Getting a Grip on Organic Food

"An extortion racket" isn't what jumps to mind when I think about organic food, but that was the headline in the National Post this week. To be fair it wasn't the Post saying this, but quoting from a report by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.  The report's title?  "Canada's Organic Nightmare."  I appreciate journalism and academic work that's provocative, that makes us think. This certainly meets the first test. What about the second?


Let's start with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. The motto on its website: Ideas for a Better Tomorrow.  It's based in Western Canada, and definitely leans right in its policy prescriptions with reports and publications with titles like Polar Bear Propaganda, Don't Throw Resources Under the Bus, Biodiversity:the Next Environmental Deception, Equalization Hurts All Canadians, Free to Fish,  and any links to broadcast stories go to Sun TV reports. I think I'm seeing a pattern here. I might not want to hang out with these guys but in the spirit of being open minded, let's continue.

Their main gripe against organic food is that there's no actual field testing of organic crops for pathogens or pesticide residues in Canada, just monitoring of the paperwork generated by  what are called "certifiers", the people who visit farms at least once a year and certify the operation as organic. This is from the report:

http://www.fcpp.org/files/1/PS143_OrganicNitemare_OC31F2.pdf

"Being organic is all about integrity and openness. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars per
annum in certified-organic sales in North America, so how exactly are consumers to feel assured
that everything is reliable in the Canadian organic sector when it is all just based on paperwork?
Bernie Madoff kept up on his paperwork, and look how that turned out. Honour systems pretty much
go out the window when large amounts of money are on the table. Should there not be at least a bit
of scientific scrutiny in this premium-priced food market?"

 I know a couple of certifiers and they are honest and hardworking, just like the organic farmers they visit, and I've written before that the organic farmers I know are the last people that need to be monitored, but  I do think it's very fair criticism to argue that unannounced field testing should be part of the certification process too, and the results should be made public.  If  people leaning to the left (like me) argue that processed GMO food should be properly tested and labeled, then the rules should be the same for organic products. Will pesticide residues be found, and have to be explained? Yes, that's what previous random testing has found, but it will keep bad actors in check, especially suppliers from outside the country who, according to this report, view Canada as easy pickings because of the lack of testing.  The only question is who will pay. Right now certified organic producers already carry the financial burden of the certifcation process, and according to the report, some certifiers get a percentage of gross sales as well, so it would seem reasonable that taxpayers (through the CFIA) would carry the cost.  After all it's consumers who benefit from increased confidence in what they're buying.

Bottom line, I continue to have  confidence in the organic products I buy despite reading this report. I think land use issues, crop rotations, treatment of livestock are as important as any of the other benefits, and certifiers can easily keep track of that.  If I want to be assured of no pesticide residues I'd have to go live on the moon.

Here's another perspective on the importance of maintaining standards, telling the truth, etc.  when it comes to certified organic. It's  from a farmer I very much respect, Sally Bernard, who writes a wonderful blog called For the Love of the Soil.  She and her husband Mark run a certified organic grain and livestock farm on PEI.

Why False Organic Claims Matter

If the product is raised on pasture, locally, by farmers I know, fed feed from a local mill and sold at my farmer's market, what difference does it make if the organic claim is legitimate or not?

A lot.

There are a few key factors involved in this somewhat loaded question and I'd be lying if I didn't admit that this particular entry is inspired by some serious (and repeated) false organic claims made by La Ferme Springbrook, based very near to where I grew up.  The Times & Transcript (Moncton, NB daily newspaper) recently featured a piece on the farm, with pictures of their chickens including a claim of certified organic status and even a statement from Paul, the owner, suggesting that he was organic before organic was even a 'thing'.
I've never been to the farm, and when I looked them up online, I was struck by how similar many of their pictures look to ours.  They've got meat birds out on pasture in movable pens similar to ours, and layer hens running around in the grass.  They've got lambs with long tails and some very pretty landscape shots.  It looks like a great little farm, trying to do all the right things.
It has come to my attention before, that at their stand at Dieppe Farmers Market, there are visible organic claims and nothing to substantiate it.  So when I was at a meeting this summer and happened to be sitting across from Paul, I took the opportunity to ask him about his organic claims.  He gave me a quick well-heeled explanation of how they do things 'naturally' and that it really is organic, but they don't have the certificate. 
"So where do you source your grain and feed?"
"Miramichi Feeds.  It's a good mill."
"And would contain a fair bit of soybean and corn I suspect, right?"
"Yes."
"So those would be GMO, right Paul?"
"Well, I don't know about that."
"Ok, well, let me confirm for you, that unless it's organic feed, which I know Miramichi Feeds don't make, that it is with certainty, GMO feed."
stutter, briefly, " It is good, local feed, I have bought from them for years and years. I've never had a problem."
I am still unsure as to whether he really didn't understand the concept of GMO's or whether he was dodging a reality here, but either way, I feel the need to clear up just exactly why this deception doesn't just hurt the organic community, it hurts agriculture and in particular the buy local movement.

1)the cost of grain is without a doubt, the #1 prohibitive reason for people considering livestock, organic or not.  Organic grain continues to be considerably more expensive than conventional and those who make the effort, pay the big bucks and suffer the challenges of supply, sourcing and paperwork have earned the extra level of credibility.  They have taken the extra step in ensuring that the nutrition they are providing for their livestock is confidently, GMO-FREE!  Be it for ethical reasons, scientific reasons, marketing reasons or personal reasons, they have chosen to bear the burden of the extra cost and likely hope to recoup some of that cost by marketing their product as legitimately, truthfully, certified organic.

