La Vida Locavore is the blog for anyone whose crazy life includes planting, growing, weeding, fertilizing, raising, picking, harvesting, processing, cooking, baking, making, serving, buying, selling, distributing, transporting, composting, organizing around, lobbying about, writing about, thinking about, talking about, playing with, and eating food!
Agriculture
Chair: Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
- Max Baucus (D-MT)
- Michael Bennet (D-CO)
- Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
- Bob Casey (D-PA)
- Kent Conrad (D-ND)
- Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
- Tom Harkin (D-IA)
- Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
- Pat Leahy (D-VT)
- Ben Nelson (D-NE)
- Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
- Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
- Thad Cochran (R-MS)
- John Cornyn (R-TX)
- Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
- Mike Johanns (R-NE)
- Dick Lugar (R-IN)
- Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
- Pat Roberts (R-KS)
- John R. Thune (R-SD)
Appropriations
Chair: Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Ag Sub-Committee
Chair: Herb Kohl (D-WI)
- Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
- Dick Durbin (D-IL)
- Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
- Tom Harkin (D-IA)
- Tim Johnson (D-SD)
- Ben Nelson (D-NE)
- Jack Reed (D-RI)
- Robert Bennett (R-UT)
- Christopher Bond (R-MO)
- Sam Brownback (R-KS)
- Thad Cochran (R-MS)
- Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
- Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions
- Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Agriculture
Chair: B Collin Peterson (D-MN)
V. Chair: B Tim Holden (D-PA)
B Joe Baca (D-CA)
- John Boccieri (D-OH)
B* Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
- Bobby Bright (D-AL)
B* Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
- Travis Childers (D-MS)
B Jim Costa (D-CA)
- Henry Cuellar (D-TX)
- Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA)
B Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
- Debbie Halvorson (D-IL)
B Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)
- Steve Kagen (D-WI)
- Larry Kissell (D-NC)
B Frank Kratovil (D-MD)
- Betsy Markey (D-CO)
B Jim Marshall (D-GA)
P Eric Massa (D-NY)
B Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
- Walt Minnick (D-ID)
B Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
- Mark Schauer (D-MI)
- Kurt Schrader (D-OR)
B David Scott (D-GA)
B Zachary Space (D-OH)
- Timothy Walz (D-MN)
- Frank Lucas (R-OK)
- Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
- K. Michael Conaway (R-TX)
- Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
- Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
- Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
- Sam Graves (R-MO)
- Timothy Johnson (R-IL)
- Steve King (R-IA)
- Robert Latta (R-OH)
- Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)
- Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
- Jerry Moran (R-KS)
- Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
- Phil Roe (R-TN)
- Mike Rogers (R-AL)
- Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
- Adrian Smith (R-NE)
- Glenn Thompson (R-PA) *=House Organic Caucus member B=Blue Dog Democrat
Appropriations
Chair: Dave Obey (D-WI) Ag Sub-Committee
Chair: P Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
- Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
* Allen Boyd (D-FL)
- Lincoln Davis (D-TN)
*P Sam Farr (D-CA)
*P Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY)
P Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
P Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
- Jack Kingston (R-GA)
- Rodney Alexander (R-LA)
- Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
* Tom Latham (R-IA) *=House Organic Caucus member
P=Congressional Progressive Caucus
Education and Labor
P Chair: George Miller (D-CA)
- Jason Altmire (D-PA)
- Robert Andrews (D-NJ)
- Timothy Bishop (D-NY)
P Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
- Joe Courtney (D-CT)
- Susan Davis (D-CA)
P Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
P Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
P Phil Hare (D-IL)
- Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)
P Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
- Rush Holt (D-NJ)
- Dale Kildee (D-MI)
P Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
P Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
- Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
P Donald Payne (D-NJ)
- Jared Polis (D-CO)
- Robert Scott (D-VA)
- Joe Sestak (D-PA)
- Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
P John Tierney (D-MA)
- Dina Titus (D-NV)
- Paul Tonko (D-NY)
P Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
- David Wu (D-OR)
- Buck McKeon (R-CA)
- Judy Biggert (R-IL)
- Rob Bishop (R-UT)
- Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
- Michael Castle (R-DE)
- Vernon Ehlers (R-MI)
- Luis F Fortuno (R-PR)
- Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
- Peter Hoekstra (R-MI)
- Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA)
- John Kline (R-MN)
- Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
- Tom McClintock (R-CA)
- Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
- Thomas Petri (R-WI)
- Phil Roe (R-TN)
- Todd Russell Platts (R-PA)
- Tom Price (R-GA)
- Mark Souder (R-IN)
- GT Thompson (R-PA)
- Joe Wilson (R-SC) P=Congressional Progressive Caucus
You may have seen an action alert going around by Food Democracy Now about Monsanto's GM Alfalfa. The introduction of genetically modified alfalfa will contaminate organic alfalfa and that will cause significant economic harm to small conventional and organic family farmers.
