30 percent dry matter from grazing pasture.
“We knew in 2006 that the pasture rules that went into effect this year were coming,” Mallett said. “We wanted to exceed them.”
Because they had the luxury of starting the dairy from essentially bare ground, the owners located the milking barn as close to the plot’s middle as possible. Pastures were seeded near the barn, and gravel lanes allow cows easy pasture access.
Cows graze paddocks of 3 or 6 acres for between 12-24 hours before they’re moved to the next section. Each paddock is rested for about 30 days before it is grazed again.
A 35-acre feed yard is about a half mile from the milking barn, different from most conventional dairies that locate the feed yard closer. Mallett said he’s willing to spend a bit more to move feed than to force cows to walk longer distances.
“The farther the cows walk, the more energy they burn and the less milk they produce,” he said.
READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE
From Magicvalley.com:
A Hollister dairyman uses a vast network of interlocking pastures to monitor what goes into the cows that make his organic dairy run.
Grass Fuels Organic Dairy
By Cindy Snyder - For the Times-News | Posted: Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Dairyman Sean Mallett began planting pastures around his Nature’s Harmony Organic Dairy near Hollister in 2006. Grasses grown at the location play a vital role in the dairy’s functions.
It’s past 10 a.m. as cows ready to move to their new pasture mill impatiently through a delay in their routine.
But Sean Mallett, one of the owners of Nature’s Harmony Organic Dairy, wants to demonstrate how easy it is to move dairy cows from one paddock to another in an intensive grazing management system. First, he explains to a group of more than 50 visitors how he began organizing pastures and the barn at his dairy near Hollister five years ago.
It’s all part of a tour held last Thursday to show how strict grazing requirements for organic dairies are met, and how they benefit both producers and cattle. But the cows are only interested in their new pasture, and as Mallett finally lets loose a wire gate, about 500 of them move to a fresh paddock in less than three minutes.
“Even if we were a conventional dairy, I would still graze,” Mallett said. “I love what it does for the cows.”
The layout of Mallett’s dairy conforms to rules that at the time were pending for organic dairies but didn’t go into effect until this year.
Mallett — along with his stepfather and mother, John and Susan Reitsma — bought the former hog farm in 2005, intent to use it as a heifer feeding facility. But Mallett’s research showed the site had potential for organic dairy use.
In 2006, they began planting a pasture mix of alfalfa, perennial rye, fescue and orchard grass. Lately, white clover has been added to the mix. According to pasture rules for organic production, animals must graze pasture at least 120 days per year. Animals must also take in a minimum of 30 percent dry matter from grazing pasture.
“We knew in 2006 that the pasture rules that went into effect this year were coming,” Mallett said. “We wanted to exceed them.”
Because they had the luxury of starting the dairy from essentially bare ground, the owners located the milking barn as close to the plot’s middle as possible. Pastures were seeded near the barn, and gravel lanes allow cows easy pasture access.
Cows graze paddocks of 3 or 6 acres for between 12-24 hours before they’re moved to the next section. Each paddock is rested for about 30 days before it is grazed again.
A 35-acre feed yard is about a half mile from the milking barn, different from most conventional dairies that locate the feed yard closer. Mallett said he’s willing to spend a bit more to move feed than to force cows to walk longer distances.
“The farther the cows walk, the more energy they burn and the less milk they produce,” he said.
READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Are You An Adult Picky Eater, by Dr. Andrew Weil
Are You An Adult Picky Eater?
Dr. Andrew Weil
Everyone prefers some foods over others, but some adults take this tendency to an extreme. These people tend to prefer the kinds of bland food they may have enjoyed as children -- such as plain or buttered pasta, macaroni and cheese, cheese pizza, French fries and grilled cheese sandwiches -- and to restrict their eating to just a few dishes.
This condition is not officially recognized as an eating disorder in the current edition of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the American Psychiatric Association's compendium of mental and emotional disorders. But it may be listed in the next one, under the title "selective eating disorder."
Researchers at Duke University and the University of Pittsburgh have established an online registry to learn more about the problem and determine how widespread it is. As I understand it, researchers haven't been able to say for certain whether extremely selective eating as an adult is an extension of childhood habits.
While we must wait for more data, I think it's likely that this will prove to be a largely American phenomenon tied to an unfortunate aspect of our food culture: nowhere else in the world is it so universally taken for granted that children should eat differently from adults. Our hypercommercialized society is the first -- and, I hope the last -- to create an entirely separate universe of child-specific foods and dishes. Most are overpriced, nutrient-poor assemblages of sugar, salt and fat, often garishly colored.
Pediatrician Alan Greene, M.D., points out that this perversion of whole foods for young people actually starts in infancy. His "White Out" campaign aims to stop the common practice of feeding white rice cereal to infants. As Dr. Greene puts it, this is essentially "processed white flour, and to a baby's metabolism, it's about the same as a spoonful of sugar."
These kinds of foods are just the opposite of what babies, children and adults need for optimum health. In fact, they are major drivers of the obesity and Type 2 diabetes epidemics. Unfortunately, I see much evidence that some degree of adult "selective eating disorder" has become widespread. While eating only five or six kinds of food is unusual, millions of adult Americans now prefer bland, highly processed, nutrient-deficient foods, and eat them exclusively or nearly so.
It does not have to be this way. Most of us -- especially those who grew up before the children's food revolution -- can remember foods we hated as kids that, through repeated trials, we learned to enjoy or even count among our favorites as adults. It seems probable to me that a steady diet of child-centric processed foods may lock in unhealthy preferences for life in some susceptible people.
Sadly, I've read that among members of an online support group for adult picky eaters, there has only been one report of semi-successful treatment. We need to know a lot more about this problem before we can treat it successfully. It is probably not entirely cultural. In some cases it may be a manifestation of obsessive-compulsive or autistic spectrum disorder, or a residual phobia stemming from abusive parental treatment.
Until we know more, I urge parents to reject the entire world of overprocessed babies' and children's food as much as they possibly can. For infants, I am a great fan of portable, inexpensive, hand-cranked food mills that allow parents to grind fresh, wholesome foods into nutrient-rich purées. As children grow older, the only sensible concessions to make for their meals are to make sure bites are small and tender enough for them to chew properly and to back away from overuse of spices, which can be overwhelming to children's palates.
It does kids no favors, and sets them up for a potential lifetime of poor health and social embarrassment, to excuse them from family meals of real food. Everyone benefits from healthy eating, but it is particularly crucial at the beginning of life. Providing your children with a variety of healthy foods -- and gently but persistently continuing to offer them exclusively during a child's "picky" phase -- are among a parent's most important obligations.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
The U.S. Government is Standing in the Way of Jobs and Health?
I'm shocked...
Farmers Markets Could Generate Tens of Thousands of New Jobs with Modest Federal Support, New Report Finds
They’re Growing Nationally, but Federal Policies Favoring Industrial Agriculture Hold Them Back
WASHINGTON (August 4, 2011) – Over the last several decades, thousands of farmers markets have been popping up in cities and towns across the country, benefiting local farmers, consumers and economies, but they could be doing a lot better, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). What’s holding farmers markets back? Federal policies that favor industrial agriculture at their expense.
“On the whole, farmers markets have seen exceptional growth, providing local communities with fresh food direct from the farm,” said Jeffrey O’Hara, the author of the report and an economist with UCS’s Food and Environment Program. “But our federal food policies are working against them. If the U.S. government diverted just a small amount of the massive subsidies it lavishes on industrial agriculture to support these markets and small local farmers, it would not only improve American diets, it would generate tens of thousands of new jobs.”
UCS released the report just a few days before the 12th annual U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Farmers Market Week, which starts on Sunday, August 7. According to the report, “Market Forces: Creating Jobs through Public Investment in Local and Regional Food Systems,” the number of farmers markets nationwide more than doubled between 2000 and 2010 jumping from 2,863 to 6,132, and now more than 100,000 farms sell food directly to local consumers.
All that growth happened with relatively little help. Last year, for example, the USDA spent $13.725 billion in commodity, crop insurance, and supplemental disaster assistance payments mostly to support large industrial farms, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The amount the agency spent that year to support local and regional food system farmers? Less than $100 million, according to USDA data.
In 2007, the most recent USDA figure, direct agricultural product sales amounted to a $1.2 billion-a-year business, and most of that money recirculates locally. “The fact that farmers are selling directly to the people who live nearby means that sales revenue stays local,” O’Hara said. “That helps stabilize local economies.”
Keeping revenues local also can mean more job opportunities. Last summer, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked Congress to set a goal in the 2012 Farm Bill of helping at least 100,000 Americans to become farmers by, among other things, providing entrepreneurial training and support for farmers markets. O’Hara’s report takes up Vilsack’s challenge and argues that supporting local and regional food system expansion is central to meeting that goal.
In the report, O’Hara identified a number of initiatives the federal government could take to encourage new farmers and the growth of farmers markets in the upcoming Farm Bill. For example, the report called on Congress to:
- support the development of local food markets, including farmers markets and farm-to-school programs, which can stabilize community-supported markets and create permanent jobs. For example, the report found that the Farmers Market Promotion Program could create as many as 13,500 jobs nationally over a five-year period, if reauthorized, by providing modest funding for 100 to 500 farmers markets per year.
- level the playing field for farmers in rural regions by investing in infrastructure, such as meat-processing or dairy-bottling facilities, which would help meat, dairy and other farmers produce and market their products to consumers more efficiently. These investments could foster competition in food markets, increase product choice for consumers, and generate jobs in the community.
- allow low-income residents to redeem food nutrition subsidies at local food markets to help them afford fresh fruits and vegetables. Currently, not all markets are able to accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.
“Farmers at local markets are a new variety of innovative entrepreneurs, and we need to nurture them,” said O’Hara. “Supporting these farmers should be a Farm Bill priority.”
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Jam and Beans
We were planning to can some more pinto beans this weekend. Then we went to the produce stand where they had ten pounds of strawberries they were needing to unload for about half price.
We ended up making strawberry jam -- filling the 26 half pint jars we had available, plus another six pint jars. The new food mill pretty much rocks and the chickens appreciated the strawberry pulp and tops. We're set for strawberry jam!
We figured we could put 16 pint jars in the pressure canner, so we prepped 32 pints (two rounds) of pinto beans to can tomorrow.
We also made a trip to Costco to stock up on a few things.
The next bulk purchase will be from the butcher. I fear we may not have an abundance to can or freeze from the garden, but I plan to pick up stuff as needed from the produce stand and can as much local and organic produce as I can over the next couple months. It's going to be a race to get things in the pantry this season.
I need to start seriously thinking about firewood, too...
We ended up making strawberry jam -- filling the 26 half pint jars we had available, plus another six pint jars. The new food mill pretty much rocks and the chickens appreciated the strawberry pulp and tops. We're set for strawberry jam!
We figured we could put 16 pint jars in the pressure canner, so we prepped 32 pints (two rounds) of pinto beans to can tomorrow.
We also made a trip to Costco to stock up on a few things.
