The Japanese Food System Experience (So Far)

Greetings from Hayashima, Japan!

It's been about a month and a half since I left Connecticut to spend a year teaching English in Japan, and in that time I (and my stomach) have begun to get used to life here. I am by no means an expert on Japan's food system at this point, nor will I likely ever be, but there are some similarities and differences between the American way of producing and consuming food and the Japanese way of doing so that became clear almost as soon as I arrived.

Similarity: Both Japan and the United States have a country-wide food distribution network

This is a picture of Marunaka, a supermarket chain with a store right here in my town. This particular picture isn't of my town's store, but the one in Hayashima looks similar. There is parking available for both bikes and cars as many people (myself included) ride bikes around town. Marunaka stocks foods and household goods from all over Japan and is fairly sizable, although nowhere near as giant as a Costco or Super Walmart. Since arriving in Japan I haven't heard of or seen anything like that.


Difference: Japan's food distribution network focuses heavily on Japanese products
Or at least it does in my experience so far. And not only does it focus on Japanese-grown products, but also regional and local products. The Pione grape and white peach are both specialties of the region I am living in, and are available, seasonally, right as you walk into the store. Local fish from the inland sea near my town makes up a large percentage of the seafood selection, and even dry goods like rice have labels displaying what prefecture the grains came from.

A Farm for the Future - a Documentary

The BBC series Natural World focuses on wildlife around the globe.  One 45 minute episode, titled A Farm For the Future, delves into the idea of low energy farming as compared to our current high energy model, and the reasons why an immediate change in agricultural methods is necessary.  In my opinion, it's a well-developed film that provides not only a clear wake up call for farmers and consumers, but also tangible solutions for the future.  Here is the BBC's synopsis:

Wildlife film maker Rebecca Hosking investigates how to transform her family’s farm in Devon into a low energy farm for the future, and discovers that nature holds the key.

With her father close to retirement, Rebecca returns to her family’s wildlife-friendly farm in Devon, to become the next generation to farm the land. But last year’s high fuel prices were a wake-up call for Rebecca. Realising that all food production in the UK is completely dependent on abundant cheap fossil fuel, particularly oil, she sets out to discover just how secure this oil supply is. Alarmed by the answers, she explores ways of farming without using fossil fuel. With the help of pioneering farmers and growers, Rebecca learns that it is actually nature that holds the key to farming in a low-energy future.

Check out there first ten minutes of the film below.  View the full film here.

The documentary goes on to explain that a food system based on permaculture can not only eliminate the detrimental effects of conventional farming, but also, if done correctly and with care, be more productive with less effort in the long run than conventional agriculture.  That notion may seem a bit far fetched until you start to think about the power of nature.  Conventional farming today is so labor intensive in large part because it works against nature instead of with it.  It takes a lot of time and energy to force a forest into pasture, for example, but it requires a much smaller input to work with that same forested space to produce an equal quantity of food in a manner more consistent with how the forest would have grown in the first place.  Nature does an excellent job growing plants and raising animals, so why not use that to our own agricultural advantage instead of fighting with it?

To ensure an agricultural model that can feed all of us in the near future, it is essential that we all become informed farmers, gardeners, and consumers.  If you watch the film and agree with the argument it makes, share it with your friends.  Let's start looking at agriculture from a new perspective, and be open to the more sustainable possibilities that are available to us.

Have a great weekend!
-Melissa

Borrowing Against the Future for the Present

Yield isn't the issue.  The issue is sustainability.

As an addendum to yesterday's blog post about the organic -vs- conventional debate, let's talk a little about our societal perspective on how to go about feeding ourselves.  Although we might not want to think about it, it's no secret that in the United States we often lack a forward thinking mentality, and that focus on the present has negatively manifested itself a lot in the last few years - the Bush-era tax cuts, the social security crisis, the medical emphasis on expensive treatment rather than preventative care, the list goes on.  And because this is a systemic problem, you might guess that it also makes itself apparent in our food system.  Well, you're right.

