Organic Food Production

This week Blog about what the term "organic" means in the U.S. Is it good or bad for the food industry and the consumer that the term was legally defined by the federal government? Are organic foods better for people and the environment than traditionally produced food? What are the drawbacks to organic food production? How do you feel about the "big business" of organic i.e. retailers like Whole Foods??? Make sure you are supporting your claims with valid evidence....Include anything else that interests you...

Holy crap - like I could put everything I think about "organic" food production into one blog topic. I read entire books on this subject, have spent the last three years of my life selling organic farm and garden supplies and am preparing my grad school application to get a PhD in sustainable ag!

Seriously though, I recently posted about a series of independent short films about sustainable/organic food production and its impacts. I really liked one of the points made in Ripe for Change, that for not just organic production, but for sustainable production, you look at other factors than just using non-synthetic inputs, especially socio-economic and ecological factors. For example, most of our world concerns about hunger really are issues of poverty and distribution rather than food production.

Some of the biggest drawbacks to defining organic is the abuses that can then take place when the letter, but not the underlying intent, of the law is followed. For example, many big-ag corporations and farms are simply substituting non-synthetic pesticides and fertilizers for their synthetic forms and are otherwise carrying on as normal. Loop holes for increasing organic herd size were abused by several large scale dairies seeking to produce organic milk. Lack of action by the USDA-NOP in response to complaints about label-violations for large scale organic dairy producers such as Horizon and Aurora (producers of "organic" milk for Safeway, Costco and large markets) has resulted in a class-action lawsuit for misrepresentation and other violations.

It really boils down to the fact that a lot of truly organic production relies on integrity, which is hard to legislate.

Many large scale organic productions still rely heavily on petroleum for fuel and transportation. Is it really organic when it traveled several thousand miles? Can we trust the so-called organic practices of Mexico or China? Is it better to buy locally produced, uncertified produce from a farmers market or certified organic in the supermarket imported out of season from a foreign country? Is the food still as nutritious when not all of the practices are followed? Are the farm laborers being paid a living wage?

Unfortunately, the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side depending on one's practices. Many of the natural and organic inputs used in organic and/or local farming such as rock powders and natural pesticides and fungicides, such as sulfur and copper, are strip mined and shipped to distributors before ending up in the soil or on plants. Also, natural sulfur and copper are dangerous compounds which must be used with as much care as their synthetic counterparts - breathing masks, gloves, goggles and long-sleeved clothing are recommended to as protective gear for the home user, and required for the commercial grower. People have a mistaken notion that natural equals safe to which I reply, "Arsenic is completely natural and will kill you just as dead."

The lack of good research into organic productivity is finally changing. A recent 13-year study at the University Wisconsin published in the March-April 2008 issue of Agronomy Journal found that organic cropping systems can be as productive, or nearly productive, as conventional systems.

Conventional food producers would have you believe that food is equally tasty and nutritious. However, over 40 studies, summarized by The Organic Center, keep proving that organic produce is more nutritious than it's conventionally produced counterparts.

However, the spirit of the eco-farm movement continues. Permaculture, biodynamic and local and sustainable ag are current hot topics for research. These farming regimes are the answer for improving farming practices in marginal areas around the world where the Green Revolution failed to improve local agriculture, and in some cases increased the rates of soil erosion, desertification and removed local farmers from the land.

Even the United Nations has changed it tune about importance of organic production in their most recent FAO report, Organic Agriculture and Food Security. Here are some highlights from the report:

• Global food supply is sufficient, but 850 million are undernourished and go hungry
• Use of chemical agricultural inputs is increasing; yet grain productivity is dwindling to seriously low levels
• Costs of agricultural inputs are rising, but commodity costs have been in steady decline over the past five decades.Knowledge is increasingly provided through fast information technologies, but nutritionally related diseases are rising
• Industrialised food systems cause deaths through pesticide poisonings and high numbers of farmer have committed suicides, while millions of jobs have been lost in rural areas.

In contrast, organic agriculture offers an alternative food system that improves agricultural performance to better provide access to food, nutritional adequacy, environmental quality, economic efficiency, and social equity. This is crucial if agricultural production in developing countries is to rise by 56 percent by 2030 to meet nutritional needs, as stated in the Report.