2)Consumers want to do what's best for them and their families.  If they are making the effort to come to the farmer's market they are already a step ahead, a demographic concerned about the sources of their food and wanting to support a good, local product.  They WANT to believe that friendly looking face behind the counter and to take that trust for granted, by deliberately telling mis-truths hurts every other farmer out there.  I don't have a problem with local, not-organic food.  If you can trust your farmer and you are happy with the product you're buying, at the price you're paying, then please enjoy and consider those producers each time you cook whatever it is you've purchased.  I WANT people to have their own farmer, just like they lay claim to a doctor or a hairdresser.  I WANT there to be a trust between those who grow our food and those who eat it.  But I'm struggling with creating a trust over a product whose label doesn't live up to reality.

3)Not everyone who learns the truth will care.  Many won't.  But some will.  And those who will, will understandably have a difficult time trusting another farmer again.  Be they organic or not.  And not just the farmer, but logo, the standard, the label, ruining it not just for another organic farmer at that market, but for organic food across the country.  CFIA is supposed to be the body responsible for investigating false claims, but with spotty (read:none in most cases) provincial regulations and fewer and fewer resources, it's simply not something that gets done as often as we'd all like.  So it comes down to organic inspectors (who only inspect organic farms) and the individual consumer. It simply isn't a fair way to treat people who are your bread and butter.

There is growing interest over "GMO-free feeds and products", which is to say they are not organic, so don't necessarily hold the other standards of animal welfare, environmental impact, etc. etc., but THAT is a fair claim in my eyes. Once again, the farmer is making the extra effort and paying the extra money to source a product outside of the conventional, GMO system and although they may not be certified, it doesn't matter, because THEY'RE NOT CLAIMING TO BE.


If Paul's ignorance about the significance of GMO's is truly based on just that; ignorance, then I guess it is up to his customers to demand a change.  As far as I am concerned, in this day of national organic standards and a public who is generally aware of what that means, it is absolutely, undoubtedly unacceptable to be feeding a prohibited substance as part of the daily diet of livestock and unabashedly use the certified organic claim.

In one way, I hate being the bearer of news like this, because if even one of Paul's happy customers read this and actually care, then I've just been the carrier of the confusion and mistrust.  I just laid the trail of evidence which leads to someone potentially turning their back on local agriculture at all, and returning to the anonymous grocery store shelves.  Or maybe I've just cleared up some questions and caused someone to think, "Hmmm...well, I guess next time I'll ask for an up to date organic certificate, or ask that farmer about what she feeds her animals and won't take a vague, pretty sounding explanation in response."
Probably not, but if there's even a small chance, then it was worthwhile potentially alienating someone with this entry.  This thing wouldn't be much fun for anyone if I couldn't be honest, would it?

-Sally

Young Farmers: A Rare and Welcome Sight

There are two groups of very interesting farmers visiting PEI this week. Most are young, and trying to  make sense of the "food" industry, that huge intersection of biology, chemistry, politics, economics, environment and culture.  There are the participants in Canada's Outstanding Young Farmers  program.  We should deeply appreciate these young people. The average age of farmers in Canada continues to get older, and there are many long-standing farm families with children choosing "anything but farming" careers.  The other group are part of an international organization called the Nuffield Scholarship program.  This gives young farmers a chance to study a particular topic, including traveling to other countries to gain experience and information. PEI's Raymond Loo is a current scholar. Barry Cudmore who's had many leadership positions in many PEI farm groups is a former scholar.

I had a chance to hear three presentations from Nuffield scholars and was very impressed at the knowledge and passion of these young people (I'm in my 60's now so I can say that).  One  Sarah Megens  from Ontario really impressed me. She's very interested in local food movements, and what needs to be done to protect good farmland from urban encroachment.  She's studying how land use has changed around Toronto. She discovered that even land that hasn't been developed into houses or shopping malls  is increasingly being grabbed up by wealthy Torontonians  interested in pastures and horses, not growing food.

" I have learned about the innovative legislation and programming Pennsylvania has put in place as an attempt to secure their most valuable farmland for food production. Many of the issues facing farmers in Pennsylvania are very similar to those seen in Ontario ' the high cost of land, urban encroachment, the increasing age of farmers, and the consumer desire for more sustainably produced locally grown food. My hope is that, through my Nuffield travels, I will see more innovative policies that we can adopt in Canada so that we can, in turn, secure our own food supply, support rural economies and end the permanent loss of farmland to unsustainable urban development."

"Securing our own food supply" is one of those motherhood phrases politicians and policymakers love to  throw around, but it's people like Sarah Megens who really understand how difficult and complex the issue is.  We all need to pay attention to what she finds out.

David Suzuki: Speaking Truth to Power

Whenever I want to describe how the media can bleed away the importance of what people say I always refer to David Suzuki. He's spent a lifetime patiently, often passionately, describing how technological man/woman is destroying nature, and in the process him/herself.  He's said it so well and so often that no one hears him anymore. Those that believe him, and those that don't, know exactly what he's going to say on any issue, there's no mystery, no surprise, and when people stop listening. those doing the talking  lose their power to persuade, and that's a shame. But then for the first time in thirty years I had the opportunity to hear  David Suzuki live, and he's forced me to rethink. I'm a member of his church so I didn't need to be persuaded, but I was certainly moved and inspired.   He spoke to a full house for an hour and a half at the Symons Lecture in Charlottetown with just a few notes. He calls himself an elder now, saying it frees him to say exactly what he thinks, and he did.

