The semester is winding down, I've been battling some kind of weird stomach bug & headache for the past couple of days (and, no, I haven't been eating any bagged spinach). I don't feel well enough to go out to Dianna's party, but I don't feel sick enough to sit in front of the TV, so the blog is my happy medium.
Heather Shearer raised a good point in response to my blog posting about the e-coli scares. She pointed out that a lot of the problem stems back to grain-fed cattle issue. Here's what she said:
"Of course, a large part of this problem is the situation created by grain-fed cattle. Research suggests that the deadly strain of e-coli causing these problems was virtually unheard of in grass-fed cattle. Indeed, cows and crops used to mutually benefit each other (manure for fertilizer). That's no longer the case since the rise of factory farming.
In any event, it's enough to worry the vegetarians among us. We don't want to participate in certain practices -- and we don't -- but we have to worry about the health problems caused by meat-producers and meat-eaters anyway. I suppose it gives us even more reason to try to actively change the food-consumption landscape."
Good comment. Part of it, too, is that grain is subsidized and there is over-production-- a result of "get bigger or get out "farm policies since the seventies (and possibly earlier). So what to do with that cheap subsidized grain that you and I pay for--feed it to the cattle, fatten 'em up faster, and get them to market faster. Make a profit faster, too! Cattle are not set up to digest that grain, either, so we're going against the evolution of the cow.
Then take the subsidized corn crop and put it into high fructose corn syrup and make everyone fatter! How could we operate such screwed-up logic? It's called industrialized agriculture, and, yes, it puts food on the table and the shelves, but at what cost to our health, to the environment, to animals?
I agree with Heather that we have to change the food landscape, and one of the first vehicles for change is not only reform of the system, but "food literacy"--addressing how the food industrial complex actually works with the consumers who are dependent on it. Heather's research on the USDA food pyramid is a critical piece of this! i also think that with the past-peak oil situation that we have no choice but to reform oil-intensive agriculture.
So it will all come back to grass and the land soon enough. Start gardening!
Also, back to the question of broiler houses.
Some in Kentucky have fought back against broiler houses--and won. See this news release. Wilma, if you're out there, I suggest you contact Aloma Dew and the others who pressed this suit and ask them for advice.
Also, factoryfarm.org has a set of guidelines about how to confront a CAFO. I think there are good ideas here.
http://www.factoryfarm.org/guide/
United Poultry Concerns February 2, 2005
Tyson Chicken Held Accountable for Pollution
NEWS RELEASE
January 26, 2005
Contact: Aloma Dew 270-685-2034
Phillip Shepherd 502-227-1122
John Harbison 802-879-3940
Tyson Chicken Held Accountable for Pollution
Final settlement gives relief to neighbors: Tyson must reduce emissions
Owensboro, KY. In a “David vs. Goliath” battle, neighbors of huge industrial chicken operations, working with the Sierra Club, have finally won relief from the toxic pollution caused by Tyson Chicken. In a settlement signed today, Tyson has agreed to spend a half a million dollars to study and report on emissions and mitigate ammonia emissions that have been plaguing rural residents for years.
“Ever since Tyson moved in next door, my family has suffered from the stench, dust, and toxic pollution from their operations. Finally justice has been served, and Tyson is going to be on the hook for the problems they have caused,” said Leesa Webster, a plaintiff in the case. “’Home Sweet Home’ takes on a different meaning now—with Tyson being held accountable for their emissions, I can finally breathe easier,” added Bernardine Edwards, another plaintiff in McLean County who lives next to 16 chicken houses.
This settlement comes on the heels of a landmark court decision last November, when a federal judge in Owensboro ruled that Tyson is responsible for reporting toxic ammonia emissions from their operations. Since Tyson controls how the chickens are raised, what medications and food they are given, and Tyson received the bulk of the profit, the court ruled that they should no longer be off the hook for the consequences of their pollution—and editorials throughout the state praised this as a “common-sense” decision. This concept, called integrator liability, prevents Tyson from shifting the blame for their pollution to the local growers—and the ruling is expected to have far-reaching effects in rural areas around the country.
Today the final settlement consent decree was filed in Federal District Court in Owensboro. In addition to integrator liability, established in the 2003 ruling, Tyson must conduct ammonia testing at sites and report their findings. Tyson has also agreed to plant $50,000 worth of trees to act as a screen that will protect neighbors from the pollution coming from chicken houses. In addition, they will pay all legal fees connected with the case.
According to Sierra Club attorney Barclay Rogers, “This landmark decision will affect the entire industry. It’s clear that polluting factory farms have the responsibility to clean up their act and stop putting communities at risk.”
“After a long battle, we have won a victory for all the other families suffering from factory farm pollution,” said Norma Caine, a WebsterCounty resident who has been a leader in this fight for nearly a decade. “ We hope other citizens will now be able to speak up, and protect communities throughout Kentucky from this kind of pollution—for our families and our future.”
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Sunday, December 10, 2006
A Fowl Stench in Kentucky
In response to my posting about CAFOs (factory farms) in upstate NY, I heard form Wilma Gilbert in Kentucky. Wilma says the following about a situation she is facing in her neighborhood in Kentucky with CAFOs:
Wilma Gilbert said...
Eileen, In ky we are suffering from the stench of two broiler houses of half rotten chicken carcasse and debree that was scattered in a field 50 feet from our home, it has been 24 days now and we still cant get out of the house for very long. This rotten stuff had never gone thru the decomposter, now let me tell you the worst , several tractor trailor loads of chickens went out of the same houses for market, I followed one truck and thought I would die from the smell, can you imagine eating chickens that had been running in there , we have had every official that we know to call, but nobody has the athority to do anything,. this has been going on for years, we have gone from a wonderful water well 100 percent pure to a 101 bacteria count and 3.1 e coli count, We are desperate and cant get any help for this, As far as we know the agriculture dept has the only athority . As far as we know a little scolding is all the farmer gets and we are left living in torment Thanks for reading Wilma Gilbert
Here's what the National Resources Defense Council says about the rise of broiler houses in Kentucky: http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/stken.asp
There is a lack of a regulatory environment at the state level for water pollution caused by broiler houses, which Wilma speaks to in her posting.
I'm trying to get in touch with Wilma to find out more. Wilma, if you are out there, please post some contact information. I'd like to monitor the situation on my blog and get the word out. I'm wondering if the Kentucky Sierra Club could help out in an effort to address your local situation?
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/stken.asp
America's Animal Factories
How States Fail to Prevent Pollution from Livestock Waste
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/stken.asp
"Chapter 10
KENTUCKY
• Kentucky's geology makes large portions of the state particularly vulnerable to groundwater pollution from leaking hog manure lagoons.
• Kentucky is experiencing a boom in chicken houses, but they escape water pollution regulation.
