Pexels
By Allison Johnson
Most people who buy organic do it because they want to eat healthier. It's true – switching to an organic diet rapidly decreases exposure to a wide range of pesticides, including glyphosate (the main ingredient in Roundup). According to a new study published in Environmental Research, glyphosate levels in families' bodies dropped 70% in just one week on an organic diet. The researchers concluded that diet is a major source of glyphosate exposure and that eating organic reduces exposure.
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU2MDQyNC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MDcxNTUxNX0.b_BV9lltmowMk5Wed_5HmjAcZ8lj9QJrZY06nGjg5iU/img.png?width=980" id="d34c8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4a67133955312355b2c92de9a53fbfee" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Friends of the Earth / https://foe.org/the-study/
<p>But the health benefits of organic agriculture extend far beyond our individual dinner plates. Organic farming offers a comprehensive alternative to chemical agriculture, and it protects our soil, air, water, wildlife, and critically – our farming communities – from toxic pesticides.</p><p>The purpose of pesticides is to kill. So it's not surprising that widespread use of these chemicals poses a serious public health threat. Diet alone exposes us to a frightening cocktail of pesticide residues, and toxic pesticides pose much <a href="https://law.ucla.edu/news/exposure-and-interaction-potential-health-impacts-using-multiple-pesticides" target="_blank">more severe</a> health threats to <a href="https://www.organic-center.org/organic-agriculture-reducing-occupational-pesticide-exposure-farmers-and-farmworkers-0" target="_blank">farming communities</a>.</p><p>Food system workers and their families and communities – who are <a href="http://www.pesticidereform.org/environmental-justice/" target="_blank">disproportionately Latinx and low-income</a> – bear the brunt of <a href="https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/sites/default/files/aExposed%20and%20Ignored%20by%20Farmworker%20Justice%20singles%20compressed.pdf" target="_blank">harm from toxic pesticide use in agriculture</a>. Farmworkers are at risk from direct exposure to harmful chemicals when mixing and applying pesticides, as well as while working in fields; as a result, they suffer <a href="http://www.farmworkerjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/aExposed-and-Ignored-by-Farmworker-Justice-singles-compressed.pdf" target="_blank">more chemical-related injuries</a> than any other U.S. workforce. Exposure also extends beyond the workplace. Workers can carry pesticides home on clothes, shoes, and skin, inadvertently exposing their children and other family members, and pesticide drift can harm people living, working, and learning near farms.</p><p>These exposure routes add up. And weaning our agricultural system off its addiction to toxic chemicals is an uphill battle.</p><p>We've seen recent wins on pesticide issues in the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settlement-lawsuits.html#:~:text=Just%20weeks%20after%20the%20deal,warn%20consumers%20of%20the%20risk." target="_blank">courts</a> and in <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2019/191009" target="_blank">some</a> <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2020/200320" target="_blank">states</a>, but it can take decades of fighting to end the use of a single pesticide. For example, NRDC petitioned the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to end use of the brain-toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos in 2007; thirteen years later, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/nrdc-takes-epa-court-again-protect-childrens-health" target="_blank">we're still in court</a> demanding that EPA protect public health. Meanwhile numerous similar <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2018/181024-0" target="_blank">organophosphate</a> chemicals also remain in our fields and our bodies.</p><p>This pesticide "whack-a-mole" problem makes organic farming a potent addition to our public health toolbox, especially in farming communities: organic farmers do no use most synthetic pesticides, so organic farming eliminates a wide range of health threats posed by farming with toxic chemicals.</p><p>The health crises facing farm workers and rural communities needs urgent attention, particularly in light of the <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/covid-19-farmworkers-among-highest-risk-studies-show/" target="_blank">added burdens</a> from the COVID-19 crisis. Kendra Klein and Anna Lappé <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2020/aug/11/pesticide-danger-organic-food-roundup-study" target="_blank">got it right</a>:</p><p>"As long as we treat organic food as if it's a shopping preference instead of a public good, we will miss the opportunity to fight for a desperately needed shift in how we farm."</p><p>We should all be able to eat without exposing anyone to toxic pesticides. That's why we support more public investment in organic in <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lena-brook/ca-farm-school-survives-challenging-budget-year" target="_blank">schools</a>, in the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/allison-johnson/farm-bill-can-make-or-break-organic" target="_blank">Farm Bill</a>, in <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/allison-johnson/house-climate-report-food-ag-are-part-climate-solution" target="_blank">climate policy</a>, and beyond. The stakes are high – but the solutions are within reach.</p><p><em><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/allison-johnson" target="_blank" style="">Allison Johnson</a> is a Sustainable Food Policy Advocate at the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank" style="">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>.</em></p><p><em style="">Reposted with permission from the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/allison-johnson/organic-farming-protects-communities-toxic-chemicals" target="_blank" style="">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>.</em><em></em></p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Mrs. Beatrice Sebyala stands within her crop of maize at her farm in Nakasongola, Uganda. Beatrice uses her farm as a demo and example for other farmers. Uganda is home to the most organic producers in Africa. In Pictures Ltd. / Corbis / Getty Images
Organic farmers in Africa face an arduous journey getting cropland certified, limiting exports and frustrating farmers who say ecological practices could increase food security while protecting the land.
<p>Just 2 percent of Africa's farmland is considered organic — seven times less than the global average, according to data from the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) — in a continent where natural agricultural and subsistence farming are widely practiced. Farmers who avoid <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/farming-without-pesticides-how-can-we-make-agriculture-greener/a-52216796" target="_blank">synthetic fertilizers and pesticides</a> but are unable to get organic certificates say their plans to export abroad are stymied by high costs, corruption and little government support.<em></em></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/organic-farming-certificate-africa/a-52352517?maca=en-VAM_volltext_ecowatch-28485-html-copypaste" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Deutsche Welle.</em></a></p>
<p>And then there's the bureaucracy.</p><p>"The ceiling is so high for smallholder farmers to be part of the international market," said Ara Nashera, a farmer near Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya who wants to get organic certification to sell chilies abroad. "When I looked last year at how many agencies I have to go through to start exporting, there were 53. You don't even know where to start."</p><p>Alfred Koleta, an organic farmer in the same region who is relying on sales of cassava to pay his children's school fees, said the complexity of the years-long process puts farmers off getting certified. "Unless you get someone to introduce you... it's quite challenging, it's quite tedious, because this process requires multiple agencies."</p><p>More than half of Africans are smallholder farmers and agriculture is a central pillar of economies across the continent. With Africa's population set to double by 2050 and its crops increasingly menaced by <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/un-warns-hunger-crisis-in-southern-africa-on-scale-weve-not-seen-before/a-52029274" target="_blank">extreme weather, soil erosion and desertification</a>, farming choices today will play a key role in the continent's food security.</p>
<p>"Conventional methods have been eating up arable land and making it barren," said Nashera. "If we waste land now, then food will be very expensive in the future and we'll have more people fighting for very little resources."</p><p>But scientists and farmers alike are divided on the benefits of organic farming.</p>
Fighting Hunger
<p>Conventional farming uses artificial fertilizers and pesticides, some of which kill wildlife and may damage human health, particularly in countries where they are poorly regulated or overused.</p><p><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/why-biodiversity-loss-hurts-humans-as-much-as-climate-change/a-48579014" target="_blank">A landmark report on biodiversity</a> published by UN-backed scientists last year found that converting land for intensive agriculture is one of the biggest drivers of wildlife loss and degradation of nature — and that this, in turn, endangers the global food system through the less of healthy soil, clean waterways and <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/insect-apocalypse-dying-ecosystem-species-loss-a-52160360/a-52160360" target="_blank">insects that pollinate plants</a>.</p><p>At the same time, organic farms typically require more land to achieve the same yield as conventional farms do, a <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1602638" target="_blank">review paper published in the journal Science Advances</a> in 2017 found, meaning an expansion of organic could accelerate climate change and worsen hunger. Without an increase in modern farming too, this could prove deadly in sub-Saharan Africa. About 20 percent of sub-Saharan Africans are undernourished, data from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization shows, and East Africa is in the midst of an "unprecedented" threat to food security from a locust plague that is set to worsen in coming months.</p><p>But for smallholder farmers with limited equipment and low yields, a switch to organic methods could even be a boon to harvests and reduce post-harvest losses. "The [technical] capacity is so low that if you go organic but have some good practices... you could even increase productivity," said Malick Kane, author of a report on financing organic farming in Africa and project coordinator at UNCTAD, the UN's trade think tank. "You wouldn't necessarily face a food security challenge."</p>
Access to Finance
<p>The area of organic farmland in Africa has doubled in the last decade to 2.1 million hectares, FiBL data shows, with the biggest organic centers in North and <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/feeding-east-africa-locals-skeptical-of-gm-crops/a-42385062" target="_blank">East Africa</a> and the crops they grow enjoyed the world over. In Kenya, nuts and coconuts dominate organic output. In Tunisia it is olives. Ethiopia and Tanzania are big coffee-growers, while in Uganda, home to the most organic producers in Africa, the crop of choice is cacao.</p><p>Despite some successes, farmers such as Nashera and Koleta, in Kenya, are caught in a bind between domestic markets not willing to pay a premium for organic food and wealthier regions to which they cannot export without expensive certification. A survey of African farmers by UNCTAD in 2016 found that a quarter of stakeholders thought access to finance had gotten more restrictive in the last five years. Only 13 percent said it had become more efficient.</p><p>But the industry is held back by more than just money, said Okisegere Ojepat, CEO of trade association Fresh Produce Kenya. A lack of crop-specific research and equipment, including understanding of weather patterns and pest control, is keeping farmers from innovating. Pushing for more organic farming without building technical capacity would not be sustainable in the long run, said Ojepat. "It is a double-edged sword."</p><p>Organic farmers looking to reach markets abroad are trying short-term fixes. To reduce the cost of certification — which requires paying auditors from Europe and North America to fly in and inspect farms — organic farmers could apply to be certified together, said Claire Nasike, founder of environmental educational charity the Hummingbird Foundation and an agroecologist at Greenpeace Africa, which has trained a network of farmers who are now applying to be certified as a group.</p><p>"The farmers are able to hold each other accountable," said Nasike. "If one person messes it up, the entire group's certification is cancelled."</p>From Your Site Articles
- 17 Food Heroes Who Are Making the World a Better Place - EcoWatch ›
- COVID-19 Is Hurting Kenyan Horticulture Exports ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Hanging on a gate is a sign reading: "Potatoes — healthy and delicious." The slogan, to which the word "rare" could justifiably be added, is in line with Cornel Lindemann-Berk's philosophy of quality over quantity. "We don't have enough rain in the summer," he tells DW. "And since we don't want to water them, we've turned this weakness into a strength."