The first time I heard David Suzuki speak was in the mid-70's at a conference at Carleton University in Ottawa. I was a sessional lecturer teaching a course on the environment, and surprisingly found myself in deep disagreement with him on one of his talking points.  He was arguing that domestic animals (cows, sheep, pigs, etc) had the wildness bred out of them, and this was another affront to nature.  My position was if we're going to cage, or fence in, and eventually round up and slaughter these animals, then breeding out the desire to be "wild and free" is the right thing to do. We agreed to disagree.

The Symons Lecture is designed to explore the state of the Canadian Confederation, and it's always been provocative. Last year Dr. Ivan Fellegi, long-time head of Statistics Canada, roasted the Harper Government for making Canada's long-form census voluntary rather than mandatory. He said it made Canada an international outlaw when it comes to gathering solid information to make policy decisions. Suzuki blasted the Harper government too for its cuts to scientific research, and weakening environmental regulations, but his most potent comments, while not directed at,  must have been felt by a politician much closer to home,  PEI Premier Robert Ghiz.

The speech began with a retelling of some of Suzuki's family history.  All were born in Canada (including his parents), but because of their Japanese ancestry, they were rounded up and moved to a detention camp for years after Pearl Harbour.  It must have shaped Suzuki's willingness to question authority, to "speak truth to power" which has defined his life as a scientist and broadcaster.

"Plan B" is a highway realignment project just west of Charlottetown that has generated a lot of controversy. More than $20 Million is being spent to straighten out a short section of the Trans Canada highway that's considered unsafe because of steep (for PEI) hills and curves.   It's required clear-cutting including some old-growth hemlock,  and over the next few months thousands of loads of shale and gravel will be dumped to infill a valley.  There have been large protests at the construction site, and in front of the provincial legislature.  Many were hoping Suzuki would add his voice to the protest. He skillfully said that he didn't know enough of the details, but then went right to the bottom line:

"We have to stop forcing nature into our agenda for god's sake... don't tell me that in order for us to drive a little more safely we have to devastate a forest.. it doesn't make sense to me.. we've got to adapt and change our behavior..."   There was thunderous cheering that Robert Ghiz must have felt in his bones.

Listen to it here:        https://www.box.com/s/2r1x1kwz5wbuz3x0w731

But there was one more unscripted moment that might have touched the premier even more. A woman stood at an audience mic with her child and thanked Suzuki for his speech. She then asked if her daughter could give him a hug. He agreed, the little girl went up to the stage, and they gave each other a great hug. Suzuki then teared up and said that all of his work now is for his two grandchildren, that's who he's most worried about. Robert Ghiz is now a father with two children of his own.  Did he just for a moment feel that same doubt and uncertainty about their future? Did he wonder just for a second  if Plan B was the right thing to do?  

And don't forget that just east of the Confederation Bridge is an old stretch of gravel and pavement that was considered a good idea at the time. It's was built in the 1960's as an approach road for a causeway and tunnel that would link PEI to the mainland. We can all imagine the environmental devastation that would have been caused by a causeway across the Northumberland Strait (just ask what the causeway did to the ocean ecology around Cape Breton), but the project was halted, and the money spent somewhere else.  Could we consider doing that again?   I know, I know... the $8 Million from Ottawa  is tied to a highway project, but maybe a start could be made to straightening out the road through Crapaud? 

Scared of Knowledgable Consumers

Progressives in both the United States and Canada are breathing a little easier these days. Barack Obama did win the U.S. election, and there were several state ballot initiatives on gay marriage, and decriminalizing pot possession that actually past. One that didn't was a food labeling initiative in California that would have forced food processors to tell consumers if genetically modified organisms (the dreaded GMO's) are present.  A month ago it looked as if the initiative would pass, but an intensive and expensive campaign by food processors and retailers finally turned the tide.

On the surface this seems pretty simple. As consumers we should know what's in the food we eat, but GMO's have been on a special regulatory track since the beginning. Health agencies in the United States and Canada ruled early on that the soybeans, corn, canola, cotton, and the rest with extra genes packed into their DNA, are "essentially the same" as their natural counterparts, so no additional testing or labeling is required. And there's more at work here. I remember a news conference a decade ago on GMO's with Canadian health officials. I was doing the normal "what and why" questions on the lack of testing and labeling. When the news conference was over one of the officials took me aside and said they basically didn't trust consumers, that the GMO question had become very polarized by the media, that if consumers actually knew the number of products GMO's were already in, they'd  lose confidence in the food system, and force food processors to make very costly changes in what they did, that there simply wasn't enough non-gmo oilseeds and corn to keep supermarket shelves full. What do you with that in a minute and half news story?

I'm going to include a story on the California initiative below, but let's think a bit about what might have happened if it had passed.  California is a huge consumer market, and has led the way on several consumer initiatives, tailpipe emissions and better gas mileage in cars for example. Food processors would have loudly complained (it was the threat of higher costs that probably defeated the initiative), but having made the effort  in California, other jurisdictions would have followed.  Consumers would initially be shocked at how many products include GMO's, and the food industry would have to do a lot of work to get people to understand what it all means. Right now those opposed to GMO's are the ones having to do the heavy lifting of funding research,  gathering information, and informing consumers. 