In Kentucky, the number of farms raising hogs has dropped dramatically over the past 20 years as factory-scale operations have replaced family-size farms. The number of hog farms plunged from 33,000 in 1976 to some 2,500 in 1997.1 A trend toward larger hog operations, concentrated in a few pockets of the state, has led to big increases in overall hog production in some parts of Kentucky. Eleven counties have experienced a 25 percent jump in the number of hogs produced since 1982.2
Of Kentucky's approximately 2,500 hog operations in 1997, an estimated 50 operations had more than 2,000 hogs (an average of 5,850), and 70 operations had between 1,000 and 2,000 hogs.3
Kentucky's booming poultry industry is projected to expand dramatically in the next few years. Approximately 3.3 million birds are killed per week in Kentucky, raised in an estimated 1,100 broiler houses on an estimated 350 farms, according to projections for 1998. By the year 2000, the total number slaughtered will rise to an estimated 5.7 million birds killed per week in 2,100 broiler houses on an estimated 534 farms.4 Though nearby residents complain of intense odor problems and flies,5 the state's Economic Development Authority has provided significant tax incentives to two major food corporations to open poultry operations: Cagle-Keystone Foods and Hudson Foods (which has now been acquired by Tyson Foods, Inc.).6
Pollution Problems
Fifty percent of Kentucky is comprised of limestone, which is permeated with caves, sinkholes, and springs. In these limestone formations, known as karst, water runs underground through caves and aquifers and then emerges from springs into streams and lakes.7 Areas of karst geology are particularly sensitive to nutrient pollution and are ill-suited for siting hog waste lagoons or concentrated animal feeding operations.8 Unfortunately, Kentucky is now experiencing a proliferation of chicken houses and an increased concentration of swine operations in areas that are formed from karst, including areas close to Mammoth Cave National Park.9 Depositing animal waste in karst areas poses the following water pollution threats:
• Because underground water moves very rapidly and unpredictably, disease-causing bacteria from manure spread onto the ground have greater opportunity to enter groundwater and to contaminate nearby streams and lakes.10
• The rapid movement of animal waste into the groundwater limits the ability of soil and plants to take up nutrients, increasing the risk of nutrient pollution of groundwater and above-ground bodies of water.11
• Karst geography is by definition unstable. Sinkholes can form in unexpected areas, in particular where ground excavation occurs and where there is a change in the groundwater flow rate, both of which occur frequently with feedlot construction. Examples of the risks involved with lagoon construction in karst regions are documented by Dr. Nicholas Crawford of Western Kentucky University's Department of Geography and Geology in an August 5, 1998 report. He has documented a 1984 sinkhole collapse under a hog waste lagoon in southwest Barren County, which poured 2.4 million gallons of hog waste into the karst aquifer in less than five hours. Another sinkhole collapse under a hog waste lagoon in Logan County on April 29, 1991, drained more than one million gallons of hog waste into the karst aquifer, according to Crawford. This lagoon had a synthetic liner, but the collapse occurred above the synthetic liner. Crawford also documented lagoon leakage from two lagoons in Logan County which contaminated a spring.12
Regulatory Climate
Poultry facilities are excluded from any water pollution regulation under the state's interpretation of the Clean Water Act because poultry litter is not considered an industrial source of pollution. Despite documentation of well-water contamination linked to nearby land application of litter, the state agency claims it has no authority to take enforcement action against poultry factories.13
A major failing of Kentucky's environmental regulatory system has been its use of "no discharge" permits to CAFOs. Given the lack of water quality monitoring requirements for CAFOs and other assurances, this requirement is difficult to enforce. Moreover, requirements for waste management plans are not enforceable.
Even for processing plants, the "no discharge" permit is offered. For example, Cagle-Keystone's new chicken processing plant in Clinton County has been issued a "no discharge" permit and will be allowed to spray-irrigate up to 1.43 million gallons a day of plant wastewater on a hay farm near Lake Cumberland. The permit has no water quality limits, and inadequate monitoring requirements.14
Until recently, the state's regulation of swine was very lax. However, in response to the prospect of additional hog facilities coming into Kentucky, the Governor imposed a three-month moratorium in 1997, which was followed first by emergency regulations and then by permanent regulations for new factory swine operations with over 1,000 swine units. Existing swine operations of this size and other animal types (with the exception of dry litter poultry operations) are still covered under the old CAFO rules. The new regulations include notice to citizens in the vicinity, setbacks, restrictions of the land application of waste, and some additional regulatory requirements.15 However, among other deficiencies, the setbacks are inadequate, the nutrient management requirements are based on nitrogen limits rather than phosphorus limits, allowing more pollution to occur, and operators are not required to obtain training to run a factory farm.16 The Farm Bureau attempted to repeal the regulations with legislation in the 1998 session,17 but that effort was defeated. The newest version of the regulations, which took permanent effect in November 1998, requires that the owner of a livestock operation's pigs (typically an absentee food corporation) join with the owner of the operation's land (typically a farmer under contract to the corporation) in applying for a CAFO permit.18 This means that well-endowed corporations will share some of the responsibility for complying with environmental requirements with their contract farmers, who have historically shouldered the costly burden of manure-handling alone. Unfortunately, the Farm Bureau was able to weaken this important requirement from the proposed version, which made the corporations and the farmers equally responsible.19
The Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, the agency that issues permits under the Clean Water Act, currently permits 143 agricultural waste systems with 1,000 or more head of swine.20 The Cabinet estimates that there are between 50 to100 swine facilities that are required by law to get a water pollution control permit as a CAFO but have not been issued one.21 The failure to regulate these CAFOs stems largely from weak agency enforcement and a lack of state funding for inspectors, according to environmentalists.
The effectiveness of local controls is generally untested, because they are all relatively new. However, several counties have attempted to implement local controls on animal waste facilities"
Primary interviewee for this chapter:
Hank Graddy
Sierra Club-Kentucky
W.H. Graddy & Associates
P.O. Box 4307
Midway, KY 40347
Phone: 606-846-4905
Fax: 606-846-4914
e-mail: hgraddy@aol.com
Wilma Gilbert said...
Eileen, In ky we are suffering from the stench of two broiler houses of half rotten chicken carcasse and debree that was scattered in a field 50 feet from our home, it has been 24 days now and we still cant get out of the house for very long. This rotten stuff had never gone thru the decomposter, now let me tell you the worst , several tractor trailor loads of chickens went out of the same houses for market, I followed one truck and thought I would die from the smell, can you imagine eating chickens that had been running in there , we have had every official that we know to call, but nobody has the athority to do anything,. this has been going on for years, we have gone from a wonderful water well 100 percent pure to a 101 bacteria count and 3.1 e coli count, We are desperate and cant get any help for this, As far as we know the agriculture dept has the only athority . As far as we know a little scolding is all the farmer gets and we are left living in torment Thanks for reading Wilma Gilbert
Here's what the National Resources Defense Council says about the rise of broiler houses in Kentucky: http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/stken.asp
There is a lack of a regulatory environment at the state level for water pollution caused by broiler houses, which Wilma speaks to in her posting.
I'm trying to get in touch with Wilma to find out more. Wilma, if you are out there, please post some contact information. I'd like to monitor the situation on my blog and get the word out. I'm wondering if the Kentucky Sierra Club could help out in an effort to address your local situation?
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/stken.asp
America's Animal Factories
How States Fail to Prevent Pollution from Livestock Waste
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/stken.asp
"Chapter 10
KENTUCKY
• Kentucky's geology makes large portions of the state particularly vulnerable to groundwater pollution from leaking hog manure lagoons.
• Kentucky is experiencing a boom in chicken houses, but they escape water pollution regulation.