The next bulk purchase will be from the butcher. I fear we may not have an abundance to can or freeze from the garden, but I plan to pick up stuff as needed from the produce stand and can as much local and organic produce as I can over the next couple months. It's going to be a race to get things in the pantry this season.
I need to start seriously thinking about firewood, too...
Monday, August 8, 2011
The Government's Job Is To Protect Business, Not People
It's not even news. If bailouts on banks that were "too big to fail" while the average American who is "too poor to give a rat's ass about" wasn't a big enough clue that our government is no longer "of, for, and by the people", take a look at this.
(To get a bigger picture of what's going on, I would like to refer you to this post and this post.)
Every Mother's Nightmare: Bacteria in Recalled Ground Turkey Is Resistent to Antibiotics
Laurie David
It is... maddening that our so-called "food safety system" is designed to protect giant food corporations more than individuals. Consider this scenario: That package of ground turkey sitting in your freezer right now could be tainted with a the potentially deadly Salmonella Heidelberg bacteria. Imagine for a moment that you served your family a turkey burger tomorrow tonight and that your youngest child becomes violently ill -- the poisoning is so severe that she ends up in the hospital needing antibiotics. The physician comes in -- you're praying for an end to this torture for your child -- and the doctor says the antibiotics aren't working. The Salmonella Heidelberg bacteria raging through your child's body are resistant to not one but several antibiotics -- ampicillin, tetracycline and streptomycin- why?
Perhaps it has something to do with the massive amounts of antibiotics used on factory farms every day. Food Animals use up about 29 million pounds of antibiotics a year, compared to the 7 million used in people. The overuse and misuse of antibiotics on factory farms can lead to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, such as Salmonella Heidelberg. You might recall last May when I asked Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack: "When will the government do something to stop producers from squandering 70% of our antibiotics on healthy farm animals?" And he answered with the question, "How do you basically legislate that?"
Well, Mr. Secretary, one thing you can do immediately is to demand that the Department of Agriculture stop turning a blind-eye to Salmonella contamination in our meat supply. When it comes to routine Salmonella testing in ground turkey meat, according to the Consumers Union, current USDA standards allow 49.9 percent of samples in a test run to be positive for Salmonella -- 44.6 percent for ground chicken. Are you kidding me?
I was astounded to learn that inspectors will not immediately issue a recall if they find resistant-Salmonella bacteria in ground turkey. The USDA and CDC admitted that 4 routine samples of retail ground turkey tested positive for the resistant Salmonella Heidelberg strain between March and June, but they waited until late July to find "proof" that it would make people sick. And it still took nearly a week before Cargill recalled the 36 million pounds of turkey meat, sold under several brands in 26 states. Tough time recalling a product already eaten!! It's not an automobile!
What is going on? I thought the goal of "food safety agencies" was to do something before people get sick. Waiting until dozens of people are sent to the hospital and one to the morgue is unacceptable!
Why would you wait if you have a good idea that the meat poses serious health risks? To save companies like Cargill time and money? What about the pain and suffering of the family members who lost a loved one, or the parents of 1-year-old Ruby Lee? According to the Oregonian, little Ruby spent 7 days in the hospital in June after she was sickened by Salmonella-tainted ground turkey.
Before this recent outbreak, the Center for Science in the Public Interest demanded that the USDA ban the sale of any ground meat that contain 4 known resistant-Salmonella strains that have been linked to outbreaks in the past, including Salmonella Heidelberg. It sounds like a no-brainer to me. They already order immediate recalls for meat that contain the potentially deadly E. coli O157:H7.
Tightening food safety regulations are important. But it is equally important to ensure that the will and resources are there to enforce them. The government can not be afraid or hampered from enforcing the rules designed to protect our health and our children's health! We must empower food safety agencies to not fear the wrath of huge corporations that do not want to be bothered with regulations. Scares like this are proof positive these huge companies can not be trusted to regulate themselves.
READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE
Friday, August 5, 2011
Food Safety In The 21st Century
This article make a great argument for food safety. It is obviously written by someone in government and not agriculture because it focuses on government agencies, seems to blindly accept the factory farming practices that make food-bourne issues huge problems, and no where suggests that how we manufacture food be changed.
In the last paragraph, Dr. Blumenthal writes, "Greater attention to reducing food-related infections would save lives and contribute to reducing health care costs as well. The report underscores that today's world of agricultural practices in a global food supply chain require a modern system of food safety inspection."
I contend that we can reduce food-related infections by moving from industrial food manufacturing where these pathogens thrive and spread, to a more diverse, small-scale, locally-focused agricultural system. Such systems are better for the environment, better for the soil, have the potential to produce better food, would create more jobs in real farming, has reduced incidents of food-borne pathogens, and affects fewer people when there is an issue.
Of course, there are no lobbyists in Washington for real agriculture.
Here's the article:
Food Safety In The 21st Century
Susan Blumenthal, M.D.Public Health Editor at HuffPost and Former U.S. Assistant Surgeon General
Written in Collaboration with Alison Gocke
It sounds like a story right out of science fiction: A microscopic killer that shuts down the food supply, cripples a nation's exports, and leaves scores of people dead and thousands more ill. Such an event would seem unthinkable in the modern world of advanced agriculture and medical practice. But it did unfortunately occur several months ago as a result of an outbreak in Germany caused by a deadly, rare strain of E. coli bacteria that sickened more than 4,000 people and killed more than 50.
The strain, whose genome was just recently sequenced by scientists at the University of Maryland, is particularly virulent, carrying a combination of both Shiga toxin (which causes severe gastrointestinal illness like bloody vomiting, diarrhea, and sometimes, kidney failure) and a unique ability to adhere to the intestinal wall. The bacteria -- part of the serotype 0104:H4 -- is thus one of the most rare, deadly E. coli lines in existence. [1]
Over the past five years, from the E. coli scare found in California spinach to the recent outbreak of salmonella in ground turkey, serious and sometimes fatal illnesses resulting from contaminated food have occurred more frequently than expected. Since 2006, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued 39 warnings of multi-state foodborne illness occurrences. [2]
It is estimated that 48 million people are infected by foodborne diseases in the United States each year [3], resulting in $152 billion in medical costs annually. [4] And these outbreaks show no sign of abating; the incidence of salmonella infections alone has increased 20 percent since 1997. [5] With 170 countries exporting food to the U.S., and more than 70,000 food safety violations on food that is imported into America reported from 1998 to 2004 alone, the E. coli outbreak in Germany -- with additional cases reported in France and the U.S. -- shines a spotlight on why the issue of food safety is an international concern. [6]
According to the World Bank, more than two-thirds of countries globally are net importers (i.e., imports exceed exports) of food. [7] The devastating European E. coli outbreak that began in Germany in May illustrates the interconnectedness of the global food supply. From the beginning, the E. coli incident created an international chain reaction: Confusion early on in the investigation of the source of the outbreak led to erroneous warnings about Spanish cucumbers, tomatoe, and leafy greens as the source of infection. [8] As a result, Russia suspended food imports from all member countries of the European Union. [9]
However, upon further investigation, public health officials from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) now believe the source of infection to be sprouted seeds (a category of germinated seeds that includes fenugreek, lentil and bean sprouts) imported from Egypt and purchased by a German company. [10] The infected seeds were then sold to Britain, which in turn sold them in France, where reports of infections from the same strain of E. coli as that found in Germany surfaced a month ago. [11] The outbreak even reached the United States, with six confirmed cases of Americans infected by the German strain. [12] According to the European Food Safety Authority, the Egyptian seeds -- more than 11 tons in total -- were shipped around the world, purchased by 54 companies in Germany and disseminated among at least a dozen other European countries. [13] Investigators are now working to locate the remaining shipments of Egyptian seeds to prevent further disease outbreaks.
This incident highlights the fact that agriculture in the 21st century involves industrial-sized farms and corporations harvesting their products from all corners of the earth, and selling them across the globe, crossing national borders. This makes the issue of food safety much more complex. The good news is that many serious foodborne illness outbreaks are preventable; an efficient and effective food safety agency that monitors farms and factories, maintains an effective epidemiological and emergency response team, and provides up-to-date, accurate information to the public in the face of an outbreak can go a long way in reducing the spread of disease and its related costs. Unfortunately, this type of agency is the exception rather than the rule, including in America.
Until recently, the food safety mission of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was focused on response rather than prevention. The FDA had little authority to inspect food production at all levels of the supply chain, issue guidelines for proper cultivation of produce (thus reducing outbreaks at their source) or verify that food imports came from reliable growers. The agency could only suggest that infected foods be recalled -- it had no powers to require companies to remove their products, even if they were found to carry diseases. [14] And for three years now the FDA has been requesting additional funds to increase inspections of foreign foods, claiming that the agency does not have the resources to meet the demand. [15]
Furthermore, the creation of a seamless system of food safety programs is impeded by the split functions between the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, eggs and poultry under the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), has had its own issues with implementation of food safety procedures. Approval of regulations for the inspection of six strains of E. coli found in beef -- known as the "Big Six" -- have stalled in the White House Office of Management and Budget, leaving some experts wondering whether the U.S. meat industry is vulnerable to E. coli outbreaks. Consequently, a number of ground beef businesses have begun testing for E. coli at their plants. This is possible because tests created and used by the USDA have recently become commercially available. Scientists are now working to develop a new kit that would test for the German E. coli strain as well. [16]
The FDA does not have procedures in place to test regularly for the Big Six strains of E. coli either, which can also be found in produce. [17] The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the USDA and the FDA often overlap in their duties. For instance, although the USDA's mission is confined to inspecting meat, poultry and some eggs, with the FDA regulating all other foods and drugs in the U.S., a simple frozen pepperoni pizza would fall under the jurisdiction of both agencies. As a result, almost 1,500 food establishments are inspected by both the USDA and the FDA. The overlap creates inefficiencies in the system and could delay responses in the case of a serious foodborne illness outbreak. [18]
Fortunately, steps forward in fixing life-threatening problems in food safety prevention and response in America were taken this year with the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in January of 2011. The legislation, the first serious reform for U.S. food safety since 1938, brings the FDA's food safety authorities into the 21st century [19], with new powers for the agency to require prevention-based checks across the food supply; standardize inspections for food producers; mandate food recalls in the case of an outbreak; and improve coordination among the FDA and other government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the CDC. [20]
The FSMA also addresses the international component of food safety: Under the FSMA, the FDA is given the authority to require importers to verify the quality standards of their suppliers, to refuse admission to imported food if the foreign facility refuses to allow an FDA inspection and to require certification that imported food is in compliance with food safety requirements. The legislation also mandates more frequent inspections of foreign food suppliers, with inspection quotas increasing each year after the FSMA is implemented. [21]
Additionally, the FSMA aims to harmonize some of the shared responsibilities between the FDA and the USDA. The legislation calls for increased coordination between the two agencies under the categories of food vulnerability assessments, private sector coordinating councils for agriculture and food defense, laboratory networks and data sharing, and decontamination and disposal standards. Although the legislation does not change the jurisdiction of either agency, it requires that the USDA and FDA, along with other agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), collaborate on a National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy. [22] The FSMA is a much-needed step forward in protecting Americans from foodborne illnesses and, hopefully, reducing the costs of outbreaks in terms of productivity loss and economic impact.
