I enjoy the Octalogue entries (I & II) because they are mini-manifestos!
I’ll be progressively blogging over the next few days, but I wanted to comment in particular on Octalogue II, which sets an agenda, in many ways, for a course in historical study.
From Octalogue II:
“Serving Time in the Archives” “Where were the women? The people of color” (Ferreira-Buckley 26).
Ferreira-Buckley makes an excellent point about the nature of archival work: many of us do not receive training in the ways to conduct traditional research, and such research takes a lot of time and resources (travel to archives, time to sift through archival boxes, make sense of documents, etc). There is also the problem of language—knowing Hebrew, Greek, Latin well enough to read and translate texts. Ferreira Buckley worries that our obsession with theory and with its narrative structures will make for shallow or under researched histories. I find this an honest and reflective account. She raises many strong points about the nature of archival research: its material demands, in particular. But I want some thoughts from her about what it means to try to address, overcome, and/or compensate for these factors? What are ways that graduate schools should try to address these problems? With the speed-up productivity pressure around publication, how can academic departments and promotion and tenure committees factor in the time it takes to do traditional historical research?
“Storiography and Rhetoric and Composition”
Lauer writes critically of the ways in which our histories of the field are compromised by shallow methods of study.. She is particularly critical of how graduate students consume histories of the field: portraying historical figures as heroes or villains or as examples of particular theoretical categories. She makes a good point that there is a tendency to “fix” historical figures and scholars into a particular time and place instead of acknowledging how such figures/scholars grow and change over time, develop new ideas, take new directions. She opposes the static way in which some of us tend to read in the field: fixing a particular piece in time instead of trying to read it in context. What Lauer does not address are the ways in which the field itself helps perpetuate static readings through its writing of histories where hero/villain narratives are commonplace: e.g., Fred Newton Scott (hero) and Adams Sherman Hill (villain) in Berlin and Connors. I love Robin Varnum’s history of composition at Amherst College Fencing with Words because she avoids the binaries.
More later!
Monday, September 03, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Going Back to the Land as Genre
Last night, I picked up a copy of Barbara Kingsolver's new book _Animal, Vegetable, Mineral_. A couple of folks said to me that they thought I'd like it because of my interest in local agriculture and sustainability. I'm up to page 70, and I am enjoying it. If you have not read it, the plot runs like this: Kingsolver moves from Arizona with her family (two daughters and husband) back to their "summer" farm in southern Appalachia. They have spent many summers there, but they are now going back to live--live off their land and feed themselves locally. The motive is living a more sustainable and connected lifestyle. Kingsolver lyrically describes the family's movement back into the local "foodshed." Her youngest daughter gives up Pop-Tarts. They all give up fresh fruit out of season. She describes the pleasures of gardening: growing asparagus and the coming promise of spring and green eatables.
Kingsolver mentions Gary Nabhan early on in the book. Gary is author of _Coming Home to Eat_, a wonderful book about Nabhan's attempts to eat locally in the Arizona desert. This is not an easy thing because it means making bread of mesquite flour and scavenging local cacti.
So Kingsolver does see herself writing in the genre of "going back to the land," the genre familiar to so many of us from reading _Walden_. As a matter of fact, she mirrors lines from Thoreau.
While there is much to like about Kingsolver's book, I can't help but feel a bit impatient with it even as I am enjoying it. These are familiar moves--write about reconnecting with your own local food shed. Michael Pollan's book _The Omnivore's Dilemma_ deals with this theme, in part, although the scope of his book is larger. This is becoming a rhetorical commonplace in the middle-class writer's life. Tell the story of reconnecting with nature and local food. Humorously describe your own struggles to move away from grocery store consumerism to local food webs. Lyrically describe the green shoots coming up in the garden. Talk about the value of the local farmer. Yadda, yadda, yadda...OK, I'm being too sarcastic.
This book will get people's attention. Barbara Kingsolver is an accomplished writer, she is well-known and much-loved. People will read her book, they will be affected, they will make changes-hopefully. Her husband Steven Hopp has included side bars in the book introducing ecological concepts and sustainable farming. She does point out how High-fructose corn syrup is leading to obesity. She points out the connection between fossil fuel use and food production (food miles--how far food travels to the table). She discusses the public policies that have made local agriculture difficult in the face of industrialized agriculture (The Farm Bill as the Farm Kill). OK, so she does a lot of teaching in this book.
There have been people preaching this message for years: small-scale farmers!!, sustainable farmers, organic farmers, community food security people, Slow Food advocates, farmers' market directors, rural folks with a lick of good sense in their heads. I guess for it to filter into middle class consciousness, it will take someone like Kingsolver or Pollan. Who wants to listen to a real farmer or rural person with a backyard garden?
Again, I'm trying to contain my critique so I can read the book and enjoy it. But I can't help but feel frustrated when I read Kingsolver. What she describes about eating seasonally was what I grew up with. We grew a big garden, canned fruit and vegetables for the winter,, ate locally as much as we could, including wild game. Eating locally, as she pointed out, the way a lot of rural people live and continue to live when they have a plot of land to scratch around in and not much money to burn. We lived this way because it was less money, we had the land, and we had the time, and we were tied ot the seasons and the soil. We lived this way, too, because my mom and Dad were depression era babies who knew that food shortages could happen. Ecology was just common sense, and food from the garden was good and fresh and cheap. Now that doesn't mean, though, that my Dad wasn't spraying pesticides on our commercial apple and pear orchards. He thoroughly bought into industrialized agriculture--after all, he had two degrees from land-grant institutions--WSU and Cornell-- where the latest technology was promoted. After all, the American consumer couldn't accept an apple with worm holes or aphid bites. So our family was contradictory; local food to eat, industrialized growing of apples and pears for export and domestic markets. Some of our apples made the journey by container ship to Japan.
What Kingsolver is trying to accomplish is not only the rendering of her experience, but a strong message about returning to the local--a message directed at those who are disconnected from the local. People will point to her book as a guide or an inspiration. I think it's an important book, but one I feel conflicted about for reasons I'm still figuring out.
Anyway, more to think about.....
Kingsolver mentions Gary Nabhan early on in the book. Gary is author of _Coming Home to Eat_, a wonderful book about Nabhan's attempts to eat locally in the Arizona desert. This is not an easy thing because it means making bread of mesquite flour and scavenging local cacti.
So Kingsolver does see herself writing in the genre of "going back to the land," the genre familiar to so many of us from reading _Walden_. As a matter of fact, she mirrors lines from Thoreau.
While there is much to like about Kingsolver's book, I can't help but feel a bit impatient with it even as I am enjoying it. These are familiar moves--write about reconnecting with your own local food shed. Michael Pollan's book _The Omnivore's Dilemma_ deals with this theme, in part, although the scope of his book is larger. This is becoming a rhetorical commonplace in the middle-class writer's life. Tell the story of reconnecting with nature and local food. Humorously describe your own struggles to move away from grocery store consumerism to local food webs. Lyrically describe the green shoots coming up in the garden. Talk about the value of the local farmer. Yadda, yadda, yadda...OK, I'm being too sarcastic.
This book will get people's attention. Barbara Kingsolver is an accomplished writer, she is well-known and much-loved. People will read her book, they will be affected, they will make changes-hopefully. Her husband Steven Hopp has included side bars in the book introducing ecological concepts and sustainable farming. She does point out how High-fructose corn syrup is leading to obesity. She points out the connection between fossil fuel use and food production (food miles--how far food travels to the table). She discusses the public policies that have made local agriculture difficult in the face of industrialized agriculture (The Farm Bill as the Farm Kill). OK, so she does a lot of teaching in this book.
There have been people preaching this message for years: small-scale farmers!!, sustainable farmers, organic farmers, community food security people, Slow Food advocates, farmers' market directors, rural folks with a lick of good sense in their heads. I guess for it to filter into middle class consciousness, it will take someone like Kingsolver or Pollan. Who wants to listen to a real farmer or rural person with a backyard garden?
Again, I'm trying to contain my critique so I can read the book and enjoy it. But I can't help but feel frustrated when I read Kingsolver. What she describes about eating seasonally was what I grew up with. We grew a big garden, canned fruit and vegetables for the winter,, ate locally as much as we could, including wild game. Eating locally, as she pointed out, the way a lot of rural people live and continue to live when they have a plot of land to scratch around in and not much money to burn. We lived this way because it was less money, we had the land, and we had the time, and we were tied ot the seasons and the soil. We lived this way, too, because my mom and Dad were depression era babies who knew that food shortages could happen. Ecology was just common sense, and food from the garden was good and fresh and cheap. Now that doesn't mean, though, that my Dad wasn't spraying pesticides on our commercial apple and pear orchards. He thoroughly bought into industrialized agriculture--after all, he had two degrees from land-grant institutions--WSU and Cornell-- where the latest technology was promoted. After all, the American consumer couldn't accept an apple with worm holes or aphid bites. So our family was contradictory; local food to eat, industrialized growing of apples and pears for export and domestic markets. Some of our apples made the journey by container ship to Japan.
What Kingsolver is trying to accomplish is not only the rendering of her experience, but a strong message about returning to the local--a message directed at those who are disconnected from the local. People will point to her book as a guide or an inspiration. I think it's an important book, but one I feel conflicted about for reasons I'm still figuring out.
Anyway, more to think about.....
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Getting Back into the Swing
Well, this has been a significant blog hiatus with my last entry in mid-April. C'mon, what happened?
Well, I interviewed for the position of Chair of my Department for one. That slowed me down some, and now that I've taken on the role, I'm finding it hard to get much time for anything. A double whammy. But what really made me stop writing and posting in April were the shootings at Virginia Tech. You see, I used to work there in the English Department--the same English Department where the shooter took classes. I know people who were affected by the shootings--colleagues, former students. It was eerie to watch the broadcasts and see familiar buildings and hear familiar names. Then I went down to Virginia Tech for a Research Symposium ten days after the shootings. It was a good trip, but being there brought the devastation home. So I didn't feel much like posting for awhile.
But I'm going to try to get back into the swing of things and post more.
One thing I've been thinking about a lot is food safety and the stories coming out about China's food industry. I've posted a bit before about food safety in the U.S.--ecoli in bagged spinach, for instance. But the situation in China really takes the cake. First it is tainted pet food, then toothpaste, then a variety of foodstuffs. Don't get me wrong--we have our own struggles with food safety in the U.S. Eric Schlosser tells us in _Fast Food Nation_ that it's easier to recall a child's toy than it is to recall tainted meat that can kill people. So we have our own problems. But the lack of regulation in China is serious business, and it is garnering serious media attention. I wonder what the global impact will be? How quickly will China address the regulation issue? What economic losses will be incurred for these exposes? How will the public discourse on the issue impact production, distribution, and buying?
Anyway, it's late. I'm exhausted. More another time!
Well, I interviewed for the position of Chair of my Department for one. That slowed me down some, and now that I've taken on the role, I'm finding it hard to get much time for anything. A double whammy. But what really made me stop writing and posting in April were the shootings at Virginia Tech. You see, I used to work there in the English Department--the same English Department where the shooter took classes. I know people who were affected by the shootings--colleagues, former students. It was eerie to watch the broadcasts and see familiar buildings and hear familiar names. Then I went down to Virginia Tech for a Research Symposium ten days after the shootings. It was a good trip, but being there brought the devastation home. So I didn't feel much like posting for awhile.