Want to learn more? In addition to the eco-farm links above, check out the following links for more info:
www.sare.org
www.attra.org
www.organicconsumers.org

Want to eat local/organic food but don't know where to find it or what to do with it?
www.sustainabletable.org
www.localharvest.org
www.slowfoodusa.org
www.cafarmersmarkets.com

Criticisms of conventional ag

What I believe about the future of ag is probably best summed by this statement from ATTRA about organic production practices:

No agriculture can continue to feed a growing population if it depletes or fouls its resource base. The path undertaken by conventional agriculture is ultimately a dead end in this regard, though there is an almost mystical faith that genetic engineering and other complex technologies will always triumph. Agriculture needs to be sustainable. Therefore, those who promote organic agriculture as a true alternative are well advised to do their part in ensuring that certification and regulation does not create a “compliance agriculture” in which sustainability becomes little more than an afterthought.

Bioprospecting or Biopiracy?

While studying our two weeks of biotechnology, in which we have discussed the positive possibilities of genetic modifications, I have been participating showing independent food films at the Briar Patch, which gives another  view than that espoused in our text.

In 1930 the United States passed the Plant Patent Act, which provided a 20-year patent restricting asexual production on protected varieties.  It differs from a regular patent in that it does not involve manufacturing or "making" the plant.  This gave limited patent rights to varietal developers and plant breeders, but didn't give them ownership of the lifeforms they developed.

That changed in 1980 when the Supreme Court awarded an appeal to patent an oil-eating microbe in the case Diamond v. Chakrabarty, which allowed the patenting of a life form.  This in turned was the basis for a 1987 decision by the PTO to extend patenting to all altered or engineered animals.  Now "bioprospecting" or as some call it, "biopiracy" is rampant.  

Our recent reading has lead us to believe that using biotech as a form of natural selection does not seem to play out when reviewing new varietals and proposed patents.  Universities, pharmaceutical and big-ag companies are trying to capitalize on all sorts of life forms, not all of it microbial in nature.  Monsanto is one of the worst offenders, and they're doing it hand-in-hand with our government.  Most of Monsanto's board of members are current holders of key government positions.

Want to learn more?  Here's some movies I've watched lately:  Future of Food, Ripe for Change, King Corn, and Fridays at the Farm.  Most of these movies have excellent websites with related links and suggested readings for more information. 

Biotechnology II

OK, so last week you chose a agricultural crop that is produced using biotechnology. Take some time to read about the crops others wrote about. Get a general feeling for the types and volumes of crops where biotech is used. What are your thoughts around the use of biotechnology for food production? What are the positives (society, production & environment) as well as the downside? Make sure you do the reading for this week before blogging! :)

A discussion this morning with a local organic veggie producer wound around to the topic of biotech and genetically modified (GM) crops. GM crops are not allowed in organic production, and are generally against the grain of most ecologically minded growers. Most of these growers would probably style themselves as agroecologists, if they know the term, and are against most of the methodology of the Green Revolution.

Agroecology is the science of applying ecological concepts and principles to the design, development, and management of sustainable agricultural systems. With this definition, cropland is viewed as an ecosystem first, rather than an economic or industrial model. Crop rotation, selecting appropriate crops/varieties, composting, using little or no pesticides and creating refuges for beneficial insects are all tools for good ecosystem management when producing crops.

Therefore the questions beg to be asked: what happens when you genetically alter the traditional organisms within the ecosystem? What happens when you destroy portions of the system with soil degradation, loss of soil biology, salinization, and further pollute and kill other organisms through the use of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides?

However, with gene mapping, it doesn't seem unreasonable to speed up natural plant breeding techniques to use existing modifications across closely related species. You could theoretically create those crosses through breeding trials (and error), looking for the ideal mutation or cross. My friend even thought that using biotech methods to produce these GM crops is one of the best uses of biotechnology. However, she was very clear that she drew the line at introducing radically different species genes into our food. For example, fish DNA into tomatoes, or Bt into cotton or corn.

