Buzzing around

This story about the possible role of mobile phones in the collapse of bee colonies has been buzzing around and finally got my attention. (Thanks Lisa for the link). The Independent in the UK reports:

The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.

The article points out that "German research has long shown that bees' behaviour changes near power lines."

Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause.

Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real."

Exception to Organic Shortages: Coming Glut in Milk

I should have made clear in the previous post that there is no shortage of organic milk, or there won't be soon. A record number of farmers started to transition last year to organic production and will be done within a year, producing a glut. The Burlington Free Press had the story last Saturday and the New York Times caught up with it today.

The Times story makes clear that the rush of dairy farmers to transition to organic was largely the result of a lawsuit brought by Arthur Harvey, a Maine blueberry farmer. (He won the suit for stricter dairy regulations that will take effect this June). In the article, Nancy Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farm called the jump in organic milk supplies "a gift from above." Considering how much the organic industry spent to fight Harvey and his lawsuit, which I discuss in my book, Organic Inc., I found this quote highly ironic, to say the least. But the fact is, Stonyfield and others needed milk. At one point last year, Stonyfield CEO Gary Hirshberg said he could increase output of organic yogurt by 100 percent if he could get the milk. (As it turns out, Stonyfield is now buying 48 percent more organic milk this spring).

What neither story mentions is that this farm conversion is going to lead to a severe shortage of organic livestock feed in the fall of 2007 and into 2008 -- so any farmers out there might want to investigate this issue. Organic Valley is suggesting farmers take land out of conservation reserves (where it has not been cultivated) and putting it into organic production immediately. A press released issued by Organic Valley and the grain co-op OFARM states:

The growth of organic livestock across the country over the last two years has been estimated to be 50 percent, while organic feed acres have increased by only 8-10 percent. This rate of growth, combined with the increase in conventional grain prices, has meant that on farm prices for organic goods have continued to stay strong.

"For those farmers new to organic methods, taking land coming out of CRP (the Conservation Reserve Program) and putting it into certified organic production is an easy way to enter the organic marketplace," said Organic Valley CIEIO Geoge Siemon. He noted that land must be free of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers for a three year transition period in order to be certified organic. CRP land usually qualifies immediately and provides the organic premium to the grower in the first year of production.

Next winter, after all, the newly converted cows will need to eat and the lush pasture grasses they graze upon during the growing season won't come up until the spring.

- Samuel Fromartz

US House Told of Organic Shortages

By Samuel Fromartz

The first-ever US House hearing on organic agriculture convened on Wednesday with the focus squarely on shortages of organic goods and how federal agriculture programs could be designed to help farmers transition to organic farming and increase supplies.

Across the board at the hearing, farmers and processors reported that demand for organic food is swamping supply, because US farmers are not converting to organic agriculture at a fast enough pace. Organic food now represents about 3 percent of retail food sales, but only 0.5 percent of all farm land is organic.

Caren Wilcox, executive director of the Organic Trade Association, told the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture that more than half of those members polled in a recent survey said that they would increase production if they could locate more organic ingredients.

To meet consumer demand in the $15 billion industry, imported organic goods have increased - an issue raised repeatedly by Subcommittee Chairman Dennis Cardoza, a Democrat from the Central Valley of California. "I'm concerned about imported organic products, especially from China," Cardoza said.

Livestock farmers appearing on the panel mentioned that organic feed was in tight supply and expected overseas sources to rise later this year and into 2008. One egg producer mentioned that organic soybean feed from China now costs 25 percent less than feed from the Midwest.

The lawmakers zeroed in on a number of policy issues, most critically, the costs to farmers of transitioning to organic methods. To become certified organic, farmers must refrain from using chemical pesticides and fertilizers for three years, but during that window they cannot sell any products from those fields as "organic." After three years, they qualify for the organic label and usually get a market premium.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat, asked if there were any funds specifically available to help farmers through the transition period.  He was told there were not, although this is something the organic food industry is seeking in the current round of the farm bill.

Research also came under discussion, since Mark Lipson of the Organic Farming Research Foundation pointed out that it could help farmers in many ways. Organic agricultural research gets about $18 million, compared with $2 billion for conventional agriculture.

The lack of research was also creating impediments to national organic regulations, since the USDA does not have enough science-based studies to back up its decisions. This was especially evident in establishing a minimum grazing standard for organic livestock, Lipson said.

Plus, the panel was told repeatedly, the USDA's National Organic Program is sorely understaffed, with a half-dozen staff responsible for everything from writing regulations to enforcing certification standards in China.

Overall, the lawmakers appeared receptive to organic agriculture – a vast change from 1990, when the Organic Foods Production Act that governs the industry was first passed amid heated opposition in the House. What's changed is that many of these lawmakers now have organic farmers in their home districts.

Cardoza even mentioned that he belongs to an organic CSA in California and requires his kids to finish the box of food they get from the farmer each week. "That's how we get them to eat fruits and vegetables," he said.

For testimony, see the House Agriculture Committee web site.

Spring Planting

It's been freezing on the East Coast lately, well below average, and farmers are taking a hit. But I did visit one farm last week, which produces a lot in greenhouses. Their produce shows up in Whole Foods stores in the mid-Atlantic and at other retail outlets as well. Here's a glimpse of Help From Above, a family farm in Pennsylvania:

One of several greenhouses

Sprouting basil in flats

A Spotlight on Farm Subsidies

Farm subsidies don't get a tremendous amount of news coverage and now it's clear why: a lot of the data has remained out of sight until very recently. The numbers are embarrassing, not to say, unfair.

In the US, we have Environmental Working Group to thank for enlightening us on this issue. It has an easy-to-use database to find out who is enriched by subsidies. WaPo has also done a fine series on this issue too, with a recent article this week detailing USDA guaranteed loans that paid for resort attractions near major cities.

In Europe, another project is underway that has forced open the farm welfare rolls and - surprise! - revealed that most go to large farms just as in the US. "Farmsubsidy.org, which campaigns for full disclosure about who gets what under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), calculates that 85 per cent of the €32.5bn handed out in direct payments went to just 18 per cent of Europe's farmers in 2005," the London Observer reported recently.

Farmsubsidy.org was started by a former UK official fed up with the secrecy surrounding subsidy payments in the European Community. According to the Guardian,

The idea that all this should become public originated in 2000 - not from a journalist but from a Labour special adviser, Jack Thurston, who worked for Nick Brown, then agriculture minister. One afternoon, fed up with a rather tedious EU agriculture negotiation, Brown demanded from his permanent secretary, Sir Richard Packer, a list of the top 20 people getting all these EU subsidies. After much trepidation Sir Richard produced the list and allowed the minister to glance at it for 10 minutes. Thurston remembers looking over his shoulder and seeing the royals and multinationals heading the list.

When Brown asked to take it away, the request was refused and he was warned that to publish such information breached the Data Protection Act. After Thurston left his job he wrote a pamphlet for the Foreign Policy Centre think-tank challenging the need for the subsidies and calling for the details to the published. At the same time, a Danish journalist, Nils Mulvad, used a provision under the Danish freedom of information act to demand the release of documents sent to the tax authorities that listed EU subsidy payments. At the third attempt, in 2004, he won his case and Denmark became the first country in the EU to release subsidy payment data. Last year he was voted European Journalist of the Year in European Voice's awards.

Journalistic sleuthing through the farm subsidy rolls has also won attention in the US. Last month, the IRE, Investigative Reporters and Editors, awarded Farmsubsidy.org its highest medal for investigative reporting. IRE published the following judges comments:

Nils Mulvad, a Danish investigative journalist, led a two-year effort to open archives all over Europe to expose the closely guarded secrets of farm subsidies. With help from journalist Brigitte Alfter and researcher Jack Thurston, records on subsidies were acquired from 17 of 25 of the European Union countries. The resulting information was put on a website and made available to reporters and others throughout the EU. It resulted in a number of important stories, including showing how millionaires were among the top recipients and how dairy subsidies were undermining farmers in the Third World. A truly important and groundbreaking effort that will pave the way for the opening of other European Union records to the benefit of journalists worldwide.

And not just journalists, I would add, but also farmers and the public.

- Samuel Fromartz

Food V. Fuel

The Wall Street Journal, in a wide-ranging round-up, has a page one story (subscription required) on the growing tensions between demand for food and fuel:

Soaring prices for farm goods, driven in part by demand for crop-based fuels, are pushing up the price of food world-wide and unleashing a new source of inflationary pressure.

The rise in food prices is already causing distress among consumers in some parts of the world -- especially relatively poor nations like India and China.

The article points out that biofuels are altering food economics, since ethanol and biodiesel can be made from corn, palm oil, sugar and other crops. Food inflation in Hungary is running 13 percent a year, in China, 6 percent, triple the rate of a year ago. China has only about 2-3 months of surplus food, meaning a bad crop could be disastrous.

Some economists say China will have to take moreaggressive steps to prevent future food problems. These changes could include allowing the proliferation of large -- but more efficient -- corporate farms similar to the ones that drove many small growers out of business in the U.S. in recent decades. Such a push would be extremely difficult for China because it needs to preserve jobs for the tens of millions of people who live in rural areas.

It's interesting though not surprising that large-scale farms are viewed as the unquestionable answer to this issue rather than the small-scale farms which are far more productive per acre of output. (Grains in large-scale farms go to produce other foods or animal feed rather than being eaten directly by people -- not a terribly efficient food chain or use of an abundant labor pool).

Meanwhile in the U.S.,

... consumers are likely to see higher prices at the supermarket for everything from milk to cereal to soda pop, since corn is used to feed livestock and make high-fructose corn syrup, a key ingredient in many soft drinks. A spokesman for the National Chicken Council, a poultry-industry group, recently testified to a congressional subcommittee that Americans should expect higher chicken prices because of what the group described as "the ethanol crisis."

The somewhat silver lining to the trend is that the higher prices "could help boost incomes for the rural poor in developing nations, who have been bypassed by gains in the manufacturing and service sectors." But I wonder if that's the way it will shake out -- whether the benefits will, indeed, trickle down, or whether the farmers will be bypassed on the upswing as they have been when prices tank.

- Samuel Fromartz

Are GM Crops Behind the Bee Collapse?

The collapse of bee populations has been in the news lately, but a recent thread has suggested that this may be the result of genetically modified crops. Der Spiegel in Germany reports (March 22): "No one knows what is causing the bees to perish, but some expertsbelieve that the large-scale use of genetically modified plants in the US could be a factor."

How so? GM crops have been created by inserting the gene of a bacterial insecticide - Bt - so that they resist certain pests. But the pollen also contains Bt and bees pick it up. One study found a relationship between the Bt toxin and bee deaths. Der Spiegel says:

The study in question is a small research project conducted at the University of Jena from 2001 to 2004. The researchers examined the effects of pollen from a genetically modified maize variant called "Bt corn" on bees. A gene from a soil bacterium had been inserted into the corn that enabled the plant to produce an agent that is toxic to insect pests. The study concluded that there was no evidence of a "toxic effect of Bt corn on healthy honeybee populations." But when, by sheer chance, the bees used in the experiments were infested with a parasite, something eerie happened. According to the Jena study, a "significantly stronger decline in the number of bees" occurred among the insects that had been fed a highly concentrated Bt poison feed.

According to Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a professor at the University of Halle in eastern Germany and the director of the study, the bacterial toxin in the genetically modified corn may have "altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry -- or perhaps it was the other way around. We don't know."

Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times higher in the experiments than in normal Bt corn pollen. In addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively lengthy six-week period.

Kaatz would have preferred to continue studying the phenomenon but lacked the necessary funding. "Those who have the money are not interested in this sort of research," says the professor, "and those who are interested don't have the money."

How Transparency Works

By Samuel Fromartz

I just read three pieces that show the power of transparency in the food system.

First was the op-ed in the Times I missed yesterday on the conditions of sows in the pork industry (should we call it the pig industry?). Nicolette Hahn Niman points out that Smithfield Farm recently decided to stop using gestation cages which "virtually immobilize pigs during their pregnancies in metal stalls so narrow they are unable to turn around."

Getting rid of gestation crates (already on their way out in the European Union) is welcome and long overdue, but more action is needed to end inhumane conditions at America’s hog farms.

Of the 60 million pigs in the United States, over 95 percent are continuously confined in metal buildings, including the almost five million sows in crates. In such setups, feed is automatically delivered to animals who are forced to urinate and defecate where they eat and sleep. Their waste festers in large pits a few feet below their hooves. Intense ammonia and hydrogen sulfide fumes from these pits fill pigs’ lungs and sensitive nostrils. No straw is provided to the animals because that would gum up the works (as it would if you tossed straw into your toilet).

You get the picture. I saw another email on how this sort of knowledge is affecting producers - in this case, in the dairy industry. The source was Dairy Line, a trade publisher for milk producers.

They are concerned that "well-funded activists" are raising questions about rBST, the synthetic growth hormone that pumps up milk production (and reduces the productive lifespan of cows). They blame the activists, but the fact is, consumers are voting for rBST-free milk with their wallets the more they hear about the issue.

As organic milk - which cannot be produced with synthetic hormones and antibiotics - has raised awareness on this issue, other non-organic milk companies have followed suit and are banning rBST (which is not approved for use in Europe).

The email goes onto state that "similar scenarios have developed in other arenas in recent months ... issues that affect poultry and pork production and 'We’re concerned dairy is coming under the same kind of attack,'" the email said.

As consumers learn more, production methods come under greater scrutiny and traditional agriculture feels the heat. It's happening across the food system.

Finally, transparency can effect decisions at the farm. Albert Straus, of California's Straus Family Creamery (an organic milk producer) decided to test his feed for GM contamination. According to Time magazine, he "was alarmed to find that nearly 6% of the organic corn feed he received from suppliers was "contaminated" by genetically modified (GM) organisms.

So Straus and five other natural food producers, including industry leader Whole Foods, announced last week that they would seek a new certification for their products, "non-GMO verified," in the hopes that it will become a voluntary industry standard for GM-free goods. A non-profit group called the Non-GMO Project runs the program, and the testing is conducted by an outside lab called Genetic ID. In a few weeks, Straus expects to become the first food manufacturer in the country to carry the label in addition to his "organic" one.

The bottom line: Transparency changes food production decisions. It is now having a measurable impact on what we eat.

Eat GM Rice, But Don't Grow It

You can eat unapproved genetically modified rice, but don't try to grow it.

So says the USDA, according to a story from Dow Jones reporter Bill Tomson published Monday (subscription required).

The USDA banned planting of Clearfield CL131 rice that was apparently contaminated by an unapproved strain of genetically modified rice. The ban applies to seeds produced in 2005-2007.

Now the USDA is moving toward a food safety assessment for the unapproved rice. "We're still coordinating with the (Food and Drug Administration) to get some sort of determination ... on safety," USDA Under Secretary Bruce Knight said.

In the meantime, there's no prohibition on allowing grain from those seeds into the food supply.

Thomas Sim, a director at USDA's Biotechnology Regulatory Services, told Dow Jones any material "not intended for seed" and "in the channels to be milled" will not be affected by the ban. The rice produced last year from Clearfield CL131 seeds is not distinguishable at the mills.

GMO Seed Sales Halted

A federal judge Monday threw out the USDA's approval of genetically engineered alfalfa and issued a temporary injunction to halt sales of the seed.

The unprecedented ruling follows a hearing last week in the case brought by the Center for Food Safety against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for approving GE alfalfa without conducting the required Environmental Impact Statement.

While Monsanto and its allies claimed that delaying the sale or planting of their GE seed would harm farmers, the judge found otherwise. “Disappointment in the delay to their switch to Roundup Ready alfalfa is not an interest which outweighs the potential environmental harm…” posed by the GE crop, he wrote.

The LA Times reports:

The seeds ... are now in their second season of use. Such genetically engineered seeds are grown in 200,000 of the nation's 23 million acres of alfalfa, widely grown for hay and animal grazing.

The seeds were re-engineered so that alfalfa plants can resist the ill effects of another Monsanto product, a widely used herbicide known by the trade name of Roundup. As a result, some farmers say, they can get greater crop yield and better quality alfalfa.

California is the nation's No. 1 alfalfa producer with about 1 million acres under cultivation. The state's 2004 harvest was worth $853 million.

The ban will remain in effect until the judge considers lifting it or making it permanent. Monsanto is banking on increasing the acreage by convincing federal Judge Charles R. Breyer at an April hearing that farmers can use so-called Roundup Ready alfalfa seeds without contaminating neighboring fields.

Did an Organic Advisory Panel Punt on Cloning?

By Samuel Fromartz

That's the question we're asking and here's why.

The USDA's National Organic Program said in January (pdf) that a cloned animal cannot be organic. But it wanted a recommendation from its main citizen advisory panel on what to do about progeny - that is, the offspring of clones, which is the main way that clones will enter the food supply.

Rather than answer that question head on, however, it appears that the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) - the main citizen advisory panel to the USDA on organic food regulations - has sidestepped the issue.

The NOSB's livestock committee came out with a <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/nosb/CommitteeRecommendations/March_07_Meeting/Li
vestock/CloningRec.pdf">policy recommendation on cloning (pdf) that sounds, well, wishy washy when it comes to progeny. The document states:

The NOSB concurs with the NOP and believes that the existing federal organic rules prohibit animal cloning technology and all its products. To strengthen and clarify the existing rules, the NOSB recommends that the NOP amend the regulation to ensure animal cloning technology, and all products derived from such organisms be excluded from organic production.

So far so good. But then the next sentence reads:

Furthermore, the NOSB is very concerned with the issues involving the progeny of animals that are derived using cloning technology, and will work with the NOP on further rulemaking recommendations as issues are identified.

What we're wondering is why the NOSB didn't outright recommend that the progeny of clones be banned as well? Evidently, one NOSB board member was wondering the same thing in this 6-to-1 vote on the recommendation.

The dissenting vote (Kevin Engelbert) reflects a belief that the Livestock Committee should also recommend a rule change ... to prohibit livestock, progeny of livestock, reproductive materials, or any other products derived from animals produced using animal cloning technology (includes somatic cell nuclear transfer or other cloning methods) from being used as a source of organic livestock.

Reached by phone, Engelbert told me that the committee was concerned that there was no test on the market to identify progeny. He argued that the availability of a test should not be the benchmark by which to judge this technology. On principle, progency should be banned and farmers and certifiers should work toward that principle.

As the recommendation states: "If the FDA does not require clones to be tracked, consumers are very likely to turn to organic products, under the assumption that clones are not allowed in organic production."

We could not have said it better, which is why it's in the NOSB's interest to come out on a firm stand against the progeny of clones - just as it did with clones themselves. Comments on this issue can be made for the upcoming NOSB meeting in Washington, D.C., on March 27-29.

The Little-Known (Non-GMO) Rice Mutant

As you probably know, if you've been reading the news or this blog, rice farmers have been scrambling to find seed that's not contaminated with traces of genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant rice. (The Washington Post looked at the issue Sunday).

There's a curious fact about the current debacle that you probably haven't heard, though, perhaps because journalists don't want to confuse their readers. You know that popular "conventional" variety in which traces of genetic engineering were most recently found? Clearfield 131? Well, it's also a herbicide-tolerant line of rice. It contains a genetic mutation that allows it to tolerate doses of certain chemical herbicides. Scientists created that genetic change by soaking rice in mutation-inducing chemicals. Similar "Clearfield" varieties have been on the market for years, and nobody outside the rice industry paid much attention.

There's really no difference in the potential risks posed by these two kinds of herbicide-tolerance -- one created through genetic engineering and one created by mutation-causing chemicals. So why is one kind exempt from public scrutiny and government regulation, while the other kind sets off trade embargoes? Probably because genetic engineering, unlike chemical mutagenesis, arrived on the scene full of hype and hubris, promising a new creation. Those grand ambitions, as much as anything, provoked the anti-GMO backlash.

- Dan Charles