<p>The yields are 50 percent lower than they might otherwise have been, but even the rare varieties such as Bergerac or Bamberg aren't watery. Customers from across the region come to the farm shop to buy these spuds known for their rich flavor and high mineral content.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/farming-without-pesticides-how-can-we-make-agriculture-greener/a-52216796?maca=en-VAM_volltext_ecowatch-28485-html-copypaste" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>.</em></p>
<p>Those who came last summer also got to witness the strips of brightly colored flowers around the edge of the Lindemann-Berk's fields. His mixes of brilliant red poppies, cornflowers and wild daisies attracted an abundance of insect life.</p><p>"The number of [plant] species has increased, and the number of each insect species has gone up fourfold," says the agronomist.</p><p>Scientists began recording the growth of the flowers after carrying out targeted planting for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/insects">insects</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/birds" rel="noopener noreferrer">birds</a>. Here, the animals can find food and nectar, as well as a safe place to reproduce.</p>
This Is Conventional Organic Farming
<p>This family-run business in Germany's Rhineland region is one of 10 farms across the country taking part in a project to test and implement practical and economically viable conservation measures alongside traditional agriculture.</p><p>By taking part in the project, which is known as F.R.A.N.Z. (Future Resources, Agriculture & Nature Conservation) and runs from 2017 to 2027, Lindemann-Berk is on his way to becoming an organic farmer.</p><p>"As part of this project, we don't use liquid manure or crop protection agents," he says. "The yield is sometimes zero, because weeds such as thistles and burdock are rampant here." For every crop plant, around 30 unwanted herbs and grass also push through the ground.</p><p>Lindemann-Berk has been making losses on grain and rapeseed for years. But when he took over the Gut Neu-Hemmerich farm three decades ago he converted several disused buildings into flats and offices, and so he doesn't have to rely on agriculture alone to make a living. Nonetheless, it's still important to him to plant a diversity of grains. He doesn't cultivate monocultures but practices crop rotation, just as farmers did centuries ago. Varying what he grows each year helps to regenerate the soil, while also reducing disease and pests.</p><p>As part of other experiments for F.R.A.N.Z, Lindemann-Berk has sown corn and runner beans together. The beans grow up the corn plants and prevent light from reaching the soil, thereby significantly reducing the growth of weeds. Because the beans are rich in protein and the corn contains starch, the mix also lends itself to cattle feed.</p><p>"Skylark-windows" — rectangular strips in the shape of windows which are cut into the crops — were also introduced in the fields. This allowed the heavily decimated bird population to breed undisturbed on the ground among the dense grain.</p><p>Lindemann-Berk only uses fertilizers and <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/deadly-pesticides-in-eu-produce-from-turkey/a-52142826" target="_blank">pesticides</a> in an emergency — and even then in homeopathic doses.</p><p>"Too much fertilizer can even cause unwanted weeds to multiply. We've been calculating the requirements for more than 40 years. Using soil samples, we examine the amount of nutrients in the soil and calculate exactly how much fertilizer we need to use in order to get a good yield. Only then do we buy what we need," he says.</p>High Tech in the Fields
<p>He also prefers to use organic fertilizer made of animal excrement. "It's delivered from the Netherlands, because there's hardly any livestock nearby," he says. His farm supplies grain for the Dutch cattle. "So why shouldn't we get the animal's excrement back?" he asks wryly. "Organisms in the soil digest the valuable liquid fertilizer and excrete minerals like nitrogen, which the plants then absorb through their roots."</p><p>This liquid crop protection mixture can be applied to troublesome plants using a satellite-navigated and digitally controlled syringe. This kind of work is particularly effective after sunset.</p><p>With the help of his own weather station, data collected from the soil and the meteorological service, Lindemann-Berk can make forecasts in order to calculate the risk of attack from fungus. Even then, pesticides should only be used if the plant isn't able to help itself.</p><p>By using lactic acid bacteria, Lindemann-Berk was able to dramatically reduce his use of chemical fungicides.</p><p>Once the harvest is complete, he takes soil samples again. "So far, the measurements have shown no <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/defending-glyphosate-a-roundup-of-german-agribusiness-sentiments/a-48841453" target="_blank">residues of glyphosate</a> and its breakdown products within the grain," he says.</p><p>He points to the shelf behind him, which is full of files, explaining how he has to keep his records for five years. Although <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/germany-sets-new-restrictions-on-glyphosate/a-46172338" target="_blank">fertilizer regulations have been tightening for many years</a> now — <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/german-farmers-overregulation-is-the-last-thing-we-need/a-51418355" target="_blank">causing many farmers to give up on agriculture</a> — he says the positive impacts won't show up in groundwater for 30 years.</p>Not an Organic Farm — but Still Environmentally Friendly
<p>Organic farms can only treat their plants with copper formulations, which stimulate growth and act as deterrents against fungus. Although it's a heavy metal, people still need copper in small doses to help with blood formation and to support a functioning nervous system.</p><p>"We do everything we can to be environmentally friendly, and do what the organic farms do so well," says Lindemann-Berk. "Because no one wants to harm the environment. Agribusinesses have been working in the same places for hundreds of years."</p><p>Sustainable practice is a priority here. But in order to be certified as an organic farm, he would need to pluck the weeds by hand and — as was done centuries ago — regularly rake the soil around the plants to uproot unwanted herbs and grasses.</p><p>"No one wants to do this job, not even young people doing an internship," he says. And so the job is left to machines, in the age of industrial agriculture in Germany.</p><p>Lindemann-Berk gives his plants plenty of space to grow, which allows them to absorb enough nutrients from the soil, and in turn leads to well-aerated earth that is less susceptible to fungal diseases. He also calls on customers who pay too much attention to the appearance of their fruits and vegetables to reconsider.</p><p>"If I offer my customers tasty and untreated apples from the orchards, you'll always get complaints about a few marks on the fruit," he says, adding that people want produce that is both organic and flawless. "Those two things don't go together."</p>From Your Site Articles
- Farmers Switched to Organic After Pesticides Made Them or Their ... ›
- How Proper Crop Protection Ensures Global Food Safety - EcoWatch ›
- Synthetic Fertilizers Are Heating the Planet. But There's an Alternative. - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
OceanFishing / iStock / Getty Images
<p>It's the question emblazoned on the back of a van that has ferried me across 34 states to visit 128 consumer-owned grocery stores (food co-ops) and another 20 in development.</p><p>I spent 13 years investigating every facet of the food supply. It led me to the conclusion that the grocery store is, hands down, the most influential force shaping food, the planet and our health. So I wrote a book about it, bought a tour van and took the book on the road. The message I'm sharing is that it's time to pay a lot more attention to who owns the grocery stores we shop at and what those answers mean to the future of food and the future of our communities.</p><p>We have invested considerable energy over the past decade into deepening our understanding of how and where food is grown and who grows it. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/organic-food">Organic food</a> has exploded into a $50 billion industry in the U.S. Farm-to-table restaurants are plentiful. Farmers markets are thriving and community supported agriculture models are enabling new generations of farmers to usher in a new food paradigm. But there remains a cavernous gap in the effort — where we buy our groceries. If 10 percent of our weekly food budget is at a farmers market, what about the other 90 percent? It's almost certainly being invested in a grocery store. So what are we investing in?</p><p>If it's The Fresh Market, you're investing in Apollo Global Management — a firm that includes the former Blackwater in its portfolio. If it's Trader Joe's, you're investing in Aldi Nord — a German multinational grocer. If it's Whole Foods, you're investing in Amazon and lining the pockets of the wealthiest person on the planet. And what of the smaller chains? The trajectory of grocery consolidation suggests you're investing in what will likely become an acquisition by one of a handful of hungry grocery giants.</p><p>Look at Canada and the U.K., where market concentration in grocery retail is remarkably high. In Canada, two companies alone receive over half of Canadians' grocery dollars. Combined with the next three largest grocers, those five companies command 80 percent of the market. The numbers are similar in the U.K.</p><p>What happens when a market becomes this concentrated? Take Loblaw Co. Ltd., the largest of Canada's grocers commanding 30% of the market. Dec. 14, 2017: Loblaw admits to the Canadian public that they've been cheating their customers for 14 years – alleging they had colluded with four of their most notable competitors to fix the price of bread. It's understood Canadians were spending $1 more per loaf of bread than general rates of food inflation would have predicted. Back in 2007, over in the highly concentrated U.K. grocery market, Asda and Sainsbury's admitted to fixing the price of dairy between 2002 and 2003. The scheme was said to have cost consumers the equivalent today of $438 million.</p>
<p>As a Canadian, I'm particularly interested in what will come of the investigation into bread price fixing, but despite the ongoing investigation it appears we have already moved on. On April 9, 2019, Canada's Environment and Climate Change Minister announced Loblaw would receive a $12 million subsidy to upgrade refrigeration units at 370 of their stores. Company admits to cheating Canadians. Canadians gift them $12 million. Incredible.</p><p>Are Canadians outraged? Are they switching grocery stores? Absolutely not. Loblaw is doing just fine. Granted, there aren't a whole lot of alternatives. Four other grocery giants are alleged to have participated in the scheme. In many areas of the country, those five grocers are the only options available.</p><p>Similar levels of market concentration are also emerging across the U.S. After Walmart's explosion into grocery in the late 1990s and early 2000s, waves of grocery mergers and acquisitions followed, leaving only a handful of grocery giants operating in any one geographic area. As I traveled through the eastern states this past spring, it became clear how few people are aware of the companies behind the banners. The once regional chains are no longer so regional. Hannaford, Food Lion, Giant, Stop & Shop, all are now subsidiaries of Ahold Delhaize (Netherlands.) Fred Meyer, Harris Teeter, Ralphs — now Kroger banners. Safeway, Shaw's, Star Market and Vons — all now part of Albertsons.</p><p>With the exception of some areas of the country where fierce grocery store battles are playing out, we eaters are generally at the mercy of one of a few giants. In rural communities and many urban neighborhoods, there might be just one single option available — textbook monopolies.</p><p>"Well, that's capitalism for ya," some will say. No doubt. But this is different. This is about food. Grocery stores are not, in any way, just some other "business." These buildings operating in our neighborhoods bear tremendous social and economic responsibilities.</p><p>Take human health. The connection between food and health is now well understood. Studies show that the common cold, diabetes and heart disease can be prevented, curtailed or managed through the foods we eat. Food is medicine. So what responsibilities have we placed upon these grocers that are proportional to the vital health services they're providing? What have we done to ensure all people, regardless of income, race or geography, are provided access to healthy, wholesome and risk-free food at the grocery stores in their neighborhoods? Not much. We've left the health implications of our grocery stores entirely in the hands of market forces.</p><p>A grocer's economic role is also deserving of scrutiny. Ten years ago, it was nearly impossible for local/regional food producers to get their products on the shelves of a major national chain operating nearby. Whereas some progress has been made in this regard, there remain many producers who continue to come up against substantial barriers when trying to access the shelves of their local/regional grocers. These barriers effectively throttle local economic development and diminish the wider social benefits that extend from the presence and growth of a diversity of local businesses.</p><p>For the past 100 years, grocers have also been shaping the entirety of the food system. With only a handful of grocers dominating any one region or nation, they have effectively acted as bottlenecks within the system — gatekeepers to the foods that will and won't make it to market. It's the grocers who are determining the how, where, and who of food production both locally and globally. Grocers are determining the future of food.</p><p>As there is no regulatory oversight of grocery store behaviors and practices in these three key areas of influence, where can we eaters find modest assurance that grocers have our interests at heart? And how might a grocer's commitment to our community be sustained for generations to come? I believe it comes down to who owns your grocery store. It should come as no surprise that the most locally owned grocer is most likely to be the most accountable and responsive to the community it serves. After all, the owner(s) and senior management are often residents of the town/city/neighborhood in which the store is located. As long as our neighborhood grocer is privately owned, any assurances of long-term commitment are precarious. No question there are many independent grocers out there who are in it for the long haul and dedicating themselves to their customers, but it's risky for any of us to place the future of our neighborhood grocer entirely in the hands of a single individual or family. Just as closures of chain stores are commonplace, so too are closures of independent locally owned grocers, particularly in today's hyper-challenging climate of grocery retail. Acquisitions are also a risk to the future of the grocery stores in our neighborhoods. In both cases, community consultations are not required despite the enormous repercussions a closure or acquisition may have on food access, health, community and economy. If it's merely a change in ownership, the unique characteristics that may have set a store or chain apart often erode into the culture of the acquiring chain. The accountability and commitment to the community often goes with it.</p>
