articles in English hidden on the site.

The Carbon Connection

The Rodale Institute: Worldwatch Institute authors join Rodale Institute in answering the climate question with smart food production

Terrestrial carbon sequestration is the best way to buy time in a warming world. Cutting emissions will help, but not as immediately as sequestration. Making sequestration a priority matters, given critical policy choices that must be made as evidence of current, specific climate-change impacts to agriculture and wildlife mounts.

The Rodale Institute’s vigorous call for land-based biological sequestration dovetails with contentions found in a recently published Worldwatch Institute report on climate change: 2009 State of the World: Into a Warming World. A chapter entitled “Farming and Land Use to Cool the Planet” by Sara J. Scherr and Sajal Sthapit examines ways to reverse the trend of environmentally destructive agriculture and use carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Read more

Is This Factory Farming’s Tobacco Moment?

By Will Allen and Ronnie Cummins, Organic Consumers Association, April 8, 2010

The nation’s chemical and energy-intensive food and farming system, Food Inc., is out-of-control, posing a mortal threat to public health, the environment, and climate stability.

Economically stressed and distracted consumers have become dependent on a factory farm system designed to provide cheap processed food that may be cosmetically perfect and easily shipped, but which is seriously degraded in terms of purity and nutritional value.

USDA studies reveal that the food currently grown on America’s chemical-intensive farms contains drastically less vitamins and essential trace minerals than the food produced 50 years ago (when far less pesticides and chemical fertilizers were used). As even Time magazine has admitted recently, given the hidden costs of damage to public health, climate stability, and the environment, conventional (factory farm) food is extremely expensive. Much of Food Inc.’s common fare is not only nutritionally deficient, but also routinely contaminated–laced with pesticide residues, antibiotics, hormones, harmful bacteria and viruses, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and toxic chemicals. 1 Like tobacco, factory farm food is dangerous to your health. No wonder organic food is by far the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the California Department of Agriculture (CDFA), and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) have shown that many of the nation’s favorite foods are contaminated with a lethal cocktail of the most toxic chemicals, putting consumers, and especially children and infants (who are up to 100 times more sensitive to toxic chemicals) at risk. For those living in factory farming communities and working on farms, the constant exposure to the most toxic pesticides poses an even greater risk than the general population for cancer, birth defects, asthma, Parkinson’s, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Alzheimer’s, liver, kidney, heart disease, and many other ailments. Forty-eight percent of U.S. women now get cancer, as well as 38% of men.

There is now conclusive evidence that exposure to farm and household chemicals (including body care and cleaning products) greatly increase your chances of getting cancer or other serious diseases. This is why there are large and growing clusters of cancers and birth defects in farm and urban communities all over the U.S. These clusters are a direct result of the use of toxic pesticides and fertilizers on our farms, ranches, gardens, and lawns. 2

Several recent French court decisions have determined that farmers are suffering from leukemia, Parkinson’s, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and myeloma cancers as a direct result of chemicals they’ve used on their farms. 3 The chemicals causing these cancers and leukemia are the same chemicals used to grow food in the U.S.

Besides the damage to human health from pesticide use, chemical agriculture’s use of synthetic fertilizers and sewage sludge have polluted the nation’s streams, creeks, rivers, oceans, drinking water, and millions of acres of farmland. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Environmental Working Group, two-thirds of the U.S. population is drinking water contaminated with high levels of nitrates and nitrites, caused by nitrate fertilizer runoff from factory farms. Large areas along our coastlines, bays, and gulfs have become “dead zones” as a result of excess nitrogen fertilizer and sewage sludge flowing into them. Serious illness and death are directly attributable to high levels of nitrates and pesticides in drinking water. 4

Factory farming’s carbon footprint is also huge. Government officials have consistently failed to regulate agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions or even admit that they are a serious problem. Most official estimates of greenhouse gas pollution of U.S. agriculture range from a ridiculously low 7% to 12% of total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Recent analysis has demonstrated that U.S. factory farms and industrial agriculture are responsible for at least 35%, and possibly up to 50%, of greenhouse gas emissions. 5 Unfortunately, agriculture is currently exempted from even weak U.S. efforts to control greenhouse gases, including the recent cap and trade legislation passed by the House of Representatives. 6 Hopefully the most recent U.S. EPA directives in December 2009 on curbing greenhouse gasses will apply to agriculture, our most polluting industry. However, “just say no” Republican and Democratic congressmen are doing the bidding of their pesticide, fertilizer, and petroleum clients (instead of their constituents) and have vowed to block any efforts by the EPA to regulate emissions.