Food Democracy Now says:
During the Bush administration, Monsanto illegally won USDA approval for its GMO alfalfa by convincing USDA regulators to bypass a mandatory environmental review. In 2007, a court reversed this decision, ordering the USDA to complete the legally required environmental impact statement (EIS).
Shockingly, the Obama Administration's recent review would approve Monsanto's GMO alfalfa.
The draft USDA EIS was issued in December 2009 and is poised to allow Monsanto's GMO alfalfa on the market, despite the fact that the USDA admits that these seeds will contaminate organic feed that organic dairy farmers rely on to produce organic milk.
According to the CEO of the largest farmer-owned organic dairy coop in the U.S., GMO alfalfa "threatens the very fabric of the organic industry." We can't allow this to happen.
Despite massive public outcry in the past, the USDA's environmental review went so far as to say that U.S. organic consumers don't care about GMO contamination.
Tell Secretary Vilsack that you care about organic contamination and that you want him to stand up for the organic industry and organic consumers.
What you can do BY END OF DAY TODAY:
1) Calling is absolutely the best, and the hold time is not onerous:
White House Comments: 202-456-1111
La Via Campesina, an international organization representing "organizations of peasants, family farmers, indigenous peoples, farm workers, women and rural youth from some 70 countries worldwide" said in a press release: "It is an Act of Aggression for the FAO to Meet in Mexico to Promote GMOs."
They say:
We take it as an act of aggression, as a profound lack of respect, and as an affront, that the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has decided to meet in Mexico with governments and the private sector, under the false argument that "biotechnology can benefit peasants in poor countries"
They use the word "biotechnology," an intentionally vague and broad term, when we all know that the real purpose is to promote genetically modified (GM) crops, which have never benefited farmer families, and never will. It is an act of aggression against, and a provocation of, the Mexican people and the peasant and indigenous families of the world, to come to Mexico to promote GMOs, when it is precisely in Mexico that there is an intense struggle to stop the contamination of our ancestral maize varieties with GM pollen. This contamination puts the center of origin and center of biodiversity of a crop that is so important to our culture and to humanity, at risk.
Wow. I've posted the entire press release below and I will continue to provide updates on the FAO meeting and responses to it as I receive them.
This March 1-4, the UN's FAO is meeting in Mexico to discuss biotech. As a response, Peru held a meeting in Cusco and published a declaration opposing biotech and asking the UN to implement the recommendations of the IAASTD report (a report commissioned by the UN and World Bank in which 400 scientists from around the world recommended organics as the best way to feed the world and specifically rejected biotechnology). You can see an unofficial English translation of the declaration below, or you can see the Spanish version here. You can also see a video of the event.
Here's a new version of a stupid idea that goes around every now and again (growing meat in a vat to avoid killing animals). Let's genetically engineer animals so they don't feel pain! And the author admits that this idea is specifically intended to allow for the continuation of factory farming:
We are most likely stuck with factory farms, given that they produce most of the beef and pork Americans consume. But it is still possible to reduce the animals' discomfort - through neuroscience. Recent advances suggest it may soon be possible to genetically engineer livestock so that they suffer much less.
If you're so concerned about animal pain, don't eat them. Every living thing feels pain, and every living thing dies. Either they die via slaughter or of disease, injury, or predation. Death is not fun no matter what. But all of LIFE doesn't have to be suffering too, hence the widespread opposition to factory farms. According to this idea, we would bypass that by rending the animals insensitive to that pain. I'm sorry but that's not enough. You've still got the environmental problems associated with factory farms, not to mention the unfairness to anyone living near factory farms who suffers from health problems or sees their property value decline (or just has to live with the constant smell of shit) as a result of the pollution and smell.