<p>In August 2019, Musser's Markets, with three locations in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, was acquired by Giant (a subsidiary of the Dutch multinational Ahold Delhaize.) This followed Giant's single store acquisition in May of Ferguson & Hassler in Quarryville and prior to that, Darrenkamp's in Willow Valley in September 2018.</p><p>In January 2019, the Long Island-based King Kullen (c. 1930) with 32 locations and its independent subsidiary Wild by Nature with five locations were acquired by Stop & Shop (also a subsidiary of Ahold Delhaize.)</p><p>In 2015, Chicago's Mariano's, with 44 locations, was acquired by Kroger. The culture change at Mariano's is not going unnoticed. An August 2019 article in Crain's Chicago Business magazine reads, "Is Kroger ruining Mariano's?"</p><p>So where can eaters find greater assurance in the future of their grocery stores? My research and experience within the food system leads me to only one model. That is the consumer cooperative — food co-ops — full-service grocery stores collectively owned by their customers.</p><p>Here's why:</p><p>There have been zero instances of a food co-op in America being acquired by a chain grocer. Why not? It would first require a vote by the co-op's thousands of shareholders who would be asked to decide on whether or not to sell the store. It's true that there are examples of food co-ops closing, but any decision to change the ownership of a cooperatively owned grocery store is a democratic one, made by the people who would be most affected by the decision: eaters and workers — us! Community consultations on the future of neighborhood grocery stores are built directly into the cooperative model of ownership.</p><p>What defines a consumer food co-op? Rather than any one individual or company owning the grocery store, consumer food co-ops spread ownership out to however many people want to become a shareholder. There are no limits to who can become a shareholder nor how many shareholders can co-own the store. Better yet, no one shareholder has any more voting power than another. Each share in the co-op is equal to one vote and each shareholder is limited to one voting share. Once a year, shareholders in a food co-op will vote for their board of directors to govern the co-op. Co-ops democratize the economy. </p><p>We've generally placed any business or service that a community deems 'essential' into an entirely different category of oversight, scrutiny and expectations. Public transit, public libraries, community centers, drinking water, roads and first responders are generally stewarded by public agencies and institutions. They're simply far too important to leave entirely in the hands of the private sector. Is food deserving of the same attention? Co-ops, particularly consumer co-ops, are effectively public institutions. They build accountability to the community directly into the ownership model. They allow the public to steward the food system from the primary point of convergence between eaters and the system — at the grocery store.</p><p>While a food co-op may in practice be a for-profit business, by virtue of their ownership model, they operate far more along the lines of a nonprofit businesses. Every dollar of profit generated at a co-op is channeled into one of two directions — back into improving the business or returned to shareholders in the form of dividends proportional to the level of purchases a shareholder made over the previous year. As a shareholder of a food co-op, I've received checks as low as $10 to as high as $50 at the end of the year. These dividends are essentially the grocer saying to its customers, "sorry, we charged you too much this year, here's how much we overcharged you." </p><p>The recirculating effect of a food dollar spent at a food co-op doesn't end with the distribution of profits. At a cooperatively owned grocer, the head office is not only in the community served by the co-op, it's almost always located directly inside the store itself. With the head office located inside the store, the co-op grocery store becomes home to more jobs, including more full-time positions. Marketing managers, human resources, finance, outreach, any positions that would otherwise be located at a distant head office are instead located within the community. More than 180 people are employed at my food co-op, almost 100 of them full time. The largest chain grocer operating in my city claims 150 employees. Then there are the third-party services a cooperatively owned grocer will utilize. This translates into more of our grocery dollars circulating into local businesses that in turn re-circulate those dollars locally.</p><p>Today, 230 co-ops operate over 300 locations in the U.S. Another 100 are in various stages of development. The food co-op movement is expanding and evolving. Of the 144 new food co-ops that have opened in the past 11 years, 72 percent of them have weathered the challenging grocery retail climate and have remained open. Nationwide, interest in food co-ops is spreading beyond consumers of organic and local foods. All types of communities, including those in designated food deserts, are turning to this model of grocery store ownership to secure a more promising future for their communities.</p>
<p> <em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/opinion/2019/12/06/grocery-store-own/" target="_blank">YES! Magazine</a>.<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2641669059#/" target="_self"></a></em><em></em></p>From Your Site Articles
- 5 States That Grow the Most Organic Food Per Acre - EcoWatch ›
- Here's How You Can Be Nudged to Eat Healthier, Recycle and ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Guido Cavallini / Cultura / Getty Images
By Stacy Malkan
If you like to give friends and family the gift of knowledge about our food, we're here with recommendations for 2019 books and movies that illuminate the issues close to our hearts. At U.S. Right to Know, we believe that transparency – in the marketplace and in politics – is crucial to building a healthier food system for our children, our families and our world. Kudos to the journalists and filmmakers who are exposing how powerful food and chemical industry interests impact our health and the environment.
<p>Here are our recommendations for best-of-the-year food books and movies. You can also receive a signed copy of the award-winning 2017 book by our colleague, Carey Gillam, <em>Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science</em>, for a monthly <a href="https://www.patreon.com/usrtk" target="_blank">sustainer donation to U.S. Right to Know through Patreon</a> or you can <a href="https://usrtk.org/donations/donate-to-usrtk/" target="_blank">donate directly to USRTK here</a>. </p>
<p><strong>Eating Tomorrow: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Battle for the Future of Food</strong><br>By Timothy A. Wise, <a href="https://thenewpress.com/books/eating-tomorrow" target="_blank">The New Press</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Holiday gift-giving solved: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/EatingTomorrow?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#EatingTomorrow</a>!<br><br>Olivier De Schutter: "There is a battle for the future of food, and Eating Tomorrow shifts the frontlines.”<a href="https://twitter.com/drvandanashiva?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@drvandanashiva</a>: “Eating Tomorrow is a wake-up call about the future of food."<br>Ricardo Salvador: “Wise’s writing is riveting." <a href="https://t.co/f0nXjqc4Y2">pic.twitter.com/f0nXjqc4Y2</a></p>— Timothy A. Wise (@TimothyAWise) <a href="https://twitter.com/TimothyAWise/status/1201922126208520192?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 3, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Scholar <a href="https://twitter.com/TimothyAWise" target="_blank">Timothy A. Wise</a> shows the world already has the tools to feed itself, without expanding <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/industrial-agriculture">industrial agriculture</a> or adopting <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/">genetically modified</a> seeds. Reporting from Africa, Mexico, India and the U.S., Wise details how agribusiness and its philanthropic promoters have <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/11/01/battle-future-food-africa" target="_blank">hijacked food policies to feed corporate interests,</a> and argues that policies promoted by the Gates Foundation-funded Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) are <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/11/01/battle-future-food-africa" target="_blank">failing to deliver productivity and income improvements</a> for small-scale farmers in Africa. Wise also takes readers to remote villages to see how farmers are rebuilding soils with ecologically sound practices without chemicals or imported hybrid or genetically engineered seeds.</p><p>"Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on fertilizer and hybrid seed subsidies by Kenya and other African countries over the past few years have gone down the drain, a new book argues," writes Julius Segei in Kenya's largest independent newspaper, the <a href="https://mobile.nation.co.ke/news/New-book-says-farm-input-subsidies-deepen-poverty/1950946-5360172-e4pg2hz/index.html" target="_blank">The Daily Nation</a>. "The scholar's verdict that there is little evidence of any green revolution coming to Africa more than 10 years after AGRA is likely to kick up a storm in agriculture and development circles."</p>
<p><strong>The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception</strong></p><p>By David Michaels, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-triumph-of-doubt-9780190922665?cc=us&lang=en&" target="_blank">Oxford University Press (available January 2020)</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TheTriumphofDoubt?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TheTriumphofDoubt</a> won't be available until February. Instead of using Amazon, you can pre-order it with a 30% discount from <a href="https://t.co/GIjwdBSPKq">https://t.co/GIjwdBSPKq</a> with promo code ASFLYQ6 2/<a href="https://t.co/ChmlLcLCHE">https://t.co/ChmlLcLCHE</a></p>— David Michaels (@drdavidmichaels) <a href="https://twitter.com/drdavidmichaels/status/1207300889863770114?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>David Michaels' new book offers an insider's look at how corporations manufacture doubt in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/">science</a>: bogus studies, congressional testimonies, think-tank policy documents and more. He provides new details of high-profile cases involving car manufacturing, professional sports, the food we eat and the air we breathe. Michaels, the former assistant secretary of labor under President Barack Obama, writes that the anti-science policies of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration are not new, but rather the outcome of decades-long campaigns by the tobacco and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> industries to stop regulation of deadly products. "This book is written to get you angry enough to want to learn how to defend yourselves, your communities, and our vulnerable planet," writes consumer advocate Ralph Nader. "Let it grip you toward detection and defiance." </p>
<p><strong>Dark Waters</strong>, feature film in theaters now, starring <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkRuffalo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" target="_blank">Mark Ruffalo</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvAOuhyunhY" target="_blank">(link to trailer)</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">By making <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DarkWaters?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DarkWaters</a>, we hope that the film brings more awareness to a massive public health threat that DuPont wanted to cover up. <a href="https://t.co/nuj4zeR3Fg">https://t.co/nuj4zeR3Fg</a></p>— Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkRuffalo/status/1203687893950185473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>A tenacious attorney, <a href="https://twitter.com/robertbilott" target="_blank">Rob Billot</a>, uncovers a dark secret that connects a growing number of unexplained deaths to one of the world's largest corporations. As the evidence in the film shows, DuPont was aware of the dangers of its Teflon ingredients for many years. While trying to expose the truth, Bilot soon finds himself risking his future, his family and his own life.</p><p>In these kinds of movies, "you know going in that you're going to see a story about how bad things are thanks to corporate influence over government as well as the economy," <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dark-waters-movie-review-2019" target="_blank">writes movie critic Roger Ebert</a>, "but the extent of the corruption is still shocking, highlighting the implicit question: why fight, if the bad guys have already won? The answer, of course, is that you should fight because it's the right thing to do." Dark Waters is "an effective outrage machine," writes Michael O'Sullivan <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/mark-ruffalo-is-the-dogged-attorney-who-took-on-dupont-in-the-fact-based-dark-waters/2019/11/26/019cc15c-0a3a-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html?arc404=true" target="_blank">in The Washington Post</a>, but the movie "doesn't aspire to be something it's not. Like Bilott himself, it gets the job done, not by showboating, but by laying out the facts."</p>