Scientists Agree That Organic Farming Delivers Healthier, Richer Soil and Nutritionally Enhanced Food

The Organic Center, March 3, 2009

BOULDER, Colo. – February 25, 2009 – Six encouraging conclusions on the impacts of organic farming on soil quality and the nutritional content of food were reached by a panel of scientists participating in a February 13, 2009, symposium at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

The symposium was entitled “Living Soil, Food Quality, and the Future of Food” and was held as part of the largest scientific meeting of the year that spans all disciplines. The AAAS meeting was held this year in Chicago, IL.

The panel of scientists included Dr. Preston Andrews, Washington State University, Dr. Jerry Glover, The Land Institute, and Dr. Alyson Mitchell, University of California-Davis.

The “Living Soil, Food Quality, and the Future of Food” symposium was organized and sponsored by Washington State University and The Organic Center, based in Boulder, CO. The presentations made by the three panelists and other symposium information are posted on The Organic Center website.

Panelists Statement of Conclusions

A growing body of sophisticated research over the last decade has compared the impacts of organic and conventional farming systems on soil and food quality. Based on this body of research, some of it carried out in field experiments and laboratories, we can conclude that:

1. Studies of apple production demonstrate that organically farmed soils display improved soil health as measured by increased biological diversity, greater soil organic matter, and improved chemical and physical properties. Enhancement of soil quality in organic apple production systems can lead to measurable improvements in fruit nutritional quality, taste, and storability.

2. Organically farmed tomatoes have significantly higher levels of soluble solids and natural plant molecules called secondary plant metabolites, including flavonoids, lycopene, and Vitamin C. Most secondary plant metabolites are antioxidants, a class of plant compounds that have been linked to improved human health in populations that consume relatively high levels of fruit and vegetables.

3. Organic farming can, under some circumstances, delay the onset of the “dilution effect.” In hundreds of studies, scientists have shown that incrementally higher levels of fertilizer negatively impact the density of certain nutrients in harvested foodstuffs, hence the name, the “dilution [of nutrients] effect.” Specifically, tomatoes grown with organic fertilizers maintain constant concentrations of beneficial phenolic secondary plant metabolites and antioxidants, even as fruit grow larger, whereas concentrations of these same beneficial compounds decline with increasing fruit size when the same tomato cultivar is grown using conventional methods and fertilizer.

4. Studies of 27 cultivars of organically grown spinach demonstrate significantly higher levels of flavonoids and vitamin C, and lower levels of nitrates. Nitrates in food are considered detrimental to human health as they can form carcinogenic compounds (nitrosamines) in the GI tract and can convert hemoglobin to a form that can no longer carry oxygen in the blood.

5. The levels of secondary plant metabolites in food appear to be driven by the forms of nitrogen added to a farming system, as well as the ways in which the biological communities of organisms in the soil process nitrogen. Compared to typical conventional farms, the nitrogen cycle on organic farms is rooted in substantially more complex biological processes and soil-plant interactions, and for this reason, organic farming offers great promise in consistently producing nutrient-enriched foods.

6. Organic soil fertility methods, which use less readily available forms of nutrients, especially nitrogen, improve plant gene expression patterns in ways that lead to more efficient assimilation of nitrogen and carbon in tomatoes. This improvement in the efficiency of nutrient uptake leaves plants with more energy to produce beneficial plant secondary metabolites, compounds that promote plant health as well as human health.

Commenting on the well-attended symposium, Dr. Preston Andrews said, “The work we reviewed over the last decade points directly to two major scientific challenges. First, we need to understand more fully how soil biological communities process nutrients and communicate to plant roots in order to promote improved quality in organically grown crops. And second, we need better tools to help organic farmers fine-tune their production systems in order to maximize the soil and nutritional quality benefits of organic farming.”

More Information

The three presentations made at the AAAS symposium are accessible on The Organic Center’s website

The Organic Center’s website contains a section on at “Nutritional Quality”. Reports and presentations posted include the Center’s March 2008 comparison of nutrient density in organic and conventional foods, and the “State of Science Review” entitled “Still No Free Lunch: Nutrient Levels in U.S. food supply… This September 2007 report describes in detail the genetic and physiological basis of the dilution effect.

About The Organic Center

The Organic Center is a 501c3 non-profit organization founded in 2002. The Organic Center helps consumers, policy makers, researchers and the media understand the benefits that organic products provide to society.

The Center highlights credible, peer-reviewed scientific research about the human health and environmental benefits of organic farming. Through our work, we hope to promote the conversion of more farmland to organic methods, thereby bringing the benefits of organic food and farming to a growing number of people and a greater share of the American agricultural landscape. For more information visit www.organic-center.org, tel 303.499.1840.