But now the FSMA faces a whole new hurdle: the movement in Washington to tighten the reins on federal spending. This year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to cut the 2012 FDA budget by $87 million dollars -- that's $87 million less than the FDA received last year, and $226 million short of what's needed to enact FSMA. [23] The House also proposed cuts to the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, poultry and eggs. [24] The proposed cuts mean that the FDA will struggle to keep up with its inspections as well as maintain a coordinated and speedy response system in the case of an outbreak. It also reduces the likelihood that the FDA will have the resources to establish the new FSMA system to inspect imported foods. That means that foreign suppliers may not have to meet the same food safety standards as do domestic farmers. [25]
The FDA is not the only agency involved with food safety to face budget reductions this year. The House of Representatives has also proposed cuts to the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, poultry and eggs. [26] In addition, all funds were cut for the national foodborne pathogen monitoring program overseen by the USDA, known as the Microbiological Data Program. This program is considered by many public health officials as one of the first lines of defense against foodborne illnesses in the United States, because it screens fruits and vegetables for common pathogens like salmonella and E. coli. [27] The Microbiological Data Program has regularly screened around 15,000 produce samples a year for the past ten years, as compared to the 1,000 samples spot-checked annually by the FDA. In the past two years alone, the program's screenings have led to 19 product recalls. [28]
The looming budget cuts have prompted a warning from the FDA. Recently, the agency released a special report entitled Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality. The document underscores that the current food safety infrastructure is simply unable to support the inspections required to keep contaminated foods from entering the U.S. market. This is in part due to the fact that imports of food and drugs to the United States have increased six-fold over the last ten years. Almost 80 percent of medication ingredients,75 percent of seafood, and 60 percent of fruits and vegetables consumed in the United States come from other countries. And though FSMA takes these statistics into account -- requiring the FDA to inspect at least 600 foreign food suppliers over the course of a year -- the report says implementing the task will be impossible without additional funding. [29]
The FDA report also emphasizes that food-borne illnesses result in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths annually in the United States alone. [30] A recent nationwide outbreak of Salmonella sickness (resulting in the recall of 36 million pounds of ground turkey produced in an Arkansas meat plant) underscores the seriousness of food poisoning as a public health threat in America.
Greater attention to reducing food-related infections would save lives and contribute to reducing health care costs as well. The report underscores that today's world of agricultural practices in a global food supply chain require a modern system of food safety inspection. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is a long-awaited step towards improving our country's food safety system. The recent E. coli outbreak in Europe, the high incidence of food-borne illnesses in the United States as illustrated by the latest Salmonella outbreak and the FDA's report highlight why adequate resources are urgently needed to fully implement the FSMA, and why food safety must be made a national priority in the United States and around the world.
For more information, visit foodsafety.gov.
Rear Admiral Susan Blumenthal, M.D. (ret.) is the Public Health Editor of the Huffington Post. She serves as Director of the Health and Medicine Program at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington, D.C., a Clinical Professor at Georgetown and Tufts University Schools of Medicine, and Chair of the Global Health Program at the Meridian International Center. She served for more than 20 years in health leadership positions in the Federal government in the Administrations of four U.S. Presidents, including as Assistant Surgeon General of the United States, the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Women's Health, as a White House Advisor on Health, and as Chief of the Behavioral Medicine and Basic Prevention Research Branch at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal has received numerous awards including honorary doctorates and has been decorated with the highest medals of the U.S. Public Health Service for her pioneering leadership and significant contributions to advancing health in the United States and worldwide and was the recipient of the 2009 Health Leader of the Year Award from the Commissioned Officers Association. Admiral Blumenthal has been named by the National Library of Medicine, The New York Times and the Medical Herald as one of the most influential women in medicine and as a Rock Star of Science by GQ by the Geoffrey Beene Foundation.
Alison Gocke, an undergraduate at Princeton University, serves as a Health Policy Intern at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington D.C.
[1] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1106920#t=article
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/outbreaknet/outbreaks.html
[3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-04/food-safety-funding-battle-looms-as-obama-prepares-to-sign-reform-bill.html
[4] http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-03-food-borne-illness_N.htm
[5] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[6] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[7] http://www.google.com/url?
[8] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/64d387da-912e-11e0-9668-00144feab49a.html#axzz1P6QnmIE4
[9] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2811%2960846-5/fulltext?rss=yes#
[10] http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/naming-names-in-eu-e-coli-outbreak-fair-game/
[11] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/world/europe/27ecoli.html?scp=2&sq=e.%20coli&st=cse
[12] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irpE8YEZQLrnnhmdwxTN-VWlZuqg?docId=41ebabe49fe243e1a4331b5ccd2ac0b0
[13] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/business/06seeds.html?_r=1&hpw
[14] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247559.htm
[15] http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080115/us-food-safety-the-import-alarm-keeps-sounding.htm
[16] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/food-companies-act-to-protect-consumers-from-e-coli-illness.html
[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05Benedict.html
[18] http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-213
[19] http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/food/safety/2010-12-03-foodsafetyQA03_ST_N.htm
[20] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247559.htm#records1
[21] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm237934.htm
[22] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/lb-111-2-57.html
[23] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[24] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[25] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/food-safety-advocates-decry-fda-cuts/2011/05/27/AGzY7yEH_story.html
[26] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[27] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/microbiological-data-program-e-coli-screening_n_890165.html
[28] http://www.latimes.com/health/ct-met-pathogen-program-20110704,0,2683563.story
[29] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/health/policy/21food.html?scp=2&sq=fda&st=cse
[30] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
In the last paragraph, Dr. Blumenthal writes, "Greater attention to reducing food-related infections would save lives and contribute to reducing health care costs as well. The report underscores that today's world of agricultural practices in a global food supply chain require a modern system of food safety inspection."
I contend that we can reduce food-related infections by moving from industrial food manufacturing where these pathogens thrive and spread, to a more diverse, small-scale, locally-focused agricultural system. Such systems are better for the environment, better for the soil, have the potential to produce better food, would create more jobs in real farming, has reduced incidents of food-borne pathogens, and affects fewer people when there is an issue.
Of course, there are no lobbyists in Washington for real agriculture.
Here's the article:
Food Safety In The 21st Century
Susan Blumenthal, M.D.Public Health Editor at HuffPost and Former U.S. Assistant Surgeon General
Written in Collaboration with Alison Gocke
It sounds like a story right out of science fiction: A microscopic killer that shuts down the food supply, cripples a nation's exports, and leaves scores of people dead and thousands more ill. Such an event would seem unthinkable in the modern world of advanced agriculture and medical practice. But it did unfortunately occur several months ago as a result of an outbreak in Germany caused by a deadly, rare strain of E. coli bacteria that sickened more than 4,000 people and killed more than 50.
The strain, whose genome was just recently sequenced by scientists at the University of Maryland, is particularly virulent, carrying a combination of both Shiga toxin (which causes severe gastrointestinal illness like bloody vomiting, diarrhea, and sometimes, kidney failure) and a unique ability to adhere to the intestinal wall. The bacteria -- part of the serotype 0104:H4 -- is thus one of the most rare, deadly E. coli lines in existence. [1]
Over the past five years, from the E. coli scare found in California spinach to the recent outbreak of salmonella in ground turkey, serious and sometimes fatal illnesses resulting from contaminated food have occurred more frequently than expected. Since 2006, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued 39 warnings of multi-state foodborne illness occurrences. [2]
It is estimated that 48 million people are infected by foodborne diseases in the United States each year [3], resulting in $152 billion in medical costs annually. [4] And these outbreaks show no sign of abating; the incidence of salmonella infections alone has increased 20 percent since 1997. [5] With 170 countries exporting food to the U.S., and more than 70,000 food safety violations on food that is imported into America reported from 1998 to 2004 alone, the E. coli outbreak in Germany -- with additional cases reported in France and the U.S. -- shines a spotlight on why the issue of food safety is an international concern. [6]
According to the World Bank, more than two-thirds of countries globally are net importers (i.e., imports exceed exports) of food. [7] The devastating European E. coli outbreak that began in Germany in May illustrates the interconnectedness of the global food supply. From the beginning, the E. coli incident created an international chain reaction: Confusion early on in the investigation of the source of the outbreak led to erroneous warnings about Spanish cucumbers, tomatoe, and leafy greens as the source of infection. [8] As a result, Russia suspended food imports from all member countries of the European Union. [9]
However, upon further investigation, public health officials from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) now believe the source of infection to be sprouted seeds (a category of germinated seeds that includes fenugreek, lentil and bean sprouts) imported from Egypt and purchased by a German company. [10] The infected seeds were then sold to Britain, which in turn sold them in France, where reports of infections from the same strain of E. coli as that found in Germany surfaced a month ago. [11] The outbreak even reached the United States, with six confirmed cases of Americans infected by the German strain. [12] According to the European Food Safety Authority, the Egyptian seeds -- more than 11 tons in total -- were shipped around the world, purchased by 54 companies in Germany and disseminated among at least a dozen other European countries. [13] Investigators are now working to locate the remaining shipments of Egyptian seeds to prevent further disease outbreaks.
This incident highlights the fact that agriculture in the 21st century involves industrial-sized farms and corporations harvesting their products from all corners of the earth, and selling them across the globe, crossing national borders. This makes the issue of food safety much more complex. The good news is that many serious foodborne illness outbreaks are preventable; an efficient and effective food safety agency that monitors farms and factories, maintains an effective epidemiological and emergency response team, and provides up-to-date, accurate information to the public in the face of an outbreak can go a long way in reducing the spread of disease and its related costs. Unfortunately, this type of agency is the exception rather than the rule, including in America.