<p><strong>Kid Food: The Challenge of Feeding Children in a Highly Processed World</strong><em><br></em>By Bettina Elias Siegel, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/kid-food-9780190862121" target="_blank">Oxford University Press</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Many of you have asked if KID FOOD will be released as an audiobook. YES! Here’s a preorder link—along with details re: my East Coast book tour, which starts THIS WEEK! <a href="https://t.co/UBnfH6I9Yw">https://t.co/UBnfH6I9Yw</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/AvivaGoldfarb?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AvivaGoldfarb</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/marionnestle?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@marionnestle</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/pam_koch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@pam_koch</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/dietdetective?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@dietdetective</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/greenlightbklyn?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@greenlightbklyn</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/audible_com?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@audible_com</a> <a href="https://t.co/XvhBk6Nppv">pic.twitter.com/XvhBk6Nppv</a></p>— Bettina Elias Siegel (@thelunchtray) <a href="https://twitter.com/thelunchtray/status/1193934908726661120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 11, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/thelunchtray?lang=en" target="_blank">Bettina Elias Siegel</a>, a leading voice on children's food, critically examines how America's food culture exploits children and misleads parents. Siegel exposes predatory food-industry techniques for marketing directly to children and convincing parents that highly-processed products are "healthy." She provides extensive coverage of America's school-food program — including why, even after Obama-era reforms, school meals are still so often dominated by processed foods, many of them bearing popular junk-food trademarks. "This is a gorgeously written, heartfelt, and deeply compelling manifesto arguing why and how we must do better at feeding our kids more healthfully at home, in schools, and on the soccer field," <a href="https://www.foodpolitics.com/2019/10/weekend-reading-kid-food/" target="_blank">writes Marion Nestle</a>, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. "It should inspire all of us to get busy and start advocating for better kid-food policies — right now."</p>
<p><strong>Modified: A food lover's journey into GMOs<br></strong>By Aube Giroux, feature length documentary <a href="https://www.modifiedthefilm.com/" target="_blank">now available for purchase or rent online</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Long time JGI friend Aube Giroux has won a <a href="https://twitter.com/beardfoundation?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@beardfoundation</a> award for her beautiful film Modified! Congratulations <a href="https://twitter.com/Aubergineblog?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Aubergineblog</a> - very well deserved! <a href="https://t.co/GPxO6YvkyZ">https://t.co/GPxO6YvkyZ</a></p>— Jane Goodall 🇨🇦 (@JaneGoodallCAN) <a href="https://twitter.com/JaneGoodallCAN/status/1123227249367449600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 30, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>In this beautiful, moving, award-winning documentary, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/kitchenvignettes" target="_blank">filmmaker Aube Giroux</a> and her mother embark on a personal investigative journey to find out why GMOs are not labeled on food products in the U.S. and Canada, despite being labeled in 64 countries around the world. Interweaving the personal and the political, the film is anchored around the filmmaker's relationship to her mom, a gardener and food activist who battled cancer during the film's production. Fueled by their shared love of food, the mother-daughter team discovers the extent to which the agribusiness industry controls our food policies, and makes a strong case for a more transparent and sustainable food system. The winner of four Audience Favorite Awards and the 2019 James Beard Foundation Broadcast Media Award for best documentary, Modified is "<a href="https://medium.com/@joan_baxter/award-winning-film-modified-premieres-at-santa-barbara-international-film-festival-a-review-b806cc00a56f" target="_blank">beautiful beyond words … compelling and compassionate</a>," writes the journalist Joan Baxter.</p>
<p><strong>Et le monde devint silencieux: Comment l'agrochimie a détruit les insectes<br>And The World Became Silent: How Agrochemistry Destroyed Insects</strong><em><br></em>by Stéphane Foucart, <a href="https://www.seuil.com/ouvrage/et-le-monde-devint-silencieux-stephane-foucart/9782021427424" target="_blank">Editions du Seuil (in French)</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="fr" dir="ltr">[Événement] Stéphane Foucart <a href="https://twitter.com/sfoucart?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@sfoucart</a>, journaliste <a href="https://twitter.com/lemondefr?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@lemondefr</a>, présente son ouvrage sur l’industrie des pesticides auprès des étudiants dauphinois <br>« Et le monde devint silencieux » <a href="https://twitter.com/EditionsduSeuil?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EditionsduSeuil</a> 🐝 <br><br>📍<a href="https://twitter.com/Paris_Dauphine?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Paris_Dauphine</a> <br>➡️ <a href="https://t.co/MpYXfDr1Db">https://t.co/MpYXfDr1Db</a> <a href="https://t.co/N127Gb3Ir1">pic.twitter.com/N127Gb3Ir1</a></p>— Univ Paris Dauphine-PSL (@Paris_Dauphine) <a href="https://twitter.com/Paris_Dauphine/status/1194297679523827718?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 12, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Investigative journalist <a href="https://twitter.com/sfoucart?lang=en" target="_blank">Stéphane Foucart</a> details how the agrichemical industry orchestrated "the greatest ecological disaster of the early twenty-first century" – the collapse of insect populations. Although pesticide companies claim the disappearance of insects is a mystery due to multiple factors, Foucart reports that the dominant cause is the massive use of neonicotinoid pesticides, and shows how it was made possible by an industry that faked public debate by manipulating science, regulation and expertise. The book shows how the industry exploited science to the point of "making us forget that insecticides … kill insects," writes Annabelle Martella in La Croix (<a href="https://www.la-croix.com/Sciences-et-ethique/Sciences-et-ethique/monde-devint-silencieux-enquete-strategie-lagrochimie-2019-09-10-1201046466" target="_blank">review in French</a>).</p><p>Foucart won the 2018 European Press Prize for investigative reporting, along with Stéphane Horel, for their <a href="https://www.europeanpressprize.com/article/monsanto-papers/" target="_blank">Monsanto Papers (translated into English here)</a> articles about how Monsanto manipulated science, influenced the regulatory process and orchestrated stealth PR campaigns to defend its Roundup herbicides. </p>
<p><strong>Wilted: Pathogens, Chemicals, and the Fragile Future of the Strawberry Industry</strong><br>By Julie Guthman, <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520305281/" target="_blank">University of California Press</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Thanks to @uscs professor Julie Guthman for her excellent reporting on how the strawberry industry came to rely on highly toxic soil fumigants. For more on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Wilted?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Wilted</a>, see review by <a href="https://twitter.com/emonosson11?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@emonosson11</a> in <a href="https://twitter.com/aaas?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@aaas</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/sciencemagazine?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@sciencemagazine</a> <a href="https://t.co/AfjdjsgxB2">https://t.co/AfjdjsgxB2</a></p>— U.S. Right To Know (@USRightToKnow) <a href="https://twitter.com/USRightToKnow/status/1207358348737290240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Julie Guthman tells the story of how strawberries – the sixth highest-grossing crop in California which produces 88 percent of the nation's favorite berry – came to rely on highly toxic soil fumigants, and how that reliance reverberated throughout the rest of the fruit's production system. The particular conditions of plants, soils, chemicals, climate and laboring bodies that once made strawberry production so lucrative in the Golden State have now changed and become a set of related threats that jeopardize the future of the industry. "The strawberry industry's predicament is just one example of how our strategy of dominating ecological systems and focusing on increased output at all cost is short-sighted, with diminishing returns," writes Emily Monosson in a <a href="https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2019/08/13/wilted/" target="_blank">Science magazine review</a>. "Recent efforts to work with, rather than against, natural systems suggest a path forward."</p>
<p><strong>GMOs Decoded: A Skeptic's View of Genetically Modified Foods<br></strong>By Sheldon Krimsky, <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/gmos-decoded" target="_blank">MIT Press</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Have you heard Sheldon Krimsky's interview on "GMOs Decoded" with <a href="https://twitter.com/RalphNader?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RalphNader</a> on Ralph Nader Radio Hour? Listen in here: <a href="https://t.co/kADErGaHUm">https://t.co/kADErGaHUm</a> <a href="https://t.co/ooMwCWoDZe">pic.twitter.com/ooMwCWoDZe</a></p>— MIT Press (@mitpress) <a href="https://twitter.com/mitpress/status/1129343380734009344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 17, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Tufts professor Sheldon Krimsky examines health and safety concerns, environmental issues, implications for world hunger and lack of scientific consensus on GMOs (genetically modified organisms). He explores the viewpoints of a range of GMO skeptics, from public advocacy groups and nongovernmental organizations to scientists with differing views on risk and environmental impact. <a href="https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-262-03919-2" target="_blank">Publishers Weekly calls Krimsky's book</a> a "fair-minded, informative primer" that "lays out opposing 'claims and counterclaims,' demystifies the science, and shows where there is consensus, honest disagreement, or unresolved uncertainty." NYU professor Marion Nestle describes the book as "a gift to anyone confused" about GMOs.</p>
<h3>And Two More Excellent Food Books From 2018</h3><p><strong>Seeds of Resistance: The Fight to Save Our Food Supply</strong><br>By Mark Schapiro, <a href="https://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/9781510705760/seeds-of-resistance/" target="_blank">Skyhorse Publishing</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Check out Mark Schapiro's new website on seed politics, and his terrific new book Seeds of Resistance <a href="https://t.co/QtCduGXSrH">https://t.co/QtCduGXSrH</a></p>— Michael Pollan (@michaelpollan) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelpollan/status/1097688890155126785?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Journalist <a href="https://twitter.com/schapiro?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3Aschapiro&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fseedsofresistance.net%2Fabout-the-author%2F" target="_blank">Mark Schapiro</a> reports on the high-stakes battle underway for control of the world's seeds, as climate volatility threatens the security of our food supply. Schapiro investigates what it means that more than half the world's commercial seeds are owned by three multinational chemical companies, and brings to light what the corporate stranglehold is doing to our daily diet – from the explosion of genetically modified foods, to the rapid disappearance of plant varieties, to the elimination of independent farmers who have long been the bedrock of our food supply. The book also documents colorful and surprising stories from the global movement that is defying these companies, and offering alternatives capable of surviving the accelerating climatic changes. "Seeds of Resistance is a wake-up call," writes Alice Waters, founder of Chez Panisse and the Edible Schoolyard. "With vivid and memorable stories, Mark Schapiro tells us how seeds are at the frontlines of our epic battle for healthy food."</p>
<p><strong>Formerly Known as Food: How the Industrial Food System Is Changing Our Minds, Bodies, and Culture<br></strong></p><p>By Kristin Lawless, <a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250078315" target="_blank">St. Martin's Press</a></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Not mad about the comparison! “Of all the books that I’ve read on the food industry, hers is one that sticks out. An absolute flamethrower – jawdropping – savage AF. Kristin Lawless is Daenerys Targaryen and Big Food is King’s Landing and I’m here for it.” <a href="https://t.co/a7BiHpsh4C">https://t.co/a7BiHpsh4C</a></p>— Kristin Lawless (@kristinlawless) <a href="https://twitter.com/kristinlawless/status/1206235404854124547?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>If you think buying <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/organic">organic</a> from Whole Foods is protecting you, you're wrong. Our food — even what we're told is good for us — has changed for the worse in the past 100 years, its nutritional content deteriorating due to industrial farming and its composition altered due to the addition of thousands of chemicals from pesticides to packaging. We simply no longer know what we're eating. In <em>Formerly Known as Food</em>, <a href="https://twitter.com/kristinlawless?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" target="_blank">Kristin Lawless</a> argues that, because of the degradation of our diet, our bodies are literally changing from the inside out. The billion-dollar food industry is reshaping our food preferences, altering our brains, changing the composition of our microbiota, and even affecting the expression of our genes.</p><p>"In this revelatory survey of the dangers of the industrial food system, Lawless offers crucial tools for navigating it safely," writes the author Naomi Klein. "The best ones have nothing to do with shopping advice: she asks us to think holistically about food, why it can't be separated from other struggles for justice, and what it means to demand transformative change." </p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://usrtk.org/food-for-thought/2019_book_recommendations/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- This Holiday Season Your Best Gift Can Be a Donation to a Nonprofit ›
- Holiday Shopping: Best Retailers for Toxic-Free Gifts - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Federal organic regulations require outdoor access for livestock – but don't specify how much. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture / Flickr
By Michael Haedicke
This holiday season, Americans will buy some 20 million turkeys and 300 million pounds of ham.
<p>
Some of these turkeys and hams will be certified <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/organic">organic</a>, reflecting the common belief that organically raised animals live happier, more natural lives.