In Kentucky, the number of farms raising hogs has dropped dramatically over the past 20 years as factory-scale operations have replaced family-size farms. The number of hog farms plunged from 33,000 in 1976 to some 2,500 in 1997.1 A trend toward larger hog operations, concentrated in a few pockets of the state, has led to big increases in overall hog production in some parts of Kentucky. Eleven counties have experienced a 25 percent jump in the number of hogs produced since 1982.2
Of Kentucky's approximately 2,500 hog operations in 1997, an estimated 50 operations had more than 2,000 hogs (an average of 5,850), and 70 operations had between 1,000 and 2,000 hogs.3
Kentucky's booming poultry industry is projected to expand dramatically in the next few years. Approximately 3.3 million birds are killed per week in Kentucky, raised in an estimated 1,100 broiler houses on an estimated 350 farms, according to projections for 1998. By the year 2000, the total number slaughtered will rise to an estimated 5.7 million birds killed per week in 2,100 broiler houses on an estimated 534 farms.4 Though nearby residents complain of intense odor problems and flies,5 the state's Economic Development Authority has provided significant tax incentives to two major food corporations to open poultry operations: Cagle-Keystone Foods and Hudson Foods (which has now been acquired by Tyson Foods, Inc.).6
Pollution Problems
Fifty percent of Kentucky is comprised of limestone, which is permeated with caves, sinkholes, and springs. In these limestone formations, known as karst, water runs underground through caves and aquifers and then emerges from springs into streams and lakes.7 Areas of karst geology are particularly sensitive to nutrient pollution and are ill-suited for siting hog waste lagoons or concentrated animal feeding operations.8 Unfortunately, Kentucky is now experiencing a proliferation of chicken houses and an increased concentration of swine operations in areas that are formed from karst, including areas close to Mammoth Cave National Park.9 Depositing animal waste in karst areas poses the following water pollution threats:
• Because underground water moves very rapidly and unpredictably, disease-causing bacteria from manure spread onto the ground have greater opportunity to enter groundwater and to contaminate nearby streams and lakes.10
• The rapid movement of animal waste into the groundwater limits the ability of soil and plants to take up nutrients, increasing the risk of nutrient pollution of groundwater and above-ground bodies of water.11
• Karst geography is by definition unstable. Sinkholes can form in unexpected areas, in particular where ground excavation occurs and where there is a change in the groundwater flow rate, both of which occur frequently with feedlot construction. Examples of the risks involved with lagoon construction in karst regions are documented by Dr. Nicholas Crawford of Western Kentucky University's Department of Geography and Geology in an August 5, 1998 report. He has documented a 1984 sinkhole collapse under a hog waste lagoon in southwest Barren County, which poured 2.4 million gallons of hog waste into the karst aquifer in less than five hours. Another sinkhole collapse under a hog waste lagoon in Logan County on April 29, 1991, drained more than one million gallons of hog waste into the karst aquifer, according to Crawford. This lagoon had a synthetic liner, but the collapse occurred above the synthetic liner. Crawford also documented lagoon leakage from two lagoons in Logan County which contaminated a spring.12
Regulatory Climate
Poultry facilities are excluded from any water pollution regulation under the state's interpretation of the Clean Water Act because poultry litter is not considered an industrial source of pollution. Despite documentation of well-water contamination linked to nearby land application of litter, the state agency claims it has no authority to take enforcement action against poultry factories.13
A major failing of Kentucky's environmental regulatory system has been its use of "no discharge" permits to CAFOs. Given the lack of water quality monitoring requirements for CAFOs and other assurances, this requirement is difficult to enforce. Moreover, requirements for waste management plans are not enforceable.
Even for processing plants, the "no discharge" permit is offered. For example, Cagle-Keystone's new chicken processing plant in Clinton County has been issued a "no discharge" permit and will be allowed to spray-irrigate up to 1.43 million gallons a day of plant wastewater on a hay farm near Lake Cumberland. The permit has no water quality limits, and inadequate monitoring requirements.14
Until recently, the state's regulation of swine was very lax. However, in response to the prospect of additional hog facilities coming into Kentucky, the Governor imposed a three-month moratorium in 1997, which was followed first by emergency regulations and then by permanent regulations for new factory swine operations with over 1,000 swine units. Existing swine operations of this size and other animal types (with the exception of dry litter poultry operations) are still covered under the old CAFO rules. The new regulations include notice to citizens in the vicinity, setbacks, restrictions of the land application of waste, and some additional regulatory requirements.15 However, among other deficiencies, the setbacks are inadequate, the nutrient management requirements are based on nitrogen limits rather than phosphorus limits, allowing more pollution to occur, and operators are not required to obtain training to run a factory farm.16 The Farm Bureau attempted to repeal the regulations with legislation in the 1998 session,17 but that effort was defeated. The newest version of the regulations, which took permanent effect in November 1998, requires that the owner of a livestock operation's pigs (typically an absentee food corporation) join with the owner of the operation's land (typically a farmer under contract to the corporation) in applying for a CAFO permit.18 This means that well-endowed corporations will share some of the responsibility for complying with environmental requirements with their contract farmers, who have historically shouldered the costly burden of manure-handling alone. Unfortunately, the Farm Bureau was able to weaken this important requirement from the proposed version, which made the corporations and the farmers equally responsible.19
The Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, the agency that issues permits under the Clean Water Act, currently permits 143 agricultural waste systems with 1,000 or more head of swine.20 The Cabinet estimates that there are between 50 to100 swine facilities that are required by law to get a water pollution control permit as a CAFO but have not been issued one.21 The failure to regulate these CAFOs stems largely from weak agency enforcement and a lack of state funding for inspectors, according to environmentalists.
The effectiveness of local controls is generally untested, because they are all relatively new. However, several counties have attempted to implement local controls on animal waste facilities"
Primary interviewee for this chapter:
Hank Graddy
Sierra Club-Kentucky
W.H. Graddy & Associates
P.O. Box 4307
Midway, KY 40347
Phone: 606-846-4905
Fax: 606-846-4914
e-mail: hgraddy@aol.com
Eat your veggies unless they are e-coli laden
Eat 5 a day, right? Fruits and veggies. What's going on, though, with e-coli in spinach (this fall), green onions (most recently at Taco Bell), tomatoes last year? Do you think twice when you reach for the bagged spinach in the produce section or bunch of green onions? The source of the e-coli is not entirely known, but factory farming and manure run-off into produce fields is one of the suspects. This is why I like to grow my own spinach and green onions in my backyard, but like most of us, I buy such items during the winter from the same source: California.
Here's Marian Burros from the NYT. I also include a link below for a recent article in Forbes about the green onion/produce scares.
September 27, 2006, The New York Times
Eating Well
"Tainted Spinach Brings Demands for New Rules
By MARIAN BURROS
THE latest outbreak of food-borne illness, traced to a virulent bacterium in bagged spinach, is being called a watershed moment for American industrial agriculture, a time of reckoning for industry and government and the public.
Critics say the factory farming system needs an overhaul, with produce farmers and processors being subject to the same sorts of mandatory rules as the meat industry to protect against E. coli O157:H7 and other harmful bacteria. More outbreaks of disease are now traced to produce than to meat, poultry, fish, eggs and milk combined.
The dangers can be compounded once produce is taken home. The casual way many consumers treat bagged, cut up fruits and vegetables — not washing them, leaving them unrefrigerated — increases the likelihood that even a low level of harmful bacteria can multiply and cause illness.
Some scientists say the sealed bags add protection; others believe the sealed bags, if mishandled, actually help bacteria to proliferate.
The source of the E. coli O157:H7 blamed in the current outbreak is unknown. It may be irrigation water reclaimed from sewage treatment. It may be unsanitary conditions on the farm. But there is increasing suspicion that the cause may be water runoff from the many cattle farms near the fields in the Salinas Valley of California, where produce tainted with the E. coli has caused eight outbreaks of illness since 1995.
Water contaminated with E. coli from cow manure may have been used for irrigation or may have been deposited on the fields by heavy spring rains and flooding.
Dr. Trevor Suslow, a microbiologist at the University of California at Davis, called this case “the catalyst, the tipping point.’’
“This is a culmination of incidents that have been going on for 10 years and cattle have become the primary focus,’’ Dr. Suslow said. “Data from the last 23 years clearly demonstrate the potential for crop contamination from pathogenic E. coli in the watershed.”
Dr. Suslow asked the question on many critics’ minds: “Should cows be raised in close proximity to produce? Ideally you would like to see them well separated.”
Dr. David Acheson, medical director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition agrees that cows may be a serious problem.
“I’m speculating, but there is a logical link between cattle and manure getting into the water,’’ Dr. Acheson said.
Would the outbreak have been prevented if the farmers and processors of salad greens were subject to the same regulations that meat processors have been under since 1997?
“Farms can do pretty much as they please as long as they don’t make anyone sick,” said Carol Tucker Foreman, a former assistant secretary of agriculture and director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America, a consumer advocacy group.
