The proposition would require raw and processed foods containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such. This would apply to all food sold with the exception of alcoholic beverages, food sold for immediate consumption in a restaurant, administered for a medical treatment, or for animals fed or injected with genetically modified organisms but not genetically modified themselves. Therefore, under this proposed law nearly all grocery store products containing GMOs would be labeled.

GMOs are food that contain organisms that have had their genetic material changed in a way the could not happen in nature. The most common example is genetically modified corn, where genes from pigs have been implanted in the corn’s DNA in order for corn kernels to produce their own pesticide. There is also widespread use of GMO soy, cotton, alfalfa, beets and other crops. GMOs have been under fire from activists and the organic food industry for a number of reasons. Many organic farmers complain that their crops have been cross contaminated by pollen from neighboring farms, causing their fields to become GMOs and leaving them subject to legal issues. This is because genetically modified seeds can be patented, therefore farmers who plant their crops using GMO seeds are not allowed to use the seeds produced by their current crops for the following harvest. They must pay the company who holds the patent every year in order to keep the farm up and running. If a farmer’s crops are found to contain GMOs, even if it was through cross contamination, they are subject to patent infringement. Additionally, organic standards bar the use of GMOs, so a cross contamination onto an organic farm can be a threat to losing USDA organic certification.

Other issues such as GMOs made to withstand the pesticide known as RoundUp (aka Agent Orange), both made by Monsanto, the arch nemesis of anti-GMO activists, destroys eco-diversty, kills beneficial organisms in the soil, leads to mono-crop farming, and decreases crop yields over time (something that was claimed to be the opposite when seeking approval for their use). There is also no evidence that GMOs are safe for human consumption, as the FDA and USDA do not require extensive safety studies for approval, and the studies are left up to the companies themselves. In fact there is emerging research that hints towards an increase in food allergies as a result of GMO consumption. Furthermore, the FDA is currently hearing arguments for the approval of GMO salmon, potentially the first GMO animal to be put into the wild and into the food supply.

GMOs have many negatives, however the effort is being characterized as a right to know issue, not a pro vs. con argument over the merits of genetic engineering. The organization believes that people should have the information available in order to choose whether or not to consume these products. They ultimately believe that the consumers will decide, and demand food without genetic engineering. It also seems that the public is on their side as a new public policy poll released last week indicates that over 90% of Californians support mandatory labeling of GMOs. The European Union and many other countries have also passed laws for requiring labeling, with France now pushing for an all out ban, in addition to large scale protests and voluntary GMO crop destruction in countries like Haiti and Turkey. For more information visit LabelGmos.org.

Disclaimer: Modern Serenity enthusiastically supports this initiative.

Check out some videos on the topic below:

Some may be discouraged by olive oil, since it is a high fat product. However, not all fats are created equal. There are three major forms of dietary fat: saturated (animals), polyunsaturated (plants, seeds, nuts, vegetable oils), and monounsaturated (olive oil). All olive oils are generally made the same: 80% monounsaturated fat, 14% saturated and 9% polyunsaturated. The high percentage of monounsaturated fat is what helps lower ones risk for heart disease by improving related risk factors. For instance, monounsaturated fats help lower your total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. They can also normalize blood clotting, benefit insulin levels and help control blood sugar levels, which can be helpful for those who suffer with type 2 diabetes. In the United States, producers of olive oil may place the following health claim on product labels:

Limited and not conclusive scientific evidence suggests that eating about 2 tablespoons (23 g) of olive oil daily may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease due to the monounsaturated fat in olive oil. To achieve this possible benefit, olive oil is to replace a similar amount of saturated fat and not increase the number of calories you eat in a day.

This labeling decision was announced on November 1, 2004 by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The monounsaturated fat content is not the only component that gives olive oil its healthy reputation; Olive oil also contains a variety of polyphenols, which are natural antioxidants that provide a cardio-protective effect. The key polyphenol present is hydroxytyrosol, which helps protect the cells that line our blood vessels from being damaged by overly reactive oxygen molecules. In other words, the genetic changes caused by hydroxytyrosol help the blood vessels maintain strong cell walls and enhance their antioxidant defense system. There can be up to 5 mg of polyphenols in 10 grams of olive oil; however this amount varies based on a number of factors. For instance, the time of picking, environmental factors, extraction conditions, storage conditions and refining all have an effect on the level of polyphenols. In particular, oil made from green, unripe olives has more polyphenols and processing techniques such as heating, adding water, or filtering can result in a loss of these beneficial components. Storage in the appropriate container and place is important in preserving the polyphenols. As oil sits in the bottle, the polyphenols will slowly be oxidized and used up. Oils stored in stainless steel containers or dark glass bottles, in a cool place, are better protected against this oxidation.