It's not easy finding the truth in all of this. There's no question that the additional DNA does produce proteins that some are allergic to, and they deserve to know they're there.  I think the more immediate problem is the impact on the farm:  I've written a lot about this (search box at the bottom of the page), but basically the overuse of bacillus thuringiensis (BT), a very effective organic pesticide, and glyphosphate the active ingredient in Round-up,  are creating superweeds and bugs that will become increasingly difficult to control. New studies also show that the promise of less pesticide use hasn't panned out. Like most technologies, risk and rewards have to be better understood, but simply enriching the bottom line of  large agrochemical companies isn't a good enough reason for this.  Resistance to late blight in potatoes, vitamins in rice, enticing nitrogen producing bacteria to the roots of grains, etc are worthwhile goals that should be pursued.

There is one ray of light here. If consumers are concerned with GMO's then they can look for organic food which prohibits its use.




http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/the-food-movement-takes-a-beating/

The Food Movement Takes a Beating

• by MARK BITTMAN
• Nov. 10, 2012

AN election that saw great strides for women, gay men and lesbians and even pot smokers left the nascent food movement scratching its collective head. We’re going to see marijuana legalized before we see a simple change in food labeling that’s favored by more than 90 percent of Americans? Or a tax on soda, a likely contributor to the obesity problem?
Possibly.
Proposition 37, which would have required packagers to label foods containing genetically modified organisms (G.M.O.’s) as such, was on the ballot in California. As recently as two months ago, the vote for labeling appeared to be a shoo-in. But then the opposition spent nearly a million dollars a day — a total of $46 million, or about five times as much as the measure’s backers — not so much chipping away at the lead but demolishing it.

Yes, there were misrepresentations, deceit and outright lies. Yes, there were egregious missteps on the part of California Right to Know, the organization leading the pro-labeling effort. But none of that would have mattered had the money been roughly equivalent.
“This wasn’t an election so much as a sale,” said Gary Hirshberg, founder of Stonyfield Farm and chairman of Just Label It! a national G.M.O. labeling campaign. He’s right, and — as far as I can tell — the only big race in which the loser outspent the winner by a factor of five was in Connecticut, where Representative Chris Murphy managed to overcome a $50 million spending spree by the wrestling magnate Linda McMahon. (It seems that the more voters saw of McMahon, who saturated the airwaves, the less they liked her.)
Money played an equally big role in defeating proposed soda taxes in two small cities, each with about 100,000 people: El Monte, east of Los Angeles, and Richmond, north of Berkeley. Advocates for both were optimistic a month ago, but that was before the anti-tax forces led by beverage companies began throwing money around, spending a combined $3.5 million in both cities. Compare that to the pro-tax forces’ total spending: $50,000 in Richmond and about $57,000 in El Monte. In other words, they were outspent by roughly 33 times.
In the three votes, the issue is either transparency — the right to know how the food we eat is produced — or, let’s say, wholesomeness: does the food we’re eating enhance health or destroy it?
G.M.O. labeling is by far the thornier issue. Labeling is important not so much because G.M.O.’s are ”bad” — they have not introduced harmful ingredients into the food chain, and those who argue that they have are taking a position that is difficult to defend — but because once we know what’s in food we can better influence how it is produced.
Sensibly or not, many consumers are predisposed against G.M.O.’s; but G.M.O.’s are not exactly evil. A better choice might be a broader discussion about animal welfare. After all, Americans are also predisposed to treat animals fairly, and it could be that a struggle for transparency in livestock production would be more successful: mistreatment of animals is easy to prove, as are the many, many downsides of industrial livestock production. Of course we love our meat, and we don’t love our G.M.O.’s. And this is an argument that could go on forever.
The soda issue is simpler. As I’ve written before, added sugar is the tobacco of the 21st century, and we’re just waiting for smoking-gun research that demonstrates that excessive intake of sugar is addictive and leads to obesity, diabetes and more. (Some will argue that this research exists, but ultimately that’s a legal question. When a healthy person drinks 10 sodas a day and develops Type 2 diabetes, sues Pepsi and wins, and that victory stands up in a higher court, the research will be validated.) In the meantime, I can’t think of a better way of reducing sugar consumption than a tax. It has worked, at least to some extent, for tobacco and it will likely work for soda. (It would also raise money to promote health.)
A month ago, I had high hopes for all three votes, so these losses were disheartening. But there are positives too. The issues were showcased, awareness increased markedly, Big Food had to spend a bunch of money, and four million Californians voted to label foods containing G.M.O.’s. A quarter of those who voted in El Monte and a third of those who voted in Richmond would voluntarily impose new taxes on themselves to protect their children and themselves from sugar-sweetened beverages. I find that downright encouraging.
Just the specter of a soda tax brought millions to a Bay Area city, and much of that money was spent hiring unemployed young people and teaching them the skills of door-to-door canvassing. “It was the best jobs program Richmond ever had,” Michael Pollan told me.
Pollan, writing in The Times Magazine last month, suggested that food processors will play Whac-A-Mole as long as their money holds out, spending to defeat local attempts to curb their dominance. “And the game is getting more and more expensive for them,” says Pollan. “That’s the real soda tax.”
Thus Jeff Ritterman, one of the leaders of the Richmond effort, is talking about a “14 in ’14” movement, in which he envisions 14 cities voting simultaneously on soda taxes two years from now in an effort to dilute the resources of the anti-tax forces. And, as many supporters (and I) believe, once a soda tax is established in one city, its benefits will become evident and it will spread.
Money, lies and mistakes crushed the forward-thinking votes in California, but these are battles lost in a war that will be won. The notions that we need to know what’s in our food and that food should not be harmful have not been defeated. It’s a question of finding the right strategy.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/11/eugene-jarecki-us-states-legalise-marijuana/print 

 

As US states legalise marijuana, is this the end of the drugs war?

• by Eugene Jarecki
• Nov. 11, 2012

Last week was a momentous week, the beginning of the end, perhaps, of a national depravity – the "war on drugs". The voters of Colorado and Washington passed measures to legalise marijuana, amounting to local shifts, for the moment. So we shouldn't delude ourselves that the country will be transformed overnight, but the public thinking, the public spirit is being transformed. Finally, there is a growing realisation that this "war" has produced nothing but a legacy of failure. And who wants to be associated with failure?
Let's be clear what we're discussing here. Not in question is the ravaging impact drugs can have on individuals – too many of us know people who have suffered in this way. But we need to see addiction for what it is – not a criminal matter but a public health issue, and a huge social issue, especially for the young. In fact, instead of a "war on drugs", better to call it a war on children.
In many parts of our country, a child strays a little at 14; tries a drug, can't think of any way to pay for it, and then sinks into the underground economy. Before long, he has a strike on his record, a strike that will be with him for the rest of his life. So you have a cycle of degradation, starting at 13, 14, and he never gets out of it. We now know so much about child development, the importance of the early years, how communities develop. Instead we eviscerate neighbourhoods, we strip away the infrastructure that once provided towns with resources.
And with this "war", we're talking about the erasure of a population – which was once black America, now just poor America. These are people removed from the official American story – just last week the millions of them locked up, often for non-violent drug-related crimes, did not participate in our democracy. So, at the very minimum, you are taking the poor away from the levers of power.
There is a new consensus that the economic view is becoming more influential in shifting attitudes on drugs, that the amount of money saved from policing and the amount gained through taxing legalised drugs is swaying opinion. Obviously we would all shudder to think we live in a country where only the economic collapse of a depravity like this should bring about its end. But I think it's also true that what's happening is more complicated – economic calculations meeting up with humanitarian concerns. So you have the likes of Grover Norquist, the conservative founder of Americans for Tax Reform, and Chris Christie, the Republican New Jersey governor, finding unlikely bedfellows with Russell Simmons and Danny Glover, producers on my film. All see a failed approach.
When I set off to make my film, I wanted to speak to people all over the country touched by drugs. The users and dealers and family members; but also judges and police and wardens. I expected to be a sort of court reporter, capturing an argument between these two camps.
In fact, everybody sounded like a victim. The people who work in the penal system want those jobs like they want a hole in the head; they are doing work they take no pride in. Ultimately, there are very few people who want to work in a system whose success relies on a churn of your fellow humans to lock up. And, of course – in class terms – there's far more commonality. Prison guards would tell me that they had relatives in prison, high school friends. And, hauntingly, everyone had a story about how broken the system was.
But there's a shocking fatalism in play. What I found was lots of people saying: "Eugene, I know the system is broken and I wish you well. But dream on, it is so vast and has so much bureaucratic thrust you're deluding yourself if you think it can be fixed." But these wardens would then say: "But until you do, I have to do my job, and by God, I'm an American and I'm going to do it better than the next guy."
Admirable in one sense, but it greases the wheels for the continuing operation of the machine. So a judge will quite sincerely tell you how he has no choice but to imprison a non-violent person for 20 years because of mandatory sentencing – and he's right – but then, over lunch, he'll tell you how much he regrets doing so. For a country founded in revolution, we have become spectacularly unmoored from the notion of revolutionary behaviour. Instead, we keep the bodies moving through the system.
I'm not going to pretend that the collapse of the "war on drugs" would transform life chances overnight for those born poorest in America. But, if you were to stop kneecapping many communities, you would free them to at least get their feet on the ground in normal ways. You could also save such a tremendous amount of money that you could ask yourself: what could I do that would plant a tree? What could I do in the neighbourhoods that would actually foster the values that built civilisation and would help young people find pathways other than those that end up in addiction?
Progress is not going to be made immediately on the national stage. Obama, I'm sure, would recognise the logic in the film, and then he would do what he has done for the past four years – he wakes up with the Washington machine. Four years ago, I met with his team; they said all the right things. Don't talk about a war on drugs, they said. You don't have a war against your own people. But, still, they've carried on in the same way.
What will bring about change is public demand. The public has to boo and hiss politicians who pander in this way – who say they are being tough on crime when they are destroying communities. We need to tell them that we won't let them vilify our neighbour to keep the penal system running. We will do that if we recognise that drug-mongering is no more substantial than WMD-mongering. And we know how that turned out. Americans have been an impressionable lot, but we're becoming less so. Bit by bit, we're realising that the "war on drugs" makes no sense. And, if we let politicians know this, they have no choice but to become smarter and answer our demands.

