From a March 10, 2009 New York Times article:
"The former first lady, Laura Bush, insisted that fresh, organic foods be served in the White House, but did not broadcast that fact to the public, according to Walter Scheib, who served as executive chef under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. 'She just didn’t talk much about it outside the house,' Mr. Scheib said of Mrs. Bush."
Hmmm... so while Laura is insisting that only organic food be served in the White House, hubby's policies are almost what one could call anti-organic? Perhaps she didn't mention it outside the White House so as not to upset her friends such as Rush Limbaugh or Matt Drudge?
And why did the American tax payer have to pay for organic food for a White House that enabled or even forced the "common folk" (i.e. us) to eat contaminated unhealthy industrially-produced garbage at times?
Showing posts with label USDA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USDA. Show all posts
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
FDA and USDA drop the bomb AGAIN
Scientists (this time at the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy) have once again found the FDA and USDA to be hiding health-relevant information from consumers. The latest? Many products containing high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contain mercury, due to the processing, uh... process. And what's the acceptable level of mercury in American consumers' food and drink, you ask? The answer?: Zero!
Again, hopefully with the new presidential administration in power, things like this will no longer happen, and the FDA and/or USDA will not sacrifice the American consumer so that a few crooked companies can force or keep their products on the shelves.
Read the report, Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup, here.
Again, hopefully with the new presidential administration in power, things like this will no longer happen, and the FDA and/or USDA will not sacrifice the American consumer so that a few crooked companies can force or keep their products on the shelves.
Read the report, Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup, here.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A great weight (both standard and metric) has been lifted
Hopefully a house cleaning will be undertaken in the U.S. government, getting rid of all (or at least most? Please?) of the ignorantly-idealistic, ill-suited, armchair commando, activist neo-cons who can't differentiate fact from fantasy. Well, hopefully the last eight years will show that their unsuited experiments of fantasy won't -- and didn't -- work. Their small ideas were once untested, but have now been tested - and their follies have been found to be greatly lacking and foolhardy. People so grossly unqualified should not be in charge of anything, much less a post that requires (demands!) intelligence and a comprehension of science.
I call on President Obama to change the course of America's future, and to do what's right for the people of this great country, and the world. Not for what's good for CEOs' annual bonuses, or for the middle-management of self-serving companies that would do harm to American (or world) citizens so that they can be lazy and save a few dollars and assure their stockholders of a profit the next quarter. But for all the others of us out there who will reap the harm caused by them currently and in the future. Because I really don't want three-eyed, one armed, flipper-footed, grossly overweight grandkids.
I call on President Obama to change the course of America's future, and to do what's right for the people of this great country, and the world. Not for what's good for CEOs' annual bonuses, or for the middle-management of self-serving companies that would do harm to American (or world) citizens so that they can be lazy and save a few dollars and assure their stockholders of a profit the next quarter. But for all the others of us out there who will reap the harm caused by them currently and in the future. Because I really don't want three-eyed, one armed, flipper-footed, grossly overweight grandkids.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Oh! bama
On Wednesday, President-elect Barrack Obama appointed former Iowa governor Thomas Vilsack as his USDA chief. And previously, Obama appointed former Monsanto vice-president Michael R. Taylor to his transition team.
There's just not many positives to having either of those two creeps in this administration... I guess Change™ doesn't apply to our food chain. Perhaps next, Richard L. Bond will be made head of the FDA.
(Update: and then there's this article, written by Obama's chief adviser on agricultural issues, Marshall Matz. It's all "blah, blah, industrial agricultural is so great, blah blah..." yikes.)
Disappointing to say the least. I expected better this time around, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see what comes of it (and hopefully it won't kill us or give us cancer).
There's just not many positives to having either of those two creeps in this administration... I guess Change™ doesn't apply to our food chain. Perhaps next, Richard L. Bond will be made head of the FDA.
(Update: and then there's this article, written by Obama's chief adviser on agricultural issues, Marshall Matz. It's all "blah, blah, industrial agricultural is so great, blah blah..." yikes.)
Disappointing to say the least. I expected better this time around, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see what comes of it (and hopefully it won't kill us or give us cancer).
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The agro-industrial complex
An important independent report, Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America, by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has been released, concluding that "Industrial animal farming in the United States needs to make many major reforms in order to protect public health and the environment."
+ The report criticized "the agro-industrial complex" in regards to:
+ their over-and mis-use of antibiotics
+ the pollution created by overcrowded factory farms
+ the spread of disease in overcrowded feedlots
+ the inhumane treatment of confined animals
+ the industry's influence on agricultural research and governmental regulation
... amongst other things
Read the report in its entirety here: http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAP%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The more you know...