The F.D.A. has jurisdiction, but little regulatory authority, over the produce industry, and has fewer than 2,000 inspectors for more than 120,000 facilities, 250 inspectors fewer than in 2003. Even some high-risk foods are only inspected every two to four years. The Agriculture Department, which oversees the meat industry, has 7,600 inspectors for 6,000 facilities.
On Monday the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a frequent critic of the food industry, and the Food Products Association, an industry group, joined with others in a coalition to lobby for more F.D.A. financing. The agency estimates that, taking inflation into account, the budget for its Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition will have fallen by almost 30 percent from 2003 t0 2007. Its staffing decreased by 14 percent.
The increased number of outbreaks of produce contamination has put even more pressure on the agency.
“This is kind of a new situation and we don’t have a routine inspection cycle,’’ said Mark Roh, the acting regional director of food and drug for the F.D.A.’s Pacific Region. “Farms traditionally have not been inspected even when they were bagging lettuce,” he said.
Dr. Acheson and Mr. Roh both say the agency is considering mandatory rules.
“If rules were mandatory rather than voluntary it might tend to enhance the industry’s effort at compliance,” said Mr. Roh. He said regulations could be modeled on the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point system used in meat, poultry, fish and egg processing plants in which preventive controls minimize hazards in food.
Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, agreed.
“We need mandatory standards, enforced across the system,” Ms. DeWaal said.
Compounding unsafe growing practices are unsafe processing and transportation practices. From field to home, produce may be left unrefrigerated several times: immediately after it is cut; as it sits on receiving docks at warehouses and supermarkets and when it is in display cases.
Often supermarkets do not maintain proper temperature in refrigerated cases for meat, poultry and produce. Cases should be kept at 41 degrees or below to prevent most bacteria from growing, but they often reach 50 degrees. At room temperature bacteria double every couple of hours.
Shoppers can make the problem worse. Many people assume that because some fruits and vegetables are displayed without refrigeration, all produce is safe at room temperature.
“Consumers need to treat cut or bagged produce the way they treat their meat and poultry for safety,” Ms. DeWaal said. “Pick it up last; get it home and in the refrigerator...." article continues
See also recent coverage in Forbes http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/12/07/hscout536490.html
Here's Marian Burros from the NYT. I also include a link below for a recent article in Forbes about the green onion/produce scares.
September 27, 2006, The New York Times
Eating Well
"Tainted Spinach Brings Demands for New Rules
By MARIAN BURROS
THE latest outbreak of food-borne illness, traced to a virulent bacterium in bagged spinach, is being called a watershed moment for American industrial agriculture, a time of reckoning for industry and government and the public.
Critics say the factory farming system needs an overhaul, with produce farmers and processors being subject to the same sorts of mandatory rules as the meat industry to protect against E. coli O157:H7 and other harmful bacteria. More outbreaks of disease are now traced to produce than to meat, poultry, fish, eggs and milk combined.
The dangers can be compounded once produce is taken home. The casual way many consumers treat bagged, cut up fruits and vegetables — not washing them, leaving them unrefrigerated — increases the likelihood that even a low level of harmful bacteria can multiply and cause illness.
Some scientists say the sealed bags add protection; others believe the sealed bags, if mishandled, actually help bacteria to proliferate.
The source of the E. coli O157:H7 blamed in the current outbreak is unknown. It may be irrigation water reclaimed from sewage treatment. It may be unsanitary conditions on the farm. But there is increasing suspicion that the cause may be water runoff from the many cattle farms near the fields in the Salinas Valley of California, where produce tainted with the E. coli has caused eight outbreaks of illness since 1995.
Water contaminated with E. coli from cow manure may have been used for irrigation or may have been deposited on the fields by heavy spring rains and flooding.
Dr. Trevor Suslow, a microbiologist at the University of California at Davis, called this case “the catalyst, the tipping point.’’
“This is a culmination of incidents that have been going on for 10 years and cattle have become the primary focus,’’ Dr. Suslow said. “Data from the last 23 years clearly demonstrate the potential for crop contamination from pathogenic E. coli in the watershed.”
Dr. Suslow asked the question on many critics’ minds: “Should cows be raised in close proximity to produce? Ideally you would like to see them well separated.”
Dr. David Acheson, medical director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition agrees that cows may be a serious problem.
“I’m speculating, but there is a logical link between cattle and manure getting into the water,’’ Dr. Acheson said.
Would the outbreak have been prevented if the farmers and processors of salad greens were subject to the same regulations that meat processors have been under since 1997?
“Farms can do pretty much as they please as long as they don’t make anyone sick,” said Carol Tucker Foreman, a former assistant secretary of agriculture and director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America, a consumer advocacy group.
The F.D.A. has jurisdiction, but little regulatory authority, over the produce industry, and has fewer than 2,000 inspectors for more than 120,000 facilities, 250 inspectors fewer than in 2003. Even some high-risk foods are only inspected every two to four years. The Agriculture Department, which oversees the meat industry, has 7,600 inspectors for 6,000 facilities.
On Monday the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a frequent critic of the food industry, and the Food Products Association, an industry group, joined with others in a coalition to lobby for more F.D.A. financing. The agency estimates that, taking inflation into account, the budget for its Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition will have fallen by almost 30 percent from 2003 t0 2007. Its staffing decreased by 14 percent.
The increased number of outbreaks of produce contamination has put even more pressure on the agency.
“This is kind of a new situation and we don’t have a routine inspection cycle,’’ said Mark Roh, the acting regional director of food and drug for the F.D.A.’s Pacific Region. “Farms traditionally have not been inspected even when they were bagging lettuce,” he said.
Dr. Acheson and Mr. Roh both say the agency is considering mandatory rules.
“If rules were mandatory rather than voluntary it might tend to enhance the industry’s effort at compliance,” said Mr. Roh. He said regulations could be modeled on the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point system used in meat, poultry, fish and egg processing plants in which preventive controls minimize hazards in food.
Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, agreed.
“We need mandatory standards, enforced across the system,” Ms. DeWaal said.
Compounding unsafe growing practices are unsafe processing and transportation practices. From field to home, produce may be left unrefrigerated several times: immediately after it is cut; as it sits on receiving docks at warehouses and supermarkets and when it is in display cases.
Often supermarkets do not maintain proper temperature in refrigerated cases for meat, poultry and produce. Cases should be kept at 41 degrees or below to prevent most bacteria from growing, but they often reach 50 degrees. At room temperature bacteria double every couple of hours.
Shoppers can make the problem worse. Many people assume that because some fruits and vegetables are displayed without refrigeration, all produce is safe at room temperature.
“Consumers need to treat cut or bagged produce the way they treat their meat and poultry for safety,” Ms. DeWaal said. “Pick it up last; get it home and in the refrigerator...." article continues
See also recent coverage in Forbes http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/12/07/hscout536490.html
Saturday, December 09, 2006
CAFOs: Not in My Backyard
In May of 2005, I attended a local Sierra Club meeting that was focused on the problem of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations or CAFOs--basically factory farms--and their environmental impacts. The meeting was packed with local people and USDA officials and lawyers. Since there was a lawsuit pending against Willet Dairy, an upstate CAFO, there was someone present from their lawyer's office taping the meeting to make sure nothing libelous was said against the CAFO. It was a tense, but informative meeting. I sat in the back and tapped out notes on my lap-top. I was asked several times "whose side I was on," if I was a reporter, and "who I worked for." When I said I was an academic, everyone left me alone. I guess if you're an academic writing a book about the public debates over agriculture, then you are not a threat.
I learned that there are about 700 CAFOs in New York state, and many of them are dairy farms in upstate NY. I heard eloquent testimony from Connie and Scott Mather from Locke, NY about the problems they have experienced due to a dairy CAFO near their home. Some of Connie's testimony is below, which she posted on the website of the organization Rural Friends of New York, which wages battles against the environmental destruction of upstate NY.