As Kristiane mentioned yesterday, the debate about whether organic can outperform conventional or vice versa is really beside the point.  During a really good growing season, conventional agriculture might increase your yields for a year or two, while simultaneously:

• degrading your soil and water
• producing less nutrient dense (and therefore less nutritious) food
• running the risk of failure should the affects of climate change rear it's head
• pumping tons of fossil fuels into the air to accelerate the risk of failure from climate change
• poisoning the wildlife (and people) of the surrounding ecosystems

You might get a few exceptionally good harvests, but at what cost? Is it really worth it in the long run, and when you look at it with that broader perspective, can you really consider it a success? Probably not.  In this way we have taken out a loan against the future of our food system in order to sustain an expensive, wasteful, unhealthy, and wholly unsustainable present-day food system.

And it's not just the environmental effects of conventional farming that show a consistent lack of forward thinking. An editorial response to yesterday's mentioned study about conventional -vs- organic yields begins,

A new a study from McGill University and the University of Minnesota published in the journal Nature compared organic and conventional yields from 66 studies and over 300 trials. Researchers found that on average, conventional systems out-yielded organic farms by 25%—mostly for grains, and depending on conditions.

Embracing the current conventional wisdom, the authors argue for a combination of conventional and organic farming to meet “the twin challenge of feeding a growing population, with rising demand for meat and high-calorie diets, while simultaneously minimizing its global environmental impacts."

This statement assumes that it's reasonable to expect and tolerate an ever increasing demand for meat and high calorie foods, even though a diet high in meat and animal products is both less cost effective and less healthy than consuming mostly plants.  It takes more energy, both in fossil fuels and in feed, to produce enough meat to feed one person than it does to produce enough plants to feed that same person, and the person who ate the plant-based diet is much less likely to develop (and cause everyone to spend a lot more on healthcare to treat) lifestyle diseases like diabetes and heart disease. By continuing to emphasize a diet loaded with animal products, we are indulging in an unsustainable present at the expense of our economic and medical future.  This system is also exclusionary:

In reality, the bulk of industrially produced grain crops goes to biofuels and confined animal feedlots rather than food for the 1 billion hungry. The call to double food production by 2050 only applies if we continue to prioritize the growing population of livestock and automobiles over hungry people.

So we are also taking out a loan against the future of the many in order to provide an expensive and unhealthy lifestyle for the few, an action that ultimately will adversely affect us all, regardless of our socioeconomic status. Continuing with a conventional food system affords us the possibility of a few years of questionably higher yields at the expense of our climate, our farmland, our money, and our health.  That's a tradeoff that isn't in anyone's best interest, so lets try to eat more plants and buy food that was produced sustainably and closer to home in order to promote a better future for us all.

Have a healthy afternoon!
-Melissa

Organic Farmers' Suit Against Monsanto Dismissed

Judge Sides with Monsanto in Lawsuit   

Ridicules Connecticut NOFA Farmers' Right to Grow Food without Genetic Contamination and Economic Harm

New York, NY - Judge Naomi Buchwald's February 24 decision dismissing the case of Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto was met with great disappointment by organic farmers, seed growers and agricultural organizations, including CT NOFA—and a renewed commitment to fight on.

Daniel Ravicher, lead attorney for the 81 plaintiffs represented in the lawsuit, said, "While I have great respect for Judge Buchwald, her decision to deny farmers the right to seek legal protection from one of the world's foremost patent bullies is gravely disappointing."

"Her belief," added Ravicher, "that farmers are acting unreasonably when they stop growing certain crops to avoid being sued by Monsanto for patent infringement, should their crops become contaminated, maligns the intelligence and integrity of those farmers." 

Ravicher said the judge failed to address the purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act and mischaracterized the Supreme Court precedent that supports the farmers' standing.  "In sum, her opinion is flawed on both the facts and the law.  Thankfully, the plaintiffs have the right to proceed to the Court of Appeals, which will review the matter without deference to her findings," the attorney said.