</p><p>
The reality, though, is more complicated.</p>
<p>Government regulations for organic farming contain few specific protections for pigs, poultry, egg-laying hens and other animals raised for human consumption. So conditions on organic farms may not actually be all that different from those at traditional livestock operations.</p>
<h2>Organic Explosion</h2><p>The organic food industry has grown enormously in the U.S. in recent decades.</p><p>Organic farming began as a radical cause in the 1970s embraced by a <a href="https://library.ucsc.edu/reg-hist/cultiv/home" target="_blank">small group of farmers in California and a handful of other states</a>. These pioneers sought to grow food naturally, rather than assert their dominance over the earth. As such, they eschewed <a href="https://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Bulletins/Transitioning-to-Organic-Production/Text-Version/History-of-Organic-Farming-in-the-United-States" target="_blank">synthetic pesticides and fertilizers</a>.</p><p>Animal ethics were part of these farmers' vision, too. Rather than thinking of livestock only as producers of meat, milk and eggs, many organic farmers viewed animals as <a href="https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/sustaining-vision/" target="_blank">equal partners in a farm ecosystem</a> that perform important functions like fertilizing soil and controlling pests.</p><p>Organic is now mainstream. Organic food sales in 2018 totaled nearly <a href="https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/13805-us-organic-food-sales-near-48-billion" target="_blank">US$48 billion</a>, up from $8.5 billion in 2002. <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview/" target="_blank">Two-thirds of shoppers have tried organic products</a>.</p><p>But organic agriculture has struggled to maintain its early commitment to animal welfare.</p><p>In 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture under President Obama announced a new <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/19/2017-00888/national-organic-program-nop-organic-livestock-and-poultry-practices" target="_blank">rule</a> that enhanced animal welfare requirements for organic farms. Among other things, it set strict rules for outdoor access and prohibited what USDA called "physical alterations" of animals – what animal rights advocates call "mutilations."</p><p>In mainstream <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture">agriculture</a>, pigs' <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/opinion/the-unkindest-cut.html" target="_blank">tails are often amputated</a>, or "docked," so that they will not be bitten off by other pigs. Chickens have <a href="http://www.poultryhub.org/health/health-management/beak-trimming/" target="_blank">portions of their beaks removed</a> to prevent them from pecking one another.</p><p>But the agency <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/12/usda-decides-not-impose-additional-regulatory-requirements-organic" target="_blank">scrapped the new rule</a> two years later, in 2018, before it could take effect.</p><p><a href="https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2018/03/usda-continues-attack-integrity-organic-food-label-sparks-alternative-add-labels/" target="_blank">Dismayed animal welfare advocates</a> and organic farmers blamed <a href="https://civileats.com/2017/12/18/years-in-the-making-trumps-usda-kills-organic-animal-welfare-rules/" target="_blank">resistance from big agriculture</a> and the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2018/10/23/trump-exceeds-one-in-two-out-goals-on-cutting-regulations-but-it-may-be-getting-tougher/#2b270dbb3d40" target="_blank">Trump administration's goal of eliminating regulations</a> for the policy change.</p><p>There's some truth to these assertions. But <a href="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=23573" target="_blank">my research on the history of organic food</a> finds that politics isn't the only reason organic farms aren't required to treat animals more humanely.</p>
<h2>USDA Misses the Mark</h2><p>The <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%20Foods%20Production%20Act%20of%201990%20(OFPA).pdf" target="_blank">Organic Foods Production Act</a> – the only law governing organic farming in the United States – simply doesn't authorize federal regulators to protect animals raised "organically."</p><p>Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act in 1990, directing the USDA to write national organic farming regulations.</p><p>Like many early organic farmers, the USDA's new rules focused on the integrity of agricultural materials. Fertilizers and pesticides from natural sources were allowed, while synthetic ones were mostly prohibited. In other words, the USDA defined "organic" to mean the lack of unnatural inputs.</p><p>When it came to more complicated questions about how livestock should be treated, though, <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%20Livestock%20Requirements.pdf" target="_blank">the rules were vague</a>. The law that came down from Congress offered the USDA little guidance on regulating organic animal welfare.</p><p>On conventional farms, animals are often raised in confined barns or cages, never seeing sunlight or breathing fresh air. The USDA's organic regulations, which went into effect in 2002, required "access to pasture" for cows and "access to exercise areas, fresh air, and direct sunlight" for poultry.</p><p>What this meant in practice remained open to interpretation. Some dairy farms <a href="https://nyti.ms/2r68nBL" target="_blank">grazed cows for just a few months</a>, relegating them to dirt yards for the rest of the year. Large egg operations provided hens with small, concrete-floored porches.</p><p>And the regulations said nothing about tail docking and beak trimming. So organically raised pigs may still <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/opinion/the-unkindest-cut.html" target="_blank">have their tails amputated</a>. Organic chickens can be <a href="http://www.poultryhub.org/health/health-management/beak-trimming/" target="_blank">debeaked</a>.</p>
<h2>Defending the Animals</h2><p>To improve how animals are treated on large-scale organic farms, animal welfare advocates have worked creatively within the USDA's limited regulatory scope.</p><p>Because organic regulations define allowed versus prohibited materials, activists have sought to extend the prohibition on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to materials used in organic animal agriculture. Some have <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/3891/organic-watchdog-criticizes-continued-use-of-synthetic-protein-in-organic-chicken-feed" target="_blank">lobbied federal regulators to prohibit the synthetic protein methionine</a> – a food supplement for birds raised in confinement – in organic farming.</p><p>If farmers cannot use methionine, their thinking goes, industrial-style organic chicken farms will no longer be viable. Farmers would have to raise chickens in smaller, outdoor operations. The birds would benefit.</p><p>Activists have also pressured ethically minded consumers to demand better living conditions for animals.</p><p>An animal rights watchdog group called the Cornucopia Institute in 2014 <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/11/think-your-milk-and-chicken-are-organic-these-aerial-farm-photos-will-make-you-think-again/" target="_blank">released aerial photos of large organic farms in the U.S.</a> The images showed gigantic buildings and barren yards in which dairy cows and egg-laying chickens spent their days – not the bucolic conditions that many consumers envision when they buy organic.</p><p>"Shoppers who passionately support the ideas and values represented by the organic label understandably feel betrayed," the <a href="https://www.cornucopia.org/2014/12/investigation-factory-farms-producing-massive-quantities-organic-milk-eggs/" target="_blank">Cornucopia Institute press release</a> noted.</p>
<h2>New Regulations</h2><p>The USDA defends its decision to withdraw the Obama-era organic animal welfare standards that would have enhanced outdoor access and prohibited tail docking and beak trimming.</p><p><a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/usda-sued-for-killing-new-rules-for-organic-livestock/" target="_blank">According to public statements by the agency</a>, it lacks authority under the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act to implement such expansive rules.</p><p>My research confirms this. Congress gave the USDA a mandate to regulate synthetic inputs, not complex farming practices. There is very little in the 1990 federal organics law about animal welfare.</p><p>The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration's decision to kill protections for organically grown animals is now in court, <a href="https://ota.com/livestockpractices" target="_blank">following a lawsuit against the USDA filed by the Organic Trade Association</a>.</p><p>For concerned consumers, that means that serving an ethical holiday dinner requires some research.</p><p>Pigs and turkeys on some organic farms may well live their lives very differently from their conventionally raised cousins. But an "organic" label does not guarantee this.</p>
<p>
<em>Michael Haedicke is an associate professor of sociology at Drake University.</em><em>Disclosure statement: Michael Haedicke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond his academic appointment.</em>
</p><p>
<em><span></span>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/organic-label-doesnt-guarantee-that-holiday-ham-was-a-happy-pig-126410" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126410/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>From Your Site Articles
- USDA Plans to Side With 'Fake Organic' Egg Producers, Ditch ... ›
- Angering Organic Farmers and Advocates, Trump's USDA Kills ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Olson Kundig
No longer will the options when we die be a choice between just burial or cremation. Soon it will be possible to compost your remains and leave your loved ones with rich soil, thanks to a new funeral service opening in Seattle in 2021 that will convert humans into soil in just 30 days, as The Independent reported.
<p><a href="https://www.recompose.life/" target="_blank">Recompose</a> markets itself as a service offering "natural organic reduction" to the public, according to its <a href="https://www.recompose.life/faq" target="_blank">website</a>. The facility is meant to recognize that death is a momentous <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/spiritual" rel="noopener noreferrer">spiritual</a> event and to take the opportunity to reconnect funeral rites with <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nature" rel="noopener noreferrer">nature</a> and to offer a greener alternative to burial or cremation, according to <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90434525/the-worlds-first-human-composting-facility-could-help-us-recycle-ourselves" target="_blank">Fast Company</a>. </p>
<p>Recompose, which will be able to hold 75 bodies in its flagship facility in Seattle, says it will turn a dead body into usable soil in just 30 days in a process that is much less resource-intensive than cremation or burial. In fact, according to the <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/funeral-green-burial-climate-change-environment-soil-composting-recompose-seattle-a9238896.html?utm_source=reddit.com" target="_blank">The Independent</a>, the process will use one-eighth the energy of cremation and save a metric ton of CO2 from being emitted, compared to most forms of burial. </p>
<p>A burial usually requires chemical-laden embalming, while cremation is energy intensive, according to the architects at Olson Kundig who designed the new facility, as <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90434525/the-worlds-first-human-composting-facility-could-help-us-recycle-ourselves" target="_blank">Fast Company</a> reported.</p>
<p>"Our service - recomposition - gently converts human remains into soil, so that we can nourish new life after we die," Recompose's <a href="https://www.recompose.life/" target="_blank">website</a> says. "Recompose takes guidance from nature. At the heart of our model is a system that will gently return us to the earth after we die."</p>
<p>"By converting human remains into soil, we minimize waste, avoid polluting groundwater with embalming fluid, and prevent the emissions of CO2 from cremation and from the manufacturing of caskets, headstones, and grave liners," the company's <a href="https://www.recompose.life/" target="_blank">website</a> explains. "By allowing organic processes to transform our bodies and those of our loved ones into a useful soil amendment, we help to strengthen our relationship to the natural cycles while enriching the earth."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjE2NDEwMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNzIzMjQ4Nn0.O94KHkyBpw130abcXrMop9La0mJnY6FzHQueanrkhhg/img.jpg?width=980" id="9fb82" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="14bd58ff3030ec547f6bf5ff7157bdaa" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Olson Kundig
<p>The project has been in the works since 2016 when Recompose founder and CEO Katrina Spade and her team collaborated with architects to create a prototype facility, according to <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90434525/the-worlds-first-human-composting-facility-could-help-us-recycle-ourselves" target="_blank">Fast Company</a>.</p> <p>However, the project only got off the ground after Washington became the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/washington-human-body-composting-2637805371.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">first state to explicitly allow natural organic reduction for human remains</a>, or human composting. The law, which will go into effect in May 2020, allows funeral homes to accelerate the process of turning human remains into soil, which allows for environmentally friendly burials in urban and suburban areas that do not have wide-open tracts of land available for burial, according to <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/funeral-green-burial-climate-change-environment-soil-composting-recompose-seattle-a9238896.html?utm_source=reddit.com" target="_blank">The Independent</a>. </p> <p>Recompose uses stacked hexagonal vessels, resembling a honeycomb, to store dead bodies. The bodies sealed in the hexagonal tubes are covered in woodchips, alfalfa and hay. There the temperature is regulated, the dirt is aerated, and conditions are optimized for bacteria to breakdown organic matter over the course of several weeks, as <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/funeral-green-burial-climate-change-environment-soil-composting-recompose-seattle-a9238896.html?utm_source=reddit.com" target="_blank">The Independent</a> reported.</p> <p>"We asked ourselves how we could use nature – which has perfected the life/death cycle – as a model for human death care," said Katrina Spade, as <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/funeral-green-burial-climate-change-environment-soil-composting-recompose-seattle-a9238896.html?utm_source=reddit.com" target="_blank">The Independent</a> reported. "We saw an opportunity for this profound moment to both give back to the earth and reconnect us with these natural cycles."</p> <p>A single body plus the woodchips, alfalfa and hay will net one cubic yard of soil, or several wheelbarrows full. Some families will take the soil home to use, while others can donate it to conservation projects on the slopes of Bells Mountain in Washington, according to the <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/life/recompose-the-human-composting-project-finds-a-home-in-seattles-sodo/" target="_blank">Seattle Times.</a></p> <p>"These days, some families regard even ashes from cremation as a burden, not a joy," Spade said to the <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/life/recompose-the-human-composting-project-finds-a-home-in-seattles-sodo/" target="_blank">Seattle Times.</a>. "As in, 'we've had these ashes in the garage for six years.' And we're creating a cubic yard of soil."</p>From Your Site Articles
- Bill Gates Unveils Toilet That Transforms Waste Into Fertilizer ... ›
- Washington Becomes First State to Legalize Human Body Composting ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Pexels
By Claire O'Connor
Agriculture is on the front lines of climate change. Whether it's the a seven-year drought drying up fields in California, the devastating Midwest flooding in 2019, or hurricane after hurricane hitting the Eastern Shore, agriculture and rural communities are already feeling the effects of a changing climate. Scientists expect climate change to make these extreme weather events both more frequent and more intense in coming years.