Like most of us, when I think of dairy farming, I always picture the small-scale dairy operations that we're all used to driving by here in upstate NY. I'm used to seeing a cluster of Holsteins standing outside the barn or picking their way through the mud toward the pasture. I also have dairy farmers in my family: Wiard and Jean Groeneveld, my maternal uncle and aunt from Sultan, Washington and their farmer son Christian Groeneveld, so the small-scale dairy operation is a cherished part of my mom's side of the family.
But small-scale operations are being replaced by industrialized operations. Read Connie Mather's testimony and read the report the Sierra Club and the Citizens' Environmental Coalition entitled "The Wasting of Rural New York State: Factory Farms and Public Health," 2005, available for PDF download at http://www.newyork.sierraclub.org/conservation/agriculture/index.html.
This is our backyard, folks!
Soil and Water Conservation Society
Connie Mather 5H Route 3, Locke, NY 13092
February 26, 2004
"Neighbors Perspective and Action Appeal
My name is Connie Mather. I am part of a growing group of citizens looking for ways to protect our families, our properties and our natural resources from the effects of CAFO’s (also known as factory farms), in rural upstate New York. I’d like to share with you the words of a famous politician on agricultural policy:
“... To put an end to our backwardness in agriculture and to provide the country with the largest possible amount of market grain, cotton, and so forth, it was necessary to pass to large-scale farming, for only large-scale farming can employ modem machinery, utilize all the achievements of agricultural science and provide the largest possible quantity of market produce. [we] took the path of organizing large farms because it enabled us, in the course of several years, to cover the entire country with large farms and provide the country with the largest possible quantity of market produce. “
This is a pretty good description of the course of agriculture in this country and in New York State over the last few decades. This comes from a speech of Joseph Stalin in 1946, in Moscow, as presented to a meeting of voters of the Stalin Electoral District. History tells us that the collective farms, so similar to the government subsidized corporate factory farms of the USA today, were a devastating failure. In the 70’s the USDA asked our successful USA farmers to make trips to Soviet Russia to help them. After studying the situation there, our agriculturalists recommended that the workers be given small plots of land that they could grow their own product on. The smaller plots out-produced the larger collective farms by such incredible numbers that it offered a whole new perspective on smaller farms as sustainable to the Soviets. I have to wonder why the USA, at great expense to the taxpayers, is now subsidizing and promoting the same kind of “advanced farming” that failed so miserably in the U.S.S.R, while doing little to support the sustainable smaller farms so integral to the health of our rural society.
Now I would like to address factory farming on a more personal note, from a neighbor’s perspective.
I live in a small hamlet called East Genoa, by what has become one of the largest dairy CAFO’s in the Northeastern United States. It is one of about 23 dairy CAFO’s that reside in the once beautiful Finger Lakes Region of the Empire State. My husband and I moved to this agricultural district and bought 10 acres in hopes of raising our son in a clean, safe environment. I was going to try to teach school and fulfill a lifelong goal of having a successful organic strawberry u-pick farm, with a possible second high-profit low yield crop to allow for back-up diversity if needed. I was raised on a farm in Pennsylvania and knew that I wanted to farm as a second profession after teaching for 10 years in Philadelphia. None of that was to happen. Staying outdoors, getting healthy enough, or affording water filtering systems and sources has made that impossible here.
First of all, most days of the year, the stench on my property and in my house is so bad that it makes us sick. I mean it makes us literally SICK. I didn’t need to see the research results of latest studies of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions to believe that the CAFO next door is emitting noxious gases. I didn’t need more research studies that showed the particulate matter and the ascetic acid from the silage bunkers are making it very near impossible to work outside or sleep inside in my house many nights.
Year-round spraying of liquid manure has made most of the fields around my home simply dumping grounds for seas of waste. In our community, upwards of 7500 bovine creatures contribute to huge cesspools that are uncovered and “geo” lined. For those of you who are wondering about “geo’ lined pits, that means no cement or synthetic linings, just holes dug into the ground. The detergents and any bad milk that can’t be sold is also dumped or piped into those open lakes of manure, along with the hormones and antibiotics tbat might be in the milk and manure. After that waste ferments for an undetermined amount of time, it is sprayed from the backs of huge tankards the size of tractor-trailers, onto the land or the snow. Summer, fall, winter, spring, it doesn’t matter. The waste is thrown on the fields. I am not a soil specialist, but somehow I can’t see whcre soil is benefiting from that kind of dumping. I see the runoff going into road ditches and small tributaries as I drive along the road. Those waterways feed the lakes of Cayuga and Owasco.
Huge trucks and large farm machinery barrel down the highways (Route 34 is yards away from my front door), The roads get wet with liquid manure, it dries and with the heavy traffic, becomes a fine dust that enters our home, our barn, our cars, and our lungs. Mowing the lawn, tending to our few animals or trying to garden is usually a “noxious affair”, after which we are sometimes sick with respiratory illnesses, headaches and even dizziness and nausea. This year, we couldn’t put up Christmas lights or decorations for the winter holidays because we couldn’t stay outside in the smell long enough to put up the lights.
In my opinion, the unnatural environment that the dairy creates has created an unnatural number of mosquitoes and flies.
Mosquito swarms seem to be a growing problem in our fields, yard and gardens. Could it be that the swarms of mosquitoes are coming from the thousands of tires that cover the silage bunkers kitty-cornered from our property? For the rest of the residents in Cayuga County, a fine of $35.00 per tire is levied if we have tires on our properties. That is because the County Health Department believes that tires lying around are breeding grounds for mosquitoes that carry West Nile Virus! Maybe those farm-exempt tires are marked somehow so the mosquitoes won’t breed there.
Swarming flies are also in abundance where we live. Even if the smell doesn’t get us if we try to BB-Q, the flies will swarm our food and us on a really busy spreading day. This type of swarming in excess is being sighted all around rural America where CAFOs proliferate.
One of the most disappointing aspects of living here is seeing the creeks, brooks and wetlands disappear.
Expanding numbers of livestock means expanded amounts of water consumed by my corporate neighbors. According to one management plan, each cow needs about 30 to 60 gallons of water a day. What that has meant for our communities is that wetlands are drained into large holding ponds, and small, once pristine brooks and creeks now are intermittently flowing, or diverted into holding ponds, or they are so contaminated with runoff that you can’t recognize them. Runoff of liquid wastes into our tributaries and sometimes directly into the Finger Lakes is common. I believe this runoff is inevitable because of the year round spreading and the volume of waste that needs to be gotten rid of by ever-expanding dairies. The marine life has suffered significantly with this violation and mismanagement of our precious natural resources. Currently, there is no mandatory testing of the waste from the CAFO’s in NY State before it is applied, so we have no idea what is ending up in our soil and water resources.
As a former educator, I believe that if you as professionals, educators and scientists alike, truly understand what is happening in the name of “advanced farming” in New York, you will take ethical and appropriate actions to rectify the policies and the lack of enforcement that allows these factory farms to assault every aspect of the lives of the rural peoples of New York State. The people of this region of New York have a strong heritage of political and social courage. This area was the center of the Women’s Rights Movement, an integral part of the Underground Railroad, and was the seed of strong religious movements. This heritage is reflected in the spirit of the real farmers and residents who are now mobilized and taking whatever actions they can to save our rural society and defend our Constitutional rights to protect our properties. Sustainable agriculture has a long, proud history of economic success, environmental stewardship,
conservation of natural resources and quality food production. We need your support.
The American Public Health Association has already asked for a moratorium on the building of all new CAFO’s until the empirical and anecdotal evidence can be considered. They have concluded, based on the research already reported, that there seem to be health risks to the workers on CAFO’s and to the residents of rural communities surrounding the CAFO’s.