In the past weeks we have been discussing the merits and deficits of the Green Revolution (GR), and how does GM fit into the future of food production. In a policy brief published by Food First, they list ten reasons why trying to introduce the GR again in Africa will not produce any better results the second time. Most of the reasons have to do with the issues around the the components that made the GR successful where it was successful. Industrial-style agriculture, expensive technology packages, increased use of fertilizers and pesticides increased and/or exacerbated existing health, environmental and economic consequences in more marginal areas, and did not increase the ability of poor people to grow or buy more food.

At the same time, promoters of organic and sustainable farming practices are producing studies showing that agroecology practices can produce similar amounts of food as conventional, industrial style ag using GM crops. The key difference is the management of the underlying land use. The practices previously mentioned may take more time, but leave the soil in at least a similar, or possibly improved, condition from season to season and can be practiced in most rural and marginal regions. It has marginal production costs, can be accessed by the poor, and has environmental benefits. An evaluation using these principles for rice production is summarized in a Cornell University paper.

Well, I'm slightly off-topic or not, depending on your point of view... To summarize, yes labeling and accountability is important. So is choosing what and how to tinker with the genetic material of other organisms. Is relying on biotech and a Gene Revolution in addition to a Green Revolution the whole answer? No!

Biotechnology

The European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) is a pest of corn, particularly in large corn growing regions of the US Sout, Midwest, and Africa.  In the past, Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis ssp kurstaki) have been used as a targeted spray.  Bt sprays traditionally only affect animals with alkaline guts, which are mainly the Lepidoptera order of insects.  The adult moth lays clusters of eggs on corn leaves.  Once hatched, the larva infest the developing ears of corn, where the encasing husks prevent adequate control by sprays, except for the brief time between hatching and entering the ear.  Bt must be ingested by the larva in sufficient quantities to have an killing effect.  Non-target pesticides are also often used, which has a greater impact on non-target species, including beneficial insects.

Bt corn was introduced in 1996.  There are four genetic modifications, or transgenic events used for Bt corn production, developed by different biotech companies and having different results in the corn itself.  Combinations of various promoter genes in combination with different portions of the Bt genome can result in the gene expressing at different times in the crop, and may or may not be expressed in the grain itself, only the foliage.

Advantages to using Bt corn include minimizing timing issues for pesticide application, no special application equipment, no need for personal protective gear during application, is compatible with biological control.  As Bt is an order specific pesticide, it has minimal effects on non-target pests and may control other corn pests of the Lepidoptera order (earworm, fall armyworm, Indianmeal moth, black cutworm, and southwestern corn borer) and reduces the need for pest monitoring.  Also, as most corn varieties become increasingly susceptible to secondary fungal infections after being weakened by the corn borer, Bt presence also mitigates fungal infections.

The disadvantages are primarily the seed cost and variable pest populations, development of Bt resistance by pests, impact on non-target organisms, variation in effectiveness, marketing of Bt grain, cross-pollination of Bt corn and non Bt corn.  In 1999, Cornell University published the results from a poorly designed trial which suggested that Bt contaminated pollen represented a threat to monarch caterpillars.  This was later refuted as pollen contamination rarely reaches lethal levels, there is limited overlap during pollen presence and caterpillar presence and that only a portion of caterpillars will feed on milkweeds adjacent to cornfields.  

Recommendations have been made to plant non Bt corn in fields adjacent to Bt corn to reduce the development of Bt resistance in the corn borer.  As resistance is believed to be a recessive allele, increasing the chances of a Bt resistant moth mating with a non-resistant moth, with a high chance of producing more non-resistant offspring.  However, this planting strategy increases the amount of pollen contamination to non Bt corn nearby.

The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) lists hybrids which have full food and feed approval for the 2008 planting season in the US.  The information includes regulatory information, as well as the trade names, characteristics and genetic events for all of the current GM hybrids currently available.

The Green Revolution

Is new technology necessary to increase food production?  Why or why not?

The combination of bringing more land into production, along with the Green Revolution has allowed for the needed increases in food production to date.  However, many of the lands which have been converted to farmland were marginal or sensitive ecosystems which cannot sustain repeated use.  In many developed regions of the world, prime farmland is being lost due to urban encroachment and increasing land prices, while increases in population far outreach the increases in food production.

