From The New York Times
By Paul Greenberg
“WHAT’S the deal with fish oil?”
If you are someone who catches and eats a lot of fish, as I am, you get adept at answering questions about which fish are safe, which are sustainable and which should be avoided altogether. But when this fish oil question arrived in my inbox recently, I was stumped. I knew that concerns about overfishing had prompted many consumers to choose supplements as a guilt-free way of getting their omega-3 fatty acids, which studies show lower triglycerides and the risk of heart attack. But I had never looked into the fish behind the oil and whether it was fit, morally or environmentally speaking, to be consumed.
The deal with fish oil, I found out, is that a considerable portion of it comes from a creature upon which the entire Atlantic coastal ecosystem relies, a big-headed, smelly, foot-long member of the herring family called menhaden, which a recent book identifies in its title as “The Most Important Fish in the Sea.”
The book’s author, H. Bruce Franklin, compares menhaden to the passenger pigeon and related to me recently how his research uncovered that populations were once so large that “the vanguard of the fish’s annual migration would reach Cape Cod while the rearguard was still in Maine.” Menhaden filter-feed nearly exclusively on algae, the most abundant forage in the world, and are prolifically good at converting that algae into omega-3 fatty acids and other important proteins and oils. They also form the basis of the Atlantic Coast’s marine food chain.
Nearly every fish a fish eater likes to eat eats menhaden. Bluefin tuna, striped bass, redfish and bluefish are just a few of the diners at the menhaden buffet. All of these fish are high in omega-3 fatty acids but are unable themselves to synthesize them. The omega-3s they have come from menhaden.
But menhaden are entering the final losing phases of a century-and-a-half fight for survival that began when humans started turning huge schools into fertilizer and lamp oil. Once petroleum-based oils replaced menhaden oil in lamps, trillions of menhaden were ground into feed for hogs, chickens and pets. Today, hundreds of millions of pounds of them are converted into lipstick, salmon feed, paint, “buttery spread,” salad dressing and, yes, some of those omega-3 supplements you have been forcing on your children. All of these products can be made with more environmentally benign substitutes, but menhaden are still used in great (though declining) numbers because they can be caught and processed cheaply.
For the last decade, one company, Omega Protein of Houston, has been catching 90 percent of the nation’s menhaden. The perniciousness of menhaden removals has been widely enough recognized that 13 of the 15 Atlantic states have banned Omega Protein’s boats from their waters. But the company’s toehold in North Carolina and Virginia (where it has its largest processing plant), and its continued right to fish in federal waters, means a half-million menhaden are still taken from the ecosystem every year.
For fish guys like me, this egregious privatization of what is essentially a public resource is shocking. But even if you are not interested in fish, there is an important reason for concern about menhaden’s decline.
Quite simply, menhaden keep the water clean. The muddy brown color of the Long Island Sound and the growing dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay are the direct result of inadequate water filtration — a job that was once carried out by menhaden. An adult menhaden can rid four to six gallons of water of algae in a minute. Imagine then the water-cleaning capacity of the half-billion menhaden we “reduce” into oil every year.
So what is the seeker of omega-3 supplements to do? Bruce Franklin points out that there are 75 commercial products — including fish-oil pills made from fish discards — that don’t contribute directly to the depletion of a fishery. Flax oil also fits the bill and uses no fish at all.
But I’ve come to realize that, as with many issues surrounding fish, more powerful fulcrums than consumer choice need to be put in motion to fix things. President Obama and the Congressional leadership have repeatedly stressed their commitment to wresting the wealth of the nation from the hands of a few. A demonstration of this commitment would be to ban the fishing of menhaden in federal waters. The Virginia Legislature could enact a similar moratorium in the Chesapeake Bay (the largest menhaden nursery in the world).
The menhaden is a small fish that in its multitudes plays such a big role in our economy and environment that its fate shouldn’t be effectively controlled by a single company and its bottles of fish oil supplements. If our government is serious about standing up for the little guy, it should start by giving a little, but crucial, fish a fair deal.
Paul Greenberg is the author of the forthcoming “Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food.”
Filed under: Environmental Issues
This article is part of a package on consumers and Walmart. To read the other article, on what to buy at Walmart, click here.
While Walmart has recently burnished its reputation among upscale shoppers, there are still some product categories where you’d be better off going elsewhere — either because you’re straying beyond Walmart’s core competency, or to avoid supporting the giant retailer’s bad behavior. Here are three of them.
1. High-End Electronics
Though Walmart has expanded its selection of name-brand electronics, it’s still focused on value-oriented products in the sub-$1,000 price range. And its sales staff tend not to be experts in the finer points of multimedia interface. So if you want to splurge on a top-of-the-line television or digital SLR camera — and get the accompanying level of service and accessories — you’ll want to visit a specialty electronics store. Best Buy (BBY), for example, has a customer support team (the Geek Squad) capable of explaining why, for instance, you may need a television with several HDMI ports.
2. Books
This year, Walmart slashed prices aggressively to establish itself as the low-price leader for best-selling books. The store cut the cost of popular novels such as Stephen King’s Under the Dome by 70 percent to $13.99, sparking a price war with Amazon (AMZN).
The Walmart/Amazon rivalry translates into incredibly low prices for consumers on some of the most popular book titles. But Walmart’s prices come at a cost, say local business advocates. In the long-run, such deep discounts can drive independent booksellers out of business. And without these stores, consumers will have difficulty finding all but the most well-known authors, says Stacy Mitchell, senior researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a non-profit that advocates for local businesses.
3. Wood Furniture
Despite Walmart’s increased focus on sustainability, the retailer has a long way to go in the furniture category. In December 2007, an environmental group published a report tracing furniture from Walmart suppliers to wood illegally logged in protected Russian habitats for Siberian tigers and other wildlife. Several months later, Walmart promised to investigate its suppliers and joined the Global Forest & Trade Network, an organization dedicated to eliminating illegal logging. Environmental activists have applauded Walmart’s promise to purge environmentally rotten wood, but Walmart could take until a self-imposed deadline of 2013 to phase out the products. Until then, consumers can’t be certain that Walmart’s wood furniture comes from well-managed forests.
by Catherine Holahan | Dec 10, 2009
From CBS MoneyWatch.com
Despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that Walmart (WMT) is the nation’s largest retailer, there are plenty of people who wouldn’t be caught dead in one. To these folks, Walmart conjures images of a rapacious juggernaut of stadium-sized stores offering low-quality merchandise, spotty service, and mistreating employees and the environment — while driving small local retailers out of business.