Monsanto's history of aggressive investigations and lawsuits brought against farmers in America has been a source of concern for organic and non-GMO agricultural producers since Monsanto's first lawsuit brought against a farmer in the mid-‘90s.  Since then, 144 farmers have had lawsuits filed against them by Monsanto for alleged violations of their patented seed technology.  

Monsanto has sued more than 700 additional farmers who have settled out-of-court rather than face Monsanto's belligerent, and well-financed, litigious actions. 

Many of these farmers claim to not have had the intention to grow or save seeds that contain Monsanto's patented genes. Seed contamination and pollen drift from genetically engineered crops often migrate to neighboring fields. If Monsanto's seed technology is found on a farmer's land without a contract the farmer can be found liable for patent infringement.

"Family farmers need the protection of the court," said Maine organic seed farmer Jim Gerritsen, President of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, the lead plaintiff. 

Gerritsen added, "We reject as naïve and indefensible the judge's assertion that Monsanto's vague public relations 'commitment [not to sue farmers for 'trace amounts' of their seeds are genetically engineered traits], should be 'a source of comfort' to plaintiffs. The truth is we are under threat and we do not believe Monsanto." 

The plaintiffs brought the suit against Monsanto to seek judicial protection from such lawsuits and challenge the validity of Monsanto's patents on seeds.

"Monsanto is the big biotechnology bully and has used the courts, for years, to intimidate farmers," said Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute, another plaintiff.  "The purpose of our lawsuit is to preemptively challenge its reign of intimidation over organic farmers, and others, who have chosen not to jump on their genetically engineered bandwagon."

Another plaintiff, organic farmer Bryce Stephens of Kansas, added, "As a citizen and property owner, I find the Order by the Federal Court to be obsequious to Monsanto."

"Seeds are the memory of life," said Isaura Anduluz of plaintiff Cuatro Puertas in New Mexico.  "If planted and saved annually, cross pollination ensures the seeds continue to adapt. In the Southwest, selection over many, many generations has resulted in native drought tolerant corn.  Now that a [Monsanto's] patented drought tolerant corn has been released how do we protect our seeds from contamination and our right to farm?"

A copy of Judge Buchwald's ruling is located here

 To learn more about the lawsuit, come to Dan Ravicher's workshop at the CT NOFA Winter Conference this Saturday, March 3 at Manchester Community College.

GMO's unfavorability in Europe

According to the Euractiv.com article "Disgruntled GMO firms start pulling out of EU market" Monsanto has announced that it will cancel plans to sell an insect-resistant maize in France, the second move in a weekly by biotech company to retreat from the genetically modified foods market in Europe.  
German's chemical company BASF also has suspended the development of GM crops in Europe and move its plant science arm to the United States.  

"No one wants to eat them and few farmers want to grow them," explained Adrian Bebb, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe.  


This is encouraging for anti-GMO activists in the United States, because it is evident that government regulations of GMO crop development and distribution discourages biotech companies.  This means that the labeling the 93% of Americans demand   along with some closer regulation of the distribution of GMOs (currently genetically modified blue grass seed and alfalfa have the same regulations as non-GMO strains) can seriously impede Monsanto and other GMO companies.  


Many Americans don't want to eat GMOs and many farmers would prefer that GMOs were heavily regulated or banned because of the continued risk of contamination.  

Check out Friends of the Earth Europe's page about GMOs for more information. 


Best,
Kristiane

Climate Negotiators Start Talking about Agriculture

Climate scientists, climate activists, farmers, agricultural scientists, and sustainable food advocates around the world have tried to highlight the close, and alarming, relationship between climate change and agriculture.  Current industrial agricultural methods contribute heavily to green house gas emissions (more than the entire transportation sector) while floods in Vermont, droughts in the south, wildfires in Texas, tornadoes in Mississippi and northern California, have shown that agriculture is threatened by more frequent extreme weather.  

This post, Agriculture and Climate Change, Revisted in the New York Times Green Blog by Justin Gillis, is a nice overview of the complexities related to how climate change is interrelated with global agricultural production.  Especially this quotation from Dr. Molly Jahn, a plant breeder at the University of Wisconsin: “Agriculture needs to be front and center, as an activity on which our lives very literally depend.”

