Alfalfa Field (©photo by Irish Eyes, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Over the holidays, the United States Department of Agriculture announced its approval of a novel strain of genetically engineered corn, developed by Monsanto, purportedly being “drought tolerant.”
Despite receiving nearly 45,000 public comments in opposition to this particular genetically engineered (GE) corn variety (and only 23 comments in favor), the Obama administration gave Monsanto the green light to release its newest GE corn variety freely into the environment and American food supply, without any governmental oversight or safety tracking.
“President Obama and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack just sent a clear message to the American public that they do not care about our concerns with genetically engineered food and their questionable safety, adverse environmental impacts, and detrimental effects on farmers, especially organic farmers,” says Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst with The Cornucopia Institute.
Change We Can Believe In?
“This is just the latest in a string of approvals of genetically engineered crops, and it is clear that despite campaign promises of change from Obama, he has not had the courage to stand strong against the powerful agribusiness and biotechnology lobbies,” Kastel added.
In addition to its announcement approving Monsanto’s newest GE corn variety, the USDA also opened a 60-day public comment period for two additional petitions – one for Monsanto’s GE soybean containing higher levels of an omega-3 fatty acid, that does not naturally occur in soybeans, and the other from Dow AgroSciences for corn that has been genetically engineered to better resist the poisonous herbicide 2,4-D.
The public can comment on Dow's 2,4-D corn at:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0103-0001
While the USDA attempts to assure the public that 2,4-D is safe, scientists have raised serious concerns about the safety of this herbicide, which was used as a key ingredient in “Agent Orange,” used to defoliate forests and croplands in the Vietnam War.
2,4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide, and scientists around the world have reported increased cancer risks in association with its use, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and malignant lymphoma. Four separate studies in the United States reported an association with chlorophenoxy herbicide use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
"The concern is that, just like Monsanto's genetically engineered corn that is resistant to RoundUp™ (glyphosate) herbicide, the approval of a cultivar resistant to 2,4-D will cause an exponential increase in the use of this toxic agrichemical," Kastel stated.
Research by the EPA found that babies born in counties with high rates of 2,4-D application to farm fields were significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits. These birth defects were 60% to 90% more likely in counties with higher 2,4-D application rates.
The results also showed a higher likelihood of birth defects in babies conceived in the spring, when herbicide application rates peak.
In its petition, Dow AgroSciences states that 2,4-D is increasingly important for chemical farmers because of the presence of weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate, as a result of the widespread use of Monsanto’s genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops.
When Monsanto introduced glyphosate, it was touted as a safer and less toxic alternative to herbicides like 2,4-D. Now, an emerging body of scientific literature is raising serious concerns about the safety of glyphosate as well.
“The concern that the use of GE crops, which are resistant to particular herbicides, leads to the creation of 'superweeds' is now shown to be valid and serious, as even the chemical companies now recognize and admit this is a problem,” says Kastel.
“In 2012 the USDA is proposing approving a new GE corn variety that is resistant to a different toxic herbicide, escalating the toxic treadmill in chemical-dependent agriculture,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides. “This is nothing more than a band-aid solution to a serious problem, and will only give rise to more superweeds, more herbicide pollution in our environment, more herbicide poisoning, while likely leading to the need for even more toxic herbicides a couple of years down the line. This foolish circle has to end,” Feldman said.
A Very Real Threat to Organic Farmers
Farm research groups like The Cornucopia Institute are also concerned with the impact of genetically engineered crops on organic farmers, whose organic crops are already at risk of contamination with Monsanto’s unnatural DNA, from pollen drift.
In its Environmental Assessment of the “drought tolerant” Monsanto corn, the USDA conceded that gene flow of corn pollen is likely to occur. It is well-established that corn pollen travels, and pollen from genetically engineered plants will contaminate natural corn plants.
“The irony, of course, is that organic fields and crops are much more drought tolerant, because common sense and field trials show healthy and biologically active organic soil retains moisture much better than tired and depleted soil on conventional monoculture farms, and organic crops are healthier and more robust than conventional crops,” said Charlotte Vallaeys, a researcher at Cornucopia.
“But Monsanto cannot profit from healthy soil and healthy organic crops, while they can profit from genetically engineering, patenting, and owning new life forms,” Vallaeys continued. “It’s unfortunate that the Obama administration is equally misguided by supporting Monsanto and Dow’s petitions and ignoring citizens' demand for an immediate end to approving these genetically engineered crops in our food supply.”
About The Cornucopia Institute
The Cornucopia Institute is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Through research, advocacy and economic development our goal is to empower farmers both politically and through marketplace initiatives. Its Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit. We will actively resist regulatory rollbacks and the weakening of organic standards to protect and maintain consumer confidence in the organic food label.
To learn more, go to: The Cornucopia Institute
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site, email Jeff Deasy at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Free Grazing Calf (©photo by Matthew Hull, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
"We found inadequate, overgrazed pasture adjacent to their milking facility, and we were told by Shamrock employees that the confined cows had not been out in weeks," said Mark A. Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute.
An industrial-scale organic dairy, located south of Phoenix in the desert Southwest, is poised to lose its USDA organic certification. The enforcement action at Shamrock Farms is the result of a USDA investigation into organic livestock management practices that was triggered by a formal complaint from The Cornucopia Institute.
Shamrock operates a massive dairy that was milking approximately 16,000 cows at the time of an inspection by Cornucopia staff in 2008. Between 700 and 1,100 of the cows at the split operation were in the organic milk herd; the remainder were part of a conventional dairy that is part of the same sprawling complex. Shamrock is Arizona's first-ever certified organic dairy.
"We found inadequate, overgrazed pasture adjacent to their milking facility, and we were told by Shamrock employees that the confined cows had not been out in weeks," said Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute, an organic industry watchdog.
Federal organic regulations require that cows be grazed, and the practice has been a contentious issue in the organic arena. A number of factory-scale dairies — some milking thousands of cows each — have been spotlighted by Cornucopia's investigations for skirting the law. Formal complaints to the USDA from the farm policy group have led to similar enforcement actions against other giant dairies that they say are "masquerading as organic."
Calf Housing at Shamrock (©photo courtesy of Cornucopia Institute)
"As an organic dairy farmer who believes in and follows the law, I am upset that outfits like Shamrock are allegedly cheating and deceiving organic consumers," said John Boere, a Modesto, California dairy producer who ships his milk to Organic Valley, a cooperative of primarily family farmers. "Over the past few years there has been a surplus of organic milk, which injured plenty of farms like mine. Ethical producers like me could have recovered some of our income if certifiers and the USDA had been doing their jobs," added Boere.
Shamrock's organic certifier, Quality Assurance International, has been asked by the USDA to handle the suspension.
"This dairy operation never should have been certified in the first place," Kastel noted, "and it's unacceptable that it took more than three years from the time of our complaint to the announcement of this enforcement action. There's simply no excuse for this level of foot-dragging and procrastination at a USDA administration that proclaimed this the 'age of enforcement.'"
The Wisconsin-based organization has been increasingly critical of the Obama/Vilsack administration at the USDA for failing to live up to its own rhetoric, and high expectations after appointing widely respected industry participants to run the National Organic Program.
"We filed the formal legal complaint against Shamrock towards the end of the Bush administration," said Kastel. “This kind of delay, as consumers apparently were continuing to unknowingly buy fraudulent organic milk, is a grave disservice and abdication of the USDA's congressional mandate to protect the industry from improprieties."
Shamrock Food Company's milk and sour cream products are distributed in the Rocky Mountain and Southwest regions and available at such retailers as Walmart.
The Cornucopia Institute
The Cornucopia Institute, with almost 6,000 members, has more organic farmer-members than any other policy group in the country. On the organization's website (www.cornucopia.org) pictures of Shamrock's industrial-scale dairy can be viewed in the photo gallery.
"At a time when conventional and organic dairy producers are all being squeezed by extraordinarily high feed prices, there is no doubt that large corporate-owned, vertically-integrated operations like Shamrock put downward pressure on farm gate prices," said Will Fantle, Cornucopia's Research Director. "If this dairy was indeed violating the law, they have taken profits out of the pockets of hard-working family farmers in the Southwest."
Cornucopia has also produced an online scorecard for consumers rating all organic dairy brands sold in grocery stores around the country for their adherence to the spirit and letter of the federal law and regulations governing organic food and agriculture.
"The good news for organic consumers in the Southwest, and elsewhere, is that based on our research 90% of all organic dairy brands are produced with high integrity," Kastel affirmed. "In every market buyers can find organic milk, cheese and yogurt, butter and ice cream that truly respect organic consumers' values and the federal law. Scofflaws like Shamrock are unfortunate aberrations."
Flagrant Violation of the Law
The Cornucopia Institute was formally notified by the USDA that it had completed its investigation of Shamrock's Arizona dairy by referring the 2008 complaint to the operation's certifier, Quality Assurance International (QAI).
"Since Shamrock, based on our allegations, was in flagrant violation of the law, which should have been evident to its certifier, upon initial inspection and on subsequent annual inspections, we question the propriety of the USDA depending on QAI rather than conducting their own investigation," said Fantle.
In the past, when Cornucopia filed formal legal complaints against other industrial dairy operations, such as Aurora Dairy in Colorado, which USDA investigators found was in "willful" violation of federal law, the certifier was also found complicit and was initially earmarked, by the USDA, for suspension.
In 2007, another giant dairy certified by QAI, owned by Case Vander Eyk Jr., in Pixley, California milking 10,000 cows, in a split operation, also lost its organic certification after a Cornucopia investigation and subsequent legal complaint.
"The USDA's job, operating an accreditation program, is to assure that the certifiers are performing their duties properly," said Fantle. "Subcontracting investigations to certifiers, when serious allegations crop up, when the certifier itself could also be responsible, is inappropriate."
The USDA's letter to Cornucopia states that, "QAI issued a Letter of Proposed Suspension to Shamrock" and that the corporation has appealed the action and their milk remains in the market.
"Besides the unacceptable delay, what is outrageous about this notice is its lack of transparency," added Fantle. The USDA has refused, thus far, to release the actual Letter of Proposed Suspension, breaking from tradition.
"Even the Bush administration was willing to inform the public when an enforcement action took place and fully delineate the violations that were confirmed," lamented Kastel.
Although, on at least one occasion, The Cornucopia Institute was forced to sue the Bush USDA in order to compel the release of documents that the public was legally entitled to, it now states it is more disappointed in the Obama administration's approach to openness at the USDA.
"This isn't exactly news, as the mindset of the Obama administration has been well documented in the media, including the New York Times, in terms of their increasing levels of secrecy, after professing, as President Obama took office, its commitment to transparency. This level of secrecy is highly disappointing to find at the National Organic Program (NOP),” said Kastel.
"There wasn't anything positive in terms of governmental openness at the NOP during the Bush years, but now we find that documents that had been previously released are being withheld. What’s more, when the Department now complies with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests most of the documents are so heavily redacted they are rendered useless to the public and media endeavoring to understand whether or not our regulators are properly enforcing the law," Kastel added.
About The Cornucopia Institute
The Cornucopia Institute is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Through research, advocacy and economic development our goal is to empower farmers both politically and through marketplace initiatives. Its Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit. We will actively resist regulatory rollbacks and the weakening of organic standards to protect and maintain consumer confidence in the organic food label.
To learn more, go to: The Cornucopia Institute
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site, email Jeff Deasy at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Concerned (©photo by monsterdimka, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
We have already allowed the spread of genetically modified crops into our agriculture at great cost to our economy and with unknown effects on our bodies
Only 26% of Americans believe their food contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs), according to the nonprofit Organic Consumers Association. But 80% of non-organic, processed foods (basically every product containing soy, corn, canola, cottonseed oil, sugar beet derivatives or ingredients from animals fed soy or corn) are contaminated with genetically modified organisms.
A statement from OCA says, “People don't think they're eating genetically modified foods because they have no way of knowing whether they are or not. Genetically modified foods aren't labeled.”
No one really knows with certainty what the effects of eating GMO foods will be on human beings, but GMOs have been linked to organ disruption in 19 animal studies. And, when Monsanto's engineered genes were found in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, scientists concluded it must have gotten there through eating GMO-fed animals, says OCA..
Feeding GMOs to Infants
Even some baby foods that are certified USDA Organic foods contain GMOs, as do some infant formulas, children's vitamins, and dairy products. They are produced for our children with the Martek corporation's "Life'sDHA" and "Life'sARA," which are artificial nutraceuticals that mimic essential fatty acids found in eggs and fish.
To learn more about keeping kids safe, go to: Get GMOs Out of Organic Baby Food!
Keeping Track of Genetically Engineered Crops
Congressman Dennis Kucinich has introduced legislation that would prohibit open-air cultivation of Genetically Engineered (GE) pharmaceutical and industrial crops, preventing biological contamination of our food supply. The bill would also establish a tracking system to regulate and ensure the safety of GE pharmaceutical and industrial crops.
“We must take steps to prevent genetically engineered organisms from being grown in a way that could do irreversible damage to our food supply. Under pressure from profit-minded industry, we have already allowed the spread of genetically modified crops into our agriculture at great cost to our economy and with unknown effects on our bodies,” said Kucinich.
To learn more about the bill, go to: The Genetically Engineered Safety Act
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
McDonald’s at the Mall (©photo by lespowell, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Measure helped spur watershed year in curbing junk food marketing to kids
San Francisco’s groundbreaking Healthy Meals Incentive law has taken effect. The law sets basic nutritional standards for kids’ meals that are accompanied by toy giveaways. Its passage last November garnered international media attention, helping spur a cascade of developments in curbing junk food marketing to kids.
“This law is an important achievement not only for the health of San Francisco’s children, but for children nationwide,” said San Francisco City Supervisor Eric Mar, the sponsor of the measure. “We are ensuring parents and children have real choice when they eat out – especially in communities saturated with McDonald’s-style junk food. It’s common sense for a healthier America that I’d encourage the food industry to act on immediately.”
Healthy Food for Kids a National Issue
Shortly after the policy’s passage, the Los Angeles City Council declared a moratorium on new fast food establishments in South Los Angeles, an area where fast food predominates and diet-related disease is disproportionately high.
New York City introduced a measure similar to San Francisco’s, proposing nutritional standards for kid’s meals served with toys. Other local and state governments have since tested the waters or are currently considering advancing related polices.
Nationally, a federal interagency working group also proposed new recommendations for marketing junk food to kids after 30 years of industry intimidation to remain on the sidelines.
Fast Food Giants Respond to SF Law
Perhaps most telling of San Francisco’s Healthy Meals Incentive’s impact was the industry response.
Jack in the Box, the country’s fifth largest hamburger chain, announced it was discontinuing toy giveaways at its 2,200 stores nationwide. KFC Australia not only dropped the toys but offered, “we think the idea of toys being given away with meals has had its day…we hope this decision today will support parents in making dietary decisions on behalf of their children which aren't influenced in any way by pressure to choose the meal that has a toy."
“The San Francisco Healthy Meals Initiative and the public support for it put the fast food industry on notice,” said Kelle Louaillier, executive director of Corporate Accountability International. “Some corporations responded in good faith. Others responded with half measures and PR. Still others dug in their heels. All were forced to respond and reckon with a practice that makes children sick.”
Corporate Accountability International partnered with a broad coalition of health professionals, local parents, and small businesses to secure passage of the Healthy Meal Incentive Ordinance despite the dedicated opposition of McDonald’s and its trade association.
Healthy Eating Eating Healthy (©photo by eprzygoda, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Top-Dollar Lobbyists, Public Relations Firms & Lawyers Lose Battle
The burger giant enlisted top-dollar lobbyists, public relations firms and lawyers to oppose the law. Failing to overcome grassroots support, McDonald’s executives threatened to sue the city upon the measure’s implementation. Its trade association even went so far as to work under the radar to persuade state lawmakers in Florida and Arizona to pass a state law preventing local governments from enacting similar measures.
But such threats and backroom deals only solidified the resolve of health advocates. In May, Corporate Accountability International launched a partnership with a still-growing network of some of the country’s leading cardiologists, children’s psychologists, pediatricians and other health professionals to call on McDonald’s directly to cut the junk food promotions to kids. In July, the American Academy of Pediatrics took a further step, based on a growing body of science, suggesting a total ban on junk food marketing.
"Bad Food is Bad Medicine"
"Food is medicine. Which means bad food is bad medicine,” said Dr. Robert Lustig, Professor of Clinical Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco. “Kids cannot choose to refrain from taking bad medicine when prescribed. Coercing children to consume food with questionable nutritive value is not all that different from medical malpractice. And the results of this bad medicine, in terms of childhood obesity, are there for all to see. I applaud San Francisco's fortitude in taking steps to spare the health of a generation.”
As pressure grew on McDonald’s and other chains, a host of McDonald’s competitors voluntarily committed to reduce the amount of fat, salt, sugar, and calories in kids’ meals over the next decade. Never mind the commitments were unenforceable, lax and self-imposed, McDonald’s refused to join the club.
Instead the burger giant took its own significant step to avoid further regulation, adding apple slices to all Happy Meals and reducing the portion size of its kids’ fries. The action was a sure sign McDonald’s is responding to a public increasingly disenchanted with its predatory marketing, if only a baby step. The temporary positive PR belies the failure of these “new and improved” meals to meet San Francisco’s proposed nutritional recommendations for kids’ meals. Most concerning, McDonald’s actions has made no move to reduce its annual $400 million plus global budget for marketing its exceedingly unhealthy brand to children.
Parent Views Corporation as "Abusive"
For San Francisco parents like Caroline Grannan, McDonald’s calculations only reinforce the bad taste the corporation left in the mouths of city residents last year.
"McDonald’s and its spin doctors couldn’t have been more condescending to parents here,” said Caroline Grannan, mother of two. “First they told us they had the right to promote whatever they want at any expense to our children. Then they told us that if our children got sick as a result, it was wholly our fault. San Francisco’s new law has challenged the industry’s blame-shifting in a profound way – calling an abusive industry to account for its devastating role in today’s health crisis."
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, right now, one in three children are at risk for developing type-2 diabetes in their lifetime as a result of diets high in McDonald’s-style junk food. This generation may be the first in U.S. history to live shorter lives than their parents.
About Corporate Accountability
Corporate Accountability International (formerly Infact) is a membership organization that has, for the last 35 years, successfully advanced campaigns protecting health, the environment and human rights. Value [the] Meal is Corporate Accountability International’s campaign dedicated to reversing the global epidemic of diet-related disease by challenging the fast food industry to curb a range of its practices.
To view some of the previous posts on the topic, go to:
1. It is Time to Retire Ronald McDonald for the Sake of Kids
2. Oly Santa Claus is Better Known to Kids than Ronald McDonald
3. Junk Food Ads are Prevalent on TV Programs for Kids
4. Yale Study: TV Ads Contribute to Obesity in Children
5. Ads Make Junk Food Sound Healthy for Kids
6. Selling to Kids
7. Food Giants Still Marketing Junk Food to Kids
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
El Sitio Feliz (The Happy Place) in East Harlem (©photo by Jeff Deasy)
A team of long time gardeners, parents, teachers, activists, legal counsel and staff with elected officials in New York have crafted legislation to preserve community gardens in New York City and issued a call for public support to get their NYC Garden Law passed.
According to GreenThumb of the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, over 100 community gardens in NYC are now privately owned as part of a Land Trust. But since a survey jointly conducted by the nonprofit GrowNYC and Green Thumb in 2009-2010 said there are nearly 500 community gardens in New York City, many remain vulnerable to destruction and development for far less green purposes.
As Isabel, a gardener in the Bronx, put it, “Our gardens are getting bulldozed one by one. Our children and elders, everyone needs these green spaces. Our City Council can do it. Please help.”
The struggle to preserve New York City's community gardens has been ongoing for decades. Many have been saved from destruction at the 11th hour following grassroots efforts to save them. In 1999, Bette Midler, founder of the New York Restoration Project, saved 114 community gardens from commercial development and established the New York Garden Trust to ensure these precious resources survived in perpetuity.
To learn more about the proposed legislation, go to: NYC Garden Law
About the New York Restoration Project
New York Restoration Project (NYRP) is a non-profit organization dedicated to transforming open space in underserved communities to create a greener, more sustainable New York City. In partnership with the City of New York, NYRP is also leading MillionTreesNYC – an initiative to plant and care for one million new trees throughout New York City’s five boroughs by 2017.
To view a prior post related to the topic, go to: Bring Back the Victory Gardens!
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Water on Fire (© 2010 International WOW Company)
The Delaware River basin is one of Nature’s great gifts, providing clean drinking water to 16 million people. For years it has been under threat of being polluted by deep drilling for methane gas, commonly called “natural gas”. But for today at least, it is safe.
The Delaware River Basin Commission just canceled a vote to allow fracking in the basin that was scheduled for November 28. It appears they wouldn't have the votes they needed to allow it. The delay is a testament to the power of people coming together to do what's right for their communities. Thousands stood up against corporate lobbying and a pricey ad campaign and won a round in a critical fight.
Courtesy of Halliburton
Hydraulic fracturing (also called "fracking"), is a method for extracting oil and gas lying deep below the layer of shale that below the surface of the basin. The process of fracking comes to us courtesy of Halliburton, the giant energy corporation headed by Dick Cheney before he became the Vice President of the United States.
Fracking accesses the gas beneath the shale by injecting millions of gallons water, toxic chemicals and sand under high pressure, cracking the shale and tight rocks to allow gas to flow more freely from the well. It is a poisonous mixture and believed to be the prime culprit in the pollution of groundwater in areas surrounding drilling sites. Even drinking water hundreds of miles from a well can be contaminated. Some scientists have speculated that fracking may trigger earthquakes.
Fracking in Gasland
Director Josh Fox made the Sundance award-winning documentary “Gasland” after he was asked to lease his land for gas drilling. That led him to embark on a cross-country odyssey. His journey led to a film accusing fracking of causing chronic illness, producing toxic waste deadly to farm animals, dangerous explosions, and an abominal record of government agencies failing to protect public safety. The most famous scene in “Gasland” shows tap water being set ablaze.
Residents who get their drinking water from the Delaware river Basin are not alone in facing a threat to the safety of their drinking water. According to an article published by ProPublica in December of 2009:
In the next 10 years, the United States will use the fracturing technology to drill hundreds of thousands of new wells astride cities, rivers and watersheds. Cash-strapped state governments are pining for the revenue and the much-needed jobs that drilling is expected to bring to poor, rural areas.
The Struggle Ahead
A battle to keep water safe for drinking has been won, but the struggle is far from over. Big energy companies are expected to continue to pour corporate cash into the fight across the United States. In many parts of the country they have already won and ordinary people have paid a terrible price. Besides being able to set their kitchen tap water ablaze, American families have been told that taking a shower at home could lead to an explosion that will kill them. Their children have been made sick by the pollutants unleashed and many have seen their homes become virtually impossible to sell.
Incredibly, a loophole exempts natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Drilling companies don’t even have to disclose the almost 600 chemicals that might be used in fracking and find their way into drinking water.
To see a trailer for the documentary film cited above, go to: Gasland the Movie
To view the ProPublica article cited above, go to: Natural Gas Drilling: What We Don’t Know
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Local, Fresh & Organic (© Monkey Business Images | Dreamstime.com)
Artificial preservatives and genetically modified ingredients have no place in a healthy food system, but some powerful corporations are urging members of the USDA's National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to allow them in food labeled organic.
Allowing their use in food labeled organic may sound Orwellian to longtime organic farmers and consumers but, the USDA panel is deeply divided between corporate agribusiness representatives and organic advocates. An upcoming meeting of the panel in Savannah, Georgia could be critical to the survival of sustainable agriculture.
"We think this meeting may well decide the fate of organic food and agriculture in this country," said Mark A. Kastel, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute, a nonprofit watchdog group which represents family-scale organic farmers and their consumer allies across the U.S.
Corporate Profits vs People’s Health
Under the Bush and Obama administrations, the USDA Secretaries have been criticized for appointing a significant number of corporate representatives, whose primary interest appears to be loosening the federal organic standards, allegedly in pursuit of enhanced profits.
The 15-member NOSB is a citizen panel, set up by Congress, to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on organic policy and rulemaking. Upcoming votes concern the use of genetically modified and synthetic additives that have been petitioned for use in organic foods and drinks, including baby foods and formula.
Infant Formula Made with “Hazardous Pollutant”
Additives being recommended for use in organics include nutritional oils manufactured by Martek Biosciences Corporation, part of the $30 billion multinational conglomerate Royal DSM. These oils, genetically modified to provide isolated omega-3 and omega-6 nutrients DHA and ARA, are derived from algae and soil fungus, and stabilized with a wide variety of synthetic ingredients.
When incorporated in infant formula, these oils are processed with a neurotoxic solvent, n-hexane. A byproduct of gasoline refinement, n-hexane is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a hazardous pollutant. The recommendation to approve Martek’s oils, processed with hexane, has industry observers scratching their head since solvents, commonly used in conventional food production, are expressly forbidden in organic food production.
“What is most egregious about the NOSB push to approve the Martek Biosciences Corporation petition is that these DHA and ARA oils are in no way essential in organics, as claimed by Martek,” states Cornucopia's Kastel. “Other organic manufacturers have successfully used fish oil and egg yolks as legal and natural alternative sources of supplemental DHA.”
"They Are Caving to the Factory Farm Lobby”
Meanwhile, the Livestock Committee of the NOSB, which is refining the standards aimed at ensuring high levels of animal welfare on organic farms, appears to be backing away from adopting strong, enforceable standards for laying hens and other species.
"They are caving to the factory farm lobby, listening to giant vertically integrated egg producers, and ignoring the voice of rank-and-file family farmers," said Tim Koegel, a nationally prominent certified organic farmer producing pastured eggs and chickens. "The NOSB has an opportunity to make organics the true gold standard in terms of animal husbandry but instead might choose to make the organic label a joke."
The proposal for chickens would give animals as little as one square foot of living space. "Like allowing synthetics, this woefully inadequate standard would violate the organic law that requires animals be allowed to exhibit their natural instinctive behaviors," added Koegel. "Hell, those birds will not even be able to fully span their wings, let alone forage outside for insects, seeds and worms."
To learn more, go to: The Cornucopia Institute
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Soda Cans (photo by Jane M. Sawyer, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
In a move that began as a response to rising rates of obesity, the French National Assembly passed a tax on all soft drinks with added sugar or artificial sweeteners to raise $380 million a year.
Beverages such as natural fruit juices and those containing alcohol will be exempt from the tax. The tax will be paid by manufacturers, processors and French importers. Most of the money, about $215 million, will be used to lower social taxes on farm labor. The measure will now be considered by the French Senate.
Much of the tax revenue to be collected would come from American soft drink companies. Coca Cola is expected to contribute $136 million annually. The company lobbied unsuccessfully to keep artificially sweetened drinks from being included. Coca Cola France had threatened to cancel a $23 million investment in a bottling operation in Marseille, but later recanted.
To learn more, go to: USDA: France to tax soft drinks - U.S. Companies to pay the most
To view previous posts on the topic go to:
1. Diet Soda Linked to Obesity & Heart Disease
2. Colas Can Cause Kidney Problems
3. Diet Soft Drinks May Increase Risk of Heart Disease
4. Safety of Soft Drinks Under Scrutiny
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Maple Sap Tap (photo by Joe Zlomek, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
"Too often, those who are willing to endanger our livelihoods in pursuit of their profits see fines as just a cost of doing business." - Sen. Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced legislation Thursday to make the fraudulent sale of maple syrup a felony offense. The legislation is cosponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The bill is called the Maple Agriculture Protection and Law Enforcement (MAPLE) Act.
“I have been alarmed by the growing number of individuals and businesses claiming to sell Vermont maple syrup when they are in fact selling an inferior product that is not maple syrup at all,” said Leahy. “This is fraud, plain and simple, and it undermines a key part of Vermont’s economy. I know that hardworking syrup producers in Maine, New York and other states have been similarly hurt by this crime.”
“Fake labeling not only hurts this growing agricultural industry, but also defrauds consumers who have the right to know exactly what they are purchasing,” said Collins.
Up to 5 Years in Prison
“We are very proud of the high-quality maple syrup produced in Vermont,” said Sanders. “Some of us think it’s the best in the world. We think it is terribly wrong for people to produce a phony product and call it Vermont maple syrup.”
The MAPLE Act creates a felony offense carrying a five-year maximum penalty for fraudulently selling maple syrup that is not, in fact, maple syrup. Under current law, the sale of this fraudulent maple syrup is only a misdemeanor offense carrying only on a one-year penalty. Vermont U.S. Attorney Tris Coffin recently sought an indictment against a Rhode Island man who, as revealed by a Food and Drug Administration investigation, was selling cane sugar-based syrup as “maple” syrup.
A Great Gift from Native Americans
The Native Americans were the first to use maple syrup as a flavoring. They called their delicious syrup, "sinzibukwud," which means, "sweet buds." They may not have had stacks of pancakes to pour it over, but they did use it to flavor stews, breads, teas, and vegetables, including indigenous cranberries.
We are forever in their debt for teaching their skills to French and English settlers!
The MAPLE Act is cosponsored by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and New York Senators Chuck Schumer (D) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D).
To learn more, go to: Maple Agriculture Protection and Law Enforcement (MAPLE) Act
If you can’t take on the challenge of making your own maple syrup, but would like to purchase the finest Grade A Light Amber maple syrup, go to: 100% Pure Organic Maple Syrup (Free Shipping!)
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Milk & Cookies (©photo by Charlie Wrenn, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Written by Linda West Eckhardt, Everybody Eats News
The beloved American tradition of milk and cookies is a crime for some mothers, according to the Farm Food Freedom Coalition, organizers of a planned civil disobedience on November 1.
A US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation makes the transport of raw milk intended for human consumption across state lines illegal, even for individuals purchasing it legally in one state and carrying it into the states where they live.
On Tuesday, November 1, 2011, a group of moms will challenge the FDA’s ban on interstate transport of raw milk by picking up fresh milk in Pennsylvania, transporting it to Maryland, then distributing it, along with cookies, in front of FDA headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland at a rally from 12:00-3:00pm.
After numerous armed federal assaults and undercover investigations on farmers, coops and buying groups that supply their raw milk, mothers across the country are disgusted with the FDA’s aggression and ready to take action to protect their families’ food.
“By criminalizing me for the food choices I make for my family, the FDA is effectively saying that I have no right to feed my family what I, as the parent, know is best for them,” says Suzy Provine, one of the “raw milk freedom riders” who chooses fresh milk for her family. “It is one thing to inform me about my choices, but the FDA goes too far by forcing what they think is best on my family.”
The FDA is disrupting thousands of families’ food supplies by pressuring states to restrict access to raw dairy. States like Wisconsin and California are shutting down family farms by threatening penalties and jail for farmers.
Contact: Liz Reitzig, Co-founder, Farm Food Freedom Coalition
301-807-5063, lizreitzig@gmail.com www.RawMilkFreedomRiders.com
(This article was previously published on Everybody Eats News.)
Linda West Eckhardt
About the Author
Linda West Eckhardt, is an award winning journalist, food writer, and nutritionist. Her more than 20 cookbooks have garnered prizes including the James Beard prize for the best cookbook for a text she wrote with her daughter, Katherine West DeFoyd, entitled Entertaining 101, Doubleday. Their follow-up book, Stylish One Dish Dinners, Doubleday, was also nominated for a James Beard prize. Their next book, The High Protein Cookbook, Clarkson Potter, remains a best seller after 12 years.
To learn more about Linda’s amazing new website, go to: Everybody Eats News
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Nightmare (©photo by Theresa L. Ford, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Intensive Study Links Lack of Access to Healthy Food to Chronic Disease
About one-third of U.S. adults are obese, as are 12.5 million children and adolescents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, leading to chronic illness, spiraling health care costs, and premature deaths. A new study has found a correlation across the nation between areas with limited access to healthy food, sometimes referred to as food deserts, and areas of obesity and chronic disease prevalence in both rural and urban populations.
Specifically, data examined from New York City and Chicago showed that neighborhoods with limited access to healthy food options (defined for this project as fresh fruits and vegetables and minimally processed foods) saw significantly higher obesity rates than areas just a few miles away that enjoy greater access to healthy food products. Additionally, the rural counties where the bulk of our agricultural commodities are produced are, paradoxically, often areas with limited access to healthy foods, and see similar obesity rates.
Broad Range of Topics Studied
The study was a three-year investigation recently completed by MIT Collaborative Initiatives (MIT-CI) and the Urban Design Lab at the Earth Institute, Columbia University (UDL) to detect drivers of and potential solutions for the current crises in obesity and diet-related disease faced by the United States. The researchers studied the latest data on a broad range of topics related to obesity and researched and visited current intervention programs nationwide. The team considered the interrelation of broad social issues, including market trends, lifestyle changes in recent decades, policy impacts, socioeconomic factors, and the built environment as well as current literature on pharmacological, hormonal and epigenetic factors contributing to obesity.
Emphasis on Quantity over Quality Cited as Problematic
MIT-CI and UDL's design-based look at the obesity crisis identified the current structure of the national food system as a primary culprit. The way food is produced, processed, and distributed directly impacts the incidence of obesity and chronic disease. The current food system was developed with an emphasis on quantity over quality, actively promoting a reduction in crop variety. The unintended outcome of these policies was a rise in low-cost processed foods, which tend to cost much less per calorie than healthy foods. Low cost and long shelf life make highly processed foods particularly attractive to families with limited food budgets.
According to Professor Michael Conard of the Urban Design Lab, "Most global food crises have been infrastructural, involving breakdowns in regional distribution systems. Bigger systems are clearly no longer the better systems for the long term. Strengthening our regional systems can be a key contributor to many of our most challenging environmental and health problems."
Major Restructuring of Food System Needed
Solutions to this problem will involve changes to food production techniques, the development of a region-based processing and distribution infrastructure, and new models for healthy food retail. A restructuring of the food supply infrastructure from its current processing and transport emphasis—in which food is often transported vast distances for processing, and then redelivered back to where it started—to a more regional approach is critical in order to improve food delivery efficiency. Improved efficiency is the first step toward improved affordability, which the study indicates will lead to better access, and eventually, better long-term health.
MIT-CI and UDL concluded that the development of a strong integrated regional food system based on access, affordability, quality, and health is a critical step needed to support community interventions across the country and enable long-term change.
Dr. Tenley Albright, Director and Cofounder of the MIT Collaborative Initiatives, says, "Our goal is to refocus the food system to be a positive driver for health. Our methods are design-based, synthesizing multiple objectives into a collective approach. Having identified a clear target our next step is to use these same methods to unify stakeholder objectives and define a realistic roadmap for change."
To learn more, go to: Curbing Childhood Obesity: Searching for Comprehensive Solutions
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Farm in Warwick, NY (©photo by dancjr, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Our friends at Slow Food USA have sent us their ‘Recipe for Change’
The organization's recipe is as simple to follow as 1- 2- 3 and meant for elected representatives looking to trim the federal budget while we all move toward a healthier and more sustainable food system:
1. Reform subsidies for commodity crops like corn and soy.
2. Protect all funding for nutrition assistance programs (food stamps).
3. Maintain funding for conservation, new farmers, and other programs that support sustainable farming and ranching.
Sounds like a great start for a better future!
To tell elected representatives to support the recipe, go to: Slow Food USA
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Mom & Daughter (©photo by dee, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
A new survey of 566 moms across the U.S. from Nature's Path reveals there's something that has many moms re-thinking the food they feed their families: 90% would want Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) clearly labeled, and that might make them change the way they shop.
The survey found that most moms (80%) feel confident they know what's in the food they're putting on the table each day, and for seven in ten that's due to the detailed ingredient labeling on products. However, the reality is that not every aspect of a food's ingredients is shared – namely, GMOs, also called genetically engineered ingredients.
According to the survey, close to half (45%) of mothers have never heard of genetically engineered ingredients. Obviously, these moms wouldn't know to seek out GMO labeling; however, once they learned what GMOs are, an overwhelming majority – 9 out of 10 moms – think it's important for brands to indicate whether such ingredients are used in their foods.
Law Requiring Labeling of GMOs Badly Needed
GMOs are made from crops that have had their DNA modified with genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria in a laboratory. They may be in up to 80% of the packaged food we eat, but there is presently no law requiring that they be labeled.
"We're not sure how GMOs will affect our health because there haven't been any long term studies to date. That said, in 30 countries around the world there are significant restrictions or outright bans on GMO foods, because they're not considered proven safe," says Arjan Stephens, Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Nature's Path. "This is cause for concern for many consumers, and why more and more are demanding labeling in the U.S."
If brands were required to indicate whether genetically engineered ingredients were used to make their food, the survey found:
• Many moms (59%) would want to learn more about these ingredients
• 46% would be left feeling worried about the effect they would have on their health and that of their family
• Some (38%) might even consider switching to a brand that doesn't include genetically engineered ingredients
• 33% might not feed that food to their family at all
After learning more about genetically engineered ingredients, more than half (52%) of moms surveyed think that one of the three most important things products should show on their labeling is an indication that a food is free of such ingredients. This is far greater than the less than one third (31%) of moms who felt the same before receiving information on genetically engineered ingredients. This is not surprising since more than half (52%) of moms think genetically engineered ingredients would have a negative impact on their health and that of their families.
"We believe everyone has the right to know what's in their food, and this survey shows that moms want information," continued Stephens. "We are committed to not only providing products that are the best choice for avoiding genetically engineered ingredients, but to educating consumers and working to make mandatory labeling a reality."
The Non-GMO Project
Nature's Path is a founding member of the Non-GMO Project, and voluntarily submits all products to rigorous, independent testing so they that can bear the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal, letting consumers know they are the best choice to avoid GMOs.
About Nature's Path
Founded in 1985, Nature's Path Organic Foods is headquartered in Richmond, British Columbia and employs more than 350 people at its four facilities in Canada and the United States. The privately held, family-owned company produces breakfast foods and snacks sold in specialty foods stores and retailers in 40 countries around the world. The company's innovative brands include Nature's Path®, Flax Plus, EnviroKidz®, and Optimum®.
To learn more about the company, go to: Nature's Path
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Kids Pick Local Tomatoes & Learn About Healthy Eating (©photos courtesy of the University of Missouri)
Making the Healthy Choice the Easy Choice, MU Extension program implements grant to encourage better nutrition, physical activity
It is no secret that Americans are facing an obesity epidemic, exacerbated by high consumption of unhealthy foods and too little physical activity. Nearly two thirds of Americans are now overweight, and half of those are obese. Childhood obesity and diabetes are at epidemic levels and according to the National Cancer Institute, the U.S. does not produce or import enough fruits and vegetables for Americans to consume the recommended daily amount.
October is National Farm to School Month. Enacted last year by the U.S. Congress, National Farm to School Month recognizes the strong role that Farm to School programs play in promoting good health and strong economies. More than 2,300 Farm to School programs exist across the nation. In Missouri, 78 school districts are using locally grown produce. Now, a national grant has allowed University of Missouri Extension to expand two projects that promote healthy diets and physical activity for Missourians.
“We are trying to change policies and environments to make healthy choices easier for Missourians,” said Donna Mehrle, extension associate in the College of Human Environmental Sciences. “The goal is to give citizens access to nutritious foods and safe environments that promote physical activity.”
Donna Mehrle
Missouri Farm to School/Farm to Institution Project
The grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds the Missouri Farm to Institution Project, designed to provide tools and support to schools, hospitals and other institutions that use locally grown produce in their cafeterias. The grant also funds Livable Streets, a program aimed at educating citizens to advocate for “livable or complete streets” or those that are safe for all modes of transportation, including pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.
The Missouri Farm to School/Farm to Institution Project connects schools and institutions with local farmers and distributors and supports the institutions as they implement programs for purchasing and serving locally grown produce. The support includes a food service guide that provides information about buying produce in season to get the best price and advice on storing and preparing fresh produce.
Missouri Green Beans!
“Along with the added nutritional bonus of eating fresh foods, Missouri Farm to School is a way to educate students about how food is grown and where it comes from, along with putting a face to the food they are eating on a regular basis,” said Lorin Fahrmeier, Farm to Institution project coordinator. “When students try new foods at school that they like, they are more likely to ask their parents for the same foods at home. This encourages healthier eating habits for families too.”
Lorin Fahrmeier
Livable Streets
The purpose of Livable Streets is to give citizens access to streets that are safe for a variety of transportation modes. Program directors provide training for advocacy groups throughout the state. The groups share the training with citizens who encourage locally elected officials, transportation planners and engineers to consistently design streets and sidewalks for users of all ages and abilities.
During October, school success stories will be featured on Missouri Farm to School’s website and families are encouraged to share photos of their own locally grown, home-cooked meals.
“Farm to School month is a great way to highlight the different programs and schools that are supporting the movement state wide,” Fahrmeier said. “The key to success is to start small and tailor a program that fits into your school and community.”
To learn more about the topic, go to: Missouri Farm to School
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Wild Sockeye Salmon (©photo by kayaklady, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Will AquaBounty's salmon be the first genetically engineered (GE) animal to be approved for the U.S. food supply?
Despite public opposition and over the objections of members of the U.S. Congress, the Department of Agriculture is funding research that could lead to genetically engineered salmon landing in supermarkets. Since there is no requirement for the labeling of genetically engineered foods, consumers will be unaware they are feeding a genetically modified organism (GMO) to their families.
According to the nonprofit Non-GMO Project, “In 30 other countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production of GMOs, because they are not considered proven safe.”
AquaBounty Technology's salmon has been given a gene from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish, which allows the salmon to grow twice as fast as a traditional Atlantic salmon. It also contains a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon.
New Government Funding is Just the Latest
The new USDA funding for AquaBounty Technology's GE salmon was recently reported in Grist. According to a story by Clare Leschin-Hoar, on Monday, September 26, "the agency awarded the Massachusetts-based company $494,000 to study technologies that would render the genetically tweaked fish sterile."
Environmentalists are concerned that should GE salmon escape into the ocean they would endanger wild Atlantic salmon through unintended breeding.
Research conducted by the nonprofit, consumer watchdog Food & Water Watch indicates that the new funding is just the latest support for GE salmon provided by the government. Prior funding has totaled almost $2 million dollars in federal research grants since 2003. With the new USDA grant the total is now approximately $2.4 million.
Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, has this to say:
"The U.S. government is giving taxpayer money to fund a project in Canada while our economy is faltering. Why is our government bailing out AquaBounty at a time when we're radically cutting our federal budget? This is research the company should do to prove their product is safe -- the American people shouldn't be paying for it."
On September 7, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was poised to approve the GE salmon, while noting that, "Anne Kapuscinski, a professor at Dartmouth College and an expert on the safety of genetically modified organisms, said she is uncertain how well the FDA is able to assess the risks to the natural world that may be posed by an organism created in a laboratory."
We Have a Right to Know
A recent poll released by ABC News found that 93% percent of the American public wants the federal government to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. As ABC News stated, "Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare."
Yesterday, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) announced its filing of a groundbreaking new legal petition with the FDA demanding that the agency require the labeling of all food produced using genetic engineering. CFS prepared the legal action on behalf of the Just Label It campaign; a number of health, consumer, environmental, farming organizations, and food companies are also signatories.
To make your voice heard on the issue of labeling GMOs, go to: Tell FDA to Label Genetically Engineered Food
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Healthy Bull (©photo by Kenn Kiser, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Two national surveys indicate that most Americans "constantly" think about food production, yet have little connection to farming or ranching.
Yesterday, the findings of two national surveys about food and how it is grown and raised were released by the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA). The surveys focused separately on the opinions, attitudes and questions consumers and farmers/ranchers have about the current and future state of how food is grown and raised in the U.S. Results reveal that lack of access to information, as well as no interest or passion for the topic, have divided consumer opinion on the direction of agriculture.
"Americans have a lot of questions about where their food comes from, how it is raised and if it is good for their health long-term," said Bob Stallman, chairman of USFRA and president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. "The findings of both surveys indicate there is an opportunity for more dialogue between farmers, ranchers and the American public about how food is grown and raised in the U.S."
Results of both surveys were shared and discussed during The Food Dialogues, which is took place yesterday in four U.S. cities and online via Facebook (http://apps.facebook.com/fooddialogues) and www.fooddialogues.com.
(PRNewsFoto/U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance)
Highlights of the research include:
• While nearly all Americans agree that food production is important to the success of the country, they are split over whether it is going in the right or wrong direction
• Consumers think about food production constantly, yet know very little about how food is brought to the dinner table
• Overwhelmingly, farmers and ranchers share the same values as consumers on issues related to environmental stewardship and animal care
Additional Consumer Survey Highlights
The purpose of the consumer survey was to ask Americans what additional information they want to learn more about related to how food is grown and raised in the U.S. The survey revealed that consumers have become disconnected from their food, yet think about the subject regularly. According to the survey findings:
• 72% of consumers know nothing or very little about farming or ranching
• 69% of consumers think about food production at least somewhat often
• 70% say purchase decisions are affected by how food is grown and raised, with three-quarters (72%) of Americans saying they think about this topic while purchasing groceries
• 42% or two-in-five Americans say the way that food is grown and raised has improved in the last 10 years, while a slightly smaller group say it has worsened (37%)
• Those who say the way that food is grown and raised has improved cite food safety (22%) and food quality (17%), whereas respondents who said the way food is grown and raised has worsened also cite food safety (21%) and food quality (21%)
• Of all the aspects of how food is grown and raised, Americans are most satisfied with the availability of healthy foods (73%) and food safety standards (66%)
• One in five consumers who say food production has worsened in the last 10 years cite environmental impact as the top area of demise
• 79% of consumers say producing healthy choices for all consumers is very important for farmers and ranchers to consider when planning farming and ranching practices
Consumers also were asked to identify the Top 5 topics they want more information about; responses included:
1. How chemicals are used in farming/ranching
2. How pesticides are used in farming/ranching
3. Food safety standards
4. Effect of government regulations on farming/ranching
5. How antibiotics are used and genetic engineering in crops
Additional Farmer/Rancher Survey Highlights
The goal of the farmer/rancher survey was to identify topics that farmers and ranchers wished Americans had more information about when it comes to food and how it is grown and raised in the U.S. According to the survey, farmers and ranchers said the top misconception they need to overcome as an industry is that a few "bad actors" are representative of the entire industry. Additionally, farmers and ranchers identified the effect of pesticides, antibiotics and fertilizers on food as the most important priorities they should address when communicating with consumers. Additional findings included:
• 86% of farmers/ranchers responded that the average consumer has little to no knowledge about modern farming/ranching
• 58% of respondents in this survey felt consumers have a completely inaccurate perception of farming and ranching
• Nearly all farmers and ranchers say that protecting the environment (99%) and practicing humane animal care (96%) are very or somewhat important goals or practices related to their business
• 80% of farmers/ranchers say that consumers have little to no knowledge about proper care of livestock or poultry
• 83% of farmers/ranchers responded that new ways of improving yields with fewer environmental inputs will have a major impact on farming/ranching in the future
When asked which Top 5 topics were most important to educate consumers about, farmers and ranchers responded:
1. The effect of pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics on food
2. Where food comes from in general
3. Proper care of livestock and poultry
4. Effect of government regulations on farming/ranching
5. Economic value of agriculture
"We want all Americans to join us to ask questions and regularly get information from farmers and ranchers who are growing and raising their food,” added Stallman.
About the Surveys
The 2011 USFRA Farmer/Rancher Survey was fielded by phone for USFRA by Ketchum Global Research Network and Braun Research between August 6-18, 2011, reaching 1,002 farmers and ranchers nationwide. The base sample has a margin of error of +/- 3.1%. The 2011 USFRA Consumer Survey was fielded by phone for USFRA by Ketchum Global Research Network and Braun Research between August 24-31, 2011, reaching 2,417 consumers nationwide. The base sample has a margin of error of +/- 2.0%.
About U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance
U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA), established in 2010 and headquartered in Chesterfield, Mo., currently represents more than 50 of the top farmer- and rancher-led organizations and agricultural partners. The Alliance includes prominent agricultural groups at the national, regional and state levels that have collaborated to lead the dialogue about their commitment to continuous improvement and best production practices. For more information on the Alliance, affiliates and partners and the movement to lead the conversation with Americans about today's agriculture, visit: http://www.facebook.com/pages/US-Farmers-Ranchers-Alliance/103189669746931
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
(© Robert Sholl | Dreamstime.com)
Most taxpayers in the United States are probably unaware that they’ve been paying for a big helping hand to immensely wealthy biotech corporations such as Monsanto. But according to U.S. embassy cables published by Wikileaks, the taxpayer-funded U.S. diplomatic corps has been working hard to get foreign countries to approve genetically engineered (GE) crops, especially in Europe.
France and six other countries in Europe (Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece) currently have a ban on the growing of GM crops, a ban based on safety concerns.
U.S. diplomats have made efforts to influence the biotech policies of developed countries such as Egypt and Turkey, but France continues to stand out as a high-profile target. There is widespread popular resistance to genetically engineered food in France, and a French farmers movement militantly opposed to GE crops.
According to a U.S. diplomatic cable from 2007:
Monsanto, Dupont/Pioneer, Dow Agro-Sciences…raised concerns about security conditions, i.e., increasing acts of vandalism, particularly in light of an expected regulation which could require French farmers to make public the location of their biotech plots. The three companies emphasized their concerns about the security of their information, property and staff, due to the annual destruction of two thirds of biotech test plots in France, demonstrations and attacks on their buildings and on a silo containing GM corn harvested in 2006 (Reftel). Consequently, the companies loose (sic) money and data, while staff morale suffers.
A report by Mike Ludwig of Truthout says, "Several cables describe 'biotechnology outreach programs' in countries across the globe, including African, Asian and South American countries where Western biotech agriculture had yet to gain a foothold. In some cables American diplomats ask the State Department for funds to send U.S. biotech experts and trade industry representatives to target countries for discussions with high-profile politicians and agricultural officials."
Organic Garlic (©photo by Scott M. Liddell, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Why the Safety Concerns?
The nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists states on its web site:
So far, scientists have identified a number of ways in which genetically engineered organisms could potentially adversely impact both human health and the environment…In addition to posing risks of harm that we can envision and attempt to assess, genetic engineering may also pose risks that we simply do not know enough to identify.
GE Foods Are Not the Answer to World Hunger
As for the claim that GM foods are needed to feed a hungry world, Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Food and Environment Program has concluded "...that GE (genetic engineering) has done little to increase overall crop yields." And a major study conducted at the University of Kansas has found that the controversial technology actually reduces crop yields.
In May of 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks."
Require the Labeling of GM Foods
Many people are unaware that they are regularly consuming GM foods because they are not labeled as such. Giant agribusinesses do not want the labeling of GM foods because consumers don’t want to buy them. They are even opposed to the labeling of foods as GM-free. (GM foods are prohibited from being used in food that carries the USDA’s organic label.)
As Elise Pearlstein, producer of the Oscar nominated film Food Inc. has said, "It's outrageous that genetically modified foods don't need to be labeled...Whatever your position, you should have the right to make informed choices, and we don't."
More than 30 countries have mandatory labeling of GMO's, including all the European Union countries, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Why not the U.S.? Because the Big Biotech industry doesn't want such labeling. As one biotech executive put it, “If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”
To view tips from the Organic Consumers Association on avoiding GM foods, go to: Non-GMO Shopping Guide
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Wild Turkey (©photo by cderrick, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
If more evidence was needed about the dangers of industrialized agriculture, with its densely packed animals and toxic waste, this week’s recall of 36 million pounds of ground turkey by agribiusiness giant Cargill should satisfy the remaining skeptics. Ironically, for years many Americans, including yours truly, have purchased turkey burgers as a healthy choice for their families.
In light of the massive recall Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, released this statement:
Last night’s announcement by Cargill of a recall of 36 million pounds of ground turkey products is just the latest example of why we need strong regulatory and public health programs in place to protect consumers.
People have been getting sick with Salmonella for several months, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state health departments struggled to identify a likely source of the contamination. Budget cuts have hampered the ability of federal and state health agencies to effectively protect public health, and this outbreak and recall offer compelling proof that there are human costs to budget cuts to critical public health programs.
The illnesses that triggered this recall were caused by an antibiotic-resistant strain of Salmonella Heidelberg, which makes the illnesses more serious and harder to treat. This once again points to the public health crisis that is being caused by the overuse of antibiotics in livestock production.
Unfortunately, it’s not the first time that meat and poultry have been recalled because of contamination with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and it’s not even the first time a Cargill meat plant has had this problem. Until the overuse of antibiotics in livestock production stops, consumers will be faced with the additional threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Because it covers several months of production at a very large plant, this recall covers a huge amount of product sold across the country, just the latest example of the tremendous impact that just one large plant can have on national public safety when something goes wrong.
As Congress gets ready to debate funding for federal agencies, this recall is a timely reminder of how vital public health programs like meat and poultry inspection and foodborne illness surveillance are to all of us.
To protect our families from the dangers of over centralized farmer we can make choices that make a difference. We can support local farmers by buying from them directly through community supported agriculture (CSAs) and at farmers markets, raise protein-rich beans in our gardens, and all the while spread the word that purchasing food from industrial farms comes at a price, one that can prove fatal.
About Food & Water Watch
The nonprofit organization works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, it helps people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.
To learn more and take action, go to: Food & Water Watch
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Wild Salmon Leaping Upstream (photo by Matthew G. Hull, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
As we know, there is tremendous pressure coming from Big Biotech to get genetically engineered (GE) salmon into America’s food supply. The industry may have millions to spend on public relations and campaign contributions, but science and a wary public are not on their side.
Right now there is legislation in the works that would prohibit the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from spending funds to approve the controversial fish. Last month, the House of Congress passed such an amendment and members of the Senate have informed the FDA that they are moving forward with similar legislation.
The Senate stated in a letter that, "Given the strong and growing Congressional opposition to the approval of GE fish in both chambers, spending time on further review of genetically engineered fish would be a waste of taxpayer dollars".
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of consumer watchdog Food & Water Watch, has this to say:
"We're in the middle of an intense budget debate and we have to make some difficult decisions about where to spend federal dollars. The last thing the federal government should be doing is frivolously throwing taxpayer money at a corporate science experiment that could devastate both the public's health and the health of the environment."
New Study Cites GE Threat to Wild Atlantic Salmon
If genetically modified Atlantic salmon were to escape, they could succeed in breeding and passing their genes into the wild, researchers at Canada’s Memorial University of Newfoundland have found. Their research, just published in the journal Evolutionary Applications, explores the potential reproductive implications of genetically modified salmon as they are considered for commercial farming.
“The use of growth-enhancing, transgenic technologies has long been of interest to the aquaculture industry and now genetically modified Atlantic salmon is one of the first species to be considered for commercial farming,” said lead author Darek Moreau, a graduate student who co-wrote the paper along with Corinne Conway, a research assistant, and Dr. Ian Fleming, a professor, all with the Ocean Sciences Centre.
“Yet, little is known about the potential impact on wild salmon populations if the genetically modified species were to escape captivity.”
Trojan Gene Could Lead to Eventual Extinction
One of the key concerns about a transgene escape is the “Trojan gene effect,” caused when a genetically modified fish outcompetes or reproduces equally against wild rivals. If the resulting offspring are genetically inferior this could lead a species towards eventual extinction. Until now there has been no empirical research to demonstrate the ability of transgenic salmon to breed naturally and infiltrate the gene pool of wild Atlantic salmon.
To measure the ability of GE salmon to breed with Atlantic salmon in the wild, the team of researchers from Memorial University’s Ocean Sciences Centre monitored breeding behaviour in a naturalized laboratory setting and used genetic analysis to determine the success of competing individuals at producing offspring.
Wild Males are More Potent Breeders
The scientists found that migratory wild males outperformed their captivity-reared transgenic counterparts in terms of a variety of spawning behaviours, and despite being less aggressive, wild males also achieved higher overall fertilization success, but the threat from GE salmon remains.
“While the transgenic males displayed reduced breeding performance relative to their non-transgenic rivals they still demonstrated the ability to successfully participate in natural spawning events and thus have the potential to contribute modified genes to wild populations,” said Mr. Moreau.
Very Real Threat to Wild Gene Pool
While the study provides an estimate of breeding performance under only a single set of physical and demographic environmental conditions, it does mimic a likely invasion scenario where the genetic background of the transgenic population differs from that of the wild population.
“Our study provides the first empirical observations on the natural reproductive capacities of growth hormone transgenic Atlantic salmon,” concluded Mr. Moreau. “While the resulting ecological and genetic effects of a transgene escape remain uncertain, these data highlight the importance of preventing reproductively-viable genetically modified salmon from entering natural systems.”
To tell your elected representatives to prohibit funding for GE salmon, go to: Food & Water Watch
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Organic Farm (photo by Tana Butler, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
“If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.” – a Biotech Executive
For years American Feast has called for the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods because we believe consumers should be allowed a clear choice on the consumption of food we believe to be dangerous to human health and the environment.
The most prominent, nonprofit food safety organizations agree with us, as do many socially responsible businesses. We are not alone. Most Americans would like to know whether they are eating food from genetically modified organisms (GMO). A poll by CBS said that 87% of Americans want labeling and that 57% would not buy foods with GMO. More than 30 countries have mandatory labeling of GMO's, including all the European Union countries, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
Of course, the Big Biotech industry, with many millions of dollars available for advertising, public relations, lobbying and campaign contributions, is fiercely opposed. As a president of a Monsanto subsidiary put it, “If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”
The Revolving Door
According to Andrew Kimbrell, director of the Center for Food Safety, there has been a revolving door between the biotech companies producing GMO food and the FDA, which approves these foods. In Kimbrell's book, “Your Right to Know, Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food”, he writes about how Michael Taylor went directly from working as an attorney on Monsanto's behalf to becoming the FDA's deputy commissioner for food policy. Under his watch, rBGH (a GMO growth hormone for cows) was approved and studies indicating that rBGH posed health risks were virtually ignored. Eventually, large companies, including Walmart, banned it from their own brands of milk.
There are dozens of other individuals like Taylor, that alternate working for biotech companies and holding high positions in the FDA and other federal agencies pushing through GMO products without thoroughly evaluating their health risks. These officials regularly ignore warnings from scientists within the FDA that caution about placing GMO foods in our food chain without more testing.
Has Big Biotech Made a Single Credible Claim for GMO Foods?
Over the years we have published articles supported by research from independent scientists around the world that have refuted virtually every claim Big Biotech has made about the benefits of genetically engineered crops and animals. GE crops do not increase farm yields and have been shown to decrease them. They are not known to be safe to eat. They have caused severe consequences to the health of animals tested. Yet the industry continues running a grand experiment on human beings, mostly unaware they are consuming GE foods.
Here's Our Solution
There is a short term alternative. Companies, especially food producers and food retailers, can make “GMO-Free” labels on products and store shelves pervasive in the marketplace. A similar strategy has already enjoyed success with “Hormone Free” labels on dairy products. It did take a costly legal battle pitted against Big Biotech for companies like Ben & Jerry’s to establish their right to labels their products as such. (Note: The hormone in question was recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone or rBGH, now easily avoided!)
It is way past time that consumers were given a clear choice on what they purchase to feed their families.
To learn more about GMO foods, go to: The Organic & Non-GMO Report
To learn more about an excellent book on the topic from author Jeffrey M. Smith, go to: Genetic Roulette
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Water on Fire (© 2010 International WOW Company)
As a lifetime New Yorker it’s always been a great comfort (and a tasty treat) to have some of the world’s cleanest and most flavorful water available straight from the tap. So it is absolutely mindboggling that a precious water supply could be fouled with toxic chemicals from deep drilling for gas, despite dire signs of the potential consequences.
For years there have been media reports from Pennsylvania to Texas of drinking water so tainted by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, that folks are able to light the water from their kitchen tap on fire. There have been more than 300 instances of contaminated water in Colorado since 2003, and more than 700 instances in New Mexico, according to Bruce Baizel, senior staff attorney with Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project. In West Virginia a once lushly forested area has been transformed into a dead zone.
Fracking in Gasland
Film Director Josh Fox made the Sundance award-winning documentary “Gasland” after he was asked to lease his land for gas drilling. That led him to embark on a cross-country odyssey. As the show “Now” on PBS explained, his journey led to a film that “alleges chronic illness, animal-killing toxic waste, disastrous explosions, and regulatory missteps.” It will be broadcast on HBO through 2012. The DVD went on sale in December of 2010.
“Gasland” shows tap water being set ablaze and explores fracking, a technology developed by Halliburton. Millions of gallons water, chemicals and sand are injected into the ground under high pressure, cracking shale and tight rocks to allow gas to flow more freely from the well. It is a toxic mixture and believed to be the prime culprit in the pollution of groundwater in areas surrounding drilling sites. Even drinking water hundreds of miles from a well can be contaminated.
Hundreds of Thousands of New Wells Coming?
Residents of New York State are not alone in facing a future threat to the safety of their drinking water. According to an article published by ProPublica in December of 2009:
In the next 10 years, the United States will use the fracturing technology to drill hundreds of thousands of new wells astride cities, rivers and watersheds. Cash-strapped state governments are pining for the revenue and the much-needed jobs that drilling is expected to bring to poor, rural areas.
Rejection of Fracking Goes International
France became the first nation to ban the use of fracking on June 30th when French senators voted to ban the practice and revoke the fracking permits issued to oil and gas companies. French Environment Minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet said hydraulic fracturing will be illegal and parliament would have to vote for a new law to allow research using the technique.
Back in the States, the New Jersey State Senate voted to ban the practice and North Carolina’s Governor Bev Perdue vetoed a state senate bill that would have allowed fracking in the state.
Jane Preyer, North Carolina’s director of the Environmental Defense Fund said, “The veto sends a clear signal to legislators that rolling back regulations that protect the state’s environment is not a viable business plan for economic recovery or the well being of North Carolina’s families.”
Think Global, Act Local
Though it is hard to believe that risking the health of millions in order to extract natural gas would even be considered, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo may lift a ban on fracking that took a great, popular effort to establish. The new guidelines will prohibit fracking in N.Y.S. parks and in the New York City and Syracuse watersheds, but allow it in other communities!
New York State Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, an opponent of fracking, said, “If hydrofracking is not safe in the New York City watershed it’s not safe in any watershed…There’s a tacit admission on the part of the Department of Environmental Conservation that it is not safe and yet it is being allowed.”
Keep Drinking Water Safe
Incredibly, a loophole exempts natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Drilling companies don’t even have to disclose the almost 600 chemicals that might be used in fracking and find their way into drinking water. Thankfully, our friends at Food & Water Watch have provided a way for concerned citizens to make their voices heard by contacting elected representatives.
To send a message to your elected representative to protect drinking water, go to: Food & Water Watch: Take Action
To see a trailer for the documentary film cited above, go to: Gasland the Movie
To view the ProPublica article cited above, go to: Natural Gas Drilling: What We Don’t Know
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Written by Jeffrey M. Smith, Institute for Responsible Technology
It’s been a year since we started watching BP’s oil spew into the Gulf day after day. Although that’s been plugged and cleanup is underway, a more insidious form of pollution continues without containment, with much longer term consequences. You might think I’m talking about Fukushima’s nuclear catastrophe. Actually, the pollution I’m referring to about can outlast even thousands of years of active nuclear waste.
Watch this two-minute video Cap the Gene Spill, directed by Alex Bogusky, to find out how genes from genetically modified crops self-propagate and permanently alter the gene pool—for all future generations.
CAP THE GENE SPILL from NO GMO on Vimeo.
Alex is described by Fast Company as “the Elvis of advertising,” a “pop-culture Houdini,” and the “daddy of 21st-century advertising.” He designed the Truth Campaign for tobacco, brought the king to Burger King, was crowned “Creative Director of the Decade” by Adweek, and was a partner at a $1.5 billion company that Advertising Age named “Agency of the Decade,”…and then he walked away. Alex realized he could no longer speak his truth.
Now, under his own banner of The Fearless Revolution, he’s harnessing the power of truth to create “an educated and empowered consumer,” who will act as “a sudden and powerful counterbalance to corporate power.”
Alex and I would like you to know the truth about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Enjoy this first in a series of videos, appropriately released on Earth Day.
After viewing, please consider making a donation to our Institute for Responsible Technology, which works everyday to help cap the gene spill. Your donation will be doubled this month by a generous matching grant from Nutiva.
Safe eating,
Jeffrey Smith
© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2011.
To help choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
Author Jeffrey M. Smith
International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced. Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply.
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
![dreamstime_4886631[1].jpg](http://blog.americanfeast.com/dreamstime_4886631%5B1%5D.jpg)
Agriculture organic dairy farm (© Bigpressphoto | Dreamstime.com)
Genetically engineered alfalfa poses so severe a threat to the $2 billion organic dairy industry that a lawsuit has been filed to prevent its introduction to the nation’s farm fields. The suit was filed by attorneys for the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Earthjustice against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The GE crop is engineered to be immune to the herbicide glyphosate, which Monsanto markets as Roundup. USDA data show that 93% of all the alfalfa planted by farmers in the U.S. is grown without the use of any herbicides. With the full deregulation of GE alfalfa, USDA estimates that up to 23 million more pounds of toxic herbicides will be released into the environment each year.
Watching Out for Consumers or Big Biotech?
“USDA has once again failed to provide adequate oversight of a biotech crop,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “This reckless approval flies in the face of overwhelming evidence that GE alfalfa threatens the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as significant harm to the environment. The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has refused to apply and enforce the law and instead has chosen to bow to the wishes of the biotech industry.”
This is the second case challenging the legality of USDA’s handling of GE alfalfa. In 2007, in another case brought by CFS, a federal court ruled that the USDA’s approval of the engineered crop violated environmental laws by failing to analyze risks such as the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa, the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and increased use of Roundup.
Toxic Monsanto
Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff commented: “We expect Monsanto to force-feed people genetically engineered crops—that’s its business model. We hoped for better from the USDA, which has much broader responsibilities. GE alfalfa will greatly increase use of toxic chemicals from coast to coast, threatens the organic dairy industry, and will have farmers going back to Monsanto every year to buy its patented seed and Roundup.”
To read the full press release on which this item was based, go to: Farmers and Consumer Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Genetically Engineered Alfalfa Approval
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Alfalfa Field (©photo by Irish Eyes, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
"It’s time to use our collective power to move the market directly. It’s time we let the food companies know that we have new healthier criteria if they want to keep us as customers."
Written by Jeffrey M. Smith, Institute for Responsible Technology
We’re angry! MILLIONS of us are angry and outraged at the approval of GM alfalfa. And on top of that, the USDA also did an end-run around the courts to keep GM sugar beets growing, AND approved a GM corn used for ethanol.
So what do we do? Surrender? Never!
Before I propose a way forward, I want to share a victory you may have missed in the first paragraph. I said MILLIONS. That’s right, there are millions of us. And you can hear our frustration flying around in blogs, emails, press reports, petitions, etc. Do you remember the reaction just four years ago when GM sugar beets were approved for sale? There was nothing close to this response. It was hardly a blip. Where we have come in just a few years is a cause for celebration. And an unprecedented opportunity to throw our new weight around.
Within the first six months of last year, we witnessed more people in the US than ever before enthusiastically getting the word out about the dangers of GMOs. This was in part due to the huge internet distribution channels that have been getting articles and videos out to MILLIONS every month. (Thank you all!) And then there was the high profile media coverage of GE salmon and the sugar beet and alfalfa court cases.
In spite of their bitter outcomes at the hands of the USDA, the prolonged alfalfa and sugar beet fights actually helped elevate GMOs on our personal and national radar screens.
And now with MILLIONS of us grasping the significance and devastating loss of yet another crop, we have the components in place for a national revolution. We have the knowledge, the emotion, the network, and the profound injustice. Now we need an action plan. Enter Alfalfa: Plan B.
Commit to No GM Alfalfa
It’s time to use our collective power to move the market directly. It’s time we let the food companies know that we have new healthier criteria if they want to keep us as customers. And front and center in those new criteria is to commit to no GM alfalfa in their supply chain (which is used as animal feed, particularly to dairy cows).
This is our moment! Send a letter to dozens of dairies and food companies simultaneously. Let them know how strong we feel and how MILLIONS strong we are. When they get the message about the coming non-GMO tipping point, they’ll realize it’s time to remove all GM ingredients, not just alfalfa.
Share this “click and send revolution” with your friends, shop using the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, and tell the food companies the truth about GMOs. And for those who want to do even more, you are invited to join a local or national Non-GMO Action Group, to expand our numbers even further!
Send a letter now!
To help choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2011.
Author Jeffrey M. Smith
International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced. Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply.
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Organic Farm (photo by Tana Butler, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Most Americans would like to know whether they are eating GMO foods. A recent poll by CBS said that 87% of Americans want labeling and that 57% would not buy foods with GMO.
Written by Steven Yellin
This is a story that affects everyone, every day. It is about the food we eat and the uncontrolled experiment biotech companies are conducting on us. They have done a marvelous job in convincing us that GMO foods are safe, but are they?
You may not have thought twice about the food you ate today that contained GMO's, (that is part of the problem because there is no labeling of them!), but if you dig just a little under the surface, you may become more cautious about consuming foods that contain GMO products and more cautious about letting your children eat these foods.
More GMO Food Coming Soon
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has just announced its favorable decisions in producing genetically engineered salmon and GMO alfalfa, but three months ago a federal judge in California revoked the government's approval of genetically altered sugar beets until regulators complete a more thorough review of how scientifically engineered crops affect other foods.
Consider the following facts:
• 75% of all processed foods contain genetically modified products.
• 91% of all corn, 85% of all soybean 88% of all cotton, and 95% of all sugar beets grown in the US are GMO produced.
The GMO issue affects everyone in America. No company has the right to place ingredients in our food without us knowing what they are, especially with scientific evidence indicating that they may cause us harm.
Some Very Worrisome Science
A recent 2-year study by the Russian Academy of Science, the equivalent of the National Institutes of Health in the U.S., showed that 3rd generation off-spring of hamsters that were fed GMO food were virtually sterile, had a 25% higher death rate than the control groups and were growing hair in their mouths. This study will be published this summer.
Dr. Airpaud Pusztai at the prestigious Rowett Food Institute of Scotland, a part of the University of Aberdeen, is considered to be one of the world's foremost experts on plant lectins and author of 270 papers and three books on the subject, A study conducted by him showed that GMO potatoes induced intestine damage, harm to the immune system and organ damage to rats. After he concluded his research Dr. Pusztai went on national television in the U.K. and said he would not eat GMO foods. He subsequently was fired from the university and his research was ridiculed.
The Revolving Door
According to Andrew Kimbrell, director of the Center for Food Safety, there has been a revolving door between the biotech companies producing GMO food and the FDA, which approves these foods. In Kimbrell's book, “Your Right to Know, Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food”, he writes about how Michael Taylor went directly from working as an attorney on Monsanto's behalf to becoming the FDA's deputy commissioner for food policy. Under his watch, rBGH (a GMO growth hormone for cows) was approved and studies indicating that rBGH posed health risks were virtually ignored. Eventually, large companies, including Walmart, banned it from their own brands of milk.
There are dozens of other individuals like Taylor, that alternate working for biotech companies and holding high positions in the FDA and other federal agencies pushing through GMO products without thoroughly evaluating their health risks. These officials regularly ignore warnings from scientists within the FDA that caution about placing GMO foods in our food chain without more testing.
Americans Want to Know What is in Their Food
Most Americans would like to know whether they are eating GMO foods. A recent poll by CBS said that 87% of Americans want labeling and that 57% would not buy foods with GMO. More that 30 countries have mandatory labeling of GMO's, including all the European Union countries, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Why don't we?
The biotech companies have done an excellent job of creating the impression that GMO foods are safe, while ignoring the warning of leading scientists, including many in the FDA, that question their safety and are pushing for more testing before they are introduced into the food chain.
Why is it that our government requires very serious long term tests for safety in drugs we take, and yet doesn't seem concerned about fundamental changes in the foods that we and our children eat each day?
This is a story that needs to be told to everyone.
To learn more about GMO foods, go to: The Organic & Non-GMO Report
To learn more about an excellent book on the topic from author Jeffrey M. Smith, go to: Genetic Roulette
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Jersey Dairy Cows (©photo by Emily Roesly, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
"We believe all food can be produced safely, including raw milk." - Tim Wrightman
A state assembly panel recently approved a measure sponsored by Assemblywoman Connie Wagner to aid New Jersey farmers by allowing them to sell raw milk. The neighboring states of Pennsylvania and New York already allow the sale of raw milk.
Many medical professionals and nutritionists have concluded that raw milk from grass-fed cows is more nutrient dense than conventionally produced milk, while foodies around the world have long appreciated the rich flavor of artisanal cheeses crafted with raw milk.
Family Farms Face Unhealthy Competition
A previous post on American Feast's Sustainable Food Blog explained further about what is at stake:
Family-scale dairy farms feeding free-roaming cows on healthy grass face tough competition from concentrated animal feeding operations. The densely penned cows at CAFOs are sickened from being fed the abundance of corn grown with massive government subsidies, posing a very real threat to human health. Cow droppings make good fertilizer on small farms, but at CAFOs the immense amount of waste is a toxic threat to the health of people and the environment.
Of course, people around the globe have been safely consuming raw milk and handcrafted cheeses for thousands of years.
Thistle Hill's John & Janine Putnam (©photo courtesy of Thistle Hill Farm, VT)
According to the nonprofit Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund:
The bill (A-743) would create a permit program through the New Jersey Department of Agriculture to allow for the sale of raw milk in New Jersey. The legislation would require the testing of cows intended to be used for the production of raw milk, with ongoing testing as necessary. The permit holder would also be required to conduct tests to measure the levels of certain bacteria and pathogens in the raw milk produced. The bill also stipulates that no growth hormones can be used in the process of producing raw milk.
Safe & Nutritious
Food safety and optimal nutrition aren’t mutually exclusive goals according to organic farming legend, Tim Wightman. A farming expert of 35 years, Wightman teaches dairy farmers to reach well beyond conventional food safety goals. He mentors farmers in low-tech yet high quality approaches to production of intrinsically safe and optimally nutritious raw milk.
A modern pioneer of the cowshare/herdshare concept, Mr. Wightman now serves as president of the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation. The educational nonprofit aims to equip farmers and consumers with safety advice on raw dairy products via conferences, tele-seminars and printed materials.
Free Handbook & DVD Now Available Online
The Foundation now provides two of Mr. Wightman's educational tools to the public free of charge. These free resources include online copies of Raw Milk Production Handbook and a micro dairy farm educational DVD, Chore Time. Both are available at: Farm to Consumer Foundation
"We believe all food can be produced safely, including raw milk," says Mr. Wightman.
"These materials are the starting point for a collaborative effort to develop 'best practices' to guide dairy farms working to meet the rising demand for raw milk from pasture-raised cows, whether the legal framework is loose (as with voluntary farm-to-consumer standards for cow shares) or more formal (as with larger scale retail sales)."
Steve Bemis, attorney and Farm-to-Consumer Foundation board member, asserts that these free resources are an important step in building a working relationship on raw dairy safety issues.
Mr. Bemis explains, "In many cases, academic and government entities will not (for policy and ethical reasons) link to resources that are for sale; so, by providing these 'freeware' resources, we hope to encourage links from others' websites, and thereby engage a broader audience.”
There are currently 15 states that allow farmers to sell raw milk directly to consumers, while 10 states allow the sale of raw milk in retail stores.
About Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is a 501 (c) (4) non-profit organization made up of farmers and consumers joining together and pooling resources to:
• Protect the constitutional right of the nation’s family farms to provide processed and unprocessed farm foods directly to consumers through any legal means.
• Protect the constitutional right of consumers to obtain unprocessed and processed farm foods directly from family farms.
• Protect the nation’s family farms from harassment by federal, state, and local government interference with food production and on-farm food processing.
To learn more about the organization's work, go to: Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
Pleasant Ridge Reserve
To view a selection of fine American cheeses go to: Artisanal & Crafted Cheeses
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Urquhart Castle beside Loch Ness (©photo by Chosfeldt, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
"Eating food that's in season means enjoying food at its peak in terms of flavour. It can also make a difference to the weekly shopping bill, as more abundant, in season food is often cheaper.”
Better flavor may be the best reason to eat fresh, local and seasonal food, but better nutrition, more affordable pricing, and sustainability are pretty good reasons as well. But, buying from a local, trusted farmer is not universally possible and many grocery stores offer few clues as to which items are in season.
Research carried out on behalf of the Scottish Government found that the majority of Scots are not aware what food is in season and when - as they have become accustomed to having all the meat, fish, fruit and vegetables they want, all year round.
Peak Flavour & Often Cheaper
Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead said, "Scotland's seasonal larder offers a fantastic array of fresh produce. This was demonstrated on the global stage last week when the international culinary contest in Lyon, the Bocuse d'Or, selected Scotch Lamb and seafood as its key ingredients.”
Last Thursday, Mr. Lochhead joined top chefs for an in season cooking challenge in Edinburgh to launch the Eat in Season campaign. The challenge tested the chefs' cooking skills by challenging them to cook up a delicious meal in five minutes, using five in season ingredients.
"Eating food that's in season means enjoying food at its peak in terms of flavour. It can also make a difference to the weekly shopping bill, as more abundant, in season food is often cheaper,” said Mr. Lochhead.
The Sustainable Choice
Increased awareness that it is a better choice to buy and consume fresh and in season food will not only support Scotland's economy, but contribute towards a healthier population and a greener, more environmentally sustainable country.
Mr. Lochhead said, "I'm sure that as Scots become more aware of what's in season they will see how easy it is to incorporate tasty and seasonal produce into their everyday lives."
To learn more about seasonal eating in Scotland, go to: Cook Scotland, Eat in Season
To view a previous post on the topic, go to: Going Organic in Scotland
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Healthy, Free-Range Chickens (photo by Digiology, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Editor's Note: Mark Keating was hired on April 11, 2010 to draft livestock production standards and contribute to overall standard development for the USDA National Organic Program (NOP). He brought more than twenty years experience in the field including service as a farm worker, food processor and distributor, county extension agent, grassroots activist, civil servant, university lecturer and journalist. Keating previously worked for the NOP between 1999 and 2002 and was part of the team that won the USA’s prestigious Group Honor Award for finalizing the NOP standards in 2000. No public citizen or USDA colleague objected to his conduct during his return to the NOP. The USDA summarily fired him on November 23, 2010.
Written by Mark D. Keating
At its core, my firing was standard Washington, DC fare: if you can't beat them, destroy them. Power in Washington descends from the pyramid and those of senior rank are entitled to squash those beneath. So powerful is Washington's faith in the pyramid that the person at the pinnacle – the President – is authorized to blow up the planet. So when my presence at the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) became offensive to Departmental leadership, it was standard procedure to set me up and railroad me out the door.
While this plot line is archetypal, the cast of characters will be novel to most audiences. Was it corporate agribusiness targeting an organic stalwart? No - I was much too low lying fruit to merit targeting. Was it bureaucratic bullies ridding their sandbox of a free thinker? No - when the White House cares about an issue as the Obama Administration does about organic agriculture, it calls the shots, not the bureaucrats. My firing was the voice of politically correct organic certification vested in that Executive Branch ostracizing its problem child (problem parent, really), organic agriculture.
Sir Albert & His Sisters
We'll need to highlight a key distinction for the story to come into focus. Organic agriculture involves all the funky, cosmic properties that a biologically active soil imparts to food and the benefits that redound to nature when farming is integrated into the local ecology. These principles were first articulated by Sir Albert Howard and his first and second wives, Gabrielle and Louise (sisters, no less) during the first half of the twentieth century. Supported by three decades of renown field research, the Howards established that the only effective and enduring system of agriculture is one modeled on the principles of Mother Earth. They were adamant that organic systems must incorporate animals, if not as active participants, then through use of their manure as the basis for fertility. The Howards also demonstrated that healthy soils lead to healthy plants including grasses, which lead to healthy animals, which result in healthy humans or, as our own mothers told us, we are what we eat.
By contrast, organic certification is a federally operated, process verification program loosely based on a subset of organic agricultural practices. For example, organic crop standards tend to support biologically rich soils and organically raised livestock consume a far more natural diet than do conventionally raised animals. However, many foundational principles in organic certification are inherently incompatible with natural systems. Mother Nature's garden never looks like the organic agribusiness farms in the Salinas Valley, nor would She insist that the omnivorous chicken be raised as a vegetarian with a synthetic protein supplement. USDA organic certification standards sanction these conditions and many others that compromise the inherent vitality of organic agriculture. Still, organic certification of raw agricultural products has provided generally limited yet meaningful differentiation during both its previous private sector incarnation and under the current guidance (thumb) of USDA.
USDA Embraces Organic Certification
While the deck at USDA and on Capitol Hill remains heavily stacked in favor of industrial agriculture (concentration of production, increased dependence on energy and technology including genetic engineering and global markets), there is now a glimmer of recognition that alternative agriculture production and marketing have merit. Check out the 2008 Farm Bill: it did not take away industrial agriculture's subsidies, but it does contain many excellent if modestly funded programs to support organic certification, direct marketing and local food systems. In particular, USDA is now ready to accept, even embrace organic certification. This is safe because organic agribusiness is not dissimilar to industrial agribusiness: concentrated, large scale production systems feeding into heavily processed, shelf stable convenience foods including homogenized and pasteurized dairy products distributed through chain retailers to worldwide markets.
However, USDA is definitely not willing to embrace or even acknowledge organic agriculture. Doing so remains too threatening to the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual sales generated by industrial agribusiness. USDA denies the fundamental principle of organic agriculture which is that the manner in which a food is raised and handled is determinative of its nutritional and flavor properties. This isn't hard to prove – crack open an egg from a scavenging free range chicken and compare it with an egg from the horribly abused battery cage hen. Then fry them up (lard works wonderfully!) and you can't miss the difference – unless USDA pays your salary. Then you are not allowed to see the difference. So like the old commercial with the “parts is parts” punchline, USDA maintains that all foods are essentially equivalent.
Organic certification is an especially useful tool for supporting this fallacy because it generates a lot of analogue processed foods like organic crackers and soda and soy ice cream and tv dinners that aren't especially different. This is better than trying to make the case in comparison to the bounty of organic agriculture ~ you can't put it in your mouth without knowing it's better for you and the planet (Be sure to give thanks!)
Why Was I Fired?
How does this relate to my firing? I am a huge believer (worshiper) of organic agriculture who respects organic certification as one of many useful tools for making smart choices about food. USDA is currently smiling upon organic certification but staunchly rejects organic agriculture. At no time, nor in any manner did I attempt to supersede USDA dogma with my personal perspective. I was a mid-level regulatory writer who knew that the decisions would be made about five pay grades above my station. I was cool with that and writing intelligent organic standards is no sell out – we need good organic standards. But people who know me will tell you that I don't/can't/won't play the emperor's new clothes. Once my cards were on the table (where I always keep them), I had to be fired as an existential threat to the party line. This is the inevitable consequence when those at the top of the pyramid think they are too busy and too smart to have the time or inclination to learn from the grunts below!
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Grazing Dairy Cow (©photo by Emily Roesly, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Under heavy pressure from the biotech industry, USDA chooses total deregulation.
Yesterday afternoon, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ton Vilsack announced that the USDA will fully deregulate Monsanto’s controversial genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. The choice was favored by the biotech industry and one of three options identified in the USDA’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) released last month.
Over 250,000 public comments were received during the FEIS process, with the vast majority opposing deregulation. Organic farmers and consumers opposed the introduction of GE alfalfa, fearing the contamination of alfalfa fields vital to the organic dairy industry, which is estimated to be worth more than $2 billion annually.
Pressured by Biotech Industry
The USDA could have maintained regulatory status over the perennial crop that is so important as forage for the livestock industry. Or they could have chosen a limited regulation strategy with bans on the planting of GE alfalfa seeds in seed growing regions to attempt to limit the contamination of alfalfa seed stock by foreign DNA from Monsanto’s crop. (Alfalfa is pollinated by bees and other insects and has a pollination radius of five miles). Instead, the agency, under heavy pressure from the biotech sector, chose total deregulation.
Vilsack did announce that the USDA would establish a second germ plasm/seed center for alfalfa in the state of Idaho to try, and the operative word is "try," to maintain GE-free strains of alfalfa. They currently operate such a facility in Prosser, Washington. He said the FEIS process brought home two key points to USDA: choice and trust.
Opponents Likely to Pursue Litigation
The huge numbers of parents who want their children to get the health benefits of milk without exposing them to the dangers of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) and the antibiotics fed to cows in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), have contributed mightily to organic dairy farming enjoying quite a boom in the United States.
According to the USDA, “Between 2000 and 2005, the number of certified organic milk cows on U.S. farms increased by an annual average of 25%, from 38,000 to more than 86,000.”
The Center for Food Safety, with The Cornucopia Institute and others, has been embroiled in a court case fighting the release of GE-alfalfa. The case has been on hold while the USDA completed its court-ordered EIS. Opponents of GE-alfalfa are evaluating their choices and likely will resume their legal battle.
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
D & E Farms in Franklinville, N.J. (photo by Emily Roesly, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Written by Jeffrey M. Smith, Institute for Responsible Technology
"The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases."
While visiting a seed corn dealer’s demonstration plots in Iowa last fall, Dr. Don Huber walked passed a soybean field and noticed a distinct line separating severely diseased yellowing soybeans on the right from healthy green plants on the left (see photo below). The yellow section was suffering from Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease that ravaged the Midwest in 2009 and ’10, driving down yields and profits. Something had caused that area of soybeans to be highly susceptible and Don had a good idea what it was.
The diseased field on the right had glyphosate
applied the previous season. Photo by Don Huber
Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. “Did you plant something there last year that wasn’t planted in the rest of the field?” he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn’t received glyphosate.
This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo below). That’s where extra Roundup was applied.
Sudden Death Syndrome is more severe at
the ends of rows, where Roundup dose
is strongest. Photo by Amy Bandy.
Don’s a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don’s got more—lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate. He’s one of the world’s experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. (See selected reading list.)
Roundup: The Perfect Storm for Plant Disease
More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate—the world’s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced “Roundup Ready” crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.
(Monsanto requires farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to only use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. This has extended the company’s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.)
The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited.
The glyphosate molecule grabs vital nutrients and doesn’t let them go. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964. It was only 10 years later that it was patented as an herbicide. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function—especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases. The importance of minerals for protecting against disease is well established. In fact, mineral availability was the single most important measurement used by several famous plant breeders to identify disease-resistant varieties.
Glyphosate annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. Since they facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths means the plant gets even weaker and the pathogens even stronger.
The herbicide can interfere with photosynthesis, reduce water use efficiency, lower lignin, damage and shorten root systems, cause plants to release important sugars, and change soil pH—all of which can negatively affect crop health.
Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to plants. It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic. But even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984 that when glyphosate is applied in sterile soil, the plant may be slightly stunted, but it isn’t killed (see photo below).
Glyphosate with sterile soil (A) only stunts plant growth.
In normal soil (B), pathogens kill the plant. Control (C)
shows normal growth.
The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.
“This is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate,” says Don. “It increases susceptibility to disease, suppresses natural disease controls such as beneficial organisms, and promotes virulence of soilborne pathogens at the same time.” In fact, he points out that “If you apply certain fungicides to weeds, it destroys the herbicidal activity of glyphosate!”
By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, “There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease.”
Roundup Promotes Human & Animal Toxins
Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed. Sudden Death Syndrome, for example, is caused by the Fusarium fungus. USDA scientist Robert Kremer found a 500% increase in Fusarium root infection of Roundup Ready soybeans when glyphosate is applied. Corn, wheat, and many other plants can also suffer from serious Fusarium-based diseases.
But Fusarium’s wrath is not limited to plants. According to a report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, toxins from Fusarium on various types of food crops have been associated with disease outbreaks throughout history. They’ve “been linked to the plague epidemics” of medieval Europe, “large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe,” oesophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia. Fusarium toxins have also been shown to cause animal diseases and induce infertility.
As Roundup Use Rises, Plant Disease Skyrockets
When Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1996, Monsanto boldly claimed that herbicide use would drop as a result. It did—slightly—for three years. But over the next 10 years, it grew considerably. Total herbicide use in the US jumped by a whopping 383 million pounds in the 13 years after GMOs came on the scene. The greatest contributor is Roundup.
Over time, many types of weeds that would once keel over with just a tiny dose of Roundup now require heavier and heavier applications. Some are nearly invincible. In reality, these super-weeds are resistant not to the glyphosate itself, but to the soilborne pathogens that normally do the killing in Roundup sprayed fields.
Having hundreds of thousands of acres infested with weeds that resist plant disease and weed killer has been devastating to many US farmers, whose first response is to pour on more and more Roundup. Its use is now accelerating. Nearly half of the huge 13-year increase in herbicide use took place in just the last 2 years. This has serious implications.
As US farmers drench more than 135 million acres of Roundup Ready crops with Roundup, plant diseases are enjoying an unprecedented explosion across America’s most productive crop lands. Don rattles off a lengthy list of diseases that were once under effective management and control, but are now creating severe hardship. (The list includes SDS and Corynespora root rot of soybeans, citrus variegated chlorosis (CVC), Fusarium wilt of cotton, Verticillium wilt of potato, take-all root, crown, and stem blight of cereals, Fusarium root and crown rot, Fusarium head blight, Pythium root rot and damping off, Goss’ wilt of corn, and many more.)
In Brazil, the new “Mad Soy Disease” is ravaging huge tracts of soybean acreage. Although scientists have not yet determined its cause, Don points out that various symptoms resemble a rice disease (bakanae) which is caused by Fusarium.
Corn Dies Young
In recent years, corn plants and entire fields in the Midwest have been dying earlier and earlier due to various diseases. Seasoned and observant farmers say they’re never seen anything like it.
“A decade ago, corn plants remained green and healthy well into September,” says Bob Streit, an agronomist in Iowa. “But over the last three years, diseases have turned the plants yellow, then brown, about 8 to 10 days earlier each season. In 2010, yellowing started around July 7th and yield losses were devastating for many growers.”
Bob and other crop experts believe that the increased use of glyphosate is the primary contributor to this disease trend. It has already reduced corn yields significantly. “If the corn dies much earlier,” says Bob, “it might collapse the corn harvest in the US, and threaten the food chain that it supports.”
A Question of Bugs
In addition to promoting plant diseases, which is well-established, spraying Roundup might also promote insects. That’s because many bugs seek sick plants. Scientists point out that healthy plants produce nutrients in a form that many insects cannot assimilate. Thus, farmers around the world report less insect problems among high quality, nutrient-dense crops. Weaker plants, on the other hand, create insect smorgasbords. This suggests that plants ravaged with diseases promoted by glyphosate may also attract more insects, which in turn will increase the use of toxic pesticides. More study is needed to confirm this.
Roundup Persists in the Environment
Monsanto used to boast that Roundup is biodegradable, claiming that it breaks down quickly in the soil. But courts in the US and Europe disagreed and found them guilty of false advertising. In fact, Monsanto’s own test data revealed that only 2% of the product broke down after 28 days.
Whether glyphosate degrades in weeks, months, or years varies widely due to factors in the soil, including pH, clay , types of minerals, residues from Roundup Ready crops, and the presence of the specialized enzymes needed to break down the herbicide molecule. In some conditions, glyphosate can grab hold of soil nutrients and remain stable for long periods. One study showed that it took up to 22 years for glyphosate to degrade only half its volume! So much for trusting Monsanto’s product claims.
Glyphosate can attack from above and below. It can drift over from a neighbors farm and wreak havoc. And it can even be released from dying weeds, travel through the soil, and then be taken up by healthy crops.
The amount of glyphosate that can cause damage is tiny. European scientists demonstrated that less than half an ounce per acre inhibits the ability of plants to take up and transport essential micronutrients.
As a result, more and more farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defenses and increased soilborne diseases. The situation is getting worse for many reasons.
• The glyphosate concentration in the soil builds up season after season with each subsequent application.
• Glyphosate can also accumulate for 6-8 years inside perennial plants like alfalfa, which get sprayed over and over.
• Glyphosate residues in the soil that become bound and immobilized can be reactivated by the application of phosphate fertilizers or through other methods. Potato growers in the West and Midwest, for example, have experienced severe losses from glyphosate that has been reactivated.
• Glyphosate can find its way onto farmland accidentally, through drifting spray, in contaminated water, and even through chicken manure!
Imagine the shock of farmers who spread chicken manure in their fields to add nutrients, but instead found that the glyphosate in the manure tied up nutrients in the soil, promoted plant disease, and killed off weeds or crops. Test results of the manure showed glyphosate/AMPA concentrations at a whopping 0.36-0.75 parts per million (ppm). The normal herbicidal rate of glyphosate is about 0.5 ppm/acre.
Manure from other animals may also be spreading the herbicide, since US livestock consume copious amounts of glyphosate—which accumulates in corn kernels and soybeans. If it isn’t found in livestock manure (or urine), that may be even worse. If glyphosate is not exiting the animal, it must be accumulating with every meal, ending up in our meat and possibly milk.
Add this threat to the already high glyphosate residues inside our own diets due to corn and soybeans, and we have yet another serious problem threatening our health. Glyphosate has been linked to sterility, hormone disruption, abnormal and lower sperm counts, miscarriages, placental cell death, birth defects, and cancer, to name a few. (See resource list on glyphosate health effects.)
Nutrient Loss in Humans & Animals
The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases.
Alzheimer’s, for example, is linked with reduced copper and magnesium. Don Huber points out that this disease has jumped 9000% since 1990.
Manganese, zinc, and copper are also vital for proper functioning of the SOD (superoxide dismustase) cycle. This is key for stemming inflammation and is an important component in detoxifying unwanted chemical compounds in humans and animals.
Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.
Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply.
This loss is something we simply can’t afford. We’re already suffering from progressive nutrient deprivation even without Roundup. In a UK study, for example, they found between 16-76% less nutrients in 1991, compared to levels in the same foods in 1940.
Livestock Disease & Mineral Deficiency
Roundup Ready crops dominate US livestock feed. Soy and corn are most prevalent—93% of US soy and nearly 70% of corn are Roundup Ready. Animals are also fed derivatives of the other three Roundup Ready crops: canola, sugar beets, and cottonseed. Nutrient loss from glyphosate can therefore be severe.
This is especially true for manganese (Mn), which is not only chelated by glyphosate, but also reduced in Roundup Ready plants . One veterinarian finds low manganese in every livestock liver he measures. Another vet sent the liver of a stillborn calf out for testing. The lab report stated: No Detectible Levels of Manganese—in spite of the fact that the mineral was in adequate concentrations in his region. When that vet started adding manganese to the feed of a herd, disease rates dropped from a staggering 20% to less than ½%.
Veterinarians who started their practice after GMOs were introduced in 1996 might assume that many chronic or acute animal disorders are common and to be expected. But several older vets have stated flat out that animals have gotten much sicker since GMOs came on the scene. And when they switch livestock from GMO to non-GMO feed, the improvement in health is dramatic. Unfortunately, no one is tracking this, nor is anyone looking at the impacts of consuming milk and meat from GM-fed animals.
Alfalfa Madness, Brought to You by Monsanto and the USDA
As we continue to drench our fields with Roundup, the perfect storm gets bigger and bigger. Don asks the sobering question: “How much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate that have been applied to our most productive farm soils over the past 30 years is still available to damage subsequent crops through its effects on nutrient availability, increased disease, or reduced nutrient of our food and feed?”
Instead of taking urgent steps to protect our land and food, the USDA just made plans to make things worse. In December they released their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Roundup Ready alfalfa, which Monsanto hopes to reintroduce to the market.
Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the US, grown on 22 million acres. It is used primarily as a high protein source to feed dairy cattle and other ruminant animals. At present, weeds are not a big deal for alfalfa. Only 7% of alfalfa acreage is ever sprayed with an herbicide of any kind. If Roundup Ready alfalfa is approved, however, herbicide use would jump to unprecedented levels, and the weed killer of choice would of course be Roundup.
Even without the application of glyphosate, the nutritional quality of Roundup Ready alfalfa will be less, since Roundup Ready crops, by their nature, have reduced mineral . When glyphosate is applied, nutrient quality suffers even more.
The chance that Roundup would increase soilborne diseases in alfalfa fields is a near certainty. In fact, Alfalfa may suffer more than other Roundup Ready crops. As a perennial, it can accumulate Roundup year after year. It is a deep-rooted plant, and glyphosate leaches into sub soils. And “Fusarium is a very serious pathogen of alfalfa,” says Don. “So too are Phytophthora and Pythium,” both of which are promoted by glyphosate. “Why would you even consider jeopardizing the productivity and nutrient quality of the third most valuable crop in the US?” he asks in frustration, “especially since we have no way of removing the gene once it is spread throughout the alfalfa gene pool.”
It’s already spreading. Monsanto had marketed Roundup Ready alfalfa for a year, until a federal court declared its approval to be illegal in 2007. They demanded that the USDA produce an EIS in order to account for possible environmental damage. But even with the seeds taken off the market, the RR alfalfa that had already been planted has been contaminating non-GMO varieties. Cal/West Seeds, for example, discovered that more than 12% of their seed lots tested positive for contamination in 2009, up from 3% in 2008.
In their EIS, the USDA does acknowledge that genetically modified alfalfa can contaminate organic and non-GMO alfalfa, and that this could create economic hardship. They are even considering the unprecedented step of placing restrictions on RR alfalfa seed fields, requiring isolation distances. Experience suggests that this will slow down, but not eliminate GMO contamination. Furthermore, studies confirm that genes do transfer from GM crops into soil and soil organisms, and can jump into fungus through cuts on the surface of GM plants. But the EIS does not adequately address these threats and their implications.
Instead, the USDA largely marches lock-step with the biotech industry and turns a blind eye to the widespread harm that Roundup is already inflicting. If they decide to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa, the USDA may ultimately be blamed for a catastrophe of epic proportions.
Please send a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, urging him not to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, and to fully investigate the damage that Roundup and GMOs are already inflicting: Stop Roundup Ready Alfalfa
To help choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2011.
Author Jeffrey M. Smith
International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced. Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply.
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Cornfield (©photo by Kevin Connors, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Written by Jeffrey M. Smith, Institute for Responsible Technology
There’s a bowl of corn chips in front of you made from natural corn. Next to it are genetically modified (GM) corn chips. Which do you choose?
If you were a pig or cow, we know the answer—the natural corn. Farmers repeatedly let pigs or cows into pens with troughs of GM corn and non-GM corn. The animals would head straight to the closer trough, filled with the genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They’d sniff, maybe take a nibble, then go over to the trough with the natural corn. After finishing off the last kernel, they’d stop by the GM corn one more time just to check it out, but quickly walk away.
An Iowa farmer who read about the finicky livestock decided to see if squirrels had similar dispositions. He nailed an ear of GM corn and non-GM corn onto trees by his house. Sure enough, the squirrels ate only the natural stuff, over and over again. When the farmer stopped replacing the natural corn, the squirrels still refused to touch the GMO. After 10 cold winter days, they got up the courage to nibble a few kernels, but that was all they could handle.
Another curious farmer wanted to repeat this with the squirrels in his area. He bought a bag full of GM corn ears, and another of non-GM, and left it in his garage to wait for winter. He waited too long. Mice did the experiment for him. They broke into the natural corn bag and finished it. The GM cobs were untouched.
Farmers, gardeners, reporters, and scientists have noticed similar behavior on at least four continents. Chickens, elk, deer, and raccoons avoided GM corn, while geese, rats, and buffalo refused GM soy, tomatoes, and cottonseed, respectively. Why are animals put off by genetically engineered food? No one knows for sure, but let’s get back to the GM corn chips still sitting in front of you.
Dangerous Side-Effects
Genetic material from bacteria and viruses are forced into the corn’s DNA, which is then cloned into a plant. This process leads to substantial collateral damage, including changes in hundreds or thousands of natural corn genes, plus widespread mutations. Most of the side-effects are never tested for. We do know, for example, that an allergy producing gene, normally silent, gets switched on in a Monsanto corn variety. Proteins change shape, which might be a serious health hazard. And a compound called lignin is significantly overproduced. Lignin on its own may not be so bad, but in the process of producing it, the plant also produces rotenone, a natural pesticide linked to Parkinson’s disease. No one has tested your chips to see if contains more rotenone.
In addition to the unpredicted changes, the genes inserted into the corn intentionally put more stuff into your snack food that may be hazardous. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn, and Bayer’s Liberty Link corn have added genes that allow the corn to withstand high doses of Roundup or Liberty herbicide. These varieties, therefore, have more weedkiller residues. Other GM varieties have inserted gene from bacteria that produce an insect killing toxin in every cell (and in every bite).
Genes inserted into GM crops don’t necessarily stay put. In the only human GM feeding experiment—done with Roundup Ready soy—functioning genes transferred into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines. This means that millions of Americans probably have Roundup Ready gut bacteria—unkillable with Roundup herbicide. No one has yet looked to see if GM corn genes also transfer. If they do, their insecticide-producing genes could turn your gut flora into living pesticide factories, continuously producing toxins inside you—long after you finish your bowl of chips.
Have you made your decision yet? If you still need encouragement, check out last issue of Urban Garden to find out why the American Academy of Environmental Medicine wants doctors across the country to prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone.
But aren’t GMOs Supposed to Feed the World?
If you’re feeling some moral imperative to support GMOs, that’s understandable. The biotech industry spent more than $250 million convincing you that its gene-spliced foods are the answer to the sick and starving. So don’t be embarrassed if you fell for it. Many leading US politicians have likewise been mesmerized by this long running PR ploy. Clinton’s Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman spoke candidly to a St. Louis Post Dispatch reporter about the pro-GMO attitude embedded in the US government:
“It was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . And if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view.”
Glickman acknowledged that he too “spouted the rhetoric,” admitting, “it was written into my speeches.”
The current Ag Secretary, Tom Vilsack, is the latest GMO cheerleader. As Iowa’s governor, he gave Monsanto an award in 2000, and the next year was anointed Biotech Governor of the Year by the biotech industry trade organization.
In October 2009, Vilsack tried to play the “feed the world” card at a conference sponsored by the Community Food Security Coalition. Bad move Tom. The people in the room were actually experts at feeding the world. Attendees included numerous PhDs and eminent scholars, such as the co-chairman and several leading authors of the authoritative IAASTD report, the world’s most comprehensive evaluation of agriculture.
This crowd knew that GMOs had no answers for world hunger. The IAASTD report, for example, concluded that the current generation of GMOs does not reduce hunger and poverty, does not improve nutrition, or does not facilitate social and environmental sustainability. A comprehensive analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that GMOs do not increase yield; in fact, on average they reduce yield. A USDA study showed that farmers’ income doesn’t increase, and in some cases, it decreases. And it doesn’t help the overall economy either.
The federal government has been spending $3-5 billion per year to prop up the prices of the GM crops no one else wants.
Thus, when Secretary Vilsack invoked “the ever-increasing population of the globe and the capacity to be able to feed all of those people," as the excuse to promote GMOs, he was greeted by moans, groans, hisses, and even boos.
That didn’t stop Vilsack from playing the same card two days later, but this time he was at the World Food Prize conference. That’s sponsored by the biotech industry, so they were overjoyed that the Ag Secretary was still supporting their myth.
How Do You Choose Non-GMO?
Are you now ready to choose the bowl of natural chips? If so, you’re not alone. Most Americans, according to a CBS/New York Times poll, would also choose foods made without genetically modified organisms (GMOs) if they knew which was which—if they were labeled. But unlike most other industrialized nations, GMOs don’t have to be labeled in the US or Canada. Therefore, avoiding GM foods here takes some doing.
Tip #1: Buy Organic
The best way is to buy organic foods, which don’t allow the use of GMOs. And you also benefit from organics’ higher average levels of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, and lower pesticide residues.
Tip #2: Look for “Non-GMO” Labels
Some companies voluntarily label products as “non-GMO.” The best label is now the Non-GMO Project Verified seal. It’s the new uniform, third party verified standard for non-GMO claims that is spreading through the industry.
Tip #3: Consult the Non-GMO Shopping Guide
For a handy list of non-GMO brands by category, go to www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com. View it online, download or order copies, and look for the Mobile Phone Application coming soon.
Tip #4: Avoid At-Risk Ingredients
If it’s not labeled organic or non-GMO, and the brand is not listed in the Guide, look at the ingredient panel to see if it contains any at-risk GMOs. The most pervasive GMOs are derivatives of corn and soy. Here are some common ones. (A more comprehensive list is available in the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.)
Corn
• Flour, meal, oil, starch, gluten, and syrups
• Sweeteners such as fructose, dextrose, and glucose
Soy
• Flour, oil, lecithin, protein, isolate, and isoflavones
Oil from canola and cottonseed are genetically modified. Sugar from GM sugar beets was introduced in late 2008, but a recent ruling in a federal lawsuit may eventually drive it out of our food supply. For now, if the sugar doesn’t say pure cane, it’s likely blended with beet sugar.
Other than corn, there are only three items in the produce section that may be genetically modified. That includes papaya from Hawaii (yes, only Hawaii) and a small amount of zucchini and yellow squash. Mercifully popcorn is not GMO.
Aspartame, the artificial sweetener also known as NutraSweet and Equal, is derived from GM microorganisms.
Meat, fish, eggs and dairy.
FDA scientists had warned that animals fed GMOs might bio-accumulate toxins, which end up in milk, meat, or eggs. Their concerns were ignored and no safety studies have looked into this. Most US livestock, and even farmed fish, are fed GM soy or corn. To avoid GM-fed animal products, buy organic, wild caught, or 100% grass-fed. Fortunately, there are no genetically modified fish, fowl, or livestock yet approved for human consumption.
Dairy products also carry the risk that the cows were injected with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, (rbST or rbGH). The milk from drugged cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a powerful hormone and a high risk factor for cancer. That’s primarily why the American Public Health Association, American Nurses Association, and many other groups condemn the use of rbGH.
Consumer concerns about rbGH has forced Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of the major dairies in the US to stop using the hormone. Look for labels, consult the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, or buy organic dairy products.
Moving GMOs Out of the Market
The declining fortunes of rbGH demonstrate the power of informed consumers. As more and more people linked the milk hormone to cancer, marketing executives realized that allowing their suppliers to use the controversial drug was bad for sales. Because the mainstream media has been pretty silent on the health effects, it took a few years of a concerted consumer education to start the dominoes falling. If the hazards of rbGH had made headline news, the tipping point would have been swift.
The experience of GMOs in Europe shows us just how swift markets can move. In late January of 1999, biotech representatives predicted that 95% of all commercial seeds would be genetically engineered by 2004. But just a few weeks later, their plans to replace nature crashed. On February 16th, the gag order imposed on a scientist who had conducted GMO safety studies was lifted by order of the UK Parliament. When Dr. Arpad Pusztai, the top scientist in his field, discovered the extensive damage that a GMO diet can cause, he was fired after 35 years and silenced with threats of legal action. When he finally was able to speak, all hell broke loose.
Within the week, the European press reeled off 159 column feet of articles. Within the month, 750 articles on GMOs were circulating. According to one editor, the coverage divided society into two warring blocks. Within just 10 weeks, the tipping point of consumer rejection was achieved. GM ingredients had become a marketing liability. At the end of April, Unilever publicly committed to remove GMOs from its European brands. Within the week, so did nearly every other major food company.
These same companies continue to use GM ingredients in the US, where the Pusztai controversy was not reported. Here, only one in four people are even aware that they’ve ever eaten a genetically engineered food in their lives.
Engineering a US Tipping Point
The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to achieve a tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs in the US. Several indicators suggest that it’s not far off. A December 2009 issue of Supermarket News, for example, predicted “The coming year promises to bring about a greater, more pervasive awareness” of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply.” This trade publication, which is used by food executives as a source of industry news and trends, attributed this coming uprising in part to the Campaign’s new Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
The article describes how food “culprits” such as fat, carbs, salt, and added sugar can “define the decade” for the food industry; companies scramble to create new low-culprit or culprit-free options. When the specter of GMO health dangers surfaces onto consumers’ radar screen, however, there will be a significant difference. Whereas traditional ingredient culprits offer some consumer appeal like better taste or texture, GM foods do not. Furthermore, companies can usually eliminate GMOs without even changing recipes. They can simply substitute the non-GMO soy or non-GM corn, without reformulating.
Therefore, when the industry gets hit with the anti-GMO tipping point, they won’t create separate brand options of low GMO or GMO-free. Instead, they will eliminate all GMOs from their brands and proudly proclaim that here as they do in Europe.
The number of shoppers rejecting GMOs need only be a tiny amount, perhaps 5% of Americans, in order to convince food companies to do a brand-wide GMO cleanout. But when you look at the numbers, no matter how you slice it, they add up to a coming non-GMO tidal wave.
More than 9% of Americans regularly buy organic. About 29% are strongly opposed to GM foods and believe they are unsafe. And 53% say they would avoid GMOs if labeled. While most people do not conscientiously avoid brands with GM ingredients, it’s usually because they don’t know how. Hence the importance of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
Time to take charge
There are so many people predisposed to reject GMOs, we can achieve a tipping point without ever having to convince those who are resistant. Just by educating the people who want to know why GMOs are unsafe and how to avoid them, we can kick GMOs out of the food supply.
The Campaign offers educational tools that are easy to use and to pass onto others. There are right-brain books, left-brain books, videos for the visual learner, brochures, articles, podcasts, CDs, PowerPoints, and of course, shopping guides.
The Campaign also provides strategies and support materials designed specifically for the most receptive targeted groups: Health- and environmentally-conscious shoppers, parents, healthcare professionals, chefs and food service professionals, and even religious groups.
If you would like to lend a hand and help protect the health of those you care about, visit healthiereating.org and look at the action items and tools available. Little did you know that a bowl of chips would turn you into an activist…
To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.
To help choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.
© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2011.
Author Jeffrey M. Smith
International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced. Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply.
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Drink Hormone-Free Milk! (© Hallgerd | Dreamstime.com)
Favorable court rulings may have left the impression that organic farms were safe from contamination by genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa, but that is not the case.
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) needed to conduct a review of the potential environmental impact of GE alfalfa, but according to our friend Katy Kiefer at Food & Water Watch, "USDA has rushed through this process because big agribusiness wants to be allowed to plant GE alfalfa this spring."
Katy says, "GE alfalfa is likely to contaminate other crops, including organic alfalfa. Organic dairies need organic alfalfa as feed for their cows, and organic standards don't allow the use of GE crops. Contamination of organic crops from GE crops can destroy markets for organic farmers."
Millions of American families have made it crystal clear through their shopping choices that they want organic milk for their children. A message needs to be sent to President Obama that our children's health is more important than increasing the profits of Monsanto, a multi-billion dollar corporation.
To make your voice heard on this vital issue, go to: Ask President Obama to Protect Organic and Stop Monsanto's GE Alfalfa!
Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. They challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and by transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink.
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Mowing Oats & Sweet Clover (© Image courtesy of Roxbury Farm, CSA)
He brought 20 years of experience in organic farming to his government service and had played a key role in the development of the USDA's organic standards.
The free exchange of ideas is so vital to a healthy democracy, it was particularly disturbing to learn that Mark D. Keating was terminated as an Agricultural Marketing Specialist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program (NOP) for expressing personal opinions in communications with the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).
In an interview, Mr. Keating said the official reasons given for his termination were a "complete fabrication." He added, "I was the guy who knew too much."
Mr. Keating brought 20 years of experience in various aspects of organic farming to his government service. He was once an organic farmer himself and played a key role in the development of the USDA's organic standards and the establishment of the sustainable agriculture program at the University of Kentucky. "Abandoning traditional processes has brought new problems," he said.
Mr. Keating is convinced that it was the "political hierarchy" at the USDA rather than knowledgeable civil servants who were responsible for his termination. When asked whether powerful corporate interests had sought his dismissal, he said he had no evidence to support such a claim. He did say that giant agribusiness believes it has provided the "most abundant and cheapest food supply in the world" and the criticism leveled at it by sustainable farming advocates has led to "hurt feelings" in the industry.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a national alliance of local state and federal resource professionals, is urging the NOP to reverse its decision. PEER contends that Mr. Keating did not contradict official policy, but was aiding an advisory panel in formulating recommendations for official policy.
PEER argues that his termination:
• Violates Obama administration policies encouraging "free and open inquiry" by scientists and other technical specialists; and
• Is at odds with policies adopted by other agencies, such as the Department of Interior, promoting the "free exchange of ideas" while formulating policy.
Mr. Keating's job description called for "wide latitude to exercise independent judgment" to "influence, motivate, and persuade the very diverse constituent population of the NOP." Since he was hired just last April, Mr. Keating was still a probationary employee with limited rights to appeal his dismissal.
If, as Mr. Keating maintains, the official reasons given for his dismissal were fabricated, then why was he fired? He says the truth lies in the answer to, "Who in the political leadership would object to my work?"
Undue Corporate Influence at USDA?
Last September, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published the results of a survey of USDA scientists and inspectors responsible for food safety. "Hundreds of scientists and inspectors responsible for food safety have personally experienced political interference in their work, and that's bad for public health," said Francesca Grifo, director of UCS's Scientific Integrity Program at the time. "Both the administration and Congress need to act."
More than 1,700 respondents took part in the survey, which was conducted for UCS by the Iowa State University Center for Survey Statistics. Most of the respondents had worked at their agency for more than ten years.
Disappointing Appointments at USDA
Back in 2008, Ronnie Cummins, executive director of Organic Consumers Association (OCA), told Democracy Now! about his opposition to the appointment of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture:
"Vilsack has been an ardent promoter, not only of genetically engineered foods and crops, but also of the extremely controversial biopharmaceutical crops, which involves [inaudible] pharmaceutical drugs or industrial chemicals into food crops. Even, you know, quite a few people in the biotech industry are alarmed by these biopharmaceuticals, since you could get dangerous drugs throughout the food supply."
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote, "Unfortunately, Mr. Obama on Wednesday chose Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa who has longstanding ties to agribusiness interests, as agriculture secretary - his weakest selection so far."
During the presidential campaign many sustainability advocates were encouraged by this statement from then candidate Obama, “"We'll tell ConAgra that it's not the Department of Agribusiness. It's the Department of Agriculture. We're going to put the people's interests ahead of the special interests."
To learn more about more about those with close ties to Big Agribusiness appointed to positions at the USDA, go to: Organic Consumers Association USDA Watch
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
A Healthy Walk with Dad (photo by Phaedra Wilkinson, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
The U.S. is the world’s wealthiest nation with obesity rates that are the highest in the world, yet millions of American families are struggling to get enough to eat. Besides getting help from government, people are turning in record numbers to emergency pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters to ward off hunger.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the vast majority of American families, more than 85%, have “access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members.” Still, in a country of more than 300 million people, that means millions of families are experiencing a lack of food “at least some time during the year.”
Recent recessionary times have increased the number of Americans in households lacking consistent access to adequate food by 13 million people, for a total of nearly 50 million. The rates of food insecurity and very low food security are now the highest recorded since the federal government’s first national food security survey in 1995.
Government Assistance
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the federal program formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, along with helps put healthy food on the table for over 35 million people each month. Benefits are provided on an electronic card that is accepted at most grocery stores. The program now includes nutrition education partners to help clients learn to make healthy eating and active lifestyle choices.
Nonprofit Organizations
More than 12 million children are threatened with the risk of inadequate food and hunger in the U.S., according to a report from Feeding America, a nonprofit organization. The organization provides emergency food assistance to an estimated 25 million low-income people annually by supporting a network of 206 food banks in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The organization says that every dollar donated provides seven meals for hungry people and just five dollars provides 20 bags of groceries.
Millions of backyard gardeners grow far more produce than they can possibly use. Ample Harvest is a nonprofit enabling America's backyard gardeners to find local food pantries and then share their garden bounty with them. The campaign has rolled out nationwide and over 800 food pantries and food banks across America have registered. The campaign's goal is to diminish hunger in America by facilitating the donation of extra backyard garden produce that might otherwise spoil.
To visit the web sites of the nonprofit organizations’ cited above, identify local pantries where food can be donated, and get more information on how to help those in need, go to:
1. Feeding America
2. Ample Harvest
To find out how and where to apply for SNAP benefits, go to: U.S. Department of Agriculture
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Organic Cherry (photo by xololounge, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Consumers around the globe are concerned about the safety of genetically modified (GM) food. In 2010, there were developments in several countries that should leave them hopeful for a healthier and more sustainable food supply.
Just a few weeks ago a U.S. judge ordered the destruction of illegally planted GM sugar beets, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White wrote, "The legality of [the] defendants' conduct does not even appear to be a close question," and the seedlings "shall be removed from the ground."
The case was a victory for GM opponents Earthjustice and the Center for Food Safety, who were joined in the case by several organic seed producers from Oregon's Willamette Valley. The organic farmers fear unintended crossbreeding that would complicate exports to markets wary of modified crops in Europe and elsewhere.
GM Farming Loses Court Battle in Germany
On November 29th, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court upheld restrictions on genetic farming and also ruled that anyone who engages in the practice should be held economically liable for any damage caused to conventional crops.
The suit was brought by Saxony-Anhalt against the country’s Genetic Engineering Act. The suit claimed that the act was a violation of occupational freedom. The court dismissed the claim and said that the restrictive rules against genetically engineered crops were “suitable and necessary and also appropriate.”
Labeling Launched by France's Carrefour
The ruling in the German court came about a month after French grocery retailer Carrefour launched a 'non-GM' label. ”Nourri sans OGM” (“free from GM feed”) has been added to over 300 products in Carrefour’s French stores.
The company said studies found 63% of customers would stop consuming food products if they knew the products came from animals fed with GMOs.
Carrefour France executive director James McCann said:
We have a very strong belief in Carrefour to inform our customers and give them the freedom to choose. With this new labelling, we allow our customers to decide in a transparent way whether or not to buy products from animals having been fed GM-free food. Being a responsible retailer is a fundamental value for us.
American Companies Opposed to GM Sugar Beets
American Feast founder Jeff Deasy has long called for the labeling of GM food, saying, "The biotech industry opposes such labeling because they know consumers don't want to buy GM foods." In 2009, the company joined Organic Valley and more than 70 other businesses in pledging not to use or sell genetically modified beet sugar. The companies believe there has been insufficient study of the long term effects of genetically modified crops on human health and the environment.
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Water on Fire (© 2010 International WOW Company)
New York State Governor David Paterson has issued an executive calling a temporary halt to high volume hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling for natural gas, which is often referred to as fracking. Environmental activists have expressed concern that the governor’s order will allow vertical drilling. The governor contends that vertical drilling has been proven to be safe.
Fracking was deeply criticized in the Sundance award-winning documentary, “Gasland”. Josh Fox made the film after he was asked to lease his land for gas drilling. That led him to embark on a cross-country odyssey. His journey led to the film charging fracking with leading to chronic illness in humans, toxic waste deadly to farm animals, disastrous explosions, and poor regulation of the gas drilling industry.
States Differ on Approach to Fracking
In neighboring Pennsylvania fracking is already widespread, but NYS has been more cautious about its potential harm to the environment and the drinking water of millions of New Yorkers. Governor Paterson’s executive order will allow for another round of public review and input. It also calls for a revised draft of a NYS Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement. The DEC is directed to release a revised draft on or around July 1, 2011, after a public comment period lasting at least 30 days.
“New York’s draft plan to oversee fracking was fatally flawed and wouldn’t protect our waters or our health,” said Katherine Nadeau, Water & Natural Resources Program Director, Environmental Advocates of New York. “Re-releasing a revised draft plan for public comment will give New Yorkers another opportunity to demand the strongest possible protections.”
Prior NYS Legislative Ban Vetoed
The state legislature overwhelmingly passed legislation earlier this year that outlined a moratorium on both horizontal and vertical wells until May 15, 2011. Governor Paterson vetoed that legislation when he instituted the longer moratorium that more narrowly defines the types of drilling to be restricted.
The Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York (IOGA of NY) said in a statement, “We are grateful to Governor Paterson for his courage and clear-headed judgment in vetoing S.8129-B (Thompson)/A.11443-B (Sweeney). This bill would have had far-reaching consequences to the state’s oil and natural gas industry, and to the communities in which our member companies work.”
Long Battle Ahead
Kate Sinding, a senior lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in her blog:
For anyone who has been following the dire staffing and budgetary cuts at DEC over the past several years, it is evident that an additional six months is nowhere near sufficient to generate a satisfactory new review. The state needs enough time to get it right this time – to fully consider the range of serious environmental and health threats associated with the risky new industrial activity that would take place, literally, in our backyards.
Actor and director Mark Ruffalo called on citizens to continue to protest against fracking. Last month he was placed on a terror watch list by the Pennsylvania Department of Homeland Security. He has been actively opposed to hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Delaware River region, working to arrange screenings of “Gasland”.
The issue will soon be in the hands of the incoming governor, Andrew Cuomo. During the electoral campaign, the Governor-elect said he “would not support any drilling that would threaten the State’s major sources of drinking water.”
To view previous posts on the topic, go to:
NYS Assembly Passes Moratorium on Fracking for Natural Gas
Drinking Water Needs Protection from Natural Gas Drilling
To purchase a DVD of the award-winning documentary by Josh Fox, go to: Gasland the DVD
To see a trailer for the documentary film , go to: Gasland the Trailer
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Fresh Seafood (photo by Sister Rahel, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Consumer advocates at Food & Water Watch have called for “rigorous” government standards to help consumers make informed decisions as to which seafoods are environmentally sustainable. The organization contends that shoppers are currently unable to distinguish between eco-friendly labels that are valid and those that might be misleading.
“People often think that if they buy seafood with an eco-label, it’s automatically a good choice,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. “Unfortunately, these certifications don’t assure that the product consumers are getting is actually eco-friendly.”
The new guide from F&WW, De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: Why We Need Public Standards, lays out the differing approaches of six labeling organizations, highlighting the difficulty of coming to a consensus when it comes to defining ecological sustainability. In some cases there are organizational links to industry raising questions about conflicting interests and the neutrality of the labeling process.
The Marine Stewardship Council, Global Aquaculture Alliance, and Friends of the Sea are among those examined in the report, which finds that while a lack of national standards (such as USDA “organic” for seafood) has allowed private eco-labels to capture large portions of the market, they are not adequate indicators of sustainable seafood choices for consumers, restaurants or retailers.
“Consumers aren’t told that these labels often have a ‘pay to play’ aspect,” said Marianne Cufone, director of Food & Water Watch’s fish program. She explains:
A well-managed fishery that can’t finance certification may not have an eco-label, while one that is less sustainable could be certified because someone paid for it. As a result of this, labels can actually encourage consumers to buy less sustainable products, and it can be challenging for consumers to decipher whether labels are very meaningful.
About Food & Water Watch
The nonprofit organization works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, it helps people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.
To view the full report from F&WW, go to: De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: Why We Need Public Standards
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Winter Fun (photo by Phaedra Wilkinson, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Good news recently for those who want more sustainability when it comes to food and water. For the first time a judge has ordered the destruction of illegally planted genetically modified crops and the N.Y.S. legislature just passed a moratorium on “fracking” for natural gas.
On the heels of those victories, the U.S. Congress has passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. Our friend Kate Walsh at Slow Food USA writes, “Over 31 million children in American schools will have a chance of a better school lunch.”
The act’s passage comes at a critical time. For the first time, a generation of American kids is expected to have a shorter life span than their parents.
A Broken System
"Cheetos with cheese does not have a place in a school lunch program," said Josh Viertel, President of Slow Food USA. "It is about time we gave children the school lunch they deserve."
"We know that our food system is broken when the food we feed our children will cause one in three to develop diabetes, and when obesity levels are at an all-time high. This Bill is far from perfect, and has involved large compromises, but is a great achievement towards our end goal of making kids healthier," he continued.
Slow Food USA members have been campaigning for the past two years with over 160,000 Slow Food members joining the ‘Time for Lunch’ Campaign. Thousands signed petitions, emailed or called legislators or attended one of over 300 ‘Eat Ins’ that were held in all 50 states.
"The bill will also help support local family farmers who supply the produce for school lunch through Farm to School programs."
Our Most Valuable Resource
After sending her child to school and seeing the quality of the food schools are forced to serve, Slow Food member and child nutrition advocate for the past 16 years, Dr. Susan Rubin decided to take action.
"What a people don’t realize is that there are a lot of children who rely on school lunch as their main meal of the day. The health of our children is one of the most important investments we can make," she said.
Imperfect progress, but progress nonetheless, and it came because concerned citizens made their voices heard so loudly that they couldn’t be ignored.
To learn more about the Slow Food movement and find a local chapter, go to: Slow Food USA
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Water on Fire (© 2010 International WOW Company)
Amid widespread concern that hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, or “fracking”, would endanger the high quality of the drinking water for millions in the region, the New York State Assembly has passed a moratorium on the practice. The vote in favor of the moratorium was 93-43.
The N.Y.S. Senate has already approved the measure and it appears likely that Governor David Patterson will sign it into law. The law will ban fracking in N.Y.S. until May 15, 2011. The measure is intended to provide time for a full review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation.
According to the New York Times, “This is the first time any state has ever taken this kind of action to protect the health and safety of its residents from the consequences of gas drilling,” said Kate Sinding, deputy director of the New York Urban Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It sends a powerful message that New Yorkers don’t want new fracking here unless the industry proves it can be done safely.”
What are the Consequences of Fracking?
Over the last couple of years there have been media reports from Pennsylvania to Texas of drinking water contaminated by natural gas drilling. There have been more than 300 instances of contaminated water in Colorado since 2003, and more than 700 instances in New Mexico, according to Bruce Baizel, senior staff attorney with Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project. In West Virginia a once lushly forested area has been transformed into a dead zone.
The measure passed in the wake of revelations that actor Mark Ruffalo had been placed on a terror watch list by the Pennsylvania Department of Homeland Security. He has been actively opposed to hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Delaware River region, working to arrange screenings of the documentary film, “Gasland”. The film was awarded a Special Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival in 2010.
Fracking Courtesy of Halliburton
“Gasland” offers a devastating critique of the deep drilling practice, originally developed by Halliburton. The film includes footage of kitchen tap water being set ablaze by a homeowner near a site where fracking was taking place. Millions of gallons of water, chemicals and sand are injected into the ground under high pressure, cracking shale and tight rocks to allow gas to flow more freely from the well. It is a toxic mixture and believed to be the prime culprit in the pollution of groundwater in areas surrounding drilling sites. Drinking water hundreds of miles from a well can be contaminated.
Josh Fox made the award-winning documentary “Gasland” after he was asked to lease his land for gas drilling. That led him to embark on a cross-country odyssey. His journey led to the film charging fracking with leading to chronic illness in humans, toxic waste deadly to farm animals, disastrous explosions, and poor regulation of the gas drilling industry. It will be broadcast on HBO through 2012. The DVD goes on sale in December of 2010.
More Fracking on the Way
According to an article published by ProPublica in December of 2009:
In the next 10 years, the United States will use the fracturing technology to drill hundreds of thousands of new wells astride cities, rivers and watersheds. Cash-strapped state governments are pining for the revenue and the much-needed jobs that drilling is expected to bring to poor, rural areas.
Incredibly, a loophole exempts natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Drilling companies don’t have to disclose the almost 600 chemicals that might be used in fracking and find their way into drinking water.
To purchase a DVD of the award-winning documentary by Josh Fox, go to: Gasland the DVD
To see a trailer for the documentary film , go to: Gasland the Trailer
To view the ProPublica article cited above, go to: Natural Gas Drilling: What We Don’t Know
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Alaskan King Salmon (© Photographer: Natalia Bratslavsky | Agency: Dreamstime.com)
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may soon approve the sale of genetically engineered (GE) salmon to American consumers. Incredibly, the FDA may do so without requiring that the fish be labeled as geneticall engineered.
Marion Nestle, a professor in the Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health Department at New York University has said, “The public wants to know and the public has a right to know. I think the agency has discretion, but it's under enormous political pressure to approve [the salmon] without labeling.”
Misleading Shoppers as a Sales Strategy?
Wild salmon delivers tremendous nutritional benefits, but the possible action by the FDA could lead shoppers seeking healthy food for their families tp unknowingly buy a GE substitute. Scientists have cautioned that there has been insufficient study of its impact on human health and the environment.
The nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists states on its web site:
So far, scientists have identified a number of ways in which genetically engineered organisms could potentially adversely impact both human health and the environment…In addition to posing risks of harm that we can envision and attempt to assess, genetic engineering may also pose risks that we simply do not know enough to identify.
Frightening New Revelations on Environmental Impact
After submitting a Freedom of Information Act request, the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch received numerous recent internal documents and emails from the U.S. Department of Interior’s Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) exposing startling concerns about the GE salmon for which the company AquaBounty is seeking approval.
“Nice work Greg,” Denise Hawkins, PhD, FWS Regional Geneticist wrote to a coworker in September. “Especially pointing out that there is no data to support the claims of low survival in the event of escape, which I agree with you all is a big concern. I also agree…that using triploid fish [which AquaBounty claim have undergone a sterilization process] is not foolproof. Maybe they [the FDA] should watch Jurassic Park.”
A Very Real Threat to Wild Salmon
The FDA is required by law to conduct an environmental impact statement for any regulatory action that could negatively affect the human environment. The agency has not done so yet. Despite AquaBounty’s claim to produce only sterile salmon, the company admitted that up to 5% of their GE salmon eggs could be fertile, prompting the FDA to label the company's claims “potentially misleading”.
According to FWS internal emails, contrary to AquaBounty’s claims that GE salmon would be grown in closed systems (and therefore unable to escape), FWS employees received news of a proposal to grow the fish in a facility that would discharge into the ocean off the coast of Maine.
“No matter what precautions you take, fish escape and once they do, there is no closing that door. So, that being said, I think it is very bad precedent to set,” said one FWS program supervisor.
The FDA is closing a public comment period on November 22nd and could approve the product as soon as November 23rd.
To learn more about efforts to protect consumers from GE salmon, go to: Food & Water Watch – Take Action: Stop Frankenfish
To view tips from the Organic Consumers Association on avoiding GM foods, go to: Non-GMO Shopping Guide
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Grazing with Mom (photo by Emily Roesly, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
It was more than a little disturbing to learn that while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may be on the verge of approving genetically engineered salmon, it went ahead and shut down an artisanal cheesemaker in Montesano, Washington due to concern over raw milk contamination.
Montesano’s Estrella Family Creamery is a family-owned business with a grass-based farm that scored big at the prestigious 2010 American Cheese Society Awards:
• Weebles: First in class (Smoked Italian Styles)
• Caldwell Crik Chevrett: First in class (Sheep's or Mixed Milks)
• Jalapeño Buttery: Second prize (Flavored, Peppers)
Estrella's cheeses were also served at a James Beard Dinner in New York, but according to a blog post from Beth Buczynski on care2.com, “FDA officials arrived unannounced at the most well-known artisanal creamery in Washington and posted a seizure order that named all cheeses on the property.”
Ms. Buczynski writes that the FDA acted after “…an inspection by the Washington State Department of Agriculture turned up Listeria monocytogenes (L-mono), a bacteria found in animal feces, in the creamery's production areas and in its finished cheese, according to court records.”
The FDA’s seizure order includes every cheese in production at Estrella, not just those that tested positive for L-mono, despite the fact that no illnesses had been linked to the company’s foods, according to the Washington State Department of Health.
Estrella’s co-owner Kelli Estrella told the Seattle Times, "We very aggressively went after the problem." The company voluntarily recalled several cheeses, destroyed some of them, and paused production while it improved the facility, but that was not enough to keep the FDA from moving forward.
On the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund web site, attorney Pete Kennedy criticizes the heavy handedness of the FDA’s actions, “For the last thirty-eight years, and possibly further back, there have been no reports of illness caused by the consumption of raw milk that was attributed to L-mono.”
“All Estrella Family Creamery cheeses are made with raw milk from animals grazed in our organically maintained pastures,” says the creamery’s web site.
To view the blog post from Beth Buczynski cited above, go to: FDA Shuts Down Artisanal Cheesemakers In Washington
To view Pete Kennedy’s piece on the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund web site, go to: FDA's Ace in the Hole
To visit the web site of Montesano’s award-winning, artisanal cheesemaker, go to: Estrella Family Creamery
To view a selection of artisanal American cheeses go to: Artisanal & Crafted Cheeses
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Wild Salmon Leaping Upstream (photo by Matthew G. Hull, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Concerned about the prospect of genetically modified (GM) animals making it into America’s food supply? We are, and we're very disturbed that GM salmon may soon be approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with no labeling required.
The GM salmon would be the first genetically modified animal ever approved for consumption by American families. The freakish salmon produced by engineering grows to fives times the size of Atlantic salmon in the wild. Its approval would set a terrible precedent, certain to smooth the way for all manner of genetically modified animals making it into the food supply and untraceable.
The nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists states on its web site:
So far, scientists have identified a number of ways in which genetically engineered organisms could potentially adversely impact both human health and the environment…In addition to posing risks of harm that we can envision and attempt to assess, genetic engineering may also pose risks that we simply do not know enough to identify.
Health and environmental concerns have led many countries and regions around the world to ban various GM foods and crops.
GM Foods Are Not the Answer to World Hunger
As for the claim that GM foods are needed to feed a hungry world, Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Food and Environment Program has concluded "...that GE (genetic engineering) has done little to increase overall crop yields." And a major study conducted at the University of Kansas has found that the controversial technology actually reduces crop yields.
In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks."
Labeling GM Foods
We have long called for the labeling of GM foods. We believe giant biotech corporations resist labeling because they know consumers do not want to purchase GM foods. There doesn’t seem to be a single company that has voluntarily labeled its products as genetically engineered.
Marion Nestle, a professor in the Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health Department at New York University, has been quoted by the Washington Post, “The public wants to know and the public has a right to know. I think the agency has discretion, but it's under enormous political pressure to approve [the salmon] without labeling.”
Many people are unaware that they are regularly consuming GE foods because they are not labeled. As Elise Pearlstein, producer of the Oscar-nominated film Food Inc. has said, "It's outrageous that genetically modified foods don't need to be labeled...Whatever your position, you should have the right to make informed choices, and we don't."
Tell Congress to Protect Our Families
Now, Katy Kiefer of the nonprofit Food & Water Watch tells us a bill has been proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives that would ban genetically engineered fish from reaching our food system. Our elected representatives need to hear directly from every concerned citizen who supports such a ban.
Food & Water Watch is looking for volunteers to help collect postcards to support legislation that would ban GE fish. To learn more about how you might help, go to: Food & Water Watch – Take Action
To view tips from the Organic Consumers Association on avoiding GM foods, go to: Non-GMO Shopping Guide
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Drink Hormone-Free Milk! (© Hallgerd | Dreamstime.com)
After two years of wrangling in the courts, a federal court has ruled that Ohio’s ban on the labeling of dairy products as hormone-free is unconstitutional. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is a major setback for corporations selling dairy products from cows treated with synthetic bovine hormones to an unwitting public.
It was the court’s decision that Ohio's absolute ban on voluntary, hormone-free labeling violated the First Amendment rights of dairy processors and was "more extensive than necessary to serve the state's interest in preventing consumer deception."
The landmark case was brought to court by the Organic Trade Association (OTA). OTA and its members, including Horizon Organic®, Organic Valley®, and Stonyfield Farm®, filed the appeal in conjunction with the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA).
“OTA believes consumers have a right to know how their food was produced, and organic farmers and manufacturers should be allowed to tell them,” said Christine Bushway, CEO of OTA, a leading trade group for the $26.6 billion organic industry in North America. “We are pleased the court agrees,” added Bushway.
Broader Implications
According to an NPR report, the ruling calls into question a 17-year-old U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finding that there's "no significant difference" between the milk of cows given growth hormone and those that aren't, something many in the scientific community have been challenging for years.
The court cited studies indicating that milk from cows treated with growth hormones was of lower nutritional quality and will turn sour more quickly. That raises the possibility that genetically-engineered salmon could face similar legal action if the FDA rules that it is not significantly different from other farm-raised Atlantic salmon.
Consumers Want Hormone-Free Labeling
The legal victory can be expected to be met with approval by the vast majority of American consumers. The Consumer Reports National Research Center polled more than 1,000 people nationwide on various food labeling issues; some 76% of those polled were concerned with “dairy cows given synthetic growth hormones” and 88% agreed that “milk from cows raised without synthetic bovine growth hormone should be allowed to be labeled as such.”
The U.S. is in the minority among industrialized nations by allowing the use of synthetic growth hormones to artificially stimulate milk production in dairy herds. The practice is already prohibited in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and in the 27 countries of the European Union.
To learn more about OTA and its work on behalf of the organic movement, go to: Organic Trade Association
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Farm in Autumn (photo by Gracey Stinson, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Agriculture Under Secretary for Rural Development Dallas Tonsager has announced support to help rural cooperatives expand economic activity in their communities. The Under Secretary made the announcement yesterday during a speech in Washington D.C. marking October as National Cooperative Month.
According to the National Cooperative Business Association, the nation's 30,000 cooperatives account for more than $650 billion in revenue and more than 2 million jobs.
"President Obama and Secretary Vilsack have recognized the importance of America's Rural Cooperatives during Cooperative Month. Rural cooperatives not only provide thousands of jobs, they invigorate local communities and businesses," Tonsager said.
"The grants I am announcing today will help these recipients continue their work. Their success underscores the importance of the cooperative system as a successful business model."
The funding is being provided through USDA's Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG) program. During his speech, Tonsager highlighted several cooperative projects and acknowledged the efforts of co-op officials from across the country.
Farm to Table
One of the cooperatives acknowledged by the Under Secretary, Farm to Table, plans to use a $142,382 grant to improve economic conditions in rural New Mexico. It will collaborate with New Mexico's oldest member-owned cooperative – La Montanita – on a best practices curriculum for food system cooperative development, and on a new loan investment initiative for food systems businesses.
The Mississippi Association of Cooperatives will use its $225,000 in grant funding to provide small and minority farmers with development assistance. The Center focuses the vast majority of its efforts on the most distressed rural areas of the state. The group helps minority farmers establish financially sound businesses.
For a complete list of organizations that have been selected to receive Rural Cooperative Development Grants, go to: USDA
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Brown Eggs (photo by Derek Lilly, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Factory farms, some confining hundreds of thousands of chickens in industrial facilities, sell their eggs to consumers as "organic."
Last week’s hearings before a Congressional Committee investigating the recent nationwide outbreak of salmonella poisoning only exacerbated worries about the food safety practices of some of the nation’s largest egg producers. Assertions by Austin “Jack” DeCoster and his son of their commitment to food safety were particularly ludicrous in light of a government inspection done after the egg recall.
The report that resulted from the inspection detailed the filthy conditions at the DeCoster’s egg facilities and vivid photos were presented that made their disgraceful and dangerous irresponsibility all too clear. It was also made clear that the DeCoster’s operations have a history of flouting food safety guidelines and environmental laws that dates back more than 30 years, and once led to their eggs being banned in New York State and Maryland.
Disturbing Research Findings from The Cornucopia Institute
Now an independent report has been released that focuses on widespread abuses in organic egg production, primarily by large industrial agribusinesses. The study profiles the exemplary management practices employed by many family-scale organic farmers engaged in egg production, while spotlighting abuses at so-called factory farms, some confining hundreds of thousands of chickens in industrial facilities, and representing these eggs to consumers as "organic."
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group, developed the report, Scrambled Eggs: Separating Factory Farm Egg Production from Authentic Organic Agriculture, following nearly two years of research into organic egg production. The report also contains a scorecard rating various egg brands on how their eggs are produced in accordance with federal organic standards and consumer expectations.
"After visiting over 15% of the certified egg farms in the United States, and surveying all name-brand and private-label industry marketers, it's obvious that a high percentage of the eggs on the market should be labeled ‘produced with organic feed’ rather than bearing the USDA-certified organic logo," said Mark A. Kastel, The Cornucopia Institute’s co-director and senior farm policy analyst.
According to the United Egg Producers (UEP), the industry lobby group, 80% of all organic eggs are produced by just a handful of its largest members. Most of these operations own hundreds of thousands, or even millions of birds, and have diversified into "specialty eggs," which include organic. At least one UEP member, Hillandale Farms, has been implicated in the recent nationwide salmonella outbreak affecting conventional eggs. At last week’s Congessional hearings the CEO of Hillandale Farms, Orland Bethel, cited his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and did not answer questions.
Cornucopia’s report focuses not on the size of some of these mammoth agribusinesses but rather on their organic livestock management practices. It says that most of these giant henhouses, some holding 85,000 birds or more, provide no legitimate access to the outdoors, as required in the federal organic regulations.
USDA Debates New Regulations for Poultry & Other Livestock
The new report comes at a critical juncture for the organic poultry industry. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the expert citizen advisory panel set up by Congress to advise the USDA on organic policy, has been debating a set of proposed new regulations for poultry and other livestock that would establish housing-density standards and a clearer understanding of what the requirement for outdoor access truly means. The industry’s largest operators, along with their lobbyists, have been loudly voicing their opposition to requirements for outdoor space.
"Many of these operators are gaming the system by providing minute enclosed porches, with roofs and concrete or wood flooring, and calling these structures ‘the outdoors,’" stated Charlotte Vallaeys, a farm policy analyst with Cornucopia and lead author of the report. "Many of the porches represent just 3% to 5% of the square footage of the main building housing the birds. That means 95% or more of the birds have absolutely no access whatsoever."
“If one animal has the legal right to be outdoors, then all animals have the same right, whether they choose to take turns or if they all choose to be outside at the same time," said Jim Riddle, organic outreach coordinator with the University of Minnesota and former chairman of the NOSB.
Industry Lobby Group Opposes Stronger Regulations
At previous meetings of the NOSB, United Egg Producers represented industrial-scale producers and publicly opposed proposals to strengthen regulations requiring outdoor access.
“We are strongly opposed to any requirement for hens to have access to the soil,” said Kurt Kreher of Kreher’s Sunrise Farms in Clarence, N.Y. And Bart Slaugh, director of quality assurance at Eggland’s Best, a marketer of both conventional and organic eggs based in Jeffersonville, Pa., noted that, “The push for continually expanding outdoor access … needs to stop.”
Family-scale organic egg farmers, and their allies, intend to challenge corporate agribusiness lobbyists and make their voices heard at the October 25th meeting of the National Organic Standards Board.
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit.
To learn more about the research from the Institute cited above, go to: The Cornucopia Institute
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Golden Apples (photo by Emily Roesly, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
After viewing the Oscar nominated “Food Inc.” it hard to deny that the current industrial food system is fatally flawed and unsustainable. Fortunately, specialty crops have helped develop new markets where creative chefs, restaurateurs, daring cooks and adventurous foodies can find rarer, tastier, and healthier ingredients.
The growing numbers of farmers markets and other specialty venues offer a fine alternative to the plethora of highly processed foods of dubious nutritional value spewing forth from giant factory farms. As local, family-scale farms operated in a sustainable manner tend to be the beneficiaries, it is a healthful trend that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) deems worthy of support.
Last week, Deputy Agriculture Secretary Kathleen Merrigan announced the award of block grants to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. The USDA defines specialty crops as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, horticulture, and nursery crops, including floriculture.
"We are pleased to support diverse efforts to help specialty crop growers market their products in a global marketplace and encourage all Americans to increase their fruit and vegetable consumption," said Merrigan. "These grants are instrumental in helping specialty crop growers tackle the issues they are facing today."
Specialty Crops for Healthy School Meals
One recipient is partnering with an agency to coordinate a Farm to School program where school districts will purchase specialty crops from a variety of growers for direct use in school meals, and provide nutrition and agriculture education about the benefits and nutritional qualities of specialty crops to students and school personnel.
The 54 grants total approximately $55 million and will fund 827 projects, a 10% increase over last year. They will support the competitiveness of America's specialty crop farmers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
To view summaries of all the awards, go to: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Spawning Wild Sockeye Salmon (photo by kayaklady, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
“The FDA has a flawed process for approving these GE salmon and unfortunately for us, the process isn't focused on what happens to people who eat genetically engineered animals.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sent enforcement letters warning food makers that they cannot label their products as free of genetically modified or genetically engineered ingredients.
The letters were sent as a heated debate is taking place over whether the agency should approve a genetically engineered (GE) salmon that grows at twice the rate of salmon in the wild.
Sarah Alexander of the nonprofit Food & Water Watch says, “The FDA has a flawed process for approving these GE salmon and unfortunately for us, the process isn't focused on what happens to people who eat genetically engineered animals. If the FDA moves forward, these salmon would be the first GE animals approved for human consumption.”
An article in the Washington Post quotes Marion Nestle, a professor in the Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health Department at New York University. She said, “The public wants to know and the public has a right to know. I think the agency has discretion, but it's under enormous political pressure to approve [the salmon] without labeling.”
The nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists states on its web site:
So far, scientists have identified a number of ways in which genetically engineered organisms could potentially adversely impact both human health and the environment…In addition to posing risks of harm that we can envision and attempt to assess, genetic engineering may also pose risks that we simply do not know enough to identify.
Shades of the rBGH Milk Controversy
The FDA previously warned companies that they could not label products as hormone free. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc., one of the first companies to label its ice cream as free of the synthetic hormone rBGH, joined a national campaign that included Stonyfield Farm and Organic Valley to block that effort.
According to the ice cream maker’s web site, “We’re still working to oppose the use of rBGH, a genetically engineered hormone given to cows to increase their milk production. We believe rBGH is an unnecessary technology that causes increased health risks to cows.”
The Concern About rBGH Dangers is International
Many countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and the European Union have banned rBGH due to health risks. According to Jeffrey M. Smith, the author of “Seeds of Deception” and “Genetic Roulette”, milk from cows given rBGH have much higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone considered to be a high risk factor for breast, prostate, colon, lung, and other cancers. The milk also has a lower nutritional value, leads to increased use of antibiotics, and more pus from infected udders.
Mr. Smith cites a statement from Fredrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, former Vice President of the Agriculture Committee of the European Commission, “We feel fairly confident in being able to demonstrate that the safety of European citizens who consume [rBGH] products cannot be guaranteed.”
GE Labeled Food Unlikely to Appeal to Consumers
Many believe the biotechnology industry does not want genetically engineered food labeled as such because consumers do not want to buy it. There doesn’t seem to be a single company that has voluntarily labeled its products as genetically engineered.
Among the recent enforcement letters, one company was told a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words "GMO," implied that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food and could not be used.
Many people are unaware that they are regularly consuming GE foods because they are not labeled. As Elise Pearlstein, producer of the Oscar nominated film Food Inc. has said, "It's outrageous that genetically modified foods don't need to be labeled...Whatever your position, you should have the right to make informed choices, and we don't."
GE Foods Are Not the Answer to World Hunger
As for the claim that GM foods are needed to feed a hungry world, Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Food and Environment Program has concluded "...that GE (genetic engineering) has done little to increase overall crop yields." And a major study conducted at the University of Kansas has found that the controversial technology actually reduces crop yields.
In May of 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks."
To view tips from the Organic Consumers Association on avoiding GM foods, go to: Non-GMO Shopping Guide
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Healthy Jersey Cows (photo by Emily Roesly, courtesy of morgueFile.com
“Hundreds of scientists and inspectors responsible for food safety have personally experienced political interference in their work, and that’s bad for public health.”
Hundreds of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) employees who work with food safety said public health has been harmed by their agencies deferring to business interests, according to a survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
“Hundreds of scientists and inspectors responsible for food safety have personally experienced political interference in their work, and that’s bad for public health,” said Francesca Grifo, director of UCS’s Scientific Integrity Program. “Both the administration and Congress need to act.”
Just last month, two Iowa farms recalled more than a half-billion eggs linked to about 1,400 cases of salmonella poisoning. Last year, about 700 Americans were sickened and nine died from a salmonella outbreak traced to contaminated Peanut Corporation of America plants.
Undue Corporate Influence is a Major Problem
More than 1,700 respondents took part in the survey, which was conducted for UCS by the Iowa State University Center for Survey Statistics. Most of the respondents had worked at their agency for more than ten years.
Hundreds of survey respondents identified undue corporate influence as a major problem. More than 620 respondents (38%) agreed or strongly agreed that “public health has been harmed by agency practices that defer to business interests.” Three-hundred-and-thirty respondents (27 %) said they had personally experienced “instances where public health has been harmed by businesses withholding food safety information from agency investigators” in the past year. And more than 300 respondents (25 %) said they personally experienced corporate interests forcing their agency to withdraw or significantly modify a policy or action designed to protect consumers in the past year.
Outright Obstruction, Retaliation & Abuse of Power
Dean Wyatt, a USDA veterinarian who oversees federal slaughter house inspectors, said his agency regularly punishes inspectors for writing up legitimate safety violations. “Upper level management does not adequately support field inspectors and the actions they take to protect the food supply,” said Wyatt. “Not only is there lack of support, but there's outright obstruction, retaliation and abuse of power.”
More than 100 respondents said that their agencies had asked them to exclude or alter scientific information. For example, 190 respondents (16 %) said they witnessed officials selectively or incompletely using data to justify a specific regulatory outcome. One-hundred-and-five respondents (10 %) said agency decision makers inappropriately asked them to exclude or alter information or conclusions in an agency scientific document. Ninety-eight respondents (9 %) said agency managers asked them to provide incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the public, regulated industry, media or government officials.
Some Recent Improvement
The results were not all bad. Respondents said that interference had decreased under the Obama administration, compared to the Bush years. However, the improvement was very small.
“A majority said specific reforms would make the nation’s food safer,” said Grifo. “Respondents overwhelmingly said establishing stronger whistleblower protections for inspectors and regulators would improve food safety.”
Respondents supported other reforms, including:
• 71 % agreed that “requiring each food production facility to conduct a science-based hazard analysis and implement preventive controls” would improve safety.
• 73 % said that “establishing a comprehensive electronic system to trace food products through the production and distribution system” would improve safety.
• 75 % said that the FDA should increase the frequency of food safety inspections.
A Revealing & Frightening First-Hand Account
Kenneth Kendrick, a former Peanut Corp assistant plant manager in Plainview, Texas, has first-hand experience with this lack of regulation.
He said he tried to anonymously alert the Texas Department of Health to problems at his plant, but couldn't get anyone's attention. After salmonella was discovered at Peanut Corp's plant in Blakely, Georgia, he helped FDA inspectors locate the source of salmonella contamination at his plant.
“It’s unbelievable that FDA does not routinely inspect processing plants,” said Kendrick. “The plant I worked at was infested with rodents and its ceilings were leaking water from a roof covered with bird feces. No one even looked at this plant until the nation was hit with a massive salmonella outbreak linked to another Peanut Corp plant.”
New Legislation is Under Consideration
The Senate is currently considering bipartisan food safety legislation that includes many of the reforms supported by respondents. The bill would grant the FDA the authority to test widely for pathogens, and bolster the agency’s ability to trace outbreaks back to their source. Most important, it would give the agency the power to recall contaminated foods and fine companies that knowingly sell them. Currently, the agency only has the power to request that companies conduct recalls.
Respondents were particularly worried about the safety of imported food, also overseen by FDA. Only 35% were completely or mostly confident in the safety of imported foods; 32% were only somewhat confident; and 21% were not at all confident. The remaining respondents said they didn’t know. The Senate bill would hold foods from overseas to the same standards as domestic products.
The U.S. Food Safety System is Badly Out of Date
The current system is based on a law enacted in 1906, when the major problems were parasites that inspectors could actually see. “Our biggest threats now are microbial, which are much more difficult to detect,” said Grifo.
Grifo said the FDA is starved for resources. The agency is responsible for the safety of 80% of the country’s food supply, yet it has half the number of inspectors as the USDA. In part because of this lack of staff, the FDA inspects food production facilities only once every 10 years.
“Food safety legislation is sorely needed, but the administration also could address some of the problems the survey identified by releasing the scientific integrity directive the president said he would release more than a year ago,” said Grifo. “A directive that provided better protection for whistleblowers, ensured scientists and inspectors the right to speak publicly about their work, and ordered agencies to release visitors logs documenting with whom management met would help improve food safety.”
About the Union of Concerned Scientists
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices in Berkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C.
To learn more about the science-based nonprofit organization, go to: The Union of Concerned Scientists
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Organic Farm (photo by Tana Butler, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued new procedures that it says will increase the e enforcement of national organic standards. The new operating procedures are meant to ensure that all complaints of alleged violations and civil penalties are consistently handled.
“The changes we are making will ensure that all parties are given due process while increasing the effectiveness of enforcing organic standards,” said Miles McEvoy, National Organic Program’s deputy administrator. “At the same time we want to take steps so that those who are abiding by the regulations and rightfully marketing their foods as organic are not put at a disadvantage by those falsely labeling their products. It allows us to perform our job of assuring consumers they can trust the USDA organic label.”
Nonprofit advocacy organizations including the Organic Consumers Association and the Cornucopia Institute have been critical of lax enforcement of organic standards for many years. In 2005, Cornucopia filed a legal complaint alleging that the nation's largest organic factory-farm dairy operator "willfully" violated the federal organic standards. The USDA later found that the giant industrial-scale dairies, milking thousands of cows each, were not providing their cattle with pasture, as required by law, had illegally brought conventional cattle into their operations, and committed a number of other serious improprieties.
In the past, complaints of alleged standards violations were referred to accredited certifying agents for investigation and enforcement. With the implementation of new procedures, the NOP will collaborate with accredited certifying agents in investigating cases while handling all enforcement actions.
The new complaint handling procedures were put into effect as part of a continued effort by the NOP to increase enforcement actions and ensure greater compliance of the organic regulations. Since January of 2010, the NOP has closed 87 complaints and issued three civil penalties. The NOP accredits about 100 certifying agents around the world to evaluate agricultural production and handling operations and determine their compliance with the national organic standards.
It is USDA’s policy to investigate all complaints that allege violations of rules and regulations, whether submitted by independent claimants, filed by an accredited certifying agent, or initiated by the NOP itself. Any person may file a complaint if he or she believes a violation has occurred.
To learn more about the USDA’s NOP, go to: National Organic Program
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Dangerous Food? (photo by Alimann, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
The relatively new phenomena of nationwide pathogenic outbreaks are intimately tied to the fecal contamination of our food supply and the intermingling of millions of unhealthy animals.
Written by Mark Kastel & Will Fantle, The Cornucopia Institute
What isn't being discussed in Congress, during the ongoing debate on the broken federal food safety system, is the root cause of the most serious pathogenic outbreaks in our food—the elephant (poop) in the room.
The relatively new phenomena of nationwide pathogenic outbreaks, be they from salmonella or E. coli variants, are intimately tied to the fecal contamination of our food supply and the intermingling of millions of unhealthy animals. It’s one of the best kept secrets in the modern livestock industry.
Mountains of manure are piling up at our nation’s mammoth industrial-scale "factory farms." Thousands of dairy cows and tens of thousands of beef cattle are concentrated on feedlots; hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of chickens are confined in henhouses at one location for the production of eggs and meat.
A Recipe for Disaster
Livestock producing manure is nothing new. But the epic scale of animal numbers at single locations and the incredible volumes of animal waste is a recipe for disaster. It eclipses anything that was happening on old McDonald's farm.
Feces carrying infectious bacteria transfer to the environment and into our food supply. Feeding heavily subsidized corn and soybeans to cattle, instead of grazing the ruminants on grass, as they were genetically designed to do, changes the pH in their digestive tracts, creating a hospitable environment for pathogenic E. coli to breed. The new phenomenon of feeding "distillers grains" (a byproduct of the ethanol refining industry) is making this risk even more grave.
To Much Food in Too Few Hands
The current near-nationwide contamination in the egg supply can be directly linked to industrial producers that confine millions of birds, a product of massive, centralized breeding, in manure-rich henhouses, and feeding the birds a ration spiked with antibiotics. These are chickens that the McDonald family would likely have slaughtered on the farm because they were "sickly."
Thirteen corporations each have more than 5 million laying hens, and 192 companies have flocks of more than 75,000 birds. According to the industry lobby group, United Egg Producers (UEP), this represents 95% of all the laying hens in the United States. UEP also says that “eggs on commercial egg-laying farms are never touched until they are handled by the food service operator or consumer.” Obviously, their approach been ineffective and their smokescreen is not the straight poop.
In addition to our national dependence on factory farms, the meatpacking industry, like egg production, has consolidated as well to more easily service the vast numbers of animals sent to slaughter from fewer locations. Just four companies now control over 80% of the country’s beef slaughter. Production line speed-ups have made it even harder to keep intestinal contents from landing in hamburger and meat on cutting tables.
All of these problems are further amplified by the scope of the industrial-scale food system. Now, a single contamination problem at a single national processing facility, be it meat, eggs, spinach or peanut butter, can virtually infect the entire country through their national distribution model.
More Consumers Turn to Alternatives
As an antidote, consumers are voting with their pocketbooks by purchasing food they can trust. They are encouraging a shift back towards a more decentralized, local and organic livestock production model. Witnessing the exponential growth of farmers markets, community supported farms, direct marketing and supermarket organics, a percentage of our population is not waiting for government regulation to protect their families.
The irony of the current debate on improving our federal food safety regulatory infrastructure, now centered in the Senate, is that at the same time the erosion of FDA/USDA oversight justifies aggressive legislation, the safest farmers in this country, local and organic, might be snared in the dragnet—the proposed rules could disproportionately escalate their costs and drive some out of business.
While many in the good food movement have voiced strong concerns about the pending legislation—it's sorely needed—corporate agribusiness, in pursuit of profit, is poisoning our children!
Government Needs to Act
When Congress returns to Washington, we have no doubt that food safety legislation, which has languished for months, will get fast-tracked. In an election-year our politicians don't want to be left with egg on their face.
We only hope that Senators will seriously consider not just passing comprehensive reform but incorporating an amendment sponsored by John Tester (D-MT), a certified organic farmer himself, that will exempt the safest farms in our country—small, local direct marketers. We need to allocate our scarce, limited resources based on greatest risk.
Farmers and ranchers milking 60 cows, raising a few hundred head of beef, or free ranging laying hens (many times these animals have names not numbers), offer the only true competition to corporate agribusinesses that dominate our food production system.
Mark Kastel and Will Fantle are codirectors of The Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy research group based in Cornucopia, Wisconsin.
To learn more about the farm policy & research group, go to: The Cornucopia Institute
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Thistle Hill's John & Janine Putnam (Images courtesy of Thistle Hill Farm)
Ever discovered an artisanal cheese at your local farmers market that you couldn’t stop raving about to fellow foodies? Well, there is an excellent chance that splendid cheese was made from raw milk, giving it the rich flavor that processed cheeses just can’t deliver.
Many medical professionals and nutritionists have indicated that raw milk from grass-fed cows is more nutrient dense than conventionally produced milk. They support the family farms feeding free-roaming cows on healthy grass that want to sell raw milk to folks who want to purchase it. Unfortunately, the U.S. Food and Drug administration prohibits raw milk for human consumption in interstate commerce.
The FDA Faces a Challenge in Court
The FDA’s prohibition has led the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund and eight other plaintiffs to mount a legal challenge arguing that the federal regulations are unconstitutional. The FDA filed a motion to dismiss, but last week federal Judge Mark W. Bennett denied the motion. It is a small, but important victory for small dairy farmers, the health of consumers, and the environment.
As part of his ruling, the judge ordered proceedings in the case to be stayed 60 days to allow plaintiffs time to decide whether to file a ‘citizen petition’ with FDA. The petition would ask FDA to clarify its interpretation of the statutes and regulations giving it the power to ban raw milk for human consumption in interstate commerce.
Having survived the first round in the case, the plaintiffs have until October 18th to determine what their next course of action will be.
Yes to Small Dairy Farms, No to CAFOs
A previous post on American Feast's Sustainable Food Blog explained some of what is at stake:
Family-scale dairy farms feeding free-roaming cows on healthy grass face tough competition from concentrated animal feeding operations. The densely penned cows at CAFOs are sickened from being fed the abundance of corn grown with massive government subsidies, posing a very real threat to human health. Cow droppings make good fertilizer on small farms, but at CAFOs the immense amount of waste is a toxic threat to the health of people and the environment.
Of course, people around the globe have been safely consuming raw milk and cheeses for thousands of years. Allowing the interstate sale of raw milk is an important step toward making family-scale dairy farms part of a healthier and more sustainable future.
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is a nonprofit defending the rights and freedoms of family farms by protecting consumer access to raw milk and nutrient-dense foods.
To learn more about the Fund, go to: Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
To view previous posts on the topic of raw milk, go to:
Nutritious Raw Milk Can Be Produced Safely by Local Farmers
Support Family Farmers & Get Healthy with Raw Milk
Vermont Cheese Artisans Succeed with Old World Skill
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Wheat Field at Sunset (photo by diggerdanno, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
"As recent illnesses traced to produce underscore, foodborne diseases cause significant suffering..."
In light of the seemingly endless deluge of frightening media coverage of foodborne illnesses and food recalls, it comes as little surprise that a recent report has slammed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for its ineffectiveness at ensuring food safety.
The report was prepared by Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. It says the FDA’s ability “to discover potential threats to food safety and prevent outbreaks of foodborne illness are hampered by impediments to efficient use of its limited resources and a piecemeal approach to gathering and using information on risks.”
The FDA’s Approach is Too Reactive
"As recent illnesses traced to produce underscore, foodborne diseases cause significant suffering, so it's imperative that our food safety system functions effectively at all levels," said committee chair Robert Wallace, professor, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Professor Wallace went on to say, "FDA uses some risk assessment and management tactics, but the agency's approach is too often reactive and lacks a systematic focus on prevention. Our report's recommendations aim to help FDA achieve a comprehensive vision for proactively protecting against threats to the nation's food supply."
FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of approximately 80% of the nation's food supply, including seafood, dairy products, and fruits and vegetables. It is not the sole organization overseeing food safety, the U.S. Department of Agriculture handles meat, poultry, and egg products, and state and local agencies share in conducting food production facility inspections, surveillance, and investigations of outbreaks.
About the Report
Recent outbreaks of foodborne illness led the U.S. Congress to request a review of gaps in the FDA's food safety system. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter.
To purchase the report and its recommendations in their entirety, go to: Enhancing Food Safety: The Role of the Food and Drug Administration
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Pumpkin Patch (photo by Kevin Connors, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Small family farms made up 88% of U.S. farms in 2007, but “Medium-sales, large, and very large farms were more likely to receive Government payments, especially commodity-related payments, than smaller farms,” according to a new report from the USDA’s Economic Research Service.
A small family farm is defined as one with annual sales of less than $250,000. They held 63% of the land owned by farms in 2007, and small-farm households typically do not rely on their farms for their livelihoods. Most of their off-farm income is from jobs or self-employment.
The report says, “As custodians of the bulk of farmland, small farms have a large role in natural resource and environmental policy.” But, commodity-related payments are much larger than conservation payments, accounting for 75% of all Government payments made to farmers. Commodity programs target specific commodities, largely feed and food grains, cotton, and oilseeds. According to the report, “Medium-sales, large, and very large farms were more likely to receive Government payments, especially commodity-related payments, than smaller farms.”
Commodity payments are determined by output and though large-scale farms account for on1y 2% of U.S farms, they account for 84% of the value of production. The report notes three significant features of U.S. farms:
First, small family farms make up 88 percent of all U.S. farms. Second, large-scale family farms—only 9 percent of all farms—account for a disproportionately large, 66-percent share of the value of production. Third, farming is still an industry of family businesses. Ninety-eight percent of farms are family farms, and they account for 82 percent of production. Only 2 percent of U.S farms are nonfamily farms, accounting for the remaining 18 percent of production.
To view the full report from the USDA cited above, go to: Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms, Family Farm Report, 2010 Edition
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Water Pour (© Photographer: Tracy Hebden | Agency: Dreamstime.com)
“More than 93% of the general population has some BPA in their bodies.”
Bad news for folks drinking water from plastic bottles in pursuit of safety and good health, leading them to pay 1,000 times as much for their drinking water. They need to know that the water they are drinking is likely to be contaminated with highly toxic BPA.
BPA stands for Bisphenol A, a synthetic chemical that interferes with the body’s natural hormonal messaging system. According to the Environment California Research & Policy Center, which reviewed 130 studies on the topic, BPA has been linked to altered development of the brain and behavioral changes, a predisposition to prostate and breast cancer, reproductive harm, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. BPA can wreak havoc on children’s developing systems.
NRDC Files Lawsuit to Ban BPA
The Natural Resources Defense Council has filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration for its failure to act on a petition to ban the use of BPA in food packaging, food containers, and other materials likely to come into contact with food. NRDC filed the lawsuit in U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
In October 2008, NRDC petitioned the FDA to prohibit the use of BPA in food packaging to prevent the toxic chemical from contaminating food. The FDA has failed to take action in response to the petition for more than 18 months, although the agency expressed concern about the effects of early life exposure to BPA on brain development and the prostate gland of fetuses, infants, and children.
BPA Is Ubiquitois in Food & Water Packages
BPA is found in wide variety of products, including the lining of liquid infant formula cans, soda or beer cans, fruit or vegetable cans, and pizza boxes as well as consumer products made from polycarbonate plastics, including baby bottles, sippy cups, and reusable water bottles. Much of that packing ends up in landfills, posing a severe threat to the health of the environment.
The re-use of plastic bottles leads to normal wear and tear and increases the chance that chemicals will leak out of the tiny cracks and crevices that develop over time. By law, tap water is subjected to more testing than bottled water and almost certain to be a safer alternative. More than 93% of the general population has some BPA in their bodies, primarily from exposure through food and water contamination and other preventable exposures.
Alternatives to BPA are Available
“BPA-free alternatives are already available and on the market. The FDA has no good reason to drag their feet on banning it,” said Dr. Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist in the Environment and Public Health program at NRDC. “It’s upsetting that food is most people’s primary source of exposure to BPA. The FDA should act now to eliminate this unnecessary risk.”
“The FDA has failed to safeguard the food supply and protect the public from harm,” said
Aaron Colangelo, an attorney with NRDC. “The FDA’s failure to regulate this chemical in food packaging in unjustified, and so we are forced to ask the court to intervene and order the agency to take action.”
About NRDC
The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.3 million members and online activists, served from offices in New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing.
To learn more about the reasons behind NRDC’s lawsuit, go to: The Natural Resources Defense Council
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Water on Fire (© 2010 International WOW Company)
The ordinary tap water available to 12 million residents in the New York Metropolitan area has been reliably clean and flavorful since 1842, when an aqueduct was built to bring pristine water from upstate to the city. For years the prideful city's water has been a consistent winner in blind taste tests. Easy to take for granted, it comes as a shock to learn it is now endangered by natural gas drilling.
For a couple of years there have been media reports from Pennsylvania to Texas of drinking water so tainted that folks are able to light the water from their kitchen tap on fire. There have been more than 300 instances of contaminated water in Colorado since 2003, and more than 700 instances in New Mexico, according to Bruce Baizel, senior staff attorney with Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project. In West Virginia a once lushly forested area has been transformed into a dead zone.
Fracking in Gasland
Josh Fox made the Sundance award-winning documentary “Gasland” after he was asked to lease his land for gas drilling. That led him to embark on a cross-country odyssey. As the website for the show “Now” on PBS explains, his journey led to a film that “alleges chronic illness, animal-killing toxic waste, disastrous explosions, and regulatory missteps.” It will be broadcast on HBO through 2012. The DVD goes on sale in December of 2010.
“Gasland” shows tap water being set ablaze and explores the drilling process known as fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, a technology developed by Halliburton. Millions of gallons water, chemicals and sand are injected into the ground under high pressure, cracking shale and tight rocks to allow gas to flow more freely from the well. It is a toxic mixture and believed to be the prime culprit in the pollution of groundwater in areas surrounding drilling sites. Even drinking water hundreds of miles from a well can be contaminated.
Hundreds of Thousands of New Wells Coming
It is hard to believe that risking the health of millions in order to extract natural gas would even be considered, but the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation is close to issuing a final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on gas drilling using hydraulic fracturing near a major watershed in upstate New York. The SGEIS is expected to facilitate the process for fracking near a vital watershed. Concerned citizens are asking for a delay until DEC can study and integrate the conclusions of a full report on gas drilling from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Residents of New York are not alone in facing a future threat to the safety of their drinking water. According to an article published by ProPublica in December of 2009:
In the next 10 years, the United States will use the fracturing technology to drill hundreds of thousands of new wells astride cities, rivers and watersheds. Cash-strapped state governments are pining for the revenue and the much-needed jobs that drilling is expected to bring to poor, rural areas.
Keep Drinking Water Safe
Incredibly, a loophole exempts natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Drilling companies don’t even have to disclose the almost 600 chemicals that might be used in fracking and find their way into drinking water. Fortunately, our friends at Food & Water Watch have provided a way for concerned citizens to make their voices heard by contacting elected representatives. Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. The organization challenges abuse of food and water resources by empowering people to take action.
To send a message to your elected representative to protect drinking water, go to: Food & Water Watch: Take Action
To see a trailer for the documentary film cited above, go to: Gasland the Movie
To view the ProPublica article cited above, go to: Natural Gas Drilling: What We Don’t Know
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Beach Fun (photo by Nesstor4u2, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
“Don't eat breakfast cereals that change the color of the milk.” -Michael Pollan, 'Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual'
Chemists at major food companies have been coming up with colorings to help market foods for generations, products often targeted at kids. Concerns about the safety of the chemical dyes additives go back as far as 1960, and a recent study suggests those fears have been well founded.
A recent report from the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest says:
…studies of the nine dyes currently approved by the FDA suggest, if not prove, that most of the dyes cause health problems, including cancer, hypersensitivity, or neurotoxicity (including hyperactivity). And that’s the case even though most of the research was commissioned, conducted, and interpreted by the chemical industry itself and its testing labs and academic consultants.
That is particularly troubling because food dyes are tested for safety individually, even though food marketers add them in various combinations, likely heightening the risk. Adding to the threat are impurities that might be “upwards of 10 percent…Yellow 5, the second-most widely used dye, may contain up to 13 percent of a witch’s brew of organic and inorganic chemicals,” says the report.
CSPI says it “has urged several major multinational companies that do not use dyes in Europe to do the same in the United States.” Most of those companies said European government has urged them not to use dyes, but they would continue adding dyes in the U.S. until they were ordered to stop or consumers demanded such foods.
To view the full report from CSPI cited above, go to: Center for Science in the Public Interest
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
D & E Farms in Franklinville, N.J. (photo by Emily Roesly, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
The preservation of family-scale farms across the land is vital to achieving a healthier and more sustainable food sytem. Our friend Greg Plotkin of Change.org sent us the following message:
Every minute of every day, the country loses two acres of farmland to development. To make matters worse, the average age of a U.S. farmer is now 57 years old, signaling an even greater challenge than a lack of land to farm-namely, a lack of people to farm it. Ideas for Change winner American Farmland Trust (AFT) aims to keep food on our plates by securing the future of American farms. AFT is petitioning legislators to include farmland and ranch conservation in national and state farm policies.
Farmers Markets are Growing in Popularity
In 2009, the number of farmers markets in the U.S. increased by 13% from the prior year, a great illustration of just how many communities and consumers across the country are eagerly reaching out for fresh food and supporting their local farms. Farmers and consumers connected at 5,274 farmers markets this year, up from 4,685 in 2008.
Nearly a third of U.S. shoppers say they have specifically purchased locally produced food over the last month, double the number in 2006, according to food and grocery analysts IGD. Many do so to obtain the freshest produce, but a desire to support local jobs, farms and stores has also played an important role.
As Julia Child once said, “You don't have to cook fancy or complicated masterpieces - just good food from fresh ingredients.”
To learn more about the efforts of AFT and how you can support their efforts, go to: American Farmland Trust
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Chesapeake Bay (photo by Michelle Kwajafa, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
The devastation of the Gulf’s seafood industry by the BP oil spill is a disaster that will be felt for years to come. Livelihoods that have supported families for generations have been destroyed and seafood lovers will not be enjoying the Gulf’s bounty of shrimp, oysters and crab as they have in the past.
The Chesapeake Bay is another of America’s great sources of seafood in need of protection if the harvesting of shellfish including scallops, clams, blue crab, soft-shell crab and oysters, and fresh fish such as flounder, mackerel, croaker, and striped bass is to be preserved for future generations. It is the nation’s largest estuary and one of the most popular travel destinations in the U.S.
Major New Online Campaign
Now the great bay is the focus of a major new online campaign, “Restoring our Waters”, that aims to ensure Congressional support comparable to that already in place for other major American bodies of water.
The new Web-based campaign targeting transplanted natives, outdoors enthusiasts, vacationers, travelers and others around the United States is being launched in advance of the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee markup this month of S. 1816, the Chesapeake Clean Water Act.
“Restoring our Waters tells the story of how people around the country consider the Chesapeake a national treasure, worthy of protection,” Hilary Falk, director of the Choose Clean Water Coalition (CCWC), which is organizing the national effort.
Those who love the Chesapeake Bay know it deserves the national attention and iconic status of the Florida Everglades, the Gulf Coast, the Great Lakes, or the Mighty Mississippi. Having Americans who care about clean water and the great outdoors sign this petition and contact their legislators will demonstrate how important the Chesapeake is to our nation.
Peter Johnson, manager of the Restoring Our Waters campaign added:
Thousands of gallons of oil a day are spilling into the Gulf of Mexico. We are all astonished by this thought and the fact that we are largely helpless to stop it. But nutrients have been pouring into the Chesapeake, its rivers and streams for decades now. Its effects are more subtle than the startling images of oil-soaked birds and wildlife; yet nitrogen and other pollutants strangle the very life-blood out of the Chesapeake and the economy of the region. The federal government is finally starting to realize the devastating impact that decades of neglect and misuse have had on the waters of the Chesapeake.
Prevention as the Wise Choice
Johnson said, “Unlike a disaster situation, preventing more of this pollution from happening in the first place is a far better and more cost-effective solution. The Chesapeake Clean Water Act (S.1816) introduced by Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland will provide the tools and resources to address the persistent pollution plaguing the Chesapeake Bay.”
“What happens with this bill will show the concern Americans have for clean water in iconic places like the Chesapeake or the Gulf Coast. Passage of this bill depends of the support of citizens across the country, and now is finally the time to demand clean water.”
About Choose Clean Water & Restoring Our Waters
The Choose Clean Water coalition brings together people and more than 130 organizations from Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia, working together to help everyone in the region choose clean water.
To learn more about the nonprofit organization go to: Choose Clean Water
The Restoring Our Waters campaign was launched in June 2010 to build the national case for support of the Chesapeake Bay as an Iconic American Waterway.
To learn more about the nonprofit organization go to: Restoring Our Waters
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Pelicans on the Florida Gulf (photo by Michael Richter, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
The oil disaster in the Gulf is now widely acknowledged to be the worst environmental disaster in the history of the United States. The seafood and tourism industries in several states now face devastation, costing many thousands of people their livelihoods. Billions of dollars in revenue that might have supported schools, hospitals and other vital services are now lost.
Media reports make it pretty clear that this should never have happened. Steps to insure safety were not taken by either BP or government officials responsible for oversight. As a result, eleven BP employees lost their lives and a criminal probe is underway. More people are expected to suffer poor health as a direct result of the spill and clean up efforts.
The United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne recently announced that the U.K. will double the number of inspections it makes to offshore oil rigs, while also increasing the number of personnel assigned to those duties.
BP’s Troubling Criminal Past
A nonprofit environmental organization, Food & Water Watch, has called on the British government to immediately investigate the five deepwater platforms operated by BP in the North Sea and the North Atlantic. According to a statement from F & W’s Executive Director Wenonah Hauter:
Even before the Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico, BP maintained a troubled safety record in the United States. In addition to 2005’s Texas City refinery explosion that killed 15 workers and injured more than 170, BP has been subject to at least $142.8 million in fines and penalties for workplace safety violations.
BP has a history of criminality, having pleaded guilty to a felony in 1999. The charges stemmed from having illegally disposed of hazardous waste and violated federal drinking water law in Alaska. As part of the plea agreement, BP admitted that it failed to provide adequate oversight, audits and funding to ensure proper environmental management on Alaska’s Endicott Island. The company paid the maximum criminal fine of $500,000. It also agreed to spend $22 million to resolve the criminal case and related civil claims.
Ms. Hauter also said, “The U.S. should take the U.K.’s move to step up its inspection of offshore oil rigs as a cue to intensify its own scrutiny of BP and the entire oil drilling industry’s operations in the Gulf of Mexico and beyond.”
The cost of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster is rising daily. Oil continues to wash ashore In Louisiana, where the seafood industry is said to be worth $2 billion a year. The toxic spill has also arrived on the beaches of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. A report in Reuters values Florida’s tourism industry alone at $60 billion annually.
About Food & Water Watch
The nonprofit organization works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, it helps people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.
To learn more about the nonprofit organization, go to: Food & Water Watch
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Kids at the Beach (photo by korycheer, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Congratulations to the District of Columbia City Council for unanimously approving the D.C. Healthy Schools Act on June 2nd, which will provide new and innovative guidelines to offer students healthy meals at school. This auspicious law will establish local nutritional standards for school meals and make plant-based meal options and non-dairy beverages more widely available at schools within the D.C. area.
Amongst many positive effects the law will have, the D.C. Healthy Schools Act will encourage school districts to offer vegetarian meals to students on a weekly basis; will instruct public and charter schools to inform families and guardians that plant-based meals and non-dairy beverage options are available if a request for such items is made; and will provide additional funding for the purchase of fruits and vegetables by school districts, thereby making these healthy foods more affordable to schools within the area in question.
“By passing this law, the D.C. City Council has taken a significant stand for the health of the capital’s students,” notes Dr. Allan Kornberg, executive director of Farm Sanctuary, a leading farm animal protection organization. "As a pediatrician with more than 25 years of experience, I have seen first-hand the extraordinarily harmful effects of unhealthy diets on children. Providing nutritious, cruelty-free food to students is a basic yet incredibly vital way to immediately improve the lives of our nation’s youth.”
Healthy School Meals Act Being Considered by Federal Government
Beyond the realm of D.C., Farm Sanctuary has launched a national campaign to pass the much-needed federal Healthy School Meals Act (H.R. 4870). As an amendment to the Child Nutrition Act, this new legislation would offer financial incentives to school districts throughout the country that offer students plant-based food options and non-dairy beverages.
Not only would H.R. 4870 assist in improving the health of the general youth population, but it would also bring relief to many students who refrain from consuming animal products for ethical, environmental, religious, or other reasons. Previously, students wishing to abstain from consuming dairy were required to have a note from a doctor before being offered any alternatives. Should the Healthy School Meals Act pass, this requirement would be rescinded and those students would be offered nutritionally equivalent alternatives.
Dr. Kornberg comments:
The D.C. Healthy Schools Act will allow schools within the city that cannot currently afford to do so to provide healthy, plant-based options to their students in the very near future. With the federal Healthy School Meals Act, we hope to extend this ability to schools around our nation, allowing students to receive proper nutrition and to have vegan, non-dairy options at school meals, regardless of a district’s financial constraints.
About Farm Sanctuary
Farm Sanctuary is a leading farm animal protection organization. Since incorporating in 1986, Farm Sanctuary has worked to expose and stop cruel practices of the "food animal" industry through research and investigations, legal and institutional reforms, public awareness projects, youth education, and direct rescue and refuge efforts. Farm Sanctuary shelters in Watkins Glen, N.Y., and Orland, California, provide lifelong care for hundreds of rescued animals, who have become ambassadors for farm animals everywhere by educating visitors about the realities of factory farming.
To learn more about the nonprofit’s efforts, go to: Farm Sanctuary
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Fresh Radishes (photo by Xenïa Antunes, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Written by Linda West Eckhardt, The Silver Cloud Diet
Ever since children died from eating tainted hamburgers at a fast food joint, the virulent pathogen known as E. coli 0157:H7 has been tested for and regulated by the USDA. However, there are six other strains of E. coli which are equally deadly and are not regulated or tested by most food companies.
Although the U.S. government is pondering whether or not to require testing for and banning of food products containing these strains, there are things you can do to protect yourself and your family now.
Steps to Take for Safe Eating
Start buying bagged produce from Earth Bound Farms, the only organic producer we know of who tests for all strains of E. coli. If you get a bag of Earth Bound Baby Spinach, it is free from E. coli. Secondly, grow your own vegetables in the back yard, and thirdly is get to know the weaknesses of E. coli as a pathogen.
Linda West Eckhardt
If you’re eating out, ask for olive oil and vinegar on the side and generously dress your salad with this. Olive oil kills E. coli.
All E. coli strains are killed by a temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit. This means, you should never order or eat a rare hamburger unless you know the meat came from one animal and was organic. Resist the urge to order steak tartare or rare burgers even in fine restaurants.
Hygienic Food Handling Key to Fighting E. Coli
The most difficult feature of E. coli is that it appears in raw vegetables and fruits that we eat. People have been killed and disabled by eating lettuces, spinach, strawberries and other salad ingredients.
What can you do about that? You could write your congressman, for openers. Ask other congress people to get behind New York’s Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, in her effort to require meat packers to test for all E. coli strains. She says, “How many people do we have to see die or become seriously ill?”
But meats are more easily treated than raw vegetables. The vegetable producing industry needs to be reigned in.
People who operate farms where produce is handpicked (and that’s almost every single salad item you know) should be required by law to provide a hand washing station beside the portapotties in the field. Then, these operators should train and require all workers to wash their hands after using the bath room, just the same as restaurant operators.
Why? Because the most common vector for transmission of E. coli and other pathogens is what’s known as the oral-fecal route. Animals from hogs, to beef, to chickens, to human beings carry E. coli in their gut. And the quickest way for that to be transmitted to the food is by food handlers.
Simple hygiene is still the best protection. Yes, produce from fields that are downstream from huge animal operations may be infected with E. coli by the water they use to irrigate the crops, but that’s another story.
What you can do is remember if you make a salad using commercially raised salad ingredients, dress it with olive oil, which also kills E. coli. Practice safe habits in your kitchen. Do not cut salad and raw meat or chicken with the same knife or on the same board. Become a compulsive hand washer.
Call for Government Action
Simple practices can help keep your family safe. Meanwhile, do write to your congressional representative and ask your congress person to get behind legislation that requires companies to test for all E. coli strains and to ban products from the market that test positive for any E. coli. Ask your congress person push for stricter regulations on farm operators. Require hand washing stations for field workers and no row crops planted downstream from CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations).
Many cases of food poisoning go unreported. People think they have “the flu”, or “a hangover”, or some such, when in fact, they have been poisoned by the food they eat.
Here at The Silver Cloud, we’re all about eating clean, and being clean to maintain good health.
To learn more about Linda West Eckhardt’s most recent work on healthy weight control, go to: The Silver Cloud Diet
To get a look at a book of Linda’s quick and easy recipes for a low carb diet, go to: The High-Protein Cookbook: More than 150 healthy and irresistibly good low-carb dishes that can be on the table in thirty minutes or less
To view all the recipes on the American Feast web site just scroll down after you go to: American Feast's Recipe Collection
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Grazing with Mom (photo by Emily Roesly, courtesy of morgueFile.com)
Dairy cows grazing in pastures produce milk more likely to keep your heart healthy than cows raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), according to a report in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The report was based on research conducted by scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health, the Michigan School of Public Health, and the University of Costa Rica. The study was conducted in Costa Rica, where dairy cows are pasture-grazed.
The researchers concluded that dairy cows grazing in pastures have more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in their milk than cows fed grain. CLA and the omega 3 fatty acids considered beneficial to keeping a healthy heart are not typically found in the vast majority of cattle in the U.S., which are raised on corn in CAFOs.
One of the study’s authors, Hannia Campos of the Harvard School of Public Health, told Reuters, “Because pasture grazing leads to higher CLA in milk, and it is the natural feed for cattle, it seems like more emphasis should be given to this type of feeding.”
Graze Cows n Pastures for Less Foodborne Illness
Much of the foodborne illness plaguing the nation’s food supply could be eliminated by grazing cows in pastures. Deadly E. coli contamination comes largely from beef and dairy cows fed in CAFOs. Family farms caring for pasture grazing cows face tough competition from CAFOs, where most of the cattle in the U.S. is kept. The densely penned cows are fed genetically modified (GM) corn grown with massive government subsidies.
Pasture Feeding is a Better Environmental Choice
The corn fed to cattle in CAFOs requires a great deal of fossil fuel to produce and poisonous pesticides are used in growing that corn. The vast amount of manure produced by the thousands upon thousands of tightly confined animals poses a very real threat to human health and the environment. In contrast, the manure from the cows grazing in pastures serves as rich fertilizer for the grasses on which those cows feed.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture requires organic animals to be out on pasture for not less than 120 days per year and to receive at least 30% of their feed from pasturing during the grazing season.
To access the full report cited above, go to: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
To follow American Feast on Facebook go to: American Feast on Facebook
To follow American Feast's Founder on Twitter go to: Jeff Deasy on Twitter
For information related to the purchase of advertising space and editorial coverage on the American Feast web site call Jeff Deasy toll free at 877-332-7875 or email him at jdeasy@americanfeast.com
Drink GM-Free Milk! (© Hallgerd | Dreamstime.com)
Our friends at Organic Valley Family of Farms have sent a timely reminder that genetically engineered or modified (GM) alfalfa has the capacity to destroy organic milk dairies. Cows producing organic milk are largely fed on alfalfa, and by law they cannot be fed GM crops.
If GM alfalfa makes its way into organic fields, those fields will be lost as a source of feed to organic dairy farmers. Just a wind blowing in the right direction would be enough to bring about the destructive contamination. So Organic Valley is asking folks to sign on to a letter asking the USDA to "Maintain the Ban" on genetically engineered alfalfa (see below).
Keep Children's Milk Free of Hormoes & Antibiotics
The huge numbers of parents who want their children to get the health benefits of milk without exposing them to the dangers of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) and the antibiotics fed to cows in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), have contributed mightily to organic dairy farming enjoying quite a boom in the United States. Families should not have to see the health of their ch
|