But many of those misgivings are starting to fade, partly as a result of some well-timed improvements to the company’s product line-up and its environmental record. What’s more, there’s nothing like the worst recession in 80 years to nudge “low prices” a little higher on the collective priority list. And while Walmart may not be making its employees rich, the chain handed out very few pink slips in the downturn and remains the country’s largest private employer.
To be sure, there are plenty of reasons to remain wary of the retail behemoth. Whether you are concerned about the threat to a downtown business district, object to the retail culture, or just have a mental picture of the Walmart shopper that you can’t square with your own self image, it may not be for you. But it’s worth keeping in mind that, when it leverages its enormous scale for good, Walmart can make a difference in a hurry. It’s one thing when a boutique sells fair-trade coffee, but when Walmart gets into the game, a lot of sustainable farmers benefit. Here are five product categories where you can comparison shop in good conscience at the nation’s “low-price leader.”
1. Moderately Priced Consumer Electronics
Dying to get the latest hi-definition TV from Vizio or Viore? We thought not. Those low-priced brands are what Walmart has focused on in the past, but recently the retailer has expanded its offerings to include high-def TVs from top makers such as Samsung (SSNLF), Sony (SNE), Philips (PHG), and Sharp (SHCAY). It also now offers digital cameras made by the likes of Nikon and Canon.
Walmart still isn’t the best place to shop for a top-of-the-line television or digital SLR camera. But its focus on bringing in more big brands has made it an attractive option for shoppers seeking consumer electronics in the sub-$1,000 price range. This year, for example, some WalMart stores offered a 50-inch Samsung plasma television for less than $700 during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend.
What Walmart doesn’t have is an army of educated sales people ready to explain all the settings on the back of that SLR or the subtle differences between a high-def TV with a resolution of 1080i versus one with 1080p. But such service has become less important now that 90 percent of consumers turn to the Internet for detailed product reviews, says James Russo, Nielsen’s vice president of global consumer insights.
“Consumers will do their research outside the store,” says Russo. “So if Walmart has the right selection and price point, consumers will go there.
2. Smart Phones
In the past year, Walmart has beefed up its offerings of higher-end cell phones, especially Blackberries. This is good news if you’ve reached the end of your phone contract and are looking to compare new phones and carriers all in one place, since Walmart sells phones and service plans from each of the four largest U.S. carriers: Verizon (VZ), AT&T (T), Sprint (S), and T-Mobile (DT). So if you want to see how T-Mobile’s G1 phone, which uses Google’s Android operating system, matches up against Apple’s iPhone, Walmart is the place for you. You can’t do that at an AT&T store, or even at one of Apple’s fancy boutiques.
3. Coffee
While Walmart has been criticized in the past for being more concerned with price than environmental or labor issues when sourcing its goods, one area where it’s improving its record is with coffee. This year, the company partnered with TransFair USA, an independent certifying agency, to offer fair trade-certified coffee in its Walmart and Sam’s Club stores. The coffee is sustainably grown by farmers who receive a living wage and is thus more expensive than competing coffees — roughly $5.88 for a 10 to 12 ounce bag, compared with less than $5 for supermarket brand Eight O’Clock Coffee. But it tastes better (or at least it should), and by selling fair-trade coffee, Walmart vastly expands the market for such goods.
Carmen K. Iezzi, executive director of the Fair Trade Federation, a North American association for such products, says Walmart’s expansion of fair trade certified items like coffee was promising, although she cautioned that it’s too early to tell how much impact Walmart’s efforts will have. Still, coffee is a good start. “When any major corporation begins to move in the direction of more sustainable practices, that is a positive sign,” says Iezzi.
4. Video Game Bundles
Of course, Walmart’s primary appeal has always been its low prices, but it makes sense for shoppers to do a cost/benefit analysis: Is it worth it to save $10 on a book, when you could be supporting an independent bookseller instead? On the other hand, you can save a lot more money if you’re in the market for video game systems, which Walmart often bundles with starter games. For example, Walmart was recently selling the Xbox 360 Elite gaming system, along with two games, including this season’s blockbuster title, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, for just $259. The game console alone sells for upward of $249 at stores such as Sears, while Call of Duty typically retails for $60. And buying video game consoles and products at Walmart is arguably a guilt-free purchase. After all, Sears (SHLD) isn’t known for standing up against suburban sprawl.
5. Laundry Detergent
When it comes to the environment, Walmart’s suppliers have often fallen far short of best practices. Now the chain is trying to clean up its act by offering more eco-friendly products. One area where it’s done the most is laundry detergent. The company recently switched to selling only concentrated laundry detergent in its U.S. stores — these products use up to 50 percent less packaging and require less fuel to transport than the earlier versions. Once again, scale matters: Walmart has a serious carbon footprint, so cutting laundry detergent containers by half can have a big impact.
Walmart has taken steps to combat phosphates, which pollute the water and lead to an explosion of the algae population that destroys fish habitats and plants. The company already says there are no phosphates in detergent it sells in the U.S., and earlier this year, it announced plans to choose more eco-friendly suppliers for the laundry and dish detergent it sells in its Americas region, cutting phosphates by 70 percent by 2011. The Americas region includes Canada, Mexico, and countries in Central and South America..
And Walmart has unveiled broader initiatives to improve its eco-image. In July, the company began developing a sustainability index that will eventually rank all of its suppliers and products based on their environmental impact. “Walmart is taking some important steps, although they’ve still got a long way to go,” says Honor Schauland, a campaign assistant at the Organic Consumers Association, a Minnesota-based consumer advocacy group.
Walmart didn’t become the world’s largest retailer by accident. Executives in Benton, Ark., are well aware that stocking sustainable products was a good way to attract a more affluent consumer. And those consumers like low prices on recognizable brands as much as anyone, especially in the current economy, says Doug Conn, a managing director at Hexagon Securities who focuses on the retail sector.