Another important antioxidant that is found in olive oil is vitamin E. In fact, just one tablespoon can provide 8% of the daily recommendation for vitamin E. Not only does it assist in the protection against heart disease by preventing oxidation of LDL cholesterol, but it also serves as a natural preservative, preventing the olive oil from going rancid.

Even though olive oil provides a variety of health benefits, it is important to remember that it is a high calorie food, providing 126 calories per tablespoon. Therefore, it should be used in moderation and to replace more unhealthful foods like butter and margarine, which contain saturated fat. Remember, just two tablespoons can provide the heart healthy effects.

References 

“Chemical Characteristics.” The Olive Oil Source | Everything but the Olive. Web. 10 Aug. 2011. <http://www.oliveoilsource.com/page/chemical-characteristics#Vitamins>. 

“Olive oil.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Web. 10 Aug. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_oil>. 

“Olive oil: What are the health benefits.” Mayo Clinic.Web. 10 Aug. 2011. <http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/food-and-nutrition/AN01037>. 

“WHFoods: Olive oil, extra virgin.” The World’s Healthiest Foods. Web. 10 Aug. 2011. <http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=132>. 

Director Kristin Canty’s insight into the disappearance of thousands of years of culture, biology, and elegant human relationships with land prove Farmageddon isn’t all overstatement. With farms and interviews beautifully shot by Benjamin Eckstein, director of photographer, Canty outlines the abusive system between government agencies, small farmers, and civil rights.

Some of Canty’s inspiration for the project comes from the 2008 raid of Manna Cooperative in La Grange, Ohio. The cooperative makes food from local farmers available to about one-hundred customers and operates out of Jacqueline and John Stowers private residence.

On December 1st, during a homeschooling session, armed police executed a search warrant on the property. Ten children and Jacqueline and John Stowers were held for six hours, while armed police surrounded the house and police inside confiscated personal cell-phones, computers, and food supplies.

William Lesho, an agent from Ohio Department of Agriculture swore an affidavit before Judge Edward Zaleski and obtained a search warrant on November 26^th, 2008.

But according to Maurice A. Tompson, Stowers’ attorney, the affidavit did not indicate that the Stowers were dangerous, would destroy evidence, or that there were any complex circumstance related to searching the Stowers’ property that required the use of force or threats.

“I decided I needed to tell this story,” says Canty. “My goal was to let these honest farmers using centuries old farming practices tell their side of the stories.”

The film also highlights a million-dollar U.S. Department of Agriculture project that monitored small farmers’ sheep for a potential disease similar to mad cow disease. One owner reported that USDA agents spied on her property from behind bushes and nearby mountain tops. Eventually officials, some armed, seized the herd to test for the disease.

After testing, Linda Detwiler, a senior government veterinarian, said it’s not clear if the sheep had mad cow disease or a  more common sheep illness called scrapie, which is considered harmless to humans. Ultimately, results were inconclusive.

“Some people might not care whether the milk they drink is raw or where their food comes,” says Canty. “But I would hope they do care how the government spends tax-payer money.”

An expose on the food system has been done before –  most recently with “King Corn” and “Food Inc.” and in recent years authors like Michael Pollen and Eric Slosscher have produced investigative pieces that continue to stoke a growing interest in food activism.

While Farmageddon picks up on many themes consistent with Canty’s predecessors, the film does well to distinguish itself from traditional food documentaries by avoiding corporate attacks and conventional left versus right stalemate talking-points.

“It’s not a preachy movie about food,” says Canty. “Farmageddon is in no way meant to convince anyone to drink raw milk, or eat grass fed beef, but rather an argument to allow those that want to make those choices to do so. It’s simply about freedom of food choice.”

The next screening for Farmageddon is July 22^nd through July 26^th in Portland, Oregon at the Hollywood theater (full list of screenings).

References:

Growing your food is easy and rewarding and anybody can begin, no matter where you live. From a tiny apartment in the city to a backyard in suburbia, as long as you have sunlight you can grow. When considering a garden it is wise to make a plan. You’ll need to evaluate your space and your eating habits and plant accordingly.

You need to take a careful look at the available spaces for your garden area. You want a sunny location with easy access to water and hopefully no history or contamination. You sure don’t want to plant your garden and find out somebody used to dump motor oil in that location. It might be a good idea to get a soil test if you aren’t sure of the history of the plot you choose. This can be done by submitting a soil sample to a local university or through a commercial tester (try searching online for one in your area), you can find out more about soil testing by clicking here.

You’ll also want a spot free from many stones, and a good sandy loam if possible, with lots of organic matter. You could even start composting your food scraps and using the finished product as fertilizer or new top soil for your garden. Additionally, do not get caught up in the traditional square or rectangle plot garden. Try mixing vegetables in with your already established landscaping; tomatoes along your porch or strawberries lining your walkway. Your garden can be any shape; make it fit your home, space and style!

