articles in English hidden on the site.

Don’t Panic, Go Organic

/in /by

By Anna Lappé, Foreign Policy Magazine, April 29, 2010

Be not troubled by Robert Paarlberg’s scaremongering. Organic practices can feed the world — better, in fact, than wasteful industrial farming.

In May 2004, Catherine Badgley, an evolutionary biology professor at the University of Michigan, took her students on a research trip to an organic farm near their campus. Standing on the acre-and-a-half farm, Badgley asked the farmer, Rob MacKercher, how much food he produces annually. “Twenty-seven tons,” he said. Badgley did the quick math: That’s enough to provide 150 families one pound of produce every single day of the year.

“If he can grow that quantity on this tiny parcel,” Badgley wondered, “why can’t organic agriculture feed the world?” That question was the genesis of a multi-year, multidisciplinary study to explore whether we could, indeed, feed the world with organic, sustainable methods of farming. The results? A resounding yes. Read more

On the Benefits of Small Farms

/in /by

By Peter Rosset, Food First, February 8, 1999

The following article is a condensed version of Food First Policy Brief number 4, The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture in the Context of Global Trade Negotiations. The complete policy brief contains extensive bibliographic references, and can be ordered from the Institute or read here.

For more than a century, pundits have confidently predicted the demise of the small farm, labeling it as backward, unproductive, and inefficient — an obstacle to be overcome in the pursuit of economic development. But this is wrong. Far from being stuck in the past, small-farm agriculture provides a productive, efficient, and ecological vision for the future.

If small farms are worth preserving, then now is the time to educate the world’s policy-makers about the genuine value of small farm agriculture. Read more

Key Contributors to ‘Dead Zone’

/in /by

By James Bruggers, The Courier-Journal, April 11, 2009

Louisville and the state’s Bluegrass region are among the likely sources of pollution runoff that have marked Kentucky as one of the top contributors to the Gulf of Mexico’s oxygen-depleted “dead zone,” according to a new federal study.

Building on work released last year that placed Kentucky and Indiana among nine states contributing 75 percent of excess nutrients into the Gulf, a new report by the U.S. Geological Survey identifies watersheds that are most likely to blame.

Areas that drain into the Salt River, the lower Kentucky River — and even Beargrass Creek — are likely among the top 150 contributing to the dead zone, according to the USGS study.

In the Gulf, an overabundance of nutrients has led to an oxygen-depleted area that has grown to the size of New Jersey. Fish and other aquatic life suffocate if they can’t reach better water, threatening the valuable Gulf fishery that supplies many restaurants and kitchens.

The new computer modeling blames sewage that doesn’t get fully treated, lawn fertilizers and runoff tainted by agricultural manure — and which also accounts for the nutrients and phosphorus that are staying in Kentucky and Indiana waterways and can cause water quality problems locally.

Environmentalists said the study points to the need for limits on the levels of nutrients allowed in waterways.

“Until you have a goal in mind, it’s pretty difficult to work toward solving the problem,” said Judy Peterson, executive director of the Kentucky Waterways Alliance.

Developing standards

Regardless of the USGS findings, officials in Kentucky and Indiana and at the multistate Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission said their offices were developing such standards, and it’s uncertain what impact any new rules might have on businesses, cities or farms. Officials also said they are uncertain how the Obama administration plans to address the “dead zone” issues.

Peter Goodmann, assistant director of the Kentucky Division of Water, said Kentucky officials understand they need to better curb the flow of nutrients into waterways — and not just to help solve a problem several states away.

“We are a little more focused on resolving our own water quality issues in Kentucky,” he said. “If we do that appropriately, we will begin to resolve the issues in the Gulf, too.”

Brian Bingham, a senior engineer with Metropolitan Sewer District, said Louisvillians can expect to hear more from MSD in the coming years on how they can help improve water quality.

MSD expects the state will impose more stringent storm-water standards that curb polluted runoff, Bingham said. And residents likely can expect a public education campaign aimed at the dangers of too much fertilizer on their lawns and not picking up their pets’ waste, Bingham said.

“We all know we are part of the problem,” he said.

Pollution controls

The study, published in this month’s Journal of the American Water Resources Association, is intended to identify areas within the Mississippi River Basin where additional water pollution controls could be most effective, said its lead author, Dale M. Robertson.

The basin extends from Montana to New York, funneling water south to Louisiana in such major rivers as the Missouri and Ohio.

Robertson, who works in the USGS office in Middleton, Wisc., said Louisville and north central Kentucky “ranked fairly high” compared to others for phosphorus, which along with nitrogen has been largely blamed for causing the Gulf dead zone.

The study concluded there’s a 75 percent certainty the region is in the top 150 watersheds for phosphorus, he said.

While the study determined the Louisville area and most of Kentucky did not fall into the likely top 150 watersheds for nitrogen, parts of Western Kentucky and swaths of Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and Iowa were identified as likely nitrogen sources.

Chicago, the biggest city in the 31-state Mississippi River basin, ranked worst for both nutrients.

Whether in the Gulf of Mexico, or Beargrass Creek, too many nutrients can set off rampant growth of algae. When the algae dies and decomposes, it creates a condition called hypoxia that can suffocate aquatic life. Certain types of algal blooms can leave an odor and taste that drinking water utilities try to remove. The USGS study considers which watersheds are most likely to pass the nutrients on to the Gulf or keep them closer to their source.

Once they get into a large river like the Ohio, “it’s pretty much a straight pipeline,” said Gregory E. Schwarz, a study co-author.

But Robertson said the study leaves room for uncertainty.