“They have picked up on trends like organics and natural products, and that has helped get new customers,” says Conn. “But the key theme is that customers are more value-oriented than they have ever been this holiday season, and Walmart is the default place to go for low prices.”
In other words, new customers are coming for the deals. But if they shop the categories mentioned above, they can feel good about being thrifty without worrying that they’ve abandoned their ideals just to save a buck.
Filed under: Environmental Issues
From The New York Times
By ASTRID SCHOLZ, ULF SONESSON and PETER TYEDMERS
GO local. Eat organic. Buy fresh. Those food mantras continue to make waves among environmentally conscious consumers. But — as is often the case in these climate-conscious times — if the motivation is to truly make our diets more earth-friendly, then perhaps we need a new mantra: Buy frozen.
Several years ago, the three of us — two ecological economists and one food system researcher — teamed up in an effort to understand how to develop sustainable food systems to feed a planet of nine billion by 2050. As the focus of our study, we chose salmon, an important source of protein around the world and a food that is available nearly anywhere at any time, regardless of season or local supply.
We examined the salmon’s life cycle: how the fish are caught in the wild, what they’re fed when farmed, how they’re processed and transported and how they’re consumed.
And what did we find in our research? When it comes to salmon, the questions of organic versus conventional and wild versus farmed matter less than whether the fish is frozen or fresh. In many cases, fresh salmon has about twice the environmental impact as frozen salmon.
The reason: Most salmon consumers live far from where the fish was caught or farmed, and the majority of salmon fillets they buy are fresh and shipped by air, which is the world’s most carbon-intensive form of travel. Flying fillets from Alaska, British Columbia, Norway, Scotland or Chile so that 24 hours later they can be served “fresh” in New York adds an enormous climate burden, one that swamps the potential benefits of organic farming or sustainable fishing. (Disclosure: A nonprofit subsidiary of Ecotrust, the North Pacific Fisheries Trust, lends money to sustainable fisheries.)
Fresh fish is wonderful and healthful, and if it’s driven a reasonable distance to market, then its relative environmental impact is low. Fortunately for conscientious diners, when fish is flash-frozen at sea, its taste and quality is practically indistinguishable from fresh. More important, it can be moved thousands of miles by container ship, rail or even truck at much lower environmental impact than when air freighted. If seafood-loving Japanese consumers, who get most of their fish via air shipments, were to switch to 75 percent frozen salmon, it would have a greater ecological benefit than all of Europe and North America eating only locally farmed or caught salmon.
Is the future full of fish sticks? No. But when it comes to eating seafood from halfway around the world, we need to get over our fetish for fresh. With the challenges facing the world’s oceans mounting, buying frozen is a powerful choice that concerned eaters everywhere can make.
Has the added bonus of killing parasites too. In fact, commercial freezing (lower temp than your household fridge) is a food safety requirement on many kinds of fish to be served as sushi…
Astrid Scholz is the vice president of knowledge systems at Ecotrust in Portland, Ore. Ulf Sonesson is a researcher at the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology. Peter Tyedmers is a professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
In our dream life, we’re the kind of person who can be showered, dressed and ready in 15 minutes. Our lifelong enslavement to the blow dryer prevented that dream from coming true. Recently, however, we’ve (pardon the pun) cut the cord on that relationship and it made us wonder if there were other ways we could rethink our grooming habits to make them more eco-friendly…
- Cut out the blow dryer: Rethink your hair style so that air drying’s an option. We splurged on a pricey hair procedure called the Brazilian Blowout. What we paid out in cash we’ve more than made up for in time and energy saved (no more 45 minute blow outs to tax our patience and the power grid).
- Shorten your showers: Do you really need to take a half hour hot shower? Use a timer, take a Navy shower or install a pause button so you can turn off the water while you soap up or lather your hair. You might also consider showering less often, especially in the winter when the water will rinse off the natural oils that keep your skin and hair from drying out.
- Hair removal: Pamper yourself with a real shave; use a real razor and tub soap instead of foam and eliminate the need for disposable razors, have your legs waxed or wax them yourself. I use a old fashioned safety razor, blades have cost me about .75 a year!
- It’s that time: Yes, even the most intimate grooming rituals can been greened.
- Nails: Instead of polish, try having your nails buffed to a high sheen. It’s healthier for you and for the environment.
- Toothpaste: Try a natural toothpaste like Tom’s or go the simplest route and try baking soda.
- Change your grooming products: Instead of chemically laden products, try organic ones, including organic makeup; instead of pricey creams and masques, look into products you can make from the ingredients in your refrigerator or pantry. Look at the ingredients in your shampoo and conditioner.
Here’s a link to my articles on Going Green with cosmetics and beauty care products, and my recommendations.
Also, here is my recipe for skin cleanser; it’s all natural, no chemicals, doesn’t strip your skin of essential oils and leaves it moist (honey is a humectant, it draws moisture to your skin.) The baking soda is both a fruit acid and an exfolient.
Millie’s Skin Cleanser
3 cup water
2 cups baking soda
1/2 teaspoon almond oil
2 drops lavender essential oil
1 ½ cup honey
1 Tbsp. Dr. Bonners Almond liquid soap
1/2 teaspoon vegetable glycerin
1 teaspoon ascorbic acid powder
1 teaspoon Salicylic acid
3 Tablespoons Xantham gum
On low heat, combing all ingredients except honey. Remove from heat and let cool. Add honey. Apply to the skin like a soap and rinse off with tepid water.
[image: Helga's Lobster Stew's Flickr with a Creative Commons License]
Filed under: Environmental Issues
This week in NY Times
By NICOLETTE HAHN NIMAN
Bolinas, Calif.
IS eating a hamburger the global warming equivalent of driving a Hummer? This week an article in The Times of London carried a headline that blared: “Give Up Meat to Save the Planet.” Former Vice President Al Gore, who has made climate change his signature issue, has even been assailed for omnivorous eating by animal rights activists.
