A Successful Organic Land Care Business Workshop

On Friday, November 9, 2012, the NOFA Organic Land Care Program hosted its fourth advanced workshop, titled Business Essentials: Pricing and Marketing your Landscaping Services for Success. The half-day workshop was held at the Connecticut Forest and Park Association in Rockfall, CT. Frank Crandall of Frank Crandall Horticultural Solutions in Wakefield, Rhode Island began the first presentation about pricing and estimating organic versus conventional lawn care services.

Frank started out by reviewing the fundamentals of profitable estimates, and then went on to compare the pricing of organic, transitional, and conventional lawn care programs over a three year period. Frank was able to show from the three year comparison that:
a transition program can convert to fully organic after the second year
an organic program can approach traditional lawn care in cost in the third year and
all phases of the organic plan can be profitable with comprehensive estimating

One of the biggest concerns many land care professionals and clients have about organic land care is the idea that it more costly and less profitable than traditional land care. Frank's presentation argued that this isn't always the case, as long as land care professionals provide accurate estimating, and make sure to sell organic as a comprehensive program rather than the organic version of a 4-step program. Frank emphasized discussing expectations with clients before signing an agreement, to ensure that clients understand the differences in methodology between organic and conventional management. He also noted that it's easier to finalize contracts with clients that request organic services rather than trying to convert traditional customers. More>

If you are interested in organic landscaping, we are excited to tell you about our other upcoming events this winter, including our Accreditation Courses, Annual Gathering, and Organic Lawn Care Certificate Courses!  Check out our website to learn more.

GMO Labeling Movement Pushes On Despite Prop 37 Defeat

Former Fairfax, CA Mayor Frank Eggar campaigning. Photo: S. Bates

Yesterday Californians voted on Proposition 37, a GMO labeling initiative that we've been following for many months now.  Unfortunately, the initiative lost by 6 percentage points, with the no on 37 vote at 53.7% and the yes vote at 46.3% as of early this morning.  This is certainly discouraging news, since labeling only seeks to give consumers the basic right to know what is in their food, and the initiative was favored by a large majority of California voters up until recently.  Agribusiness giants have been able to sway public opinion on GMO labeling by wielding huge sums of money used to advertise the no on 37 campaign.  With such wealthy opposition, the fight to label genetically modified foods in this country might seem like an impossible dream, but in the wake of the Prop 37 defeat, I want to share with you a quote from the San Francisco Chronicle's article written today:

Stacy Melken, a spokeswoman for the Prop, 37 campaign, said supporters believe they will win the labeling debate over the long term. She noted that proponents were outspent by a five to one margin and still managed to capture more than 4.2 million votes.

"We showed that there is a food movement in the United States, and it is strong, vibrant and too powerful to stop," she said. "We always knew we were the underdogs."

That quote helped to put things in perspective for me, and I don't feel nearly as discouraged now as I did this morning.  The fact that the yes on 37 campaign was outspent five to one and still managed to rally nearly half the California vote is really impressive, and proves that money is powerful, but a strong movement is more powerful.  It often takes time to build a movement, and even more time to push the values of that movement through government, so although feeling discouraged is natural and understandable in the wake of a defeat, the truth is that the loss of Prop 37 is really just one part of a much larger picture.

The GMO labeling movement isn't going away.   The issue of labeling will continue to be brought up in the political sphere, forcing agribusiness to spend its money each time to quell it until finally enough people who won't be swayed by costly marketing exist to pass a labeling law.  Proposition 37 shows us how far we have come as Americans who want the right to know what is in our food.  It shows how resourceful and resilient the movement is, and it shows that we really can pass labeling legislation if we keep working toward it.  In the meantime, know what's in your food by knowing where your food comes from.  Buy whole, local, organic, and in season whenever possible, and get to know farmers near you.  Ask your grocery store to stock more local items, and start a garden in your yard, or in containers if you don't have a yard.  And talk to your friends and family about GMOs and why it's important to label them.  Check out justlabelit.org and sign the federal petition, and if you still feel a bit discouraged, read this article.  Labeling initiatives are currently being brought up in other states and nationally.  Gary Hirshberg, co-founder of Stonyfield Farm organic yogurt company, and chairman of the "Just Label It" campaign, puts it very succinctly:

Labeling of GE (genetically engineered) foods is not a question of whether, but when.