Once you have found a suitable location in your yard, next is the decision of how to grow. Raised bed, containers, wide rows, narrow rows or square foot…there are a multitude of ways to plant so you’ll want to find out what works for your particular climate and space. You can also grow your plot using multiple forms of spacing because some crops lend better to rows or blocks. For example, try planting your lettuce in the square foot style and your carrots in rows. Experiment with different designs, styles and trellising to find what works for you. Remember, your garden area is always a work in progress.

Choose your plants wisely. You’ll want to grow crops that you and your family love and will get the most use of. You wouldn’t want to grow golden beets to find out everybody in your family hates them…so choose carefully. You also want to make sure your growing the right amount. Take a look at some online calculators to find out how much each plant will produce on average and figure how many plants you’ll need to fill your family’s wants and needs. Also, when choosing different varieties it is preferable if you can grow heirloom’s that are accustomed to your climate. Talk with your local UC Extension (or other local university) or try to find an “old-timer” that has been growing in your area and can offer advice. Your best resource in planting your garden is local gardeners that have like-minded ideas.

Finally, enjoy your garden and the bounty it will provide. You’ll be amazed at the ease of maintenance and harvesting when you have taken the time to thoroughly plan out your garden area. Get your family involved to share the workload and reap the rewards!

Additional Resources for Urban Residents:
San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance
Farm City: The Education of an Urban Farmer by Novella Carpenter, also read about her recent struggles and accomplishments regarding permitting here

References:

“The Impact of Home and Community Gardening in America.” The National Garden Association, 2009. Web. 19 July 2011

If enacted, it would define the first federal law addressing the treatment of animals on farms, according to the HSUS.

The current standards have hens crammed in cages that prevents them from flapping their wings, build a nest, perch, dust bathe, or perform many other natural behaviors. According to many animal rights groups, farm animals are the most abused animals in the world. Many nonprofits like the Farm Sanctuary were founded to fight for these voiceless creatures that are treated as commodities with no regard to their well being.

Animals in factory farms are crowded in warehouses, and confined so tightly that they cannot walk, turn around or lie down comfortably. Many animals are even de-beaked, de-toed, tail-docked—without anesthesia—and overall neglected and denied the very basics of life.

According to the HSUS website, if passed, the law would:

• Eliminate new construction of barren battery cages, and replace the existing cages, through a phase-in, with new “enriched colony cage” housing systems that provide each hen nearly double the amount of space they’re currently allotted. (And unlike battery cages, these are generally 12-foot-long, four-foot-wide enclosures.)

• Require that these new cages provide environmental enrichments that will allow hens to engage in important natural behaviors, such as perches, nesting boxes, and scratching areas.

• Mandate labeling on all egg cartons to inform consumers of the method used to produce the eggs, such as “eggs from caged hens,” “eggs from cage-free hens” or “eggs from free-range hens.”

• Prohibit forced molting through starvation, which involves withholding all food from birds for up to two weeks in order to manipulate the laying cycle.

• Mandate euthanasia standards for spent hens.

• Prohibit excessive ammonia levels in henhouses.

• Prohibit the sale of eggs and egg products nationwide that don’t meet these requirements.

However, other quests the HSUS is striving for would have to take a back seat to this initiative, including banning cages entirely and performing undercover investigations at large egg farms.

Paul Shapiro, senior director of farm animal protection at the HSUS told ModernSerenity.com that the nonprofit’s position hasn’t changed on banning cages for laying hens, but its simply not an option at this point, especially in the larger egg-producing states.

“There’s no doubt that we’d prefer for there to be no cages, but keep in mind: The vast majority of U.S. egg-laying hens live in states where we have no pathway to provide them with any legal protection whatsoever (i.e. there’s no ballot measure option in those states),” Shapiro explained. “It’s not a choice at this time between leaving them in cages or getting cage-free systems. It’s a choice between leaving them in unbearably cramped, barren cages or getting them at least into colony systems (where the enclosure is 12 feet long by four feet wide, has double the space per bird as today, and has environmental enrichment).”

“No one claims it’s even close to ideal, but it’s better than the alternative. As well, getting federal legal protection for animals while on factory farms—especially chickens, who have no federal protection at any point in their lives—will be a monumental shift. If we can get this law enacted, we’ll be taking a very important step forward,” he continued.

If passed this federal legislation would also preempt efforts in several states, including in Washington and Oregon, to set their own standards, according to an article from the New York Times.

So what does it mean for the 2008-enacted California Proposition 2, which prohibits the confinement of farm animals in a manner where they cannot sit, stand up, fully extend their limbs or turn around freely? California Prop. 2 goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2015 and farming operations have until that date to comply with the new space requirements for their animals. The proposed federal statute will prohibit animals in California from being confined in a proscribed manner thereafter.