It’s true that food production is an important contributor to climate change. And the claim that meat (especially beef) is closely linked to global warming has received some credible backing, including by the United Nations and University of Chicago. Both institutions have issued reports that have been widely summarized as condemning meat-eating.
But that’s an overly simplistic conclusion to draw from the research. To a rancher like me, who raises cattle, goats and turkeys the traditional way (on grass), the studies show only that the prevailing methods of producing meat — that is, crowding animals together in factory farms, storing their waste in giant lagoons and cutting down forests to grow crops to feed them — cause substantial greenhouse gases. It could be, in fact, that a conscientious meat eater may have a more environmentally friendly diet than your average vegetarian.
So what is the real story of meat’s connection to global warming? Answering the question requires examining the individual greenhouse gases involved: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides.
Carbon dioxide makes up the majority of agriculture-related greenhouse emissions. In American farming, most carbon dioxide emissions come from fuel burned to operate vehicles and equipment. World agricultural carbon emissions, on the other hand, result primarily from the clearing of woods for crop growing and livestock grazing. During the 1990s, tropical deforestation in Brazil, India, Indonesia, Sudan and other developing countries caused 15 percent to 35 percent of annual global fossil fuel emissions.
Much Brazilian deforestation is connected to soybean cultivation. As much as 70 percent of areas newly cleared for agriculture in Mato Grosso State in Brazil is being used to grow soybeans. Over half of Brazil’s soy harvest is controlled by a handful of international agribusiness companies, which ship it all over the world for animal feed and food products, causing emissions in the process.
Meat and dairy eaters need not be part of this. Many smaller, traditional farms and ranches in the United States have scant connection to carbon dioxide emissions because they keep their animals outdoors on pasture and make little use of machinery. Moreover, those farmers generally use less soy than industrial operations do, and those who do often grow their own, so there are no emissions from long-distance transport and zero chance their farms contributed to deforestation in the developing world.
In contrast to traditional farms, industrial livestock and poultry facilities keep animals in buildings with mechanized systems for feeding, lighting, sewage flushing, ventilation, heating and cooling, all of which generate emissions. These factory farms are also soy guzzlers and acquire much of their feed overseas. You can reduce your contribution to carbon dioxide emissions by avoiding industrially produced meat and dairy products.
Unfortunately for vegetarians who rely on it for protein, avoiding soy from deforested croplands may be more difficult: as the Organic Consumers Association notes, Brazilian soy is common (and unlabeled) in tofu and soymilk sold in American supermarkets.
Methane is agriculture’s second-largest greenhouse gas. Wetland rice fields alone account for as much 29 percent of the world’s human-generated methane. In animal farming, much of the methane comes from lagoons of liquefied manure at industrial facilities, which are as nauseating as they sound.
This isn’t a problem at traditional farms. “Before the 1970s, methane emissions from manure were minimal because the majority of livestock farms in the U.S. were small operations where animals deposited manure in pastures and corrals,” the Environmental Protection Agency says. The E.P.A. found that with the rapid rise of factory farms, liquefied manure systems became the norm and methane emissions skyrocketed. You can reduce your methane emissions by seeking out meat from animals raised outdoors on traditional farms.
CRITICS of meat-eating often point out that cattle are prime culprits in methane production. Fortunately, the cause of these methane emissions is understood, and their production can be reduced.
Much of the problem arises when livestock eat poor quality forages, throwing their digestive systems out of balance. Livestock nutrition experts have demonstrated that by making minor improvements in animal diets (like providing nutrient-laden salt licks) they can cut enteric methane by half. Other practices, like adding certain proteins to ruminant diets, can reduce methane production per unit of milk or meat by a factor of six, according to research at Australia’s University of New England. Enteric methane emissions can also be substantially reduced when cattle are regularly rotated onto fresh pastures, researchers at University of Louisiana have confirmed.
Finally, livestock farming plays a role in nitrous oxide emissions, which make up around 5 percent of this country’s total greenhouse gases. More than three-quarters of farming’s nitrous oxide emissions result from manmade fertilizers. Thus, you can reduce nitrous oxide emissions by buying meat and dairy products from animals that were not fed fertilized crops — in other words, from animals raised on grass or raised organically.
In contrast to factory farming, well-managed, non-industrialized animal farming minimizes greenhouse gases and can even benefit the environment. For example, properly timed cattle grazing can increase vegetation by as much as 45 percent, North Dakota State University researchers have found. And grazing by large herbivores (including cattle) is essential for well-functioning prairie ecosystems, research at Kansas State University has determined.
Additionally, several recent studies show that pasture and grassland areas used for livestock reduce global warming by acting as carbon sinks. Converting croplands to pasture, which reduces erosion, effectively sequesters significant amounts of carbon. One analysis published in the journal Global Change Biology showed a 19 percent increase in soil carbon after land changed from cropland to pasture. What’s more, animal grazing reduces the need for the fertilizers and fuel used by farm machinery in crop cultivation, things that aggravate climate change.
Livestock grazing has other noteworthy environmental benefits as well. Compared to cropland, perennial pastures used for grazing can decrease soil erosion by 80 percent and markedly improve water quality, Minnesota’s Land Stewardship Project research has found. Even the United Nations report acknowledges, “There is growing evidence that both cattle ranching and pastoralism can have positive impacts on biodiversity.”
As the contrast between the environmental impact of traditional farming and industrial farming shows, efforts to minimize greenhouse gases need to be much more sophisticated than just making blanket condemnations of certain foods. Farming methods vary tremendously, leading to widely variable global warming contributions for every food we eat. Recent research in Sweden shows that, depending on how and where a food is produced, its carbon dioxide emissions vary by a factor of 10.
And it should also be noted that farmers bear only a portion of the blame for greenhouse gas emissions in the food system. Only about one-fifth of the food system’s energy use is farm-related, according to University of Wisconsin research. And the Soil Association in Britain estimates that only half of food’s total greenhouse impact has any connection to farms. The rest comes from processing, transportation, storage, retailing and food preparation. The seemingly innocent potato chip, for instance, turns out to be a dreadfully climate-hostile food. Foods that are minimally processed, in season and locally grown, like those available at farmers’ markets and backyard gardens, are generally the most climate-friendly.