Until recently, the food safety mission of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was focused on response rather than prevention. The FDA had little authority to inspect food production at all levels of the supply chain, issue guidelines for proper cultivation of produce (thus reducing outbreaks at their source) or verify that food imports came from reliable growers. The agency could only suggest that infected foods be recalled -- it had no powers to require companies to remove their products, even if they were found to carry diseases. [14] And for three years now the FDA has been requesting additional funds to increase inspections of foreign foods, claiming that the agency does not have the resources to meet the demand. [15]
Furthermore, the creation of a seamless system of food safety programs is impeded by the split functions between the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, eggs and poultry under the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), has had its own issues with implementation of food safety procedures. Approval of regulations for the inspection of six strains of E. coli found in beef -- known as the "Big Six" -- have stalled in the White House Office of Management and Budget, leaving some experts wondering whether the U.S. meat industry is vulnerable to E. coli outbreaks. Consequently, a number of ground beef businesses have begun testing for E. coli at their plants. This is possible because tests created and used by the USDA have recently become commercially available. Scientists are now working to develop a new kit that would test for the German E. coli strain as well. [16]
The FDA does not have procedures in place to test regularly for the Big Six strains of E. coli either, which can also be found in produce. [17] The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the USDA and the FDA often overlap in their duties. For instance, although the USDA's mission is confined to inspecting meat, poultry and some eggs, with the FDA regulating all other foods and drugs in the U.S., a simple frozen pepperoni pizza would fall under the jurisdiction of both agencies. As a result, almost 1,500 food establishments are inspected by both the USDA and the FDA. The overlap creates inefficiencies in the system and could delay responses in the case of a serious foodborne illness outbreak. [18]
Fortunately, steps forward in fixing life-threatening problems in food safety prevention and response in America were taken this year with the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in January of 2011. The legislation, the first serious reform for U.S. food safety since 1938, brings the FDA's food safety authorities into the 21st century [19], with new powers for the agency to require prevention-based checks across the food supply; standardize inspections for food producers; mandate food recalls in the case of an outbreak; and improve coordination among the FDA and other government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the CDC. [20]
The FSMA also addresses the international component of food safety: Under the FSMA, the FDA is given the authority to require importers to verify the quality standards of their suppliers, to refuse admission to imported food if the foreign facility refuses to allow an FDA inspection and to require certification that imported food is in compliance with food safety requirements. The legislation also mandates more frequent inspections of foreign food suppliers, with inspection quotas increasing each year after the FSMA is implemented. [21]
Additionally, the FSMA aims to harmonize some of the shared responsibilities between the FDA and the USDA. The legislation calls for increased coordination between the two agencies under the categories of food vulnerability assessments, private sector coordinating councils for agriculture and food defense, laboratory networks and data sharing, and decontamination and disposal standards. Although the legislation does not change the jurisdiction of either agency, it requires that the USDA and FDA, along with other agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), collaborate on a National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy. [22] The FSMA is a much-needed step forward in protecting Americans from foodborne illnesses and, hopefully, reducing the costs of outbreaks in terms of productivity loss and economic impact.
But now the FSMA faces a whole new hurdle: the movement in Washington to tighten the reins on federal spending. This year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to cut the 2012 FDA budget by $87 million dollars -- that's $87 million less than the FDA received last year, and $226 million short of what's needed to enact FSMA. [23] The House also proposed cuts to the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, poultry and eggs. [24] The proposed cuts mean that the FDA will struggle to keep up with its inspections as well as maintain a coordinated and speedy response system in the case of an outbreak. It also reduces the likelihood that the FDA will have the resources to establish the new FSMA system to inspect imported foods. That means that foreign suppliers may not have to meet the same food safety standards as do domestic farmers. [25]
The FDA is not the only agency involved with food safety to face budget reductions this year. The House of Representatives has also proposed cuts to the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, poultry and eggs. [26] In addition, all funds were cut for the national foodborne pathogen monitoring program overseen by the USDA, known as the Microbiological Data Program. This program is considered by many public health officials as one of the first lines of defense against foodborne illnesses in the United States, because it screens fruits and vegetables for common pathogens like salmonella and E. coli. [27] The Microbiological Data Program has regularly screened around 15,000 produce samples a year for the past ten years, as compared to the 1,000 samples spot-checked annually by the FDA. In the past two years alone, the program's screenings have led to 19 product recalls. [28]
The looming budget cuts have prompted a warning from the FDA. Recently, the agency released a special report entitled Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality. The document underscores that the current food safety infrastructure is simply unable to support the inspections required to keep contaminated foods from entering the U.S. market. This is in part due to the fact that imports of food and drugs to the United States have increased six-fold over the last ten years. Almost 80 percent of medication ingredients,75 percent of seafood, and 60 percent of fruits and vegetables consumed in the United States come from other countries. And though FSMA takes these statistics into account -- requiring the FDA to inspect at least 600 foreign food suppliers over the course of a year -- the report says implementing the task will be impossible without additional funding. [29]
The FDA report also emphasizes that food-borne illnesses result in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths annually in the United States alone. [30] A recent nationwide outbreak of Salmonella sickness (resulting in the recall of 36 million pounds of ground turkey produced in an Arkansas meat plant) underscores the seriousness of food poisoning as a public health threat in America.
Greater attention to reducing food-related infections would save lives and contribute to reducing health care costs as well. The report underscores that today's world of agricultural practices in a global food supply chain require a modern system of food safety inspection. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is a long-awaited step towards improving our country's food safety system. The recent E. coli outbreak in Europe, the high incidence of food-borne illnesses in the United States as illustrated by the latest Salmonella outbreak and the FDA's report highlight why adequate resources are urgently needed to fully implement the FSMA, and why food safety must be made a national priority in the United States and around the world.
For more information, visit foodsafety.gov.
Rear Admiral Susan Blumenthal, M.D. (ret.) is the Public Health Editor of the Huffington Post. She serves as Director of the Health and Medicine Program at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington, D.C., a Clinical Professor at Georgetown and Tufts University Schools of Medicine, and Chair of the Global Health Program at the Meridian International Center. She served for more than 20 years in health leadership positions in the Federal government in the Administrations of four U.S. Presidents, including as Assistant Surgeon General of the United States, the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Women's Health, as a White House Advisor on Health, and as Chief of the Behavioral Medicine and Basic Prevention Research Branch at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal has received numerous awards including honorary doctorates and has been decorated with the highest medals of the U.S. Public Health Service for her pioneering leadership and significant contributions to advancing health in the United States and worldwide and was the recipient of the 2009 Health Leader of the Year Award from the Commissioned Officers Association. Admiral Blumenthal has been named by the National Library of Medicine, The New York Times and the Medical Herald as one of the most influential women in medicine and as a Rock Star of Science by GQ by the Geoffrey Beene Foundation.
Alison Gocke, an undergraduate at Princeton University, serves as a Health Policy Intern at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington D.C.
[1] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1106920#t=article
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/outbreaknet/outbreaks.html
[3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-04/food-safety-funding-battle-looms-as-obama-prepares-to-sign-reform-bill.html
[4] http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-03-food-borne-illness_N.htm
[5] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[6] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[7] http://www.google.com/url?
[8] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/64d387da-912e-11e0-9668-00144feab49a.html#axzz1P6QnmIE4
[9] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2811%2960846-5/fulltext?rss=yes#
[10] http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/naming-names-in-eu-e-coli-outbreak-fair-game/
[11] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/world/europe/27ecoli.html?scp=2&sq=e.%20coli&st=cse
[12] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irpE8YEZQLrnnhmdwxTN-VWlZuqg?docId=41ebabe49fe243e1a4331b5ccd2ac0b0
[13] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/business/06seeds.html?_r=1&hpw
[14] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247559.htm
[15] http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080115/us-food-safety-the-import-alarm-keeps-sounding.htm
[16] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/food-companies-act-to-protect-consumers-from-e-coli-illness.html
[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05Benedict.html
[18] http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-213
[19] http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/food/safety/2010-12-03-foodsafetyQA03_ST_N.htm
[20] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247559.htm#records1
[21] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm237934.htm
[22] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/lb-111-2-57.html
[23] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[24] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[25] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/food-safety-advocates-decry-fda-cuts/2011/05/27/AGzY7yEH_story.html
[26] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[27] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/microbiological-data-program-e-coli-screening_n_890165.html
[28] http://www.latimes.com/health/ct-met-pathogen-program-20110704,0,2683563.story
[29] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/health/policy/21food.html?scp=2&sq=fda&st=cse
[30] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Super Bacteria? Fighting Resistance Could Be Trickier Than Thought
This hit a couple days ago. I want to draw attention to this sentence:
"Other broad areas of focus when it comes to preventing antibiotic resistance include limiting the use of antibiotics in farm animals, including pigs and cows."
You don't say...
Super Bacteria? Fighting Resistance Could Be Trickier Than Thought
Catherine Pearson
A process thought to hamper antibiotic resistant bacteria, one of the world's most pressing public health problems, might actually make them stronger, according to a new Portuguese study that could signal a dramatic shift in our understanding of bacterial resistance.
Though much is still unknown about the exact mechanics involved, bacteria become resistant to antibiotics via chromosomal mutations and the incorporation of new genes, sometimes from other bacteria.
Researchers had believed that the acquisition of new genes conferring resistance has come at some cost to the bacteria, making it tougher for them to reproduce and survive.
But the authors of the new Portuguese study found that when already resistant bacterial cells obtain another antibiotic-resistance gene from a small piece of DNA called a plasmid -- a development that has been thought to have some cost to the host -- the cells sometimes divide faster than before.
Francisco Dionisio of the University of Lisbon, one of the study's authors, said the results, which focused on the bacterium E. coli, were unexpected.
"It is as if your PC with a mistake or bug in the operating system began to run faster after receiving a computer virus," Dionisio explained in an email to The Huffington Post.
"This happened 52 percent of the cases studied," he added. "And we expected zero percent!"
Other experts echoed Dionisio's surprise.
"It has always been an understanding that the acquisition of these resistant genes comes at some cost, so that the bacteria that have picked up these extra genes have extra baggage, so to speak," said Dr. Arjun Srinivasan, associate director for healthcare associated infection prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control. "That this might actually make them more fit and able to divide more quickly is a real change."
But the good news for resistant bacteria isn't good news for public health. The findings suggest that curbing antibiotic resistant bacteria -- already a top public health issue, according to the CDC -- may be even more difficult than previously thought. Dr. Jan Patterson, president elect of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, called the results "concerning." She added that the results could signal a shift in future research and control efforts.
"The finding brings up that just controlling antibiotic use alone is not going to take care of the problems of emergence and persistence of resistance," Patterson said. "We might have to start looking at other ways to fight bacteria, like inhibiting production of plasmids or inhibiting how bacteria divide."
To her knowledge, Patterson said little or no research has been done in that area. In the meantime, she pointed to methods like hand hygiene as a means of limiting the spread of resistant bacteria, particularly in hospitals, where the number of resistant strains is on the rise.
The CDC has identified improving in-patient antibiotic use as priority. It says that 50 percent of antimicrobial use in hospitals is "inappropriate," meaning antibiotics are used when they are not needed or they are administered the wrong dose. Increasing use of antibiotics increases the prevalence of resistant bacteria in hospitals, a recent CDC report stated.
Other broad areas of focus when it comes to preventing antibiotic resistance include limiting the use of antibiotics in farm animals, including pigs and cows.
"The prophylactic and potentially careless use of antibiotics on such a large scale provides perfect breeding ground for drug-resistant strains," said Gunnar Kaufmann, assistant professor of chemical immunology at The Scripps Research Institute.
Such efforts to curb antibiotic use and increase things like hand washing in hospitals will have to suffice for now, the experts agreed, as the public waits for more research on exactly how antibiotic resistance works to be funded so that it has a better chance of being stopped.
"Medicine is a study in humility," Srinivasan of the CDC added. "We learn every day that something we thought was true is not correct. A study like this simply calls upon us to recognize the fact that we don't know everything we need to know yet. We need more investment in these problems."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
So the CDC says we don't know everything we need to know yet. Still, we genetically modify crops and pump livestock with chemicals all in the name of efficiency (which really boils down to the almighty dollar). I've said it before and I'll say it again: the problem is not that we don't have enough food or the means to transport it all over the world, the problem is that we don't have the desire to share it with folks without money. We don't want to do things the natural way they've been done forever because there's not as much profit in it.