“This agreement includes a provision that California will still have to be in compliance by 2015, when Prop. 2 would have taken effect,” Shapiro said. “It also will apply to the sale of eggs in California by 2015, similar to (California’s Assembly Bill) 1437.”

When asked why hens were at the forefront of enacting a federal law, Shapiro simply said, “Perhaps the egg industry’s leadership is more amenable on this issue than the pork industry’s.”

To see what really happens to these sentient beings in order to provide people a scrambled egg for breakfast, watch this unsettling video:
Warning: Video is Graphic

References

“HSUS, Egg Industry Agree to Promote Federal Standards for Hens : The Humane Society of the United States.” The Humane Society of the United States : The Humane Society of the United States. 7 July 2011. Web. 11 July 2011. .

Neuman, William. “Egg Producers and Humane Society Urging Federal Standard on Hen Cages.” New York Times 7 July 2011. New York Times. 7 July 2011. Web. 11 July 2011.
.

But Tautrim wasn’t always a wood-working farmer – a detail made clear by the oceanic trek he took after graduating from University of California Santa Barbara in 1997. Tautrim sailed around the Pacific for two-and-a-half years after college, with nothing but unchecked gallantry and a vision to protect coastal environments from westernization and development.

“I didn’t want these places being transformed into Guams or Hawaiis,” said Tautrim.

But after sailing to New Guinea, Australia and the small island of Tuvalu, he returned to the Santa Barbara coast and realized an eco-Odysseus sojourn on the Pacific wasn’t the best way to change the world.

“Hell, it was happening here too,” said Tautrim.

Orella is a physical extension of Tautrim’s homecoming epiphany from 1997 and through community enrichment and sustainable farming, Tautrim keeps alive the dream born on the salty deck of his 55-foot wooden sloop.

But Tautrim’s current journey at Orella is not easy, and at times he might feel more like “The Old Man and the Sea’s Santiago, than a brazen neo-Odysseus.

Tautrim’s most basic obstacle is defining sustainable farming – a heated topic among researchers.

“Sustainability is a chameleon word like good, but doesn’t mean much without indicators we can measure,” says David Cleveland, professor of world agriculture at University of California Santa Barbara. Professor Cleveland and a team of undergraduates researched sustainability, food deserts and Santa Barbara County food consumption last year.

Formerly Orella held cattle and traditional dry-crops, but over the last several years Tautrim suspended cattle production and transformed the ranch into an operation that relies on permaculture – a deliberate blend of organic plant and animal ecologies that provide for farmers’ needs. Permaculture is characterized by stacking functions, or rotations of different crops or animals.

“Each species should serve a different function that the one before,” says Tautrim.

Orella’s community garden was planted with fava-beans during its first season, for the dual purpose of producing food and increasing soil nutrients for future crops.

My interview with Tautrim continues in that small garden plot, a shin-high maze of pepper, eggplant, radish, and goose-berries, among other plants. Pulled weeds lay within the plot to decay and become plant food, or to mark pathways. Tautrim uses compost from other parts of the ranch to reduce waste and nourish the top-soil.

“If you see a snail smash it,” says Heidi Tautrim, wife of Guner Tautrim. “Or if you’re not comfortable with that give it to me and I’ll do it.”

Due to their appetite for seedlings, snails are not welcomed in the community garden or the five-acre plot that distributes food to farmers’ markets in Goleta and Santa Barbara.

Tautrim lives at the ocean-side ranch with his wife and two children. There are five other residences at Orella, as well as four businesses, including Tautrim’s wood-working company.

Orella ranch is part of a larger piece of land purchased by Bruno Orella from Luis Camarillo in 1866, the same Spanish land-holder for whom the city of Camarillo is dedicated. Fermin Orella, one of 11 children, inherited what is current known as Orella ranch. Fermin left the ranch to his cousin, Martin Eros, who is Tautrim’s great-grandfather.

In 2003, Tautrim began to think about how to integrate Orella with sustainable farming and environmental education.

Joel Saleton, featured in Michael Pollen’s “Omnivores Dilemma” and the documentary Food Inc.,   and Dr. Elaine Ingam, President and Director of Research at Food Soil Web Inc., lectured at Orella last year during an event called The Carbon Economy Series.

Ingam gave a crash course on soil and sustainability and other notable lecturers hosted workshops on a variety of environmental issues, all available to the Santa Barbara community over a three-day period.

“We didn’t want to do this thing in a vacuum,” says Tautrim, who hosted the series at Orella with help from Loatree, one of the four businesses at the ranch. Loatree organizes several of Orella’s outreach programs, and the company works with businesses and non-profits on eco-marketing and sustainability events.