Rampant waste at the processing, retail and household stages compounds the problem. About half of the food produced in the United States is thrown away, according to University of Arizona research. Thus, a consumer could measurably reduce personal global warming impact simply by more judicious grocery purchasing and use.
None of us, whether we are vegan or omnivore, can entirely avoid foods that play a role in global warming. Singling out meat is misleading and unhelpful, especially since few people are likely to entirely abandon animal-based foods. Mr. Gore, for one, apparently has no intention of going vegan. The 90 percent of Americans who eat meat and dairy are likely to respond the same way.
Still, there are numerous reasonable ways to reduce our individual contributions to climate change through our food choices. Because it takes more resources to produce meat and dairy than, say, fresh locally grown carrots, it’s sensible to cut back on consumption of animal-based foods. More important, all eaters can lower their global warming contribution by following these simple rules: avoid processed foods and those from industrialized farms; reduce food waste; and buy local and in season.
Nicolette Hahn Niman, a lawyer and livestock rancher, is the author of “Righteous Porkchop: Finding a Life and Good Food Beyond Factory Farms.”
Filed under: Environmental Issues, Food and it's Impact on Our Health, In The Kitchen with Millie- How To's
Many of ya”ll may not have been born by 1969. Those of us who were adults at that time know the extent to which the "new foods" really are imitation foods even though they are not labeled as such.
Crisco- a crappy, dangerous version of lard.
Margarine- A mix of vegetable oils chemically hardened to make it seem like butter..kinda.
Bouillon cubes- nothing like real stocks. Yucky and salty, and they sure don’t have that same mouth feel..mmmm.
Soy- one of the most dangerous foods; highly processed, too many dangers to go into here.
And all the other hellish stuff that man has created and people have actually learned to like..; shake and bake chicken, TV dinners, instant mashed potatoes, Kool-aid, Hawaiian punch…eeeoooowww. I learned to cook at a young age because my mom couldn’t…and I love great food, like at my grandmothers house..it was filling, healthy…at my parents I was always hungry. I whined to get apple juice instead of Kool-aid, honey instead of sugar, butter instead of margarine, Roman Meal bread instead of all the white stuff. Turns out that traditional is best..that’s why it’s a tradition. Pretty basic.
And it turns out that yes, those kitchen arts that are almost lost, stock making, canning, rendering fats, soap making…doing it from scratch is best, healthiest and saves the environment…and us. And my kids have made fun of me for loving to do things from scratch..but I love it all, paper-making, distilling flowers, making my own skin care products, using a clothesline, sewing…just has always made sense to me…and is immensely satisfying.
My next class is on Traditional Arts; Eat a Traditional Diet, How and Why, Stock and Sauce Making, Yogurt making, The Right Fats and how to use them.
Filed under: Environmental Issues, In The Kitchen with Millie- How To's
I grew up with a garndmother who put up tomatoes every yerar, squah, guava jelly and butter, all in mason jars. They were used to catch fireflies at night in the orange grove, lady bugs during the day, to hold marbles, make tea…
I do love mason jars, ..this from Apartment Therapy’s Re-Nest
We know that having such a fondness for an inanimate object is a little strange. But growing up with a mom who pickled every vegetable in sight and spent entire days during the summer months turning lugs of fruit into gleaming jars of strawberry, apricot, and boysenberry jam — well, we can’t help ourselves. We love Mason jars. And from making your own kombucha to growing your own alfalfa sprouts, there are so many ways to love them. We’re rounding up a quick list after the jump (please add your own!)
I use soapnuts and love them, they come in a cloth bag (no plastic!) and work really well and are non-toxic.
There are a ton of amazing things about soap nuts.
They are 100%, totally natural. They are organically grown and are free of harsh chemicals, so they are incredibly gentle on clothes AND skin. They are especially great for those with sensitive skin — including babies and those that suffer from allergies, eczema, and psoriasis! They’re totally biodegradable, so they’re better for the environment than regular detergent, and they’re antimicrobial, so they’re even good for septic and greywater systems
From Fake Plastic Fish;
Have you ever done your laundry with soapnuts or been curious to find out how they work? Soapnuts grow on a tree called Sapindus mukorossi (Chinese Soapberry) and contain saponin, a natural surfactant which foams just like soap. I’ve wanted to try soapnuts since I first spotted them in a natural grocery store a couple of years ago but have always been deterred by the plastic in the packaging. Although they are imported, the idea of using a laundry soap that contains only one, minimally-processed natural ingredient (the soapnuts are harvested, de-seeded, and sun-dried) appealed to me.
Soapnuts only release their saponin in warm or hot water. I wash in cold to save energy. But never fear, there is an easy solution. Mix up a batch of Soapnuts Soak by bringing a pot of water to a boil, removing it from the heat, tossing in 6-8 soapnuts, and letting them sit covered over night. In the morning, strain into a couple of glass jars. The used soapnuts can go in the compost. Use 1/4 to 1/2 cup per laundry load.
http://www.lullwaterbrands.com/
By the way, I’ve noticed that another major distributor of soapnuts is now selling a liquid version in plastic bottles. Look how easy it is to make without the plastic. Easy as boiling water. Of course, if you’re like me and forget about pots on the stove, this procedure might not be as easy as it is for most. Still, I can deal. Because one batch of Soapnut Soak will do at least 8 loads of laundry. You can also use it for cleaning, windows, soaking jewelry and then polishing.
So, after adding the Soapnut Soak to my cold water load of light colors, and watching in amazement at the amount of foamy bubbles produced, I felt compelled to sniff every item as it came out of the washing machine. And you know what? They just smelled clean. Fresh. That’s the only way I can describe the scent. It was nothing like the smell of the soapnuts.
Some people prefer to add scent to their laundry, and to that end, you can add a few drops of essential oils. For me, the oils were completely unnecessary. I like my clean to smell like clean.
Filed under: Environmental Issues
I have been wondering, and have done a lot of looking around to try to find the answer, but my here at Fake Plastic Fish came through, she found out the dirt on those green plastic produce bags that keep produce fresher longer.