For More Information Contact:

Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., Chief Scientist,

The Organic Center, 541.828.7918, cbenbrook@organic-center.org

Fact Sheet on Wal-Mart: The Death Star of American Commerce

The Organic Consumers Association

Wal-Mart’s True Cost to Taxpayers

Because Wal-Mart fails to pay sufficient wages, U.S. taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab. In this sense, Wal-Mart’s profits are not only made on the backs of its employees-but on the [back] of every U.S. taxpayer.” Representative George Miller (CA)

The cost of a single Wal-Mart

    $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families
    $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at 6,700 per family
    $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children
    $100,000 a year for additional Title I expenses, assuming fifty Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of two children
    $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children’s health insurance…assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualifying
    $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance

Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart, a report by the Democratic staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, February 16, 2004

What Wal-Mart gets from your local, state, and federal tax dollars

    Free or reduced-price land
    Infrastructure assistance
    Tax-increment financing
    Property tax breaks
    State corporate income tax credits
    Sales tax rebates
    Enterprise-zone (and other zone) status

Good Jobs First, Walmarts’ U.S. Expansion has Benefited from More Than $1 Billion in Economic Development Subsidies

    Wal-Mart and food
    Wal-Mart started selling groceries in 1988 and 15 years later it is now the largest distributor of food in the world.
    Wal-Mart gets 68 cents of every food dollar spend in the United States, with 30 cents going to marketing, transportation and packaging. Farmers get 2 cents of every food dollar.
    For every one Supercenter that will open, two supermarkets will close.

Since 1992, the supermarket industry has experienced a net loss of 13,500 stores.

Fickes, Michael. “Big Boxers have big expansion plans.” Retail Traffic. 1 December 2002.

Wal-Mart and labor abuses

    Wal-Mart has racked up huge fines for child labor law violations. The rich company reportedly makes children younger than 18 work through their meal breaks, work very late and even work during school hours. Several states have found Wal-Mart workers younger than 18 are operating dangerous equipment, like chainsaws, and working in such dangerous areas as around trash compactors. (The New York Times, 1/13/04; The Associated Press, 2/18/05; The Hartford Courant, 6/18/05)
    By demanding impossibly low prices, Wal-Mart forces its suppliers to produce goods in low-wage countries that don’t protect workers. A worker in a Honduran clothing factory whose main customer is Wal-Mart, for example, sews sleeves onto 1,200 shirts a day for only $35 a week. (Los Angeles Times, 11/24/03)
    Wal-Mart has a shameful record of paying women less than men. Wal-Mart pays women workers nearly $5,000 less yearly than men. Some 1.6 million women are eligible to join a class-action lawsuit charging Wal-Mart with discrimination. (Richard Drogin, Ph.D., 2/03; Los Angeles Times, 12/30/04)

Wal-Mart and the environment

    In October 2004, the United States sued Wal-mart for violating the Clean Water Act in 9 states, calling for penalties of over $3 million and changes to W-M building codes. [U.S. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2004 WL 2370700]
    The United States Environmental Protection agency fined Wal-Mart $1 million, settling allegations that Wal-Mart violated the Clean Water Act with dirt discharges while building stores in Massachusetts, New Mexico, Okalahoma, and Texas. [Wal-MartLitigation.com]
    Wal-Mart was fined $765,000 for violating Florida’s petroleum storage tank laws at its automobile service centers. Wal-Mart failed to register its fuel tanks, failed to install devices that prevent overflow, did not perform monthly monitoring, lacked current technologies, and blocked state inspectors. [Associated Press, 11/18/04]
    The average supercenter attracts 3,315 car trips a day (Terrain magazine)
    A 250,000-square-foot supercenter with a 16-acre parking lot will produce 413,000 gallons of storm runoff for every inch of rain. Each year, such a lot would dump 240 pounds of nitrogen, 32 pounds of phosphorus, and 5 pounds of zinc into local watersheds while creating heat islands. (Terrain magazine)

Wal-Mart general facts

    Of the 100 most powerful economies in the world, Wal-Mart ranks #19
    In 2003, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861.The 2003 poverty line for a family of three was $15,260. [“Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?”, Business Week, 10/6/03]
    Wal-Mart employs 1.2 million Americans. It is the largest employer in the United States.

This fact sheet was put together by the Organic Consumers Association

Wal-Mart’s Labor Problem

By Aaron Ludensky, CampusProgress, September 15, 2008

The company has a history of (not) dealing with workers’ rights and shirking on employee benefits.

There are a lot of reasons to dislike Wal-Mart. From running small-town businesses into the ground to its notorious environmental “green washing,” Wal-Mart has a reputation for being the big corporation everyone loves to hate.

But the company’s most egregious problems are with labor. Accusations against the company range from workers being denied overtime to union busting. The company’s corporate management insists that these accusations are unfounded and that this rhetoric is slander meant to bring down the company. But Wal-Mart continues to pay out millions of dollars in settlements from lawsuits brought against the company. In the last two years, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled against Wal-Mart six times for activities related to union-busting. Read more