We are literally killing each other to make a buck.
"Other broad areas of focus when it comes to preventing antibiotic resistance include limiting the use of antibiotics in farm animals, including pigs and cows."
You don't say...
Super Bacteria? Fighting Resistance Could Be Trickier Than Thought
Catherine Pearson
A process thought to hamper antibiotic resistant bacteria, one of the world's most pressing public health problems, might actually make them stronger, according to a new Portuguese study that could signal a dramatic shift in our understanding of bacterial resistance.
Though much is still unknown about the exact mechanics involved, bacteria become resistant to antibiotics via chromosomal mutations and the incorporation of new genes, sometimes from other bacteria.
Researchers had believed that the acquisition of new genes conferring resistance has come at some cost to the bacteria, making it tougher for them to reproduce and survive.
But the authors of the new Portuguese study found that when already resistant bacterial cells obtain another antibiotic-resistance gene from a small piece of DNA called a plasmid -- a development that has been thought to have some cost to the host -- the cells sometimes divide faster than before.
Francisco Dionisio of the University of Lisbon, one of the study's authors, said the results, which focused on the bacterium E. coli, were unexpected.
"It is as if your PC with a mistake or bug in the operating system began to run faster after receiving a computer virus," Dionisio explained in an email to The Huffington Post.
"This happened 52 percent of the cases studied," he added. "And we expected zero percent!"
Other experts echoed Dionisio's surprise.
"It has always been an understanding that the acquisition of these resistant genes comes at some cost, so that the bacteria that have picked up these extra genes have extra baggage, so to speak," said Dr. Arjun Srinivasan, associate director for healthcare associated infection prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control. "That this might actually make them more fit and able to divide more quickly is a real change."
But the good news for resistant bacteria isn't good news for public health. The findings suggest that curbing antibiotic resistant bacteria -- already a top public health issue, according to the CDC -- may be even more difficult than previously thought. Dr. Jan Patterson, president elect of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, called the results "concerning." She added that the results could signal a shift in future research and control efforts.
"The finding brings up that just controlling antibiotic use alone is not going to take care of the problems of emergence and persistence of resistance," Patterson said. "We might have to start looking at other ways to fight bacteria, like inhibiting production of plasmids or inhibiting how bacteria divide."
To her knowledge, Patterson said little or no research has been done in that area. In the meantime, she pointed to methods like hand hygiene as a means of limiting the spread of resistant bacteria, particularly in hospitals, where the number of resistant strains is on the rise.
The CDC has identified improving in-patient antibiotic use as priority. It says that 50 percent of antimicrobial use in hospitals is "inappropriate," meaning antibiotics are used when they are not needed or they are administered the wrong dose. Increasing use of antibiotics increases the prevalence of resistant bacteria in hospitals, a recent CDC report stated.
Other broad areas of focus when it comes to preventing antibiotic resistance include limiting the use of antibiotics in farm animals, including pigs and cows.
"The prophylactic and potentially careless use of antibiotics on such a large scale provides perfect breeding ground for drug-resistant strains," said Gunnar Kaufmann, assistant professor of chemical immunology at The Scripps Research Institute.
Such efforts to curb antibiotic use and increase things like hand washing in hospitals will have to suffice for now, the experts agreed, as the public waits for more research on exactly how antibiotic resistance works to be funded so that it has a better chance of being stopped.
"Medicine is a study in humility," Srinivasan of the CDC added. "We learn every day that something we thought was true is not correct. A study like this simply calls upon us to recognize the fact that we don't know everything we need to know yet. We need more investment in these problems."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
So the CDC says we don't know everything we need to know yet. Still, we genetically modify crops and pump livestock with chemicals all in the name of efficiency (which really boils down to the almighty dollar). I've said it before and I'll say it again: the problem is not that we don't have enough food or the means to transport it all over the world, the problem is that we don't have the desire to share it with folks without money. We don't want to do things the natural way they've been done forever because there's not as much profit in it.
We are literally killing each other to make a buck.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Food Knowledge Is Health Power
While I don't agree 100%, I'll take knowledge where it comes and I believe most of this is spot on. The thing I am most intrigued by is that it is written by the owner of Dole, a company that brings to my mind canned and processed foods. I may have to look closer at the ingredients next time I'm in the supermarket...
Food Knowledge Is Health Power
David H. Murdock
Chairman and owner, Dole Food Company, Inc.
People are constantly asking me: What do I eat? What should they eat? What should they do to help avoid disease and live longer? In the past 30 years I have undertaken to learn all I could about proper nutrition. This is why I created and built the North Carolina Research Campus, bringing together the brightest scientific minds from eight universities, including Duke, UNC, NC State, among several others. Through the Dole Nutrition Institute, we aim to "feed the world with knowledge" with our books, award-winning newsletter and videos as they become available, social media and our new contemporary blog.
Because of this, my good friend Arianna asked me to revive the blog I started two years ago. Specifically: Would I discuss the healthy way I live and the information I have gathered in my 88 years about the importance of retaining a healthy life through diet, exercise and lifestyle? I agreed because my belief is that knowledge is power, and too many people feel powerless to know what they should eat for proper nutrition and thereby change their eating and exercise habits.
My own recipe for longevity includes considerable amounts of fruits and vegetables. An additional major responsibility for the maintenance of our bodies is regular exercise; at least 4 to 5 times a week. I do not take pills; do not have any need nor use for aspirin, and certainly do not use any supplements. Everything I need comes from my fish and vegetarian diet. I personally like to juice up several different kinds of fruits and vegetables -- bananas, pineapples, red bell peppers, apples, carrots, celery, broccoli, spinach, parsley, tomatoes and cucumbers, to name a few. Skins and peels of all fruit and vegetables -- including pieces of banana peels and citrus rinds -- because there is much more nutrition in any of these areas that are touched by the sun.
Basically, I personally eat a substantial breakfast each day consisting of varieties of: Unprocessed whole grains (like oatmeal), plenty of fruit and vegetables -- berries, banana, pineapple -- and topped with nuts (almonds, walnuts, pecans, any kinds of nuts). Frequently I have an egg white vegetable omelet. For lunch and dinner I like to have a fish like John Dory, Dover sole, salmon, black cod or sardines, all of which are rich in omega-3. These are accompanied by a salad and/or vegetable soup -- and often both. For snacking I like to have popcorn, of course without butter or salt.
I have not eaten this perfectly all my life. But the loss of my beloved wife, Gabrielle, to cancer 26 years ago, and the deaths of two of my sons in tragic accidents brought home to me the preciousness of life for all of us. I resolved to take better care of my own health -- and spend effort to help others live healthier, longer lives as well.
Despite all the advanced medical knowledge and developments, Americans are more and more unhealthy every year. 66% of the population is either overweight or obese. Diabetes cases have tripled in the last 30 years. Heart attacks, stroke, various cancers and liver ailments have been linked to excess weight. We take pills to solve all the diseases we are creating. Major medical operations have become routine, much due to improper eating. All of this in turn sends health care costs through the roof. Yet by focusing on simply managing disease symptoms and care costs, we distract ourselves from the root of the problem, which is that we have historically been eating by our taste buds rather than our minds. We take better care of the maintenance of our cars than we take care of the maintenance of our bodies.
The purpose of this and future blogs will be to provide health recipes for a longer life. In my first blog, "A Recipe for Longevity," I recounted some of the healthiest fruit and vegetables (in my second blog I expanded on nuts).
My plant-based diet plus fish is to credit for my low blood pressure, high energy and robust immunity. Many of the people I work with that are half my age complain that they feel tired all the time. I tell them: Look at what you're eating, how much you are exercising and how much sleep you are getting.
[READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE]
Food Knowledge Is Health Power
David H. Murdock
Chairman and owner, Dole Food Company, Inc.
People are constantly asking me: What do I eat? What should they eat? What should they do to help avoid disease and live longer? In the past 30 years I have undertaken to learn all I could about proper nutrition. This is why I created and built the North Carolina Research Campus, bringing together the brightest scientific minds from eight universities, including Duke, UNC, NC State, among several others. Through the Dole Nutrition Institute, we aim to "feed the world with knowledge" with our books, award-winning newsletter and videos as they become available, social media and our new contemporary blog.
Because of this, my good friend Arianna asked me to revive the blog I started two years ago. Specifically: Would I discuss the healthy way I live and the information I have gathered in my 88 years about the importance of retaining a healthy life through diet, exercise and lifestyle? I agreed because my belief is that knowledge is power, and too many people feel powerless to know what they should eat for proper nutrition and thereby change their eating and exercise habits.
My own recipe for longevity includes considerable amounts of fruits and vegetables. An additional major responsibility for the maintenance of our bodies is regular exercise; at least 4 to 5 times a week. I do not take pills; do not have any need nor use for aspirin, and certainly do not use any supplements. Everything I need comes from my fish and vegetarian diet. I personally like to juice up several different kinds of fruits and vegetables -- bananas, pineapples, red bell peppers, apples, carrots, celery, broccoli, spinach, parsley, tomatoes and cucumbers, to name a few. Skins and peels of all fruit and vegetables -- including pieces of banana peels and citrus rinds -- because there is much more nutrition in any of these areas that are touched by the sun.
Basically, I personally eat a substantial breakfast each day consisting of varieties of: Unprocessed whole grains (like oatmeal), plenty of fruit and vegetables -- berries, banana, pineapple -- and topped with nuts (almonds, walnuts, pecans, any kinds of nuts). Frequently I have an egg white vegetable omelet. For lunch and dinner I like to have a fish like John Dory, Dover sole, salmon, black cod or sardines, all of which are rich in omega-3. These are accompanied by a salad and/or vegetable soup -- and often both. For snacking I like to have popcorn, of course without butter or salt.
I have not eaten this perfectly all my life. But the loss of my beloved wife, Gabrielle, to cancer 26 years ago, and the deaths of two of my sons in tragic accidents brought home to me the preciousness of life for all of us. I resolved to take better care of my own health -- and spend effort to help others live healthier, longer lives as well.
Despite all the advanced medical knowledge and developments, Americans are more and more unhealthy every year. 66% of the population is either overweight or obese. Diabetes cases have tripled in the last 30 years. Heart attacks, stroke, various cancers and liver ailments have been linked to excess weight. We take pills to solve all the diseases we are creating. Major medical operations have become routine, much due to improper eating. All of this in turn sends health care costs through the roof. Yet by focusing on simply managing disease symptoms and care costs, we distract ourselves from the root of the problem, which is that we have historically been eating by our taste buds rather than our minds. We take better care of the maintenance of our cars than we take care of the maintenance of our bodies.
The purpose of this and future blogs will be to provide health recipes for a longer life. In my first blog, "A Recipe for Longevity," I recounted some of the healthiest fruit and vegetables (in my second blog I expanded on nuts).
My plant-based diet plus fish is to credit for my low blood pressure, high energy and robust immunity. Many of the people I work with that are half my age complain that they feel tired all the time. I tell them: Look at what you're eating, how much you are exercising and how much sleep you are getting.
[READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE]
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The Climate Change "Hoax"
A couple things for the climate change disbelievers...