I am here today to implore you, as Water and Soil Conservationists, to support that moratorium, and based on the very credible research already established, to take this a step further, and
CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON ALL EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACTORY FARMS UNTIL THE EPA, DEC AND STATE AND COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENTS CAN MAN THEMSELVES WITH ENOUGH PERSONNEL AND ENFORCEABLE REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THE HALT TO THE DESECRATION OF NEW YORK’S NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE HEALTH OF ITS RURAL SOCIETY."
--Connie Mather
I learned that there are about 700 CAFOs in New York state, and many of them are dairy farms in upstate NY. I heard eloquent testimony from Connie and Scott Mather from Locke, NY about the problems they have experienced due to a dairy CAFO near their home. Some of Connie's testimony is below, which she posted on the website of the organization Rural Friends of New York, which wages battles against the environmental destruction of upstate NY.
Like most of us, when I think of dairy farming, I always picture the small-scale dairy operations that we're all used to driving by here in upstate NY. I'm used to seeing a cluster of Holsteins standing outside the barn or picking their way through the mud toward the pasture. I also have dairy farmers in my family: Wiard and Jean Groeneveld, my maternal uncle and aunt from Sultan, Washington and their farmer son Christian Groeneveld, so the small-scale dairy operation is a cherished part of my mom's side of the family.
But small-scale operations are being replaced by industrialized operations. Read Connie Mather's testimony and read the report the Sierra Club and the Citizens' Environmental Coalition entitled "The Wasting of Rural New York State: Factory Farms and Public Health," 2005, available for PDF download at http://www.newyork.sierraclub.org/conservation/agriculture/index.html.
This is our backyard, folks!
Soil and Water Conservation Society
Connie Mather 5H Route 3, Locke, NY 13092
February 26, 2004
"Neighbors Perspective and Action Appeal
My name is Connie Mather. I am part of a growing group of citizens looking for ways to protect our families, our properties and our natural resources from the effects of CAFO’s (also known as factory farms), in rural upstate New York. I’d like to share with you the words of a famous politician on agricultural policy:
“... To put an end to our backwardness in agriculture and to provide the country with the largest possible amount of market grain, cotton, and so forth, it was necessary to pass to large-scale farming, for only large-scale farming can employ modem machinery, utilize all the achievements of agricultural science and provide the largest possible quantity of market produce. [we] took the path of organizing large farms because it enabled us, in the course of several years, to cover the entire country with large farms and provide the country with the largest possible quantity of market produce. “
This is a pretty good description of the course of agriculture in this country and in New York State over the last few decades. This comes from a speech of Joseph Stalin in 1946, in Moscow, as presented to a meeting of voters of the Stalin Electoral District. History tells us that the collective farms, so similar to the government subsidized corporate factory farms of the USA today, were a devastating failure. In the 70’s the USDA asked our successful USA farmers to make trips to Soviet Russia to help them. After studying the situation there, our agriculturalists recommended that the workers be given small plots of land that they could grow their own product on. The smaller plots out-produced the larger collective farms by such incredible numbers that it offered a whole new perspective on smaller farms as sustainable to the Soviets. I have to wonder why the USA, at great expense to the taxpayers, is now subsidizing and promoting the same kind of “advanced farming” that failed so miserably in the U.S.S.R, while doing little to support the sustainable smaller farms so integral to the health of our rural society.
Now I would like to address factory farming on a more personal note, from a neighbor’s perspective.
I live in a small hamlet called East Genoa, by what has become one of the largest dairy CAFO’s in the Northeastern United States. It is one of about 23 dairy CAFO’s that reside in the once beautiful Finger Lakes Region of the Empire State. My husband and I moved to this agricultural district and bought 10 acres in hopes of raising our son in a clean, safe environment. I was going to try to teach school and fulfill a lifelong goal of having a successful organic strawberry u-pick farm, with a possible second high-profit low yield crop to allow for back-up diversity if needed. I was raised on a farm in Pennsylvania and knew that I wanted to farm as a second profession after teaching for 10 years in Philadelphia. None of that was to happen. Staying outdoors, getting healthy enough, or affording water filtering systems and sources has made that impossible here.
First of all, most days of the year, the stench on my property and in my house is so bad that it makes us sick. I mean it makes us literally SICK. I didn’t need to see the research results of latest studies of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions to believe that the CAFO next door is emitting noxious gases. I didn’t need more research studies that showed the particulate matter and the ascetic acid from the silage bunkers are making it very near impossible to work outside or sleep inside in my house many nights.
Year-round spraying of liquid manure has made most of the fields around my home simply dumping grounds for seas of waste. In our community, upwards of 7500 bovine creatures contribute to huge cesspools that are uncovered and “geo” lined. For those of you who are wondering about “geo’ lined pits, that means no cement or synthetic linings, just holes dug into the ground. The detergents and any bad milk that can’t be sold is also dumped or piped into those open lakes of manure, along with the hormones and antibiotics tbat might be in the milk and manure. After that waste ferments for an undetermined amount of time, it is sprayed from the backs of huge tankards the size of tractor-trailers, onto the land or the snow. Summer, fall, winter, spring, it doesn’t matter. The waste is thrown on the fields. I am not a soil specialist, but somehow I can’t see whcre soil is benefiting from that kind of dumping. I see the runoff going into road ditches and small tributaries as I drive along the road. Those waterways feed the lakes of Cayuga and Owasco.
Huge trucks and large farm machinery barrel down the highways (Route 34 is yards away from my front door), The roads get wet with liquid manure, it dries and with the heavy traffic, becomes a fine dust that enters our home, our barn, our cars, and our lungs. Mowing the lawn, tending to our few animals or trying to garden is usually a “noxious affair”, after which we are sometimes sick with respiratory illnesses, headaches and even dizziness and nausea. This year, we couldn’t put up Christmas lights or decorations for the winter holidays because we couldn’t stay outside in the smell long enough to put up the lights.
In my opinion, the unnatural environment that the dairy creates has created an unnatural number of mosquitoes and flies.
Mosquito swarms seem to be a growing problem in our fields, yard and gardens. Could it be that the swarms of mosquitoes are coming from the thousands of tires that cover the silage bunkers kitty-cornered from our property? For the rest of the residents in Cayuga County, a fine of $35.00 per tire is levied if we have tires on our properties. That is because the County Health Department believes that tires lying around are breeding grounds for mosquitoes that carry West Nile Virus! Maybe those farm-exempt tires are marked somehow so the mosquitoes won’t breed there.
Swarming flies are also in abundance where we live. Even if the smell doesn’t get us if we try to BB-Q, the flies will swarm our food and us on a really busy spreading day. This type of swarming in excess is being sighted all around rural America where CAFOs proliferate.
One of the most disappointing aspects of living here is seeing the creeks, brooks and wetlands disappear.
Expanding numbers of livestock means expanded amounts of water consumed by my corporate neighbors. According to one management plan, each cow needs about 30 to 60 gallons of water a day. What that has meant for our communities is that wetlands are drained into large holding ponds, and small, once pristine brooks and creeks now are intermittently flowing, or diverted into holding ponds, or they are so contaminated with runoff that you can’t recognize them. Runoff of liquid wastes into our tributaries and sometimes directly into the Finger Lakes is common. I believe this runoff is inevitable because of the year round spreading and the volume of waste that needs to be gotten rid of by ever-expanding dairies. The marine life has suffered significantly with this violation and mismanagement of our precious natural resources. Currently, there is no mandatory testing of the waste from the CAFO’s in NY State before it is applied, so we have no idea what is ending up in our soil and water resources.