Sorry to go all Charlton Heston on you. It’s just that, based on several blog posts I’ve read, a lot of people seem to think that Evert Fresh green produce bags are plastic-free, and they are absolutely not. After calling the company several times a week for over a month to try to reach the owner, Lynn Everts, I finally received the information I needed today from his assistant, Tyra. She told me that the bags are indeed made from low density polyethylene (the same type of plastic in disposable grocery bags) combined with a special clay called oya which helps to keep produce fresher longer.
I have no doubt that these bags work. But I find it ironic that we would choose to purchase an ultimately disposable plastic bag (these bags can be reused up to 8 times) made from a material that lasts forever in the environment in order to preserve something that is completely biodegradable. Personally, I’d rather buy my produce more often and be careful to eat it in a timely manner than purchase brand new virgin plastic bags to make it last a little longer. And I’d rather compost the few produce items that do go bad than landfill plastic bags.
Others may feel that saving produce is worth the plastic. And that’s their choice. My problem is that folks who believe they are avoiding plastic may be purchasing these bags because of the way they are described on various web sites. On Amazon.com, two sellers, Greenfeet and 877myjuicer, list them as being made from "non-petroleum based materials," while seller, Showcase, claims they are "made from all-natural, environmentally safe materials." These claims are simply not true, and I have e-mailed Amazon to find out how to go about getting the descriptions changed.
It’s one thing for Amazon to be selling plastic bags, but it’s quite another for Reusablebags.com to promote and sell them. No where in Reusablebags.com’s description of these bags is it revealed that the base material is actually plastic. The write-up only states that the "active ingredient is a natural mineral" and further down the page proceeds to describe the mineral as a clay called "oya" which absorbs ethylene gas given off by produce as it matures. Since Reusablebags.com is a site devoted to eliminating plastic bag waste, it would be natural for a customer to assume the Evert Fresh bags were not plastic. So I’ve also e-mailed Reusablebags.com to request they update their description of this product so that their customers can make informed purchasing decisions.
Representatives from both Reusablebags.com and Evert Fresh have told me that the bags are recyclable. However, reps from neither company could provide the names of recyclers or recycling programs that would accept them. So I checked with three of my recycling insiders, and all three felt that the clay used in the bags to keep the produce fresh actually makes them a contaminant in the waste stream rather than a recoverable material. They would probably be weeded out and landfilled by plastic bag recyclers.
So, how do we keep produce fresh without plastic? It’s a good question, and I don’t have all the answers. At the farmer’s market where I table with Green Sangha, we distribute organic cotton Eco Bags, which can keep many fruits and vegetables fresh in the refrigerator if dampened. However, this past Sunday, a customer told me she’d not had good luck with loose leaf salad greens. The cloth bag couldn’t do as good a job as plastic. Any suggestions from plastic-free salad eaters?
Another customer asked me about carrots, and I did have the answer to that one! Carrots last a really, really long time if you keep them immersed in a container of water in the fridge. I like to replace the water every few days. I think this works for celery, too.
We keep apples, pears, and citrus loose in the refrigerator without any bag or container. Tomatoes and avocados stay out on the counter. Bananas stay out on the counter too but tend to turn brown pretty fast. Most other vegetables and fruits are in the dampened cotton bags in the refrigerator.
So, what are your tips for keeping produce fresh? The clay sounds like a good idea. Too bad it’s attached to a bunch of plastic. Hmmm..I wonder if it’s possible to get this clay somewhere…I’ll look into it….
September 2, 2009
The 4 or 5-digit number that you’ll find on the little sticker on your produce is a Price Look-Up, or PLU, code. They’ve been used by grocery stores for about 20 years to identify produce for pricing at the cash register. (I always did wonder how grocery clerks could spot the difference between Bosc and Bartlett pears on sight.) These days, the International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS), a voluntary organization of those associated with the fresh produce industry, coordinates the use of standardized codes throughout the world.
PLU codes are used for fruits and vegetables sold individually and for other items like nuts and dried fruit sold in bulk. (You won’t see a PLU code on anything with a fixed weight, like a pint of blueberries, or that’s been processed, like a fruit salad or juice.) The code signals to the retailer the information needed to determine the price – so “4131″ indicates not only the type of fruit (“apple”) but also the variety (“Fuji”) and even the size (“extra large”). If you’re a produce nerd like me, you can even look up the exact variety of what you’re eating on the IFPS website.
Organic & GMO
As you’re no doubt well aware, organic or not factors into the price of what you’re buying. As a result, the IFPS decided that organic produce would be identified with a “9″ in front of the standard 4 digits traditionally used for the fruit or veggie. So if that big Fuji is organic, the code won’t just be “4131″ but “94131.”
Similarly, an “8″ as the first of a five-digit code indicates genetically-modified produce. If that Fuji was created using GM technology, the code would be “84131.”
Retailer Codes, not Regulations
Keep in mind that these codes are administered by a voluntary organization (the International Federation for Produce Standards) that’s made up largely of produce trade associations. Their main purpose is not to inform consumers but to facilitate grocery transactions.
Produce advertised as organic must comply with the standards of the USDA National Organic Program, but there are no labeling requirements for genetically-modified foods. No need to get too worried about looking for number 8’s, though: given current technology, there is very little PLU-coded produce that would have been genetically engineered. Thought there’s plenty of GMO corn and soybeans out there, GM technology hasn’t yet made inroads on the individually-sold fruits and veggies like tomatoes, apples, etc.
The awesome image (that was) above is by Artist Cheri Kopp; see more of her work at- http://www.cherikopp.com/index.html She wanted me to take it down, but you should check out her work…
From Planet Green
- The local brew- Seek out the coffee and tea that have traveled the least distance to reach you and also aim at supporting local, independent farms, cafés, and roasters.