Did you know that the word "organic" is not federally regulated for personal-care products? I was just reading one of my favorite websites (Grist) and saw this article: Word of Bronner: Dr. Bronner's says competitors aren't really organic.
It appears as if several personal-care companies are "not sure why we would have to follow a standard set" by, in this instance, Dr. Bronner; perhaps the government should set some standards, then?
It appears as if several personal-care companies are "not sure why we would have to follow a standard set" by, in this instance, Dr. Bronner; perhaps the government should set some standards, then?
Monday, April 28, 2008
"Raise hell, not corn"
(From Grist)
A great article about how one should definitely contact one's politicians (especially since it's time to vote again!) and take action on the sorry state of the industrial food system.
"When nearly 75 percent of the U.S. market spinach crop is grown in one valley in California and repeated bacterial contaminations ensue, we need to question our reliance on the corporate food system.
When millions of pounds of beef are recalled due to bacterial contamination and when, by the count of the Centers for Disease Control, 76 million Americans get food poisoning and 73,000 cases of e coli infection and 63 deaths occur in the U.S. each year, we need to question our reliance on the corporate food system.
When the World Health Organization tells us that some 60 percent of the adults and nearly 13 percent of the children in America are obese, we need to question our reliance on the corporate food system.
When scientists from around the world tell us the vitamin and mineral content of our food has fallen significantly over the past 60 years, we need to question our reliance on the corporate food system.
When groundwater nitrate levels climb year after year because industrial size farms raise too many animals producing too much manure on too little land, we must question the industrial concentration of our food system. "
'nuff said...
A great article about how one should definitely contact one's politicians (especially since it's time to vote again!) and take action on the sorry state of the industrial food system.
"When nearly 75 percent of the U.S. market spinach crop is grown in one valley in California and repeated bacterial contaminations ensue, we need to question our reliance on the corporate food system.
When millions of pounds of beef are recalled due to bacterial contamination and when, by the count of the Centers for Disease Control, 76 million Americans get food poisoning and 73,000 cases of e coli infection and 63 deaths occur in the U.S. each year, we need to question our reliance on the corporate food system.
When the World Health Organization tells us that some 60 percent of the adults and nearly 13 percent of the children in America are obese, we need to question our reliance on the corporate food system.
When scientists from around the world tell us the vitamin and mineral content of our food has fallen significantly over the past 60 years, we need to question our reliance on the corporate food system.
When groundwater nitrate levels climb year after year because industrial size farms raise too many animals producing too much manure on too little land, we must question the industrial concentration of our food system. "
'nuff said...
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Organic trust
It's coming to the point that the consumer can't trust the "organic" label, as defined by the USDA, anymore. Organizations like Oregon Tilth or the UK's Soil Association can and probably should be considered more reliable with regards to policing organic standards.
But it all boils down to trusting the producer of one's food. There are several (if not many) farms in my area that are no longer bothering with certification, but I'd trust their products more than I'd trust anything I can buy at some place like Whole Foods.
The best thing to do is do your own research, and/or ask questions about what you're buying. And if those questions can't or won't be answered, take you money elsewhere... to a conscientious farmer or farmers more deserving.
But it all boils down to trusting the producer of one's food. There are several (if not many) farms in my area that are no longer bothering with certification, but I'd trust their products more than I'd trust anything I can buy at some place like Whole Foods.
The best thing to do is do your own research, and/or ask questions about what you're buying. And if those questions can't or won't be answered, take you money elsewhere... to a conscientious farmer or farmers more deserving.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Better than organic?
I am still a big fan of "beyond organic," where you do better than the organic standards, but disregard getting organic certified (since the organic standards are getting watered down yearly so that more big business can profit from what are becoming pretty much misleading and confusing -- to the consumer -- labels).
I've somewhat recently become a fan of France's "Label Rouge" (Red Label) program. France's standards for everything from Label Rouge to organic are much more stringent than our rather watered-down FDA/USDA standards. France labels food for the customer's benefit, not for business's benefit (i.e. profit). And often times, American farmers get stuck in the middle when trying to convert to organic, where in France farmers are the ones who benefit from the stricter labelling; BUT, they can't be lazy and have to stick to the prescribed standards, not just let their chickens see the light through a window ten feet up and magically be switched from conventional to free range.
Apparently, in France, Label Rouge chickens cost about twice as much as conventional chickens, whereas organic chickens cost about five times as much. So Label Rouge seems to be a "happy medium" for both the consumer and the farmer.
It would be nice to see more similar (if not the same) standards applied to food in the U.S. And if the government won't do it, farmers and consumers will need to take matters into their own hands perhaps.
Here's an excellent informational bulletin (PDF version) by the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (ATTRA) and the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) on Label Rouge:
Here's a few local (to me) farms that adhere to the Label Rouge standards:
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 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.
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, 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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)