Climate Highlights
(from FarmProgress.com)
Several locations broke all-time high temperature records. On June 26, Amarillo, Texas, set an all-time high temperature record of 111 degrees F, breaking the record of 109 degrees F set just two days prior. On June 15, Tallahassee, Fla., also recorded an all-time high, 105 degrees F. For the month, 42 U.S. locations tied or broke all-time maximum high temperatures.
The expansive heat across Texas resulted in an average temperature of 85.2 degrees F, which was 5.6 degrees F above normal, surpassing 1953 as the warmest June in 117 years of records. This was the fourth consecutive June in Texas with temperatures at least 2 degrees F above the long-term average.
Both Louisiana and Oklahoma (tied) had their second warmest June. Georgia tied for it's third warmest. It was the sixth warmest for Arkansas, Delaware (tied), Florida, Mississippi, and New Mexico.
Along with the heat, parts of the Southwest through much of the Southern Plains and Gulf Coast experienced a continuation of intense drought. New Mexico had its driest June on record while Arizona and Oklahoma had their fourth driest. June was the fifth driest in Texas and the ninth driest in Florida.
According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, 63% of the Southeast was in moderate-to-exceptional drought at the end of June, compared to 51% at the end of May. In the South, the percent area in the worst category of drought, called exceptional drought, rose from 28% to 47%.
Above average wildfire activity continued across the Southern tier of the U.S. Nationwide, 1.35 million acres burned during the month, bringing the year-to-date acreage burned to approximately 4.8 million acres -- the most on record for the period -- and more than twice the decadal average.
Precipitation was much above normal in most of California, resulting in the state's wettest June on record. Heavier-than-normal precipitation and prolonged snowmelt during the spring caused June flooding in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Washington. The greatest flows on the Missouri River forced record amounts of water to be released from Fort Peck Reservoir in Montana.
Cooler-than-normal temperatures prevailed in the West, Northwest and the western High Plains. It was the 12th coolest June for the Northwest.
Other highlights
Both Oregon and Washington (tied) - and the Northwest Region - had their coolest April-June period on record. Meanwhile, the South had its second warmest and the Southeast its third warmest such period.
Record warmth dominated Texas during the past three months. A total of 14 states, mostly in the South and Southeast United States experienced an average April-June temperature among their 10 warmest.
Record precipitation caused by a persistent storm track across the northern U.S. drove the wettest April-June period in the High Plains and the Ohio Valley area. Within the Ohio Valley area, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan had their wettest April-June on record.
For the year-to-date period, three drought-stricken states - Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas - had their driest January-June on record. In that time, Louisiana was 11.72 inches below its 20th century year-to-date average 29.16 inches. Texas was more than eight inches below its average of 13.83 inches and New Mexico was nearly 3.5 inches below its average of 4.68 inches at this point in the calendar year.
[READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE]
...and if that isn't enough for you, add this to the equation:
I sure am glad we're all focusing on the Federal budget and the economy!
Climate Highlights
(from FarmProgress.com)
Several locations broke all-time high temperature records. On June 26, Amarillo, Texas, set an all-time high temperature record of 111 degrees F, breaking the record of 109 degrees F set just two days prior. On June 15, Tallahassee, Fla., also recorded an all-time high, 105 degrees F. For the month, 42 U.S. locations tied or broke all-time maximum high temperatures.
The expansive heat across Texas resulted in an average temperature of 85.2 degrees F, which was 5.6 degrees F above normal, surpassing 1953 as the warmest June in 117 years of records. This was the fourth consecutive June in Texas with temperatures at least 2 degrees F above the long-term average.
Both Louisiana and Oklahoma (tied) had their second warmest June. Georgia tied for it's third warmest. It was the sixth warmest for Arkansas, Delaware (tied), Florida, Mississippi, and New Mexico.
Along with the heat, parts of the Southwest through much of the Southern Plains and Gulf Coast experienced a continuation of intense drought. New Mexico had its driest June on record while Arizona and Oklahoma had their fourth driest. June was the fifth driest in Texas and the ninth driest in Florida.
According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, 63% of the Southeast was in moderate-to-exceptional drought at the end of June, compared to 51% at the end of May. In the South, the percent area in the worst category of drought, called exceptional drought, rose from 28% to 47%.
Above average wildfire activity continued across the Southern tier of the U.S. Nationwide, 1.35 million acres burned during the month, bringing the year-to-date acreage burned to approximately 4.8 million acres -- the most on record for the period -- and more than twice the decadal average.
Precipitation was much above normal in most of California, resulting in the state's wettest June on record. Heavier-than-normal precipitation and prolonged snowmelt during the spring caused June flooding in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Washington. The greatest flows on the Missouri River forced record amounts of water to be released from Fort Peck Reservoir in Montana.
Cooler-than-normal temperatures prevailed in the West, Northwest and the western High Plains. It was the 12th coolest June for the Northwest.
Other highlights
Both Oregon and Washington (tied) - and the Northwest Region - had their coolest April-June period on record. Meanwhile, the South had its second warmest and the Southeast its third warmest such period.
Record warmth dominated Texas during the past three months. A total of 14 states, mostly in the South and Southeast United States experienced an average April-June temperature among their 10 warmest.
Record precipitation caused by a persistent storm track across the northern U.S. drove the wettest April-June period in the High Plains and the Ohio Valley area. Within the Ohio Valley area, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan had their wettest April-June on record.
For the year-to-date period, three drought-stricken states - Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas - had their driest January-June on record. In that time, Louisiana was 11.72 inches below its 20th century year-to-date average 29.16 inches. Texas was more than eight inches below its average of 13.83 inches and New Mexico was nearly 3.5 inches below its average of 4.68 inches at this point in the calendar year.
[READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE]
...and if that isn't enough for you, add this to the equation:
By Matt Andrejczak
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Don’t expect price relief at the grocery store anytime soon. Food inflation will persist in 2012, the U.S. Agriculture Department indicated in an updated forecast released Monday.
Food prices next year are expected to increase 2.5% to 3.5%, compared with 2011’s projected 3%-to-4% gain. Still, the cost of food at supermarkets and restaurants will remain “slightly” above the long-term historical average of the past two decades, the USDA food-price forecasters said.
“Price levels in 2012 will hinge significantly on weather conditions in the American Midwest during the remainder of July and into August and September 2011,” USDA food economist Ephraim Leibtag said in the report.
“Because current USDA forecasts are based on a normal weather scenario, sustained heat or drought conditions resulting in reduced supplies and intensified inflationary pressure would result in revised USDA forecasts,” Leibtag added.
I sure am glad we're all focusing on the Federal budget and the economy!
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Books On Genetically Modified Foods
One of my most popular posts is Arguments Against Genetically Modified Foods, which details the United Nations' three major concerns regarding GM foods.
I am happy to see that there is such interest in the subject -- climate change has the potential of being the biggest issue mankind has ever dealt with and how we feed ourselves is intrinsically linked.
Since the interest is there, I am posting some books on the subject for those who might wish to dig a little deeper:
I am happy to see that there is such interest in the subject -- climate change has the potential of being the biggest issue mankind has ever dealt with and how we feed ourselves is intrinsically linked.
Since the interest is there, I am posting some books on the subject for those who might wish to dig a little deeper:
Saturday, July 9, 2011
It's Time To Shut Up And Do Something
Our garden is about two months behind last year, which was a horrible growing season. Yesterday I was able to hang the laundry outside for the first time this year -- that's about two months behind the norm. It's not just the Puget Sound. While in Nebraska, every time I commented on how beautiful it was (it really is) I was told how wet and cold it had been and generations of folks would say, "It's never this green this time of year".
There are tornadoes in Arizona, the Missouri River is experiencing record flooding, and the entire state of Texas has been declared a disaster area due to drought and wildfires. Oceans are rising. It seems pretty obvious that Ma Nature is not cooperating with human "business as usual".
People in Canada and Australia are concerned about what we need to do about it. It was only a few years ago that the majority of Americans believed that climate change was an important issue that needed to be addressed. Then two things happened: the economy took a dive and a democrat was elected President. This is important because climatologists still insist that we need to address the causes of climate change immediately, if it's not already too late. But a handful of people have decided to use the issue to further polarize political parties and now the number of climate change deniers is going up.
This is insane and I don't understand the reasoning.
Okay, so a few strange weather occurrences does not necessarily mean anything. I get that and if that's what we were talking about, that'd be one thing. But we aren't. We're talking about a growing body of evidence and a majority of scientists who agree that climate change is happening and we are responsible.
"We can't afford to do anything about it right now". The economy is in the toilet, sure, but who is going to be glad we focused on that when millions of people start getting displaced, we can't grow food, and drinking water is scarce? It's as if people don't understand we are talking about losing our basic necessities: food and shelter. We are talking about a world that can not longer sustain not just us, but the plants and animals that we rely on. I really want my 401k to take care of me when I retire, but if it's a choice between that or food, I'll find a way to make ends meet.
I read somewhere someone called climate change a hoax and suggested that it was some kind of liberal plot to make people spend money. First of all, if you want plots, turn to the advertising companies. Marketers have gotten us all to spend so much money on crap -- much of which is bad for us -- I can't understand where anyone has the energy to spend on a conspiracy theory around climate change. Second, these are the same people bitching about the economy. Guess what? Investing in new energy sources CREATES JOBS. We should be creating new jobs in solar, wind, and hydro manufacturing and installation and putting people back to work! Why is anybody against these new jobs?
If we really buckle down and try to deal with this problem the worst case scenario is this: the economy gets a shot in the arm with new jobs, we create cleaner energy, the air and water are cleaner, we all become a little more responsible, our children have better lives, and it was all for nothing -- either it really is too late and we can't change it, or it was all just a myth.
Here's the other worst case scenario: droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and rising sea levels displace the majority of the world's population over the next decades, our agriculture and natural resources are wiped out, and you, me, and our children become part of the sharpest population decline in human history.
Do we have our priorities straight?
Further reading:
http://www.thesomervillenews.com/archives/16495
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/08/lets-change-our-ways-before-its-too-late/
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf
There are tornadoes in Arizona, the Missouri River is experiencing record flooding, and the entire state of Texas has been declared a disaster area due to drought and wildfires. Oceans are rising. It seems pretty obvious that Ma Nature is not cooperating with human "business as usual".
People in Canada and Australia are concerned about what we need to do about it. It was only a few years ago that the majority of Americans believed that climate change was an important issue that needed to be addressed. Then two things happened: the economy took a dive and a democrat was elected President. This is important because climatologists still insist that we need to address the causes of climate change immediately, if it's not already too late. But a handful of people have decided to use the issue to further polarize political parties and now the number of climate change deniers is going up.
This is insane and I don't understand the reasoning.
Okay, so a few strange weather occurrences does not necessarily mean anything. I get that and if that's what we were talking about, that'd be one thing. But we aren't. We're talking about a growing body of evidence and a majority of scientists who agree that climate change is happening and we are responsible.
"We can't afford to do anything about it right now". The economy is in the toilet, sure, but who is going to be glad we focused on that when millions of people start getting displaced, we can't grow food, and drinking water is scarce? It's as if people don't understand we are talking about losing our basic necessities: food and shelter. We are talking about a world that can not longer sustain not just us, but the plants and animals that we rely on. I really want my 401k to take care of me when I retire, but if it's a choice between that or food, I'll find a way to make ends meet.
I read somewhere someone called climate change a hoax and suggested that it was some kind of liberal plot to make people spend money. First of all, if you want plots, turn to the advertising companies. Marketers have gotten us all to spend so much money on crap -- much of which is bad for us -- I can't understand where anyone has the energy to spend on a conspiracy theory around climate change. Second, these are the same people bitching about the economy. Guess what? Investing in new energy sources CREATES JOBS. We should be creating new jobs in solar, wind, and hydro manufacturing and installation and putting people back to work! Why is anybody against these new jobs?
If we really buckle down and try to deal with this problem the worst case scenario is this: the economy gets a shot in the arm with new jobs, we create cleaner energy, the air and water are cleaner, we all become a little more responsible, our children have better lives, and it was all for nothing -- either it really is too late and we can't change it, or it was all just a myth.
Here's the other worst case scenario: droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and rising sea levels displace the majority of the world's population over the next decades, our agriculture and natural resources are wiped out, and you, me, and our children become part of the sharpest population decline in human history.
Do we have our priorities straight?
Further reading:
http://www.thesomervillenews.com/archives/16495
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/08/lets-change-our-ways-before-its-too-late/
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Japanese Researcher Creates Artificial Meat From Human Feces
The fact that someone would even consider doing this just shows where our food system is headed.
POOP BURGER: Japanese Researcher Creates Artificial Meat From Human Feces
by Lori Zimmer, 06/15/11
Some hardcore carnivores have a hard time finding meat alternatives such as soy protein or tofu burgers to be palatable. But non-meat eaters may lose their appetite along with their carnivorous friends over this one – a meat alternative made from HUMAN EXCREMENT. Yep, you heard me correctly — Japanese scientist Mitsuyuki Ikeda has developed a “burger” made from soya, steak sauce essence, and protein extracted from human feces.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
POOP BURGER: Japanese Researcher Creates Artificial Meat From Human Feces
by Lori Zimmer, 06/15/11
Some hardcore carnivores have a hard time finding meat alternatives such as soy protein or tofu burgers to be palatable. But non-meat eaters may lose their appetite along with their carnivorous friends over this one – a meat alternative made from HUMAN EXCREMENT. Yep, you heard me correctly — Japanese scientist Mitsuyuki Ikeda has developed a “burger” made from soya, steak sauce essence, and protein extracted from human feces.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Food Mill
The food mill arrived yesterday. Today I went to the produce stand and spent most of the afternoon in the kitchen. My taste for hot pepper sauce has been ramping up over the past year or so. I figured it was time to learn to make it myself and it would be a great project for the new food mill.
A quick aside here... why make a condiment that I could find in a multitude of varieties in any grocery store? There are a number of reasons, but for me the primary reason is to be more connected to my own food supply. I appreciate knowing exactly what goes into what I am eating beyond a list of ingredients that include chemicals that I have to look up what they are and how to pronounce their names and can't find in any store. I like knowing (and being able to control) just how much sugar, salt, fat, etc. is going into my food (and my body, and my family's bodies). It's rewarding to learn how to make things like condiments and maybe even tweak the recipe to make it better. I am able to use fresh ingredients, know their origin, and deal with waste responsibly (i.e. chicken food and compost). On top of all of that, by doing it myself I take a lot of excess out of the equation such as the processing plant, warehousing, distribution, and advertising. Ultimately, I am able to produce a superior product that is healthier for me, my family, and the planet, and save money. The downside is that I have to take some time out every now and then and do it. It's worth it to me.
Back to today's project: hot pepper sauce! The produce stand had approximately seven pounds of various peppers on the discount table, so I bought them all, along with a couple heads of garlic (they were 2 for $1 and I know we'll use it). At home I cleaned the peppers, cut them up, and started trying to process them through the food mill. I thought I could process them through the coarse plate and then process the mash a second time through a more refined plate. It quickly became evident that I had not properly prepared the peppers for the food mill.
I decided to run the chopped peppers through the food processor first, then through the food mill. That worked out well, though it added a step I had hoped to eliminate. Once all the peppers (and a couple cloves of garlic) had been reduced to liquid, I added an (approximately) equal amount of vinegar and seven teaspoons of salt. After stirring the solution well, I gave the spoon a conservative taste test and was very happy with the result! I brought the sauce to a gradual boil while I sterilized some pint jars and lids.
I ultimately ended up with five pints of hot pepper sauce. Every recipe I read said that it needs to ferment for at least two weeks, up to three months (or more). At this point the jars have cooled and the vinegar and pepper juice seems to have separated, but a quick shake appears to solve the separation.
I'll follow up on the pepper sauce experiment as it progresses. I think I might try steaming them first next time. I am really looking forward to making spaghetti sauce when the local tomatoes start coming in!
A quick aside here... why make a condiment that I could find in a multitude of varieties in any grocery store? There are a number of reasons, but for me the primary reason is to be more connected to my own food supply. I appreciate knowing exactly what goes into what I am eating beyond a list of ingredients that include chemicals that I have to look up what they are and how to pronounce their names and can't find in any store. I like knowing (and being able to control) just how much sugar, salt, fat, etc. is going into my food (and my body, and my family's bodies). It's rewarding to learn how to make things like condiments and maybe even tweak the recipe to make it better. I am able to use fresh ingredients, know their origin, and deal with waste responsibly (i.e. chicken food and compost). On top of all of that, by doing it myself I take a lot of excess out of the equation such as the processing plant, warehousing, distribution, and advertising. Ultimately, I am able to produce a superior product that is healthier for me, my family, and the planet, and save money. The downside is that I have to take some time out every now and then and do it. It's worth it to me.
Back to today's project: hot pepper sauce! The produce stand had approximately seven pounds of various peppers on the discount table, so I bought them all, along with a couple heads of garlic (they were 2 for $1 and I know we'll use it). At home I cleaned the peppers, cut them up, and started trying to process them through the food mill. I thought I could process them through the coarse plate and then process the mash a second time through a more refined plate. It quickly became evident that I had not properly prepared the peppers for the food mill.
I decided to run the chopped peppers through the food processor first, then through the food mill. That worked out well, though it added a step I had hoped to eliminate. Once all the peppers (and a couple cloves of garlic) had been reduced to liquid, I added an (approximately) equal amount of vinegar and seven teaspoons of salt. After stirring the solution well, I gave the spoon a conservative taste test and was very happy with the result! I brought the sauce to a gradual boil while I sterilized some pint jars and lids.
I ultimately ended up with five pints of hot pepper sauce. Every recipe I read said that it needs to ferment for at least two weeks, up to three months (or more). At this point the jars have cooled and the vinegar and pepper juice seems to have separated, but a quick shake appears to solve the separation.
I'll follow up on the pepper sauce experiment as it progresses. I think I might try steaming them first next time. I am really looking forward to making spaghetti sauce when the local tomatoes start coming in!
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Regulators Knew World's Best-Selling Herbicide Causes Problems, New Report Finds
Sadly, this doesn't surprise me at all...
Roundup Birth Defects: Regulators Knew World's Best-Selling Herbicide Causes Problems, New Report Finds
Lucia Graves
lucia@huffingtonpost.com
First Posted: 06/ 7/11 07:48 PM ET Updated: 06/ 8/11 05:36 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.
Instead regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety, according to the report, and as recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects.
The report comes months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.
In the letter, Huber also commented on the herbicide itself, saying: "It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders."
Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030.
"Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable," wrote the report authors in their conclusion. "What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual.
"They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so," the authors added. "This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE]
Roundup Birth Defects: Regulators Knew World's Best-Selling Herbicide Causes Problems, New Report Finds
Lucia Graves
lucia@huffingtonpost.com
First Posted: 06/ 7/11 07:48 PM ET Updated: 06/ 8/11 05:36 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.
Instead regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety, according to the report, and as recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects.
The report comes months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.
In the letter, Huber also commented on the herbicide itself, saying: "It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders."
Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030.
"Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable," wrote the report authors in their conclusion. "What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual.
"They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so," the authors added. "This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE]
Monday, May 30, 2011
New Research Shows Factory Farms are NOT the Way to Feed the World
I saw this article last week and haven't had a chance to share it until now. The article mentions the video here (which plainly says "unauthorized use or distribution prohibited", but I'm going to assume that, since it's up on You Tube, it's safe to embed alongside an article promoting it.)
Here's the article, by pollywog on My Auburn California:
Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty (Google this or go to Mercola doc com to watch the video. Just search for the title of this article)
Conventional opinion is that feeding the world by 2050 will necessitate a massive, global ramp-up of industrial-scale, corporate-led agriculture. But this is not always the opinion of scientists whose work takes them out of the laboratory and into farm fields and ecosystems, such as soil experts, ecologists, and development specialists.
One recently published scientific paper urges a fundamental rethinking of the U.S. agricultural-research system, which it calls "narrowly focused on productivity and efficiency" at the expense of public health and ecological resilience. It also calls for a revamping of the Farm Bill, which it argues uses subsidies to "mask market, social, and environmental factors associated with conventional production systems."
According to Grist:
"While conventional wisdom holds that scientists who study agriculture think only lots of GMOs and agrichemicals can feed us going forward, [this research] team has quite a different set of recommendations in mind: 'organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.' They are by no means the only high-level researchers to reach such conclusions."
Sources:
Grist May 11, 2011
Science May 6, 2011 (PDF)
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
From a purely financial perspective, factory farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) make loads of economic sense. Large numbers of animals, typically 1,000 or more, are raised in a small area, fed cheap, typically grain-based, genetically modified food, and supplemented with hormones and antibiotics to maximize their growth potential in the shortest amount of time possible.
"Indulgences" like access to pasture or natural foods, sunlight and fresh air are not a part of the equation as they don't positively impact profits.
As it stands, Time magazine reported that 2 percent of U.S. livestock facilities produce 40 percent of farm animals, and these CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses.
But thankfully a ray of hope has emerged.
New Policy Reform Paper Urges Transition to Sustainable Agriculture Systems
A very bright, forward-thinking paper from a group of researchers led by Washington State University soil scientist John P. Reganold, published in Science, has summed up problems with CAFOs and the need for transformative farming approaches that address long-term sustainability.
They say:
"Achieving sustainable agricultural systems will require transformative changes in markets, policy, and science."
To realize this change will involve a transition away from CAFOs and toward innovative farming practices that:
" … integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
The paper builds on a National Research Council report released last year – Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century – that reported in 2007 the largest 2 percent of U.S. farms were responsible for 59 percent of total farm sales.
What are the Consequences of Relying on CAFOs for Food?
The trend of large corporate-controlled CAFOs making up the lion's share of U.S. food production has lead to an abundance of cheap food, but not without consequence.