This led me to a report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change titled "Achieving Food Security in the Face of Climate Change" which is definitely worth a read oiver, it's only 20 pages.  Here are two images that struck me the most (the first is on page 5 of the publication and the other is on page 6).

This map shows the areas that will gain in agricultural production by 2080 (in green) and those that will lose agricultural production (in red), notice what countries are in red (almost all developing countries).

 Now check out this image considering the green house gases emitted to produce food in different countries and how that food is used.

There are lots of solutions proposed to address these issues, mainly that we need more farms and more farmers in more places using sustainable methods.
Also it looks like America's beloved corn crops are going to be heavily affected by climate change, should we try planting something else? Maybe something that's a little bit more edible and healthy?

Just some more food for thought!
Best,
Kristiane

Not All Organic Farms are Created Equal

We generally think of organic and sustainable as going hand in hand, but in the produce department this isn't always the case.  The New York Times featured a front page article on the 30th questioning the sustainability of many organic produce farms, focusing mainly on those farms in Baja, Mexico that are technically organic, but don't often match up with what we would typically consider environmental sustainability.  Organic tomato farms on the Baja Peninsula have depleted the water table in the area to the point where local subsistence farmers can't grow food because their wells are dry.  Additionally, tomatoes produced in this region overwhelmingly serve the United States market, meaning that they are shipped long distances at fossil fuel costs rivaling those of conventional farms.

How should we as consumers respond to this?  Buy local!  If you live in a cold winter climate, reduce your intake of warm-weather produce in an effort to eat more sustainably.  If the northern United States didn't have such a high demand for tomatoes all winter, we wouldn't be so reliant on imports.  Eating local winter food can be just as delicious and satisfying as eating imported hot-weather foods, and is also better for the environment and your local economy.

If you want to eat local this winter but aren't sure how to get started, check out our Winter Food Project webpage for recipes, winter CSA programs, and winter farmers markets in Connecticut.

Watch the New York Times video about sustainability here.

Happy New Year!
-Melissa

The Huffington Post Reports: "Monsanto's Corn Linked to Organ Failure"

The Huffington Post first published a story in 2010, which then was updated this year and has been reposted several times recently (perhaps because the GMO debate is really heating up again) that the International Journal of Biological Sciences has found that GMO corn consumption is linked to organ failure in test rats.

The conclusion of the report states that:
"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

What it comes down to - is that it doesn't matter if GMOs are good or bad (though the health and environmental threats are daunting), the fact that scientists are questioning the safety of GMOs is enough.  Until GMOs are deemed safe or not - we at least deserve the right to choose whether to risk it or not.  In my search for images of GMO Protests, the first several photos were all from different countries.  These global protests are not against scientific progress - they are against the "unknown" and the unanswered questions surrounding GMO food safety.

Bulgaria: http://lesconcepts.wordpress.com/tag/ichiro-sato/

South Korea:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/include/print.asp?newsIdx=20476

Spain:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/04/20/858692/-Genetically-Modified-Plants,-New-Study-Released

Ireland: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato/photos.php

Keep telling the Food and Drug Administration how you feel about GMOs by adding comments to legal petition (Docket # FDA-2011-P-0723-0001/CP) calling on the FDA to label genetically engineered (GE) food.

All the best,
Kristiane
kristiane@ctnofa.org

A Decade in Organic Land Care

Our certificate from IFOAM welcoming the NOFA
Standards in Organic Land Care to the IFOAM
Family of Standards

The NOFA Organic Land Care Program, a regional project out of the Connecticut NOFA office, has been accrediting professionals for 10 years now.  And we want to expand the organic land care movement to be bigger than ever in 2012.  Organic should be the standard in landscaping. 

This year our standards were accepted to the International Family of Standards established by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.

We celebrated 13 AOLCPs who have been with the program for a decade!