But I'm going to try to get back into the swing of things and post more.
One thing I've been thinking about a lot is food safety and the stories coming out about China's food industry. I've posted a bit before about food safety in the U.S.--ecoli in bagged spinach, for instance. But the situation in China really takes the cake. First it is tainted pet food, then toothpaste, then a variety of foodstuffs. Don't get me wrong--we have our own struggles with food safety in the U.S. Eric Schlosser tells us in _Fast Food Nation_ that it's easier to recall a child's toy than it is to recall tainted meat that can kill people. So we have our own problems. But the lack of regulation in China is serious business, and it is garnering serious media attention. I wonder what the global impact will be? How quickly will China address the regulation issue? What economic losses will be incurred for these exposes? How will the public discourse on the issue impact production, distribution, and buying?
Anyway, it's late. I'm exhausted. More another time!
Saturday, April 14, 2007
April is the cruelest month: The Killing Frost
What is a killing frost to those of who live largely indoor lives? It's probably not much to us other than turning up the heat or putting an extra blanket on the bed. Maybe if we're gardeners, we worry about our spring plants. As food consumers, we may see higher prices in the grocery store for food. But it's so much more to those who cultivate the earth for a living. As I've noted in other blog entries, the weather has stayed with me as a constant concern after growing up on an apple orchard in eastern Washington State. A killing frost can mean the difference between money in the bank and foreclosure. Recently, there was a spectacularly bad killing frost in Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky and other states that wiped out the pecan, peach, and apple crops among others. This on the heels of a horrible killing frost in CA for the citrus crop--see my January blog entry on that and on crop insurance. Perhaps some of you heard the NPR interview with Robert Chapman from Zebulon, GA who lost his whole peach crop. I've included a link below the audio file of the NPR interview plus an overview CNN interview. You won't forget it soon if you listen to Chapman talk about the fate of his crops, the role of the weather in farming, and his fatalistic attitude.
Peach crop is a 90% disaster
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WEATHER/04/12/frozen.crops.ap/index.html
Go to NPR and listen to peach farmer Robert Chapman from Zebulon, GA
http://216.35.221.77/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9554303
"
"A 25-degree freeze on Easter Sunday blackened the insides of Chapman's peach crop, which provides most of his income.
While Chapman's bushes and trees will still bear fruit next year, he says he may have to find another job in the meantime. Farmers throughout the region report heavy crop losses and are bracing for another expected cold snap next week."
Here's a typical April and May night on the Schell and Schell apple and pear orchard when it was in business:
In the morning, the radio broadcast the fruit farm report and in the spring the fruit frost forecast, which we listened to intently because all depended on its predictions about wind and air temperature and the likelihood of a killing frost. When the temperature dropped near freezing, often at 2 or 3 a.m. in the morning, my parents took measures to save the crop. To keep the apple and pear buds from freezing, my father, mother, and the hired men set out smudge pots, large blackened pots full of heating oil that resembled a cross between a genie’s bottle and a stove pipe. The pots sat squarely in the rows and when the temperature dropped, they lit the pots with a punk, a wick on a butane canister, resembling a giant-sized cigarette lighter. The fuel caught fire and produced a blue flame and smoke, which was piped through the pot’s chimney and burner holes. The heat emitted by the pots warmed the air and protected the precious buds. We called it "firing season."
For my mother and father and any of us on frost patrol, the nights were filled with watching the pots, a lonely exercise of walking the darkened rows of apple and pear trees illumined by the pots’ eerie orange glow. If the temperature continued to drop, the burner holes were opened to full capacity and the fire sucked in the oxygen and omitted more heat. Out in the orchards, one’s mind could wander and noises were magnified; a crash a few rows away could be a coyote or a neighbor’s dog or perhaps a cougar prowling its territory. A satellite blinking overhead could become a UF0. At first the chill and the uncertainty brought on by sudden noises kept one awake. As the night waned into the early light of morning, it was easy to become languid, the orchard rows warming and causing one to feel a pleasant, distant sensation while walking. Periodic checks of the thermometer stations positioned at key points in the orchard indicated whether the temperature was rising sufficiently or if there would be damage to the crops. A few hours of frost meant the buds were diminished and the fruit would be light or even non-existent.
Later came the electricity powered wind machines, the $15,000 towers with airplane-like propellers that circulate the air at night. The thwock-thwock-thwock of the machines could be heard across the valley all night, circulating the cooler air with the warm air. Even then, losses were still possible.
I remember one night in 1999 (late April/early May) when I was visiting Cashmere and on research leave, my mom was out of town, so I took her place as part of a two-person "firing" team that included my brother Mike and me. Earlier that night, Mike asked me to keep the phone by the bed and when he called, to check the temperature and turn on the wind machine on our Flowery Divide property, Later he asked me to come over to the Hansen place at around 3 a.m., one of our other orchards where he had pots set up to warm the buds. We kept adjusting the burners on the pots and trying to warm the air, but we couldn't get the temperature up over 30 in some places. The temperature just kept dropping. At one point, I started praying. At another point, I was swearing. Eventually, I was just numb and resigned, walking up and down the rows to check the pots. As the day dawned, we lost quite a bit of the crop on that place. I remember that we drove back to the farmhouse deflated and had breakfast. We did all we could to warm the air, and we still lost out against the elements that night. This was just one of many nights that Mike faced during his 20 plus years in farming.
Just a few memories. Even thinking about it gets the adrenaline going....
T.S. Eliot was right that April is the cruelest month.
Peach crop is a 90% disaster
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WEATHER/04/12/frozen.crops.ap/index.html
Go to NPR and listen to peach farmer Robert Chapman from Zebulon, GA
http://216.35.221.77/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9554303
"
"A 25-degree freeze on Easter Sunday blackened the insides of Chapman's peach crop, which provides most of his income.
While Chapman's bushes and trees will still bear fruit next year, he says he may have to find another job in the meantime. Farmers throughout the region report heavy crop losses and are bracing for another expected cold snap next week."
Here's a typical April and May night on the Schell and Schell apple and pear orchard when it was in business:
In the morning, the radio broadcast the fruit farm report and in the spring the fruit frost forecast, which we listened to intently because all depended on its predictions about wind and air temperature and the likelihood of a killing frost. When the temperature dropped near freezing, often at 2 or 3 a.m. in the morning, my parents took measures to save the crop. To keep the apple and pear buds from freezing, my father, mother, and the hired men set out smudge pots, large blackened pots full of heating oil that resembled a cross between a genie’s bottle and a stove pipe. The pots sat squarely in the rows and when the temperature dropped, they lit the pots with a punk, a wick on a butane canister, resembling a giant-sized cigarette lighter. The fuel caught fire and produced a blue flame and smoke, which was piped through the pot’s chimney and burner holes. The heat emitted by the pots warmed the air and protected the precious buds. We called it "firing season."
For my mother and father and any of us on frost patrol, the nights were filled with watching the pots, a lonely exercise of walking the darkened rows of apple and pear trees illumined by the pots’ eerie orange glow. If the temperature continued to drop, the burner holes were opened to full capacity and the fire sucked in the oxygen and omitted more heat. Out in the orchards, one’s mind could wander and noises were magnified; a crash a few rows away could be a coyote or a neighbor’s dog or perhaps a cougar prowling its territory. A satellite blinking overhead could become a UF0. At first the chill and the uncertainty brought on by sudden noises kept one awake. As the night waned into the early light of morning, it was easy to become languid, the orchard rows warming and causing one to feel a pleasant, distant sensation while walking. Periodic checks of the thermometer stations positioned at key points in the orchard indicated whether the temperature was rising sufficiently or if there would be damage to the crops. A few hours of frost meant the buds were diminished and the fruit would be light or even non-existent.
Later came the electricity powered wind machines, the $15,000 towers with airplane-like propellers that circulate the air at night. The thwock-thwock-thwock of the machines could be heard across the valley all night, circulating the cooler air with the warm air. Even then, losses were still possible.
I remember one night in 1999 (late April/early May) when I was visiting Cashmere and on research leave, my mom was out of town, so I took her place as part of a two-person "firing" team that included my brother Mike and me. Earlier that night, Mike asked me to keep the phone by the bed and when he called, to check the temperature and turn on the wind machine on our Flowery Divide property, Later he asked me to come over to the Hansen place at around 3 a.m., one of our other orchards where he had pots set up to warm the buds. We kept adjusting the burners on the pots and trying to warm the air, but we couldn't get the temperature up over 30 in some places. The temperature just kept dropping. At one point, I started praying. At another point, I was swearing. Eventually, I was just numb and resigned, walking up and down the rows to check the pots. As the day dawned, we lost quite a bit of the crop on that place. I remember that we drove back to the farmhouse deflated and had breakfast. We did all we could to warm the air, and we still lost out against the elements that night. This was just one of many nights that Mike faced during his 20 plus years in farming.
Just a few memories. Even thinking about it gets the adrenaline going....
T.S. Eliot was right that April is the cruelest month.
Friday, April 13, 2007
The Myth of the Noble Farmer
Brad Andrews took Tom Kerr's Public Essay class at Ithaca College and produced this really interesting critique of the myth of the noble farmer. Brad is the son of a former dairy farmer. As Brad points out, there is a tendency to rhapsodize about farm life and romanticize it, especially from the outside perspective. Brad debunks the myths, points out the hard, unremitting labor of dairy farming and, ultimately, notes that he was banned from farming by his father even as the Andrews family farm was auctioned.
Yet farming is clearly in his blood--he remembers it all even while decrying it. Thanks for writing this, Brad, and thanks for your honesty. Many of us want to see small farmers stay on their land and stay in farming, but you've indicated the strenuous work, hardships and struggle involved in the daily life.
Keeping telling the story, Brad.
The Myth of the Noble Farmer
Brad Andrews
The noble farmer. Each day he rises with the sun to begin his daily routine. He feeds his animals, milks his cows, and cleans his barn. . .all before breakfast. Later in the day, he'll go into his vast fields and harvest his crops. As the sun sets, he'll be back in the barn, milking and feeding once more. Then it's off to bed, only to rise again in the morning and repeat the same process.
It's easy to wax poetic about farming. It's a "simple" life, and in a world in which technology is growing exponentially and life seems to be moving at a faster pace, there's something appealing about a life working in nature's splendor, far away from the hustle and bustle of urban city life.
Not only is farming a simple life, the work almost seems to be a divine calling. There's a sense that farming is what people were "meant" to do. Humans have been farming for several millennia, and the general process hasn't changed that much. Farmers reach into the fertile soil and pull out the fruits of God's bounty.
Having grown up on a dairy farm in New York state, I can tell you: the "simple" life isn't nearly as simple as it sounds. The myth of the "noble farmer" tends to leave out one important fact: being a farmer is hard. It's back-breaking, dangerous, low-paying work with brutally long hours.
Let's look at a typical day for a "real" farmer:
6 a.m. - Awake and out to the barn to start work (milking cows/feeding animals)
Here's the thing about waking up at 6 a.m. every morning: it sucks. If you're the type that needs eight hours of sleep every night, you're hitting the hay at 10 p.m. each and every day.
But not only are you awake at 6 a.m., you're working at 6 a.m. Morning chores aren't especially brutal: they mainly consist of milking the cows and feeding all the animals. But the farmer is still on his feet for most of the morning, and on top of that, the farmer is required to squat down to put on and remove the milking machine from the cow. You may be thinking, "Squatting down? Big deal." Consider this though: if a farmer is milking 100 cows, that's at least 200 deep knee bends every morning. That's probably not good for your knees.