<p>Agriculture is also an important — in fact a <em>necessary </em>— <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/melanie-sturm/stewardship-wetlands-and-soils-has-climate-benefits" target="_blank">partner in fighting climate change</a>. The science is clear: We cannot stay beneath the most dangerous climate thresholds without sequestering a significant amount of carbon in our <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/soil">soils</a>.</p>
<p>Agricultural soils have the potential to sequester, relatively inexpensively, 250 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gasses annually — <a href="https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references" target="_blank">equivalent to the annual emissions of 64 coal fired power plants</a>, according to National Academy of Sciences.</p><p>But we can't get there without engaging farmers, turning a source of emissions into a carbon sink. Here are just a few of the ways the Natural Resources Defense Council works to encourage climate-friendly farming: </p><ul> <li><strong>Creating New Incentives for Cover Crops: </strong>Cover crops are planted in between growing seasons with the specific purpose of building soil health. Despite their multiple agronomic and environmental benefits, adoption is low — only about <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lara-bryant/good-news-about-cover-crops-census-agriculture" target="_blank">7%</a> of U.S. farmland uses cover crops. NRDC is working to scale up cover cropping through innovative incentives delivered through the largest federal farm subsidy: crop insurance. We've worked with partners in <a href="https://www.cleanwateriowa.org/covercropdemo" target="_blank">Iowa </a>and <a href="https://farmland.org/let-us-celebrate-illinois-department-of-agriculture-accepts-the-crop-insurance-reward-program-for-cover-crops/" target="_blank">Illinois</a> to launch programs that give farmers who use cover crops $5/acre off of their crop insurance bill. And partners in Minnesota and Wisconsin are exploring similar options. While we're delighted at the benefit this program has for farmers in those individual states, we're even more excited about the potential to scale this program to the 350 million acres that <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/resources/covering-crops-how-federal-crop-insurance-program-reforms-can-reduce-costs-empower-farmers" target="_blank">utilize subsidized crop insurance</a> nationwide. A recent study suggests that cover crops <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/11/eaat1869" target="_blank">sequester</a> an average of .79 tons of carbon per acre annually, making cover crops one of the pillars of climate-friendly farming systems.</li></ul><ul> <li><strong>Supporting Carbon as a New "Agricultural Product": </strong>Championed by Senator Ron Wyden, the 2018 Farm Bill created a new program, the Soil Health Demonstration Trial, that encourages farmers to adopt practices that improve their soil health, and tracks and measures the outcomes. NRDC worked alongside our partners at <a href="https://www.e2.org/events/carbon-removal-a-new-american-agricultural-product-how-carbon-farming-and-building-soil-health-will-fight-climate-change/" target="_blank">E2</a> and a number of commodity groups, farmer organizations, and agribusinesses to secure passage of this provision. The Demonstration Trial will create a new, reliable income stream — farmers will get paid for the carbon they sequester regardless of how their crops turn out, and it builds the data needed for confidence in any <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lara-bryant/spring-has-come-soil-carbon-markets" target="_blank">future carbon markets</a>. USDA recently announced the first round of awards under this new program, totaling over <a href="https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/cig/?cid=nrcseprd1512816" target="_blank">$13 million</a> in investments to improve soil health. Senator Cory Booker has since drafted legislation that would increase funding for the program nearly 10-fold to $100 million annually; Representative Deb Haaland released a companion bill in the House.</li></ul><ul> <li><strong>Scaling up Regenerative Agriculture:</strong> <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/ellen-lee/digging-deeper-regenerative-agriculture" target="_blank">Regenerative agriculture</a> is an approach to farming that looks to work with nature to rebuild the overall health of the system. Regenerative farmers use a variety of tactics, including reduced chemical inputs, diverse crop and livestock rotations, incorporating compost into their systems, and agroforestry, among others. Our team is in the midst of interviewing regenerative farmers and ranchers to learn more about what's working for them and what challenges they've faced in their shift to a regenerative approach. We're planning to analyze our interview results and combine them with a literature review to identify what role NRDC could potentially play in helping to scale up regenerative farming and ranching systems. We'll also be sharing quotes and photos from our interviews on social media every Friday starting in January, so stay tuned for some inspiring farm footage!</li></ul><ul> <li><strong>Supporting Organic Farmers: </strong>Organic agriculture by design reduces greenhouse gas emissions, sequesters carbon in the soil, does not rely on energy-intensive chemical inputs, and builds resiliency within our food system. Practices integrated into organic production will become increasingly more important in the face of a changing climate. NRDC supports organic farmers through policy initiatives like <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/allison-johnson/organic-means-healthy-people-and-healthy-soils" target="_blank">the Organic Farm-to-School program</a> that was introduced in the California legislature last year. In the coming year, we'll continue to work to support organic farmers in California.</li></ul><ul><li><strong>Reducing Food Waste:</strong> Food waste generates nearly 3% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., and NRDC is working hard to reduce that number, and improve soil health in the process. Some of our policy proposals include securing passage of <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/confused-food-date-labels-congress-aims-set-them-straight" target="_blank">date labelling legislation</a> to eliminate confusion about whether food is still good to eat, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/food-matters" target="_blank">working with cities</a> to reduce waste and increase rescue of surplus food, and supporting efforts at all levels to increase <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stories/composting-way-easier-you-think" target="_blank">composting</a> of food scraps. Adding compost to soils improves their ability to sequester carbon, store nutrients, and retain water. Composting food scraps also helps to "close the loop" on organic matter and nutrients by returning them to the agricultural production cycle, rather than sending that organic material to landfills, where it generates methane (a powerful climate pollutant).</li></ul><p>Climate-friendly farming also offers a host of important co-benefits. For example, when farmers use complex crop rotations to break weed, pest, and disease cycles, they can reduce the amount of synthetic chemicals they need to use. When they use practices like <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lara-bryant/climate-change-wreaking-havoc-farms-cover-crops-can-help" target="_blank">cover crops</a>, no-till, and adding compost to protect and restore the soil, they reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers that emit greenhouse gasses. And when farmers can reinvest the oppressive amount of money they had been previously spending on expensive, synthetic inputs into the additional labor required to carbon farm, they bring new jobs to economically-depressed rural areas.</p><p>Farmers understand better than many of us the harsh realities of climate change, regardless of their opinions about what's causing those changes. And tight margins and trade wars make the potential of new value streams particularly attractive for farmers right now. By working alongside the farmers and farmworkers who tend the land, we can bring new allies into the fight against climate change, restore the health of our soil, and create a healthy, equitable, and resilient food system.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Cuba's Urban Farming Shows Way to Avoid Hunger - EcoWatch ›
- 4 Offseason Gardening Projects to Get You Ahead for Next Year ... ›
- Cuba’s Clean Rivers Benefit From Sustainable Agriculture - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
We shouldn't have to be toxicologists to be able to grab something at the grocery store that doesn't contain dangerous ingredients. Daniel Orth / Flickr
By Melissa Kravitz Hoeffner
A major but largely glossed over report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an environmental and public health nonprofit based in Washington, DC, shows that thousands of untested chemicals (an estimated 2,000, to be exact) are found in conventional packaged foods purchasable in U.S. supermarkets. And yes, all of them are legal.
<p>The extensive collection of permissible additives includes several known or suspected carcinogens, such as synthetic sodium nitrate, found in processed meats and considered <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/" target="_blank">probably carcinogenic by the World Health Organization</a>, and butylated hydroxyanisole, also known as BHA, a chemical <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals/butylated-hydroxyanisole" target="_blank">listed as a cancer-causing chemical by the state of California</a> and found in commonplace items like frozen pepperoni pizza. Other unappealing <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals">chemicals</a> are commonly found in our food packaging, such as <a href="https://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/the-link-between-fossil-fuels-single-use-plastics-and-climate-change" target="_blank">polypropylene</a>, <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/114670/download" target="_blank">sulfuric acid</a> and <a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/221205.php" target="_blank">bisphenol A</a> — all of which can have impacts on human health and the environment.</p><p>How much should consumers panic before their next supermarket trip? "It really depends on what level of risk consumers are comfortable with," said Dawn Undurraga, a nutritionist at EWG and co-author of the study. "The more we learn about what is in conventional foods, the more evidence for concern we accumulate." Independent laboratory tests commissioned by EWG, for example, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/" target="_blank">found glyphosate</a>, a probable carcinogen, in every sample of conventional oats tested.</p><p>The fact that dangerous chemicals are legal for use in our food is a major public health concern that goes largely unrecognized by the U.S. government. "Unfortunately, our current policy on food additives was written in 1958 and has been completely co-opted by food and chemical companies," Undurraga said. "Additives that are deemed 'Generally Recognized as Safe,' or GRAS, by a food or chemical company or trade association are exempt from the food additive petition process where the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews the safety of the additive."</p><p>Originally, this GRAS exemption was created to cover ingredients widely known to be safe, like vinegar, but with advancements in food science, the provision has been applied to thousands of chemicals. As a result, questionable substances have been allowed into a host of conventional foods. In 2017, EWG joined several other public health groups to <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/groups-sue-fda-protect-food-safety" target="_blank">file a lawsuit against the FDA</a> in an effort to eliminate the GRAS loophole.</p><p>"Rather than close the loophole, the FDA has instead allowed companies to voluntarily notify the agency about food chemicals and to allow companies to summarize the industry science supporting their conclusions," reads the EWG study, elucidating that many scientists who conduct these reviews have been paid by the industry. Plus, the FDA does not subsequently review underlying biological and chemical data, leaving consumers to literally do the dirty work. The FDA did not respond to Truthout's request for comment.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA5MDYwMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMjg2NDk3OX0.27AC_OHg9zXWMnTHONmC5hyCVproJI-PEqmUDcYb1s4/img.jpg?width=980" id="5a8bc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3595b4013b0345ed45097b6da7065203" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
An extensive collection of permissible food additives includes several known or suspected carcinogens. Pixabay