We received news that the 2012 Beyond Pesticides Forum will be held in New Haven, Connecticut on March 30-31

Our Accredited Organic Land Care Professionals (AOLCPs) : Have taken the NOFA OLC 5-day Accreditation Course in organic landscaping, passed the Accreditation Exam, pledged to provide organic land care according to the NOFA Standards for Organic Land Care, maintained continuing education by attending a minimum of 4 credit-hours of organic landscaping education annually and must pay an annual fee ($100) to support the work of the OLC program

If you are a homeowner, check out our homeowner's guide and brochure about going organic at home.

If you have a landscaper, ask them if they're accredited - there needs to be a demand for organic!

If you're looking for a landscaper, find an Accredited Professional near you in our database.

Ask your town government or schools if any of their groundskeepers are accredited - it's state law that no pesticides can be used on k-8 schools, and towns are also implementing these bans on town lands.  

If you're a land care professional, think about accreditation 

Frank Crandall

The course is coming up:

Massachusetts
January 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and a snowdate of Jan. 15th
Worcester State University
486 Chandler St.
Worcester, MA  01602

Connecticut
February 15, 16, 17 and 21, 22, and a snowdate of Feb. 23rd
CT Agricultural Experiment Station
123 Huntington St.
New Haven, CT  06511

Camilla Worden

Rhode Island

February 27, 28, 29, March 1, 2 and snowdate of March 5
Kettle Pond Visitor Center
Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge
Charlestown, RI 02813

Read about how a couple of our AOLCPs and committee-members, Camilla Worden of Brookfield, CT and Frank Crandall are making their accreditation work for them.  While you are helping the environment and offering customer safer land management practices, you can also really help your business.

Why Eat Organic: A Comprehensive Presentation

Jim Riddle from the University of Minnesota has compiled a great presentation that's provided on UMN's Organic Ecology website.  The presentation, titled Why Eat Organic, provides a wealth of information about why organic agriculture can feed the world, is necessary to mitigate the effects of climate change, and can undo a lot of the harm that conventional agriculture does to our bodies.  Not only do organic foods contain far less pesticide residues than their conventional cousins, but organic foods also have higher levels of healthy nutrients.  Children who go organic for just five days "can virtually eliminate exposures to a dangerous class of insecticides known to disrupt neurological development in infants and children."  Additionally, many of the nutrients found in much higher levels in organic foods can greatly decrease your risk of heart disease, diabetes, and many cancers.  Organic is not only the safe bet but the healthy bet, both for our bodies and for our planet.

This presentation gives a great overview of the organic movement, but if you're looking for a more in-depth compilation of many scientific studies, visit Iowa State University's Leopold Center website.

Have a great afternoon!

Greener Agriculture Policy in Europe

The European Commission has proposed a greener Common Agriculture Policy for the European Union.  Conventional farming organizations have criticized the commission's proposals for a greener agriculture policy, but European organic farmers view the proposed changes as positive steps toward sustainable agriculture.  The Agricultural Commissioner, Dacian Ciolos has defended the proposed changes which encourage farmers to rotate crops, set aside permanent pasture and create woodlands or buffer zones as part of the European annual farm support program that constitutes 40% of EU spending. 

Dacian Ciolos, EU Agriculture Commissioner

If it undergoes the proposed reforms, the program would use 30% of direct payments to promote conservation measures - an investment of about 11 billion euros. 
Currently only about 5% of EU farmland is organic (which is actually pretty high in comparison to the United States' 0.6% of farmland being organic).
Ciolos' defense of the program is the part that American consumers, voters and legislators might want to consider.  "A major objective of the reform is to provide the tools to provide both growth in agriculture and sustainability . . . If not, it is difficult to justify the CAP as a public policy."   For a public policy, to be truly in the interest of the general public, it must work to improve agricultural yield (which practices like crop rotation have done for hundreds of years), and the quality of the soil, water and air of where people live (which can be achieved by using fewer synthetic chemicals and allowing buffers between farmland and water systems).  Support for sustainable farming isn't in the interest of organic farmers as much as it is in the interest of generations to come, the environment, and farming communities. The American Farm Bill seems to be focused more on supporting the well-being of agricultural corporations, national food service providers, and grocery chains.