In light of the problems associated with the Green Revolution, we must continue to develop new or improved strategies for increased food production.  Future limiting factors include soil degradation, over harvest of aquifers, soil salinization, climate change, available petroleum, and the social-economic issues around sustainable agriculture.   Furthermore, continued reliance on Green Revolution techniques alone will not be enough to continue with the increases in food we have seen over the last four decades.  It's reliance on petroleum, fertilizer and soil amendments and irrigation are not sustainable and changes must be made to continue at even a similar rate of production as oil is coming to peak oil prices and aquifers in China and the midwest are over harvested. 

Norman Borlaug, the father of the Revolution, has proposed the need for varieties which will have greater tolerance for abiotic extremes, such as drought, heat, cold, as well as greater tolerance for soil alkalinity, free aluminum and iron toxicities.  In his Nobel Peace Prize anniversary lecture, he suggested the need for a Blue Revolution to complement the existing Green Revolution.  "In the new Blue Revolution, water-use productivity must be wedded to land-use productivity.  New science and technology must lead the way."

Norman 

Population Growth & Food

Malthus proposed in 1798 that eventually Earth’s population will be too great to be supported by available resources. Due to technological advances that Malthus could not foresee, we have increased both our population and our ability to produce food beyond the estimates of his time. However, current scientific research into the earth’s carrying capacity estimate that without other unforeseen developments, we will achieve maximum carrying capacity between 2 and 12 billion people. As we are already halfway to the proposed limit, and rapidly approaching the upper limit, we need to take steps that continue to feed our existing and expanding population, but also reign in our rampant growth.

In the past, different societies and cultures have used different strategies to control population size. Pederasty was used by ancient Greek societies, preventing marriage in men until later in life. This cultural practice has even been used more recently in Siwan. Other approaches have included emigration, expansionism and technological developments. Technology has allowed for the Green Revolution of the last three decades. However, these same agricultural “improvements” have caused water deficits, soil degradation and peak oil issues.

Nature has historically been the means by which population has been controlled. Infectious diseases like bubonic plague and influenza have repeatedly reached epidemic proportions, killing sometimes significant portions of populations. New diseases such as SARS, AIDS and avian flu can still reach epidemic proportions in our lifetime, despite advances in medical technology. Plant pathogens and pests can also have devastating effects on food security. Locust swarms can be just as devastating now as they were in Biblical times.

Weather variations have seriously affected crop production. Minor yearly variations can have huge affects on crop production and result in either feast or famine. Shifts in climate patterns have resulted in the collapse of entire civilizations, like the Mayans and SW Pueblo Indians.

Humans themselves have regulated their own numbers for as long as we have been humans. War, moral attitudes, genocide and the depletion or pollution of natural resources have affected population. Modern technology allows us to control our birth rates. The use of effective contraceptives and medical sterility make population control possible, even while we have removed natural selection, decreased birth mortality rates and increased average life spans.

China's one-child policy sounds like an interesting idea for controlling soaring populations.  However, upon closer inspection there are many exceptions to this policy, and China's current birth rate is closer to 2 (1.6-1.9 depending on the source) than 1.  This policy was originally meant to be in place for one generation, and China estimates that it has three to four hundred million fewer people today as a result of the policy.   However, exceptions are made for certain ethnic populations, single-child parents are allowed two offspring, and many families can pay fee to have more than one child. Also, many female babies are still put up for adoption, and do not count towards the one child policy if their births were never reported.  China reports that they have historically had best results at population reduction through a combination of poverty alleviation and health care with relaxed targets for family planning.

Federal Lands Grazing

One of my friends is a multi-approach farmer. He raises sheep and goats for meat, uses a mule for farm power and grows an array of summer vegetables. He is also the man in charge of conservation efforts for the Nevada County Land Trust. In a recent discussion about land use, we touched on the effects of managed grazing on local landscapes, and how important they are for a variety of reasons: brush (and fire load) management, fertilizing the soil, and generally providing control of many invasive species. In fact, I was surprised to learn that part of the conservation efforts in Bear Valley, part of the Cache Creek watershed northwest of Davis, requires the regular grazing by cows as part of the land trust easement requirements. They found otherwise that the invasive grasses outcompeted the wildflowers native to the region.