- Mug Shots
Go ahead, find that perfect mug and make the investment. Not only is a reusable mug more pleasurable to sip out of than a paper cup, but it will replace an untold number of disposable cups, plastic sippy tops, “java jackets,” and other disposable paraphernalia. If you’ve got a thing for paper cups and Greek art, try a more durable "We Are Happy to Serve You", the handy-work of TreeHugger founder Graham Hill. Make a quick tally of how many disposable coffee or tea cups you use in a month…yeah, it’s probably a lot. - Organic
Coffee and tea that bear organic certification are more eco-friendly because they are grown and processed without toxic chemicals, are cultivated and harvested in ways that protect sensitive ecosystems, and spare workers from exposure to harmful pesticides and herbicides. Shade grown coffee is another important category that preserves habitats for migratory birds on coffee farms, also letting beans mature more slowly and creating richer flavors. - Fair Trade
Not only does certified fair trade coffee and tea help ensure living wages and safe working conditions for farmers, but TransFair and Rainforest Alliance both include rigorous environmental standards in their certification criteria. - Home brew
The local café is great. It’s got your friends, good food, free wireless. But if you think you can be greener in your own kitchen, give it a try. When you do it at home you know where the beans and leaves are coming from and also where they go when they’re spent. Plus, you can’t forget your mug, you can choose organic milk, and never toss out another paper sugar packet. Try a bit of quick math on the cost savings of making your morning cup-o-joe at home. - Loosen up
Tea bags and coffee filters can be useful but are mostly unnecessary. Great coffee can be made at home with a reusable filter or a stovetop espresso maker. A quality tea infuser can last a lifetime and replace an untold number of (questionably compostable) tea bags. If you do use filters and bags, look for biodegradable and unbleached ones. - Milk and sugar
Most people put one thing or another in their hot beverage of choice. Don’t foul up your organic, fair trade, bird friendly, solar roasted brew with chemical and hormone-laden milk and sugar from a little paper packet. If you don’t do the cow thing, look for organic rice, soy, or almond milk to yin up your yang. In the US, TransFair also certifies sugar, so even your sugar can be fair trade. (Maple syrup in coffee is another well-kept secret.) - Compost the roast
Tea leaves and especially coffee grounds make outstanding compost. Coffee’s high nitrogen content has made it a fertilizer of choice since days of yore. Composting leaves and grounds helps keep organic waste out of landfills, makes great soil, and keeps waste baskets dry. If you don’t have a heap to toss it on, just spread coffee grounds on the top of your plants’ soil. - Gift the good stuff
Organic coffee and tea make superb gifts for friends and coworkers, as well as effective peace offerings for estranged family members and ex-lovers. It’s also a great way to get people appreciating the many benefits of a “greener” coffee or tea habit.
1. Bring a reusable bag wherever you go. Excess bags just add to the landfill and you don’t need them in the first place. There’s no reason not to do this.
2. Ditch the processed food. It takes unnecessary energy to produce it, as well as tons of packaging.
3. Make your own cleaning products. Cleaning products (even eco-friendly varieties) often come in plastic bottles and they are trucked in from who knows where wasting tons of fossil fuels. I use baking soda and vinegar to clean with, buy Soap Nuts to do laundry with (many health foods stores sell them) and use organic dish soap.
4. 
Calculate your water footprint. How can you know where you need to cut water usage if you don’t know how much you’re using and where you’re using it? Use very low flow shower heads. Hardware stores have a 1.5 GPM with a shut-off valve.
5. Don’t drink milk. Livestock consumes much of the land on the planet, whether for meat or dairy, and creates literally tons and tons of pollution, estimates are in the 1/5th of all greenhouse gases range.
6. Wear less makeup. Using less makeup will save us on resources and money, and you’ll look better too. Or buy all organic, with minimal packaging.
7. 
Drink NO bottled water. The U.S. sends two million tons of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottled water packaging to the landfill each year. Just drink the tap. I have never pchased bottled water, it’s easy to use a Kleen Kanteen or glass bottle.
8. Wash your clothes in cold water. About 90 percent of the energy used for washing clothes is for heating the water. Never use the dryer, there is no reason to waste the energy, indoor drying racks work great…and outdoor clotheslines.
9. Pass up eating lunch out, bring your own grub. Let me count the reasons why. There’s the immense shipping programs emitting harmful gases, the millions of tons of waste generated annually, and not to mention the total lack of nutritional value in fast food restaurant’s most popular menu items.
10) I use a non-disposable razor, an old-fashioned stainless steel, very high quality razor that uses double edged blades. It was 24.00 from ClassicShaving.com. The blades are 10 for 5.99, and they are double edged! They give the closest, smoothest shave you can imagine! No disposable blade can compare.
10. Skip Starbucks (for a LOT of reasons!) and brew your own coffee. Once we factor in the cost of the gourmet coffee and the cost of driving there, each time we brew a cup at home, we save about the equivalent of a gallon of gas.
11. Shut down your PC. If every American worker remembers to turn off their computer at night, the nation’s companies would prevent the release of 39,452 tons of carbon-dioxide emissions, save $4.7 million in utility costs, and reduce energy consumption by 54.3 million kilowatt-hours per day.
12. Skip the store bought cereal and eat organic eggs and turkey bacon for breakfast, it’s way healthier. Cereal usually comes in a plastic bag within a cardboard box that all gets thrown away at least once a week if not more. Better yet, skip all grains entirely, they aren’t healthy, are all empty carbs.
13. Grow some of your own food. This way you don’t have to buy it and it’s about as local as possible.
14. Add insulation to your attic. The Rocky Mountain Institute estimates it will save you 2,142 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions–through the heat your home retains in winter and doesn’t gain in the summer–and hundreds of dollars in lower energy bills.
Now that the heinous hot weather is over…it was all I could do to keep up with the garden this year, yesterday I got the bike out, cleaned it and got new tubes….ahh, great weather…beautiful ride again today…I love my bike! I vow to not use the car for anything closer to my house than 2 miles…
I have been trying to find a decent natural, organic mascara for 30 years! I finally did it; it’s not gooey, doesn’t clump and it stays on until I wash it off…and it washes off easily, I might add…no yanking out the eyelashes to get it off. YEAH!!!
Organic wear®
For more information about Organic wear®, visit www.organicwearmakeup.com.
Hypoallergenic. Safe for Sensitive Eyes and Contact Lens Wearers.
Organic wear® 100% Natural Origin Mascara
- Revolutionary 100% Natural Origin formula contains the purest ingredients and provides 5x Lash Boosting for lash length, volume & definition naturally.