As a former educator, I believe that if you as professionals, educators and scientists alike, truly understand what is happening in the name of “advanced farming” in New York, you will take ethical and appropriate actions to rectify the policies and the lack of enforcement that allows these factory farms to assault every aspect of the lives of the rural peoples of New York State. The people of this region of New York have a strong heritage of political and social courage. This area was the center of the Women’s Rights Movement, an integral part of the Underground Railroad, and was the seed of strong religious movements. This heritage is reflected in the spirit of the real farmers and residents who are now mobilized and taking whatever actions they can to save our rural society and defend our Constitutional rights to protect our properties. Sustainable agriculture has a long, proud history of economic success, environmental stewardship,
conservation of natural resources and quality food production. We need your support.
The American Public Health Association has already asked for a moratorium on the building of all new CAFO’s until the empirical and anecdotal evidence can be considered. They have concluded, based on the research already reported, that there seem to be health risks to the workers on CAFO’s and to the residents of rural communities surrounding the CAFO’s.
I am here today to implore you, as Water and Soil Conservationists, to support that moratorium, and based on the very credible research already established, to take this a step further, and
CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON ALL EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACTORY FARMS UNTIL THE EPA, DEC AND STATE AND COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENTS CAN MAN THEMSELVES WITH ENOUGH PERSONNEL AND ENFORCEABLE REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THE HALT TO THE DESECRATION OF NEW YORK’S NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE HEALTH OF ITS RURAL SOCIETY."
--Connie Mather
Friday, December 08, 2006
Got (Organic) Milk?
Parade Magazine, that Sunday morning paragon of wisdom, has broached the subject of organic milk production in the U.S.. In their weekly soundbyte for Dec 3rd, 2006, they point out that organic cows in the U.S. can't keep up with demand from companies wanting organic milk products. U.S. food companies wanting to use organic milk are considering the importation of powdered organic milk from New Zealand and/or using soy milk from China or Brazil. Bad news: fuel costs to import the milk.
America’s dairies can’t produce enough.
By Lyric Wallwork Winik
Published: December 3, 2006, Parade Magazine
[In the News]
The Problem With Organic Food
"The U.S has about 9 million dairy cows, but fewer than 150,000 qualify as “organic”—so the makers of organic products must be resourceful. With organic food sales up 20% in recent years, at least one company is using soy milk from China and Brazil, and others are considering powdered organic milk from New Zealand. The good news for environmentalists: Organic means no pesticides were used. The bad news: Importing food from afar takes more fuel to get it to our plates."
It's good to see this coverage, but the question not answered in this soundbyte, is why are there fewer than 150,000 organic milk cows out of the nation's 9 million cows? Milk production in the U.S. is set up on the industrialized model. Most loans are for capital expansion for large dairy operations. Cummins from a Mother Jones article http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/04/organic_milk.html (see below) points out that “there’s a huge demand for organic products which has caused a shortage in supply because our public policy doesn’t help farmers make the transition [to organic]. So you either lower the standards or import from overseas.” What's tough about going organic? You can't use industrial feeds or fertilizers for three years; there are clear expenses involved in the transition. The article also discusses whether or not organic "mega-farms" should be called organic since they do not necessarily comply with pasture regulations (letting dairy cows graze for some of their food). In essence, large-scale organic dairy farms mean the cows are kept inside and fed the organic feed and no bovine growth hormones are used, which is good, but it defeats the purpose of the smaller-scale, pasture feeding operations that most imagine when they think of an organic dairy farm. Read on for more....
This does not mean that one should stop buying organic milk, but with the rise of large-scale organic milk operations and the USDA's allowance for that, it's important to think about what we are really buying when we buy organic: small-scale, local organic or large-scale industrialized organic? Large food companies have figured out that organic is profitable (Wal-mart & organics, fo instance)--so the farmers that supply these large chains are doing what they can to meet organic standards and cutting the sustainable and eco-friendly part out of the organic equation. As many small-scale organic farmers have argued, this is antithetical to the very idea of organic agriculture.
So here are a cornocopia of articles about organic milk production and the latest trend: large-scale "organic dairy operations" (an oxymoron). I'll try to keep this thread going about "what does organic really mean?" I also strongly recommend Michael Pollan's book _The Omnivore's Dilemma_ as he takes up this question in a thoughtful fashion. A great read! He distinguishes between small-scale organics and industrialized organics (EarthBound farms, for instance--the makers of the baby cut carrots and mixed green lettuce in a bag).
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/04/organic_milk.html
News: Can mega-dairies whose cows rarely get out to pasture still be called "organic"? And where's the government oversight?
By Cameron Scott April 26, 2006
2. “Wal-Mart’s Organic Offensive”
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2006/nf20060329_6971.htm
3. See also Business Week article on “The Organic Myth” Learn about Stonyfield Farms--how is their organic yogurt produced? Industrialized organic or small-scale organic?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_42/b4005001.htm
4. http://www.uh.edu/ednews/2006/bglobe/200603/20060327farms.htmlThe Boston Globe
Monday, March 27, 2006 "UNH sees organic future for farms." See what one university is trying to do about promoting organic farming in the sustainable tradition. This is notable as most dairy science programs do not stress organic milk production.
America’s dairies can’t produce enough.
By Lyric Wallwork Winik
Published: December 3, 2006, Parade Magazine
[In the News]
The Problem With Organic Food
"The U.S has about 9 million dairy cows, but fewer than 150,000 qualify as “organic”—so the makers of organic products must be resourceful. With organic food sales up 20% in recent years, at least one company is using soy milk from China and Brazil, and others are considering powdered organic milk from New Zealand. The good news for environmentalists: Organic means no pesticides were used. The bad news: Importing food from afar takes more fuel to get it to our plates."
It's good to see this coverage, but the question not answered in this soundbyte, is why are there fewer than 150,000 organic milk cows out of the nation's 9 million cows? Milk production in the U.S. is set up on the industrialized model. Most loans are for capital expansion for large dairy operations. Cummins from a Mother Jones article http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/04/organic_milk.html (see below) points out that “there’s a huge demand for organic products which has caused a shortage in supply because our public policy doesn’t help farmers make the transition [to organic]. So you either lower the standards or import from overseas.” What's tough about going organic? You can't use industrial feeds or fertilizers for three years; there are clear expenses involved in the transition. The article also discusses whether or not organic "mega-farms" should be called organic since they do not necessarily comply with pasture regulations (letting dairy cows graze for some of their food). In essence, large-scale organic dairy farms mean the cows are kept inside and fed the organic feed and no bovine growth hormones are used, which is good, but it defeats the purpose of the smaller-scale, pasture feeding operations that most imagine when they think of an organic dairy farm. Read on for more....
This does not mean that one should stop buying organic milk, but with the rise of large-scale organic milk operations and the USDA's allowance for that, it's important to think about what we are really buying when we buy organic: small-scale, local organic or large-scale industrialized organic? Large food companies have figured out that organic is profitable (Wal-mart & organics, fo instance)--so the farmers that supply these large chains are doing what they can to meet organic standards and cutting the sustainable and eco-friendly part out of the organic equation. As many small-scale organic farmers have argued, this is antithetical to the very idea of organic agriculture.
So here are a cornocopia of articles about organic milk production and the latest trend: large-scale "organic dairy operations" (an oxymoron). I'll try to keep this thread going about "what does organic really mean?" I also strongly recommend Michael Pollan's book _The Omnivore's Dilemma_ as he takes up this question in a thoughtful fashion. A great read! He distinguishes between small-scale organics and industrialized organics (EarthBound farms, for instance--the makers of the baby cut carrots and mixed green lettuce in a bag).
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/04/organic_milk.html
News: Can mega-dairies whose cows rarely get out to pasture still be called "organic"? And where's the government oversight?