Tautrim’s most recent frustration comes with his denied request to develop rain harvesting infrastructure at Orella, which would require rain ponds and the addition of native bunch-grasses on ten-percent of the property. Grasses help maintain soil structure and retain water, and some native grasses invite certain insects that protect plants from predators – an important key to a permaculture operation. The ponds capture rain water, which can be diverted to irrigate other parts of the ranch.

“The saying that sustainability is illegal is kind of true,” says Tautrim. “The process has been littered with hurtles.”

Those hurtles, however, are also in place to protect the region from commercial development and urbanization.

There is no long term assurance the coast is protected from development, in part because long term development plans are made by officials of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, who are elected every four years. There is no guarantee that development plans won’t change with each election cycle.

Tautram joined the Gaviota Planning Advisory committee last year, a task force responsible for making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, who are working on a general plan for the Gaviota area.

Tautrim anticipates change on the Gaviota coast, and says “more people can live in a rural area if they live lighter on the land.”

The Gaviota coast, a region that starts at the north end of Isla Vista and stretches to Lompoc, represents fifty percent of California’s rural coastline. The coastal region is a nutrient rich mixing zone for cold and warm current along the west coast, which provides for a diverse and biologically active eco-system.

Endangered species in the area include the California Condor, the California Brown Pelican, the Southwestern Pond turtle, and the California Red-legged frog.

The most northern part of the Gaviota coast, which officially ends at Point Sal near Lompoc, is protected from development by zoning restrictions associated with Vandenburg air force base.

In recent years the housing bubble and economic recession have stalled some projects along Gaviota, including the addition of over twenty homes ranging from 4,000 to 12,000 square feet, situated on four-acre plots with private road access.

In the late nineties real estate costs along Gaviota were around $10 million to develop land for housing, and $30 thousand an acre for agriculture,” according to the Gaviota Coast Conservancy.

“Only the rich can afford property,” says Tautrim.

One of Tautrim’s long-term goals for Orella is to build permanent housing for people who volunteer at Orella ranch. Orella participates in the World Wide Opportunities for Organic Farms, a global network that links volunteers with organic farms. Sometimes work is exchanged for room and board, or university credits.

Despite Orella’s momentum, Tautrim doesn’t consider Orella a benchmark for sustainability.

“We’re not waiving any flag saying this it how to do it,” say Tautrim. “We just want to create conditions for change to happen.”

First, there is organic. According to the USDA National Organic Program, organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic produce is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled “organic,” a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified as well.

There is also Certified Naturally Grown products, which is an alternative program to the USDA organic certification. These products are free from synthetic ingredients and raised or produced without the use of chemical herbicides and pesticides. Certified Naturally Grown products also have strict limits on naturally derived pesticides, in some cases being even more restrictive than the USDA organic program. They are also required to be sustainably grown. The Certified Natually Grown program is most common with farms who sell directly to consumers. Many of these farms choose this route because there are less fees and paperwork involved when compared to the USDA organic program.

When dealing with imported products, Fair Trade certification is a great indicator to look for. Fair Trade labeled products are certified to adhere to standards regarding safe working conditions, fair wages for workers, environmental sustainability in production and support of social projects in the growing region. These labels are most common on products produced in poor, foreign countries, which helps struggling farmers who have less government protection from being exploited by large corporations and plantation owners.

On the other hand, local products are just what they seem, food that is grown in a region considered local to you. There are many variations to this; within 50 or 100 miles of your town, state or even your micro-climate. However, it seems that the most popular “definition” for local food is that it is grown within 100 miles of the place of sale. For a greener lifestyle this should be your first choice. Choosing these products cuts down on “food miles”, which are the average miles your food travels from the fields to a store near you. The average in a traditional grocery store is a whopping 1500 miles! Imagine the carbon emissions from this! Buying local food cuts down on the amount of food miles, meaning fresher products with less environmental impact. Choosing locally grown fruit, vegetables and meat reduces your carbon footprint greater than any other choice on the list and also provides you with fresher ingredients.

There are also many combinations of all of the choices; Organic and Fair Trade or locally grown and Certified Naturally Grown. Overall, purchasing goods with any of these labels helps support these programs and encourages sustainable and environmentally friendly growing practices.

References:

Photo: Jeffrey van Rossum

Go into any inner-city community and try and find a Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods. Those types of grocery stores are rare in cities that are populated by low-income families. But look for a McDonald’s or Taco Bell—and it’s guaranteed you’ll find these types of fast food chains or a liquor store on every other corner. Can you imagine your local liquor store being your source of every day food?

In May 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture introduced an interactive map that identifies the areas across the nation where people who have little to no access to affordable and nutritious food. Food as simple as vegetables and fruit. These areas are called food deserts, and the interactive locator which was developed by the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), will hopefully be one of many steps to combat child obesity, heart disease, diabetes, cancer and other health problems that occur from a poor diet.