Great news! India put a hold on Bt eggplant (which they call brinjal) due to safety concerns. This one has been on my radar for about a year, ever since I met an Indian woman who was quite upset about the impending destruction of the genetics of India's 4000 varieties of eggplant. The decision sounds like it was made due to public outcry, as government scientists gave Bt brinjal the okay in 2009.
"Public sentiment is negative. It is my duty to adopt a cautious, precautionary, principle-based approach," Mr Ramesh said.
He said the moratorium on growing BT brinjal - as the variety of aubergine is known in India - would remain in place until tests were carried out "to the satisfaction of both the public and professionals".
The minister said "independent scientific studies" were needed to establish "the safety of the product from the point of view of its long-term impact on human health and environment".
Imagine that. Using the precautionary principle and obtaining independent studies. Hooray!
I just finished reading The War on Bugs by Will Allen (not the Will Allen of Growing Power - a different Will Allen) and I can't recommend it highly enough! This was a book that Allen was uniquely qualified to write. He grew up on a farm, and then went into the Marines where he was an atomic, biological, and chemical warfare paramedic. Following his years in the Marines, he went to college and - as part of his education - did research in the tropical forests of Peru, living among forest farmers. He says, "The ability of these [Peruvian] farmers to produce surpluses without chemicals in an environment ravaged by pests started me thinking that maybe the miracle chemicals that the sales men pushed were not so necessary after all." After college, Allen went back to farming. Upon taking a pesticide and fertilizer applicator's course at a local college, he found out that the chemicals commonly sprayed on farms were "modified versions of the nerve poisons and antipersonnel weapons that I learned about when studying chemical warfare in the Marine Corps."
So - with his firsthand observations of food grown without chemicals and his knowledge of the toxicity of common farm chemicals - Allen went to work finding out where our dependence and trust of pesticides came from in the first place. His findings actually surprised me. I knew part of the picture, which I wrote about in my own book. I don't think my book was inaccurate, but Allen fills in a lot of details and really makes it clear what happened and how.
The biggest question for me is: Are the American people a population of lab rats? Apparently so. These varieties are legal in the U.S. MON810 goes by the trade name YieldGard Corn Borer and MON863 goes by the trade name YieldGard Rootworm Corn in the U.S. and Canada. NK603 sells under the name Roundup Ready corn. If I understand things right, many farmers I met in Iowa used "triple stacked" corn, which means that all 3 of these traits were engineered into the same seeds.
As of 2009, according to the USDA, 17 percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is "Bt" corn, 22 percent is "RoundUp Ready," and 46 percent has more than one trait stacked into it. Altogether, GM corn makes up 85 percent of the corn we grow. Translation: Unless you eat organic (and probably even then because of genetic pollution), congratulations! You are a lab rat! Enjoy the organ damage.
(Of course, Monsanto's already claimed that this study isn't true and that their products do not cause organ damage. I'd like to see further study happen - ASAP! And, in the meantime, how about pulling Monsanto's GM corn off the market until the science is conclusive one way or the other? I, for one, do NOT want to be a lab rat, thankyouverymuch.)
It is Bt rice, meaning that it produces its own pesticide
While the Chinese claim the rice will reduce pesticide use by 80%, that projection fails to consider that the rice will be producing its own pesticide. There will most likely be a reduction in additional pesticides sprayed on the rice, but that does not necessarily translate to a reduction in pesticides once you add in the Bt produced by the rice itself.
China is not yet commercially producing Bt rice - it will do so in 2-3 years.
Most of China's rice is consumed domestically. However, some of it is exported. Out of about 59.5 million tonnes of rice produced by China, they export about 600,000 tonnes annually.
