What’s Organic

"Other countries have rebelled against technology perceived by the public as dangerous, but none as vigorously as Germany. The French hate GMO—but love their nuclear power. America stopped building nuclear reactors after the Three Mile Island reactor accident in 1979—but millions of consumers eat GMO food products every day. It is in Germany that these aversions have struck most often and most strongly, for historical, cultural, and political reasons."

Loading mentions Retweet

Sustainable Foodshed Summit Shifts Political Momentum

In Oakland, California this past week, the political momentum seemed to clearly and perhaps irrevocably shift to formation of a sustainable food system for the nation. Hailing from three western states and Washington DC, 120 leading activists (from farms, ranches, philanthropy, businesses and NGOs), 15 USDA officials, and two important northern California Mayors focused on the issues of food security, foodsheds, and public-private partnerships to accelerate change. (Hon.Ron Dellums, Mayor of Oakland is pictured with Hank Herrera, Hope Collaborative and ROC Fellow Alethea Harper, Oakland Food Policy Council). Many now believe it only a matter of time until this welcome and healthy set of ideas takes over the body politic.

Click here for photos, press coverage, and more info about the Summit.

Loading mentions Retweet

Food, Inc.: Documentary on your dinner

Loading mentions Retweet

Most developing countries, especially in Africa, do not allow genetically engineered crops to be commercially grown, but that's changing with international pressure. Biotech companies have mounted a misinformation campaign to sell themselves and their products as “humanitarian.” But, genetically engineered crops are not a solution to world hunger. To date, not a single GE crop released for commercial growing has increased yield potential or elevated nutritional levels. In reality, fully 85% of all GE crops globally are engineered to survive spraying with chemical weedkillers. These chemical-dependent GE crops have sharply increased overall use of pesticides and are best-suited to large growers seeking to reduce labor needs for weed control, not poor farmers anxious to produce more to feed their families.

A recent report by the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth found that agricultural biotechnology feeds the profits of biotech companies – not the poor. The report’s findings support the United Nations’ assessment of world agriculture released in a report in 2008, which concluded that GE crops have little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger in the world, and instead recommended low-cost, low-input agroecological farming methods.

The solutions for food security through agricultural development lie in promoting agroecological practices that not only increase agricultural productivity, but are affordable and accessible to small-scale developing world farmers. As Ben Burkett, an African American farmer from Mississippi and President of the National Family Farm Coalition who has visited Africa many times, said in a recent article, “More expensive genetically modified seeds, pesticides and chemical-intensive practices won’t help the hungry and will only allow more profits and control for seed companies like Monsanto and Syngenta.”

Food aid and development assistance should never be pre-conditioned on accepting unwanted and ineffective genetically engineered crops.

More at: Center for Food Safety

Loading mentions Retweet

"If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields," said Gurian-Sherman. "Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down."

Failure to Yield - Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops

...overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided.

Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

Failure to Yield is the first report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

The UCS report comes at a time when food price spikes and localized shortages worldwide have prompted calls to boost agricultural productivity, or yield -- the amount of a crop produced per unit of land over a specified amount of time. Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is essential to meeting this goal. Monsanto, for example, is currently running an advertising campaign warning of an exploding world population and claiming that its "advanced seeds... significantly increase crop yields..." The UCS report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future.
The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results. 

Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential-or intrinsic-yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop's ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors. The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered food and feed crops in the United States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of insects). Herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and Bt corn have failed to increase intrinsic yields, the report found. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn also have failed to increase operational yields, compared with conventional methods.

Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided.

The report recommends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state agricultural agencies, and universities increase research and development for proven approaches to boost crop yields. Those approaches should include modern conventional plant breeding methods, sustainable and organic farming, and other sophisticated farming practices that do not require farmers to pay significant upfront costs. The report also recommends that U.S. food aid organizations make these more promising and affordable alternatives available to farmers in developing countries.

Loading mentions Retweet

Planting cyber seeds
By Jeffrey Tomich, 29 March 2009

Earlier this month, a blogger named Brad fired a virtual salvo at Jeffrey Smith, the author of "Seeds of Deception" and one of the most vocal crusaders against genetically modified foods

In a 600-word post, Brad questioned the credibility of an online petition on Smith's website, urging the administration of President Barack Obama to require labeling of biotech foods. He called the petition "sheer political theater" and prodded the activist for purportedly being a yogic flying instructor.

More than 30 comments followed in the next few weeks. On one level, the exchange was just another online debate about GMOs. But this one was notable because of who initiated and hosted it: Monsanto Co.

Loading mentions Retweet

Act Now to: Close the Millionaire Corporate Farm Subsidy Loophole

If you care about family farmers having equal access to opportunities and the land you need to act in the next 48 hours. The USDA is taking comments on the farm payment limitation rule until the end of Monday, April 6, 2009, so send yours in now (a sample letter is provided below or here on our website).

In his (non)state of the union speech, President Obama courageously brought up one of the most contentious issues from the 2008 Farm Bill debate when he called for ending "direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them."