8:30 a.m. - Home for a quick breakfast.
If the farmer is lucky, she will not only have time to eat, but to grab a quick nap. The farmer's still got a tough day ahead, so any sleep is golden.
9:30 a.m. - Back to the barn to feed the animals again and take care of various other tasks (ridding the barn of manure, etc.)
One thing about animals that it's hard to grasp until you raise a herd of them is the fact that they tend to defecate. A lot. And if the animals are in a barn, that manure piles up (quickly). One of the more unpleasant tasks for the farmer is removing this manure from the barn.
Most farms will have a "barn cleaner" in at least the largest barn on the farm. Basically, the barn cleaner is a conveyor belt of sorts that manure can be shoveled/scraped/pushed into. The cleaner will then (slowly) take the manure outside into a waiting manure spreader.
For smaller barns or barns with no cleaner, however, the manure-removal task is far more strenuous. As much fun as shoveling manure into a spreader is, I’d be very happy to never have to do it again. Let's just say that I don't enjoy cow manure splashing on my face. (An admittedly infrequent but still all-too-common occurrence while shoveling.)
Noon - Home for a quick lunch.
Same as breakfast: eat and then sleep if you can.
1 p.m. - Out to the fields for harvesting or related work.
The myth of the noble farmer makes it seems like growing crops is easy as pie, like the soil was just made for growing plants. Not true. Besides all the possible weather nightmares, the soil itself is less conducive to plant growth than one might think. This is because most soil is loaded with large rocks, which damage plows and other machines and hinder plant growth. These rocks must be removed from the field before plowing. Let me tell you something: you haven't experienced boredom until you've spent an afternoon picking rocks out of an empty field.
Once the crops are ready, it's time for harvesting. This is not enjoyable. Corn harvesting involves driving a tractor and a combine around in circles. Believe me, if you sit on a tractor (especially an older model) for an afternoon and drive around you will be at best bored and at worst insane. The tractor is noisy and it vibrates, which can cause great pain and headaches for the tractor operator after a few hours. (Yes, some larger farmers are lucky enough to have SuperTractors with air conditioning and radios and all kinds of cool stuff. I’ll assume that makes their lives a little easier.)
The hay harvest is even less enjoyable. First, there’s the drive-in-circles step, as with corn, but then there’s the fun of “unloading” the hay. After the hay bales are brought back to the farm in a wagon, they must be loaded into the barn or hayloft. Usually a few workers carry the bales off the wagon and place them on a conveyor belt of sorts (“elevator” in farm lingo) that takes the bales to the hayloft. The hayloft is where the real party’s at, as a few unfortunate workers stack the bales into neat piles while dealing with the triple-digit temperatures and general lack of oxygen in the loft.
4:30 p.m. - Home again for a very brief break.
Basically just a chance to catch one's breath before another milking session.
5 p.m. - Repeat the 6 a.m. routine.
The day ends with more milking and lots more deep knee bends to remove milking machines. It’s a rough experience after having worked the whole day already.
7:30 p.m. - Done for the day. Hopefully.
Let's do some math. What we see here is a 13 1/2 hour workday. Granted, there are breaks spread out through the day, but even removing those breaks it's still an 11-hour day. Yes, farmers are hardly the only occupation that works long days, but keep this in mind: farmers never get a day off. Ever. Animals need to be fed and milked and cared for each and every day. Even if a farmer decides to take a "day off," these tasks still need to be completed. Therefore, an "off day" for a farmer still consists of at least a 5 or 6 hour workday.
All this means that a farmer is pulling at least a 60-80 hour workweek. Every week. It's no wonder so many farmers require their children to come out to the barn and help out with chores; they'd barely see their own kids otherwise.
And even a working week as "short" as 60 hours requires that nothing goes wrong. Unfortunately, one of the many challenges with farming is that something is always going wrong. When I'm at school, I try to limit my phone calls home because they are always depressing. Every conversation with my dad starts with, "Let me tell you about the day I had today." He then proceeds to tell me how a tractor broke, or that a cow died for no reason, or that the cows broke a fence and wandered downtown, or that the water pipes exploded and flooded the barn or that it hasn’t rained in a month or....
The list goes on and on. So many things can go wrong on a farm; therefore a farmer has to be more than just a farmer. He must be a mechanic, a veterinarian, a carpenter, a meteorologist, a plumber, or anything else that the farm needs. And, really any disaster is possible.
The weather is a constant source of concern. Admittedly, a job in which one can work with nature is a special gift. When the sun is shining and the birds are singing, it's hard not to be grateful for the opportunity to work outdoors in the sun. Nature can be a very beautiful thing.
Nature can also be a bitch. One of the hardest parts of farming is the fact that the well-being of the farm is completely and absolutely at the mercy of nature. Too much rain and the farmer is screwed. Too little rain and the farmer is screwed. Too many cloudy days and the crops will die. Too many sunny days and the crops will fry.
To illustrate just much weather can make a difference, here's a story from Summer 2005. My family's farm is located about three miles from another local farm. The two farms planted their corn at roughly the same time and used the same brands of seed and fertilizer. For some reason, our farm got 2.5 moreinches of rain this summer. We got a 25% higher yield from the corn. Thanks to 2.5 inches of additional rain. That's nothing, but it shows just how vulnerable the crops are to any weather changes.
As bad as my phone calls with my dad can be when he’s complaining about the weather, I'm always glad to just be talking to my dad on a given night; it means that he survived the day. Farming is among the world's most dangerous occupations. Hundreds of farmers die each year in the United States.730 farm workers perished in 2002 alone. Farmers are seven times more likely to die on the job than the average American worker. In addition to the high death rate, a staggering 150,000 farmers suffer a disabling injury each year.
Danger lurks in every part of a farmer's day. Cows may seem slow-witted and generally benevolent, but they are large, powerful animals with the ability to seriously injure a person. Farmers are very often victims of a damaging kick (my own father has been kicked in the face more times than he'd care to remember). A stampede can also result in devastating consequences.
Machinery is also very dangerous. One of a farmer’s worst nightmares is getting an arm or a leg caught in a running machine. (A very real possibility, unfortunately.)
There are a million other ways to get hurt on a farm. One of my uncles had to have shrapnel removed from his face when a piece of equipment exploded, shooting hot metal into his head. My other uncle was nearly crushed by a full wagon that broke off from the tractor that was towing it and rolled back down a hill. Both were back at work the same day. To them, it’s all part of the job.
As bad as farming can be, maybe milking cows for a living wouldn't be so bad if it were, you know, profitable. Another thing about farmers that's not mentioned in the myth of the "noble farmer" is that farmers don't get paid squat. As of this moment, the companies buy milk for is $15.33 per 100 pounds of milk, which works out to just $1.22 a gallon. Not included in that price is the fact that farmers have to pay milk companies to come get their milk.
$1.22 a gallon. Less than half of what a gallon of milk goes for at the average store. Not to mention that milk companies can also use some excess butterfat from each gallon for other dairy products. The price milk companies are offering farmers remained more or less constant for nearly three decades until rising from the $12-$13/per 100 range up to its current $15-$16 range in only the past few years. Hardly keeping up with inflation (or what milk has been sold for in stores).
With these prices, an average dairy farmer will maybe bring home $20,000-$30,000 a year. There are lower salaries out in there in the American workforce, but not many workers are pulling 80-hour workweeks to get those low salaries.
So let's see: low pay, long hours, and a high risk of injury? It's no wonder so many small farms are closing down in this country. Who would want this job? My own father forbade me from even considering farming as a potential occupation. (Not that he really needed to worry about that.) And I know he's not the only farmer who has given that mandate to his children.
Even if my father hadn’t barred me from farming, I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to take over the family farm anyway. In April 2006, Andrews Dairy Farm will hold an auction to sell its cows and milking equipment. Facing mounting debt, my father and my uncles decided it was best to sell out now while they still were young enough to find new careers.
The auction will be a sad and frightening day for our family. Farming is all we’ve ever really known, and the future is full of uncertainty and doubt for the Andrews clan.
But while I’m scared to death, I’m glad my father’s future won’t involve farming. If he hadn’t died on the job, he’d probably have worked himself to death eventually. Such is the life of the noble farmer.
Yet farming is clearly in his blood--he remembers it all even while decrying it. Thanks for writing this, Brad, and thanks for your honesty. Many of us want to see small farmers stay on their land and stay in farming, but you've indicated the strenuous work, hardships and struggle involved in the daily life.
Keeping telling the story, Brad.
The Myth of the Noble Farmer
Brad Andrews
The noble farmer. Each day he rises with the sun to begin his daily routine. He feeds his animals, milks his cows, and cleans his barn. . .all before breakfast. Later in the day, he'll go into his vast fields and harvest his crops. As the sun sets, he'll be back in the barn, milking and feeding once more. Then it's off to bed, only to rise again in the morning and repeat the same process.
It's easy to wax poetic about farming. It's a "simple" life, and in a world in which technology is growing exponentially and life seems to be moving at a faster pace, there's something appealing about a life working in nature's splendor, far away from the hustle and bustle of urban city life.
Not only is farming a simple life, the work almost seems to be a divine calling. There's a sense that farming is what people were "meant" to do. Humans have been farming for several millennia, and the general process hasn't changed that much. Farmers reach into the fertile soil and pull out the fruits of God's bounty.
Having grown up on a dairy farm in New York state, I can tell you: the "simple" life isn't nearly as simple as it sounds. The myth of the "noble farmer" tends to leave out one important fact: being a farmer is hard. It's back-breaking, dangerous, low-paying work with brutally long hours.
Let's look at a typical day for a "real" farmer:
6 a.m. - Awake and out to the barn to start work (milking cows/feeding animals)
Here's the thing about waking up at 6 a.m. every morning: it sucks. If you're the type that needs eight hours of sleep every night, you're hitting the hay at 10 p.m. each and every day.
But not only are you awake at 6 a.m., you're working at 6 a.m. Morning chores aren't especially brutal: they mainly consist of milking the cows and feeding all the animals. But the farmer is still on his feet for most of the morning, and on top of that, the farmer is required to squat down to put on and remove the milking machine from the cow. You may be thinking, "Squatting down? Big deal." Consider this though: if a farmer is milking 100 cows, that's at least 200 deep knee bends every morning. That's probably not good for your knees.
8:30 a.m. - Home for a quick breakfast.
If the farmer is lucky, she will not only have time to eat, but to grab a quick nap. The farmer's still got a tough day ahead, so any sleep is golden.
9:30 a.m. - Back to the barn to feed the animals again and take care of various other tasks (ridding the barn of manure, etc.)
One thing about animals that it's hard to grasp until you raise a herd of them is the fact that they tend to defecate. A lot. And if the animals are in a barn, that manure piles up (quickly). One of the more unpleasant tasks for the farmer is removing this manure from the barn.
Most farms will have a "barn cleaner" in at least the largest barn on the farm. Basically, the barn cleaner is a conveyor belt of sorts that manure can be shoveled/scraped/pushed into. The cleaner will then (slowly) take the manure outside into a waiting manure spreader.