If you are going to China, you may actually be able to avoid their GMOs. Cotton is not eaten anywhere, and the Chinese don't really eat corn, papaya, or tomatoes. Rice is eaten but it's seen as a food for poor people who cannot afford anything better. Also, the Chinese say that a person who eats too much rice gets fat. Rice is not automatically served at restaurants unless you request it, and no self-respecting banquet host would ever let a bowl of rice be seen on the table. I still ate quite a bit of rice in China, but only because I like rice.
A new report, Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years, found that GM crops have resulted in an increase in overall pesticide use. I'd heard this anecdotally from farmers but now it's been confirmed. The report was done by The Organic Center, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Center for Food Safety. By their math, GM crops have resulted in an extra 383 million pounds of herbicides between 1996 and 2008. Simultaneously, the GM crops resulted in a 64 million pound decrease in insecticide use. Together, that equals an overall increase of pesticide use by 318 million pounds.
A variety of GM squash did not turn out as well as hoped says a new report from Penn State. In the mid-1990's, the USDA okay'd a version of GM squash that was resistant to three of the most important viral diseases in cultivated squash.
Penn State professor of biology Andrew Stephenson and others did an experiment to see what would happen if the transgenes (the genes that had been modified) from cultivated squash spread into wild squash:
Stephenson and his colleagues James A. Winsor, professor of biology; Matthew J. Ferrari, research associate; and Miruna A. Sasu, doctoral student, all at Penn State; and Daolin Du, visiting professor, Jiangsu University, China, crossed the genetically modified squash into wild squash native to the southwestern United States and examined the resulting flower and fruit production. Unlike a lab experiment, the researchers tried to mimic a real world setting during their three-year study. The researchers then looked at the effects of the virus-resistant transgenes on prevalence of the three viral diseases, herbivory by cucumber beetles, as well as the occurrence of bacterial wilt disease that is spread by the cucumber beetles.
The results did not bode well for the GM trait. There are 2 other threats to the plants besides the viral diseases: cucumber beetles and bacterial wilt. Those two threats are linked, as the beetles spread the wilt by eating diseased plants and pooping out the bacteria on other plants. And guess what? The beetles prefer to eat the GM plants over the non-GM plants. That's because they prefer healthy plants to plants suffering from the virus. The end result is that the GM plants are safe from viral diseases but more susceptible to beetles and fatal bacterial wilt.
"Our study has sought to uncover the ecological cost that might be associated with modified plants growing in the full community of organisms, including other insects and other diseases," said Ferrari. "We have shown that while genetic engineering has provided a solution to the problem of viral diseases, there are also these unintended consequences in terms of additional susceptibility to other diseases."
I've spent the past few days hanging out with two men from Africa - one from Kenya and one from Uganda. Yesterday, we ate lunch together. The meal was a salad that probably came out of a bag with your choice of dressing, grilled soggy veggies, roasted herb potatoes, turkey, and a corn pudding (very similar to corn bread but very moist).
I piled my plate high in a rather ambitious fashion. I should eat grilled veggies but I really don't like them. I don't hate all grilled veggies, but I generally dislike the ones served in catered meals at conferences like these grilled veggies. I skipped the onions, zucchini, and red peppers and opted for asparagus (probably from South America) and yellow squash. Then I got what I knew I'd like: potatoes and corn pudding.
Back at the table, my African friends politely ate as I choked down my asparagus and squash. I eagerly ate up all of my potatoes, and my favorite was the corn pudding. I offered the remaining mountain of asparagus on my plate to my African friends (I had finished the squash, with much effort) and went back for seconds on the corn pudding. It was so good, I gulped it down immediately!
At our table, we began talking about the food. I don't know if either of the Africans really liked the food or if they were just being polite. They told me the food from their countries was great because they had lots of diversity. Then, the man from Kenya pointed to his corn pudding and asked: "Is this GMO?"
This was very possibly his first time having to wonder whether the food on his plate was genetically modified. Back home, many African countries do not allow GMOs at all. Whereas we Americans were fed GMOs without our permission or (in many cases) knowledge long ago, the Africans are very conscious of the issue and many have strong opinions about it.
"Yes," I replied. Then I looked at the kernels of sweet corn in the bread and said, "No."
"No?" he asked. "Not GMO?"
I thought again. There were kernels of non-GMO sweet corn but the corn meal as probably GMO. "Both," I corrected myself.