Some Fertile Middle Ground

I was glad to go again to the McRobie Lecture at MacPhail Homestead. It was an interesting mix of people: a few farmers, government officials, and lots of deep thinkers trying to find the right mix of  profitable farmers, a healthy environment, and reasonably priced healthy food on store shelves.  Dr. Mark Lapping gave the lecture. He knows a lot about food production and Prince Edward Island. He thinks it's time for people to move from agriculture policy to a food strategy  that goes beyond simply producing cheap calories. He worries that skills and experience are being lost as medium sized family farms continue to lose money. He says these are the families that hold rural communities together.  He compares Maine, where he's working now developing a food strategy,  with PEI. Both have too many low-income families struggling to survive, and farmers and fishermen in a competitive race to the bottom to produce the cheapest potatoes and lobster. He says large commercial farms will always be with us, but he's most excited by the growing number of smaller farms  producing generally  for local markets.  He thinks "buying local" is the most important trend amongt consumers right now, and that farmers, food retailers,  and policy makers have to take advantage of people's growing interest in knowing where their food comes from. 

I certainly don't disagree with anything Dr Lapping said, but PEI farmers face a particular problem: we have a small consumer base of 140 thousand people, that's several blocks of highrises in a big city, and it takes just a handful of farms to supply Islanders with what we produce here. The other 90% of what's grown here still has to go and compete in other markets where farmers are just as insistent that people should buy local.

Dr Lapping did have many positive ideas, including a marketing effort by some of Maine's large supermarkets. They've designated sections of the store just for local production. In some cases the price is higher than the imported stuff elsewhere in the store, to reflect higher costs of production.  That's something I've been advocating here for years. It reminds me when Maritime Electric offered wind energy at a higher price, and the company was fully subscribed within days. I think Islanders would welcome the chance to support local farmers if they could clearly identify what's produced here, and know the extra they're paying gets back to the farmer. Take that Galen Weston.

There was another interesting development this week discovered by the New York Times Mark Bittman. It's a study showing that with longer crop rotations farmers can make just as much money but cut down on pesticide use, and greatly improve soil fertility. One important  thing to note  is the role livestock plays in the research. 

There has been lots said and written about the risks of short rotations by potato farmers, and the struggle to implement a three year crop rotation regulation here, which continues to linger on the books.  As the old joke goes, snow and potatoes is not really a good crop rotation.  It goes a little further now. Soybeans has become the new star for cash croppers, and there are a lot of fields now with soybeans planted year after year. Yes it's a legume which fixes nitrogen, but it's generally harvested late in the year with no chance for a cover crop.

The biggest reason farmers maintain short crop rotations is financial, the feeling that the grain or hay crop grown in the second or third year won't make any money, and when your deeply in debt, rolling the dice for a big payday with potatoes or soybeans is tempting.  Unfortunately it's not good for the soil or the environment.

The results from this study I think are compelling and very important for a province like PEI, but if enforcing a three year rotation is too hard (and it isn't easy I agree), this research won't have much impact.  My one hope is that oilseeds and grains were worth growing this year, and if the mid-rotation crops can be profitable, then convincing farmers to take on a four-year rotation becomes easier. Hay will always be a tough sell, and gets harder as livestock herds disappear, but the organic matter from a forage crop is essential to building soil health. 



Here's the report:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/a-simple-fix-for-food/?ref=opinion

A Simple Fix for Farming

• by MARK BITTMAN
• Oct. 19, 2012

IT’S becoming clear that we can grow all the food we need, and profitably, with far fewer chemicals. And I’m not talking about imposing some utopian vision of small organic farms on the world. Conventional agriculture can shed much of its chemical use — if it wants to.
This was hammered home once again in what may be the most important agricultural study this year, although it has been largely ignored by the media, two of the leading science journals and even one of the study’s sponsors, the often hapless Department of Agriculture.
The study was done on land owned by Iowa State University called the Marsden Farm. On 22 acres of it, beginning in 2003, researchers set up three plots: one replicated the typical Midwestern cycle of planting corn one year and then soybeans the next, along with its routine mix of chemicals. On another, they planted a three-year cycle that included oats; the third plot added a four-year cycle and alfalfa. The longer rotations also integrated the raising of livestock, whose manure was used as fertilizer.
The results were stunning: The longer rotations produced better yields of both corn and soy, reduced the need for nitrogen fertilizer and herbicides by up to 88 percent, reduced the amounts of toxins in groundwater 200-fold and didn’t reduce profits by a single cent.
In short, there was only upside — and no downside at all — associated with the longer rotations. There was an increase in labor costs, but remember that profits were stable. So this is a matter of paying people for their knowledge and smart work instead of paying chemical companies for poisons. And it’s a high-stakes game; according to the Environmental Protection Agency, about five billion pounds of pesticidesare used each year in the United States.

No one expects Iowacorn and soybean farmers to turn this thing around tomorrow, but one might at least hope that the U.S.D.A.would trumpet the outcome. The agency declined to comment when I asked about it. One can guess that perhaps no one at the higher levels even knows about it, or that they’re afraid to tell Monsantoabout agency-supported research that demonstrates a decreased need for chemicals. (A conspiracy theorist might note that the journals Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences both turned down the study. It was finally published in PLOS One; I first read about it on the Union of Concerned Scientists Web site.)