Have a great evening!
-Melissa

Do or Die in California: OCA's Final Plea

A message from the Organic Consumers Association:

The final Pepperdine pre-election poll on the November 6 Proposition 37 California ballot initiative to label genetically engineered foods came out October 30. After enjoying a 26-point lead for the past six months, our side is now supposedly 10 points behind in the polls. The online poll, which in theory has a margin of error of 3-5%, was conducted before our Yes on Prop 37 TV ads finally began running last weekend. But the results are nonetheless alarming.

We still enjoy a lead among those who don't watch TV, but the opposition's ads have turned huge numbers of California TV-watchers against us.

For a full month Monsanto and their allies have pounded the California airwaves with nearly $50 million in TV and radio ads, spewing lies about how mandatory labeling for genetically engineered food will mean higher costs for consumers, lawsuits clogging the courts, "confusing" labels and poor farmers and grocers facing "nightmares of paperwork." Surveys have shown that once undecided or even opposed voters see our Yes on Prop 37 ads they change their minds, and come back over to our side. But we're running out of time - and money - to reach those voters. Meanwhile, money continues to pour into the opposition's campaign. Monsanto just upped its contribution this week from $7.1 million to more than $8 million.

We can still win on Nov. 6, by exposing millions of confused or undecided California voters to our TV ads. But we need to raise money, and we need to raise it today. Please click here to make a donation today.

In addition to running more ads, we need to step up our ground strategy in these last few days. Our 10,000+ volunteers for Yes on 37 are fighting back on the ground by talking to voters in front of supermarkets, sharing information with their friends by email and on Facebook, and by talking to prospective voters on the phone. These grassroots efforts will culminate in a major Get-Out-the-Vote campaign on November 6.

If you live in California, we desperately need you to hand out leaflets at grocery stores between now and Nov.6. If you can spare a few hours, please sign up here for instructions on where to get leaflets and where we need help.

If you live outside California, please volunteer for our national phone bank to help us call millions of California voters. It's easy. You can get quick, easy online training and sign up for one or more shifts here - and it won't cost you a dime in phone charges.

The "Do or Die" moment of truth has arrived in this David versus Goliath battle. The whole world is watching. We desperately need your emergency last-minute donations and your volunteer energy. Please support us in these last five days of this historic campaign!

Have a great weekend!
Kristiane

Have a Healthy Halloween!

Today is Halloween, and even though the first word that comes to mind for many of us when we think about Halloween is "candy", the holiday doesn't have to revolve around sweet treats in order to be fun.  You can have a more healthy lower sugar Halloween experience by using some of the following tips:

From Snack Girl, comes ten tips for a healthy Halloween. I especially like numbers 6 and 7:

6. If your children are young, tell them about the CANDY FAIRY. My six year old bought the idea that she could put her candy out and a fairy would replace it with a toy. She is truly excited about giving away her candy - magic, no?

7. If your children are old enough to understand, try making a care package of candy for a soldier in Afghanistan. There are a bunch of different organizations that can help you find a way to cheer up a soldier. One example is Any Soldier. They seem to always be looking for snack food.

Now, some of Snack Girl's candy tips might not be up your alley, but if you are okay with the idea of handing out an inedible item to Trick or Treaters, the American Dental Association has teamed up with Pop Cap Games to offer free downloads of its wildly popular game Plants -vs- Zombies.  You can download coupons to hand out here.  The ADA's colleagues at the Center for Science in the Public Interest have also come up with this comprehensive handout detailing healthy Halloween ideas that you can use at parties and for trick or treaters. There are many recipes and craft ideas that will entertain groups of all ages without consuming large amounts of sugar.

Whatever your plans for this holiday, I hope it's safe, delicious and fun!
-Melissa

Urge Congress to Pass a Farm Bill This Year

From the National Center for Appropriate Technology:

As of this month, our nation’s food and farm policy in the form of the 2008 Farm Bill has officially expired, with no workable replacement moving forward in Congress. This has left critical low-cost but very high-value programs high and dry with no funding— and it means Congress missed the chance to make real reforms and an investment in an equitable, sustainable future for food and farms in America.

With no new farm bill or extension of the 2008 Farm Bill, the programs that address rural and urban job creation, training opportunities for beginning farmers, natural resource conservation, and access to healthy food are in big trouble. These are programs that NCAT has been part of and support our work to assist farmers and ranchers in building a more sustainable future.

Can Congress still finish a farm bill this year? YES!

There is a short window of time for Congress to finish the bill after Election Day. So when Congress returns to Washington, we’ll need YOU and other farmers and advocates across the country to tell them loud and clear: we need an equitable, sustainable 2012 Farm Bill!

Sign your name and tell Congress we need a 2012 Farm Bill that:
• Invests in the future of healthy farms, food, and people
• Protects our precious air, soil, and water
• Reforms farm subsidies and levels the playing field

Without a working Farm Bill, funding for many of the resources CT NOFA promotes to farmers will be in jeopardy.  The farm bill is one of the most important and influential pieces of legislation the United States government is in charge of.  Please sign the petition urging Congress to pass a farm bill by the end of the year.

Click here to sign the petition

Today is Food Day!

A Pig's Tail

Today represents a nationwide celebration and movement toward a more sustainable, healthy, and affordable food system. Celebrate Food Day today by attending one of the many Food Day Events located across the country and online. You can also participate by having a healthy dinner at home using one of the Food Day recipes or watching a film recommended in Food Day's Film Screening Guide.  At least two food-related films, including the Humane Society’s A Pig’s Tail and Anna Lappe’s Food Myth Busters, are having their premieres today online.

This evening, Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME), one of the keynotes at the NOFA Summer Conference, is hosting a conference in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center in Washington D.C. on the Future of Food: 2050, during which panelists from Walmart, the Worldwatch Institute, the Institute for Alternative Futures and other organizations will speculate on what diets and agriculture might look like by the middle of the century.

In New Haven, the University of New Haven will celebrate Food Day today with a panel discussion and movie. Bill Duesing, our Executive Director, will be on the panel, and the movie, “Fresh,” will be shown at 1:30 p.m. “Fresh” is a documentary featuring Michael Pollan, the author of “The Omnivore's Dilemma.” The movie celebrates the farmers, thinkers and business people responsible for the country’s food supply. Additional information about the documentary can be found at here.

No matter what your tastes are, or how you'd like to get involved, there is a Food Day event out there for you.  Let's raise awareness for more sustainable food in our future!

Have a great day!
-Melissa

The Prop 37 Debate

The arguments against GMO labeling, up for a vote in the California's Proposition 37 will come up again and again as GMO labeling is proposed in different states.  So take a look at the debunking of the Proposition 37 myths, written by Katherine Paul published on the Organic Consumers Association website. To read all of the myths' debunking, please visit the original article. Some of these arguments already came up in the Connecticut GMO-Labeling campaign!

BUNK: Prop 37 is full of "arbitrary" exemptions that don't make sense.
Here's what doesn't make sense. Trotting out the likes of Henry Miller - a guy who still thinks DDT is a good idea - to convince voters that GMO labeling is a bad idea. Miller does a masterful job of twisting the truth and confusing voters about why, under Prop 37, some products will require labels and others won't. But if you take away the smoke and mirrors and look at the facts - as carefully explained by the YES on 37 campaign - every single exemption in Prop 37 is guided by common sense. 
For example: 
-- Meat, cheese, milk and eggs from animals. If an animal is genetically engineered, the meat from that animal would be labeled under Prop 37. (So far, genetically engineered salmon is the only imminent possibility here). But meat, cheese, dairy, and eggs from animals that have been fed genetically engineered food? No labels. After all, a steak from a cow that ate GE corn is no more a genetically engineered cow, than you're a genetically engineered human because you ate an ear of GE corn. Soy milk labeled? Yes, if it contains GE soy. Milk from a cow? No GE ingredients, no label. This exemption is common all around the world. Would the NO on 37 campaign have preferred a stricter law in California than the international standard for GMO labeling? 

-- Food from restaurants and bake sales. When's the last time you saw a label listing the ingredients in the seafood pasta you ate at a restaurant or the pizza you took out from the local pizza joint? Never. Because while we have strict labeling laws for food purchased at grocery stores, we don't have similar laws for foods we order in restaurants. Why would GMO labeling laws be any different? 

-- Alcohol. Alcohol labeling is regulated under different laws than food at both the federal and state levels. Because of the single-subject law in California that requires initiatives to apply to only one subject, Prop 37 doesn't include alcohol. (This is also true for medical food, which is exempted from Prop 37.) 

Check out the YES on 37 website for more on Prop 37 exemptions and why they make perfect sense. 

BUNK: Prop 37 means higher prices at the checkout counter
What better way to scare consumers than to threaten higher prices at the checkout? Legitimate studies - and more compellingly, evidence from countries that have already passed GMO laws - are clear: Requiring GMO foods to be labeled doesn't mean you'll pay more for your food. 

In 1997, opponents of GMO labeling laws in Europe used the same scare tactics, threatening double-digit increases in food prices if government required mandatory labeling. But food prices didn't go up, according to David Byrne, then-European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament. 

And they won't go up in California either, says an independent economic assessment of Prop 37, conducted by Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., a professor at Emory University School of Law.  Among Bailey's findings - backed by empirical literature and historical precedents - is that companies would rather absorb the "trivial" costs associated with labeling, than risk passing them on to consumers. 

What's the basis for the NO campaign's fear mongering? Their own bought-and-paid-for, flawed and highly biased economic analysis of Prop37. It was conducted by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, a consulting firm with no economic expertise and best known for opposing recycling laws for the soda pop industry.

For more on GMO labeling and food costs, read this statement by the Yes on 37 campaign. 

BUNK: Prop 37 will provoke an avalanche of lawsuits.
Not true. And beyond ironic, coming from a campaign whose largest donor ($7.2 million) has a long history of ruthlesslysuing farmers for growing their own seeds. 

The NO on 37 campaign depicts Prop 37 as a "measure for trial lawyers written by trial lawyers." But in fact, the initiative was written by a group of food industry, farm, science, consumer protection, and public health groups. The original instigator of California's historic GMO labeling law? Pamm Larry, a mom and grandmother, and former midwife and farmer. In 2011, Pamm started organizing mothers and volunteers across the state toward a 2012 ballot drive with only one goal in mind - to let California consumers know if the food they are eating is genetically engineered. Lawyers and lawsuits couldn't have been further from her mind. 

Prop 37 was intentionally written to provide no economic incentives for lawyers to sue. So who's most likely to sue? Consumers. But consumers can't file a class action suit without first giving notice. Once notified, all the defendant has to do is fix the label to avoid the class action suit. Any penalties resulting from labeling violations will go to the state - none to plaintiffs (consumers) or lawyers. 

The argument that retailers and farmers will be subject to lawsuits? More bunk. Under Prop 37,  legal liability for labeling processed foods  lies with the person responsible for putting the label on the product. That's the manufacturer. Not the farmer, not the retailer. 

And just to make certain retailers aren't targeted by lawyers or consumers, prop 37 goes even further by shielding them from lawsuits or penalties in the event they unintentionally, or accidentally, violate the law. Since retailers have no reason to know what's inside the packages of food on their shelves, they aren't liable. Period. 
Read this YES campaign article for more on Prop 37 and false claims about lawsuits. 

BUNK: Prop 37 favors special interest groups over consumers
This one takes the GMO-free cake. Who is better served by being able to put genetically modified ingredients in 80% - 85% of all processed foods - without your knowledge - than companies like Monsanto and PepsiCo?

 Let's not forget who started the campaign in California to label GMO foods: Pamm Larry, Mom and Grandma. What did she - what do any of us - have to gain other than the right to know what's in our food - and the ability to avoid gene-altered ingredients that haven't been tested, and may be harmful to our health? 

According to recent national polls, more than 90% of consumers want GMOs labeled. Who doesn't want them labeled? A host of "special interests" who have been manipulating the government, consumers, and our food - and denying us the right to know - for the past 20 years. Now is the time to stop them. Passing Prop 37, California's historic citizens GMO labeling ballot initiative, is our best hope. 

Have a Great Weekend!
Kristiane