Organic Sense by George Siemon

Our Right to Know: Organizations Take Action for Labeling of GMOs

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:48:00 -0500

This past month I�ve found myself neck deep in thinking and talking about genetic engineering. Not about the science, but about the current state of affairs. Recently the unrestricted approval of Round-Up Ready alfalfa, the legal battles around sugar beets, and the pending approval of genetically engineered (GE) salmon have brought the uncertainties, dangers and influence of such technology back into focus, renewing discussions about how to protect ourselves and our future. Did you know that 27 countries of the European Union plus 31 other countries have laws and/or regulations about labeling GE crops and food products? Only four countries of those with labeling laws allow voluntary labeling. The remaining countries require mandatory labeling, which requires all or parts of the supply chain to label raw agricultural ingredients or finished food products with a phrase or mark that indicates that the product may contain, contains, or is derived from genetically engineered crops. Of course, the United States is not one of these countries, though the state of Alaska enacted a law in 2006 that requires the labeling of genetically engineered fish and fish products. I�m sure you can guess that it is the original countries that produced and exported GE crops�the United States, Canada and Argentina�which either don�t allow labeling or have adopted voluntary labeling approaches. And the first countries to adopt mandatory labeling requirements and ban production of GM crops (or allow in only very limited areas) were the large importers�the EU and Japan. Today there are developing countries that have some form of labeling laws and even countries like Brazil and China that are among the top ten countries with GE crop production. There is no one international agreement on these labeling laws. The variations include tolerance levels, whether the crop was grown from GE seeds or the end product was tested for residues, all or some ingredients and/or packaged products, all forms of GE crops or those with �novel� characteristics. For 18 years a debate on whether national laws on labeling GE foods should be allowed has raged in a little known international body called the Codex Alimentarius. Early this May, a document was finally approved, but it does not provide any specific guidance. It only provides some protection for a country with a GE labeling law from accusations that such laws were barriers to trade�a small step forward. Is labeling the answer? Certainly in Europe the GE labeling law has curtailed the use of GE seeds (although not eliminated all production) and the use of ingredients from GE crops (except in animal feed). Could this be possible in the United States now with 165 million acres of GE crops planted? Polls of U.S. consumers indicate that the majority favor labeling. But would they stop purchasing GE foods if they were labeled? Although it�s neither a perfect nor the only solution, labeling of GE foods is one approach. The Center for Food Safety (www.centerforfoodsafety.org) has launched a campaign for labeling GE foods, and IFOAM is collaborating with other organizations to organize a march from New York to Washington, DC, to raise awareness and gather consumer support for the labeling campaign (www.right2knowmarch.org). A multi-faceted, unified strategy to control GE production is needed, and organic, non-GMO, environmental and consumer groups are coming together to build that plan. Hopefully all the talking and thinking will lead to swift decisions and action.

Katherine DiMatteo is managing partner and senior associate at Wolf, DiMatteo and Associates, a consulting service specializing in organic and sustainable practices. She was the former executive director of the Organic Trade Association and was instrumental in shaping the outcome of the U.S. National Organic Program (NOP) Standards and securing Congressional support. She also helped shape the UN Codex Guidelines for Organic and the Global Organic Textile Standards. Katherine was a founding member and Secretary of the Board of The Organic Center and currently serves as the President of the Board of International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements World Board.

Fish in the Fields? You Bet! Getting Creative with On-Farm Sustainability

Mon, 04 Jul 2011 16:07:00 -0500

We restarted dairy farming on Pete's family's 3rd generation farm in October of 2003, 12 years after Pete's father quit milking cows. The facilities were very primitive with an old 1930's stall barn. With very little infrastructure, we basically started from scratch with the objective to construct the most cow friendly, labor efficient, yet simple dairy possible. First we installed cow lanes to better utilize the lush pasture growth, and we updated some field drainage. The construction of an efficient milking parlor consolidated many herd management chores and allowed the cows as much time in the pasture as possible, which is where they eat and sleep during good weather. We built a freestall barn for the four or five months of rain during our winters so that the pasture--the most important part of a pasture-based organic dairy--was not destroyed. We are always busy on the farm thinking about what else could make our pastures even more nutritious for the cows because we all know great soil and grass makes great milk. Recently, we got a little creative.

Being only 12 miles from the Pacific Ocean, we decided that instead of using chemical fertilizers, we would approach the nearby fishing, crabbing and shrimping industries to use their waste shells and husks. Most people don't know that these products provide a great nutrient source that grows beautiful grasses and legumes. Not to mention, we're reducing our farm's impact on the planet by using a locally available nutrient source and reducing the fishing, crabbing and shrimping industry's waste stream.

Nitrogen, phosphate, potash, sulfur, lime, magnesium and boron are the minerals in the shells and husks, and when combined with cow manure and some agronomist fine tuning, a very complete nutrient and mineral source for the beneficial soil microbes is created. The ability to feed and mineralize the variety of landscapes we have on our farm--from high, sandy loam river banks to lower, bottom soils--creates a mix of pasture producing ground that each has advantages when it comes to drought tolerance, moisture retention and fall growth once the ability to irrigate slows.

We have been working to develop a simple yet efficient manure system for our farm to complement the shrimp and crab waste applications, and hopefully it will be complete by this fall, thanks to a grant received from Stonyfield Farm's "Grant a Farmer's Wish" program earlier this year. On an organic farm, your animal waste is one of your most valuable assets. The government has strict regulations and rules about the handling and distribution of the manure, so designing a system to maximize farm fertility and keeping the government happy--and your neighbors!--takes a lot of planning.

For three years we have been learning about proper waste composting systems by consulting with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), a couple independent sales people, a state manure handling system specialist, and Pete has toured a new state-of-the-art municipal waste treatment facility and several other dairies. In the end, we came up with a plan for a liquid manure system that uses gravity to reduce the number of pumps, and which will dilute and aerate the manure so that the good aerobic bacteria will survive but (and this is the part our children and neighbors appreciate) not smell as bad. We will also use a covered shed for composting the shrimp and crab shells with the fiber from the cows, making the best compost for our fields and gardens.

This investment in our soil health and fertility is an endeavor that will benefit our farm for years to come, leaving it in a better state than we got it. Hopefully all these investments will pay off and our three daughters will learn to be soil microbe farmers like their father and want to come home to dairy with us. After all, if you feed and take care of the soil, the microbes will work with the soil to feed the grasses and legumes, which feed the cows. And these subsequently well fed cows will produce wonderfully rich Organic Valley milk.

We want to thank all the consumers who support organic with your dollars, which in turn helps farms like ours continue doing what's best for the planet and our future generations.

Pete and Kelly Mahaffy own River Bend Jerseys organic dairy farm in Coos County, Oregon, where they have three daughters and milk 120 cows on beautiful, PacificCoast pastures. The Mahaffy's joined Organic Valley in 2003 and are part of the cooperative's Generation Organic (Gen-O) program, which works to foster leadership in the next generation of organic farmers.

The GMO Barrier: Insights from a Generation Organic Farm-Girl

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:12:00 -0500

I walked out of the classroom and made my way down a few flights of stairs. It was one of those brief moments this spring when the sun came out and I let my mind leave thoughts of school and daydream about the coming summer. I had so many plans for my family�s dairy farm. The first thing would be to check on the tree seedlings I planted last year. As I walked across campus, my phone vibrated � it was a text from a young farming friend of mine. �A seed company is going after my neighbors.�
�What did they do?�
�Planted genetically modified corn and saved the seed. Somebody snitched on them to the seed company and they found out today they are getting sued for it.� Unfortunately this scenario is becoming more and more common across our country. With genetically modified crops, the company that created them has a patent on the actual gene itself. This has come to mean, in legal terms, that they own anything their patented gene is in. So a farmer cannot save seed to use next year, and if a farmer�s seed becomes contaminated with the gene through cross-pollination, they can be accused of �stealing� the gene. Certified Organic farmers like my family are not allowed to use genetically modified seeds, but we are still at risk of contamination through cross-pollination. It is not an exaggeration to say that genetically modified organisms (GMOs), particularly crops, threaten the existence of the entire niche market known as �organic.� If we cannot ensure that our crops are not contaminated, we cannot ensure that our beef, dairy cows and chickens are fed organically, which means we lose the integrity of all our products. This means organic farmers are in danger of losing our property and our right to conduct business. Organic is one of the last markets for small, sustainable, diversified farms. Organic farmers have fought for years to create the regulatory system, strict standards and layers of government and third party oversight, all of which protects our livelihood. If we lose that, we have lost what is quickly becoming the only viable alternative to large-scale agriculture reliant on government subsidies and chemicals. As a young person who would like to farm organically someday, the threat of GM crops adds yet another barrier to achieving my dreams. The ignored health risks of GM foods also concern me. According to the Institute for Responsible Technology, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) found that ��Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,� including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.� GM foods are not subjected to human test trials, and despite urgings by even the FDA for long-term safety studies, the government has never required them. One of those ignored health risks was documented in the study �Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,� published in Nature Biotechnology, which found that the Bt-resistant genes from the GM soy actually transferred to the human gut bacteria. The authors of the study found a very low transfer rate, so they concluded that there was no transfer at all. I find an acceptance of even a low transfer rate to be alarming. To my knowledge, this is the only study done on this alarming �side-effect,� so I cannot conclusively say that GM foods can seriously mess up a person�s digestive system, but I do want more research to be done. Thankfully, I am not alone in my concern about GM foods. There are many people dedicated to challenging the government�s approval of GMOs. It is also becoming more frequent for me to meet people without agricultural backgrounds who are concerned about GM foods. People are letting their government representatives know their views, contacting the USDA to ask for studies to be done, and perhaps most importantly, choosing to change their own lifestyles by eating foods they know are not genetically modified. Even more encouraging is that small-scale, non-organic farmers are questioning GM crops as well. I meet non-organic farmers all the time who understand not only the dangers of GM crops, but the extra expense of them. Apparently, there is something about a plant that can be sprayed with chemicals and still survive that makes it unappetizing to everyone. For now, all I can do is live GM-food-free as best as I can and keep spreading the word. The farming friend who told me about his neighbors also plants genetically modified crops, but after talking with me and researching, I was happy to receive another text from him on a different day: �I�ve decided to not plant genetically modified soybeans. And maybe next year I won�t use genetically modified corn.�

Resources:

Smith, Jeffrey. �Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modifed Food.� Institute for Responsible Technology. May 2009. www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/Doctors-Warn-Avoid-Genetically-Modified-Food-May-2009 Netherwood, Trudy et. al. �Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract.� Nature Biotechnology. 22, 204-209 (2004). Published online: 18 Jan 2004.
www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/full/nbt934.html

Sarah Holm is a teenage Organic Valley dairy farmer in Wisconsin. She and her family (she is the oldest of seven) milk 40 Jersey cows and graze about 80 acres. She is studying political science at University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire and hopes to go to law school.