Debates about how we grow food are usually presented in a simplistic, black-and-white way, conventional versus organic. (The spectrum that includes conventional on one end and organic on the other is not unlike the one that opposes the standard American diet with veganism.) In farming, you have loads of chemicals and disastrous environmental impact against an orthodox, even dogmatic method that is difficult to carry out on a large scale.
But seeing organic as the only alternative to industrial agriculture, or veganism as the only alternative to supersize me, is a bit like saying that the only alternative to the ravages of capitalism is Stalinism; there are other ways. And positioning organic as the only alternative allows its opponents to point to its flaws and say, “See? We have to remain with conventional.”
The Marsden Farm study points to a third path. And though critics of this path can be predictably counted on to say it’s moving backward, the increased yields, markedly decreased input of chemicals, reduced energy costs and stable profits tell another story, one of serious progress.
Nor was this a rinky-dink study: the background and scientific rigor of the authors — who represent the U.S.D.A.’s Agricultural Research Service as well as two of the country’s leading agricultural universities — are unimpeachable. When I asked Adam Davis, an author of the study who works for the U.S.D.A., to summarize the findings, he said, “These were simple changes patterned after those used by North American farmers for generations. What we found was that if you don’t hold the natural forces back they are going to work for you.”
THIS means that not only is weed suppression a direct result of systematic and increased crop rotation along with mulching, cultivation and other nonchemical techniques, but that by not poisoning the fields, we make it possible for insects, rodents and other critters to do their part and eat weeds and their seeds. In addition, by growing forage crops for cattle or other ruminants you can raise healthy animals that not only contribute to the health of the fields but provide fertilizer. (The same manure that’s a benefit in a system like this is a pollutant in large-scale, confined animal-rearing operations, where thousands of animals make manure disposal an extreme challenge.)
Perhaps most difficult to quantify is that this kind of farming — more thoughtful and less reflexive — requires more walking of the fields, more observations, more applications of fertilizer and chemicals if, when and where they’re needed, rather than on an all-inclusive schedule. “You substitute producer knowledge for blindly using inputs,” Davis says.
So: combine crop rotation, the re-integration of animals into crop production and intelligent farming, and you can use chemicals (to paraphrase the report’s abstract) to fine-tune rather than drive the system, with no loss in performance and in fact the gain of animal products.
Why wouldn’t a farmer go this route? One answer is that first he or she has to hear about it. Another, says Matt Liebman, one of the authors of the study and an agronomy professor at Iowa State, is that, “There’s no cost assigned to environmental externalities” — the environmental damage done by industrial farming, analogous to the health damage done by the “cheap” standard American diet — “and the profitability of doing things with lots of chemical input isn’t questioned.”
This study not only questions those assumptions, it demonstrates that the chemicals contributing to “environmental externalities” can be drastically reduced at no sacrifice, except to that of the bottom line of chemical companies. That direction is in the interest of most of us — or at least those whose well-being doesn’t rely on that bottom line.
Sadly, it seems there isn’t a government agency up to the task of encouraging things to move that way, even in the face of convincing evidence.

When the Turkey is Gone

As we're giving thanks give a thought  to Canadian beef producers who are once more caught up in circumstances well beyond their control. In June of 2003 it was the discovery of one "mad cow" in Alberta that caused so much financial pain. The Americans shut down the border to Canadian cattle leading to huge surpluses of finsihed cattle on the Canadian side and depressed prices that have really just gotten back to being profitable. (I don't want to use the word normal).  Farmers lost tens of millions of dollars. This was a case of consumer risk caused by a handful of farmers who fed cattle with feed that had animal remains (that creates the prions seen in BSE in cattle, which in turn can cause Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans) Using animal by-products in feed is prohibited now but at one time suggested  by scientists as a way to make the industry more efficient.

This time it's  the slaughter plant (XL Foods in Alberta) that's created the risk to consumers. E-coli bacteria is part of the gut of all us animals. Cows have very specialized bacteria because their stomachs have to squeeze goodness out of grass (cellulose), something we humans can't do. It's one particular strain of e coli (0157:H7) in cows guts that can be deadly (it's what killed people in Walkerton Ontario when the town's water became contaminated), and it's what's making people sick right now.  Fortunately it looks like young, relatively healthy people have been exposed to the e coli by eating XL beef, so no one has died. It can kill the elderly and those with compromised immune systems.

Here's something  that's important/interesting. There was a time when food "know it alls" (and I've included myself in this group by times) were arguing that one of the huge benefits of grass-fed beef (see earlier posts) was that cattle did not produce 0157:H7. It turns out that's not true. This is from an article from a couple of years ago:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/2010/01/beware_the_myth_of_grassfed_beef.html

"This idea rose to the top of the journalistic food chain in the fall of 2006, when food activist Nina Planck wrote about the bacteria strain on the op-ed page of the New York Times. At that time, people were getting sick from bad organic spinach, but the contamination seemed to have originated with herds of conventionally raised cattle that lived upstream. Not every animal excretes this nasty type of E. coli, she argued. "It's not found in the intestinal tracts of cattle raised on their natural diet of grass, hay, and other fibrous forage. No, O157 thrives in a new—that is, recent in the history of animal diets—biological niche: the unnaturally acidic stomachs of beef and dairy cattle fed on grain, the typical ration on most industrial farms."

The Times speaks, the world listens. Planck's appraisal of grain- vs. grass-fed beef was highlighted on the Web sites for the Organic Consumers Association, the Center for a Livable Future, Grist, and Culinate.com, among other enviro-foodie venues. A few months later, Hannah Wallace of Salon warned that "a cow's corn diet can also make us sick" on account of the acidic environment it creates for bacteria. Even Michael Pollan, perhaps the most widely read food writer on the planet, explained in a New York Times Magazine piece, "The lethal strain of E. coli known as 0157:H7 ... was unknown before 1982; it is believed to have evolved in the gut of feedlot cattle." These animals, he added, "stand around in their manure all day long, eating a diet of grain that happens to turn a cow's rumen into an ideal habitat for E. coli 0157:H7."