As part of his 2010 budget, the President proposed phasing-out direct payments in an attempt to save $9.8 billion over 10 years. Currently direct payments, which total $5.2 billion a year, are paid regardless of crop prices and are not tied to need.

This means: Even in times of high commodity prices, corporate farmers still get a paycheck from the government

Today’s current subsidy system allows large corporate farms to take advantage of subsidy loopholes that place independent family farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage.

Because of loosely written management and labor requirements in the Farm Bill, corporate farmers are allowed to use multiple partnerships, passive investors and sham “paper” farms to funnel huge multimillion dollar annual subsidy payments to corporate entities that don’t do any real work on the farm, but use the ownership as an entitlement to bilk payments from the government.

As a result, giant corporate millionaire “farmers” are driving independent family farmers off the land, using their ill-gotten gains, supplied courtesy of taxpayers, to outbid small, midsized and new farmers who want to buy or rent new crop ground.

Please act now to help end the corporate farm bailout.

Best,
Dave

COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS APRIL 6, 2009

Send an email to Dan McGlynn at the USDA: dan.mcglynn@wdc.usda.gov

Sample Letter – (Please cut and paste)

Mr. Dan McGlynn
FSA-USDA
Stop 0517, Room 4754
1400 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20250-0517
Emailed to: Dan.McGlynn@wdc.usda.gov
or FAX to: 202-690-2130

RE: Comment on Farm Program Payment Limitation Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 23, February 5, 2009

Dear Mr. McGlynn,

I appreciate President Obama’s courageous call for subsidy reform and stand firmly behind his decision to end "direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them." By reforming the rules on subsidy payments to farmers, this Administration can finally create a level playing field for independent family farmers that allows them to thrive, and grows opportunities for rural America and midsized farms.

In order to do this, I encourage the USDA to close the biggest payment loophole available under the current rules by providing a strong and effective definition for those “actively engaged in agriculture”.

Currently, wealthy corporate “partners” with minimal management involvement, in some cases, as little as two conference calls per year can qualify for payments. I urge you to correct this problem.

For those who qualify solely by providing active personal management and no personal labor, the rule should require that person to:

1. Provide at least half of the total management required to run the farm; or
2. Provide at least half of the total management that would be necessary to conduct a farming operation commensurate in size with his/her requisite share of the operation.

Closing the “actively engaged in farming” management loophole will strengthen family farms and rural communities and help restore integrity to a program which is rife with abuse.

Sadly, for decades, both Republican and Democratic Administrations have allowed this abuse to continue. This Administration, which campaigned on commodity program payment reform, needs to end business as usual, clean up the system, and restore good government. Enacting a quantifiable test for farm management is the best place to start.

Sincerely,
[Your name & city here]

Loading mentions Retweet

Criminalizing Organic and Home Growers

UPDATE: Many people were unable to get the text for this bill, or it was simply unavailable. We have obtained the full text and can be disseminated here: http://blogs.healthfreedomalliance.org/h-r-875-food-safety-administration-full-text/

Loading mentions Retweet

FindtheFarmer.com

Forging a Hot Link to the Farmer Who Grows the Food
By Brad Stone and Matt Richtel

Traceability can be good for more than just soothing the culinary consciences of foodies. Congress is also studying the possibility of some kind of traceability measure as a way to minimize the impact of food scares like the recent peanut salmonella crisis.

The theory: if food producers know they’re being watched, they’ll be more careful. The Stone-Buhr flour company, a 100-year-old brand based in San Francisco, is giving the buy-local food movement its latest upgrade. Beginning this month, customers who buy its all-purpose whole wheat flour in some Wal-Mart, Safeway and other grocery chains can go to findthefarmer .com, enter the lot code printed on the side of the bag, and visit with the company’s farmers and even ask them questions.

“The person who puts that scone in their mouth can now say, ‘Oh my God, there’s a real person behind this,’ ” said Read Smith, 61, who runs Cherry Creek Ranch, a 10,000-acre farm and cattle ranch in Eastern Washington. “They are going to bite into that bread or pastry and know whose hands were on the product.”

The author of that best seller, Michael Pollan, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said FindtheFarmer was one part of a bigger effort to reintroduce trust into the food system.

If the peanut processing company that was the source of the recent salmonella outbreak had live webcams in the production facility, “would it have allowed things to get so filthy?” Mr. Pollan asked. “The more transparent a food chain is, the more accountable it is.”

Some in Congress agree and have proposed a traceability measure as part of the proposed F.D.A. Globalization Act of 2009, which would give the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture the authority to require food makers to trace individual products back to the farms that produced them if necessary.

Several food companies in the United States and Europe are also experimenting with using the Internet to connect customers with the growers. Buyers of Dole organic bananas in the United States can now enter a bar code number on the banana’s sticker on the Doleorganic.com Web site and see photos and details about farms in Central and South America. The company said it plans to expand the effort this year in Europe with a variety of other fruits.

Go to the source: http://www.findthefarmer.com/index.php
Read the whole NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/technology/internet/28farmer.html

Loading mentions Retweet