It’s a vicious cycle. The poor can’t afford to eat right, suffer medical problems, and consequently can’t afford the proper health care to cure their diseases and ailments.

The Food Desert Locator, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/fooddesert/, is a part of the Obama administration’s $400 million Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI), which plans to bring grocery stores and other healthy food retailers to under served urban and rural communities across America.

“This new Food Desert Locator will help policy makers, community planners, researchers, and other professionals, identify communities where public-private intervention can help make fresh, healthy, and affordable food more readily available to residents,” said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a press release. “With this and other Web tools, USDA is continuing to support federal government efforts to present complex sets of data in creative, accessible online formats.”

According to 2010 figures, nationwide the USDA estimates that 23.5 million people, including 6.5 million children, live in low-income areas that are more than a mile from a supermarket. Of the 23.5 million, 11.5 million are low-income individuals in households with incomes at or below 200 percent of the poverty line.

The HFFI plans to promote a range of solutions that expand access to nutritious foods, including developing and equipping grocery stores and other retailers with healthy foods, in communities that currently lack these options. Through this, the Obama administration aims to eliminate food deserts across the country within seven years.

First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign also was created in conjunction with HFFI’s efforts to solve and address the obesity epidemic. Over the past three decades, childhood obesity rates have tripled. One in three children in America are overweight or obese. And, of course, the numbers are even higher in minority communities, where there is the lack of fresh food and vegetables options.

In line with the First Lady’s campaign is the new Food Plate icon that has replaced the food pyramid. The new Food Plate icon resembles a place setting and has five categories of dairy, vegetables, fruit, protein and grains. The USDA suggests to make half of your plate fruit and vegetables. Great. But what about those 23.5 million people living off of liquor store food?

So what is the solution? Many are hailing farmer’s markets and community supported agriculture programs (CSAs) as a good start. Both also create jobs, which ends up being a win-win situation.

In 1976, the U.S. Government, as a part of the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976, created the Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP). Essentially it is a program to get more farmers’ markets, roadside stands, CSAs, agri-tourism activities, and other direct producer-to-consumer market out into the public. For the 2010-11 fiscal year, $10 million was allocated to fund the FMMP. Individual applications can earn up to $100,000. Priority is being given to those proposals and projects that will target food deserts. Currently, the USDA National Farmers Market Directory contains 6,132 farmers markets in its database.

A CSA is a food distribution system in which a community supports a farming operation. The growers and consumers work together in creating this food network. According to LocalHarvest.org, which has the most comprehensive list of CSAs in the U.S., “a farmer offers a certain number of ‘shares’ to the public. Typically the share consists of a box of vegetables, and other farm products and interested consumers purchase a share (aka a ‘membership’ or a ‘subscription’) and in return receive a box (bag, basket) of seasonal produce each week throughout the farming season.”

There are some who are taking a more entrepreneurial approach to food deserts. Chicagoans Steven Casey, Jeff Pinzino and Sheelah Muhammad came up with the idea of mobile grocery store to bring the healthy goodies to communities that needed it most. According to an article by the Huffington Post, The Chicago Transit Authority donated a bus for them to use and Architecture for Humanity helped transform the bus into full-fledged grocery store. In its first five days of operation this past May, the bus served more than 600 customers.

Do you have any ideas that will help diminish food deserts? Let’s hear them.

References:

Reuters published an article earlier this month titled “E.coli outbreak poses questions for organic farming”. It quoted Paul Hunter, a professor of public health at Britain’s University of East Anglia as saying “organic farms, with all that they entail in terms of not using ordinary chemicals and non-organic fertilizers, carry an extra risk” and “if you’re growing these (sprouts) non-organically, you can separate them from feces in a way that is problematic if you are using organic production methods. Organic production of salad stuffs just may not be as safe as non-organic methods.” Additionally, The Washington Times published an editorial by David Mastio where he stated that “the Obama administration needs to impose a timeout in the expansion or opening of any new organic farms while regulators and federal safety experts examine the ongoing dangers presented by organic food.” As I will explain below, these statements are highly misleading, and in the case of Mastio, just plain ludicrous.

The fact is that both conventional and organic farming methods use manure as fertilizer, and manure has been known to contain pathogens such as E.coli. Organic farming sometimes uses a greater amount of manure-based fertilizers because they avoid using the toxic chemicals and genetic engineering that have become standard with conventional farms. This is the root of Hunter’s and Matio’s claims about safety. They are saying that because more manure is used in organic farming, there is a higher risk for pathogens to enter the food supply. The problem with their arguments is that they are failing to consider fertilizing standards in the organic industry.