For many consumers, the case was closed: To avoid E. coli O157:H7, just eat grass-fed beef.

Unfortunately, the scientific evidence tells a very different story."

More recent studies show that it's the location in the gut that appears to be more important to colonizing 0157:H7 than the gut's acidity, or exposure to grain. O well, it sounded good at the time, and again we learn that nothing's simple.

There is an inoculation against 0157:H7 developed by a UBC researcher, but using it is very expensive, and economics it seems always wins out.

The other caution are news stories that buying from small local beef producers is a way for consumers to protect themselves from this deadly strain of e coli. Now no one is  a greater proponent of buying local than me, and I would encourage everyone to do it, but this kind of contamination is an issue at the slaughter plant, not at the farm.  I'd like to think that at smaller beef [processors that a little more time and care can be taken to prevent contamination of meat. Sometimes the hides have manure on the outside and can allow e coli to come in contact with meat.  Sometimes using sharp knives and having to work very quickly in large plants the intestine can be pierced again leading to contamination of the meat. The best advice I had was being told that hamburger has meat from hundreds and hundreds of cattle, vastly increasing the chances of contamination (it's why hamburger is always the first product recalled in an e coli scare... what's making this latest incident more serious is that e coli has been found on solid cuts of beef as well) We now buy cheap roasts and make our own hamburger in a food processor. At least then you're dealing with just one cow. 

The XL story seems to be a long way from over. I only hope the only causalities are politicians and civil servants losing their jobs, not consumers who bought the beef in good faith, and will hopefully do that again in the future.

Like Your Local Beef Producer Now?

 The numbers are stunning: one plant in Brooks Alberta slaughters a third of all cattle in Canada, supplies forty percent of the beef sold in the country.  The benefits of size is cheaper hamburger, but we're now beginning to better understand the risks too.  This is one of the smarter comments on the XL recall, and don't forget that it's the lowest rung on the marketing chain that eventually gets hurt with this kind of disruption, and that's the ranchers, cow calf operators, and cattle farmers, the very people not responsible for what's happened.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/will-consumers-save-canadas-beef-industry-this-time/article4586716/

Will consumers save Canada’s beef industry this time?

The massive recall at Alberta’s XL Foods is the last thing the Canadian beef industry needed, as that meat-processing plant supplies 40 per cent of all beef consumed domestically. Trade-wise, this incident may yet again damage the industry’s already fragile image, given the fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture may have discovered the E. coli outbreak before our own Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

As consumers question their relationship with their steaks and hamburgers, Canada’s beef industry continues its attempt to recover from the 2003 mad cow crisis. Given the potential impact of the XL Foods incident, that may never happen.

Nine years ago, international borders were closed to the importing of Canadian beef almost immediately after an announcement that mad cow disease had shown up in an Alberta Black Angus breeder cow. Thankfully, the cow didn’t get into the human food chain – but the damage was done. The embargo lasted more than two years and the industry lost more than $4-billion.

Domestically, however, Canadians kept on buying beef. In fact, Canada became the only country to have seen its beef retail sales go up after discovering its first native mad cow case. In a time of crisis, Canadians showed solidarity with their farmers. Indeed, Canada Food Day, a national event that celebrates local Canadian food products, began as a response to the mad cow crisis. From the perspective of Canadian consumers, this potentially disastrous incident never became a food safety confidence issue.

But times have changed. More and more Canadians are having serious conversations about diets, trends and global food systems – in other words, they care more about where their food comes from. In addition, aggregated food demand in our country is fragmenting faster than ever. Many consumers are increasingly shopping with a conscience, asking questions about the conditions of production, including issues such as animal welfare, fair trade and organic farming.

As these and other questions get deeper traction in our collective food space, producers must recognize that critical consumers are increasingly a force to be reckoned with. As a result, demand for beef has been shrinking slowly but surely since mad cow hit our country almost a decade ago. To make matters worse, the sluggish economy has compelled consumers to opt for cheaper proteins, such as chicken and other substitutes.

The beef industry is also facing some major challenges in international markets. In 2003, the Canadian dollar was at $0.73 U.S; as a result, the United States, historically our biggest export market, considered Canada an affordable source of fresh beef products. Now, with our dollar hovering around parity, the Canadian beef industry is regarded differently by our neighbour to the south.

For Americans and other export markets, the macro-economic environment has forced our beef industry to charge more for virtually the same product. Since 2003, the Canadian beef processing industry has contracted by more than 15 per cent; the XL Foods affair will certainly not enhance the industry’s quality image abroad. To add to the systemic pressures our beef industry is facing, input costs are also increasing, which makes its business case weaker almost by the day.

The global market landscape for beef has changed. What’s worse, though, is that consumers themselves are in a different place as well. With the XL Foods recall, the Canadian beef industry is facing some major headwinds. In 2003, amid the mad cow crisis, the Canadian consumer came to the rescue. This time, it’s not clear that consumers are willing to give the industry another chance, as more options and substitutes are offered to them. Only time will tell.

Sylvain Charlebois is a professor of food distribution and policy at the University of Guelph’s College of Management and Economics.