Have a good weekend!
Kristiane

A Look at the Broader Spectrum of Sustainability

Russell Libby really nailed the organic and sustainable message in his keynote speech at the MOFGA Common Ground Country Fair this past September.  His speech was featured in this quarter's Organic Farmer and Gardener Magazine, which can be read here.  The speech, Putting the Pieces Together - Our Next Food System, gives a comprehensive outlook of the global sustainable movement, highlighting many factors that must be addressed in order to make real lasting change in our environment and in our society.  Libby not only speaks about large-scale global change, but also about what we can do as individuals and groups to address growing sustainability concerns in our communities.  Our Executive Director, Bill Duesing, describes Russell Libby as "one of my heroes", and for all of us here at CT NOFA that really speaks to the value and importance of Libby's message.  Please take a few minutes to read through his speech - I doubt you will be disappointed. 

Thanks!
-Melissa

Agriculture, the Green Economy, Climate Change, and Your Backyard.

Supporting small farmers in developing countries, rural areas and urban areas is the kind of global stimulus package we need.
This video from Farming First, a national coalition of sustainable agriculture organizations might seem overly simplistic, but watch it all the way through, the statistics about farming inefficiency and agricultural green house gases are issues that the global agricultural sector need to address.

 As pesticides, fertilizers, GMOS, and more industrial farming equipment is promoted to address the gap in the food supply, ideas like those put forth in this video need to be considered.  The solutions to agricultural and food supply obstacles are actually pretty simple, they just have to be communicated and implemented on a huge scale.
Please enjoy and share this video, and consider the role that local farms near your home play in solving these crises, and also the role that small independent farms in the developing world play.  When you have the choice between organic or fair trade coffee, chocolate, bananas, and other tropical products, consider that the extra cost is an investment in the farming techniques discussed in this video!
Also remember that if you had a yard, you can become a smale scale, sustainable agricultural producer.  Here's the guide to being a climate friendly gardener: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/climate-friendly-gardener.pdf start closing the food supply gap with yourself!

All the best,
Kristiane

New Report on the IFOAM World Conference

On October 3-5 the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), in conjunction with the Organic World Conference, met in Seoul, South Korea to set the top priorities for IFOAM and elect the World Board.  During the Conference, IFOAM restructured their organic guarantee system to include five parts:

1. Family of standards – draws the line between what is organic and what is not, includes all standards and regulations that have passed an equivalence assessment.  At the GA, it was announced that the NOFA Organic Landcare standards had been accepted into the Family. 
2. Best Practice Standards – to stimulate innovation and continuing improvement
3. Participatory Guarantee Systems – based on community organizing, a way for small farms that cannot afford certification, to group together to provide a credible organic guarantee for use in local markets.
4. IFOAM’s Global Organic Mark –a universal logo now available for a fee.
5. International Organic Accredition Service (IOAS) - provides Accreditation to organic certification agencies.

IFOAM also elected a new world board and concluded that it is time to move away from discussions of standards and regulations since their role has been established, so IFOAM can shift to carbon, biodiversity, energy use, and developing local markets. 

Prior to the conference, the Agricultural Justice Project gathered to meet about organic and fair trade, and the relationship between organic certification, participatory guarantee systems (PGA – an alternative to organic certification that involves active the active participation of stakeholders in order to assure quality assurance), and CSA programs.  The participants of the meeting called upon IFOAM to create a task force on fair trade, a resolution that was later confirmed during the conference.  This task force will make recommendations on incorporating social justice principles in organic standards. 