For smaller barns or barns with no cleaner, however, the manure-removal task is far more strenuous. As much fun as shoveling manure into a spreader is, I’d be very happy to never have to do it again. Let's just say that I don't enjoy cow manure splashing on my face. (An admittedly infrequent but still all-too-common occurrence while shoveling.)
Noon - Home for a quick lunch.
Same as breakfast: eat and then sleep if you can.
1 p.m. - Out to the fields for harvesting or related work.
The myth of the noble farmer makes it seems like growing crops is easy as pie, like the soil was just made for growing plants. Not true. Besides all the possible weather nightmares, the soil itself is less conducive to plant growth than one might think. This is because most soil is loaded with large rocks, which damage plows and other machines and hinder plant growth. These rocks must be removed from the field before plowing. Let me tell you something: you haven't experienced boredom until you've spent an afternoon picking rocks out of an empty field.
Once the crops are ready, it's time for harvesting. This is not enjoyable. Corn harvesting involves driving a tractor and a combine around in circles. Believe me, if you sit on a tractor (especially an older model) for an afternoon and drive around you will be at best bored and at worst insane. The tractor is noisy and it vibrates, which can cause great pain and headaches for the tractor operator after a few hours. (Yes, some larger farmers are lucky enough to have SuperTractors with air conditioning and radios and all kinds of cool stuff. I’ll assume that makes their lives a little easier.)
The hay harvest is even less enjoyable. First, there’s the drive-in-circles step, as with corn, but then there’s the fun of “unloading” the hay. After the hay bales are brought back to the farm in a wagon, they must be loaded into the barn or hayloft. Usually a few workers carry the bales off the wagon and place them on a conveyor belt of sorts (“elevator” in farm lingo) that takes the bales to the hayloft. The hayloft is where the real party’s at, as a few unfortunate workers stack the bales into neat piles while dealing with the triple-digit temperatures and general lack of oxygen in the loft.
4:30 p.m. - Home again for a very brief break.
Basically just a chance to catch one's breath before another milking session.
5 p.m. - Repeat the 6 a.m. routine.
The day ends with more milking and lots more deep knee bends to remove milking machines. It’s a rough experience after having worked the whole day already.
7:30 p.m. - Done for the day. Hopefully.
Let's do some math. What we see here is a 13 1/2 hour workday. Granted, there are breaks spread out through the day, but even removing those breaks it's still an 11-hour day. Yes, farmers are hardly the only occupation that works long days, but keep this in mind: farmers never get a day off. Ever. Animals need to be fed and milked and cared for each and every day. Even if a farmer decides to take a "day off," these tasks still need to be completed. Therefore, an "off day" for a farmer still consists of at least a 5 or 6 hour workday.
All this means that a farmer is pulling at least a 60-80 hour workweek. Every week. It's no wonder so many farmers require their children to come out to the barn and help out with chores; they'd barely see their own kids otherwise.
And even a working week as "short" as 60 hours requires that nothing goes wrong. Unfortunately, one of the many challenges with farming is that something is always going wrong. When I'm at school, I try to limit my phone calls home because they are always depressing. Every conversation with my dad starts with, "Let me tell you about the day I had today." He then proceeds to tell me how a tractor broke, or that a cow died for no reason, or that the cows broke a fence and wandered downtown, or that the water pipes exploded and flooded the barn or that it hasn’t rained in a month or....
The list goes on and on. So many things can go wrong on a farm; therefore a farmer has to be more than just a farmer. He must be a mechanic, a veterinarian, a carpenter, a meteorologist, a plumber, or anything else that the farm needs. And, really any disaster is possible.
The weather is a constant source of concern. Admittedly, a job in which one can work with nature is a special gift. When the sun is shining and the birds are singing, it's hard not to be grateful for the opportunity to work outdoors in the sun. Nature can be a very beautiful thing.
Nature can also be a bitch. One of the hardest parts of farming is the fact that the well-being of the farm is completely and absolutely at the mercy of nature. Too much rain and the farmer is screwed. Too little rain and the farmer is screwed. Too many cloudy days and the crops will die. Too many sunny days and the crops will fry.
To illustrate just much weather can make a difference, here's a story from Summer 2005. My family's farm is located about three miles from another local farm. The two farms planted their corn at roughly the same time and used the same brands of seed and fertilizer. For some reason, our farm got 2.5 moreinches of rain this summer. We got a 25% higher yield from the corn. Thanks to 2.5 inches of additional rain. That's nothing, but it shows just how vulnerable the crops are to any weather changes.
As bad as my phone calls with my dad can be when he’s complaining about the weather, I'm always glad to just be talking to my dad on a given night; it means that he survived the day. Farming is among the world's most dangerous occupations. Hundreds of farmers die each year in the United States.730 farm workers perished in 2002 alone. Farmers are seven times more likely to die on the job than the average American worker. In addition to the high death rate, a staggering 150,000 farmers suffer a disabling injury each year.
Danger lurks in every part of a farmer's day. Cows may seem slow-witted and generally benevolent, but they are large, powerful animals with the ability to seriously injure a person. Farmers are very often victims of a damaging kick (my own father has been kicked in the face more times than he'd care to remember). A stampede can also result in devastating consequences.
Machinery is also very dangerous. One of a farmer’s worst nightmares is getting an arm or a leg caught in a running machine. (A very real possibility, unfortunately.)
There are a million other ways to get hurt on a farm. One of my uncles had to have shrapnel removed from his face when a piece of equipment exploded, shooting hot metal into his head. My other uncle was nearly crushed by a full wagon that broke off from the tractor that was towing it and rolled back down a hill. Both were back at work the same day. To them, it’s all part of the job.
As bad as farming can be, maybe milking cows for a living wouldn't be so bad if it were, you know, profitable. Another thing about farmers that's not mentioned in the myth of the "noble farmer" is that farmers don't get paid squat. As of this moment, the companies buy milk for is $15.33 per 100 pounds of milk, which works out to just $1.22 a gallon. Not included in that price is the fact that farmers have to pay milk companies to come get their milk.
$1.22 a gallon. Less than half of what a gallon of milk goes for at the average store. Not to mention that milk companies can also use some excess butterfat from each gallon for other dairy products. The price milk companies are offering farmers remained more or less constant for nearly three decades until rising from the $12-$13/per 100 range up to its current $15-$16 range in only the past few years. Hardly keeping up with inflation (or what milk has been sold for in stores).
With these prices, an average dairy farmer will maybe bring home $20,000-$30,000 a year. There are lower salaries out in there in the American workforce, but not many workers are pulling 80-hour workweeks to get those low salaries.
So let's see: low pay, long hours, and a high risk of injury? It's no wonder so many small farms are closing down in this country. Who would want this job? My own father forbade me from even considering farming as a potential occupation. (Not that he really needed to worry about that.) And I know he's not the only farmer who has given that mandate to his children.
Even if my father hadn’t barred me from farming, I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to take over the family farm anyway. In April 2006, Andrews Dairy Farm will hold an auction to sell its cows and milking equipment. Facing mounting debt, my father and my uncles decided it was best to sell out now while they still were young enough to find new careers.
The auction will be a sad and frightening day for our family. Farming is all we’ve ever really known, and the future is full of uncertainty and doubt for the Andrews clan.
But while I’m scared to death, I’m glad my father’s future won’t involve farming. If he hadn’t died on the job, he’d probably have worked himself to death eventually. Such is the life of the noble farmer.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Oil in your Oatmeal: How much Fossil Fuel does it take to produce your food?
Here's a great perspective on how food is interlaced with fossil fuel use. I recommend this essay as a quick and readable way to engage people in a discussion about the value of locally grown food.
The oil in your oatmeal
A lot of fossil fuel goes into producing, packaging and shipping our breakfast
Chad Heeter
Sunday, March 26, 2006
San Francisco Chronicle
Please join me for breakfast. It's time to fuel up again.
On the table in my small Berkeley apartment this morning is a healthy-looking little meal -- a bowl of imported McCann's Irish oatmeal topped with Cascadian Farms organic frozen raspberries, and a cup of Peet's Fair Trade Blend coffee. Like most of us, I prepare my breakfast at home, and the ingredients for this one probably cost me about $1.25. (If I went to a cafe in downtown Berkeley, I'd probably have to add $6 more, plus tip, for the same.)
My breakfast fuels me up with about 400 calories, and it satisfies me. So for just over a buck and half and an hour spent reading the morning paper in my own kitchen, I'm energized for the next few hours. But before I put spoon to cereal, what if I consider this bowl of oatmeal porridge (to which I've just added a little butter, milk and a shake of salt) from a different perspective. Say, a Saudi Arabian one.
Then what you'd be likely to see -- what's really there, just hidden from our view (not to say our taste buds) -- is about 4 ounces of crude oil. Throw in those luscious red raspberries and that cup of java (an additional 3 ounces of crude), and don't forget those modest additions of butter, milk and salt (1 more ounce), and you've got a tiny bit of the Middle East right here in my kitchen.
Now, let's drill a little deeper into this breakfast. Just where does this tiny gusher of oil actually come from? (We'll let this oil represent all fossil fuels in my breakfast, including natural gas and coal.)
Nearly 20 percent of this oil went into growing my raspberries on Chilean farms many thousands of miles away, those oats in the fields of County Kildare, Ireland, and that specially raised coffee in Guatemala -- think tractors as well as petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides.
The next 40 percent of my breakfast fossil-fuel equation is burned up between the fields and the grocery store in processing, packaging and shipping.
Take that box of McCann's oatmeal. On it is an inviting image of pure, healthy goodness: a bowl of porridge, topped by two peach slices. Scattered around the bowl are a handful of raw oats, what look to be four acorns and three fresh raspberries. Those raw oats are actually a reminder that the flakes require a few steps 'twixt field and box. In fact, a visit to McCann's Web site illustrates each step of cleaning, steaming, hulling, cutting and rolling that turns the raw oats into edible flakes. Those five essential steps require significant energy.
Next, my oat flakes go into a plastic bag (made from oil), which in turn is inserted into an energy-intensive, pressed wood-pulp, printed paper box. Only then does my breakfast leave Ireland and travel 5,000 fuel-gorging, carbon-dioxide-emitting miles by ship and truck to my grocery store in California.
Coming from another hemisphere, my raspberries take an even longer fossil-fueled journey to my neighborhood. Though packaged in a plastic bag labeled Cascadian Farms (which perhaps suggests birthplace in the good old Cascade mountains of northwest Washington), the small print on the back, stamped "A Product of Chile," tells all -- and what it speaks of is a 5,800-mile journey to Northern California.
If you've been adding up percentages along the way, perhaps you've noticed that a few tablespoons of crude oil in my bowl have not been accounted for. That final 40 percent of the fossil fuel in my breakfast is used up by the simple acts of keeping food fresh and then preparing it. In home kitchens and restaurants, chilling in refrigerators and cooking on stoves using electricity or natural gas gobbles up more energy than you might imagine.
For decades, scientists have calculated how much fossil fuel goes into our food by measuring the amount of energy consumed in growing, packing, shipping, consuming and finally disposing of it. The caloric input of fossil fuel is then compared with the energy available in the edible product, the caloric output.
What they've discovered is astonishing. According to researchers at the University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Agriculture, an average of more than 7 calories of fossil fuel is burned up for every calorie of energy we get from our food. This means that in eating my 400-calorie breakfast, I will, in effect, have consumed 2,800 calories of fossil fuel energy. (Some researchers claim the ratio is as high as 10 to 1.)