<p>"Consumers shouldn't have to be toxicologists to be able to grab something at the grocery store that doesn't contain questionable or dangerous ingredients," Undurraga said. Even so, toxicology literacy won't help in the frozen food aisle. According to Undurraga, there are absolutely no defining signs on food packaging to indicate that any of the 2,000 synthetic chemicals approved for use in food are present in that specific item.</p><p>In fact, the only way to minimize exposure to these chemicals is to purchase certified <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/organic">organic</a> packaged foods and look at <a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodscores" target="_blank">EWG's Food Scores</a>, which measure nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns in more than 80,000 common foods, from frozen vegetables and baby food to packaged nuts, berries and grains across hundreds of popular brands; and <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/ewg-s-dirty-dozen-guide-food-additives" target="_blank">EWG's Dirty Dozen List of Food Additives</a>, which ranks the worst food additives common in U.S. supermarket food and where you'll likely encounter them, like potassium bromate in packaged loaves of bread and propylparaben in packaged tortillas and muffins.</p><p>If additives don't have you worried enough about what we're legally permitted to consume, know that pesticides, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9498903" target="_blank">found to be carcinogenic</a> and also severely damaging to the environment, are still more than prevalent alongside the packaged food chemicals at your grocery store. Every year, EWG reviews the U.S. Department of Agriculture's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticide</a> residue tests on conventional produce.</p><p>"Last year, nearly 70 percent of conventionally grown produce was contaminated with pesticide residues," says Undurraga. "This is especially concerning for pregnant women and small children."</p><p>Sure, organic packaged food and organic produce are typically more expensive than their conventional counterparts, but you're paying for more rigorous additive standards and investing in your long-term health and the health of the environment. Currently, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/report-organic-packaged-foods-only-clean-option-consumers" target="_blank">fewer than 40</a> synthetic ingredients are permitted in organic packaged foods — and this is only after each chemical has been reviewed by both independent and government experts. And yet <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/organic-packaged-food-sales-growth-hits-adolescence/" target="_blank">only around 3 percent of packaged food</a> sold in the U.S. is organic. Perhaps this is because people who shop organic are not interested in pre-packaged meals. More likely, it's because the dangers of conventional packaged food are not well-known.</p><p>Those who want to plan their supermarket trips with a budget in mind can look to EWG's shopper's guide to know what to prioritize in their carts. Beyond opting for organic packaged goods when going the pre-made route, consumers can elect to buy organic versions of fruits and vegetables whose conventional counterparts have made EWG's "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php" target="_blank">Dirty Dozen</a>" list, which calls out those conventionally grown items found with the most pesticide residue: strawberries, spinach, kale, nectarines, apples, grapes, peaches, cherries, pears, tomatoes, celery and potatoes.</p><p>On the flip side, consumers can opt for conventional versions of the produce items that are listed on EWG's "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php" target="_blank">Clean Fifteen</a>" — those with relatively little pesticide residue: avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, frozen sweet peas, onions, papayas, eggplants, asparagus, kiwis, cabbages, cauliflower, cantaloupes, broccoli, mushrooms and honeydew melons.</p><p>Though it's unlikely Americans are going to stop buying conventional packaged food in the near future (or ever), pressure on the government to make packaged food actually safe to eat is necessary to enact change. And with so little information readily available about what we're actually eating when these chemicals aren't disclosed, keeping up with research by independent groups like the EWG remains imperative to educate consumers.</p><p>Combining their research and policy platform, EWG has launched <a href="https://act.ewg.org/onlineactions/qAZe2J99MkSq_8OXk_Bzxg2?sourceid=1016634&ms=WEB_ACTION_2019_CerealVideo_GlyphCorpAction&_ga=2.6167543.537610687.1551104638-329641234.1547048772&_gac=1.122792313.1549296822.CjwKCAiA4t_iBRApEiwAn-vt-7BGsmS1zlwZfyUG3WB7uVeO_TWc5odEkTvwNjol8gNR_NLieT97lRoCn-AQAvD_BwE" target="_blank">a petition</a> to encourage food companies like General Mills, Quaker and Kellogg's to remove <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer">cancer</a>-linked <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a> from our food. And that's just the beginning. Other consumer safety advocates, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/10/31/without-a-food-safety-overhaul-for-additives-the-innovative-food-craze-could-spiral-out-of-control/" target="_blank">including the Environmental Defense Fund</a> and the Center for Food Safety, both represented by Earthjustice, have challenged the FDA's GRAS interpretation in court earlier this year.</p><p>Ignorance may bring peace of mind to grocery shoppers, but as more information about the hazards in our daily food purchases comes to light, it's likely we'll see more consumer pushback against dangerous practices that have become the norm.</p>
<p class=""><em></em></p><p><em>Melissa Kravitz Hoeffner is a writer based in New York. She is a writing fellow at <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute. She's written for <em>Bon Appetit</em>, <em>Food & Wine</em>, <em>Travel & Leisure</em>, <em>Conde Nast Traveler</em>, <em>Glamour</em>, <em>AlterNet</em>, <em>Cosmopolitan</em>, <em>Teen Vogue</em>, <em>Architectural Digest</em>, <em>Them</em> and other publications. She holds a bachelor's degree in creative writing from Columbia University and is also at work on a forthcoming novel. Follow her on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/melissabethk" target="_blank">@melissabethk</a>.</em></p><p><em><span></span>This article first appeared on <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/there-are-2000-untested-chemicals-in-packaged-foods-and-its-legal/" target="_blank">Truthout</a> and was produced in partnership with <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- These Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Are Getting Into Your ... ›
- Organic Foods Are the Only 'Clean' Packaged Option for Consumers ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Organic carrots and radishes at a farmers' market. carterdayne / iStock / Getty Images Plus
By Brian Barth
There's something of a civil war brewing in the organic movement.
<p>On one side are industry boosters boasting about how organic has gone mainstream. These folks are fine with a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-food" rel="noopener noreferrer">Big Ag</a> version of organic <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture" rel="noopener noreferrer">agriculture</a> — enormous monocrop fields and global distribution to every Walmart across the land. On the other side are purists who feel that the spirit of organic — building healthy <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/soil" rel="noopener noreferrer">soil</a>, promoting <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/biodiversity" rel="noopener noreferrer">biodiversity</a>, focusing on small producers and distributing regionally — is no longer represented by the USDA certified organic label (hence the various alternative organic labels popping up).</p><p>The USDA certification has never explicitly required any of those things, however. Instead, organic rules focus primarily on substituting natural fertilizers and pest control methods for chemical ones. But even here things aren't quite as they seem.</p>
<p><strong>Does Organic Mean Toxin-Free?</strong></p><p>Not entirely. USDA standards allow the use of several dozen synthetic <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals">chemicals</a> on certified organic farms, although most are fairly benign substances, and those that aren't tend to be heavily restricted in the ways that they can be applied (certain synthetic fertilizers are also permitted in limited circumstances). More of an issue is that some of the naturally derived substances permitted for use as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides" rel="noopener noreferrer">pesticides</a> are used in unnatural concentrations that make them highly toxic (to creatures such as <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bees" rel="noopener noreferrer">bees</a>, for example). Rotenone, a notoriously toxic but naturally derived pesticide, was on the list of permitted substances until last year.</p>
<p><strong>Does Organic Mean Local?</strong></p><p>Not at all. Organic products constitute around five percent of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/food/" rel="noopener noreferrer">food</a> sales in the U.S., but only about one percent of U.S. farmland is organic, suggesting that most organic food is imported. Organic certification does not take carbon footprints into account — and it's fairly clear that organic grapes flown in from Chile have a larger environmental impact than their locally grown but conventional counterparts.</p>
<p><strong>Does Organic Mean Grown on a Small, Diversified Farm?</strong></p><p>The organic standards say nothing about size and little about diversity. Things such as hedgerows for habitat are encouraged by the standards, but there is nothing in the rules that prevents organic farmers from planting monocultures fence line to fence line.</p>
<p><strong>Does Organic Mean Livestock Roam Free and Forage on Grass?</strong></p><p>This is an extremely contentious topic between Big Organic and the purists. Organic livestock must be provided access to the outdoors and, depending on the species, must receive a portion of their diet from foraging. But there are a lot of convoluted rules — some would call them loopholes— regarding how those requirements can be met. The bottom line is that it's possible to stick to the letter of the organic law and run a livestock operation that differs little from a confined animal feeding operation, aka <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/factory-farming" rel="noopener noreferrer">factory farming</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Does Organic Mean Topsoil is Restored?</strong></p><p>Rebuilding topsoil that teems with microbial life was the foundation of the organic movement in the 1960s. This was a response to the sterile, eroded soil that 20th-century conventional agriculture methods left across the planet. The inconvenient truth is that organic agriculture requires frequent cultivation to control weeds, leaving it bare and susceptible to erosion. In the 21st century, conventional agriculture is increasingly based on the use of herbicide-tolerant GMO crops that have vastly reduced the amount of tillage required, cutting down significantly on erosion (at the cost of greater herbicide use, however). Erosion as a result of frequent cultivation isn't much of an issue on a small diversified farm, but large monocultures of organic produce are likely to lose more topsoil each year than well-managed conventional ones.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Organic Farms Are Under Attack From Agribusiness, Weakened Standards <a href="https://t.co/2S3xWUmlCl">https://t.co/2S3xWUmlCl</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Organic?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Organic</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Farming?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Farming</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Agriculture?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Agriculture</a> <a href="https://t.co/VsubeM7rFs">pic.twitter.com/VsubeM7rFs</a></p>— Renewable Search (@RenewableSearch) <a href="https://twitter.com/RenewableSearch/status/1109788973650460674?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 24, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://modernfarmer.com/2019/09/does-certified-organic-mean-what-we-think-it-does/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Modern Farmer</a>.</em><br/></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
lisegagne / E+ / Getty Images
By Nicole Ferox
When my daughter was in preschool, she told me that instead of washing hands before lunch, the children used hand sanitizer. The thinking behind this was probably that hand sanitizer kills bacteria and viruses and therefore — presto! — problem solved. Hands are clean, and it's so much quicker.
<p>But hand sanitizer isn't designed to remove the chemicals, heavy metals and <a href="https://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/11/how-remove-toxic-dust-your-home-s-most-unwanted-guest" target="_blank">toxic dust</a> that stick to kids' hands. Only soap and water can do that. So instead of washing away those toxic contaminants, my daughter was probably eating them with her snack.</p><p>There are many ways schools can reduce children's cumulative exposure to chemicals and contaminants, and many are relatively simple. Here are eight important questions to ask:</p>
1. Do the kids wash their hands before they eat?
<p>Requiring hand washing with soap and water, especially after kids have been outside and before they eat, is arguably the easiest change schools can make to reduce kids' exposure to chemical pollutants from dust and other sources.</p>2. What cleaning products does the school use?
<p>We recommend schools use cleaning products that are <a href="https://www.ewg.org/guides/cleaners/content/faq#q41" target="_blank">third-party green certified</a>, which means their ingredients are safer for everyone, especially children, or products with an A, or green, rating in our <a href="https://www.ewg.org/guides/cleaners" target="_blank">Guide to Healthy Cleaning</a>. For institutional cleaning supplies, schools should choose Green Seal, EcoLogo or EPA's Safer Choice-certified products only.</p>3. Has the school had its drinking water tested for lead?
<p>There's no safe level of lead exposure, but most states don't require schools and child care centers to <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/prc/projects/school-research/early-adopters/" target="_blank">test their drinking water for lead</a>. If the water hasn't been tested at your kids' school, urge administrators to contact the local health department to start the process. Since lead levels in a single building can vary, all faucets and drinking fountains should be tested. In California, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/lead-detected-drinking-water-almost-1-5-california-schools" target="_blank">one in five schools</a> has found at least one faucet on their campus with water containing lead.</p>4. What landscaping chemicals are used?
<p>Chances are good your school uses chemical fertilizers, weedkillers and other pesticides for playground and grounds maintenance. Many of them, especially pesticides, are toxic and linked to <a href="https://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2015/09/important-new-reason-keep-pesticides-away-children" target="_blank">childhood cancer</a> and <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/22674/it-s-personal-pesticide-exposures-come-cost" target="_blank">autism</a>. <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/22740/roundup-recess-how-get-cancer-causing-pesticides-your-local-playground" target="_blank">Talk to your school about safer landscaping alternatives</a>, with EWG's guide and collection of resources as a starting point.</p>5. Does the school serve organic foods?
<p>A good first step is to focus on foods where switching from conventional to organic will make the biggest impact: milk and <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/22109/ask-ewg/organic-hot-dogs" target="_blank">meat</a>, fruits, and veggies with <a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php" target="_blank">the most pesticides</a>; foods grown with particularly toxic pesticides; and snacks with the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/22626/five-kids-snacks-you-should-always-buy-organic" target="_blank">worst food additives</a>.</p>Questions to ask your kid’s child care center or preschool:
6. Are the nap mats made without flame retardants?
<p>A study conducted by the Washington state-based nonprofit <a href="https://toxicfreefuture.org/" target="_blank">Toxic-Free Future</a> found that when child care providers replaced <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/22050/advice-parents-find-nap-mats-without-flame-retardant-chemicals" target="_blank">nap mats</a> with chemical-free versions, the levels of flame retardants polluting children's bodies <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749118302690?via%3Dihub" target="_blank">decreased by 40 to 90 percent</a>. It's a safe guess that mats made in 2014 and earlier were treated with chemical flame retardants; <a href="https://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2014/09/california-makes-it-law-label-toxic-flame-retardants-furniture" target="_blank">2015 or newer</a> mats are more likely to be untreated and are required to bear a label stating whether they have added flame retardants.</p>7. What kind of laundry detergent does the facility use?
<p>To avoid fragrances, allergens and other ingredients that can irritate children's skin, we recommend child care providers choose detergent with a green A rating in our <a href="https://www.ewg.org/guides/categories/9-Laundry" target="_blank">Guide to Healthy Cleaning</a>.</p>8. What kind of sunscreen do care providers use?
<p>Sunscreen is especially important for kids, who are more susceptible to the ill effects of the sun. We recommend care providers avoid chemical sunscreens and instead choose a broad spectrum <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/22673/ask-ewg-how-choose-best-sunscreen-your-kids" target="_blank">mineral sunscreen</a> with active ingredients zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide. Use <a href="https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/" target="_blank">EWG's Guide to Sunscreens</a> to find products that offer adequate protection from both UVA and UVB rays without the addition of hazardous chemicals.</p><p>Want to know everything you can about building a healthy indoor environment at school? Explore EWG's extensive buying guides for building products, paints, furniture, mattress, carpets and other products in the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/healthyhomeguide/" target="_blank">Healthy Living Home Guide. </a></p>
Read More
Show Less
Alarming Decline of Insect Population Linked to Toxic Pesticides in U.S. Agriculture
07 August 2019
Popular
blueflames / E+ / Getty Images
By Jake Johnson
The rapid and dangerous decline of the insect population in the United States — often called an "insect apocalypse" by scientists — has largely been driven by an increase in the toxicity of U.S. agriculture caused by the use of neonicotinoid pesticides, according to a study published Tuesday in the journal PLOS One.
<p>The study found that American agriculture has become 48 times more toxic to insects over the past 25 years and pinned 92 percent of the toxicity increase on neonicotinoids, which were <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/04/27/huge-win-pollinators-people-and-planet-eu-bans-bee-killing-pesticides" target="_blank">banned by the European Union</a> last year due to the threat they pose to bees and other pollinators.</p><p>Kendra Klein, Ph.D., study co-author and senior staff scientist at Friends of the Earth, said the U.S. must follow Europe's lead and ban the toxic pesticides before it is too late.</p><p>"It is alarming that U.S. agriculture has become so much more toxic to insect life in the past two decades," Klein said in a <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2019/08/06/new-study-us-agriculture-48-times-more-toxic-insects-25-years-ago?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=twitter" target="_blank">statement</a>. "We need to phase out neonicotinoid pesticides to protect bees and other insects that are critical to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/biodiversity" target="_self">biodiversity</a> and the farms that feed us."</p><p>"Congress must pass the Saving America's Pollinators Act to ban neonicotinoids," Klein added. "In addition, we need to rapidly shift our food system away from dependence on harmful pesticides and toward <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/organic" target="_self">organic</a> farming methods that work with nature rather than against it."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEW STUDY: Neonic pesticides are a significant driver of the 'insect apocalypse'.<br><br>Insect abundance has declined 45%. This is a global crisis — we must ban neonics to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SaveTheBees?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SaveTheBees</a>!<a href="https://t.co/1DMpzFUArK">https://t.co/1DMpzFUArK</a></p>— Friends of the Earth (@foe_us) <a href="https://twitter.com/foe_us/status/1158819612970168320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 6, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/insect-apocalypse-under-way-toxic-pesticides-agriculture/" target="_blank">According to</a> National Geographic, neonics "are used on over <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6572145" target="_blank">140 different agricultural crops</a> in more than 120 countries. They attack the central nervous system of insects, causing overstimulation of their nerve cells, paralysis, and death."</p><p>With insect populations declining due to neonic use, "the numbers of insect-eating birds have plummeted in recent decades," National Geographic reported. "There's also been a widespread decline in nearly all bird species."</p><p>As Common Dreams <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/02/11/scientists-warn-crashing-insect-population-puts-planets-ecosystems-and-survival" target="_blank">reported</a> in February, scientists warned in a global analysis that by decimating insect populations, widespread use of pesticides poses a serious threat to the planet's ecosystems and ultimately to the survival of humankind.</p><p>Klein said the "good news" is that neonics are not at all necessary for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/food/" target="_self">food</a> production.</p><p>"We have four decades of research and evidence that agroecological farming methods can grow our food without decimating pollinators," said Klein.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Why It’s Time to Curb Widespread Use of Neonicotinoid Pesticide <a href="https://t.co/nOOgv3x3sR">https://t.co/nOOgv3x3sR</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/pesticideaction?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@pesticideaction</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/bpncamp?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@bpncamp</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1011788722063454208?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/07/alarming-explosion-toxic-pesticide-use-causing-insect-apocalypse-united-states-study" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Pexels
By Gigen Mammoser
When choosing organic or conventional produce, there's no simple comparison, even if it's apples to apples.
<p>However, in <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01629/full" target="_blank">a new study published</a> in the journal Frontiers in Microbiology, researchers found that when comparing conventionally grown apples to their organic counterparts, organic apples harbored a significantly more diverse bacteria population.</p><p>Conventional apples and organic apples both contained about the same amount of total bacteria, about 100 million per apple. But, that's only if you eat the whole thing — stem, seeds and all.</p><p>The production method dictated the types and variety of bacterial colonies.</p><p>And that can mean good things for gut health.</p>
<p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/organic-apples-boost-gut-health-more-than-convential-version" target="_blank">Healthline</a>.</em><em></em></p>
Raw Organic Fruits and Vegetables May Be Better for Your Gut
<p>"Vegetables and fruits, especially when consumed raw, represent the most important source for a diverse microbial community, which is mandatory for a healthy gut microbiome and our immune system," said Birgit Wassermann, a PhD student at the Graz University of Technology in Austria, and first author of the study.</p><p>Wassermann and her fellow researchers chose to look at apples because of their immense popularity throughout the world.</p><p>About 83 million apples were grown in 2018 and production continues to grow. Raw fruits and vegetables are an important source of gut bacteria — cooking tends to kill off all the bacteria.</p><p>In the comparison of organic and conventional apples, not only was bacteria more diverse in organic production, but it was also associated with the presence of so-called "good" bacteria <em>Lactobacillus</em>, a common probiotic.</p><p>Conversely, conventional apples were more likely to have potentially pathogenic bacteria like <em>Escherichia</em> and <em>Shigella</em>, which are known to cause food poisoning symptoms like diarrhea and cramps.</p><p>"The highly diverse microbiome of organically managed apples might limit or hamper the abundance of human pathogens, simply by outcompeting them," said Wassermann. "Probably, the microbial pool organic apple trees are exposed to is more diverse and more balanced and potentially supports the plant also in resistance during pathogen attack."</p><p>When it comes to gut health, however, Wassermann explained that it's not as simple as choosing organic over conventional apples.</p><p>Such a simple inference can't be drawn from her work alone. Instead, she emphasizes that diverse populations of bacteria — whether found in nature, apples, or the human gut — tend to be more beneficial no matter the environment where they are found.</p><p>And for most people, simply eating more fresh fruits and vegetables is a more important first step than discriminating between apples.</p><p>"Organic or conventional? Pretty irrelevant. The main thing is that people eat more fresh produce in general," said Wassermann.</p><p>With a focus on bacteria and by extension, gut health, the research adds yet another lens through which to view the ongoing debate for consumers on how they choose to buy produce.</p><p>And the organic versus conventional debate is far from settled.</p><p>But as questions about the benefits of either method have become more nuanced — it's not as simple as saying one is "better" than the other — consumers now have more awareness about what they want out of their produce.</p><p>The debate over organic and conventional fruits and vegetables has primarily focused on four aspects: nutrition, environmental impact, cost to consumers, and pesticides.</p><p>Depending on how important these factors are to you should inform your purchasing choice rather than strictly choosing one over the other.</p>What Do ‘Organic’ and ‘Conventional’ Even Mean?
<p><a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" target="_blank">Organic is a label</a> conferred by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on foods that are grown in accordance with certain federal guidelines. <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/01/25/organic-101-allowed-and-prohibited-substances" target="_blank">These guidelines</a> include things like what kinds of pesticides can be used, soil additives, and how animals are raised.</p><p>Conventional refers to modern, industrial agriculture which includes the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified organisms.</p><p><a href="https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1355685/organic-foods-safer-healthier-than-conventional-alternatives-systematic-review" target="_blank">Some studiesTrusted Source</a> have found that organic produce likely isn't any more nutritious than conventional, but it will reduce exposure to pesticides and harmful bacteria.</p><p>However, that's not to say that organic produce is completely free of pesticides — <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/" target="_blank">it's not</a>.</p><p>Your choice should also be impacted by other health factors as well, such as pregnancy or other chronic conditions.</p><p>Studies in recent years have looked at the prevalence of pesticide exposure <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019306853" target="_blank">among pregnant women via produce</a>, as well as the <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l962" target="_blank">potential for prenatal pesticideTrusted Source</a> exposure to lead to intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorder.</p><p>For most consumers, a practical place to start is identifying which fruits and vegetables are more prone to having exposure to high amounts or different varieties of pesticides.</p><p>The Environmental Working Group (EWG), an environmental and consumer advocacy group, annually publishes their list of the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php" target="_blank">Dirty Dozen,</a> which are the fruits and vegetables with the highest rates of pesticide contamination, and the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php" target="_blank">Clean Fifteen</a>, which are those with the lowest rates.</p><p>The worst offenders from 2019 include:</p><ul><li>strawberries (coming in at #1)</li><li>spinach</li><li>kale</li><li>nectarines</li><li>apples</li></ul><p>For the produce with the least amount of pesticide exposure, reach for:</p><ul><li>avocados</li><li>sweet corn</li><li>pineapples</li><li>frozen sweet peas</li><li>onions</li></ul><p>"I usually follow the EWG Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen designations," said Kristin Kirkpatrick, MS, RD, LD, the manager of Wellness Nutrition Services at Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute.</p><p>"There are also certain things that I always recommend to purchase organic, like <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26878105" target="_blank">dairy productsTrusted Source</a> and strawberries, as well as foods that I usually tell my clients to skip the cost and go with conventional, like produce with a significant outer layer such as pineapples or bananas," she said.</p><p>Organic foods may offer some health benefits, but they'll also cost more, and that's a major consideration for most families.</p><p><a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/03/cost-of-organic-food/index.htm" target="_blank">A 2015 study from Consumer Reports</a> found that organic apples were anywhere from 20 to 60 percent more expensive than their conventional counterparts. Milk was similarly 20 to 64 percent and for things like organic strawberries and zucchinis, consumers could end up paying twice as much.</p><p>In short, choosing how and why to pick conventional or organic produce is a serious balancing act. But one thing is for certain: You should be eating more fruits and vegetables no matter how they are grown.</p><p>"The most important thing I tell my patients is this: Increasing your fruit and vegetable consumption is far more important than organic versus non-organic. If you choose not to eat fruits and vegetables because you can't afford organic, that's the wrong choice. Any fruits and vegetables are better than none," said Kirkpatrick.</p>
Read More
Show Less