To read the full report, please visit here

GM Crops Have not Delivered on Promised Benefits

A new report by 20 Indian, south-east Asian, African and Latin American food and conservation groups, representing millions of people, shows that Genetic engineering has failed to increase the yield of any food crop but has vastly increased the use of chemicals and the growth of "superweeds".  According to a video posted by the UK Guardian, in an article about the Global Citizen's Report on the State of GMOs, the only entity that GMOs actually benefit is the biotech industry.  GM crops were originally marketed as a solution to world hunger, climate change, and soil erosion, but have only proven thus far to exacerbate those problems.  Not only have GM crops failed to provide benefits like drought resistance and salt tolerance like originally proposed, but they have also contributed to the increased used of synthetic chemicals to control pests and weeds.  Ironically, biotech companies had originally justified that these same crops would ultimately decrease global dependence on pesticides.

The Guardian sites two examples of GM crops' failures globally: "In China, where insect-resistant Bt cotton is widely planted, populations of pests that previously posed only minor problems have increased 12-fold since 1997. A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any benefits of planting Bt cotton have been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat them.  Additionally, soya growers in Argentina and Brazil have been found to use twice as much herbicide on their GM as they do on conventional crops, and a survey by Navdanya International, in India, showed that pesticide use increased 13-fold since Bt cotton was introduced."

Biotech companies were able to successfully market their GM crops to farmers through a combination of heavy government lobbying, buying up local seed companies, and removing conventional seed from the market.  As a result, the three largest GM companies own 70% of the global seed market.  Through patenting and intellectual property laws, these companies can legally own and sell their seed for a premium price.  As Vandana Shiva, director of the Indian organisation Navdanya International, which co-ordinated the report, so eloquently put it, "Choice is being undermined as food systems are increasingly controlled by giant corporations and as chemical and genetic pollution spread. GM companies have put a noose round the neck of farmers. They are destroying alternatives in the pursuit of profit."

To read the full Guardian article, and to watch a video on the subject, check here.  To visit Navdanya International, check here.

GM Food Aid in Africa

Kenyan farmers gather corn Photo: Curt Camemark

In August the government of Kenya fired the head of its National Biosafety Authority for expediting the process to import milled food aid which might have contained genetically modified organisms.  Kenya has been put in a position where they must decide whether to jeopardize their food aid from the United States or accept genetically modified foods despite resistance. 

In 2002 Zambia announced it would not accept GM food in any form.  African governments adopted tight restrictions on the international movement of living GMO crops and seeds under the Cartagena Protocol on Biodiversity. Ethiopia has been hesitant about GM aid "Why shouldn't we be wary of this technology and its possible long-term health impacts, if the EU [European Union] is. If it is not good for them, why should it be good for us?" said Tewolde Egziabher, Ethiopia's director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique have said they would allow GMO foods on the condition that they have been milled to lose their reproductive capabilities and pose less of a threat to local crops. This debate has gone on for nearly 10 years, since African countries and several South American counties like Bolivia, Guatemala and Nicaragua began to resist GMO food imports.

Read more about the debate over genetically modified food aid in Africa at IRIN News.
USA: Poor Countries Reject GMO Food Aid 6/14/2002
Friends of the Earth International is concerned with African countries' right to choose

GMOs in International Aid Policy

Kenya is officially allowing the importation and growth of genetically modified organisms in their country. The National Biosafety Authority has approved GMOs and created regulations that allow fr GMO sale in the country.

Kenya's agriculture agency still has to create a system that allows an accepting farmer to grow GM maize without it spreading or contaminating a neighbor farmer who does not wish to use GMO crops. The approval of GMOs in Kenya is considered a great victory in the United States, especially for US based seed companies. Monsanto is already involved with field trials of GMO cotton and cassava. The country's biotechnology research programs are funded by Monsanto and also some projects are funded by the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation.

Hilary Clinton has encouraged Kenya to "welcome new technologies to bolster drought tolerance, disease resistance and crop yields". She has included GM technology as a strategy for long-term US food aid as is described in this Daily Nation Article, "US Urges long-term food aid for Kenya".

The seeds in USAid-funded programs including the Programme for Biosafety Systems were provided by American multi-national corporations.