I was surprised that the discussion of public lands lease rates did not come up, and it has given me some pause. I don’t know about other part of the country, but our local foothills generally benefit from managed grazing. For example, another friend introduced meat goats onto his third generation timber lands, and mitigated the need for extensive brush clearing using mechanical and chemical control methods. The goats not only control the brush, but fertilize the ground at the same time, providing a nice trade of inputs and outputs. Finally, the goats can also be sold as a meat commodity.

Locally, many people “rent” herds of sheep or goats to come and graze the brush to minimize fire fuel loads and create the mandated fire breaks around their homes and properties. It occurred to me that not only do people pay for this service, that it could be argued that BLM and the US Forest Service might also need to pay service fees to the herd owners who provide such a valuable land management tool. This could theoretically off set the need for land lease rates, making the exchange commensurate.

According to a report from the Counsil for Agriculture Science and Technology, “the positive roles of animals in environmental conservation is usually overlooked. Grazing mitigates plant communities, can be managed to sustain or enhance desirable plants and be neutral or benefical to watersheds and wildlife.” (Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply, pg 5)

However, the according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) report, "National Animal Agriculture Conservation Framework, " the 2002 Farm Bill sought to establish conservation services. However, the financial needs of bill would exceed available funding. The bill would provide producer assistance to improve their operations' environmental performance through free or low-cost services, while trying to find additional funding from public investments. This sounds suspiciously to me like charging people for doing what they are already doing, and paying farms that need to the most change to make the changes.

Farm Subsidies

The recent Farm Bill up in Congress has raised a lot intense scrutiny of our nation's current farm subsidy practices. On the face it seems like a good idea - support farms to keep them in the business of producing food. What more noble occupation is there after all than to farm?

However, the practice of subsidies today no longer functions in a manner that most of us would understand or support. Oddly enough, the very people that most people think a subsidy would support tend to be the very people who are in favor of a complete overhaul of the system - the small, family farmer.

Michael Pollan's recent book Omnivore's Dilemma outlines the history of farm subsidies quite succinctly. Subsidies were part of FDR's New Deal plan to help turn around The Great Depression. Farmers could take a loan against their corn crop, and then either repay the government the loan, or sell the government the corn crop directly, to be put into a grain reserve. This program not only created a grain reserve against times of need, but also sought prevent overproduction, huge variances in the annual price of corn, and all of the environmental problems associated with overproduction.

This system functioned until the 1970's, when the Nixon administration started a chain reaction by agreeing to sell most of the US's corn surplus to Russia. Crop prices locally were temporarily boosted by the sell, but poor weather that year created a similar need for corn in the US, and corn prices were at an all time high, producing a reverberating effect all the way up the food chain. In fact, my parents remember the recession of 1975, and while they tried to blame it on my birth, it can really be linked back to the selling of our corn surplus in 1972, long before I was a twinkle in my parents' eye.

Nixon's administration blamed the lack of food and the high food prices on the farmers Simultaneously, they began to dismantle the federal grain reserve, the government grain purchases and discontinued the loan programs. Instead, they began paying farm subsidies directly to farmers, encouraging farmers to sell their corn at any price, creating a laissez-faire type of business practice in agriculture. Most farmers found they could not stay in business unless they consolidated, or planted more and more each year. The result is that each year now, farmers have maximized production on almost every acre, ceasing to diversify their crops, and can typically no longer support the typical "farm" family on a farm income alone.

Now, proposed farm bill changes could be the great turning point that the first government subsidies were in the '30s, or they could bring similar disastrous results as they did in the '70s. Reviewing some different sources reveals clearly who is for big business and who is interested in creating a more sustainable agriculture future.

I found it shocking that a cooperative extension economist, Robert Goodman of Alabama, could recommend the continuance of the current farm subsidy practices because doing so could risk "stability and farm security", as well as the suggestion that somehow changes would affect consumers negatively, the very ones who pay for the subsidies through taxes, will somehow benefit from keeping costs lower and avoiding consequences of "rocking the boat". He concludes that the past success of the farm subsidies should be taken into account, yet he fails to review or critique the various changes which have taken place to farm subsides over the last 70 years.