But this is only an average. My cup of coffee gives me just a few calories of energy, but to process 1 pound of coffee requires more than 8,000 calories of fossil-fuel energy -- the equivalent energy found in nearly a quart of crude oil, 30 cubic feet of natural gas or about 2 1/2 pounds of coal.
So how do you gauge how much oil went into your food?
First check out how far it traveled. The farther it went, the more oil it required. Next, gauge how much processing went into the food. A fresh apple is not processed, but Kellogg's Apple Jacks cereal requires enormous amounts of energy to process. The more processed the food, the more oil it requires. Then consider how much packaging is wrapped around your food. Buy fresh vegetables instead of canned, and buy bulk beans, grains, and flour if you want to reduce that packaging.
You may think you're in the clear because you eat strictly organically grown foods. When it comes to fossil-fuel calculations though, that isn't relevant. However it is grown, a raspberry is shipped, packed and chilled the same way.
There is some energy savings in growing organically, but it's probably slight. According to a study by David Pimentel at Cornell University, 30 percent of fossil-fuel expenditure on farms growing conventional (nonorganic) crops is found in chemical fertilizer.
This 30 percent is not consumed on organic farms, but only if the manure used as fertilizer is produced very close to the farm. Manure is a heavy, bulky product.
If farms have to truck bulk manure more than a few miles, the savings is eaten up in diesel-fuel consumption, according to Pimentel.
One source of manure for organic farmers in California is chicken producer Foster Farms. Organic farmers in Monterey County, for example, will truck tons of Foster's manure from their main plant in Livingston (Merced County) to fields more than 100 miles away.
So the next time we're at the grocer, do we now have to ask not only where and how a product was grown, but how far its manure was shipped?
Well, if you're in New York City picking out a California-grown tomato that was fertilized with organic compost made from kelp shipped from Nova Scotia, maybe it's not such a bad question.
But should we give up on organic? If you're buying organic raspberries from Chile each week, then yes. The fuel cost is too great, as is the resulting production of the greenhouse gases.
But if there was truth in packaging, where my oatmeal box now tells me how many calories I get from each serving, it would also tell me how many calories of fossil fuels went into the product.
On a scale from one to five -- with one being nonprocessed, locally grown products and five being processed, packaged imports -- we could quickly average the numbers in our shopping cart to get a sense of the ecological footprint of our diet.
What appeared to be my simple, healthy meal of oatmeal, berries and coffee looks different now. I thought I was essentially driving a Toyota Prius hybrid by having a very fuel-efficient breakfast, but by the end of the week, I've eaten the equivalent of more than two quarts of Valvoline.
From the perspective of fossil-fuel consumption, I now look at my breakfast as a waste of precious resources. What I eat for breakfast connects me to the planet, deep into its past with the fossilized remains of plants and animals which are now fuel, and into the future, when these nonrenewable resources will probably be in scant supply.
Maybe these thoughts are too grand to be having over breakfast, but I'm not the only one on the planet eating this morning. My meal traveled thousands of miles to reach my plate.
Then there's the rise of perhaps 600 million middle-class Indians and Chinese, already demanding the convenience of packaged meals and foreign flavors.
What happens when middle-class families in India or China decide they want their Irish oats for breakfast and topped by organic raspberries from Chile? They'll dip more and more into the planet's communal oil well. And someday soon, we'll all suck it dry.
A crude menu
A lot of fossil-fuel energy goes into the production of food:
-- Bowl of oatmeal porridge: 4 ounces of crude oil.
-- Serving of red raspberries: 1 ounce of crude oil.
-- Butter, milk and salt: 1 ounce of crude oil.
-- That cup of java: 2 ounces of crude oil.
-- Energy required to produce 1 pound of coffee: a quart of crude oil, 30 cubic feet of natural gas, or about 2 1/2 pounds of coal.
-- Energy required to produce one week's worth of breakfast for one person: More than 2 quarts of crude oil.
Chad Heeter grew up eating fossil fuels in Lee's Summit, Mo. He's a freelance writer, a documentary filmmaker and a former high school science teacher. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
draft
b
The oil in your oatmeal
A lot of fossil fuel goes into producing, packaging and shipping our breakfast
Chad Heeter
Sunday, March 26, 2006
San Francisco Chronicle
Please join me for breakfast. It's time to fuel up again.
On the table in my small Berkeley apartment this morning is a healthy-looking little meal -- a bowl of imported McCann's Irish oatmeal topped with Cascadian Farms organic frozen raspberries, and a cup of Peet's Fair Trade Blend coffee. Like most of us, I prepare my breakfast at home, and the ingredients for this one probably cost me about $1.25. (If I went to a cafe in downtown Berkeley, I'd probably have to add $6 more, plus tip, for the same.)
My breakfast fuels me up with about 400 calories, and it satisfies me. So for just over a buck and half and an hour spent reading the morning paper in my own kitchen, I'm energized for the next few hours. But before I put spoon to cereal, what if I consider this bowl of oatmeal porridge (to which I've just added a little butter, milk and a shake of salt) from a different perspective. Say, a Saudi Arabian one.
Then what you'd be likely to see -- what's really there, just hidden from our view (not to say our taste buds) -- is about 4 ounces of crude oil. Throw in those luscious red raspberries and that cup of java (an additional 3 ounces of crude), and don't forget those modest additions of butter, milk and salt (1 more ounce), and you've got a tiny bit of the Middle East right here in my kitchen.
Now, let's drill a little deeper into this breakfast. Just where does this tiny gusher of oil actually come from? (We'll let this oil represent all fossil fuels in my breakfast, including natural gas and coal.)
Nearly 20 percent of this oil went into growing my raspberries on Chilean farms many thousands of miles away, those oats in the fields of County Kildare, Ireland, and that specially raised coffee in Guatemala -- think tractors as well as petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides.
The next 40 percent of my breakfast fossil-fuel equation is burned up between the fields and the grocery store in processing, packaging and shipping.
Take that box of McCann's oatmeal. On it is an inviting image of pure, healthy goodness: a bowl of porridge, topped by two peach slices. Scattered around the bowl are a handful of raw oats, what look to be four acorns and three fresh raspberries. Those raw oats are actually a reminder that the flakes require a few steps 'twixt field and box. In fact, a visit to McCann's Web site illustrates each step of cleaning, steaming, hulling, cutting and rolling that turns the raw oats into edible flakes. Those five essential steps require significant energy.
Next, my oat flakes go into a plastic bag (made from oil), which in turn is inserted into an energy-intensive, pressed wood-pulp, printed paper box. Only then does my breakfast leave Ireland and travel 5,000 fuel-gorging, carbon-dioxide-emitting miles by ship and truck to my grocery store in California.
Coming from another hemisphere, my raspberries take an even longer fossil-fueled journey to my neighborhood. Though packaged in a plastic bag labeled Cascadian Farms (which perhaps suggests birthplace in the good old Cascade mountains of northwest Washington), the small print on the back, stamped "A Product of Chile," tells all -- and what it speaks of is a 5,800-mile journey to Northern California.
If you've been adding up percentages along the way, perhaps you've noticed that a few tablespoons of crude oil in my bowl have not been accounted for. That final 40 percent of the fossil fuel in my breakfast is used up by the simple acts of keeping food fresh and then preparing it. In home kitchens and restaurants, chilling in refrigerators and cooking on stoves using electricity or natural gas gobbles up more energy than you might imagine.
For decades, scientists have calculated how much fossil fuel goes into our food by measuring the amount of energy consumed in growing, packing, shipping, consuming and finally disposing of it. The caloric input of fossil fuel is then compared with the energy available in the edible product, the caloric output.
What they've discovered is astonishing. According to researchers at the University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Agriculture, an average of more than 7 calories of fossil fuel is burned up for every calorie of energy we get from our food. This means that in eating my 400-calorie breakfast, I will, in effect, have consumed 2,800 calories of fossil fuel energy. (Some researchers claim the ratio is as high as 10 to 1.)
But this is only an average. My cup of coffee gives me just a few calories of energy, but to process 1 pound of coffee requires more than 8,000 calories of fossil-fuel energy -- the equivalent energy found in nearly a quart of crude oil, 30 cubic feet of natural gas or about 2 1/2 pounds of coal.
So how do you gauge how much oil went into your food?
First check out how far it traveled. The farther it went, the more oil it required. Next, gauge how much processing went into the food. A fresh apple is not processed, but Kellogg's Apple Jacks cereal requires enormous amounts of energy to process. The more processed the food, the more oil it requires. Then consider how much packaging is wrapped around your food. Buy fresh vegetables instead of canned, and buy bulk beans, grains, and flour if you want to reduce that packaging.
You may think you're in the clear because you eat strictly organically grown foods. When it comes to fossil-fuel calculations though, that isn't relevant. However it is grown, a raspberry is shipped, packed and chilled the same way.
There is some energy savings in growing organically, but it's probably slight. According to a study by David Pimentel at Cornell University, 30 percent of fossil-fuel expenditure on farms growing conventional (nonorganic) crops is found in chemical fertilizer.
This 30 percent is not consumed on organic farms, but only if the manure used as fertilizer is produced very close to the farm. Manure is a heavy, bulky product.
If farms have to truck bulk manure more than a few miles, the savings is eaten up in diesel-fuel consumption, according to Pimentel.
One source of manure for organic farmers in California is chicken producer Foster Farms. Organic farmers in Monterey County, for example, will truck tons of Foster's manure from their main plant in Livingston (Merced County) to fields more than 100 miles away.
So the next time we're at the grocer, do we now have to ask not only where and how a product was grown, but how far its manure was shipped?
Well, if you're in New York City picking out a California-grown tomato that was fertilized with organic compost made from kelp shipped from Nova Scotia, maybe it's not such a bad question.
But should we give up on organic? If you're buying organic raspberries from Chile each week, then yes. The fuel cost is too great, as is the resulting production of the greenhouse gases.
But if there was truth in packaging, where my oatmeal box now tells me how many calories I get from each serving, it would also tell me how many calories of fossil fuels went into the product.
On a scale from one to five -- with one being nonprocessed, locally grown products and five being processed, packaged imports -- we could quickly average the numbers in our shopping cart to get a sense of the ecological footprint of our diet.
What appeared to be my simple, healthy meal of oatmeal, berries and coffee looks different now. I thought I was essentially driving a Toyota Prius hybrid by having a very fuel-efficient breakfast, but by the end of the week, I've eaten the equivalent of more than two quarts of Valvoline.
From the perspective of fossil-fuel consumption, I now look at my breakfast as a waste of precious resources. What I eat for breakfast connects me to the planet, deep into its past with the fossilized remains of plants and animals which are now fuel, and into the future, when these nonrenewable resources will probably be in scant supply.
Maybe these thoughts are too grand to be having over breakfast, but I'm not the only one on the planet eating this morning. My meal traveled thousands of miles to reach my plate.
Then there's the rise of perhaps 600 million middle-class Indians and Chinese, already demanding the convenience of packaged meals and foreign flavors.
What happens when middle-class families in India or China decide they want their Irish oats for breakfast and topped by organic raspberries from Chile? They'll dip more and more into the planet's communal oil well. And someday soon, we'll all suck it dry.
A crude menu
A lot of fossil-fuel energy goes into the production of food:
-- Bowl of oatmeal porridge: 4 ounces of crude oil.