By Cameron Scott April 26, 2006
2. “Wal-Mart’s Organic Offensive”
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2006/nf20060329_6971.htm
3. See also Business Week article on “The Organic Myth” Learn about Stonyfield Farms--how is their organic yogurt produced? Industrialized organic or small-scale organic?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_42/b4005001.htm
4. http://www.uh.edu/ednews/2006/bglobe/200603/20060327farms.htmlThe Boston Globe
Monday, March 27, 2006 "UNH sees organic future for farms." See what one university is trying to do about promoting organic farming in the sustainable tradition. This is notable as most dairy science programs do not stress organic milk production.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
The Future of Food in 2007
Nothing less than the future of food in the United States will be debated in the coming year: 2007. The United States is due for a New Farm Bill. Most folks don't worry about the Farm Bill, thinking, of course, that there is no reason to think about it unless one is a politician in a rural state, a farmer, a grocery store chain owner, a large commodity trader, or an executive in a Big Food company. After all, Farm Bill or not, there will be still be (we hope or believe) the plentiful food supply we are all used to since WWII. Well, guess what, by ceding the formation of the farm bill to politicians and powerful special interest groups, we (yes WE--and I include myself in this number) have worked to ensure what the Community Food Security Coalition has referred to as "an unfortunate legacy of fewer farmers, lost farmland, unhealthy and hungry children, and polluted water and air" (Community Food Security News, Fall 2006). Yes, food is still fairly cheap compared to other commodities and readily available for many who can afford it, but at what cost to the environment, to public health, to small farmers?
Well, there is something we can all do about it--endorse the Kellogg Foundation's coalition project "The Farm and Food Policy Project," which we can all learn more about at:
http://www.farmandfoodproject.org/
I'm also posting the statement from the website. For those of us who do work with Food Politics issues in our Writing 205 courses here at Syracuse, this may be an interesting debate to engage in with our students: the question of how public policy has helped to create the loss of the small farm, the rise of the global obesity epidemic, the continuance of hunger in the U.S. and elsewhere, and the loss of farm land to overdevelopment and poor community planning. Researching the formation of this policy and its impact will be an interesting project and an eye-opener. Illiteracy about agriculture, about agricultural policy is at an all-time high in our nation because most of us have bought into the theory that food is simply there--cheap (relatively speaking), plentiful (always there), safe to eat (think twice about it since the latest spinach debacle), and safely produced (let's talk about pesticides, genetically modified organisms and migrant labor exploitation). There's plenty of good to go around, too. I'm not trying to be totally gloom and doom: the resurgence of local and regional farmers' markets, the rise of local organic agriculture and community-supported agriculture, urban community garden projects, school food learning projects and community gardens, the Slow Food movement. But we have a long ways to go to make those localized programs more a part of the larger national food framework.
Here's the statement:
"The Farm and Food Policy Project
A diverse coalition of family farm, sustainable agriculture, rural, public health, anti-hunger, environmental, faith-based, and other groups is forming to shape the 2007 Farm Bill.
The cross-sector approach of the Farm and Food Policy Project (FFPP) reflects a commitment to policy reforms that address the full spectrum of public needs addressed by this critical piece of legislation.
This broad and growing coalition believes that by working together, it can make real progress toward supporting family farms and local communities, improving health and nutrition, ending hunger, and increasing biodiversity and improving the quality of our soil, water and air.
Underlying the project's dialogue is a shared set of beliefs and values, which are:
• A widespread and diverse family farm system benefits rural communities and society as a whole;
• Extensive hunger and food insecurity in the United States are unacceptable;
• Strong stewardship commitments are key to maintaining farm and food systems into the future that will promote environmental and public health for our children;
• Stimulating new markets and restoring competition to the marketplace are vital to a fair, sustainable food system;
• Rectifying historic patterns of discrimination and making farm and food policies more responsive to an increasingly diverse society are critically important; and
• Rural and urban communities can work together to create a healthier food system.
The FFPP believes that all the major sections of the Farm Bill - commodity, nutrition, rural development, credit, conservation, research, and energy - hold significant opportunities for crafting more cost-effective and higher-impact policies that can increase farm profitability and improve the health of individuals, communities, and the environment.
In November 2006, FFPP will release a public statement - endorsed by a broad public interest coalition - identifying core priorities and opportunities for innovation in four areas:
1.) Advancing a new generation in farming and fostering market-based solutions
2.) Reducing food insecurity and enhancing public health
3.) Capitalizing on rural community strength to enhance economic viability
4.) Rewarding stewardship and improving environmental quality."
The organization plans to release a more specific statement about how they will influence the Farm Bill in the next week or so, so I will continue to blog about this. I'm also working on a chapter in my book _New Agrarian Rhetorics_, which will consider the public debate over this Farm Bill and past ones.
If you eat, you have a stake in agriculture.
Well, there is something we can all do about it--endorse the Kellogg Foundation's coalition project "The Farm and Food Policy Project," which we can all learn more about at:
http://www.farmandfoodproject.org/
I'm also posting the statement from the website. For those of us who do work with Food Politics issues in our Writing 205 courses here at Syracuse, this may be an interesting debate to engage in with our students: the question of how public policy has helped to create the loss of the small farm, the rise of the global obesity epidemic, the continuance of hunger in the U.S. and elsewhere, and the loss of farm land to overdevelopment and poor community planning. Researching the formation of this policy and its impact will be an interesting project and an eye-opener. Illiteracy about agriculture, about agricultural policy is at an all-time high in our nation because most of us have bought into the theory that food is simply there--cheap (relatively speaking), plentiful (always there), safe to eat (think twice about it since the latest spinach debacle), and safely produced (let's talk about pesticides, genetically modified organisms and migrant labor exploitation). There's plenty of good to go around, too. I'm not trying to be totally gloom and doom: the resurgence of local and regional farmers' markets, the rise of local organic agriculture and community-supported agriculture, urban community garden projects, school food learning projects and community gardens, the Slow Food movement. But we have a long ways to go to make those localized programs more a part of the larger national food framework.
Here's the statement:
"The Farm and Food Policy Project
A diverse coalition of family farm, sustainable agriculture, rural, public health, anti-hunger, environmental, faith-based, and other groups is forming to shape the 2007 Farm Bill.
The cross-sector approach of the Farm and Food Policy Project (FFPP) reflects a commitment to policy reforms that address the full spectrum of public needs addressed by this critical piece of legislation.
This broad and growing coalition believes that by working together, it can make real progress toward supporting family farms and local communities, improving health and nutrition, ending hunger, and increasing biodiversity and improving the quality of our soil, water and air.
Underlying the project's dialogue is a shared set of beliefs and values, which are:
• A widespread and diverse family farm system benefits rural communities and society as a whole;
• Extensive hunger and food insecurity in the United States are unacceptable;
• Strong stewardship commitments are key to maintaining farm and food systems into the future that will promote environmental and public health for our children;
• Stimulating new markets and restoring competition to the marketplace are vital to a fair, sustainable food system;
• Rectifying historic patterns of discrimination and making farm and food policies more responsive to an increasingly diverse society are critically important; and
• Rural and urban communities can work together to create a healthier food system.
The FFPP believes that all the major sections of the Farm Bill - commodity, nutrition, rural development, credit, conservation, research, and energy - hold significant opportunities for crafting more cost-effective and higher-impact policies that can increase farm profitability and improve the health of individuals, communities, and the environment.
In November 2006, FFPP will release a public statement - endorsed by a broad public interest coalition - identifying core priorities and opportunities for innovation in four areas:
1.) Advancing a new generation in farming and fostering market-based solutions
2.) Reducing food insecurity and enhancing public health
3.) Capitalizing on rural community strength to enhance economic viability
4.) Rewarding stewardship and improving environmental quality."
The organization plans to release a more specific statement about how they will influence the Farm Bill in the next week or so, so I will continue to blog about this. I'm also working on a chapter in my book _New Agrarian Rhetorics_, which will consider the public debate over this Farm Bill and past ones.
If you eat, you have a stake in agriculture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