Chris Edwards has a far more interesting analysis of the current practices of farm subsidies. It addresses the environmental consequences of over production, how it hurts consumer prices, that most small farmers get very little in the way of subsidy money, and that most of it in fact goes to large scale agribusinesses, and so on.

The best debate I heard was from NPR, on their Science Friday segment of Talk of the Nation, in which they debate whether the Farm Bill of 2007 should actually be called the Food Bill, in that most of the ingredients in the "unhealthy" foods, like a Twinkie, are subsidized, but wholesome foods like carrots, cost more than the Twinkie.

Finally, I think it's very revealing to look at a list of agencies who are dedicated to farm subsidy reforms on the Farm Bill: Public Health Action on the Farm Bill, National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, National Family Farm Coalition, Slow Food USA, Community Alliance for Family Farmers, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Community Food Security Coaliton, just to name a few! Not one big business or Bush Administration special interest group in the bunch!

The Diversity of Food

I'm often surprised by the eating habits of people.  Many of my classmates indicated that they have lots of favorite foods.  However, most people tend to eat the same basic set of foods.  I know that my food journal reflected very much a creature of habit.  Most days of the week I have yogurt and tea in the morning, hopefully some left overs for lunch, and then either home cooked stir fry, stew, leftovers from the restaurant or eating out.

I first ate sunchokes, aka Jerusalem artichokes, about five years ago.  It was during a potluck, and one of my friends, a visiting organic farmer from central California had brought them.  I loved the texture and nutty flavor - a huge improvement over the bland russet potato.  I raved to husband about how great they were, but had trouble finding a source.  Finally, I found some at the co-op, and eagerly brought home a pound to try.  My husband flat refused to cook them, and grudgingly tried some when I insisted.  After all that fuss, he LOVES them.  

So, I was surprised to see sunchokes listed as a major food source.  I've known about quinoa and amaranth far longer than I have sunchokes.  Turns out I can't digest quinoa, even if I sprout it, but that's another story entirely.

Actually, it's not really another story.  I 've mentioned before Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, in which he discussed in depth why the different regions that developed agriculture actually developed agriculture.  He discusses that current hunter gatherer peoples know all of the local flora intimately - usually thousands of plants, fungi, and the animals too, and also that they tend to be quite keen on examining new types of edibles.

I asked my husband tonight why he was so adverse to trying the sunchokes.  He replied that physically it reminded him of ginger, so he was expecting something tough, fibrous and strong tasting.  I think you can reflect our hunter-gatherer instincts for recognizing many food sources into product and franchise recognition today, and therefore the success of name brands and chain restaurants.

You can go anywhere in the United States, and even in major cities around the world, order a BigMac and get the same BigMac that you could have received in your home town.  This makes for a superficially reliable and consistent food source.  We can theoretically consume many types of foods and cuisines, and yet most people have a very set food group that they regularly consume.

The problem of course is that these food sources are becoming harder to retain, and at the same time, people have developed a deep resistance to "new" foods.  I personally have some food prejudices - I don't want to eat bugs, heart organs, frogs or shark, and have refused to eat these things many times.  Also, changing my eating habits for a healthier lifestyle was a hard change, especially discontinuing to eat wheat products.  Even though I know it is healthier, I still resist the change.

Dabbling with plant genetics, planting monocultures of the same variety of species, using increasing amounts of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides is leading to increasing risk of crop failures.  While there are several seed banks around the world which are in place to preserve genetic variety, if something truly catastrophic happened to one of our major crops, it would be very difficult to resurrect varieties which wouldn't be affected in a similar manner immediately.  

The Irish Potato Famine caused a massive reduction in that nation's population.  Within 10 years, the nation experienced roughly 25-30% loss in population as a combined result of famine-related deaths and emigration to other countries, primarily the United States.  A similar massive failure of wheat, rice or corn would have devastating effects world-wide.  Especially corn, as we rely on it for food, animal feed, and oil for manufacturing ethanol and other petroleum replacements.