-- Serving of red raspberries: 1 ounce of crude oil.
-- Butter, milk and salt: 1 ounce of crude oil.
-- That cup of java: 2 ounces of crude oil.
-- Energy required to produce 1 pound of coffee: a quart of crude oil, 30 cubic feet of natural gas, or about 2 1/2 pounds of coal.
-- Energy required to produce one week's worth of breakfast for one person: More than 2 quarts of crude oil.
Chad Heeter grew up eating fossil fuels in Lee's Summit, Mo. He's a freelance writer, a documentary filmmaker and a former high school science teacher. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
draft
b
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Enter the Meatrix: Viral Flash Activism
In November of 2003, links to the flash film The Meatrix jammed the email in-boxes of computer users across the globe. A snappy three minute and 47 second flash film mimicking the plot and characters of the cult-classic film The Matrix, The Meatrix details the hidden truth about our food supply, that the small family farms of our national unconscious have been replaced by factory farms or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations ( CAFOs) run by large agribusiness corporations.
If you haven't seen the film, go to google right now, typed in "The Meatrix" and watch it. It will take you under four minutes. There is also an updated Meatrix film, too, that you can watch.
Produced by the new media company Free Range Graphics for the Global Resource Action Center (GRACE), a non-profit that fights factory farming and promotes sustainable agriculture, The Meatrix provides us with a critical lens through which to survey the social, economic, environmental, and cultural impacts of factory farming on rural communities and on us all since we all are consumers of food.
The Meatrix also provides an interesting example of new media organizing and critical literacy in action as it models what new media designers call “viral flash activism.” Viral flash activism uses short Macromedia Flash films that convey an organization or group’s message through a narrative that is mean to “inspire, amuse, and activate” a “target audience” (“What are Flash Films”). Viral flash activism films often make use of humor and pop culture references and are an effective organizing tool for drawing in the so-called Internet Generation. At the end of a viral flash activist film, the user is given a “clickable call to action,” which urges readers to get involved, take action, e.g., sign a petition, join an organization, participate in a specific campaign, or donate money.
The “viral” aspect of viral flash activism is the fact that the flash film is distributed quickly via a membership list and then mailed by members to friends, family, co-workers, and acquaintances. Viewers do not have to go a theater to see the film; instead, it is spread like a virus through the online community, mailed and then forwarded and re-forwarded to maximize its viewing and impact. Bloggers link to the film and so do the websites of non-profits and political advocacy groups, thus accelerating the film’s impact on the originating organization. The film has become an organizing banner for a variety of non-profit and advocacy organizations ranging from non-profits like Farm Aid to academic think-tanks like the Institute for Food and Agriculture Policy. The medium of viral flash activism has caught on and new flash advocacy films have been recently released such as the Organic Fair Trade Association’s 5 minute film “Grocery Store Wars,” a spoof of “Star Wars’ and a critique of genetically modified foods.
The Meatrix offers an interesting, strategic and quick way to introduce the general public to the debate over factory farming and also provides a case study for the radical potential of new media as an advocacy resource. The Meatrix works to sponsor a critical literacy moment for viewers, and it moves beyond mere agricultural literacy (simply knowing how food is grown) to what Jacqueline Edmondson calls a new alternative agrarian literacy, an understanding of the environmental, social, economic, and political consequences of the food system ; furthermore, the film offers an endorsement of developing sustainable food systems and sustainable ways of living (15; see also Frefoygle on new agrarianism).
Since most Americans buy milk, eggs, and meat that have been factory farmed, whether they/we realize it or not, The Meatrix prompts us to think of factory farms not as a problem “out there,” out of sight, out of mind, but a problem for us all. It encourages mutual identification between rural, urban, and suburban communities around the issue of food production, consumption, and agribusiness.
If you haven't seen the film, go to google right now, typed in "The Meatrix" and watch it. It will take you under four minutes. There is also an updated Meatrix film, too, that you can watch.
Produced by the new media company Free Range Graphics for the Global Resource Action Center (GRACE), a non-profit that fights factory farming and promotes sustainable agriculture, The Meatrix provides us with a critical lens through which to survey the social, economic, environmental, and cultural impacts of factory farming on rural communities and on us all since we all are consumers of food.
The Meatrix also provides an interesting example of new media organizing and critical literacy in action as it models what new media designers call “viral flash activism.” Viral flash activism uses short Macromedia Flash films that convey an organization or group’s message through a narrative that is mean to “inspire, amuse, and activate” a “target audience” (“What are Flash Films”). Viral flash activism films often make use of humor and pop culture references and are an effective organizing tool for drawing in the so-called Internet Generation. At the end of a viral flash activist film, the user is given a “clickable call to action,” which urges readers to get involved, take action, e.g., sign a petition, join an organization, participate in a specific campaign, or donate money.
The “viral” aspect of viral flash activism is the fact that the flash film is distributed quickly via a membership list and then mailed by members to friends, family, co-workers, and acquaintances. Viewers do not have to go a theater to see the film; instead, it is spread like a virus through the online community, mailed and then forwarded and re-forwarded to maximize its viewing and impact. Bloggers link to the film and so do the websites of non-profits and political advocacy groups, thus accelerating the film’s impact on the originating organization. The film has become an organizing banner for a variety of non-profit and advocacy organizations ranging from non-profits like Farm Aid to academic think-tanks like the Institute for Food and Agriculture Policy. The medium of viral flash activism has caught on and new flash advocacy films have been recently released such as the Organic Fair Trade Association’s 5 minute film “Grocery Store Wars,” a spoof of “Star Wars’ and a critique of genetically modified foods.
The Meatrix offers an interesting, strategic and quick way to introduce the general public to the debate over factory farming and also provides a case study for the radical potential of new media as an advocacy resource. The Meatrix works to sponsor a critical literacy moment for viewers, and it moves beyond mere agricultural literacy (simply knowing how food is grown) to what Jacqueline Edmondson calls a new alternative agrarian literacy, an understanding of the environmental, social, economic, and political consequences of the food system ; furthermore, the film offers an endorsement of developing sustainable food systems and sustainable ways of living (15; see also Frefoygle on new agrarianism).
Since most Americans buy milk, eggs, and meat that have been factory farmed, whether they/we realize it or not, The Meatrix prompts us to think of factory farms not as a problem “out there,” out of sight, out of mind, but a problem for us all. It encourages mutual identification between rural, urban, and suburban communities around the issue of food production, consumption, and agribusiness.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Harvest of Shame and Ag Education
Hey, those of you out there who are teaching 205 with a focus on food politics, consider showing Edward R. Murrow's famous documentary "Harvest of Shame,"which debuted on network television in November 1960--right before Thanksgiving, the time of year when we are enjoying plentiful food. It is a documentary about migrant farmworkers and their working and life conditions. It is entitled "Harvest of Shame" for good reason.
I think it's interesting to show the documetary to your students (or part of it), then ask them to read Eric Schlosser's essay "In the Strawberry" Fields" from the _Atlantic Monthly_, which is about migrant workers (many of them undocumented workers from Mexico) harvesting strawberries. This piece, although written forty some years later shows how little has changed in terms of working conditions for many migrant farmworkers.....Indeed, a good question is "What has changed (or not) in the working conditions of this labor force?" This, then, can lead to all kind of interesting discussions about globalization, immigration policy, racism, food politics, etc.
In my 205 class, we have started our unit on immigration policy and immigration issues with this very assignment.
There is also a documentary called "New Harvest, Old Shame," which updates "Harvest of Shame."
The other thing on my mind tonight is ag education. We don't have an agriculture program/major here at Syracuse, so it's probably not on the radar screen for most academically inclined folks here, but if you have ever taught or will teach at a land grant university or if you are considering a degree in agriculture, consider this:
"Ag Gets Postsecondary Boost
The rising interest in agriculture education isn't limited to high school students. Universities, too, have attracted a diverse group of enrollees thanks to progressive changes in curriculum and industry demand for workers.
Enrollment in ag ed programs at land-grant colleges climbed to an all-time high of nearly 118,000 last summer, reported the Los Angeles Times. That's up from 64,000 in the late 1980s. The new student population is more than 50 percent urbanite, 40 percent female and 10 percent ethnic minority, according to the Food and Agricultural Education Information System, a clearinghouse based at Texas A&M University.
"We woke up a few years ago and said, 'Hey, no one's walking in our door,' Joe Stasulat, director of an agriculture internship program at the University of California-Davis, told the Times last July. So he, along with colleagues at ag schools around the country, overhauled the program.
Today's university-level agriculture programs lean much more toward lab- based research. Their students are just as likely to be studying genetically altered mice under fluorescent lights and engineering high-tech farm equipment than they are to be rotating crops. More undergraduates now study natural resources (such as urban forestry and range management) than study animal science.
University educators cite the availability of jobs as the top reason for the increase in ag enrollments. One California dean said industry demand outnumbers graduates by about 3 to 1. "
Now what this article doesn't really say is that agricultural economics is a big major for a lot of ag folks and the destination may be large agribusiness firms, not farms. What I'm interested in is how many beginning farmer programs these ag education programs sponsor. Are we producing more bureaucrats or more farmers? Now there's a place for the bureaucrats, of course....but since the farming population is aging, we are in need of beginning farmer programs, sustainable agriculture programs, training in organic agriculture. Is that happening in higher education ag programs, which are funded and supported by agribusiness research dollars? Or does that education mostly take place outside the land grant system?
Worth looking into....Also, a lot (and maybe most) of agriculture education in terms of learning to farm happens through apprenticeships and non-school environments.
I think it's interesting to show the documetary to your students (or part of it), then ask them to read Eric Schlosser's essay "In the Strawberry" Fields" from the _Atlantic Monthly_, which is about migrant workers (many of them undocumented workers from Mexico) harvesting strawberries. This piece, although written forty some years later shows how little has changed in terms of working conditions for many migrant farmworkers.....Indeed, a good question is "What has changed (or not) in the working conditions of this labor force?" This, then, can lead to all kind of interesting discussions about globalization, immigration policy, racism, food politics, etc.
In my 205 class, we have started our unit on immigration policy and immigration issues with this very assignment.
There is also a documentary called "New Harvest, Old Shame," which updates "Harvest of Shame."
The other thing on my mind tonight is ag education. We don't have an agriculture program/major here at Syracuse, so it's probably not on the radar screen for most academically inclined folks here, but if you have ever taught or will teach at a land grant university or if you are considering a degree in agriculture, consider this:
"Ag Gets Postsecondary Boost
The rising interest in agriculture education isn't limited to high school students. Universities, too, have attracted a diverse group of enrollees thanks to progressive changes in curriculum and industry demand for workers.
Enrollment in ag ed programs at land-grant colleges climbed to an all-time high of nearly 118,000 last summer, reported the Los Angeles Times. That's up from 64,000 in the late 1980s. The new student population is more than 50 percent urbanite, 40 percent female and 10 percent ethnic minority, according to the Food and Agricultural Education Information System, a clearinghouse based at Texas A&M University.
"We woke up a few years ago and said, 'Hey, no one's walking in our door,' Joe Stasulat, director of an agriculture internship program at the University of California-Davis, told the Times last July. So he, along with colleagues at ag schools around the country, overhauled the program.
Today's university-level agriculture programs lean much more toward lab- based research. Their students are just as likely to be studying genetically altered mice under fluorescent lights and engineering high-tech farm equipment than they are to be rotating crops. More undergraduates now study natural resources (such as urban forestry and range management) than study animal science.