All certified organic produce is subject to strict regulation regarding fertilization of soil. The National Organic Program Rules state that “U.S. regulations for organic production require that raw animal manure must be composted unless it is applied to land used for a crop not intended for human consumption; or is incorporated into the soil not less than 120 days prior to the harvest of a product whose edible portion has direct contact with soil; or is incorporated into the soil not less than 90 days prior to the harvest of a product whose edible portion does not have direct contact with the soil surface or soil particles.” These are the strictest rules on manure use imposed by any agricultural regulating body in the United States.

The organic industry uses composted manure based fertilizers in the vast majority of cases due to the strict regulations imposed. This means that the fertilizer has been allowed to naturally break down and de-compost. During the process the fertilizer reaches temperatures high enough to kill most of the bacteria present in the manure and the finished product is a nutrient rich soil that is spread on fields. This is merely what nature does everyday and is how soil is created without human interaction.

Conventional farms on the other hand are essentially unregulated when it comes to manure based fertilizers. Raw manure is routinely spread on fields in a manner that would not meet organic regulations on the topic. Furthermore, some conventional farms use sewage sludge as a soil fertilizer, which is completely banned under the USDA organic program. This sewage sludge is also known as biosolids and comes from wastewater treatment plants. The sludge can contain pathogens just like manure in addition to containing heavy metals and toxins.

As you can see, the risk of pathogen contamination is present in both organic and conventional farming methods, but due to strict organic regulations, organic farming does not pose a higher E.coli risk even though manure based fertilizers are used more often. This was confirmed in a 2004 study by the University of Michigan that found there was no statistically significant differences between the prevalence of E.coli in certified organic and conventional produce. Furthermore, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has also publicly stated that there is no evidence that organic produce contains higher rates of E.coli than conventional produce.

Cows Laying in Manure - Photo: OnlyGrassFed.com

The deeper question however, is where does this E.coli come from in the first place? To find the answer we need to look to factory farming of cattle. In a traditional feedlot, cattle are fed a diet of corn and soy, and remain in grassless pens where they literally congregate in their own feces. The natural diet of a cow however, is grass eaten as the cattle roam a pasture. As can be seen in the documentary Food Inc. and confirmed by numerous scientific studies, when cows are fed an unnatural diet of corn and soy their digestive system becomes highly acidic and many times clogged. This provides a prime environment for E.coli to grow and mutate. Studies have shown that E.coli is four times more prevalent in grain fed cattle compared to grass fed cattle. Add this to the fact that factory farms routinely injects their animals with antibiotics to prevent sickness (factory farming accounts for 60% of all antibiotic use in the United States), and you have the perfect environment for antibiotic resistant E.coli to mutate. The bacteria is then passed into the feces, which enters streams and rivers through runoff, and is also used for manure based fertilizers. These are the reasons that nearly every modern E.coli outbreak, whether in meat or produce, has been traced back to cattle.

The solution is ultimately to favor a grass-fed, pasture raised model of raising cattle rather than a feedlot based operation. This inherently lowers the existence of E.coli by about 80% according to studies. The risks are lowed even further by the cleaner operation of pasture based cattle farms, where cows do not stand and lay in their own feces and where antibiotics are not used. Even then, there will still be some instances of E.coli in manure, which is why produce farms must follow careful fertilization practices whether they are organic or conventional. If proper composting methods are used, care is taken, and regulation such as organic fertilization standards are enforced, the risks of E.coli contamination in our food supply can be dramatically reduced, if not essentially eliminated.

References

Diez-Gonzalez, Francisco, Menas G. Kizoulis, James B. Russell, and Todd R. Callaway. “Grain Feeding and the Dissemination of Acid-Resistant Escherichia Coli from Cattle.” Science. 11 Sept. 1998. Web. 19 June 2011. <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/281/5383/1666.abstract?sid=c5ba0a65-5a74-47a8-a332-c420feda4e60>.

Food Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Participant Media, 2008. Film.

Kelland, Kate. “Analysis: E.coli Outbreak Poses Questions for Organic Farming.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 06 June 2011. Web. 19 June 2011. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-ecoli-beansprouts-idUSTRE7552N720110606>.

“Manure Facts.” Organic Trade Association. Web. 19 June 2011. <http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/manure.html>.

Mastio, David. “Dead Bodies Demand Organic Food Moratorium.” Washington Times. 8 June 2011. Web. 19 June 2011. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/8/dead-bodies-demand-organic-food-moratorium/>.

Mukherjee, A., D. Speh, F. Diez-Gonzalez, and E. Dyck. “Preharvest Evaluation of Coliforms, Escherichia Coli, Salmonella, and Escherichia Coli O157:H7 in Organic and Conventional Produce Grown by Minnesota Farmers.” PubMed. U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, May 2004. Web. 19 June 2011. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15151224>.

“Nutrient Management and Fertilizer.” US Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 19 June 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/tfer.html>.