Read more from this Daily Nation Article "US hand in embracing genetic products"

GMOs as a Solution

I was on vacation and missed all this GMO-debate excitement, but it deserves a belated blog post.  Last week, this op-ed article in the New York Times by Nina C. Federoff prompted a strong response from anti-GMO activists.  Federoff argues that world hunger, the trends of climate change, require greater research on genetically modified (GMO) foods.  She further argues that the Environmental Protection Agency’s hesitance about GMO crops will make them too costly and impede research and development.

  

Federoff sites the example of the Green Revolution as proof that technology can feed the world.  The Green Revolution of course was able to produce these higher agricultural yields while running an ecological debt to soil, water reserves and nitrogen.  Now agricultural soils are seriously depleted, the nitrogen cycle has been completely interrupted by fertilizer production and the areas practicing this intensive agriculture are facing severe water shortages.  Federoff also points out that more livestock feed must be grown as more of the world’s population is consuming meat or making it a staple of their diet. She concludes that GMO development is not dangerous and that molecular methods have the same hazards as crop modification through other methods. 

This video Farmer to Farmer: The Truth About GM Crops shows the reality of GMOs and the trouble with herbicide resistant weeds.  "We've just been relying too heavily on Round-Up, in every crop."

Farmer to Farmer: The Truth About GM Crops from Pete Speller on Vimeo.

Canola Contamination

Photo: Bob Baker, ABC

As more law suits against Monsanto and other biotechnology corporations crop up, the main concern driving this legal action is contamination of organic seeds and cross pollination between genetically modified and unmodified plants.  Even when precautions are taken and seeds are claimed to be sterile, this continues to occur and can have severe legal consequences for the farmer whose crops are contaminated and is viewed as a potential ecological disaster. 

This article from Australia Broadcasting Corporation highlights the unpredictability of GM contamination and that it is impossible for GM contamination to be prevented if these crops continue to be planted in so many areas requiring widespread transportation. 

A truck carrying GM canola caught fire, causing the contents to spill onto the side of the road.  The government just lifted a ban on GM canola last year, and this has infuriated those who are against GMOs including farmers and environmentalists.  The seeds that spilled from the truck have since germinated on the roadside and a nearby farmer is concerned about contamination. 

Nearby non-GMO farmers are calling for the moratorium in Western Australia to be reinstated.  Another ABC article focuses on the Safe Food Foundation's decision to seek legal advice in responding to the canola spill.  GM contamination is a likely result of spills like this.  Last year, scientists at the University of Arkansas found populations of wild canola plants with genes from genetically modified canola in the United States. Canola can interbreed with 490 different species of weeds around the world, and one quarter of them are found in the United States.  The scientists then completed sampling in a large area, traveling over 3,000 miles of highway to test the canola on the roadside.  There was wild canola in about 46% of the sites on the highway and about 83% of this canola contained herbicide resistant genes from genetically modified canola.  It's not surprising that Western Australia is reconsidering their moratorium.

An article from the Times of Zambia

I post on the blog frequently about organic agriculture's implementation abroad, especially in developing countries.  Yet another article about organic agriculture’s role in farming reform and climate adaptation in Zambia should draw our attention to organic as more than an alternative form of agriculture, but as the way best suited for the future.  In the United States, because organic produce is generally more expensive it is perceived more as a luxury for the wealthy, or something for vegans and Toyota Prius drivers.  But, in many other places, organic is becoming the solution to some huge obstacles in food production which entire countries, regions and continents are facing. 

This article, by Jessie Ngoma-Simengwa, mentions the threat that climate change poses to developing countries, and the fact that agricultural activities have large carbon footprints thereby contributing to climate change causing green house gas emissions.  While the Green Revolution refocused food production on crop yields, the issue is becoming long-term sustained production and productivity. With organic agriculture being the method encouraged to guarantee continued food production and climate resilience, there should be more incentive to grow this way in the United States (look at the ongoing droughts in America's southern regions).  Additionally, the research completed and techniques mastered in the United States can be shared with these vulnerable regions and are likely to be more helpful and effective than plain food aid.