University educators cite the availability of jobs as the top reason for the increase in ag enrollments. One California dean said industry demand outnumbers graduates by about 3 to 1. "
Now what this article doesn't really say is that agricultural economics is a big major for a lot of ag folks and the destination may be large agribusiness firms, not farms. What I'm interested in is how many beginning farmer programs these ag education programs sponsor. Are we producing more bureaucrats or more farmers? Now there's a place for the bureaucrats, of course....but since the farming population is aging, we are in need of beginning farmer programs, sustainable agriculture programs, training in organic agriculture. Is that happening in higher education ag programs, which are funded and supported by agribusiness research dollars? Or does that education mostly take place outside the land grant system?
Worth looking into....Also, a lot (and maybe most) of agriculture education in terms of learning to farm happens through apprenticeships and non-school environments.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
2007 Farm Bill: Why We Should Care
The 2007 Farm Bill proposals are out and circulating. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns has begun his PR blitz.
Chef Dan Barber of Blue Hill at Stone Barns here in New York state had this to say about the Farm Bill in the New York Times and why we should care:
"There's invariably something risky, if not risible, about allowing Congress to decide what’s for dinner. Bad decisions about agriculture have defined government policy for the last century; 70 percent of our nation’s farms have been lost to bankruptcy or consolidation, creating an agricultural economy that looks more Wall Street than Main Street.
Now, after the uprooting of a thousand years of agrarian wisdom, we chefs have discovered something really terrible — no, not that the agricultural system we help support hurts farmers and devastates farming communities, or that it harms the environment and our health. What we’ve discovered is that the food it produces just doesn’t taste very good.
Who’s responsible for the blandness? Look no further than Washington: There you will meet not farmers, but the people determining how our farmers farm. They do it through the farm bill, a mammoth piece of legislation that designates American agricultural policy every five years and that Congress is preparing to take up in its new session.
This is a sweeping bill, omnibus in every sense — nutrition, conservation, genetic engineering, food safety, school lunch programs, water quality, organic farming and much more. It’s really a food and farm bill. If you’re a chef or a home cook or someone who just likes to eat, it affects you, because it determines what you eat and how what you eat is grown. . . ."
Eloquent words.....
So how to evaluated the 2007 Farm Bill proposals?
I don't feel fully prepared to comment on the pluses and minuses of the proposals under consideration, but I'll offer some preliminary thoughts about the recent press release/summary. There are some good components and others worth sorting through/analyzing further. I plan to read each proposal and will blog more about the proposals. It's interesting to note support for socially disadvantaged farmers as part of the package of proposals. What will that mean, exactly, though? Five billion dollars, but distributed in what ways? School meals are also mentioned. Hopefully, this means strengthening Farm to Cafeteria Programs.
Ethanol research/funding--really worth it? I'd like to research this.
Sustainable or organic agriculture--not mentioned in this press release? Are there any plans to support conversion of traditional agricultural operations to sustainable agriculture operations or organic ones?
How will the conservation program efforts relate to the overwhelming environmental impact that CAFOs (large-scale industrial livestock and dairy farms) are having on rural areas?
From the USDA.gov website:
JOHANNS UNVEILS 2007 FARM BILL PROPOSALS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31, 2007 - Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns today unveiled the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 2007 farm bill proposals. The more than 65 proposals correspond to the 2002 farm bill titles with additional special focus areas, including specialty crops, beginning farmers and ranchers, and socially disadvantaged producers.
"We listened closely to producers and stakeholders all across the country and took a reform-minded and fiscally responsible approach to making farm policy more equitable, predictable and protected from challenge," said Johanns. "We started with the 2002 farm bill and propose to improve it by bolstering support for emerging priorities and focusing on a market-oriented approach."
USDA began preparations for the 2007 farm bill in 2005 by conducting 52 Farm Bill Forums across the country. More than 4,000 comments were recorded or collected during forums and via electronic and standard mail. These comments are summarized in 41 theme papers. USDA economists, led by Dr. Keith Collins, studied the comments and authored five analysis papers.
The proposals unveiled today represent the final phase of a nearly two year process. Each detailed proposal provides information about why a change is needed, the recommended solution, and relevant background information about the impacted program or policy.
Highlights of the proposals include (funding reflects ten year totals):
Increase conservation funding by $7.8 billion, simplify and consolidate conservation programs, create a new Environmental Quality Incentives Program and a Regional Water Enhancement Program
Provide $1.6 billion in new funding for renewable energy research, development and production, targeted for cellulosic ethanol, which will support $2.1 billion in guaranteed loans for cellulosic projects and includes $500 million for a bio-energy and bio-based product research initiative
Target nearly $5 billion in funding to support specialty crop producers by increasing nutrition in food assistance programs, including school meals, through the purchase of fruits and vegetables, funding specialty crop research, fighting trade barriers and expanding export markets
Provide $250 million to increase direct payments for beginning farmers and ranchers, reserve a percentage of conservation funds and provide more loan flexibility for down payment, land purchasing and farm operating loans
Support socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers by reserving a percentage of conservation assistance funds and providing more access to loans for down payments, land purchasing and farm operating
Strengthen disaster relief by establishing a revenue-based counter-cyclical program, providing gap coverage in crop insurance, linking crop insurance participation to farm program participation, and creating a new emergency landscape restoration program
Simplify and consolidate rural development programs while providing $1.6 billion in loans to rehabilitate all current Rural Critical Access Hospitals and $500 million in grants and loans for rural communities to decrease the backlog of rural infrastructure projects
Dedicate nearly $400 million to trade efforts to expand exports, fight trade barriers, and increase involvement in world trade standard-setting bodies
Simplify, modernize, and rename the Food Stamp Program to improve access for the working poor, better meet the needs of recipients and States, and strengthen program integrity
The Administration's 2007 farm bill proposals would spend approximately $10 billion less than the 2002 farm bill spent over the past five years (excluding ad-hoc disaster assistance), upholding the President's plan to eliminate the deficit in five years. These proposals would provide approximately $5 billion more than the projected spending if the 2002 farm bill were extended.
The proposals are available at www.usda.gov/farmbill. Also posted on USDA's website are the Farm Bill Forum transcripts, farm bill comments submitted by the public, theme papers summarizing the comments and USDA analysis papers.
Fact Sheet: A Commitment to Rural America
Chef Dan Barber of Blue Hill at Stone Barns here in New York state had this to say about the Farm Bill in the New York Times and why we should care:
"There's invariably something risky, if not risible, about allowing Congress to decide what’s for dinner. Bad decisions about agriculture have defined government policy for the last century; 70 percent of our nation’s farms have been lost to bankruptcy or consolidation, creating an agricultural economy that looks more Wall Street than Main Street.
Now, after the uprooting of a thousand years of agrarian wisdom, we chefs have discovered something really terrible — no, not that the agricultural system we help support hurts farmers and devastates farming communities, or that it harms the environment and our health. What we’ve discovered is that the food it produces just doesn’t taste very good.
Who’s responsible for the blandness? Look no further than Washington: There you will meet not farmers, but the people determining how our farmers farm. They do it through the farm bill, a mammoth piece of legislation that designates American agricultural policy every five years and that Congress is preparing to take up in its new session.
This is a sweeping bill, omnibus in every sense — nutrition, conservation, genetic engineering, food safety, school lunch programs, water quality, organic farming and much more. It’s really a food and farm bill. If you’re a chef or a home cook or someone who just likes to eat, it affects you, because it determines what you eat and how what you eat is grown. . . ."
Eloquent words.....
So how to evaluated the 2007 Farm Bill proposals?
I don't feel fully prepared to comment on the pluses and minuses of the proposals under consideration, but I'll offer some preliminary thoughts about the recent press release/summary. There are some good components and others worth sorting through/analyzing further. I plan to read each proposal and will blog more about the proposals. It's interesting to note support for socially disadvantaged farmers as part of the package of proposals. What will that mean, exactly, though? Five billion dollars, but distributed in what ways? School meals are also mentioned. Hopefully, this means strengthening Farm to Cafeteria Programs.
Ethanol research/funding--really worth it? I'd like to research this.
Sustainable or organic agriculture--not mentioned in this press release? Are there any plans to support conversion of traditional agricultural operations to sustainable agriculture operations or organic ones?
How will the conservation program efforts relate to the overwhelming environmental impact that CAFOs (large-scale industrial livestock and dairy farms) are having on rural areas?
From the USDA.gov website:
JOHANNS UNVEILS 2007 FARM BILL PROPOSALS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31, 2007 - Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns today unveiled the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 2007 farm bill proposals. The more than 65 proposals correspond to the 2002 farm bill titles with additional special focus areas, including specialty crops, beginning farmers and ranchers, and socially disadvantaged producers.
"We listened closely to producers and stakeholders all across the country and took a reform-minded and fiscally responsible approach to making farm policy more equitable, predictable and protected from challenge," said Johanns. "We started with the 2002 farm bill and propose to improve it by bolstering support for emerging priorities and focusing on a market-oriented approach."
USDA began preparations for the 2007 farm bill in 2005 by conducting 52 Farm Bill Forums across the country. More than 4,000 comments were recorded or collected during forums and via electronic and standard mail. These comments are summarized in 41 theme papers. USDA economists, led by Dr. Keith Collins, studied the comments and authored five analysis papers.
The proposals unveiled today represent the final phase of a nearly two year process. Each detailed proposal provides information about why a change is needed, the recommended solution, and relevant background information about the impacted program or policy.
Highlights of the proposals include (funding reflects ten year totals):
Increase conservation funding by $7.8 billion, simplify and consolidate conservation programs, create a new Environmental Quality Incentives Program and a Regional Water Enhancement Program
Provide $1.6 billion in new funding for renewable energy research, development and production, targeted for cellulosic ethanol, which will support $2.1 billion in guaranteed loans for cellulosic projects and includes $500 million for a bio-energy and bio-based product research initiative
Target nearly $5 billion in funding to support specialty crop producers by increasing nutrition in food assistance programs, including school meals, through the purchase of fruits and vegetables, funding specialty crop research, fighting trade barriers and expanding export markets
Provide $250 million to increase direct payments for beginning farmers and ranchers, reserve a percentage of conservation funds and provide more loan flexibility for down payment, land purchasing and farm operating loans
Support socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers by reserving a percentage of conservation assistance funds and providing more access to loans for down payments, land purchasing and farm operating
Strengthen disaster relief by establishing a revenue-based counter-cyclical program, providing gap coverage in crop insurance, linking crop insurance participation to farm program participation, and creating a new emergency landscape restoration program
Simplify and consolidate rural development programs while providing $1.6 billion in loans to rehabilitate all current Rural Critical Access Hospitals and $500 million in grants and loans for rural communities to decrease the backlog of rural infrastructure projects
Dedicate nearly $400 million to trade efforts to expand exports, fight trade barriers, and increase involvement in world trade standard-setting bodies
Simplify, modernize, and rename the Food Stamp Program to improve access for the working poor, better meet the needs of recipients and States, and strengthen program integrity
The Administration's 2007 farm bill proposals would spend approximately $10 billion less than the 2002 farm bill spent over the past five years (excluding ad-hoc disaster assistance), upholding the President's plan to eliminate the deficit in five years. These proposals would provide approximately $5 billion more than the projected spending if the 2002 farm bill were extended.
