Global Warming will Spread and Deepen Food Insecurity Antibiotic Uptake by Plants Exposure to Pesticides Triggers Depression New Research Reinforces Old Questions about the Safety of Roundup Herbicides Levels of Inorganic Phosphates in the Human Diet can Promote Lung Cancer
Melamine Present in U.S. Baby Formula Environmental Factors Driving Increase in Autism? Resistance to Glyphosate Produces the ìPerfect Weedî Major Health Care Provider Steers Clear of GM-Sugar and Animal Clones New Zealand Bans Endosulfan Bailing Out Ethanol -- Again
An example: Source: Sustainable Food News, December 26, 2009
Not a Shred of Government Data? By: Chuck Benbrook , Chief Scientist, The Organic Center In a January 7, 2009 interview with Forbes Magazine, Mike Mack, the CEO of Syngenta said that ñ
Really? Read the full commentary Show Me the Soil - Health Science - Building Alliances with Dietitians, By: Angie Tagtow, MS, RD, LD ÖíTouted as food and nutrition professionals, dietitians use research as the basis for practice, education and policy. However, the profession remains entrenched in patient-centered care and has yet to transition to a systems approach to food. ë Read the full commentary
Keep Up with Events by Visiting the Organic Center Blog Core Truths on the Major Benefits of Organic Food and Farming Share a Valentineís Day Delight of Organic Roses
Give your sweetheart a bouquet of organic roses and 10% of the purchase price will be donated to The Organic Center. Sheís sure to love how gorgeous they are and youíll love knowing you gave to her and to The Organic Center. Be sure to use this link www.organicbouquet.com/organiccentervdfreevase09 or just click on the banner to ensure we receive the donation. Thank you!
The Organic Center Features Jerry Garcia Artwork Do you or someone you know love The Grateful Dead? Do you enjoy beautiful original works of art? If so, select a giclee of Jerry Garcia original artwork and benefit The Organic Center. This unique fundraising initiative to benefit The Organic Center is made possible through the generosity of filmmaker Deborah Koons Garcia and features the series, "In the Garden," by the late Jerry Garcia. Individual prints are $250, or get the full series for $1,000. To order your Jerry Garcia art, click here. Our Research ñ
Companies, foundations, or individuals can support work by The Organic Center on a critical issue, or in a specific area through our donor directed research program. Contact Dr. Benbrook for details.
For companies, The Organic Center's Mission Organic Affinity Marketing Partnership Program provides resources and tools to help educate your customers about the personal benefits of organic food and farming. Become part of an effort to grow the U.S. market for organic from 3 percent to 10 percent by 2010.
"The Scoop," is an electronic newsletter published monthly by The Organic Center. For a free subscription, visit www.organic-center.org. Backed by the world's leading scientists, physicians and scholars, The Organic Center is committed to two goals. TOC Board Chair: Michelle Goolsby, Consultant to Dean Foods The Organic Center FULL CONTENT OF FEATURED ARTICLES ARE BELOW Global Warming will Spread and Deepen Food Insecurity Science Magazine has published a sobering new projection of the impact of global warming on food production, and concludes that by 2100, one-half the worldís population faces possibly severe food insecurity. One-half of global population in 2100 should equal 5 to 6 billion people; today, less than 1 billion are chronically undernourished. The results of 23 global climate models were used in conjunction with direct observations of changing weather patterns. The team predicted with 90% certainty that by 2100, the lowest temperature during the growing season in the tropics and subtropics will be higher than any temperature recorded to date. In 2003, summer temperatures in France were 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. Over 52,000 people died from the heat across Western Europe, and wheat and forage yields were reduced by one-third. By 2100, average expected temperatures in France will equal those during the 2003 heat wave. Source: David S. Battisti and Rosamond L. Naylor, ìHistorical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat,î Science Magazine, Vol. 323, No. 5911, January 9, 2009 This Science Magazine report is compelling and deeply worrisome. It focuses on the impact of high and rising temperatures on crop production. While the impacts of steadily rising temperatures on agricultural production clearly will be among the major adverse impacts on global climate change, growing evidence suggests that heightened extremes and variability in weather could equal, or even exceed the net impacts of rising temperatures on food insecurity. Rising temperatures will reduce farm production in some regions and increase it in others. It will increase the vulnerability of low-lying and coastal areas to flooding, because of rising ocean levels. But more frequent, and more severe weather, ranging from hurricanes, tornados, and typhoons to heavy, early-season snowfall followed by rapid melts and flooding, premature fall frosts, early budding of fruit trees from spring heat waves, and prolonged flooding and saturation of prime farmland soils could cause even more serious, widespread reductions in crop yields. Why? Because farms can and will adapt to steadily rising temperatures by altering crop mixes and plant genetics, but there are few ways to prevent damage from extreme weather events, and the toll from a single adverse weather event can impair crop and livestock production for years. For several years scientists at the University of Minnesota have been studying the fate of antibiotics that pass through farm animals and wind up in livestock manure applied to cropland. They have analyzed the presence and persistence of common livestock antibiotics in soil, movement of antibiotics into water, the impacts of manure management and composting on the levels of antibiotics present in manure or compost, and most recently, the uptake of antibiotics by plants. A recent update on the teamís work was written by Matthew Cimitile, an environmental journalism graduate student, and was circulated by Environmental Health News on January 6, 2009. The tagline line reads ñ The piece has already triggered a flurry of blog reports and secondary media coverage, in large part because of the insinuation that organic food is sometimes contaminated with a prohibited substance. The ominous claim in the tagline ñ ìÖeven ones grown on organic farmsÖî -- is not backed up by any data in the body of the piece, nor has the research team carried out a real-world field study designed to confirm plant uptake of antibiotics by conventional or organic crops. Thus far, uptake has only been demonstrated in a six-week greenhouse trial. In addition, the article describes that when manure laced with antibiotics is composted, a significant portion of the antibiotics in the manure are broken down by the heat generated in the composting process. The vast majority of livestock manure applied to organic vegetable land is composted, while nearly all manure applied to conventional cropland is spread raw, and is not composted. So, even if there is a potential problem associated with antibiotic uptake by certain plants, it is likely much less serious on organic farms, because of the reliance of organic farmers on composting. Editorís Note: There is a concerted effort underway by some organizations, scientists and certain parts of the media to raise questions, some legitimate, some not, about the integrity of organic food and farming. This Minnesota team has conducted important, cutting edge research on a clearly important topic. But the media reporting on their findings displays a distinct anti-organic bias and downplays the much more important implications for conventional livestock producers currently reliant on antibiotics. Public health scientists agree that antibiotic use on livestock farms is excessive and a major cause of antibiotic resistance. About seven pounds of antibiotics are used on the farm for each pound used to treat human infections. Antibiotic resistant genes are ìbornî on livestock farms, and then hitch rides on plasmids from one bacterium to another, and eventually find their way to important human pathogens. Organic farming does not allow any antibiotic use for disease prevention and growth promotion. Animals fighting serious infections on organic farms should, and usually are treated with an antibiotic to save their lives, and then the animals are moved or sold to a conventional operation. Organic livestock production would almost eliminate ag sector antibiotic use and is one of the most promising pathways to address one of the nationís most significant public health challenges. It takes imagination, and is indeed flat wrong, to contend that organic food and farming are part of the problem with antibiotics and resistance. Exposure to Pesticides Triggers Depression High-level acute exposures to pesticides, as well as cumulative exposures over time were found to increase the likelihood of depression among pesticide applicators in Iowa and North Carolina. This latest finding is from research on nearly 18,000 private pesticide applicators enrolled in the Agricultural Health Study. Source: Cheryl L. Beseler et al., ìDepression and Pesticide Exposures among Private Pesticide Applicators Enrolled in the Agricultural Health Study,î Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 116, No. 12, December 2008. New Research Reinforces Old Questions About the Safety of Roundup Herbicides Roundup herbicide containing the active ingredient glyphosate, as well as one to four so-called inert ingredients, is the most widely used pesticide in the world. In the last three years, a team of French scientists have been exploring the genotoxicity of Roundup, its active ingredient glyphosate, and various adjuvants and stabilizers used in the formulation of Roundup herbicide products. In just published research, the team looked at the toxicity of four glyphosate containing herbicides, as well as glyphosate alone in three different human cell types. The concentrations tested were comparable to levels expected in food or feed treated with Roundup herbicides. All four Roundup herbicide formulations caused total cell death in 24 hours in all three assays. They discovered that the toxicity of various Roundup formulations was not a function of the level of glyphosate, the active ingredient, but instead was related to the adjuvants and other inert ingredients in the formulations. The team concludes that the adjuvants and other inert ingredients in Roundup herbicides increase human cell permeability and amplify toxicity. According to the team ñ
Source: Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Seralini, ìGlyphosate Formualtions Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells,î Chem. Res. Toxicol., published online December 23, 2008. Editorís Note: This new research raises new concerns about Roundup, especially in cases where individuals are hand spraying the herbicide with minimal protective equipment. The concerns are new because U.S. pesticide law allows pesticide manufacturers to not disclose the identity of so-called inert ingredients. To this day, not a single independent scientist in the United States knows the secret formula of Roundup herbicides, and hence no research has ever been conducted on the possibly synergistic impact of glyphosate and the inert ingredients in Roundup herbicides. No research, no worries. In light of this French research, the agricultural community and other frequent users of Roundup should petition the EPA to over-ride the ìconfidential business informationî policy that keeps secret the identity of pesticide inert ingredients. There is a provision in federal pesticide law that would allow the EPA to take such an action, when in the public interest. Given that dozens of Roundup formulations are heavily advertised and used, including several targeting homeowners, there is now a profound need for EPA to disclose what is in Roundup herbicide so that careful and rigorous toxicological studies can be conducted. One near-certain outcome will be recognition of low-cost ways to formulate Roundup herbicide so that human risks are markedly reduced. Despite this seemingly win-win opportunity, look for the pesticide industry to aggressively resist disclosure of the inert ingredients in different Roundup products. High Levels of Inorganic Phosphates in the Human Diet can Promote Lung Cancer Korean scientists have found that elevated levels of inorganic phosphate in the diets of experimental animals significantly increase the risk of lung cancer. Lung cancer kills more people globally than any other form of cancer. Inorganic phosphates are added to most conventional processed foods to extend shelf life or stabilize products. The researchers studied the incidence and progression of lung cancer in mice fed diets containing 0.5% and 1.0% phosphate, a range roughly comparable to levels in the human diet. They warn that increasing levels of inorganic phosphates in the human diet could further increase the incidence and deaths caused by lung cancer. Source: Myung-Haing Cho et al., ìHigh Dietary Phosphate Increases Lung Tumorigenesis and Alters Akt Signaling,î American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 179, pp. 59-68, 2009. Editorís Note: The National Organic Program rule allows only a few inorganic phosphates to be used in the manufacture of a limited number of organic foods. In light of this research, phasing out the few uses of inorganic phosphates in the organic food industry would create another clear-cut human health benefit associated with consumption of organic food. Liquid Fertilizer Debacle Leads to Questions About the Integrity of Organic Food The Sacramento Bee broke the story about ammonium sulfate-spiked organic liquid fertilizers on December 28, 2008. The story triggered a flurry of negative commentaries about the integrity of organic food. This episode and its aftermath is sure to arise again and again as critics of the organic industry make the case that consumers cannot trust the organic label and are paying premium prices for products that are not different than conventional food. The Bee story focused on the findings of a California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) investigation of a Salinas-based company called California Liquid Fertilizer (CLF). This company had marketed for seven years organic liquid fertilizer products that contained higher levels of nitrogen than present in similar products manufactured by other companies. These CLF products won sizable market share because they were sold at a lower price and contained as much, or more nitrogen than competing products. A number of organizations and individuals in the organic community grew suspicious that California Liquid Fertilizer products were not legitimate. Two organizations started asking questions as early as 2004 -- the California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF), an organic certifier, and the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI). Individuals in both organizations tried to obtain information from the company to verify that the inputs purchased by CLF could support the production of the volume and concentration of nitrogen-containing liquid fertilizers sold by the company. These efforts were not successful, since the company claimed that details of the manufacturing process were proprietary and CLF refused to provide access to the detailed records that would be necessary to carry out an assessment of the volume of inputs purchased by CLF relative to the volume of fertilizer produced and sold. OMRI has since rewritten its agreement with manufacturers requiring access to such records. The nitrogen in organically approved liquid fertilizer products comes from starting materials that are naturally high in protein like fish, blood meal, meat and feathers. Earthworm castings and some food processing wastes are also high in protein, and are sometimes used in manufacturing organic nitrogen fertilizers. But on the basis of each unit (percent) of nitrogen in a finished fertilizer product, the cost of these natural sources of protein is much higher than petro-chemical-based sources of nitrogen. According to the Bee story, petro-chemical based ammonium sulfate is up to twenty-times cheaper than approved organic sources of nitrogen, such as ground up fish. In their spring 2007 newsletter, CCOF published an article entitled ìLiquid Organic Fertilizers: Friend or Foe?î This article openly explained the basic issues and concerns with organic liquid fertilizers, especially those manufactured by California Liquid Fertilizer. The article points out that ñ
According to CCOF, ìThe rule of thumb in fertilizer manufacturing is that every 6.2% protein turns into 1% nitrogen.î A typical fish-based liquid fertilizer might contain 5% nitrogen, which means it started out with 31% liquid protein, or 62% protein on a dry weight basis. In CCOFís judgment, ìliquid fertilizers that claim more than 6% nitrogen seem improbable through normal chemistry.î California Liquid Fertilizer, however, had marketed several products with 6% or more nitrogen, and another company, Westbridge Agricultural Products, marketed a 14% nitrogen organic liquid fertilizer product. This Westbridge 14-0-0 liquid fertilizer was never reviewed or approved by OMRI. CDFAís Investigation According to the Bee story, an industry whistleblower tipped off the CDFA in June of 2004 that certain liquid fertilizer companies were using ammonium sulfate to artificially boost the nitrogen content of organic liquid fertilizers. This ìindustry whistleblowerî could have worked for a liquid fertilizer company, an organic certifier, or conceivably, an organic farm operation. About one year later, a CDFA inspector tested a sample of Biolizer XN, the leading product of California Liquid Fertilizer, and confirmed the presence of ammonium sulfate, an input not allowed in any organic fertilizer product. Further testing was done in 2006, and again ammonium sulfate was found. Numerous attempts were made by CDFA inspectors to get the company to explain its production practices and sources of nitrogen, to no avail. As the company stonewalled CDFA, just as they had stonewalled CCOF and OMRI, CDFA inspectors intensified the search for answers, and in 2006 intercepted two tank cars of ammonium sulfate that had been shipped to California Liquid Fertilizer from a mid-western food processing plant. Despite catching the company red-handed, it took CDFA another six months to drive the product off the market. In January 2007, a settlement was reached between the company and CDFA that removed the product from the market. The violation leading to the action was recorded as ìimproper labeling.î The slow pace of the investigation and delay in CDFA action was caused by two major factors. First, CDFA did not have in place a well-defined process to carry out such investigations of an organic input manufacturer, nor were policies and procedures in place to craft and implement enforcement actions. In short, CDFA had to make up procedures during the course of an active investigation. The second factor that slowed progress was the focus of the CDFA on the investigation of the serious September 2006 outbreak of E. coli O157 illnesses from fresh cut salad greens grown and packaged in and around the Salinas Valley. Response by the Organic Community No one involved in this case within the organic community is happy about how this episode was handled. Both CCOF and OMRI took several actions beginning in 2004 to raise questions and obtain answers about ìtoo good to be trueî liquid organic fertilizer products. But these organizations lacked the tools to compel credible answers from the company. CCOFís article on liquid organic fertilizers in its Spring 2007 newsletter brought the issue, and underlying suspicions, fully into the open. CCOF played a central and valuable role in providing information to the CDFA investigators, and pushed CDFA to reach closure in its investigation and take appropriate action. During the glacier-paced CDFA investigation, CCOF continued to work openly with OMRI and others in an attempt to determine what was actually in the suspect organic fertilizer products. In a December 21, 2007 communication to all CCOF certified growers and allied industry partners, CCOF prohibited any further use of the 14-0-0 liquid fertilizer product marketed by Westbridge Agricultural Products. A few weeks later, a similar announcement was made prohibiting further use of existing supplies of the California Liquid Fertilizer product Biolizer XN. Just this week, CCOF issued a strongly worded document entitled ìAnnouncement: 2009 Liquid Fertilizer Approval Policy". The announcement explains that CCOF will no longer internally review blended liquid fertilizers with greater than 3% nitrogen content that are not OMRI or Washington State Department of Agriculture approved. Moreover, CCOF is requiring manufacturers of liquid fertilizers to obtain third-party onsite inspections by August 15, 2009. During the inspections, compliance must be demonstrated with all applicable NOP rules. In addition, documentation must be provided to CCOF that proves that the liquid fertilizer inputs purchased and received by the company are sufficient to produce the volume of liquid fertilizers sold by the company. Major organic companies in the area also took action to prevent any further use of CLF products once it became clear that the Stateís investigation had confirmed serious problems with certain products. In 2008, Earthbound Farm (EF) put in place a program requiring independent verification of the contents and quality of liquid organic fertilizers containing 5% or more nitrogen. Samples from every lot of liquid fertilizer sold to an EF grower now have to be tested using a specialized radio-isotope method adapted and tested for this application by Earthbound. The test is designed to verify the source of the nitrogen in liquid fertilizer products, and can reliably distinguish between animal based sources and petro-chemical fertilizer inputs. In addition, beginning in the 2008 crop season, EB carried out random sampling and testing of liquid organic fertilizers applied by its contract growers, in part to determine whether the other steps taken to weed out fraudulent products were working as hoped. OMRI, CCOF, CDFA, and organic farmers in California remain on high alert and investigations continue of other organic liquid fertilizer companies. One company under a cloud of suspicion for some time just announced it is ceasing operations. The added steps and independent oversight of organic liquid fertilizer products are bound to much more quickly detect any company trying to pad their profit margins by spiking organic fertilizers with cheap, petro-chemical sources of nitrogen. Sources: ìOrganic farms unknowingly used a synthetic fertilizer,î Sacramento Bee, December 28, 2008 ìLiquid Organic Fertilizers: Friend or Foe?î CCOF Spring 2007 newsletter. July, 2008 letter from Will Daniels, Earthbound Farm V-P for Quality, Food Safety and Organic Integrity to all Earthbound Farm suppliers. Editorís Note: So what happens next? It is too soon to write the final chapter describing the end results of the actions of California Liquid Fertilizer and other input manufacturers that took shortcuts to increase profit margins. Whether, and to what degree this episode erodes, or enhances consumer confidence in organic food will be determined by the concrete steps taken by the organic community to prevent future incidents of this nature. Lesson number one is that not all businesses in the organic industry can be trusted. There is a continued role for careful oversight by both private groups like OMRI and certifiers, as well as by government agencies like CDFA and the USDAís National Organic Program. In order to detect and deal with similar problems in the future more quickly and forcefully, new mechanisms are needed to empower certifiers and OMRI to deal with suspect input manufacturers. Organic inputs that appear ìtoo good to be trueî may often prove to be just that. The organic liquid fertilizers marketed by California Liquid Fertilizer were approved by OMRI for use in organic production, based on OMRIís review of product information supplied by the company. At this point, OMRI reviews are based for the most part on information provided by manufacturers, which is cross-referenced against other information from independent sources. OMRI has added to its agreements with manufacturers the ability to audit records during on-site inspections and has stepped up its inspection program. Currently several fertilizer products have been, or are being inspected during the OMRI review process. Clearly, some entity in the organic community should have the capacity to address and resolve, both more quickly and decisively, questions that arise with organic inputs. While OMRI has the technical skills and experience to cost-effectively carry out such assessments, it lacks the authority to compel companies to cooperate, since the OMRI listing service is voluntary, not compulsory. Overcoming these constraints, or empowering some other entity to carry out such investigations, looms as a critical piece of unfinished business for the organic community as a whole. Lesson number two is that government action can take far too long to reach closure, and result in far too weak a response, if the goal is preserving and building consumer confidence in organic food and farming. This is not the first time a fertilizer manufacturer has duped farmers. There is a branch in CDFA dedicated to policing the fertilizer industry. But keeping the fertilizer industry honest is nowhere near the top of CDFAís list of priorities, and it generally takes a long time to build a strong case against a company that has developed the ability to defraud its customers, certifiers, and even oversight bodies like OMRI. The capacity and willingness of CDFA to take such actions in California exceeds by several orders of magnitude the will and ability of most other state agencies to address such problems. Because government agencies cannot be counted upon to act quickly or decisively in policing the integrity of organic inputs, the organic community will have to devise and carry out home-grown solutions to this problem. Several useful steps have already been taken, including the just-announced new CCOF policy and the requirement by Earthbound Farm that all companies supplying organic liquid fertilizer products to its contract growers must obtain, and keep current third-party certification verifying the source of nitrogen in liquid fertilizer products. Properly designed, random testing of inputs should be carried out on behalf of the whole industry, and when test results produce evidence of problems or possible fraud, decisive actions need to be taken quickly. A third lesson is that forceful and clear responses are needed to counteract wild and unsubstantiated claims that seem to invariably arise in the wake of this sort of incident. For example, the Eco-Eats blog on the Plenty Magazine website covered the Sacramento Bee story in a piece entitled ìAnother tainted food scandal.î Many other commentators asserted that this episode meant that consumers had been wasting their money on organic food that really was not organic. These assertions are reckless and flat wrong, and in the absence of effective responses, they will gain legitimacy. The actions of California Liquid Fertilizer were despicable, but they did not in any way ìtaintî organic food. The use of liquid fertilizers spiked with ammonium sulfate did not make the harvested foods less nutritious or safe. Virtually all the environmental and consumer benefits stemming from organic production remained intact in the food harvested from acres treated with the fraudulent liquid fertilizers. It is also not true that the organic food harvested from fields treated with the fraudulent fertilizer was, for this reason, not organic. The farmers purchasing OMRI-approved fertilizer products, with the consent of certifiers, had no way of knowing that the products they were applying to their fields contained some prohibited materials. They were innocent victims. In such instances, certifiers rarely revoke certification of a grower, especially when the consequences of the variance in compliance have no bearing on food quality and safety, and little or no impact on environmental quality. Still, many people will be perplexed that such an incident could happen in the organic food industry. In looking for answers, ponder for a few minutes how Bernard Madoff was able to pull off a $50 billion dollar Ponzi scheme, even after serious questions had been officially raised with financial regulators. Yes, we have important work to do in preventing new problems with organic inputs, but we also should take comfort in the fact that responsible people and organic institutions played key roles in identifying the problem and driving the fraudulent fertilizers off the market. Melamine Present in U.S. Baby Formula New tests conducted by the Food and Drug Administration have found melamine and its byproduct, cyanuric acid, in four of 89 samples of infant formula made in the U.S. This percent of samples testing positive ñ 4.5% -- is twice as high as reported earlier, and means that millions of babies every day are consuming infant formula containing melamine. Fortunately the levels found in U.S.-made formula are far lower than those in Chinese formula. The FDA expects that the melamine is coming from packaging or the manufacturing process, rather than spiking dairy cow rations with melamine. Source: Associated Press, January 8, 2009 Environmental Factors Driving Increase in Autism The number of new cases of autism in California each year has risen to 3,000, compared to 205 new cases in 1990. Scientists studying why have concluded that exposure to pesticides, viruses, and chemicals, individually and in combination, are likely among the reasons why. The most rapid increase is in newly diagnosed cases involving children 0-4 years old. Exposure to metals and pesticides during pregnancy are emerging as leading causes and are now the focus of intense research across the country. Mothers who used pet shampoos containing pesticides were twice as likely to give birth to children afflicted by autism. Despite growing consensus that environmental factors, and in particular chemicals, are pushing autism rates higher, the government is spending 10 to 20 times more research funding on assessment of possible genetic factors leading to autism. Source: Marla Cone, Environmental Health News, January 9, 2009 Resistance to Glyphosate Produces the ìPerfect Weedî Palmer amaranth pigweed is quickly emerging as the most serious weed species that has developed resistance to Roundup herbicides in the Southeastern United States. North Carolina weed scientist Alan York lists the reasons why Palmer amaranth qualifies as the ìperfect weedî ñ
The epicenter of problems with resistant pigweed is Macon County, Georgia, where 70 percent to 80 percent of Palmer amaranth is resistant to glyphosate. Over 10,000 acres of crops were abandoned in 2007 because of out-of-control weed growth. The Weed Science Society of America maintains an inventory of resistant weeds, which has recently been updated to show over 2.6 million acres infested with resistant Palmer amaranth. According to weed science experts, the only way to slow the spread of resistant weeds is to add new chemical modes of action into herbicide programs, and to spray more often at higher rates. This is why Roundup Ready technology is now dramatically increasing use of herbicides in many parts of the country. Source: Elton Robinson, ìDesigning the perfect weed ñ Palmer amaranth,î Delta Farm Press, December 24, 2008 Major Health Care Provider Steers Clear of GM-Sugar and Animal Clones Catholic Healthcare West, a leading nonprofit healthcare system operating 41 hospitals and medical centers, has announced its intention to avoid purchase of any genetically engineered sugar, or meat or milk from cloned animals. Reasons cited for avoiding these foods included gene flow and contamination, increased herbicide use, animal cruelty, and moral and ethical issues associated with animal cloning. Source: Sustainable Food News, January 7, 2009 In December 2008 the New Zealand government banned all uses of the endocrine disrupting insecticide endosulfan (Thiodan). New Zealand has now joined 55 countries, including the European Union in banning this persistent, high-risk pesticide. Endosulfan and its metabolites were found in 12 of the 20 foods tested by the USDAís Pesticide Data Program in 2005 including apples, pears, strawberries, squash, and green beans. Source: Charlotte Cuthbertso, ìEndosulfan Poison Banned in NZ,î Epoch Times, December 17, 2008 The biofuel industry has asked the federal government for $1 billion in short-term credit, and another $50 billion in loan guarantees to finance expansion of mostly corn-based ethanol production. In addition, the industry wants Congress to lift the current 10% cap on the content of ethanol in gasoline blends. New government subsidies are needed, according to the industry, because the price of ethanol has fallen in step with oil prices, and has dropped more significantly than the price of corn. Three major ethanol producers have already declared or are near bankruptcy. According to the Wall Street Journal (December 24, 2008), the audacity of the current request is heightened by the fact that ñ ìÖthe ethanol industry wouldnít even exist without the more than $25 billion in taxpayer handouts over the past 20 years.î ìThe uglier realities of corn ethanol are at least becoming more widely recognized, even on the political left. The Environmental Working Group and five other environmental organizations said this week they oppose a bailout because subsidies ëfor corn-based ethanol have produced unintended, yet potentially catastrophic environmental consequences, with little or no return to taxpayers in energy security [or] protection from global warming.íî Roundup Ready sugarbeets will account for 99% of the Nebraska crop in 2009. Source: University of Nebraska press release, December 30, 2008 Small farms that sell less than $250,000 in commodities account for 92% of all farms, yet only 23% of total production. The 35,100 farms selling over $1 million in farm commodities account for 2% of all farms and 48% of total sales. Source: ìMillion-Dollar Farms in the New Century,î Economic Research Service, USDA, December 2008. The Wall Street Journal (January 6, 2009) published a list of the 10 best jobs for ìmaking a livingî as well as the worst 10. Dairy farming was number two on the ìworstî job list. ìLumberjackî was listed as the worst job, and ìmathematicianî the best. Newly discovered sugars in human breast milk preferentially feed beneficial bacteria in the infantís gut, and can help protect the child from dangerous pathogens like E. coli O157. Source: ìUnraveling Breast Milk,î Chemical and Engineering News, September 29, 2008 Just 3% of childrenís meals purchased at fast food restaurants meet current USDA dietary guidelines. Twenty-five percent of children 4-8 years old consume fast food on a daily basis. Source: Sustainable Food News, December 26, 2009 Monsanto stock has risen $10.46 per share, or 14% since October 28th to January 8, 2009, the best performance of any stock traded on the New York stock exchange over the last two months. Source: ìSeeds and chemicals power Monsantoís big gains,î Bloomberg, January 9, 2009 7% of Canadian households are food insecure, compared to 12.6% in the United States. Source: ìA Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States,î Economic Research Service, USDA, December 2008 95% of consumers feel that food from genetically engineered animals should be labeled as such. Source: Consumer Reports poll, November 2008. As of December 2007, there were 691,000 hungry children in America. The number of CSAs has increased from 60 in 1990 to 1,150 in 2007. Not a Shred of Government Data? By: Chuck Benbrook In a January 7, 2009 interview with Forbes Magazine, Mike Mack, the CEO of Syngenta said that ñ ìPeople who say organic is better do so without any shred of government data.î Really? Anyone who studies pesticide residues in food, and pesticide dietary risk uses government data on the frequency and levels of pesticides found in different foods, as well as toxicological data from the U.S. EPA. Any number of analytical methods can be used to estimate the average pesticide risks associated with consumption of an organic apple compared to a conventional one, and all of them show that the risks are substantially greater when choosing conventional fruit. It is true that the government itself has never carried out or reported such a comparative pesticide risk analysis. Likewise, the government has never carried out research or tried to determine whether, and to what extent organic foods are more nutrient dense than conventional food. One reason the government has shied away from taking on such research is the official USDA policy that asserts there are no food safety or nutritional quality differences between organic and conventional food. The adoption of this policy back in the Clinton era was driven by political expediency and had nothing to do with ìgovernment dataî or credible scientific research. One of the great benefits of Presidential transitions, especially ones as dramatic as todayís, is that the window of opportunity to revisit stale, unfounded government policies opens wider than at any other time. Given the fiscal mess the country is mired in, building support for major new spending in support of organic food and farming will be a tough sell. If our community can preserve the hard-fought funding gains in the 2008 farm bill for key organic programs, that will be a major accomplishment. While a tough time to successful lobby for increases in funding for organic research and programs, other policy changes can play a valuable role in moving the market, and can often do so at little or no expense to the government. For example, the USDA can and should take a fresh look at published research that shows unequivocally that organic food does offer both food safety and nutritional advantages. Assuming the USDA sticks by its pledge to base all policies on sound science, the outcome of such a review will inevitably be a significant change in the message coming out of USDA about the benefits associated with consumption of organic food. Given all the other problems and challenges facing the new Administration, and the newly appointed leaders in USDA, we should not expect rapid action in revisiting USDA policies on the benefits of organic food and farming. In the interim, we need to keep pushing the science along and make better use of the new knowledge already generated. If a benefactor of the organic food industry came to me and said ìIíll fund $1 million in new Organic Center research if you can convince that something meaningful can be accomplished with the investment within five years,î I would make the case for the funding by explaining the enormous benefits that would come to the organic community as a result of a well-funded, science-driven effort to develop a petition to the FDA, or better yet a few petitions, calling for acceptance of new qualified health claims grounded in organic food production and processing. There is a well defined, science-driven process for convincing the FDA to allow a new qualified health claim to be stated on food product labels. I can think of a half-dozen that could be pursued right now, without any substantial new science. The process takes time and is very data intensive. Information on the levels of a nutrient, or pesticides, in an organic product, versus conventional products has to be compiled, analyzed, and integrated into a compelling package supporting the validity of the underlying claim. Imagine if we were successful in gaining approval, and by this I mean official FDA, i.e. the U.S. government, approval of a qualified health claim founded on organic production practices and/or food processing technology. The ability of organic food companies to place such new health claims on their labels would provide a distinct advantage in the marketplace. In addition, the fact that a nutrition-based or food safety health claim grounded in organic production has been officially embraced by the government will change a lot of attitudes about the benefits or organic food and farming. The good news is that some companies in the organic food industry are beginning to think about pursuing a qualified health claim. The Organic Center is eager to help companies who want to break trail in this most noble and consequential quest. Show Me the Soil - Health Science - Building Alliances with Dietitians By: Angie Tagtow, MS, RD, LD [Excerpts follow of a commentary published on The Organic Centerís website. See the full commentary for a list of resources for dietitians and references] Taking an ecological or systems approach to food and health has broadened my professional practice. I have worked with farmers, processors, cooperatives, businesses, organizations and academic institutions on the health, environmental and economic impacts of our food system. As an active member of the American Dietetic Association (ADA), I am a proponent of a food system framework as a mechanism to optimize the nutritional health of eaters. Specifically, a food system that is resilient, conserves and renews natural resources, advances social justice and animal welfare, builds community wealth, and fulfills the food and nutrition needs of all eaters. Dietitians know how food choices impact health, but are less apt to question how food choices impact the health of the planet or how agriculture policies and practices influence the quality, quantity and biodiversity of food. Touted as food and nutrition professionals, dietitians use research as the basis for practice, education and policy. However, the profession remains entrenched in patient-centered care and has yet to transition to a systems approach to food. Dietitians must ask ìAre we being effective? Are we optimizing the nationís health?î Based on the epidemic rates of overweight, obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, that would be a resounding ìno.î Dietitians must take a food system approach in reducing diet-related chronic disease and embrace soil, plant and animal science and the connections to human nutrition. Dietitians must address the shrinking genetic biodiversity of our food supply and take a precautionary approach to food production. The organic community can build stronger alliances with dietetic professionals beginning with evidence-based interactions. Science proves that healthy soil grows healthy food and healthy food nourishes healthy people. Dietitians thirst for the evidence that supports how organic farming increases the density of nutrients, specifically antioxidants, in foods. English agronomist Sir Albert Howard said, ìSoil is the basis of the public health system.î Although written more than 60 years ago, the science holds true today and hopefully will become a guiding principle for dietitians and other health professionals.
|
Science Magazine has published a sobering new projection of the impact of global warming on food production. 
story triggered a flurry of negative commentaries about the integrity of organic food. This episode and its aftermath is sure to arise again and again as critics of the organic industry make the case that consumers cannot trust the organic label and are paying premium prices for products that are not different than conventional food. 
The biofuel industry has asked the federal government for $1 billion in short-term credit, and another $50 billion in loan guarantees to finance expansion of mostly corn-based ethanol production. 
Individuals can support the scientific work of The Organic Center by:
In This Issue: |