Stories from the �Generation Organic�

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 09:34:00 -0500

One of the most important missions we have here at Organic Valley is to foster the future of organic farming. According to the 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture, the average age of U.S. farmers is 57 years old, while Organic Valley�s average farmer age is 49, indicating a trend of younger people becoming new farmers or current members� kids now becoming involved in the family business. For the next few weeks, we will bring you stories from this new generation�the �Generation Organic,� or �Gen-O��a network of Organic Valley farmers aged 18-35 who are leading the charge toward a sustainable farming future. They are bright and ambitious and have new outlooks on old practices which could change the state of farming in our cooperative and across the country.

We hope you enjoy hearing from the next generation as much as we did.

Planning for a Family Farming Future

By Emily Zweber, Organic Valley farmer-owner from Minnesota

Beige cookie cutter houses line winding city streets. Parks and trails connect people to the city�s library, restaurants, churches, full convenience store and gas station. A four lane highway expresses commuters from our growing community to the downtown areas of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Our town of Elko New Market is a robust and friendly place that prides itself on growth and development. Our community is nearly picture perfect. The only caveat is that our 105 year old family farm is smack dab in the middle of all the hustle and bustle. If it wasn�t for organics, our farm would be another sad statistic of the number of farms lost each day. In between houses and city side walks, our farm is a beautiful rolling and banking landscape. It is not typical of other farms in our area with their expansive fields over mildly slopping ground. Our land is just not suitable for large-scale commodity crop production. It is suitable for grazing cattle and while our farming techniques have evolved over the years, we have been grazing our dairy cattle since 1906. Our farming philosophy has always been doing what works best for our animals, land and family. Tilling our hilly ground can cause erosion, so we do not do it. We never liked using pesticides and other chemicals, so we do not use them. Keeping our cows confined all year doesn�t seem fair for them, so we let them graze. Really, our farm has been 90% �organic� for a long time it just took a couple young farmers to give us the push to really go for it. It has always been a dream of my husband, Tim, to return to the family farm and farm along side of his family. When a son or daughter returns to the family farm, the family needs to make one of three decisions. One, make the farm larger to allow more income for more families. Two, the older family member can retire making room for the younger generation. Or three, add more value to agricultural products produced on the farm. In late 2006, Tim graduated from college and it was decision time. Were we able to make the farm work for two families? What would that look like: more cows, more land, new location? I remember sitting around the farm house kitchen table listening to the family conversation with our Farm Business Manager. After running numbers for hours our FBM says, �Why don�t you just fill out the organic paperwork? You are really organic and should be compensated as such.� That was our ticket. We didn�t need to add more cows and we didn�t need to buy more land. By adding value to current operation, Tim�s parents were able to welcome in the fourth generation of Zweber farmers. Thankfully, Organic Valley at the time was also welcoming new farm family owners. We knew about their reputation of high quality organic products while keeping true to the values and beliefs of their farmers. It was a perfect match for us. On February 14, 2008 we shipped our first load of certified organic milk on the Organic Valley milk truck. It was an exciting day. The best part was our farm didn�t really change from February 13 to 14^th. We had always been doing was what right for our animals and land, the only difference was we were now supply milk to people who cared that we continued to do it right. If it wasn�t for organics and Organic Valley, we would not be planning our future for the fifth generation.

Emily Zweber is a mother of two young boys and a partner in Zweber Farms with her husband, Tim, and his parents. Emily and Tim are pen pals with a class of grade schoolers, give several farm tours each year and also maintain a blog on the farm�s website, www.zweberfarms.com

An Organic Future for Healthier Kids

Mon, 16 May 2011 13:51:00 -0500

Recently published human health studies link prenatal exposure to pesticides with learning problems in children. Turns out that these commonly used agricultural pesticides, designed to act like brain poisons, really do their job, and not only on insects! Specifically, a family of chemicals called organophosphates has links to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and lower IQs in children, syndromes with life-long ramifications. Children suffer these effects long after birth, too. Those with above-average levels of the pesticides in their urine have been found to be twice as likely to have a diagnosis of ADHD, for example. The findings (and those associated with other chemical assaults on our kids' brains) are laid out brilliantly in "Mind Games," a feature piece in a recent edition of Orion magazine by biologist, author, and mother Sandra Steingraber, whose new book Raising Elijah came out this March, and who has a rare knack for making dry research data come to life. After reading it, I could not dispute her statement that "If organophosphate pesticides are damaging children's brains at background levels of exposure and above, they should be abolished." Think of the enormous amount of fossil fuels that the agri-chemical industry uses to synthesize chemicals like organophosphates, which in turn irreparably harm the developing brains of our next generations. All because our farms are so huge�in seeking those economies of scale�that sustainable pest management techniques cost too much. Which really begs the question of what kinds of costs ought to be borne, and which ones ought not. Until these chemicals are indeed abolished for their long-ranging effects on human health and the environment, the main way to protect yourself and your kids is by buying organic food. As Organic Valley's "Why Organic" page states, "An organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to organophosphorus pesticides." This rapid decrease in the levels of such chemicals in kids' bodies, just by eating different food, is a very hopeful fact. But it would be unwise to halt our remedial action at the point of food consumption. In order to see the end of these chemicals, a grassroots movement to pressure the government will be needed. The EPA, after absorbing the findings of the studies, responded weakly that its work to date has phased out a limited number of organophosphate pesticides. Which means that millions of pounds of these toxins remain in regular use annually on U.S. farms! Sorry, that's just not good enough. As Steingraber expressed in an email to me this week: "At what point do we parents rise up and say, 'Enough is enough. Like cigarette smoke in public places, pesticide residues in food represent, for our children, acts of reckless endangerment.' Like seatbelts, sobriety, and smoke-free buildings, organic agriculture needs to become the new normal way of growing food. Parents are perfectly poised to lead that charge." I invite you to consider the moving thesis of Steingraber's Orion article and decide for yourself what role parents can play in this debate, and what future, if any, agricultural shortcuts like organophosphate pesticides should have in a society that loves its kids.

Erik Hoffner is a photojournalist, fine art photographer, and a writer for Grist.org, the biggest green news site in the U.S. By day he's Outreach Coordinator for the award-winning journal of nature/culture/place, Orion, based in Western Massachusetts. See more of his work at www.erikhoffner.com.

A Look at Local

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:18:00 -0500

Chef Mary Cleaver is President and Founder of The Cleaver Co. catering and The Green Table Restaurant in New York City To me, great food means local, seasonal food, and knowing the people who grew it or raised it. During more than thirty years in the food business, my understanding of the superior quality of local food has become an emphatic and politicized mission to support healthy, regional agriculture and cuisine. I spent my childhood summers on the coast of southeastern Massachusetts. There was a local dairy where we watched the cows being milked. Bountiful farm stands provided high quality, fresh produce. We had a favorite fisherman on the New Bedford docks, and often picked our own mussels and dug our own clams. Growing up, it was clear to me that food came from the land and from the sea � I inherently understood the connection and appreciated it. This appreciation carried over into college in Vermont where I met like-minded friends: we loved to cook and eat big dinners together, picked our own apples and harvested green tomatoes to wrap in newspaper for ripening through the fall. Following college, I aspired to buy a farm and make goat cheese, but without money to purchase land, I headed instead to New York City. To support my art, I started washing dishes at a caf� uptown, and then prepared salads and other food. I discovered cooking was my most marketable creative skill, and my catering business was born. Another, though sadder, realization soon followed: the local food I intended to use as the base of my business was virtually impossible to find. Though one could buy a pint of imported raspberries in the dead of winter for $7, when summer rolled around I couldn�t find a single local tomato or ear of corn. It was a mystery to me, given the rich farmland of the nearby Hudson Valley, the north and south forks of Long Island, and the neighboring �Garden State� of New Jersey (where I was raised). In just decades, the food system of New York City � what had been bustling markets filled with fresh, local products in the late 1800s and early to mid-1900s � had given way to an industrialized food system, dependent on shipped, processed food and commodity crops. The longer I worked in the food world, the clearer it became: our food supply was in serious danger. I began devoting much of my time as a business owner to getting regional farm products into our kitchen and ensuring the money we spent in the market place contributed to the preservation of land and fostering smaller, family farms. Small to mid-size farms that use sustainable farming methods and organic practices are better for the environment, better for the local economy and better for all of us eaters. Through the years, I�ve made it a point to know where all our food is coming from and to develop relationships with farmers and producers � this is a large (and rewarding) part of my work. The Union Square Greenmarket provided me access to local farmers, and the first organic farmer I worked with was Guy Jones at Blooming Hill. Fast forward to 2011, and we have the 35^th anniversary of GrowNYC/Greenmarket, New York City�s farmers� market system. From a dozen farmers tucked under the 59^th Street Bridge, Greenmarket now has more than 50 markets across the city, with literally hundreds of farmers and producers supplying us with fresh, healthy, local food. And thanks to Greenmarket, more than 30,000 acres of New York State has been kept in agricultural use and saved from development. The boom in farmers� markets is just one example of the increasing interest in the provenance of our food. From the widespread publication of the beautiful Edible magazines, to the USDA�s �Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food� program, to Mark Bittman�s move to the New York Times opinion pages�food issues are definitely moving front and center. In my business, we�ve always aimed to support a regional food and farm economy in our work. Whether or not the customer realized it, they�ve been getting �green� values with their food. But, over the past five years or so, I�ve noticed an increase in people coming to us specifically for these reasons. A couple planning their wedding recently asked if we could work with the farmers they know from their local market. Another summer wedding will take place on the family farm and the farm manager is growing what�s needed for the dinner menu we�ve created. More customers are hip to the notion of seasonality, and more accepting of saut�ed kale instead of asparagus in winter. For me, these are especially gratifying moments, and signs of hope that more of us understand the importance of being a stakeholder in the food system and that the system is changing for the better. This is not to say there are no challenges today. Because small farmers have been sidelined for so long, the most basic infrastructure is not in place, especially around processing and distribution. For example, getting locally raised meat to market is a great challenge. A mobile slaughterhouse effort is underway in upstate New York to make slaughtering more available to smaller producers. Institutional food, including school food (of which I am most familiar through a program called Wellness in the Schools) is generally composed of unhealthy, processed food heated up out of boxes and served on Styrofoam. And miles of red bureaucratic tape make it difficult to make the changes our kids desperately need. And while demand for organic food has exponentially increased, there is still a major price discrepancy with processed food�based on corn and soy subsidies� remaining cheaper than fresh produce and local meats and dairy. It�s a challenge for many small farmers to make a living, and it�s difficult to get fresh, healthy food into low income communities. Our work is cut out for us, to be sure. But just as spring brings signs of rebirth and hope (and ramps�.and peas�.and asparagus!), all the energy, enthusiasm and work being done in the good food world give me hope for a healthier food system in the future. As my friend and fellow food warrior Brian Halweil (editor of Edible East End and senior fellow at the Worldwatch Institute) likes to say: �Food is the solution, not the problem.� Those words, to me, are good enough to eat.

About Chef Mary Cleaver

For more than 30 years � long before �locavore� became part of the lexicon � Mary Cleaver has been bringing the freshest, most flavorful, local food to New York City diners. One of the country�s foremost authorities on sustainable food and agriculture, Mary is the president and founder of The Cleaver Co. catering and The Green Table restaurant in Chelsea Market. The Cleaver Co. and The Green Table are widely recognized for supporting a regional farm and food economy and healthy food system by utilizing local farms and purveyors in order to obtain the best-quality products. Mary is a founder of the Farm to Chef Network and a board member of Food Systems Network NYC and Local Infrastructure for Local Agriculture, among other professional affiliations.

Get the Truth About Food on FrogTV

Mon, 04 Apr 2011 13:47:00 -0500

So what does a three-eyed, hermaphroditic frog have to do with food? Join FrogTV to meet Mr. Triball and his friend and student, Diego, as each Friday they reveal startling news about our food. With a bent to be entertaining while being honest, FrogTV was conceived two years ago, birthed in the frustration of witnessing an escalating food, health and environmental crisis. Through FrogTV, we wanted to bring more awareness to what is behind the production of our food and inspire the public to learn more about the issues so they could be well-equipped to take more control of their health. Looking around, we were disappointed that major newspapers and magazines don�t cover critical food issues fairly. And so we set out to demystify hormone mimicry and endocrine disruption and genetic engineering and more. Animation was immediately attractive because it is capable of adding a quirky humor to serious topics. But coming up with topics was the most fun. We learned that, indeed, �Truth is stranger than fiction.� Using resources from The Organic Center to verify the science, our writers and animators dove in, distilling the mass of heavy information down to short, easy to �digest� webisodes (pun intended). Mr. Triball, our teacher and three-eyed frog, is wise and battle weary. Diego, a young teen, is the inquisitive explorer. But who is this Triball and where did he come from? FrogTV webisodes often happen right in your back yard. In fact, one blogger who watched �FROGotten Genders,� a 2-minute webisode that explains why frogs get confused while mating, commented that the frogs had disappeared in the creek behind their house. Our hope is that FrogTV can be a learning tool and more. FrogTV webisodes can be shared with friends and family; they will encourage people to talk freely about the issues, challenge our food production system, and as we learn more, do more: grow our own food, care about where our food comes from, and of course, do everything we can to reduce the contaminants in our environment and in our bodies. Join Triball and Diego every Friday as they unearth the hidden truths about our food at FrogTV online and on Facebook.

Theresa Marquez has been involved in food and farming since the mid 1970s, wearing a variety of hats throughout the past 35 years. She has served on the Board of Directors of the Organic Trade Association (OTA) and The Organic Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to proving the benefits of organic, and she has served on the Oregon Tilth Certification Advisory Board. As the Chief Marketing Executive for Organic Valley, Theresa has been the driving force behind many creative and artful organic education programs�the most recent being FrogTV, launched in early 2011. FrogTV is also sponsored by the Farmers Advocating For Organics (FAFO) granting fund.

Booming Farm to School Movement is a Great Opportunity for Growth of Local and Organic

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:16:00 -0500

Can you imagine a fourth grader who goes back for seconds of fresh organic cucumber slices but leaves the chocolate pudding untouched? With farm to school programs burgeoning across the nation, this scenario is increasingly a reality. The phrase �farm to school� typically refers to efforts to bring great, healthy food into school cafeterias by connecting schools with local farmers and food producers. At their best, farm to school programs improve student nutrition, provide agriculture, health and nutrition education opportunities, and stabilize markets for regional food. As such, these programs result in more local, natural and organic foods being included in school meals and represent a great opportunity for growth in the organic movement. Across the country there are lots of examples of organic products in schools. For example, in 2002 Washington�s Olympia School District launched its Organic Choices Salad Bar - a pilot program featuring organic fruit and vegetable choices, whole grain bread, vegetarian meat alternatives, eggs, and organic soymilk. The pilot was so successful that within just a few years every one of the district�s 18 schools had a similar program up and running. The program achieved financial sustainability by encouraging students to take only what they will eat, eliminating desserts from the elementary menu, and reducing waste costs by composting and recycling. Although produce expenditures increased, overall food costs have gone down and participation rates have gone up. In addition to creating market opportunities for organic products, farm to school programs are also proving to be great economic development opportunities. In 2008 Ecotrust provided a $.07 per meal subsidy to two Oregon school districts during the 2008-2009 school year for the expressed purpose of incorporating more Oregon-grown fruits, vegetables, and minimally processed (canned, frozen, etc.) products into the lunchroom. We measured the economic effects of the $.07 investment on purchasing by conducting an input-output analysis using data from both districts on all local food purchases. Input-output analysis uses a matrix representation of an economy (in this case, Oregon�s economy) to estimate the effect of changes in one industry on other industries and the economy as a whole. The results from this analysis showed that local purchasing by schools represents a practical and timely economic development opportunity � with, in the case of our seven cent investment, the potential to create 477 jobs in the public and private sectors and return over $100 million in economic activity to the state. Results also showed that every dollar spent by school districts on Oregon foods led to an additional 86 cents of spending in the state, and for each job created by purchasing local foods, the successive economic activity created another 1.43 jobs. A recent study released by University of Minnesota Extension that examined the potential economic impact of farm to school programs in a five-county area echoed these results, showing a range of economic impact depending on the schools� level of involvement�from $20,000 per year if every school featured one locally grown meal per month up to $430,000 per year if they sourced a large amount of certain products from local farmers. The analysis concentrated on foods most easily added to school menus right away and available from local farmers: apples, beef hot dogs, cabbage, carrots, oatmeal, potatoes, sweet corn and wild rice. The economic development potential of farm to school programs in concert with heightened demand for more natural and organic foods in school meal programs represents a tremendous growth opportunity for organic food producers. Further, many farm to school programs include school gardens, which provide great opportunities for students to learn about organic methods. Washington�s Lopez Island Farm Education (LIFE) Farm to School program supports a large organic garden and orchard on the school�s campus. During the growing season, the school estimates that 60-70 % of vegetables served in the cafeteria are from the garden. Teachers use the garden for math, science, social studies, culinary arts, and health classes and visiting farmers from Washington State University�s Center for Sustaining Agriculture teach soil management, sustainable farming practices, and food preservation techniques in the high school�s Ecological Food Production class. It comes as no surprise that there is also great support within the organic movement for improving school food. The Organic Consumers Association promotes its Appetite for Change campaign, which aims to convert school lunches to healthier menus, using locally grown and/or organic and transitioning to organic ingredients. And the Organic Trade Association recently requested that the Economic Research Service include a question for schools about the procurement of organic foods in its plans for a nationwide census of farm to school efforts. In a historic step forward, the recently enacted Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (s. 3307) includes mandatory funding streams for both farm to school and organic food pilot programs. There has never been a better time for the organic foods movement to harness the synergy between its whole systems approach to healthy eco-systems and communities, and the whole systems approach represented by farm to school programs � supporting healthy food from healthy farms, giving children a sense of where their food comes from, and maintaining vibrant regional food systems.

Deborah Kane serves as vice president of Food and Farms at Ecotrust. Under Kane�s leadership, Ecotrust works in collaboration with a diverse coalition of partners to increase the market share of regionally grown, processed, and manufactured foods. Ecotrust places special focus on children and the schools that feed them, advocating for policy changes that make it easier to bring regionally produced food into school food settings. In 2010 Kane was named one of the �10 most inspiring people in sustainable agriculture� by Fast Company Magazine for her innovative work with FoodHub, an online directory and marketplace for regional food.

Reducing Your Pesticide Consumption

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:29:00 -0600

Bug and weed-killers are common ingredients in the diet of most Americans, including, shockingly, infants in the womb. Back in 2004, my colleagues and I decided to find out if pesticides were making their way into the blood of the developing fetus. We had laboratories test samples of umbilical cord blood from 10 newborns, and the tests identified 212 industrial chemicals and pesticides, including the notorious banned pesticide DDT. Scientists do not know all the implications of exposure to an unknown number of pesticides in utero, but it can�t be good. These chemicals, designed expressly to kill living organisms, have been linked to neurological disorders, cancer, hormone system disruption, and skin, eye and lung irritation. Researchers from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have detected pesticides in blood and urine samples of virtually all Americans over the age of six who participated in voluntary biomonitoring tests. More than 60 percent of those tested harbored seven or more of pesticides and pesticide metabolites on every given day. The U.S. Department of Agriculture�s (USDA�s) most recent tests have found widespread pesticide contamination on a range of non-organic fruit and produce, including celery, strawberries and apples. USDA detected pesticides on 7 of every 10 fruit and vegetable samples tested. But it�s not all gloom and doom. Everyone, including babies in the womb, can realize significant reductions in their pesticide levels. While it is virtually impossible to avoid pesticides altogether, choosing a diet rich in organic foods can dramatically reduce your pesticide intake. Scientists have concluded that the �body burden� of pesticides in an average person who eats and drinks products produced conventionally�that is, produced with the assistance of pesticides�will drop dramatically if he or she eats organic food or, if going 100% organic is not an option, simply avoids those conventionally-grown products commonly found to carry the most pesticide residues.
You can lower your pesticide consumption by nearly 80 percent by substituting the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables with organic options or eating the least contaminated produce, according to our calculations. EWG makes this information easily available to the consumer with its Shopper�s Guide to Pesticides� in produce. The pesticide industry, on the other hand, would rather you be kept in the dark on this information. Having this information easily accessible to consumers terrifies chemical producers and those who use them because when consumers know what�s in�and on�their food, they will change their purchasing habits accordingly. Last year, the pesticide industry launched an attack on EWG and this Shopper�s Guide, even going so far as to obtain a federal grant of nearly $200,000 to fund the attack. But we continue to make it available to you because we believe consumers have a right to know the facts about the food they are eating and feeding to their families. The guide helps conscientious shoppers put their food budgets to best use. Continue to educate yourself about pesticides and their effects on the human body and the environment, and vote with your dollar for food choices that reduce your body�s exposure to these dangerous chemicals. Visit the Environmental Working Group�s website, www.ewg.org, to learn more about topics from health, farming, natural resources, energy, chemicals and more.

Ken Cook, President, Environmental Working Group

Ken co-founded EWG in 1993. He is the author of dozens of articles, opinion pieces and reports on environmental, public health and agricultural topics. Cook earned B.A., B.S., and M.S. degrees from the University of Missouri-Columbia. He is married to Deb Callahan and lives in Washington, D.C.

The Organic Cycle: Healthy Soil & Animals Means Healthy Food & People

Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:41:00 -0600

One of the joys of farming organically has been connecting the dots between healthy soil and the health of everything else on this earth�especially human health, as we are at the top of the food chain. It's a basic principle, but one that has been largely pushed aside by farmers in an effort to get more efficient in the face of decreasing returns. One only has to open up any farmer publication and read the articles and advertisements for products being sold to increase milk production next to the ads for antidotes which will cure the problems faced by cows straining under increased demands. Organic farming, with its sustainable pay price to the farmer, has allowed us to focus on the health of our soils and the health of our cows. The general public may assume that all farmers would understand this link better than the average consumer; however, farmers are oftentimes less informed about the importance of the whole system�s health because most of the research done and courses taught at our agricultural schools are focused on maximum production at any cost. A conventional farmer often must unlearn what modern day agribusiness has taught them in order to learn how to farm organically. It is a journey to reconnect to our natural world. For our farm in Monmouth, OR, it has meant focusing on how nature intended our cows and calves to thrive. Cows are ruminants and are much healthier when allowed to eat mostly forage. This means we needed to put our emphasis mainly on a nutritious, mineralized pasture. Soils needed to be tested for minerals, and plant tissue had to be tested for uptake of these minerals. We discovered that our plants� roots would take up micronutrients more readily if we spread calcium (in the form of powdered limestone) on the land. Once the pastures were growing nutrient-rich forage, we were able to greatly reduce the amount of grain the cows were fed. This led to less production per cow but also had the more important result of increased cow health and nutrient density in the milk. The cows� immune systems became healthier and they passed this health to their calves. Calves were meant to survive and flourish on their mother�s milk while their stomachs develop to eat pasture. So as they grow, we have increased both the amount of milk and months that it is fed to the calves, and we make sure they also get quality mineralized pasture when they are ready for it. My grandfather farmed at a time when there were no pesticides, herbicides, synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics or manmade hormones (agribusiness farming aids). He farmed using wisdom about the natural world passed down over the generations. They didn't always understand the science behind their farming practices, but they understood what basic principles led to healthy cows. Today, we have the advantage of understanding the science behind those basic principles of my Grandfather�s time. We also have the ability to understand why and how the modern farming aids weaken and destroy the health of our natural world. These aids have been sold to the conventional farmers as labor saving products to help them become more efficient, but what farmers don�t realize in the beginning is that using these aids pull them into a vicious cycle of declining soil health, declining animal health, and more and more inputs in an effort to bring the cycle back around. Understanding the science behind organic principles has led to the greatest benefit for our family: eating well. Since our transition to organic farming, we have better understood the need to eat organically produced food for our own health through watching our animals thrive on the organically managed land. Along with many city dwellers, we now seek out organic foods in order to get mineralized foods free of synthetic farming aids. As our understanding of the principles has grown, so has our vegetable garden. One of the ironies of modern farming is that most farmers no longer raise a garden to feed their own families. On the other hand, a majority of organic farmers I've visited have beautiful vegetable gardens. The organic food movement is a partnership between everyone who has a stake in our food�that means everyone from food growers to eaters working together for a healthy food future. Without this rural-urban partnership, it isn�t possible. Together, we�ve built a new cycle, one of trust and partnership between farmers that are responsible to the earth and animals and conscious consumers who choose to �vote with their dollar� to support organic practices and farming families like mine. This partnership allows my family to continue doing what we do best�focusing on soil and animal health and producing quality food for a healthy future.

Jon Bansen is a third generation dairyman who milks around 170 Jersey cows twice a day on his family farm, Double J Jerseys in Oregon. He spent six years working for his father learning the dairy business and purchased his own farm in 1991. He then become a member-owner of the Organic Valley cooperative in June of 2000. He is currently the West Coast Regional Leader of Organic Valley�s Farmer Ambassador Program and one of the Cooperative�s Dairy Executive Committee Representatives for Oregon. He regularly speaks to students, consumers, and other farmers about the role of organic farming techniques in a sustainable world and is a contributing writer for Graze Magazine focusing on cow nutrition.

Animal Husbandry and the Organic Rule

Mon, 21 Feb 2011 03:02:00 -0600

The Organic Rule is not generally thought of in terms of animal welfare, though it should be. Organic farming is a whole systems approach encompassing health of the soil, water, air, and the vast array of life existing in each. Health of our livestock is impacted by crop production and land management practices. When crops are grown without toxic herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilizers, life in the soil and water, birds and honeybees, livestock and wildlife that live on the land and graze the crops all flourish. This whole system approach leads to and benefits an abundance of life! At the very heart of organic farm management is a healthy, sustainable agro-ecosystem with healthy and contented livestock. As a member of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) since January 24, 2010, I have had the opportunity to be a part of NOSB�s process of managing the National Organic Program�s (NOP�s) list of allowed and prohibited substances in organic agriculture and our responsibility of proposing recommendations regarding additions or clarifications to the Organic Rule. This is a long and intensive process, which involves many stakeholders in the organic industry. High animal welfare was a priority when the Organic Foods Production Act was written into law in 1990, and the animal care practices listed here are still enforced today. Farmers are required to provide only wholesome certified organic feedstuffs. If any animal becomes ill and requires antibiotics to restore health, the animal loses its organic status and must to be sold to a non-organic farm or, if a meat animal, processed as non-organic meat. Farmers must implement species-specific practices that minimize the occurrence and spread of parasites and disease. Pain and stress must be minimized when performing physical alterations using medications approved and recommended for this use. Approved vaccines are used to prevent disease as needed. Farmers must provide access to pasture for ruminants, as well as appropriate species- and climate-specific housing, outdoor access, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air and direct sunlight are required. Since 1990, twenty years of continuous improvement has been demonstrated by the organic program in regard to livestock health care and living conditions. For instance, the Board has approved the use of the pain medication lidocaine and other �comfort meds� to reduce stress on the animal during dehorning and other surgical procedures. The NOSB and NOP�s most recent achievement was with the addition of a Pasture Rule in 2010. This rule provides more clarity to an animal�s need for outdoor access, and makes it a requirement that organic livestock have the opportunity to graze on healthy pasture for a minimum of 120 days per year, or more if their climate allows. I have visited many organic farms in recent years. Having observed the behavior and conditions of dairy cows, laying hens, beef cattle and hogs, I can say that organic livestock are, overall, in excellent health and extremely content due to their spacious and species appropriate environments. Over the past year, I have evaluated dairy cows across the country for body condition, hygiene, locomotion, lesions and injuries, among other things, and have been very pleased with what I have seen. Livestock benefit greatly from being out on pasture when weather conditions are appropriate. These cows are athletes and have exceptional muscle tone and stamina as a result of grazing and daily treks to and from the milking barn and their pastures. Grazing cows have the opportunity to balance their own diet and eat the plants they crave when provided well-managed, rotationally-grazed pastures with a wide variety of plants. Cows are treated as individuals and most farmers know their cows by name. Organic dairy calves are especially healthy as they receive only fresh whole milk and no milk replacers at any time. Calves are often raised in small groups and the milk is served to the calves via a milk bar where they nurse as a group. This is good for the calves as they bond with the farmer and become much easier to work with as they grow older and larger. When they are ready, the young cows are provided adequate space to roam and pasture to graze. There are increasing numbers of veterinarians and nutritionists specializing in holistic care of organic livestock as the industry continues to grow. Schools and workshops on humane care and alternative medicine have become more common across the country. When nutrition and environment are structured to the needs of the species, animals naturally develop stronger immune systems. Allowing animals to perform natural behaviors�such as cattle grazing and moving around open spaces; hogs rooting, wallowing, and raising their young on pasture; and laying hens able to go outdoors during the day and rest on roosts and perches at night�enjoy reduced stress levels. Piglets are often born and raised in hutches out on pastures in the warm seasons. They are generally born in litters of 10-12 and do best at a temperature of 90� F during the first week of life, so during periods of harsh winter when it is freezing or below, piglets are raised in huts or pens with the added protection of a regular or hoop-style barn. Laying hens enjoy scratching outdoors during the day and nesting or roosting while indoors. Organic livestock benefit from high levels of animal welfare as a result of the Organic Rule. Animals on Organic Valley farms enjoy plenty of space, outdoor access, sunlight, organic feed and receive no growth promoters, hormones, antibiotics or genetically modified feedstuffs. The best way to understand the benefits that organic farming offers to animals is to visit a farm yourself and see first hand. Take advantage of farms that offer tours, operate public farm stands, or the next time you are at a farmers' market, make a personal connection with an organic farmer�perhaps they will offer to host you for a visit.

Dr. Wendy Fulwider, Animal Husbandry Specialist for Organic Valley

Wendy has worked with CROPP Cooperative to outline humane animal treatment standards and policies at the farm and plant levels since 2007. Graduate research on cow comfort at the University of Wisconsin�s Arlington Research Station led to her interest in animal behavior and welfare. Wendy earned her doctorate degree in Animal Behavior from Colorado State University under the tutelage of renowned humane livestock treatment animal scientist Dr. Temple Grandin. There, her research included a field study of more than 90,000 cows on 113 dairies in five North Central and Northeastern states. Wendy began a five-year term on the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) in January 2010. She sits on the Materials committee, chairs the Livestock committee, and is the Board�s secretary.

The World of Organic: Protecting Small-Holder Farmers

Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:33:00 -0600

IFOAM. What�s that? It�s not a new product to clean your counter or your teeth; it�s an acronym for the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements established in 1972. For the past four years, I�ve served on the board of directors, called the World Board. As the only North American on the 15-person board, I have had the opportunity to see the United States and its organic sector through their eyes, and I have been able to expand my awareness and understanding of the organic experiences of different countries and cultures. The good news: Organic agriculture is being adopted and embraced by farmers and consumers around the globe. The sobering news: The struggles to overcome the conventional agri-business sector and reductionist thinking by those in control are much the same worldwide � be they individuals, corporations, non-government organizations or governments. For IFOAM, the role of small-holder farmers is essential to the viability of all agriculture sectors and vitality of rural economies. Ninety percent of farms worldwide are less than two hectares (five acres). These small farms provide employment to 1.5 billion people and, with fisher-folk and pastoralists included, nourish 70% of the world�s population. Small-holder farming is the backbone of agriculture and food security, not only in developing countries or rural areas, but in developed countries and urban settings as well. To illustrate, I would like to share two stories: one an example of the positive ripples caused by converting to organic, and the second about organic farmers striving for recognition and support. In Thailand, I visited a collective farm of 30 families, which is managed by the women and supports 100 people through its commercial organic rice sales, grown primarily for export. Previously, all had managed individual garden plots but had neither economic stability nor market access; thus, they all were living in poverty. Initial support to the collective came from a government program that provided organic rice seeds as an incentive to convert to organic, and the farms began saving the seeds for future crops. After years of success with both export sales and domestic vegetable sales, the elder women in the collective pointed out that the traditional vegetables of Thailand should be included in their production instead of the Chinese vegetables that dominated the market. When the traditional vegetables were brought to the farmers market in Bangkok, the city dwellers�especially young adults�did not know what they were or how to cook them. The women started giving cooking demonstrations, which led to selling meals as well as the vegetables. When a farmers market opened up near the local hospital, the women again offered cooking demonstrations, resulting in meals and vegetables sold. Today, this farm collective supplies vegetables to the hospital and once a week caters the hospital cafeteria. In South Korea, there is a different story to tell. The founders of the organic movement in South Korea are located in a province outside of Seoul along one of their four major rivers. The soil in this area is rich, both because of the river and the farmers who built up and maintained the soil with organic practices. In 2009, a major river reclamation and conservation project was launched by the federal government, which included relocating all farms from near the rivers. For the organic farmers, it meant major economic and social disruption for their community. These farmers appealed the government to allow organic farming to continue in the area as part of the river and watershed protection plan. Passions were ignited when the government began a public campaign against organic farming, claiming it caused pollution of the rivers. In defense of organic, demonstrations and protests by the organic farmers, consumers and religious leaders have been ongoing for over a year. Several times, IFOAM World Board members and I have mediated discussions between the South Korean farmers and the government. In the end, the organic farmers will have to move, but onto land with a permanent lease and resources to develop the land. The attacks on organic farming have ceased, and there are ongoing negotiations to include a public-access permaculture garden along the river to be managed organically. The United Nations (UN) declared 2010 as the International Year of Family Farming, but international policies are squeezing small-holders out of farming. IFOAM has launched an international �People Before Commodities� campaign to advocate for greater recognition and protection of small-holder farmers within UN countries where climate policies, mechanisms and funding could have a catastrophic effect on global warming, biodiversity and food security if industrial agriculture, rather than small-holder farming, is incentivized. The world of organic and IFOAM advocacy can be found at www.ifoam.org

Despite GE Alfalfa, Critical Health Benefits of Organic Dairy Remain Strong

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:43:00 -0600

In the wake of the USDA�s disappointing approval of Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa on January 27^th, the organic community has been licking its wound�and creating some new ones. I was among those who worked with George Siemon and Missy Hughes of Organic Valley to push USDA to impose conditions on the RR alfalfa approval in the hope that there will remain a supply of high quality, non-GE seed for organic farmers. While we made a little progress toward defining the essential ingredients of coexistence, the political pressure was too great on USDA, and the Department caved. Reacting to USDA�s decision, some observers accused those who participated in the USDA-initiated dialogue on coexistence of selling out, caving in, accepting hush money, and/or undercutting the voice of the consumer. Some groups called for boycotts of companies that had �conspired� with Monsanto to create cover for the USDA�s decision. Such accusations don�t even pass the laugh test, but some people took them seriously. Farmers are now free to start planting RR alfalfa and the acreage in this latest GE crop will grow, unless the court intervenes again. While essentially 100% of conventional corn, soybeans, and cotton were sprayed with herbicides before the RR versions of those crops were approved, less than 10% of alfalfa has been treated with any herbicide in recent years. Of course, Monsanto is hoping to change that, but the very high cost of RR alfalfa seed and the availability of other effective weed control methods will keep a lid on market penetration. Still, total GE crop acres in 2011 will likely exceed 150 million acres, or about one-half of the harvested cropland base. Respected leaders in the organic dairy community have predicted dire consequences from this USDA decision. California dairyman Albert Strauss issued a media advisory on February 4^th that states that the USDA decision �seriously jeopardizes the integrity of the organic food chain� and could ruin the �ability to supply organic dairy foods to customers.� I have great respect for Albert and the wonderful creamery he and his family have created, but I don�t think it is useful or accurate to claim that the planting of RR alfalfa means an end to organic milk production. This �sky-is-sure-to-fall� reaction overstates the impact of the RR alfalfa decision, but if repeated often enough, it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. To the degree this happens, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. Gene flow and cross-contamination of alfalfa seed and forage will happen but can be managed so that the levels remain very low. The amount of GE DNA in organic alfalfa forages will be miniscule and have essentially no impact on organic crop production, forage quality or milk production and milk quality. The problems associated with RR alfalfa will impose new costs on organic farmers, but there is absolutely no reason a consumer should think any less highly of organic milk today than last week. This latest GE crop decision by USDA does nothing to change the enormous cow health benefits of organic dairy production. It does not change the critical consumer health benefits associated with elevated levels of heart healthy fats in organic dairy products. All the agronomic and environmental benefits of producing dairy cow feed and forages organically remain intact. The organic community deserves a chance to vent in the wake of this decision, and it is not surprising that there is a certain amount of finger pointing going on. But let�s get over it ASAP and focus our energies on activities that can make a difference. My short list is �

� CROPP needs to get into the organic alfalfa seed business, since it is crystal clear that the organic community cannot count on the USDA and needs companies committed to producing quality organic seed.

� Organic farmers should, first of all, seek out and buy certified organic seed whenever possible. When buying alfalfa seed, request the seed provider test their organic seed lots to demonstrate absence of GE content down to a 0.1% threshold (i.e.: no more than one GE seed in 1,000 seeds or greater).

� The organic community needs to put in place an organic alfalfa animal feed testing program encompassing hay, silage, pastures and pellets to determine where and whether contamination is happening so that steps can be taken to deal with it via the courts or other mechanisms.

Dr. Charles Benbrook worked in Washington, D.C. on agricultural policy, science and regulatory issues from 1979 through 1997. He served for one and a half years as the agricultural staff expert on the Council for Environmental Quality at the end of the Carter Administration. Following the election of Ronald Reagan, he moved to Capitol Hill in early 1981 and was the Executive Director of the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture with jurisdiction over pesticide regulation, research, trade and foreign agricultural issues. In 1984, Benbrook was recruited to the job of Executive Director, Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a position he held for seven years. Several influential NAS reports were completed in this period on the need for and aspects of sustainable agriculture. In late 1990, he formed Benbrook Consulting Services. Benbrook has written many reports, books and peer reviewed articles on agricultural science, technology, public health, and environmental issues.

David Meets GMO-liath: Get Your Sling Shots Ready

Mon, 07 Feb 2011 15:56:00 -0600

After six years, hundreds of hours of time and thousands of dollars from our cooperative's coffers fighting to stop its release, the USDA fully deregulated Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA), the first perennial genetically modified organism (GMO) on January 27, 2011. Many of us were brought to the table, businesses and non-profits alike, to give the USDA counsel. We brought up key points to the USDA about its negative impacts, such as contamination of seeds and non-GMO crops which would jeopardize the organic and non-GMO multi-billion dollar markets, farmers' property rights, health risks, and a consumer's right to know what is in their food! Unfortunately, we lost this round. The USDA decided to allow the release of RRA with no conditions for the protection of organic and non-GMO crops. Make no mistake, this precedent opens the door for GMO beets (announced Feb. 4) and 22 other GMO products about to be unleashed on farmers, consumers and the environment, as reported by Reuters on January 20*. This list includes more varieties of pesticide intensive corn and soybeans, cotton, peanuts, roses(!), sugar beets, apples, creeping bentgrass and eucalyptus. This is especially disappointing because research has shown that with only GMO corn, soybeans and cotton on the market, never before have we used so much pesticide in the United States. And biotech is also misleading us by saying genetically modified food can feed the world when the proposed GMO crops are intended for animal feed, ethanol production or other periphery cash crops, not staple food crops. Clearly, we are all deeply disappointed. But as one wise person said, "the situation is far too serious for pessimism." What, as individuals, can we do now? First and foremost, we need to face the reality. This is a life long struggle for those citizens, farmers and businesses who are concerned. Be involved, not just for today but for the rest of your life.

In the short term

Support the legal fights with your dollars. Organic Valley is committed to continue to fund and support legal efforts to challenge the biotech crops. Please help us support the Center for Food Safety's legal actions by making a donation as well. The Organic Trade Association has set up a place on their website for farmers, consumers or interested citizens to send a message to the White House protesting the USDA's decision. The link is: http://ota.capwiz.com/ota/issues/alert/?alertid=24747501. Comments can also be called or faxed to the following numbers: (202) 456-1111 (phone) or (202) 456-2461 (fax).

For the road ahead

We must continue demanding mandatory labeling of GMO food by the USDA. A recent Organic Trade Association survey indicated that 85% of consumers don't want GMO food. We urge you to join us and eaters everywhere in standing up for everyone's right to truthful product information. Make a commitment to stay informed and seek out information from various sources. Biotech would have you believe they use fewer pesticides. Not true�these GMO crops are designed to resist pesticides in order that more can be used. They would have you believe that they use less water. Again, not true. Non-profit organizations such as the Institute for Responsible Technology, The Organic Center, and the Non-GMO Project have conducted extensive literature reviews of the research�often using the same biotech funded sources and USDA's own communications�and have come away with compelling findings that make us wonder how the USDA can continue saying there's not enough evidence. Talk to your family, friends and colleagues about these issues. Let's infuse democracy into this issue with dialogues and debates. Let's agree to disagree but continue to talk about it with a unified goal of protecting our farmers and our food in mind. This is too important for "politeness." Keep the pressure on the USDA by challenging them on each and every GMO release, and more important, challenging the USDA's antiquated regulations�the core basis for the pro-biotech decisions�which are used as an excuse for not thoroughly reviewing GMOs. Demand that other sources besides the biotech funded research must be considered! For those of us dedicated to organic production and organic philosophy, we will never give up. Standing United, Theresa Marquez
Chief Marketing Executive for Organic Valley

Theresa Marquez: Organic Valley Chief Marketing Executive

Theresa Marquez has been involved in food and farming since the mid 1970s, wearing a variety of hats throughout the past 35 years.

Marquez has served on the Board of Directors of the Organic Trade Association (OTA) and The Organic Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to proving the benefits of organic. She has also served on the Oregon Tilth Certification Advisory Board. Marquez has been a guest speaker at numerous events and conferences including Natural Products Expo, National Nutritional Foods Association, American Marketing Association, Organic Trade Association, Food Marketing Institute, and WKKF Foundation. In addition she pioneered the Food Alliance eco-label and is working hard to start a new national tradition�The Earth Dinner.

"As a marketer, I truly enjoy being a catalyst to bring people closer to food, farming and the environment. Besides the obvious benefits of taste and beauty, it is a joy to work and create together for a common goal."

*New GMO Crops to be Released by the USDA

According to a Reuters article published on Jan. 20, the USDA lists 23 pending petitions for deregulation:

Syngenta rootworm-resistant corn
Monsanto glyphosate hybridization system corn
Monsanto Dicamba tolerant soybeans
Okanagan Specialty Fruits non-browning apple
Virginia Tech disease-resistant peanuts
Dow herbicide tolerant soybeans
Bayer AG "Double HT" soybeans
Dow ADD-1 herbicide-tolerant corn
Monsanto modified-oil soybeans
Monsanto insect-resistant soybeans
Stine Seed Farm herbicide-tolerant corn
Monsanto drought-tolerant corn [ID:nN06120483]
BASF herbicide-tolerant soybeans
ArborGen cold-tolerant eucalyptus
Bayer "Liberty TwinLink" cotton
DuPont Pioneer Hi-Bred SPT corn
Florigene altered-color roses
Syngenta Cot67B cotton
Syngenta alpha-amylase corn
Monsanto glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa
Monsanto glyphosate-tolerant sugar beets
Scotts/Monsanto glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass

USDA says it has deregulated 75 GM products since 1986.

GM Alfalfa: What's Happening Now

Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:42:00 -0600

UPDATE Friday, January 28:

Yesterday, the USDA announced its decision to allow the commercial sale of Roundup Ready� Alfalfa throughout the United States. I personally have been involved in the fight against GMOs for many years and was very disappointed that the biotech industry once again strong-armed their products through the approval process. In 1988, when Organic Valley started, more than 2,000 farmers a week were losing their farms. Today, we are saddened that the industrialization of agriculture is still going on; however, it is important to remember that Organic continues to offer a lifeline to farmers who are choosing to work with Mother Nature rather than trying to change it. We will keep engaging and challenging the USDA in a true and meaningful conversation about coexistence and protection of non-GMO farming. We are counting on our consumers to vote with their dollars and show the USDA that the future of agriculture in America is more than GMO food. Consumers deserve to have a say in the food they consume. Now more than ever, Organic is the best choice. - George Siemon, founding farmer and C-E-I-E-I-O --------- I want to share with the organic and food community my experience and struggle to stop Roundup Ready� Alfalfa (RR-Alfalfa) from being released. This struggle began in 2005 when Monsanto first sought approval, and it is now coming to a head as USDA Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has promised to announce the release of the first perennial Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) by the end of January. Through this long fight, with the Center for Food Safety in the lead, we successfully blocked the release of RR-Alfalfa. The Supreme Court required the USDA to consider the impact of RR-Alfalfa on other forms of agriculture, including organic and �GMO sensitive� (traditional agriculture not using GMO technology). At heart, the contamination of GMOs on other types of agriculture should be treated as a common sense property rights issue. After all, if you drove into your neighbor�s car, wouldn�t you pay for damages? However, the fact that the USDA even considered the impact of RR-Alfalfa on other forms of agriculture is a big change given the USDA�s usual �rubber stamp� approval with minimal regulatory review of most anything biotech. One of the USDA�s options is being referred to as the �co-existence� proposal. Co-existence is acknowledging the inevitable�continued dominance of GMO crops�while trying to consider the long-term implications for organic and GMO sensitive markets. Co-existence includes consideration of long-term seed purity and control, compensation funds for lost markets and associated monitoring costs, and input labeling. The biotech industry is against any discussion about co-existence and, of course, is outraged that we would ask for consideration of remuneration of pollution and seed contamination. The biotech industry has waged a complete war on the Secretary of Agriculture for following the Supreme Court order and for the consideration of a co-existence proposal. They used all their influence to have the Secretary�s job challenged. There here have been op-eds in major papers and magazines (�Sack Vilsack,� Forbes), special meetings with the White House, grilling by the Justice Department, endless lobbying, and on Thursday of last week, a Congressional member forum was held where the Secretary was taken to the wood shed and asked repeatedly why he had not approved RR-alfalfa sooner. All this for simply opening the coexistence conversation and acknowledging that property rights and other markets should be considered. Predictably, the biotech industry has all angles covered�for example, the organic community tried to get an op-ed published to counter false charges, but the letter was not picked up by a single paper despite our efforts. As a result, the public is left with biotech�s exaggerations and spin with no counter perspective. The resources they have put into this fight convinces me that they are worried about the strength and growth of the organic industry. There is no doubt now that RR-Alfalfa will be released. It would be a victory if we can, for the first time, get conditions on that release that would give assurance to protect our future seeds, our market and consumer confidence. Organic agriculture continues to be a beacon of hope. More than ever, we need to face our broken food system and look for models that solve our serious food problems without creating new problems. Organic offers us the solutions we need for a healthy future for all. In the face of ongoing approval of GMOs, we need to work together to educate consumers to choose organic and vote with their dollar for food they can trust. In Cooperation, George L. Siemon

George Siemon is C-E-I-E-I-O of the nation�s largest organic, farmer-owned cooperative, Organic Valley. Organic Valley is committed to tirelessly working for their mission of spreading the value of organic farming to answer so many concerns of a sustainable future.

Action Alert: Public Comment Needed on Ban Triclosan Petition by Feb. 7, 2011

Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:58:00 -0600

Posted on behalf of Beyond Pesticides. Read executive directory Jay Feldman's article "If You Need More Reasons to Go Organic�" here. Your voice is critical in generating public comments on a petition, published in the Federal Register, to ban the antibacterial chemical triclosan. This chemical, now found in the bodies of 75% of the U.S. population, is linked to endocrine disruption, bacterial and antibiotic resistance, dioxin contamination, and contaminated fish and biosolids. Please help us let EPA know that triclosan must be banned to protect the public, workers and the environment. Submit electronic comments (see suggested language below) to EPA at www.regulations.gov using docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0548. Or go directly by clicking here. EPA published in the Federal Register a petition, filed by 82 public health and environmental groups, to ban the hazardous antimicrobial/antibacterial pesticide triclosan for non-medical use. The chemical is found in products from clothing to soaps. The Federal Register notice (Petition for a Ban on Triclosan, 75 FR 76461, December 8, 2010) announces a public comment period until February 7, 2011 on the need to ban triclosan under numerous federal statutes from pesticides, clean water, safe drinking water, to endangered species. What follows is a background on the petition and the chemical triclosan, and suggested action and a sample public comment. Thank you in advance for adding your voice to this important health and environmental safety matter.

BACKGROUND

The petition, filed on January 14, 2010, identifies pervasive and widespread use of triclosan and a failure of EPA to: (i) address the impacts posed by triclosans degradation products on human health and the environment, (ii) conduct separate assessment for triclosan residues in contaminated drinking water and food, and (iii) evaluate concerns related to antibacterial resistance and endocrine disruption. The petition cites violations of numerous environmental statutes, including laws on pesticide registration, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. It also documents that triclosan is no more effective than regular soap and water in removing germs and therefore creates an unnecessary hazardous exposure for people and the environment. Regulated by both EPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, triclosan is commonly found in clothing, toys, kitchen utensils and cutting boards, hair brushes, computer keyboards, countertops, plastics, facial tissues, hand soaps, cosmetics, toothpastes, deodorants, laundry detergents, fabric softeners, antiseptics, and medical devices. The petition to EPA seeks expedited action to ban household triclosan, challenging serious deficiencies in EPAs September 2008 re-registration of triclosan and its failure to comply with safety laws. Research indicates that widespread use of triclosan causes a number of serious health and environmental problems. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds in its 2009 report, National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, and 2010 update that triclosan is in the bodies of 75% of the U.S. population and its levels are increasing. A critical health concern is triclosans association with bacterial resistance to antibiotic medications and cleansers, a special problem for vulnerable populations such as infants, patients, and the elderly. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect male and female reproductive hormones, which potentially increases cancer risk. Recent studies show triclosans adverse effects on fetal growth and development. Further, the pesticide accumulates in biosolids, is taken up by food crops, and breaks down to different forms of dioxin, thereby exposing consumers to even more dangerous chemicals. "We're calling on the public to urge EPA to consider the full extent of triclosan's impact on people's health and the environment and ban its non-medical uses," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. For more information, please contact
Jay Feldman | jfeldman@beyondpesticides.org
Nichelle Harriott | nharriott@beyondpesticides.org
Beyond Pesticides, 202-543-5450 SUGGESTED ACTION AND SAMPLE PUBLIC COMMENT:
Please send your own comments (see suggested language below) and notify your networks, listserves, faith organizations, etc. and post on your website, urging other people/organizations to comment. Thanks! Suggested Language (unique comments are extremely helpful). Submit electronic comments to the EPA at www.regulations.gov using docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0548. Or you can go submit comments directly here. [Please note that the Regulations.gov site is currently experiencing problems with the Google Chrome and Safari browsers, so if possible please use Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox to submit comments. If you are having any additional troubles submitting comments online, please contact the Regulations.gov Help Desk at 1-877-378-5457.] Comments must be submitted by February 7, 2010. Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
Regulatory Public Docket (7502P)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460-0001 Re: Petition for a Ban on Triclosan. Docket Number: EPAHQOPP20100548 I am writing to support the concerns raised in the petition regarding the prevalence of the toxic pesticide triclosan in consumer products. Research has shown that triclosan poses a threat to human health, contaminates water and persists in the environment. EPA has a responsibility under the law to protect the health of the public and the environment and must move to do so now. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds triclosan concentrations are increasing in the human population, triclosan is too dangerous a chemical to be allowed in consumer products as it is causing involuntary exposure directly and through environmental contamination. Triclosan has been linked to:

endocrine disruption as it interferes with the thyroid hormone, estrogen and androgen hormones and as a result can impact fetal development
bacterial resistance and possible cross-resistance to antibiotics
contaminated biosolids that are used for compost and agricultural fertilizer
toxic and more persistent breakdown products including dioxins and other endocrine disruptors
accumulation in plants, crustaceans and is toxic to amphibians, algal communities and certain fish species

Since triclosan is no more effective than regular soap and water at reducing bacteria, there is absolutely no need for triclosan to be incorporated into consumer products, given the hazards to people and the environment. I sincerely hope your agency takes the threats posed by triclosan seriously and moves quickly to rid this chemical from consumer products. Sincerely,
Your Name
Organization, Concerned Citizen, etc.

If You Need More Reasons to Go Organic�

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:01:00 -0600

With the passage of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act and the focus on food-borne diseases often associated with conventional, chemical-intensive food production, it is a good time to remind ourselves about the importance of organic food production and another aspect of food safety not addressed by the Act �pesticide use. The scientific literature on pesticides and major preventable diseases afflicting us in the 21^st century (asthma, autism and learning disabilities, birth defects and reproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, and numerous types of cancer) suggests that one of the nation's public health priorities must be an all-out effort to stop the use of hazardous pesticides. Beyond Pesticides launched the Pesticide-Induced Diseases (PID) Database in 2010 to elevate an ongoing effort that maintains a comprehensive listing (in one place) of the epidemiologic, or disease factor and incidence, studies that link exposure to diseases and supports the need to effect a major shift to organic practices. The database challenges the failure of "risk assessment" under toxics policy to adequately prevent common public health diseases�it is a process with deficient exposure assumptions, incomplete science, inattention to individuals' disease vulnerabilities, chemical mixtures and synergistic effects, and other limitations. Under risk assessment, we constantly play with "mitigation measures" that the PID database tells us over and over is a failed human experiment. Alternatively, the database supports a transformational approach to regulation that defaults to no pesticides, only allowing the exception when essentiality is established (or when alternative practices and products do not exist) and when health and the environment are not threatened (from production through disposal). These, by the way, are the same standards that govern allowable inputs in organic production under the Organic Foods Production Act. This framework for decision making embraces the idea of an "alternatives assessment," creates a regulatory trigger to adopt safer organic alternatives, and drives the market to go green. We need to use the science that links pesticides with major diseases to end pesticide dependency in the management of land as well as buildings. If we continue on the current regulatory road, instead of the exponential growth of organic that is needed, we will continue to find hazardous pesticides in the umbilical cords of newborns, as a recent Johns Hopkins University study has shown. Worse, we will continue to debate for decades whether that exposure is linked to one of the major diseases. Meanwhile, we will have missed the opportunity to act on a rather simple question: "Is there another practice that would make these toxic substances unnecessary?" For those who criticize organic as imperfect, I say there's room for improvement, so let's continue to improve it. It is already light years ahead of the chemical-intensive, conventional side where thousands of synthetic chemical pesticides are registered and inadequately evaluated. This compares with approximately 27 pesticides (including soap-based insecticides, pheromones and sticky traps) allowed in organic production. Moreover, the organic regulatory process is more transparent and open to greater public input than any other governmental decision making process. Central to the process, certified organic farmers are required to adopt an organic systems plan (subject to recordkeeping requirements, inspection and certification), which incorporates strategies that include compost, crop rotation, cultural practices, and beneficial species. As a last resort, the organic systems plan may allow for the use of natural and approved synthetic chemicals on the "National List," which is subject to organic compatibility standards, public oversight, and a review by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). This in depth process includes a detailed checklist of possible health, environmental and biodiversity impacts, from production of the substance to its use and disposal, and considers the essentiality of the chemical. In contrast, EPA's pesticide registration review does not evaluate the "cradle-to-grave" impacts of the chemical, nor the need for it�in light of the availability of alternative less and non-toxic management practices and substances. The PID database serves as additional support to going organic in our decisions, practices and policies. To do less allows the continuation of unnecessary risks to the health of our bodies, our families and our planet. For more information about pesticides and to access the PID Database, visit www.beyondpesticides.org.

Take Action on Triclosan! Join Beyond Pesticides in its petition to ban the antibacterial chemical triclosan. Learn more

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, has a 30-year history of working with communities nationwide on toxics and organic policies, and agricultural practices that maintain ecological balance, biodiversity and avoid reliance on toxic chemicals. Jay has served on EPA advisory panels, spoken to groups across the country and worldwide, contributed to the development of federal policy advancing chemical restrictions and green technologies, and was appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture in 2009 to a five-year term on the National Organic Standards Board.

Safe Food in a Natural World

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 00:01:00 -0600

The feeling that the world is going to be all right often comes to me when outdoors standing by a clear running stream or in a prairie pasture with wildflowers glinting in the sunlight. It�s the beauty and, I suspect, the functioning systems of these places that fill me with awe and respect and knowledge that these natural libraries will help see us through�okay, may help us make it to the next millennium�if we can learn to co-exist. Agriculture is a kind of dance between the wild and the managed. For organic farmers, that dance has inspired a different kind of agrarian thinking focused on working with nature. That stream�s buffer and that prairie are helping to clean water, sequester carbon and support pollinators. They are probably also sustaining diverse microbial soils that resist disease, fix nitrogen and conserve water; supporting vegetation that reduces erosion and filters pollutants; and providing habitat for rodent-eating avian and terrestrial animals that help maintain that diversity for which nature strives. In places, farms have already lost this mix, farmers have lost land management knowledge, and policy makers have lost their understanding of it all. These vacuums in nature create non-functional landscapes, and we have been paying the price. At the Wild Farm Alliance, we sometimes like to be in the fray, to respectfully fight the fight and find a balance when things seem out of place. Lately our fray has been about food safety. We speak for native species and natural processes that intermingle with and support farms, and we advocate for a viable agriculture. In the case of food safety, this means co-existing with conservation efforts�and one-size does not fit all. On the surface, it seems so easy to wave away these statements, like swatting CAFO flies laden with E. coli pathogens. As if it were so simple. It�s instructive to learn how we got to this juncture of heightened food safety awareness, imminent produce food safety regulations, a looming national war on nature, and why one size doesn�t fit all. The answer comes down to industrial systems of agriculture gone awry. First, let�s look at Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). It is suggested that E.coli 0157:H7 mutated and proliferated in cattle CAFOs due to the unhealthy living conditions, and to the large amounts of antibiotics given not just for health, but to make the animals gain weight quickly (5). While a discrepancy exists among researchers on whether the CAFO diet of high grain/low roughage plays a factor in cattle herds� infection rates, other studies clearly point that CAFO manure slurries have more E. coli pathogens and persist longer in soils than those from solid manure in a farmyard (2,4,7). Manure slurries have lower pH, fiber, levels of native coliform and aeration, while having higher soluble carbon and nitrogen (1). While E. coli can exist in many places, its preferred state is in the guts of animals where conditions like these are similar. Another case comes from California�s Salinas Valley, where spring salad mix is king. Once E. coli was inadvertently being spread by cattle on the landscape, some made its way to a spinach field which ended up killing 3 people and sickening hundreds in 2006. No one knows how the spinach was contaminated�it might have been from manure-laden dust, irrigation water, or non-native pigs. In lieu of not knowing, all of wildlife and its habitat were blamed when, in fact, the majority of native wildlife populations have a low risk of carrying of E. coli and Salmonella pathogens�zero to less than three percent, with the higher percent occurring when wildlife are associated with polluted areas (8). Industrial spring mix is a high-risk product. Thousands of cut surfaces are sites for infection. Millions of pounds are washed in vats with chlorinated recycled water. The bagged product must be kept continuously cold or it turns into a micro-incubator for pathogens, and it is allowed to be on the shelf for up to 17 days. In the aftermath of the spinach contamination, frogs are being poisoned, deer shot or fenced out, and wildlife habitat denuded in the Salinas Valley. Meanwhile, grasses, vegetated treatment systems, and wetlands are known to naturally filter 70-95% of E. coli pathogens (3,6). But in order to keep the product flowing and the focus off the real problem, the billion-dollar produce industry has advocated for industrial-sized food safety requirements for small and large farms alike and for sterile farm situations devoid of conservation measures. The Food Safety Modernization Act, just finalized by Congress, states that rulemaking will �take into consideration � conservation and environmental practice standards and policies established by Federal natural resource conservation, wildlife conservation, and environmental agencies. An amendment by Senator Boxer stripped the Act of wildlife-threatening enforcement against �animal encroachment� of farms. Instead, the FDA is mandated to apply sound science to any requirements that might impact wildlife and wildlife habitat on farms. The FDA is planning to release food safety rules next year, so now they have strong direction from Congress for the co-existence of food safety and conservation practices in their rulemaking. As our coalition wrote: "This capped a long fight by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and its members and allies for food safety rules that protect consumers without curbing the growing movement toward fresh, local and regional food.� Other improvements made by our Coalition eliminated across-the-board fees on producers, required harmonization with the National Organic Program, limited duplicative paperwork requirements, and finally provided some possible exemptions for small producers and local food. These improvements are a win for conservation-based agriculture. For more information about the Food Modernization Act and the amendments to the bill, see our website, www.wildfarmalliance.org.

Jo Ann Baumgartner, director of the Wild Farm Alliance, works on conservation, food safety, and organic issues. She is author of the policy paper Food Safety Requires a Healthy Environment. Before joining WFA in 2001, she addressed sustainable production topics, was senior research for a book of California�s rare wildlife species, and an organic farmer for over a decade. She has a keen interest in the conservation of native species for their own sake, and the connections between farms and the larger ecosystem.

References:

1. Franz, E. and A. H. C. Bruggen. 2008. Ecology of E. coli O157H7 and Salmonella enterica in the primary vegetable production chain. Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 34:143�161, 2008.

2. Franz, E., Semenov, A. V., Termorshuizen, A. J., de Vos, O. J., Bokhorst, J. G. and van Bruggen, A. H. C. 2008. Manure�amended soil characteristics affecting the survival of E. coli O157:H7 in 36 Dutch soils. Environ. Microbiol. 10, 313�327.

3. Knox, A. K., K. W. Tate, R. A. Dahlgren, and E. R. Atwill. 2007. Management reduces E. coli in irrigated pasture runoff. California Agriculture 61 (4).

4. Nicholson, F.A., Groves, S.J., Chambers, B.J. 2005. Pathogen survival during livestock manure storage and following land application. Bioresource Technology 96, 135�143.

5. PCIFAP (Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production). 2008. Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America.

6. Tate, K., E. Atwill, J. W. Bartolome, and G. Naderd. 2006. Significant Escherichia coli attenuation by vegetative buffers on annual grasslands. Journal of Environmental Quality 35.

7. Unc, A., and Goss, M.J. 2006. Culturable Escherichia coli in soil mixed with two types of manure. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70, 763�769.

8. Wild Farm Alliance: Relative Risk of Animal Presence to Unprocessed Produce

Entering 2011: More than the Bottom Line in Mind

Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:51:00 -0600

You may have heard me say that our cooperative is really a �social experiment disguised as a business.� Here is what I mean by that: While most businesses measure their success by bottom line profits, we here at Organic Valley have a different notion about what real profit is. As a national brand with a regional production and distribution model, we understand the importance of supporting the local communities with whom we do business. Therefore, we count the number of farmers we are keeping on the land farming organically (1624), the number of staff working in our rural community (564), the number of plants in the regions where our farmer-owners live (92), the number of non-profit organizations we support (600+), the number of milk truck drivers (135), and the millions of citizen partners who enjoy the delicious benefits of our organic farming practices and cooperative business model. Life is more than money. Life includes the values of health, culture, community and family�and so, too, should business. We are all taking part in a greater social experiment when we stop to ask important questions: What is good health worth? How can we farm to protect the environment for future generations? And what is the link between good soil and good health? As we face a very broken food system responsible for increases in obesity, diabetes and a host of other health problems, we�ve come to wholeheartedly believe that organic is the one solution that addresses it all. Our social experiment of a business is needed now more than ever to help us achieve good health and change for the good. To our farmers, staff, friends, supporters, activists, colleagues and fellow eaters, I want to express a most heartfelt thank you in this new year for having such an important role in our quest to be a different kind of business�a business where social and cultural values are at the table each and every day in all the decisions we make. Cooperatively yours, George L. Siemon

Seasonal Pursuit: Organic Eating in Winter

rootstock@organicvalley.coop — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:06:00 -0600

One of the misconceptions about eating sustainably is that it becomes an overly daunting task in winter. It�s true that the chilly months are a time when regionally grown organic produce becomes more limited in variety, and harder to find. But such limits don�t stop me. In fact, they inspire me. That�s because I view winter food planning as a game. Think about it: what good game doesn�t have limits? The boundaries, or rules, are what give a game its form, its uniqueness. In Scrabble, for example, there�s only one �Z� and one �Q.� This is one of the limits that makes Scrabble fun to play. Place one of those letters on a triple score space and it�s even more enjoyable. Why? Because you�ve just made the most out of the boundaries of the game. It�s the same with eating organically in winter. The array of ingredients may not be as plush as during the summer harvest, but you still have much to work with, and numerous places to find it. Hearty root vegetables, crucifers , squashes, rich dairy foods, storage fruits, dried beans and grains, preserved foods, pastured meats�when you make the most of these cold-weather foods, you enjoy the pleasures and benefits of sustainable eating all year long. I�ve found that there�s plenty of ways to bring more nutrient-dense, earth-friendly and seasonally appropriate foods to the winter table. Let the games begin. 1. Patronize a winter farmers market. (They are sprouting up at indoor venues all around the country.) Think there won�t be much to buy? Think again. At my winter market, I have weekly access to farm-fresh eggs, artisanal cheese and frozen fruits. I can get apple cider, root vegetables and a variety of mushrooms. I can purchase hoop house greens (including the sweetest-tasting frost-nipped spinach on the planet) and hydroponic tomatoes. I get organic meats, preserves, salsa, sauces, and sunflower oil. Maple syrup, honey, breads, pastries�need I go on? For a guide of farmers markets around the nation, visit Local Harvest. 2. Prepare �repertoire dishes��those delicious, dependable dishes that, once you�ve learned the basic technique, can be varied with seasonal ingredients (such as winter greens, roasted root vegetables and caramelized onions). Omelets, stir-fries and pureed soups fit the mold; so do gratins, pasta tosses and open-face melts. 3. Enjoy eggs, dairy and (a little more) meat at this time of year�and don�t feel guilty about it. Summer�s wide diversity of locally grown organic fruits and vegetables may not be available to you right now, but a full range of protein-dense organic ingredients are. Consider egg-based main dishes like frittatas and quiche. Treat yourself to a fondue or a grilled cheese sandwich. And just say �yes� to old-fashioned casseroles and stews that include a modest amount of meat. 4. Get friendly with organic dried foods. If dehydrated fruits and vegetables don�t sound appetizing, then you probably haven�t experienced the deep savor of reconstituted, saut�ed morels that were foraged last spring; or the sweet, candy-like chewiness of dried pear quarters cut from a friendly neighbor�s tree. I�ve tried both and they have convinced me that winter actually flies by if I fill it with dinners of wild mushroom stew or soup, and breakfasts of granola or oatmeal with dried pears and maple syrup. 5. Going on vacation? Eat local while you�re on the road. Get off the freeway fast-food route and seek out locally owned restaurants, farmers markets and whole-foods cooperatives�the places most likely to carry regionally sourced and organic foods. And when you reach your destination, skip the same-as-everywhere chain food and ask about regional specialties. Online resources like the Edible Communities magazines can be a big help. 6. Incorporate hearty, healthful whole grains and dry beans into your menus. With their long shelf life, grains and beans stand at the ready in your pantry. They simmer or bake into dishes that incorporate foods you�ve frozen, preserved or otherwise stored. How about baked beans with bacon bits and maple syrup? Barley with celeriac and last August�s frozen sweet corn? A black bean soup spiked with leftover ham and roasted red peppers? 7. Give organic, regionally sourced food gifts for the holidays. Unlike rubber chickens or talking socks, food is something people actually need. You won�t be contributing to rampant consumerism by giving something edible. Food is something that contributes to your area�s economy, is nurturing (and biodegradable!) and is a meaningful expression of community pride.

Terese Allen writes about the pleasures and benefits of regional foods, sustainable cooking, and culinary folklore. A former chef, Terese went from kitchen manager to cookbook author when she wrote The Ovens of Brittany Cookbook, a collection of recipes and remembrances from a groundbreaking Midwestern restaurant. In addition to her work as food editor for Organic Valley, she is a senior contributor and food columnist for the Madison, Wisconsin Isthmus. Browse her latest organic recipe features, or visit www.tereseallen.com.