As the report noted:
"Many modern agricultural practices have unintended negative consequences, or externalized costs of production, that are mostly unaccounted for in agricultural productivity measurements or by farm enterprise budgets."
This includes:
Loss of water quality through nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in rivers, streams and ground water (which contributes to "dramatic shifts in aquatic ecosystems and hypoxic zones")
Agricultural pesticide contamination to streams, ground water and wells, and safety concerns to agricultural workers who use them
A decline in nutrient density of 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables), which suggests "possible tradeoffs between yield and nutrient content)
Large emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
Negative impact on soil quality through such factors as erosion, compaction, pesticide application and excessive fertilization
Industrial agriculture also raises concerns about the welfare of farm animals and the farmers themselves. Net farm income received by farmers has remained stagnant for the last four decades, and more than 50 percent of U.S. farmers must supplement their income with additional jobs during the off-season.
A large number of these farmers are slated to retire in the next decade, which means there may be a vast shortage of farmers in the United States, and corporate agriculture could continue to reign supreme.
This is a problem for another glaring reason as well – namely that this system directly contributes to Americans' increasing reliance on processed junk foods – the very same foods that are making us fat and riddled with chronic disease. This is in large part due to the fatally flawed Farm Bill, which is slated to be renewed in 2012.
What's the Farm Bill Got to do With It?
The Farm Bill is renewed every four years. The last version was revamped in 2008, and at that time it set aside $2.3 billion to subsidize small farmers' specialty crops, which sounds promising until you hear that $290 billion was given to big business in the form of corn, soybean and cotton subsidies.
By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the U.S. government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases.
In a nutshell, the American agricultural system promotes and produces junk food, which is the precise opposite of what we all need in order to be healthy.
Take HFCS, for example. It's actually quite difficult to find a processed food product that does NOT include HFCS, and oftentimes it's one of the top three ingredients. With everything we now know about how HFCS and other sugars create obesity and chronic disease, is it any wonder we have a health care crisis on our hands?
The breakdown of government farm subsidies is really quite eye-opening and clearly correlates with which foods are heavily consumed in the United States:
Meat/Dairy -- 73.8 percent
Grains -- 13.2 percent
Sugar/Oil/Starch/Alcohol -- 10.7 percent
Nuts/Legumes -- 1.9 percent
Vegetables/Fruits -- 0.4 percent
Notice that less than half a percent of food subsidies is for fruits and vegetables! This is precisely why families have trouble affording green peppers, leafy greens and tomatoes, but can get a fast-food cheeseburger for a buck.
The bad news is that the foods receiving the greatest subsidies are the very foods you should avoid or limit, according to federal nutrition guidelines. It's a perfect example of saying one thing but doing another, and then blaming the ill effects on human nature.
The Science report, which is calling for a reform of the Farm Bill, further notes:
"Most elements of the Farm Bill were not designed to promote sustainability. Subsidies are commonly criticized for distorting market incentives and making our food system overly dependent on a few grain crops mainly used for animal feed and highly processed food, with deleterious effects on the environment and human health."
A Better Way to Raise Our Food
The video above is the trailer from a full-length documentary called Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty. It offers an in-depth look into the escalating fight for food rights in the United States, including the right to purchase raw milk from small family farms.
The growing demand for raw milk is one sign that people are increasingly looking for fresh, whole foods that come from sustainable sources.
Partly in response to this consumer demand, researchers are now calling for both incremental and transformative approaches to make U.S. agriculture sustainable. This includes not only short-term goals like two-year crop rotations and reduced (or no) tillage but also a long-term transformative approach that:
" … builds on an understanding of agriculture as a complex socioecological system. Transformative change looks to whole-system redesign rather than single technological improvements. Examples of such innovative systems make up a modest, but growing, component of U.S. agriculture and include organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.
Such systems integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
This sounds very much like one emerging type of farming known as permaculture. The Permaculture Institute defines permaculture as an "ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor."
The word itself comes from "permanent agriculture" and "permanent culture," and at its foundation is developing agricultural and other systems that are interconnected and dependent on one another. In other words, they mimic the natural ecologies found in nature. The focus is not on any one element of the system, rather the focus is on the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat -- and how to use these relationships to create synergistic, self-supporting ecosystems.
How to Help Support Sustainable Agriculture
If you want to optimize your health, you simply must return to the basics of healthy food choices and typically this includes buying your food from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.
This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs.
Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket -- home to virtually every CAFO food made -- just can't compete.
If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Here's the article, by pollywog on My Auburn California:
Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty (Google this or go to Mercola doc com to watch the video. Just search for the title of this article)
Conventional opinion is that feeding the world by 2050 will necessitate a massive, global ramp-up of industrial-scale, corporate-led agriculture. But this is not always the opinion of scientists whose work takes them out of the laboratory and into farm fields and ecosystems, such as soil experts, ecologists, and development specialists.
One recently published scientific paper urges a fundamental rethinking of the U.S. agricultural-research system, which it calls "narrowly focused on productivity and efficiency" at the expense of public health and ecological resilience. It also calls for a revamping of the Farm Bill, which it argues uses subsidies to "mask market, social, and environmental factors associated with conventional production systems."
According to Grist:
"While conventional wisdom holds that scientists who study agriculture think only lots of GMOs and agrichemicals can feed us going forward, [this research] team has quite a different set of recommendations in mind: 'organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.' They are by no means the only high-level researchers to reach such conclusions."
Sources:
Grist May 11, 2011
Science May 6, 2011 (PDF)
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
From a purely financial perspective, factory farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) make loads of economic sense. Large numbers of animals, typically 1,000 or more, are raised in a small area, fed cheap, typically grain-based, genetically modified food, and supplemented with hormones and antibiotics to maximize their growth potential in the shortest amount of time possible.
"Indulgences" like access to pasture or natural foods, sunlight and fresh air are not a part of the equation as they don't positively impact profits.
As it stands, Time magazine reported that 2 percent of U.S. livestock facilities produce 40 percent of farm animals, and these CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses.
But thankfully a ray of hope has emerged.
New Policy Reform Paper Urges Transition to Sustainable Agriculture Systems
A very bright, forward-thinking paper from a group of researchers led by Washington State University soil scientist John P. Reganold, published in Science, has summed up problems with CAFOs and the need for transformative farming approaches that address long-term sustainability.
They say:
"Achieving sustainable agricultural systems will require transformative changes in markets, policy, and science."
To realize this change will involve a transition away from CAFOs and toward innovative farming practices that:
" … integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
The paper builds on a National Research Council report released last year – Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century – that reported in 2007 the largest 2 percent of U.S. farms were responsible for 59 percent of total farm sales.
What are the Consequences of Relying on CAFOs for Food?
The trend of large corporate-controlled CAFOs making up the lion's share of U.S. food production has lead to an abundance of cheap food, but not without consequence.
As the report noted:
"Many modern agricultural practices have unintended negative consequences, or externalized costs of production, that are mostly unaccounted for in agricultural productivity measurements or by farm enterprise budgets."
This includes:
Loss of water quality through nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in rivers, streams and ground water (which contributes to "dramatic shifts in aquatic ecosystems and hypoxic zones")
Agricultural pesticide contamination to streams, ground water and wells, and safety concerns to agricultural workers who use them
A decline in nutrient density of 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables), which suggests "possible tradeoffs between yield and nutrient content)
Large emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
Negative impact on soil quality through such factors as erosion, compaction, pesticide application and excessive fertilization
Industrial agriculture also raises concerns about the welfare of farm animals and the farmers themselves. Net farm income received by farmers has remained stagnant for the last four decades, and more than 50 percent of U.S. farmers must supplement their income with additional jobs during the off-season.
A large number of these farmers are slated to retire in the next decade, which means there may be a vast shortage of farmers in the United States, and corporate agriculture could continue to reign supreme.
This is a problem for another glaring reason as well – namely that this system directly contributes to Americans' increasing reliance on processed junk foods – the very same foods that are making us fat and riddled with chronic disease. This is in large part due to the fatally flawed Farm Bill, which is slated to be renewed in 2012.
What's the Farm Bill Got to do With It?
The Farm Bill is renewed every four years. The last version was revamped in 2008, and at that time it set aside $2.3 billion to subsidize small farmers' specialty crops, which sounds promising until you hear that $290 billion was given to big business in the form of corn, soybean and cotton subsidies.
By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the U.S. government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases.
In a nutshell, the American agricultural system promotes and produces junk food, which is the precise opposite of what we all need in order to be healthy.
Take HFCS, for example. It's actually quite difficult to find a processed food product that does NOT include HFCS, and oftentimes it's one of the top three ingredients. With everything we now know about how HFCS and other sugars create obesity and chronic disease, is it any wonder we have a health care crisis on our hands?
The breakdown of government farm subsidies is really quite eye-opening and clearly correlates with which foods are heavily consumed in the United States:
Meat/Dairy -- 73.8 percent
Grains -- 13.2 percent
Sugar/Oil/Starch/Alcohol -- 10.7 percent
Nuts/Legumes -- 1.9 percent
Vegetables/Fruits -- 0.4 percent
Notice that less than half a percent of food subsidies is for fruits and vegetables! This is precisely why families have trouble affording green peppers, leafy greens and tomatoes, but can get a fast-food cheeseburger for a buck.
The bad news is that the foods receiving the greatest subsidies are the very foods you should avoid or limit, according to federal nutrition guidelines. It's a perfect example of saying one thing but doing another, and then blaming the ill effects on human nature.
The Science report, which is calling for a reform of the Farm Bill, further notes:
"Most elements of the Farm Bill were not designed to promote sustainability. Subsidies are commonly criticized for distorting market incentives and making our food system overly dependent on a few grain crops mainly used for animal feed and highly processed food, with deleterious effects on the environment and human health."
A Better Way to Raise Our Food
The video above is the trailer from a full-length documentary called Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty. It offers an in-depth look into the escalating fight for food rights in the United States, including the right to purchase raw milk from small family farms.
The growing demand for raw milk is one sign that people are increasingly looking for fresh, whole foods that come from sustainable sources.
Partly in response to this consumer demand, researchers are now calling for both incremental and transformative approaches to make U.S. agriculture sustainable. This includes not only short-term goals like two-year crop rotations and reduced (or no) tillage but also a long-term transformative approach that:
" … builds on an understanding of agriculture as a complex socioecological system. Transformative change looks to whole-system redesign rather than single technological improvements. Examples of such innovative systems make up a modest, but growing, component of U.S. agriculture and include organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.
Such systems integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
This sounds very much like one emerging type of farming known as permaculture. The Permaculture Institute defines permaculture as an "ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor."
The word itself comes from "permanent agriculture" and "permanent culture," and at its foundation is developing agricultural and other systems that are interconnected and dependent on one another. In other words, they mimic the natural ecologies found in nature. The focus is not on any one element of the system, rather the focus is on the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat -- and how to use these relationships to create synergistic, self-supporting ecosystems.
How to Help Support Sustainable Agriculture
If you want to optimize your health, you simply must return to the basics of healthy food choices and typically this includes buying your food from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.
This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs.
Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket -- home to virtually every CAFO food made -- just can't compete.
If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)