For example, Robertson said the modeling was based on general assumptions of phosphorus and nitrogen coming from urban areas, and did not rely on actual discharge reports from facilities such as wastewater treatment plants. And Bingham, the MSD engineer, said some MSD wastewater treatment plants have already begun to limit phosphorus discharges.

State officials said most in Kentucky don’t limit phosphorus, but may need to in the future.

The study also didn’t consider that limestone rock underlying the Bluegrass region more readily releases phosphorus into waterways, Robertson acknowledged, adding that researchers are working on more refined follow-up studies.

Identify watersheds

Nevertheless, he said the report should help state and federal officials throughout the Mississippi River Basin better identify those watersheds that might need greater attention.

Indiana’s water quality chief said he thought the report could be misleading. Bruno Pigott, the assistant commissioner for Indiana’s Office of Water Quality, said its uncertainties mean it’s premature to draw any conclusions about the areas contributing the most nutrients.

Robertson noted that even Chicago, with its high ranking, was found to be responsible for only about 0.5 percent of the excess nutrients getting into the Gulf.

“The final result is saying you have to do a lot of work throughout the basin,” Robertson said.

Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops

/in /by

Why We Need A Global Moratorium

by Ronnie Cummins, Organic Consumers Association

The technology of Genetic Engineering (GE) is the practice of altering or disrupting the genetic blueprints of living organisms-plants, trees, fish, animals, humans, and microorganisms. This technology is wielded by transnational “life science” corporations such as Monsanto and Aventis, who patent these blueprints, and sell the resulting gene-foods, seeds, or other products for profit. Life science corporations proclaim that their new products will make agriculture sustainable, eliminate world hunger, cure disease, and vastly improve public health. However, these gene engineers have made it clear, through their business practices and political lobbying, that they intend to use GE to monopolize the global market for seeds, foods, fiber, and medical products.

GE is a revolutionary new technology that is still in its early experimental stages of development. This technology has the power to break down the natural genetic barriers-not only between species-but between humans, animals, and plants. Randomly inserting together the genes of non-related species-utilizing viruses, antibiotic-resistant genes, and bacteria as vectors, markers, and promoters-permanently alters their genetic codes.

The gene-altered organisms that are created pass these genetic changes onto their offspring through heredity. Gene engineers all over the world are now snipping, inserting, recombining, rearranging, editing, and programming genetic material. Animal genes and even human genes are randomly inserted into the chromosomes of plants, fish, and animals, creating heretofore unimaginable transgenic life forms. For the first time in history, transnational biotechnology corporations are becoming the architects and “owners” of life.

With little or no regulatory restraints, labeling requirements, or scientific protocol, bio-engineers have begun creating hundreds of new GE “Frankenfoods” and crops. The research is done with little concern for the human and environmental hazards and the negative socioeconomic impacts on the world’s several billion farmers and rural villagers.

An increasing number of scientists are warning that current gene-splicing techniques are crude, inexact, and unpredictable-and therefore inherently dangerous. Yet, pro-biotech governments and regulatory agencies, led by the US, maintain that GE foods and crops are “substantially equivalent” to conventional foods, and therefore require neither mandatory labeling nor pre-market safety-testing.

This Brave New World of Frankenfoods is frightening. There are currently more than four dozen GE foods and crops being grown or sold in the US. These foods and crops are widely dispersed into the food chain and the environment. Over 80 million acres of GE crops are presently under cultivation in the US, while up to 750,000 dairy cows are being injected regularly with Monsanto’s recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). Most supermarket processed food items now “test positive” for the presence of GE ingredients. In addition, several dozen more GE crops are in the final stages of development and will soon be released into the environment and sold in the marketplace. The “hidden menu” of these unlabeled GE foods and food ingredients in the US now includes soybeans, soy oil, corn, potatoes, squash, canola oil, cottonseed oil, papaya, tomatoes, and dairy products.

GE food and fiber products are inherently unpredictable and dangerous-for humans, for animals, the environment, and for the future of sustainable and organic agriculture. As Dr. Michael Antoniou, a British molecular scientist points out, gene-splicing has already resulted in the “unexpected production of toxic substances… in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen”. The hazards of GE foods and crops fall into three categories: human health hazards, environmental hazards, and socio-economic hazards. A brief look at the already-proven and likely hazards of GE products provides a convincing argument for why we need a global moratorium on all GE foods and crops.

Toxins & Poisons

GE products clearly have the potential to be toxic and a threat to human health. In 1989, a genetically engineered brand of L-tryptophan, a common dietary supplement, killed 37 Americans. More than 5,000 others were permanently disabled or afflicted with a potentially fatal and painful blood disorder, eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS), before it was recalled by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The manufacturer, Showa Denko, Japan’s third largest chemical company, had for the first time in 1988-89 used GE bacteria to produce the over-the-counter supplement. It is believed that the bacteria somehow became contaminated during the recombinant DNA process. Showa Denko has paid out over $2 billion in damages to EMS victims.

Feeding the World Slowly, Ethically, Sustainably

/in /by

By Anthea Torr, Biophile Magazine

Our planet is facing many dangers. Her very survival is being threatened as we plunder and pollute her at a pace that outstrips her capacity to sustain life.

“The great fruit salad story… fruit salad from tree to table by modern, industrial, unsafe, irrational, global warming contributing, quasi-scientific, bureaucratically controlled, fuel-inefficient, economically perverse farming and distribution methods compared to an indigenous person who will expend one calorie to get 4 calories of food – I wonder how much energy is wasted to get your food to the table.” ~The Little Earth Book – by James BrugesOur planet is facing many dangers. Her very survival is being threatened as we plunder and pollute her at a pace that outstrips her capacity to sustain life. Read more