The proposals are available at www.usda.gov/farmbill. Also posted on USDA's website are the Farm Bill Forum transcripts, farm bill comments submitted by the public, theme papers summarizing the comments and USDA analysis papers.
Fact Sheet: A Commitment to Rural America
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Schine Center goes organic...or at least a little bit
On Saturday, I stopped by Schine Student Center cafeteria at Syracuse U. to have lunch with my five-year old daughter. After we loaded our tray with the usual not-so-good for you fare of pizza, we spied a far-corner section of Schine cafeteria that, amazingly enough, included a display of organic snacks and apples. Organic snacks and apples in Schine? Schine Student Center home of Dunkin' Donuts, the chocolate covered donut and the canned whipcream Mochaccino? Yes, there is a small section off to the right in Schine stocked with Nature's Way products: energy bars, cracker and cheese packaged snacks, organic chips and nuts, and even some fresh fruit--Granny Smith organic apples from Washington state--probably grown in the Columbia Basin (maybe 50 miles from my family's orchard).
It was good to see this display, and we grabbed up an apple and put it on the tray to (futilely) blot out our fatty pizza. But I was immediately thinking of ways that the organic food display could stock locally grown organic produce and fruit--maybe farfetched since the dining services contract may not allow for this. But what that contract does allow for is some percentage of organic products now or they wouldn't have these. This may seem like it is about health--but it's likely about economics. These products will sell b/c organic food is big money--the health claims are persuasive to consumers; the sell factor is persuasive to the distributors. Whole Food has made organic products mainstream, and the dining services contracts at universities will increasingly reflect that--even Sysco.
So maybe it is the prime time to work on getting local food to SU. Why not? Many colleges and universities have moved to serving a certain percentage of locally grown food. When one of the eating clubs at Yale served organic food, the students started swarming the place. At Oberlin, students go out to local farms and buy produce, fruit, and meat directly and bring it back to prepare at their dining halls. Some universities have established direct relationships with farmers, getting them to supply organic milk, for instance.
Local Beak and Skiff cider has been sold at the snack bars and dining centers here on campus, so why not locally grown organic apples, organic mixed greens grown locally in greenhouses for the salad bar, free range organic chicken breast, etc.
OK, food for thought.
The national Farm to Cafeteria project is one way that local food is catching on campuses. The Farm to Cafeteria project brings together local farmers with public schools, colleges/universities, hospitals, prisons and other places where there are large scale dining facilities. The goal is to stock these places with local food--often organic, although not always. The point is to reduce shipping costs (fuel use in transporting food), and to guarantee fresher food. Instead of the food traveling 1,300 miles to the table, it will travel 30-50 miles. A big difference in creating C02 admissions, and we'll be able to taste the difference, in most cases.
It was good to see this display, and we grabbed up an apple and put it on the tray to (futilely) blot out our fatty pizza. But I was immediately thinking of ways that the organic food display could stock locally grown organic produce and fruit--maybe farfetched since the dining services contract may not allow for this. But what that contract does allow for is some percentage of organic products now or they wouldn't have these. This may seem like it is about health--but it's likely about economics. These products will sell b/c organic food is big money--the health claims are persuasive to consumers; the sell factor is persuasive to the distributors. Whole Food has made organic products mainstream, and the dining services contracts at universities will increasingly reflect that--even Sysco.
So maybe it is the prime time to work on getting local food to SU. Why not? Many colleges and universities have moved to serving a certain percentage of locally grown food. When one of the eating clubs at Yale served organic food, the students started swarming the place. At Oberlin, students go out to local farms and buy produce, fruit, and meat directly and bring it back to prepare at their dining halls. Some universities have established direct relationships with farmers, getting them to supply organic milk, for instance.
Local Beak and Skiff cider has been sold at the snack bars and dining centers here on campus, so why not locally grown organic apples, organic mixed greens grown locally in greenhouses for the salad bar, free range organic chicken breast, etc.
OK, food for thought.
The national Farm to Cafeteria project is one way that local food is catching on campuses. The Farm to Cafeteria project brings together local farmers with public schools, colleges/universities, hospitals, prisons and other places where there are large scale dining facilities. The goal is to stock these places with local food--often organic, although not always. The point is to reduce shipping costs (fuel use in transporting food), and to guarantee fresher food. Instead of the food traveling 1,300 miles to the table, it will travel 30-50 miles. A big difference in creating C02 admissions, and we'll be able to taste the difference, in most cases.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Starbucks/Frankenbucks Coffee
I've never been a huge Starbucks fan even though I lived in Seattle for seven years. But here's some good news about Starbucks these days, and it could be even better, and it should be since Starbucks uses a huge amount of milk in its coffees and drinks.
After receiving pressure for the last five years to stop or decrease its use of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBST), Starbucks has responded by stating that it will cut back on rBST milk: "We are actively engaged with all of our dairy suppliers to explore a conversion of all core dairy products - fluid milk, half and half, whipping cream and eggnog - to rBST-free [rBST is the industry euphemism for recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone] in our U.S. company-operated locations. Significant work on this front has already been accomplished, in fact 27 percent of the dairy we buy is already rBST-free and 37 percent will be rBST-free starting in January, 2007."
This will help push the industrialized dairy industry in the US to stop using rBST, and it is, hopefully, a step toward getting rid of artificial hormones in milk. Yes, there will be industry resistance--after all, higher milk yields can mean more money in the pocket of the processor and supplier and, to a lesser extent, the farmer, but Starbucks much publicized shift will send a strong message to dairy processors/suppliers, farmers, and agriculture programs at research universities (who helped develop the hormone and pushed farmers to use it) that American consumers don't want hormones in their milk.
The next fight is to get Starbucks to sell a great percentage of Fair Trade coffees--the subject of a future posting!
After receiving pressure for the last five years to stop or decrease its use of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBST), Starbucks has responded by stating that it will cut back on rBST milk: "We are actively engaged with all of our dairy suppliers to explore a conversion of all core dairy products - fluid milk, half and half, whipping cream and eggnog - to rBST-free [rBST is the industry euphemism for recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone] in our U.S. company-operated locations. Significant work on this front has already been accomplished, in fact 27 percent of the dairy we buy is already rBST-free and 37 percent will be rBST-free starting in January, 2007."
This will help push the industrialized dairy industry in the US to stop using rBST, and it is, hopefully, a step toward getting rid of artificial hormones in milk. Yes, there will be industry resistance--after all, higher milk yields can mean more money in the pocket of the processor and supplier and, to a lesser extent, the farmer, but Starbucks much publicized shift will send a strong message to dairy processors/suppliers, farmers, and agriculture programs at research universities (who helped develop the hormone and pushed farmers to use it) that American consumers don't want hormones in their milk.
The next fight is to get Starbucks to sell a great percentage of Fair Trade coffees--the subject of a future posting!
To Insure or Not to Insure: Farming as High Stakes Gambling
Heather S. asked a good question about crops insurance in response to my posting about the citrus disaster in California.
Yes, it is possible to buy crop insurance against natural disasters like wind, hail, rain, freezing conditions, etc. The Crop Insurance Corporation sells many different policies for up to 100 crops, including yield insurance. The problem is that crop insurance is relatively expensive, and most small farmers have fairly small profit margins and little capital to expend on risk management. Many farmers take their chances with the weather b/c it costs so much money to grow and harvest the crop that it would be that much more to actually insure it. Some farmers insure only part of their crop or if they have some bad years, they may be more likely to insure (although they may be too broke at that point to insure).
For more on crop insurance, the USDA has a useful link. http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/
They mention crop insurance against natural disasters like what happened in CA with the citrus industry and also yield insurance. Mostly, farmers hope for good conditions or if there are disasters, they may look to government programs for relief for specific losses.
Again, being a farmer with one major crop is like being a high stakes gambler. You can really lose big if you have hail, a freeze, a drought, or high winds.
Yes, it is possible to buy crop insurance against natural disasters like wind, hail, rain, freezing conditions, etc. The Crop Insurance Corporation sells many different policies for up to 100 crops, including yield insurance. The problem is that crop insurance is relatively expensive, and most small farmers have fairly small profit margins and little capital to expend on risk management. Many farmers take their chances with the weather b/c it costs so much money to grow and harvest the crop that it would be that much more to actually insure it. Some farmers insure only part of their crop or if they have some bad years, they may be more likely to insure (although they may be too broke at that point to insure).
For more on crop insurance, the USDA has a useful link. http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/
They mention crop insurance against natural disasters like what happened in CA with the citrus industry and also yield insurance. Mostly, farmers hope for good conditions or if there are disasters, they may look to government programs for relief for specific losses.
Again, being a farmer with one major crop is like being a high stakes gambler. You can really lose big if you have hail, a freeze, a drought, or high winds.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Gettin' Back In & Oranges
Well, 2007 already, a new semester. I had a Mexico-induced hiatus from blogging, and now is the time to start up again.
I'm ready to start blogging on food politics and agricultural issues again plus some other topics. I do want to say it has been horrific to see the news coverage of the citrus crop freeze-out disaster in CA. To lose 75% of your crop is to lose your future livelihood and your ability to farm. Some farmers are already hanging on by a slim thread, and one crop freeze-out can mean no ability to pay back production loans, which will mean foreclosure. I wonder if this freeze-out will mean a significant end to the citrus industry in CA with orange imports from Mexico and Central America replacing those CA oranges? Or maybe Florida growers will pick up the slack. As bad as things are for the farmers, you can be sure they are even worse for the migrant workers who pick and pack the crops. I'm glad to hear the CA govt is planning unemployment benefits of some sort.
I have to say, too, that seeing all the media images of frozen fruit on the ground this week freaked me out. Growing up on an apple farm, I (and my family) lived in dread that a freeze, hailstorm or windstorm would ruin our crop. One year we had a significant blow-down or windstorm. Right before harvest, a good percentage of our apple crop actually was knocked off the trees by high winds. I remember crawling around on the ground picking up windfalls to be sent to the Tree Top Juice Plant. I remember my Dad saying that the apples were dollars hanging on the tree and pennies rotting on the ground.
I'm ready to start blogging on food politics and agricultural issues again plus some other topics. I do want to say it has been horrific to see the news coverage of the citrus crop freeze-out disaster in CA. To lose 75% of your crop is to lose your future livelihood and your ability to farm. Some farmers are already hanging on by a slim thread, and one crop freeze-out can mean no ability to pay back production loans, which will mean foreclosure. I wonder if this freeze-out will mean a significant end to the citrus industry in CA with orange imports from Mexico and Central America replacing those CA oranges? Or maybe Florida growers will pick up the slack. As bad as things are for the farmers, you can be sure they are even worse for the migrant workers who pick and pack the crops. I'm glad to hear the CA govt is planning unemployment benefits of some sort.
I have to say, too, that seeing all the media images of frozen fruit on the ground this week freaked me out. Growing up on an apple farm, I (and my family) lived in dread that a freeze, hailstorm or windstorm would ruin our crop. One year we had a significant blow-down or windstorm. Right before harvest, a good percentage of our apple crop actually was knocked off the trees by high winds. I remember crawling around on the ground picking up windfalls to be sent to the Tree Top Juice Plant. I remember my Dad saying that the apples were dollars hanging on the tree and pennies rotting on the ground.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Fighting Fair with the Fowl and the Food System
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.”
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