Philpott, Tom. “The FDA Finally Reveals How Many Antibiotics Factory Farms Use—and It’s a Shitload.” Grist. 10 Dec. 2010. Web. 19 June 2011. <http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-12-10-fda-reveals-amount-of-antibiotic-use-on-factory-farms>.

“Wash. Times  Uses E. Coli Outbreak In Germany To Spread Fear About Organic Food.” Media Matters for America. 10 June 2011. Web. 19 June 2011. <http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/201106100026>.

Many commend the buy-outs and mergers as proof that natural products are becoming mainstream. A victorious success in the sense that education and awareness have pushed natural sales sky-high. At the most basic level, isn’t it most natural products enthusiasts goal to eliminate the poor food and chemical production methods of the 20th century with a back to nature approach? At this, the trend proves we are winning, or at least making strident progress. The rapid growth of grocers such as Whole Foods, the sudden explosive interest in farmers markets and artisan producers, the spotlight on nutritional content of public school cafeterias, and the buy-out trends of natural companies, are all evidence of such progress.

Image by: Philip H. Howard

However, before we declare the current model victorious, we must take a deeper look and ensure that the companies aquiring these brands continue to manufacture them with the same practices and values on which they were founded. A quick look at the iconic Kashi food company, considered by many to be one of the most successful natural food brands in history and now owned by Kellogg, reveals a slow departure from the once strict natural standards.

A number of Kashi products now contain ingredients that are questionable. For example, Kashi GoLean Protein & Fiber Bars contain fractionated palm oil and crystalline fructose. Fractionated palm oil is traditional palm oil that has been put through a process to harden and shelf-stabilize it. The fractionation process for oils is an alternative to hydrogenation, that unlike hydrogenation, avoids the production of trans fats. However, it does produce higher levels of saturated fats compared to unprocessed palm oil and is done to extend shelf life of the product. Crystalline fructose is a corn derived processed sugar that is comprised of 100% fructose, as opposed to table sugar which is comprised of 50% fructose 50% glucose. There was much outcry over high fructose corn syrup due to the fact that the sweetener was comprised of 60% fructose of 40% glucose. This is because there is evidence that suggests over consumption of fructose is one of the main driving factors behind diabetes, obesity and heart disease. That being said, Kashi is now using a sweetener that is 100% fructose, the worst form of sugar for ones health. The reasoning behind its use is most likely because, being derived from corn, it is cheap. These are surely ingredients that a pre-Kellogg owned Kashi would have scorned.

Another example is Stoneyfield Farms, the popular organic diary brand now owned by Hood Corporation. Sometime around 2009, Stoneyfield began using powdered milk imported from New Zealand to produce some of their yogurt. Milk in a powdered form is a far cry from the original principles of dairy from local, organic, family owned farms. Stoneyfield founder Gary Hirshberg signaled it was not an ideal situation by stating “we can’t make the perfect the enemy of the good” when asked about the situation by Glenn Croston of StartingUpGreen.com. Granted the powdered milk is still organic and from cows with no synthetic hormones, however, it seems as a departure from the company’s original values. Powdered milk being formed into yogurt isn’t something normally associated with organics.

Overall, as organics become more mainstream, the goals and ideals of the natural food movement start to be realized on a full scale. However, a careful eye must be placed on the integrity of these products once they are acquired by conglomerates. In the case of Kashi and many others, it may be time to move on to other brands who truly have the organic movement at heart and share our principles. At the same time, efforts for awareness are necessary to reveal the slow transformation of what once were great healthy brands into more conventional products through “greenwashing” and tricks in the food labs. It raises the question whether big business and natural products can ever exist in tandem or if they are inherently incompatible? Only the future holds the answer.

Image by: Philip H. Howard

Image by: Philip H. Howard

References:

Croston, Glenn. “Gary Hirshberg, CE-Yo of Stonyfield Farm.” Starting Up Green. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http://www.startingupgreen.com/index.php/eco-entrepreneur-profiles/4-eco-entrepreneur-profiles/12-gary-hirshberg>.

Howard, Philip H. “Organic Industry Structure.” Journal of New Media Caucus. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http://www.newmediacaucus.org/html/journal/issues.php?f=papers&time=2009_winter&page=howard>.

“The Organic Myth.” Businessweek. 16 Oct. 2006. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_42/b4005001.htm>.

Taubes, Gary. “Is Sugar Toxic?” New York Times. 13 Apr. 2011. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp>.

Weil, M.D., Andrew. “Can Fructose Trigger Hyperactivity in Kids?” Dr. Weil. 30 June 2005. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA38595>.

Weil, M.D., Andrew. “Tropical Oils: What’s Healthy? What’s Not?” Dr. Weil. 30 Mar. 2005. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA118473>.