"Yes, GMO?" he asked.
"Yes," I replied.
He pushed it over to the side of my plate, no longer interested in eating any more of it. Jokingly, I told him that if he had any more children they would be born with three heads. He knew I was kidding and we both laughed. I'd obviously already pigged out on the corn pudding, GMO or not. At one point, a few years ago, I tried to be a purist with my food, but I've given up. It's just too difficult, living here and avoiding food grown via objectionable practices.
It's wonderful seeing our food system through such different eyes as I hang out with my new friends. I don't mean to imply that our system is wrong and theirs is right (or vice versa), but having somebody who comes from such a different background with you makes you question things that you might not otherwise question.
When you visit Iowa, you're nearly guaranteed to see three things: corn, soy beans, and hog confinements. Those were the focus of the field trip I attended yesterday at the Community Food Security Coalition Conference To be totally blunt about it, maybe you've wondered: why are farmers so stupid that they keep growing corn and soybeans year after year? Or corn and corn year after year? And why on earth would anybody stink up their own farm with a hog confinement? And, as you may have guessed, it turns out that the farmers aren't stupid at all. Not one bit. I will explain below. There's also another great question I was asked on a recent visit to Lawrence University. In classic liberal arts professor fashion, one of the professors asked me, "Assuming the farmers are all rational, if they all plant GMOs, then wouldn't that mean that the GMOs are the best choice?" Gooood question. I'll address that below as well.
I always find it fascinating to read what the people of Sub-Saharan Africa think about the food aid they receive from the U.S. In my view, help is not actually help unless the receiver of the help wants it. That's why a Ghanaian article called "Obama Pushes GM Foods on Ghana, Africa" caught my eye.
If you've attended any of my book talks, I say that it's important for consumers - not just farmers - to understand the hows and whys of sustainable farming because otherwise, we are susceptible to marketing efforts by the fertilizer, pesticide, and biotech industries. Well... here's Exhibit A. It's a report by the USDA called "The Unexplored Potential of Organic-Biotech Production."
The organic movement rejects biotechnology as inherently contradictory to its fundamental goal of promoting environmental protection in agriculture. European organic promoters in particular stress respect for nature over yield maximization, campaigning for a return to traditional production methods and inputs. [1] In reality, the divide between organics and biotechnology is an artificial construction maintained by ideology rather than science. A governmental decision to change organic regulations to permit the use of biotechnology could have far-reaching policy implications for global agriculture.
Allowing producers to gain organic certification for biotech crops could encourage the development of a new type of environmentally sustainable agricultural production with greater benefits for the consumer.
I go for science - not ideology - and I don't think biotech has a place in organics. For more information on why, I point you to a diary I wrote that summarizes the work of scientist Jack Heinemann and the IAASTD report.
I've got a few emails with conflicting messages in my inbox. One says that Egypt is banning all GMO crop imports. Another says that Egypt denies banning GMO crop imports. From Reuters:
Egypt's agriculture minister has not issued a decision to ban the import of genetically modified crops, the state news agency MENA said on Thursday, denying an earlier report.
The agency quoted an unnamed official at the Agriculture Ministry as stating that earlier reports citing Amin Abaza ordering that a certificate accompany all imports to show they were free of genetically modified materials were "not correct."
The original report of the decision was published by MENA on Wednesday and picked up by other media.
Egypt is one of the world's largest wheat importers and also imports other products such as corn, edible oils and sugar. It exports products such as vegetables and fruits, particularly to Europe.
Right. So either:
1. Egypt never wanted to ban GMOs,
2. Egypt wanted to ban GMOs, got a backlash, and backed off the ban, denying that they ever did it in the first place, or
3. One rogue official told the press they were going to ban GMOs because he thought they were or because he wanted them to, but the rest of the government didn't want to ban them.
Who knows which of these scenarios is true, but it doesn't appear to me that an Egyptian ban on GMO crops is impending.
Buy an autographed copy of Recipe for America LVL Gear
"Too Big to Fail" T-Shirt
(details)
Support La Vida Locavore
Subscribe for $10/month:
One-Time Gift:
