...are now out! Well, many of them are. I'm already looking forward to spring (which is only about three+ months away). I've already been drooling over my Baker Creek and Seed Savers Exchange catalogs.
I've been working mostly in the mountains of NC lately (southwest of Asheville), and so have been vveeerrrrryy cold. Getting seed catalogs already makes me think warmer...
The fall-winter garden is doing ok still; perhaps because we had a few days in the 80s last week! A few nights ago it was down to about 20, though, so that kinda hurt some things. I've been harvesting broccoli and carrots and lettuce, mainly. The onions popped up awhile ago, but are awhile away from being harvested.
ok, that is all
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
If a Prius hits a Volvo in a Whole Foods parking lot, does anybody hear it?
Perhaps they'd hear it, but they most likely wouldn't stop to help and they'd probably just walk around it.
Why is it that Whole Foods customers seem to be some of the rudest anywhere?
Perhaps it's that usually a Whole Foods has a ridiculously small parking lot for the number of people that shop there, or perhaps it's that the aisles in the stores are usually pretty tight, so it's hard to get around people. Perhaps that all sets the initial mood. (Or perhaps it's just the kind of customer that tends to shop there?)
I'm not sure what it is exactly, but I have to remember to only go to Whole Foods during off hours; I just can't deal with the generally rude and inconsiderate customers. I don't have the two hours out of my life to wait behind you in an aisle to get around while you stand there talking on your cell phone while you figure out which applesauce your four kids will like, or while you stand in the middle of the aisle with your mouth hanging open while you attempt to figure out which type of soy granola you bought last time. I also don't have the extra time to stand in a check out line while you debate that the lettuce was only $4.98 a pound and that the cashier has charged you $4.99 a pound.
All I ask is to be able to park within a half an hour, to be able to walk down any given aisle unobstructed, and get through a check out line in a timely manner.
Really, people, I don't think it's too much to ask.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Resources, energy security, and national security
There's a lot of "semi-weird" energy and resources-related stuff going on lately (or somewhat lately) with the government and the military, but at least some of our tax money might perhaps be going to potentially worthwhile projects or at least potentially useful research.
Read on:
Securing America’s Future Energy
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Nuts II
Just thought I'd share my excitement at harvesting walnuts again this year. I was working on a project along a creek and came across a walnut tree, and soon found several more trees along the creek in a bend. A few days later I came back with a backpack and filled it with the nuts. I was there on a very windy day, however, and I felt as if the trees were trying to protect their nuts on the ground by bombarding me with them from the air. I ended up collecting just over seven gallons worth of nuts (and I sure didn't have the interesting nut-collecting stories this guy did).
I have yet to husk them, though. I hope they aren't all plagued by the walnut husk maggot, as a few I noticed were. And, I gotta get some gloves so my hands don't stain brown!
I've been keeping an eye on my main Hickory tree, but it doesn't seem to have shed its nuts yet this year. I missed collecting them last year, but may have given up before they dropped. And I'm too lazy to gather acorns.
Ok, that's all I got for now...
I have yet to husk them, though. I hope they aren't all plagued by the walnut husk maggot, as a few I noticed were. And, I gotta get some gloves so my hands don't stain brown!
I've been keeping an eye on my main Hickory tree, but it doesn't seem to have shed its nuts yet this year. I missed collecting them last year, but may have given up before they dropped. And I'm too lazy to gather acorns.
Ok, that's all I got for now...
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Nuts
(This article '"Raw" almonds aren't, really' is excerpted from "What's really in your food?" from the Independent Weekly.)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently required that all almonds produced in the United States be pasteurized, including nuts labeled "raw." The rule went into effect September 1, despite protests from health-conscious consumers who prefer unprocessed nuts and small-scale growers who can't afford the equipment, which costs between $500,000 and $2.5 million.
The move follows two Salmonella outbreaks attributed to raw almonds in 2001 and 2004. Critics of the rule point out that both incidents were the result of faulty practices at large-scale commercial farms. Small-scale and sustainable practices—including mowing and mulching to control weeds, instead of using chemical herbicides—naturally prevent the spread of harmful bacteria more effectively than post-harvest treatment, they say.
The Almond Board of California, a governing body representing all almond growers in the state, pushed for the change. Small growers complain that the board disproportionally represents the needs of the large producers.
A spokesman for the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service says that the agency simply responded to the almond board's request. "We basically move at the behest of industry," spokesman Jimmie Turner says. "If the industry calls and says they want a standard or a marketing order, we take that request, and normally we do what's called a notice in the Federal Register. We seek public comment, and based on that comment, there can be a marketing order established."
The same process is followed for all food stuffs, Turner says.
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group leading a campaign to convince the USDA to overturn the pasteurization rule, contends that labeling treated almonds as "raw" is deceptive. More than that, the group argues that it epitomizes the industrialization of our food supply.
"This is just the opening salvo of corporate agribusiness wanting to sanitize all of our food," says Mark Kastel, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute. The impetus, Kastel says, is the economics of large-scale production. In many cases, such operations utilize growing and cultivation methods that provide much greater opportunity for contamination.
"After the fact, they want to use these technologies ... so they can sanitize our food supply, but it will do great damage to our food and, because of the infrastructure costs, will put out of business small and high-quality growers and independent processors," Kastel added.
To comply with the regulation, almond producers can either steam the nuts or fumigate them with propylene oxide (PPO), the almond board's preferred process. PPO is recognized as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It is banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico—and much of the rest of the world.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of foods treated with the fumigant, and while packages of almonds may contain the disclaimer "pasteurized," there isn't likely to be any indication by which process the nuts were treated.
The only way consumers will be able to distinguish how their "raw" almonds were pasteurized is by the organic label. Regulations mandate that foods bearing the "organic" seal cannot be treated with PPO.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently required that all almonds produced in the United States be pasteurized, including nuts labeled "raw." The rule went into effect September 1, despite protests from health-conscious consumers who prefer unprocessed nuts and small-scale growers who can't afford the equipment, which costs between $500,000 and $2.5 million.
The move follows two Salmonella outbreaks attributed to raw almonds in 2001 and 2004. Critics of the rule point out that both incidents were the result of faulty practices at large-scale commercial farms. Small-scale and sustainable practices—including mowing and mulching to control weeds, instead of using chemical herbicides—naturally prevent the spread of harmful bacteria more effectively than post-harvest treatment, they say.
The Almond Board of California, a governing body representing all almond growers in the state, pushed for the change. Small growers complain that the board disproportionally represents the needs of the large producers.
A spokesman for the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service says that the agency simply responded to the almond board's request. "We basically move at the behest of industry," spokesman Jimmie Turner says. "If the industry calls and says they want a standard or a marketing order, we take that request, and normally we do what's called a notice in the Federal Register. We seek public comment, and based on that comment, there can be a marketing order established."
The same process is followed for all food stuffs, Turner says.
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group leading a campaign to convince the USDA to overturn the pasteurization rule, contends that labeling treated almonds as "raw" is deceptive. More than that, the group argues that it epitomizes the industrialization of our food supply.
"This is just the opening salvo of corporate agribusiness wanting to sanitize all of our food," says Mark Kastel, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute. The impetus, Kastel says, is the economics of large-scale production. In many cases, such operations utilize growing and cultivation methods that provide much greater opportunity for contamination.
"After the fact, they want to use these technologies ... so they can sanitize our food supply, but it will do great damage to our food and, because of the infrastructure costs, will put out of business small and high-quality growers and independent processors," Kastel added.
To comply with the regulation, almond producers can either steam the nuts or fumigate them with propylene oxide (PPO), the almond board's preferred process. PPO is recognized as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It is banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico—and much of the rest of the world.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of foods treated with the fumigant, and while packages of almonds may contain the disclaimer "pasteurized," there isn't likely to be any indication by which process the nuts were treated.
The only way consumers will be able to distinguish how their "raw" almonds were pasteurized is by the organic label. Regulations mandate that foods bearing the "organic" seal cannot be treated with PPO.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Whose bright idea is this anyway?
[*sigh*] About all I can say about this article is that it's all fine and dandy if the government (and Wal Mart ... again, sigh) wants to ban incandescent light bulbs, but I will never convert to CFLs, so I'm going to have to spend even more money on LCD light bulbs (which I was actually planning on doing one day somewhat soon anyway).
I'm just tired of all the uber-positive hype about CFLs; because, no, they're not as bright as advocates say they are; and yes, they do cast a different color (unnatural) light than incandescents; and yes, they flicker and buzz/hum and can affect one's eyesight (like they do mine); and yes, they are more expensive, break more easily, and contain toxic mercury (and I'm sure everyone who buys one will take it to the proper recycling center when it dies). They also don't last as long as manufacturers declare (five-year bulbs last about one year in actuality because of the abuse thy take when switched on and off), and you can't use a dimmer switch with them unless you pay a lot more for special CFLs.
I'm just tired of all the uber-positive hype about CFLs; because, no, they're not as bright as advocates say they are; and yes, they do cast a different color (unnatural) light than incandescents; and yes, they flicker and buzz/hum and can affect one's eyesight (like they do mine); and yes, they are more expensive, break more easily, and contain toxic mercury (and I'm sure everyone who buys one will take it to the proper recycling center when it dies). They also don't last as long as manufacturers declare (five-year bulbs last about one year in actuality because of the abuse thy take when switched on and off), and you can't use a dimmer switch with them unless you pay a lot more for special CFLs.
Ok, sure they do save a rather significant amount of power over time, which of course is a good thing (but so is walking or bicycling instead of driving vehicles!).
Anyway, the result may be like that 1996 "Shower Head" episode of Seinfeld, where Newman, Kramer, and Jerry buy black market Yugoslavian shower heads for their apartments after their superintendent installed low-flow shower heads. [Or perhaps it's time to start hoarding incandescent bulbs?]
Monday, October 8, 2007
Acting corny
For the 2007 season, I grew Stowell's (a.k.a Stowell's Evergreen), which is/was a fine corn and all, but perhaps as a friend of mine said, it is one of those heirloom corns that you'd better already have the water boiling before you even pick it. I only grew about 200 stalks of it, so it wasn't too much of a waste of space or time.
So, I of course would pick it a few hours before I cooked and ate it, and wasn't very impressed by its taste. I did save some of the seed (about a quart canning jar's worth), however, just in case I feel compelled to plant it again next year. I also saved a sack of it for chicken feed, as I'm getting a few Dominiques for 2008. Much of the corn was eaten up by worms at the last minute, just before I picked it (it's my own fault really, as I didn't take the necessary precautions).
I may bring it into the twentieth century with corn, however, and plant either Hasting's Prolific or something similar (as a sweet corn) ... but I also may go the other way and plant either Tuscarora (a.k.a Iroquios) White or Gourdseed, both at least eighteenth-century corns (and probably earlier).
By the way, if anyone knows where to obtain some Hasting's Prolific seed, please let me know; I may need to write Don Hastings (no, not the actor; the guy whose grandfather originated the corn type, and who is the writer of several modern gardening books) and ask him about it.
So, I of course would pick it a few hours before I cooked and ate it, and wasn't very impressed by its taste. I did save some of the seed (about a quart canning jar's worth), however, just in case I feel compelled to plant it again next year. I also saved a sack of it for chicken feed, as I'm getting a few Dominiques for 2008. Much of the corn was eaten up by worms at the last minute, just before I picked it (it's my own fault really, as I didn't take the necessary precautions).
I may bring it into the twentieth century with corn, however, and plant either Hasting's Prolific or something similar (as a sweet corn) ... but I also may go the other way and plant either Tuscarora (a.k.a Iroquios) White or Gourdseed, both at least eighteenth-century corns (and probably earlier).
By the way, if anyone knows where to obtain some Hasting's Prolific seed, please let me know; I may need to write Don Hastings (no, not the actor; the guy whose grandfather originated the corn type, and who is the writer of several modern gardening books) and ask him about it.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Finally (and just in time, really) ...
Just got some (Inchellium) garlic and (Ed's Red) shallots ordered for planting this fall. Thought I had ordered them (plus a few other things) from the Southern Exposure Seed Exchange a month or so ago, but for some reason my order didn't go through and I just finally realized it. So, needless to say, I couldn't remember who I attempted to order them through originally, and ordered them through Seeds of Change this time.
So, my fall garden is now complete; I have greens, lettuce, carrots, turnips, broccoli, beets, radishes (which aren't planted yet), and now I'll have garlic and shallots. Plus, I still have okra and tomatoes going (but barely).
I guess it's time to start thinking about what I want to plant next spring! Oh boy, here we go again ...
So, my fall garden is now complete; I have greens, lettuce, carrots, turnips, broccoli, beets, radishes (which aren't planted yet), and now I'll have garlic and shallots. Plus, I still have okra and tomatoes going (but barely).
I guess it's time to start thinking about what I want to plant next spring! Oh boy, here we go again ...
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Moo-ving right along ...
I just read an interesting article on why cattle in the United Kingdom come down with so many diseases. This excerpt particularly caught my eye:
Wow ... that doesn't sound very good, and that as a problem never crossed my mind. Cattle eating animal byproducts is not a very good thing (cows are herbivores, after all, and shouldn't even be forced to eat corn for instance), but feeding them with people food that may be contaminated from an uncontrolled international source sounds very baaad too.
As a side note, Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, wrote an interesting Op-Ed article in 2004 about the USDA and Mad Cow Disease.
I seem to recall a court case against McDonald's in the late 1970s, where they were forced to quit feeding their cattle rendered byproducts from euthanised animals (mainly cats and dogs) collected from animal shelters in the U.S. And, you may never again eat any beef-filled items from Taco Bell after reading these postings.
But the country does have the distinction of being Europe's primary landing spot for global travel, and that could put livestock at risk. Travelers from every continent pass through London Heathrow Airport (the busiest airport in the world for international traffic), and with them comes food waste from airplanes. Pathology researchers consider airline food waste, which is sometimes processed into food for livestock, the greatest danger to animal health in the world. Airline garbage that's contaminated with foreign diseases can end up in livestock troughs ...
Wow ... that doesn't sound very good, and that as a problem never crossed my mind. Cattle eating animal byproducts is not a very good thing (cows are herbivores, after all, and shouldn't even be forced to eat corn for instance), but feeding them with people food that may be contaminated from an uncontrolled international source sounds very baaad too.
As a side note, Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, wrote an interesting Op-Ed article in 2004 about the USDA and Mad Cow Disease.
I seem to recall a court case against McDonald's in the late 1970s, where they were forced to quit feeding their cattle rendered byproducts from euthanised animals (mainly cats and dogs) collected from animal shelters in the U.S. And, you may never again eat any beef-filled items from Taco Bell after reading these postings.
Ok, that's all for now.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Corn causing problems again
When will outdated monoculture corn farmers come to their senses and give up on growing thousands of acres of corn each season? And when will the government quit giving our tax money away (via subsidies) that really only benefit the big processing companies (like Cargill, Archer Daniels Midlands, Monsanto, et al)?
Well, hopefully the bubble will burst soon. A recent article in the New York Times seems to point to another wrench in their gears. (Unfortunately farmers are going to take the biggest hit when the bubble bursts; but again, time to adapt and move on.)
Here's an update.
[On the flip side, here's an article on cellulosic ethanol that sounds promising.]
Well, hopefully the bubble will burst soon. A recent article in the New York Times seems to point to another wrench in their gears. (Unfortunately farmers are going to take the biggest hit when the bubble bursts; but again, time to adapt and move on.)
Here's an update.
[On the flip side, here's an article on cellulosic ethanol that sounds promising.]
Friday, September 28, 2007
Beyond [USDA] Organic
This is something I’ve been VERY interested in (I can thank Gene Logsdon for infecting me with the “bug,” and Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma for introducing me to the term), but I just didn’t know its proper name. I’ve always felt that farming like our families did in the 1800s (and even the early 1900s, or at least pre-WWII) is the way to go. Sound, tried-and-true (scientific) farming that produced quality crops in a sustainable manner was the norm until chemical use and monoculture supplanted it.
The man who has really pushed the idea of “beyond organic” is Joel Salatin, of Polyface Farm in Swoope, Virginia. Regarding a pick-up day at Polyface Farm, Lynsie Watkins at perfectflavor.com had these select things to say: "… not an organic farm, but rather a better-than-organic farm” and "These older individuals probably never had to stand in line at a farm delivery. They most likely got most of what they needed from the farm they lived on. … This eat local movement is more like an ‘Ah-ha!’ moment for us, as for the older generation it's a, well, ‘Duh!’ sort of response instead ... " [That statement points out rather well how we're really just going back to an older way of farming; I'm always interested in how "old timers" think about seemingly new-fangled things like "organic" foods.]
Anyway, Mr. Salatin is anti-“USDA Organic” and anti-industrial organic (i.e. places like Whole Foods), largely because of their politically-based, watered-down standards.
He is also proof that if farmers would only go back to the very old ways of farming, they can be profitable. "I am absolutely bullish on the future of this kind of farming," says Salatin. "The weak link is the farmers who don't have the savvy to meet the challenge" (from: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/113/open_48-polyfacefarm.html). I feel that is farmers don't adapt to an evolving market (i.e. towards "natural" or even "organic" products), then it's their fault if/when they go out of business. You can't live in the 1950s forever! (But don't tell any of my rockabilly friends I said that.)
[Oh the irony ...]
The man who has really pushed the idea of “beyond organic” is Joel Salatin, of Polyface Farm in Swoope, Virginia. Regarding a pick-up day at Polyface Farm, Lynsie Watkins at perfectflavor.com had these select things to say: "… not an organic farm, but rather a better-than-organic farm” and "These older individuals probably never had to stand in line at a farm delivery. They most likely got most of what they needed from the farm they lived on. … This eat local movement is more like an ‘Ah-ha!’ moment for us, as for the older generation it's a, well, ‘Duh!’ sort of response instead ... " [That statement points out rather well how we're really just going back to an older way of farming; I'm always interested in how "old timers" think about seemingly new-fangled things like "organic" foods.]
Anyway, Mr. Salatin is anti-“USDA Organic” and anti-industrial organic (i.e. places like Whole Foods), largely because of their politically-based, watered-down standards.
He is also proof that if farmers would only go back to the very old ways of farming, they can be profitable. "I am absolutely bullish on the future of this kind of farming," says Salatin. "The weak link is the farmers who don't have the savvy to meet the challenge" (from: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/113/open_48-polyfacefarm.html). I feel that is farmers don't adapt to an evolving market (i.e. towards "natural" or even "organic" products), then it's their fault if/when they go out of business. You can't live in the 1950s forever! (But don't tell any of my rockabilly friends I said that.)
[Oh the irony ...]
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
The State of the Garden Address (SotGA) #1
Well, my garden's pretty much done with its spring/summer crops, and I just recently planted some fall/winter ones. So far, I've planted (from seed): mustard, cabbage, collards, turnips, kale, lettuce (Grandpa Admire and Black Seeded Simpson), carrots (Oxheart and Touchon), and broccoli. I even planted nine Packman broccoli plants, in case the seed-started ones don't do well. I still have yet to plant some winter squash and some garlic and perhaps even some shallots.
My Cherokee Purple tomatoes are still producing (although not as well as they were; I think the drought's affected them), as are my (late-planted) San Marzano tomatoes. My Marglobes are still producing a few small tomatoes as well. The Cherokee Purples were a big hit amongst everyone I shared them with, and they are likely the best tomato I've ever eaten (I/we have Craig LeHoullier to thank for that).
I still have two squash plants left, but they don't seem to be producing right now (perhaps anymore). My Fin de Bagnol beans are through, and my Ichiban eggplants are long gone (they both apparently fell victim to the drought, and to a problem with my irrigation system). My jalapeno and tabasco pepper plants are still going strong, as are my okra plants. I'm going to pickle my okra, and turn most of the jalapenos into chipotle peppers (by drying and smoking them); I may try pickling some of them as well.
My corn did fine, but it (Stowell's Evergreen) wasn't the best sweet corn I've ever had. Plus, without using pesticides, the ears got eaten up by worms, and I wasn't able to harvest as many as I'd wished. I may try Country Gentleman or a similar open-pollinated corn next year (I'm not quite desperate enough to go back to a hybrid like Silver Queen quite yet).
The only crop that was destroyed by wildlife (deer) was my sweet potatoes. But, it was my fault as I didn't make the fence high enough. And anyway, perhaps the deer meat will taste sweeter this year!
My Cherokee Purple tomatoes are still producing (although not as well as they were; I think the drought's affected them), as are my (late-planted) San Marzano tomatoes. My Marglobes are still producing a few small tomatoes as well. The Cherokee Purples were a big hit amongst everyone I shared them with, and they are likely the best tomato I've ever eaten (I/we have Craig LeHoullier to thank for that).
I still have two squash plants left, but they don't seem to be producing right now (perhaps anymore). My Fin de Bagnol beans are through, and my Ichiban eggplants are long gone (they both apparently fell victim to the drought, and to a problem with my irrigation system). My jalapeno and tabasco pepper plants are still going strong, as are my okra plants. I'm going to pickle my okra, and turn most of the jalapenos into chipotle peppers (by drying and smoking them); I may try pickling some of them as well.
My corn did fine, but it (Stowell's Evergreen) wasn't the best sweet corn I've ever had. Plus, without using pesticides, the ears got eaten up by worms, and I wasn't able to harvest as many as I'd wished. I may try Country Gentleman or a similar open-pollinated corn next year (I'm not quite desperate enough to go back to a hybrid like Silver Queen quite yet).
The only crop that was destroyed by wildlife (deer) was my sweet potatoes. But, it was my fault as I didn't make the fence high enough. And anyway, perhaps the deer meat will taste sweeter this year!
Friday, August 24, 2007
Two more reasons to raise your own food
"the family's bag of Fast Fixin Frozen Chicken Strips contained mercury and glass shards. The parents learned of the problem after their children complained about the taste of the chicken"
read it here: http://www.wgal.com/news/13957356/detail.html
and
"'We've urbanized a world. We have moved people and food around that world at ever increasing speed,' World Health Organization (WHO) epidemics expert Dr. Mike Ryan said. WHO Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan said one of the changes affecting human health was increasingly intensive poultry farming, which may account for the global spread of bird flu.
'It should not come as a surprise that we are seeing more and more disease outbreaks coming from the animal sector,' including Ebola, SARS, or bird flu."
read it here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20416085
[Boy am I hungry!]
read it here: http://www.wgal.com/news/13957356/detail.html
and
"'We've urbanized a world. We have moved people and food around that world at ever increasing speed,' World Health Organization (WHO) epidemics expert Dr. Mike Ryan said. WHO Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan said one of the changes affecting human health was increasingly intensive poultry farming, which may account for the global spread of bird flu.
'It should not come as a surprise that we are seeing more and more disease outbreaks coming from the animal sector,' including Ebola, SARS, or bird flu."
read it here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20416085
[Boy am I hungry!]
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Get the [friggin'] lead out
The recent discovery that several of Mattel's toy lines that were made in China were painted with lead now appears to be taking the usual turn that many problems we're dealing with these days are, where politically-appointed bureaucrats' incompetence is (thankfully) being exposed.
Darshak Sanghavi, in Slate Magazine, wrote an interesting article where he stated that "Just before the CDC [Center for Disease Control] considered lowering lead limits once again in 2003, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson removed a qualified scientist, Michael Weitzman, from the CDC's lead advisory committee and then rejected the appointments of Bruce Lanphear and Susan Klitzman, the researchers who found toxic effects of lead at low levels. Instead, Thompson moved to appoint Joyce Tsuji, who worked for two companies that represented lead firms, and William Banner, who has stated publicly that 70 mcg/dl of lead is safe for children's brains—a view not shared by any respectable scientists. [The Union of Concerned Scientists and Rep. Henry Waxman publicized Thompson's abuses in a recent New Republic article.] But the political message had already been sent, and no lowered limit resulted. Today, all those parents whose children will be tested in the wake of the Mattel scandal continue to be falsely reassured that all is well, even if the kids have lead levels of 5 to 10 mcg/dl, which may cost them 7 IQ points." And "A few years ago, I talked with Bruce Lanphear at a conference in San Francisco, just after he'd been rejected from the CDC's lead advisory committee. Resistance to lead control is a historical problem, he said. He was clearly frustrated by the politics but said he'd continue working in the field with the hope that somebody will listen. Perhaps the Mattel fiasco will finally bring attention to the hidden toll of lead paint."
Here' some other related articles:
How publicizing the truth about lead poisoning can get you attention by certain offending companies:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/6/977
On the ["secret"] history of lead use:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000320/kitman/20
On a Chinese toymaker committing suicide after the lead-tainted toy recall:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/13/news/international/bc.news.china.safety.mattel.dc.reut/index.htm?postversion=2007081305
Darshak Sanghavi, in Slate Magazine, wrote an interesting article where he stated that "Just before the CDC [Center for Disease Control] considered lowering lead limits once again in 2003, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson removed a qualified scientist, Michael Weitzman, from the CDC's lead advisory committee and then rejected the appointments of Bruce Lanphear and Susan Klitzman, the researchers who found toxic effects of lead at low levels. Instead, Thompson moved to appoint Joyce Tsuji, who worked for two companies that represented lead firms, and William Banner, who has stated publicly that 70 mcg/dl of lead is safe for children's brains—a view not shared by any respectable scientists. [The Union of Concerned Scientists and Rep. Henry Waxman publicized Thompson's abuses in a recent New Republic article.] But the political message had already been sent, and no lowered limit resulted. Today, all those parents whose children will be tested in the wake of the Mattel scandal continue to be falsely reassured that all is well, even if the kids have lead levels of 5 to 10 mcg/dl, which may cost them 7 IQ points." And "A few years ago, I talked with Bruce Lanphear at a conference in San Francisco, just after he'd been rejected from the CDC's lead advisory committee. Resistance to lead control is a historical problem, he said. He was clearly frustrated by the politics but said he'd continue working in the field with the hope that somebody will listen. Perhaps the Mattel fiasco will finally bring attention to the hidden toll of lead paint."
Here' some other related articles:
How publicizing the truth about lead poisoning can get you attention by certain offending companies:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/6/977
On the ["secret"] history of lead use:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000320/kitman/20
On a Chinese toymaker committing suicide after the lead-tainted toy recall:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/13/news/international/bc.news.china.safety.mattel.dc.reut/index.htm?postversion=2007081305
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Heat over meat
I was just in California, visiting my mom, and read an interesting article in a local newspaper, the Point Reyes Light.
The article was about a slaughterhouse in nearby Petaluma that is closing its doors after almost a century in business serving mostly local cattle ranchers and dairy farmers.
(By the way, the property owner will do very well from the sale of the property, as it’s in a high-priced land area, and its development is already well-planned out, so at least he and his family won’t be hurt by the business’s closing.)
Anyway, hopefully the closing of the slaughterhouse will cause local ranchers/farmers to do away with obsolete mid-twentieth-century practices and become more efficient and profitable.
An organization called North Coast Meats has formed since the slaughterhouse's closure was announced. The group "aims not only to preserve existing infrastructure but also to foster the possibilities for livestock growers and meat providers in the local sustainable agriculture movement."
“The task is to create a regional agricultural infrastructure, but not necessarily to recreate what was here before,” stated North Coast Meats' Sam Goldberger. “Right now, food travels on the order of thousands of miles before it reaches you and consumers are demanding for that to change.”
According to the article, "The group is currently doing a feasibility study examining the costs of building and operating an organic, USDA-approved 'Integrated Animal Processing Center' that would serve a wider variety of functions than traditional slaughterhouses do – such as including a cut-and-wrap facility for the meat and direct distribution of the meats to retailers. They also plan to house a commercial kitchen, provide profit sharing, and make their own energy by processing biological waste."
“Local ranchers are increasingly caught between the rising cost of grain and price competition with large-scale producers. As feedlots, slaughterhouses, distributors and retailers each claim a piece of the profits and the price of conventionally grown meat stays the same, ranchers wind up paying the price.”
By combining several of the steps of slaughtering and packaging meat into one location, North Coast Meats plans to remove the profit-consuming middlemen of the meat business. North Coast Meats hopes “to steer the direction of agriculture in an unconventional direction designed to benefit the rancher and the consumer above any middlemen. ‘If the rancher is going to be able to survive they are going to need higher margin products,’ said Goldberger. ‘I see slaughterhouses as just one link in that chain.’”
Cattle ranchers that are raising local meat to serve the local community will be hurt the most by the closure of the slaughterhouse. David Evans of Marin Sun Farms in Point Reyes said that “it is very important to his locally-grown, grass-fed business that to have a processing facility nearby.”
“This will be most devastating to anyone who is trying to get out of the commodity beef market and do more grass-fed, direct marketing, or community supported agriculture,” said Ellie Rilla, the Marin County Farm Advisor for UCCE.
The article stated that “though only a few local ranches are currently exploring those specialty markets, consumer demand for them is making them more profitable. Last year, The UCCE went to every ranch in Marin County and surveyed them about their interest in pursuing those specialty markets. Over half of them said that they are.”
According to an earlier 2003 University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) survey, out of 186 agricultural producers in Marin County, two percent (or about four) of them were considering leaving the business, even though 63 percent (or about 117 of them) were unprofitable or marginally profitable.
It is absolutely time for a change in farming, ranching, etc.; the government needs to quit subsidizing the largest food producers so as to give the more efficient, more sustainable, and more profitable small-time food producers a chance. The government is always preaching how a market should control itself (basic supply and demand-type stuff), but it still feels compelled to subsidize inefficient business. It’s also time for food producers to quit paying for chemical and poison pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, hormones, and etc., which costs them many thousands of dollars a year, and only profits the companies that produce those chemical and poisons. Post-World War Two, the government and the big chemical companies pushed all that junk onto farmers, and now, several generations later, it’s the only way the large-scale farmers know how to farm.
But, there’s no reason for the smaller farmers to continue to farm the way their fathers or grandfathers did, when they can more profitably and sustainably farm the way their great-grandfathers did.
Sustainability is one major key to keeping family farms going and to obtain profits. The public does want inexpensive food, but it also wants food that tastes like it’s supposed to, and that won’t harm their health in the short AND long term. Produce like genetically-modified tomatoes only help the producer of the tomato; buying a tomato that has a month-long shelf life or a perfect, blemish-free red skin but that internally is unripe and is tasteless is like marrying an attractive person that is ugly on the inside: perhaps gratifying in the short term, but one grows weary of it after awhile.
Need I say more?
The article was about a slaughterhouse in nearby Petaluma that is closing its doors after almost a century in business serving mostly local cattle ranchers and dairy farmers.
(By the way, the property owner will do very well from the sale of the property, as it’s in a high-priced land area, and its development is already well-planned out, so at least he and his family won’t be hurt by the business’s closing.)
Anyway, hopefully the closing of the slaughterhouse will cause local ranchers/farmers to do away with obsolete mid-twentieth-century practices and become more efficient and profitable.
An organization called North Coast Meats has formed since the slaughterhouse's closure was announced. The group "aims not only to preserve existing infrastructure but also to foster the possibilities for livestock growers and meat providers in the local sustainable agriculture movement."
“The task is to create a regional agricultural infrastructure, but not necessarily to recreate what was here before,” stated North Coast Meats' Sam Goldberger. “Right now, food travels on the order of thousands of miles before it reaches you and consumers are demanding for that to change.”
According to the article, "The group is currently doing a feasibility study examining the costs of building and operating an organic, USDA-approved 'Integrated Animal Processing Center' that would serve a wider variety of functions than traditional slaughterhouses do – such as including a cut-and-wrap facility for the meat and direct distribution of the meats to retailers. They also plan to house a commercial kitchen, provide profit sharing, and make their own energy by processing biological waste."
“Local ranchers are increasingly caught between the rising cost of grain and price competition with large-scale producers. As feedlots, slaughterhouses, distributors and retailers each claim a piece of the profits and the price of conventionally grown meat stays the same, ranchers wind up paying the price.”
By combining several of the steps of slaughtering and packaging meat into one location, North Coast Meats plans to remove the profit-consuming middlemen of the meat business. North Coast Meats hopes “to steer the direction of agriculture in an unconventional direction designed to benefit the rancher and the consumer above any middlemen. ‘If the rancher is going to be able to survive they are going to need higher margin products,’ said Goldberger. ‘I see slaughterhouses as just one link in that chain.’”
Cattle ranchers that are raising local meat to serve the local community will be hurt the most by the closure of the slaughterhouse. David Evans of Marin Sun Farms in Point Reyes said that “it is very important to his locally-grown, grass-fed business that to have a processing facility nearby.”
“This will be most devastating to anyone who is trying to get out of the commodity beef market and do more grass-fed, direct marketing, or community supported agriculture,” said Ellie Rilla, the Marin County Farm Advisor for UCCE.
The article stated that “though only a few local ranches are currently exploring those specialty markets, consumer demand for them is making them more profitable. Last year, The UCCE went to every ranch in Marin County and surveyed them about their interest in pursuing those specialty markets. Over half of them said that they are.”
According to an earlier 2003 University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) survey, out of 186 agricultural producers in Marin County, two percent (or about four) of them were considering leaving the business, even though 63 percent (or about 117 of them) were unprofitable or marginally profitable.
It is absolutely time for a change in farming, ranching, etc.; the government needs to quit subsidizing the largest food producers so as to give the more efficient, more sustainable, and more profitable small-time food producers a chance. The government is always preaching how a market should control itself (basic supply and demand-type stuff), but it still feels compelled to subsidize inefficient business. It’s also time for food producers to quit paying for chemical and poison pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, hormones, and etc., which costs them many thousands of dollars a year, and only profits the companies that produce those chemical and poisons. Post-World War Two, the government and the big chemical companies pushed all that junk onto farmers, and now, several generations later, it’s the only way the large-scale farmers know how to farm.
But, there’s no reason for the smaller farmers to continue to farm the way their fathers or grandfathers did, when they can more profitably and sustainably farm the way their great-grandfathers did.
Sustainability is one major key to keeping family farms going and to obtain profits. The public does want inexpensive food, but it also wants food that tastes like it’s supposed to, and that won’t harm their health in the short AND long term. Produce like genetically-modified tomatoes only help the producer of the tomato; buying a tomato that has a month-long shelf life or a perfect, blemish-free red skin but that internally is unripe and is tasteless is like marrying an attractive person that is ugly on the inside: perhaps gratifying in the short term, but one grows weary of it after awhile.
Need I say more?
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Nano nano
I just saw a show (“Modern Marvels”) on the History Channel on engines, and I must say I am very intrigued by some of the “alternate” engines they profiled, particularly “nano engines.” They also profiled hybrid engines (as found in the Toyota Prius and the Honda Camry Hybrid) and hydrogen engines.
Nano-technology engines are so small, they’re mind boggling. I’d really like to research them more. They get an official “hmmm” from me …
Another engine they profiled (that was easier to comprehend, for me at least) was the Stirling Engine. It uses no fuel except heat or cold!
Perhaps one of these “alternate” engines will be one of the future answers to our energy “dilemma.”
Nano-technology engines are so small, they’re mind boggling. I’d really like to research them more. They get an official “hmmm” from me …
Another engine they profiled (that was easier to comprehend, for me at least) was the Stirling Engine. It uses no fuel except heat or cold!
Perhaps one of these “alternate” engines will be one of the future answers to our energy “dilemma.”
I'd rather have a bottle [of purified water] in front of me, than have to have a frontal lobotomy [from cancerous tap water] ...
PepsiCo just got "busted" for bottling treated/purified tap water and selling it for more money than you would pay for it directly out of your own faucet.
Well, normally I am all for the consumer's right for truth in labelling of food and food-type products, but this one is a bit ridiculous. I mean, they (Aquafina and Dasani, for example) already pretty much said that they were obtaining their water from the tap, only they used an acronym ("P.W.S." or public water source). Now, if they had said they got their water from some special spring somewhere, THAT would be misleading.
Groups such as "Think Outside the Bottle" obviously do not understand the problems with tap water, however. Public tap water can be very good and contaminant free at its source, but once it goes through all those miles of leaky public water pipes (that can be contaminated from adjacent sewer pipes or by contaminated ground water that seeps into the pipes), then into your house through some corroded (and likely lead, if it's an old house or building) pipes, it isn't as clean as when it's tested directly at the public water source. Every time I drink tap water, I tend to drink it as fast as I can and drink as little as possible, and while grimacing. A restaurant serving tap water to me is the same as if that restaurant served food that has pesticides, herbicides, and hormones in it. I generally only drink tap water at a restaurant when I'm feeling too cheap to pay $3+ for a bottle of water.
I understand that many, many thousands of used plastic water bottles litter cities, highways, and etc. across the globe, but the two things about that are: that it's better to have guaranteed clean water than potentially contaminated tap water, and the general consumer wants convenience, even at the cost of the environment and/or how much they have to pay for it, money wise.
If nothing else comes out of this "truth in labelling" occurrence, perhaps we will one day have our food labelled with country of origin, poisons used during production, whether it's a GM product, etc. Or, maybe what we should take away from Aquafina example is that PepsiCo doesn't have as many special-interest congressional lobbyists as Monsanto does!
On the amusing side, here's an extreme of 'truth in labelling': http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/enterprise/article640266.ece
Well, normally I am all for the consumer's right for truth in labelling of food and food-type products, but this one is a bit ridiculous. I mean, they (Aquafina and Dasani, for example) already pretty much said that they were obtaining their water from the tap, only they used an acronym ("P.W.S." or public water source). Now, if they had said they got their water from some special spring somewhere, THAT would be misleading.
Groups such as "Think Outside the Bottle" obviously do not understand the problems with tap water, however. Public tap water can be very good and contaminant free at its source, but once it goes through all those miles of leaky public water pipes (that can be contaminated from adjacent sewer pipes or by contaminated ground water that seeps into the pipes), then into your house through some corroded (and likely lead, if it's an old house or building) pipes, it isn't as clean as when it's tested directly at the public water source. Every time I drink tap water, I tend to drink it as fast as I can and drink as little as possible, and while grimacing. A restaurant serving tap water to me is the same as if that restaurant served food that has pesticides, herbicides, and hormones in it. I generally only drink tap water at a restaurant when I'm feeling too cheap to pay $3+ for a bottle of water.
I understand that many, many thousands of used plastic water bottles litter cities, highways, and etc. across the globe, but the two things about that are: that it's better to have guaranteed clean water than potentially contaminated tap water, and the general consumer wants convenience, even at the cost of the environment and/or how much they have to pay for it, money wise.
If nothing else comes out of this "truth in labelling" occurrence, perhaps we will one day have our food labelled with country of origin, poisons used during production, whether it's a GM product, etc. Or, maybe what we should take away from Aquafina example is that PepsiCo doesn't have as many special-interest congressional lobbyists as Monsanto does!
On the amusing side, here's an extreme of 'truth in labelling': http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/enterprise/article640266.ece
..........
Here's some updates (8-20-2007) regarding bottled water issues:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/how-do-you-take-your-water
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/how-do-you-take-your-water
and on the plastic bottles themselves:
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Land, Corn, and Ethanol
There was an article in USA Today today (July 18) about how due to ethanol, corn prices have risen dramatically which has caused land prices to skyrocket in the Midwestern U.S.
The article, Land prices leave farmers in a lurch, by Sue Kirchhoff, can be found in its entirety at: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-07-18-farmland-prices_N.htm.
But here is a few verbatim excerpts from the article that I found to be particularly interesting:
"Looking ahead, it's hard to overstate the potential impacts of the ethanol industry. Acting in response to government subsidies and mandates to combat global warming and reduce U.S. demand for imported oil, about 20% of U.S. corn production is now dedicated to ethanol. Corn prices more than doubled to nearly $4 a bushel on futures markets, before falling recently. Corn closed on the Chicago Board of Trade Wednesday [July 18, 2007] up 4½ cents at $3.27 — still historically high. The price rise has increased the number of farmers buying land to expand."
"'It's all driven by corn prices, but is this sustainable?' says University of Nebraska economist Bruce Johnson, speaking of a 14% rise in land values across the state in the 12 months ended in February. 'We have to be really cautious here so that we don't fall into chasing appreciation.' "
"Rising prices for corn and other crops are pushing up land prices and having other indirect effects. Getting to Paulman's farm means driving through miles of lush corn fields watered by huge wheel-mounted sprinklers. The thirsty corn crop is straining water supplies. If corn prices stay high, farmers could take more fragile land out of the federal Conservation Reserve Program."
"There is a sense of uncertainty beneath the buoyant prices and rush of ethanol plant start-ups here. Federal ethanol economics include a 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit for petroleum firms that blend ethanol, a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol and tax incentives for smaller firms. States have their own programs."
"'The goal was for ethanol … to create a local market for corn over which farmers had better control than they had historically' with much of their product exported out of state, say Todd Sneller, administrator of the of the Nebraska Ethanol Board, a state agency. 'I don't think any of these communities would have been willing to host (ethanol) plants if they thought this was short term.'"
What are the morals of this story as see it?
1. Too many farmers overly rely on subsidies.
2. 20% of U.S. corn production is now dedicated to ethanol ... that's a heck of a lot of corn taken away from feeding livestock.
3. Farmers complain when corn prices are down, and they complain when they're up as well.
4. Greedy farmers taking more land out of the federal Conservation Reserve Program, which is not a good thing, as it will greatly increase erosion and other related problems.
5. Government taxes are too high on alternative fuels.
There's a lot more to it, so read the article (and the related Water constraints rain on ethanol zeal article).
The article, Land prices leave farmers in a lurch, by Sue Kirchhoff, can be found in its entirety at: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-07-18-farmland-prices_N.htm.
But here is a few verbatim excerpts from the article that I found to be particularly interesting:
"Looking ahead, it's hard to overstate the potential impacts of the ethanol industry. Acting in response to government subsidies and mandates to combat global warming and reduce U.S. demand for imported oil, about 20% of U.S. corn production is now dedicated to ethanol. Corn prices more than doubled to nearly $4 a bushel on futures markets, before falling recently. Corn closed on the Chicago Board of Trade Wednesday [July 18, 2007] up 4½ cents at $3.27 — still historically high. The price rise has increased the number of farmers buying land to expand."
"'It's all driven by corn prices, but is this sustainable?' says University of Nebraska economist Bruce Johnson, speaking of a 14% rise in land values across the state in the 12 months ended in February. 'We have to be really cautious here so that we don't fall into chasing appreciation.' "
"Rising prices for corn and other crops are pushing up land prices and having other indirect effects. Getting to Paulman's farm means driving through miles of lush corn fields watered by huge wheel-mounted sprinklers. The thirsty corn crop is straining water supplies. If corn prices stay high, farmers could take more fragile land out of the federal Conservation Reserve Program."
"There is a sense of uncertainty beneath the buoyant prices and rush of ethanol plant start-ups here. Federal ethanol economics include a 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit for petroleum firms that blend ethanol, a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol and tax incentives for smaller firms. States have their own programs."
"'The goal was for ethanol … to create a local market for corn over which farmers had better control than they had historically' with much of their product exported out of state, say Todd Sneller, administrator of the of the Nebraska Ethanol Board, a state agency. 'I don't think any of these communities would have been willing to host (ethanol) plants if they thought this was short term.'"
What are the morals of this story as see it?
1. Too many farmers overly rely on subsidies.
2. 20% of U.S. corn production is now dedicated to ethanol ... that's a heck of a lot of corn taken away from feeding livestock.
3. Farmers complain when corn prices are down, and they complain when they're up as well.
4. Greedy farmers taking more land out of the federal Conservation Reserve Program, which is not a good thing, as it will greatly increase erosion and other related problems.
5. Government taxes are too high on alternative fuels.
There's a lot more to it, so read the article (and the related Water constraints rain on ethanol zeal article).
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
What, us worry?
I have always respected other countries for opposing the importation from (mainly) the U.S. and Canada of genetically modified (GM or GMO) foodstuffs, but the strength of their resolve is getting a bit worrisome lately. Of course, it's mainly the politicians, as they're probably getting big donations to their political campaigns and/or personal accounts to push GM/GMO products onto their fellow countrymen and constituents (exactly like it was done in the U.S. and Canada).
I have a strong suspicion that lately it's due to the whole corn prices dilemma, but perhaps I'm wrong.
I have a strong suspicion that lately it's due to the whole corn prices dilemma, but perhaps I'm wrong.
Here's an interesting article about a consumer choice experiment undertaken in New Zealand recently:
The only "problem" with the experiment is that GM/GMO products will never be cheaper than conventional products, due to the prices charged by the biotech companies to the farmers for such things as the rights to grow their seed, the seed costs, the higher pesticide and herbicide costs, etc.
I also question the accuracy of the experiment, since the GM/GMO products were labelled “spray-free genetically modified.” What does that mean exactly? Not sprayed with diesel fuel? Not with rat poison? Not with human feces? With how GM/GMO crops are produced, a large amount (when compared to conventional and especially organic crops) of herbicides, for instance, has to be applied in order to kill off resistant weeds a.k.a. volunteer "frankenweeds," so it can't mean herbicides. And it can't mean pesticides or insecticides, as farmers have increased their use of pesticides once GM or GMO crops have become established. So these fruits were free from the spray of what? I'd like to know! The term "spray-free" might have influenced customers' decisions, as it mkes it sound harmless compared to the conventional fruit, for instance.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
"Every once in a while, you can spot a couple of cattle fighting over a whole potato"
This story is both amusing and amazing:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB117971270570109153-zOC0IHWiWPWox_jaHb4rBiWVpIo_20070528.html%3f
The article basically discusses several of the problems with using corn for ethanol production instead of for livestock feed. The main problem I have with it is one of the last paragraphs: "In ethanol-producing states, some farmers have been able to mitigate high corn costs by feeding their animals dried distillers' grains, a corn mash left over from ethanol production. But in states without ethanol plants, distillers' grains aren't always readily available. Also, many farmers say the product lacks sufficient nutrients. Others say their animals don't like the taste."
For one, "dried distillers' grains" (especially when reconstituted) have a higher nutrional value than the pre-distilled grains, due to the fermentation process; second, have you ever seen a pig fed fermented grain of any type? They go NUTS over it!
Another amusing/disturbing statement within the article is regarding the price of corn: "[it] has prompted livestock groups like the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Chicken Council to call for an end to federal ethanol subsidies ..." Now that's a bit of a hypocritical statement, ain't it? I guess it's ok when the federal government subsidizes corn (giving away many billions of dollars of U.S. tax payers' money) for animal feed though!
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB117971270570109153-zOC0IHWiWPWox_jaHb4rBiWVpIo_20070528.html%3f
The article basically discusses several of the problems with using corn for ethanol production instead of for livestock feed. The main problem I have with it is one of the last paragraphs: "In ethanol-producing states, some farmers have been able to mitigate high corn costs by feeding their animals dried distillers' grains, a corn mash left over from ethanol production. But in states without ethanol plants, distillers' grains aren't always readily available. Also, many farmers say the product lacks sufficient nutrients. Others say their animals don't like the taste."
For one, "dried distillers' grains" (especially when reconstituted) have a higher nutrional value than the pre-distilled grains, due to the fermentation process; second, have you ever seen a pig fed fermented grain of any type? They go NUTS over it!
Another amusing/disturbing statement within the article is regarding the price of corn: "[it] has prompted livestock groups like the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Chicken Council to call for an end to federal ethanol subsidies ..." Now that's a bit of a hypocritical statement, ain't it? I guess it's ok when the federal government subsidizes corn (giving away many billions of dollars of U.S. tax payers' money) for animal feed though!
Perhaps they should quit selling their now high-priced corn they produce that was originally intended to feed their livestock, or they can protect their corn subsidy money another way?
[Chinese] Food fight!
China apparently retaliates for our rejection of "some" of their imports:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK1175920070710
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK1175920070710
"I'm sorry Mr. Chinese Export Company President, but we detected large amounts of arsenic, diesel fuel, battery acid, and Agent Orange in your lastest seafood shipment to the United States. Hmmm ... I know! Let's label it organic!"
and ...
Good thing for our FDA that such things don't happen in the U.S. of A.:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK2206820070710
(Al Gore's cousin-in-law, Michael Taylor, would have been six feet under by now!)
Monday, July 9, 2007
Origins of Our Food
(Verbatim from a July 4, 2007 New York Times editorial)
With imports of agricultural products rising sharply and sporadic scares about their safety, Americans surely have a right to know what country their food has come from. Unfortunately, they have little chance of finding out, due to the intransigence of meat importers and grocery retailers.
Lobbyists for both groups have blocked implementation of a 2002 law that requires country-of-origin labels on fresh fruits and vegetables, red meats, seafood and peanuts. Only the seafood part of the law has been put into effect, largely because Alaskan fishermen liked some of its provisions and had a powerful champion in the Senate.
With the recent questions about Chinese seafood, those labels mean that consumers can make informed choices at the seafood counter — something they should be able to do with all of their food purchases.
As Andrew Martin reported in The Times on Monday, the Bush administration’s Agriculture Department [USDA] was hostile to the labeling from the start. That comes as no surprise given that many of its top officials had worked for a trade association representing meatpackers and ranchers that opposes labeling. The Republican-controlled Congress, with key members beholden to campaign contributions from agribusiness, twice delayed the starting date for mandatory labeling, ultimately pushing it back to September 2008.
Industry lobbyists raise a flurry of unpersuasive objections. They claim it would be too costly for American meatpackers to segregate and track imported meat, and especially difficult to label ground meat which often comes from different cows. They also claim that labeling is a disguised form of protectionism, which implies that all foreign food is suspect. But these rationales are trumped by the simple argument that consumers have a right to know the origins of what they are buying. The required record-keeping should also help in tracking any dangerous products back through the supply chain to the source of contamination.
With the Democrats now in control of Congress, it is time to put an end to the excuses and delays, and finally implement the labeling requirement — preferably without waiting until late 2008. This could be done through the mammoth farm policy bill that will be up for a vote in coming months or through an agriculture appropriations bill. If there are elements of the original law that are unnecessarily onerous and costly, these can be modified during the legislative process or during administrative rule-making to implement the law. But there should be no compromise of the basic principle that consumers have a right to know where their food comes from before popping it into their mouths.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
With imports of agricultural products rising sharply and sporadic scares about their safety, Americans surely have a right to know what country their food has come from. Unfortunately, they have little chance of finding out, due to the intransigence of meat importers and grocery retailers.
Lobbyists for both groups have blocked implementation of a 2002 law that requires country-of-origin labels on fresh fruits and vegetables, red meats, seafood and peanuts. Only the seafood part of the law has been put into effect, largely because Alaskan fishermen liked some of its provisions and had a powerful champion in the Senate.
With the recent questions about Chinese seafood, those labels mean that consumers can make informed choices at the seafood counter — something they should be able to do with all of their food purchases.
As Andrew Martin reported in The Times on Monday, the Bush administration’s Agriculture Department [USDA] was hostile to the labeling from the start. That comes as no surprise given that many of its top officials had worked for a trade association representing meatpackers and ranchers that opposes labeling. The Republican-controlled Congress, with key members beholden to campaign contributions from agribusiness, twice delayed the starting date for mandatory labeling, ultimately pushing it back to September 2008.
Industry lobbyists raise a flurry of unpersuasive objections. They claim it would be too costly for American meatpackers to segregate and track imported meat, and especially difficult to label ground meat which often comes from different cows. They also claim that labeling is a disguised form of protectionism, which implies that all foreign food is suspect. But these rationales are trumped by the simple argument that consumers have a right to know the origins of what they are buying. The required record-keeping should also help in tracking any dangerous products back through the supply chain to the source of contamination.
With the Democrats now in control of Congress, it is time to put an end to the excuses and delays, and finally implement the labeling requirement — preferably without waiting until late 2008. This could be done through the mammoth farm policy bill that will be up for a vote in coming months or through an agriculture appropriations bill. If there are elements of the original law that are unnecessarily onerous and costly, these can be modified during the legislative process or during administrative rule-making to implement the law. But there should be no compromise of the basic principle that consumers have a right to know where their food comes from before popping it into their mouths.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Friday, June 29, 2007
Does Whole Foods have an organic produce section?
Whole Foods does have many items that are “organic” (according to the official USDA/FDA standards), and their 365 brand is pretty amazing (quality and price-wise) but their produce section leaves much to be desired. Nowadays when you walk into Whole Foods (some call it Wal Foods) produce section, you’ll notice that much of their produce is conventionally grown, mostly either in California or in another country.
Living in North Carolina, I’m offended when I see such items as collards (grown widely in N.C.) or sweet potatoes (N.C.’s state vegetable!) from California being sold at Whole Foods, especially when they’re conventionally grown and in season right here. Basically, this means that a truck had to drive all the way from California, perhaps stopping at Whole Foods’s HQ in Texas, with its load of produce for my local Whole Foods stores. And not only are they conventionally grown, but they’re much more expensive than if you were to buy them at a local supermarket (which sells the exact same conventional product) or farmers’ market (which sells the organic version). I guess somebody’s gotta pay for all that diesel for the trucks!
Awhile ago, Wal-Mart entered into the organic fray and began an organic items section, which includes produce. Years ago (perhaps now, but I haven’t checked), Wal-Mart carried more locally-grown produce than Whole Foods did. I’ve heard that my local Food Lion grocery stores rely on a farm or farms that are located in eastern N.C. (it still has to be trucked in to the stores, but not nearly as far as Whole Foods’ trucks have to drive). I have to laugh when I see pictures of local farmers and such adorning the walls of my local Whole Foods, with a write up about their product; well, many times their products have been discontinued because a cheaper source has been located overseas or in California … but their picture and bio remain well-visible! Whole Foods tries to explain away the various reasons for selling local produce on their website, but it sounds more like something a political operative wrote.
The solution for me? Well, besides growing my own naturally-grown/organic (non-certified, of course) vegetables, I shop for my veggies at a co-op grocery that is a much less-corporate version of Whole Foods: Weaver Street Market (located in Carrboro). Also, I shop at the local farmers’ markets: Hillsborough’s, Carrboro’s, Durham’s, and even the state farmers’ market in Raleigh or a local flea market (Buckhorn) on occasion. Raleigh’s doesn’t have an actual organic section per se, but some of the farmers who sell there actually grow their vegetables old school-style, and don’t use pesticides and herbicides (or only sparsely when necessary). I do shop at the conventional grocery stores on occasion, as they have produce that is similar to Whole Foods (i.e. conventional, but at least it’s often times local). Plus, it’s cheaper there (average probably about 1/3 the price). One must be careful, however, as since the FDA’s been micromanaged by the current presidential administration bureaucrats, and therefore less food safety testing has been conducted in the past several years; your fruit and veggies could be irrigated in diesel fuel in beds of asbestos for all you (and the FDA inspectors) know. They’re leaving it up to the companies to police and report themselves … yeah, I’m sure THAT will work out in the consumer’s best interests…
Again, though, I have to hand it to Whole Foods for products like their 365 brand; while not even close to being local, at least its a safer alternative than buying GMO-laced garbage at the conventional supermarket.
Living in North Carolina, I’m offended when I see such items as collards (grown widely in N.C.) or sweet potatoes (N.C.’s state vegetable!) from California being sold at Whole Foods, especially when they’re conventionally grown and in season right here. Basically, this means that a truck had to drive all the way from California, perhaps stopping at Whole Foods’s HQ in Texas, with its load of produce for my local Whole Foods stores. And not only are they conventionally grown, but they’re much more expensive than if you were to buy them at a local supermarket (which sells the exact same conventional product) or farmers’ market (which sells the organic version). I guess somebody’s gotta pay for all that diesel for the trucks!
Awhile ago, Wal-Mart entered into the organic fray and began an organic items section, which includes produce. Years ago (perhaps now, but I haven’t checked), Wal-Mart carried more locally-grown produce than Whole Foods did. I’ve heard that my local Food Lion grocery stores rely on a farm or farms that are located in eastern N.C. (it still has to be trucked in to the stores, but not nearly as far as Whole Foods’ trucks have to drive). I have to laugh when I see pictures of local farmers and such adorning the walls of my local Whole Foods, with a write up about their product; well, many times their products have been discontinued because a cheaper source has been located overseas or in California … but their picture and bio remain well-visible! Whole Foods tries to explain away the various reasons for selling local produce on their website, but it sounds more like something a political operative wrote.
The solution for me? Well, besides growing my own naturally-grown/organic (non-certified, of course) vegetables, I shop for my veggies at a co-op grocery that is a much less-corporate version of Whole Foods: Weaver Street Market (located in Carrboro). Also, I shop at the local farmers’ markets: Hillsborough’s, Carrboro’s, Durham’s, and even the state farmers’ market in Raleigh or a local flea market (Buckhorn) on occasion. Raleigh’s doesn’t have an actual organic section per se, but some of the farmers who sell there actually grow their vegetables old school-style, and don’t use pesticides and herbicides (or only sparsely when necessary). I do shop at the conventional grocery stores on occasion, as they have produce that is similar to Whole Foods (i.e. conventional, but at least it’s often times local). Plus, it’s cheaper there (average probably about 1/3 the price). One must be careful, however, as since the FDA’s been micromanaged by the current presidential administration bureaucrats, and therefore less food safety testing has been conducted in the past several years; your fruit and veggies could be irrigated in diesel fuel in beds of asbestos for all you (and the FDA inspectors) know. They’re leaving it up to the companies to police and report themselves … yeah, I’m sure THAT will work out in the consumer’s best interests…
Again, though, I have to hand it to Whole Foods for products like their 365 brand; while not even close to being local, at least its a safer alternative than buying GMO-laced garbage at the conventional supermarket.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Alternative fuels
Of course, for many reasons, we need to find an alternative to petroleum-based motor fuels, and as soon as possible (if not 30 years ago). And, it appears as if the United States is looking towards ethanol to be the official answer to the gasoline replacement question. My main concerns with using ethanol are that it will continue the BILLIONS of dollars in corn subsidies paid by the government (especially to the VERY large commercial farmers), and that protected and/or at-risk lands might be planted in corn in order to cash in even further on the production of corn (including more forests – and especially our national parks -- will be stripped to use the wood for ethanol production). Of course, both resources (corn and trees) are renewable resources, but you know that the large corporate farmers and the lumber companies (et al.) will eventually get greedy with our natural resources (much like the oil companies do now) and the American public will suffer for it. Plus, larger amounts of genetically-modified (GM) corn and etc. will be grown, and bioengineered yeast strains, which is bad for everyone and everything but the biotech companies. Right now, my only ‘pro’ regarding corn-based ethanol production is that the byproduct (the mash) can be used as a very efficient protein feed for livestock production or even human consumption (although ex- Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan feels that animals will go hungry once ethanol production increases!).
It is interesting to see President Bush visiting Brazil to talk about ethanol production; I’d like to see what comes of it. I understand Brazil is focusing on sugar cane-based ethanol (as is Cuba and a few other countries), but I also understand that virgin rainforests may suffer (much like our national parks may suffer) once land for sugar cane production becomes too valuable to let just “lie around” and be unproductive commercially. Anyway, President Bush seems to be focusing on corn stalks, wood chips from fast-growing trees, and switchgrass for the biomass needed for ethanol production; perhaps he feels that using the ears of corn or other edible biomass will result in people drinking the finished product?
Marty Bender, a scientist at the Land Institute in Kansas, conducted studies in the 1990s that documented that an alternative fuel source such as ethanol (as a large-scale and/or total replacement for gasoline) would be ecologically inefficient and agriculturally destructive in the long run because it may cause the cultivation of every possible acre of ground (including erosive lands that have the potential to stabilize our watersheds, for instance) in order to produce the biomass needed for the tremendous supply that would be required. Plus, it would most likely decrease the food supply (perhaps greatly) nationwide and worldwide if land is considered more valuable to use for the production of fuel biomass than for edible grains.
Of course, I don’t know the answer to what the most effective (in every way) “alternative” fuel is. Perhaps using methane or another form of composting gas (i.e. as a byproduct of composting) will work; maybe algae; perhaps hydrogen would be the most efficient; perhaps biodiesel is the key; maybe fuel cells; heck, possibly solar or thermal heat will work. I’m just not sure. It’d be nice to be able to use something that’s already serving or served its main purpose (in a byproduct or recycling-kinda way), such as landfill gas or sludge, or livestock manure, or urban sewage (perhaps biosolids, even with their heavy metals), or normally unrecyclable plastics or waxed cardboard. Again, I’m just not sure what the answer is. I do think that with so many vehicles on the road that utilize gasoline, something that those vehicles can use directly or be adapted to use would be most practical, at least in the short term (with the “short term” being perhaps 20 years or so). For instance, on my salary, I’m not going to buy a brand-new 2010 year-model truck that runs on hydrogen fuel cells, I’m going to find a way to adapt or convert my 1978 Ford F-150 to use something other than gasoline (I know, I know…perhaps I should have bought a diesel). Perhaps a combination of “alternative” fuels would be best overall, as then no singular resource will be wiped out, exploited by private business interests or governments, or overly affect the environment in a negative way, and people can tailor their fuel needs to their locality and to vehicular or home heating (again, or whatever) requirements. As Rachel Burton of Piedmont Biofuels (in Chatham County, N.C.), who seems to have coined the rather brilliant term ‘Slow Fuel’ (a modification of the term ‘Slow Food’), says, “we are believers in a micro-nodal model of energy production that insists that energy be harnessed where it is used … we have decided to include fuel in our 100 mile diet.”
It is interesting to see President Bush visiting Brazil to talk about ethanol production; I’d like to see what comes of it. I understand Brazil is focusing on sugar cane-based ethanol (as is Cuba and a few other countries), but I also understand that virgin rainforests may suffer (much like our national parks may suffer) once land for sugar cane production becomes too valuable to let just “lie around” and be unproductive commercially. Anyway, President Bush seems to be focusing on corn stalks, wood chips from fast-growing trees, and switchgrass for the biomass needed for ethanol production; perhaps he feels that using the ears of corn or other edible biomass will result in people drinking the finished product?
Marty Bender, a scientist at the Land Institute in Kansas, conducted studies in the 1990s that documented that an alternative fuel source such as ethanol (as a large-scale and/or total replacement for gasoline) would be ecologically inefficient and agriculturally destructive in the long run because it may cause the cultivation of every possible acre of ground (including erosive lands that have the potential to stabilize our watersheds, for instance) in order to produce the biomass needed for the tremendous supply that would be required. Plus, it would most likely decrease the food supply (perhaps greatly) nationwide and worldwide if land is considered more valuable to use for the production of fuel biomass than for edible grains.
Of course, I don’t know the answer to what the most effective (in every way) “alternative” fuel is. Perhaps using methane or another form of composting gas (i.e. as a byproduct of composting) will work; maybe algae; perhaps hydrogen would be the most efficient; perhaps biodiesel is the key; maybe fuel cells; heck, possibly solar or thermal heat will work. I’m just not sure. It’d be nice to be able to use something that’s already serving or served its main purpose (in a byproduct or recycling-kinda way), such as landfill gas or sludge, or livestock manure, or urban sewage (perhaps biosolids, even with their heavy metals), or normally unrecyclable plastics or waxed cardboard. Again, I’m just not sure what the answer is. I do think that with so many vehicles on the road that utilize gasoline, something that those vehicles can use directly or be adapted to use would be most practical, at least in the short term (with the “short term” being perhaps 20 years or so). For instance, on my salary, I’m not going to buy a brand-new 2010 year-model truck that runs on hydrogen fuel cells, I’m going to find a way to adapt or convert my 1978 Ford F-150 to use something other than gasoline (I know, I know…perhaps I should have bought a diesel). Perhaps a combination of “alternative” fuels would be best overall, as then no singular resource will be wiped out, exploited by private business interests or governments, or overly affect the environment in a negative way, and people can tailor their fuel needs to their locality and to vehicular or home heating (again, or whatever) requirements. As Rachel Burton of Piedmont Biofuels (in Chatham County, N.C.), who seems to have coined the rather brilliant term ‘Slow Fuel’ (a modification of the term ‘Slow Food’), says, “we are believers in a micro-nodal model of energy production that insists that energy be harnessed where it is used … we have decided to include fuel in our 100 mile diet.”
Heirloom seed
I have become obsessed with heirloom seeds. I’m actually even starting (this year) to save specific seed (corn and peppers for now) so as to make my seed what is termed “land race,” where a specific animal or vegetable over time becomes totally adapted to a specific place’s climate and land or soil. I’m beginning to land race my Stowell’s (sweet) corn, and within the next few years (I’ll have to clear some land I guess) will do it with a Southern dent-style of corn – probably Gourdseed but perhaps Hickory King or Boone County White. I’m also thinking of saving some of the seeds from my Cherokee Purple tomato plants for next year’s garden, but since I have other types of tomatoes growing near them and they might cross-pollinate, I may not.
Many seeds are heirloom anyway: even major companies like Burpee and Wal Mart sell some heirloom seeds (like yellow crookneck squash or Brandywine tomatoes). As long as it’s not a hybrid, or genetically modified (which yellow crookneck squash can be these days), it’s probably an heirloom variety. Heck, even some hybrids are nearly considered to be heirlooms nowadays (especially certain corn or tomato types), as they’ve been grown by some families for generations.
Many seeds are heirloom anyway: even major companies like Burpee and Wal Mart sell some heirloom seeds (like yellow crookneck squash or Brandywine tomatoes). As long as it’s not a hybrid, or genetically modified (which yellow crookneck squash can be these days), it’s probably an heirloom variety. Heck, even some hybrids are nearly considered to be heirlooms nowadays (especially certain corn or tomato types), as they’ve been grown by some families for generations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)