- 100% Recyclable Eco-Brush defines each lash with ultra-soft plastic bristles.
- 100% Free of Harsh Chemicals, Synthetic Preservatives, Parabens, Clumping, Smudging, Flaking, Fibers & Dyes.
Shade: Ultra Black Organics Black Organics *
Directions
- Sweep mascara brush from lash base to tips.
- Apply multiple coats for added volume.
Ingredients
INGREDIENTS: CITRUS AURANTIUM DULCIS (ORANGE) FRUIT WATER*, GLYCERIN, IRON OXIDE, MICROCRYSTALLINE CELLULOSE, GLYCERYL STEARATE, WATER, BEESWAX*, JOJOBA ESTERS, TAPIOCA STARCH*, COPERNICIA CERIFERA (CARNAUBA) WAX*, STEARIC ACID, GLYCERYL CAPRYLATE, ALOE BARBADENSIS LEAF JUICE*, CELLULOSE GUM, CINNAMIC ACID, CUCUMIS SATIVUS (CUCUMBER) FRUIT EXTRACT*, GLYCINE SOYA (SOYBEAN) OIL*, HYDROLYZED ORYZA SATIVA (RICE) PROTEIN, MAGNESIUM ALUMINUM SILICATE, OLEA EUROPAEA (OLIVE) LEAF EXTRACT*, PHENYLALANINE. MAY CONTAIN: TITANIUM DIOXIDE *PRODUCED FROM ORGANIC FARMING.
Net Wt. 0.26Oz./7.5g
Price: $9.95
Filed under: Environmental Issues
Banners saying simply “Local” hang above the produce sections at some Wal-Marts. Don’t ask questions. Writes Mitchell: “The chain’s local food offerings are usually limited to a few of the main commodity crops of that particular state—peaches in Georgia or potatoes in Maine—and sit amid a sea of industrial food and other goods shipped from the far side
Rancher Dave Evans of Marin Sun Farms raises 500 head of cattle on nothing but grass in Nicasio, California. Here he explains how his farm works.
By: Dave Evans, as told to Joel Weber; Illustrations: Heather Jones
Published: March 2008 [ Updated: Nov 7, 2008 - 3:44:18 PM ]
The grass that fills my pastures is a diverse array of mostly native perennials and legumes, such as rye grass and clover. The grass stores the sun’s energy and converts it into carbon, which my cows will eventually convert into protein. Grassland can sequester as much carbon as a forest, which is a claim no factory farm can make. Grass and soil need a break from grazing to recover and regenerate, and I use electric fences to divide the land into paddocks as large as 100 acres and as small as two acres to restrict animals’ access. I change my pasture-management strategy almost daily, but typically the grass will measure about six inches tall when the cattle enter a paddock. I’ll lead them into a new paddock once the grass is half that length. 
When cows eat grass, an organ called the rumen—something we humans don’t have, which is why we don’t eat grass (notice what he says here, we DON”T eat grass- ie. GRAINS!!) —converts the sun’s energy into high-quality protein. As the cattle move throughout the pasture, their hooves help spread and plant grass seed while their feces acts as fertilizer. And because they don’t stand in the same place all day, covered in their own dung, I don’t need to pump them full of antibiotics, the way factory farmers do. 
After I move cattle off a paddock, I bring in laying hens to eat the parasites and fly larva that thrive in cow pies. The chickens eat the bad stuff most farmers eliminate with pesticides, and those bugs give the hens’ eggs more flavor. Chicken excrement also contains a lot of nitrogen, which functions as a fertilizer. Most commercial farms increase yields with synthetic nitrogen, and the farms excrete so much fertilizer that it ends up in the ocean where it kills sea life. Keeping free-range chickens prevents that sort of pollution. I simply move the hens so that excess nitrogen never builds up and the soil stays healthy.
Learn more about Dave Evans or find grass-fed beef near you by visiting eatwild.com.
Posted 12:23 PM on 11 Aug 2009
by Tom Philpott
A bit of nitrogen with those veggies? A recent literature review [PDF] by the U.K. Food Standards Agency concluded that organic foods offer no nutritional advantages to ones grown with conventional chemical agriculture.
The report quickly bounced around the media and the internets and has congealed into received wisdom. For example, in a recent chat with readers, Washington Post food politics columnist (and general policy writer) Ezra Klein engaged in the following exchange:
Santa Fe, N.M.: I saw a report today on a study finding that organic food isn’t any healthier than conventional food. Is buying organic a waste of money, in your opinion?
Ezra Klein: Honestly? Yes. It’s definitely not healthier, at least not according to any study I’ve seen. There’s some argument that it’s more environmentally friendly. But it’s not something that I’m convinced is worth a premium. I’d rather buy from a local farm that uses some pesticides than a major producers who has gone organic.
Whoa—lots going on there. Let’s stick to the “definitely not healthier” bit for now. (As for the idea that there’s just “some argument” for the environmental benefits of not dousing fields of food with synthetic poisons and greenhouse-gas-spewing fertilizer, I’m not sure what to say.)
Well, Ezra, here is a study, released last year by the U.S.-based Organic Center, that comes to a conclusion quite different from the U.K. agency’s findings. It’s called “New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods.” The Organic Center recently released a cogent rebuttal to the U.K. findings as well.
True, the Organic Center is funded by Big Organic companies like Dean Foods (owner of Horizon Dairy) and Whole Foods, which have an interest in promoting organics as healthier. But I’ve never seen the Center’s scholarship successfully challenged.
Moreover, as Paula Crossfield’s excellent recent post on Civil Eats shows, the U.K. Food Standards Agency itself, despite its governmental status, can hardly be seen as a neutral adjudicator. Like our own FDA, the FSA is shot through with once and future food-industry execs and flacks. (Paula also points us to another study finding nutritional advantages to organic food—this one commissioned by the European Union.)
The Organic Center claims that the FAS study neglected to consider total antioxidant content—which seems a pretty gaping oversight, giving that antioxidants are emerging as a key micronutrient for fighting cancer and other maladies. (The Center’s own study found significantly more total antioxidants in organic food than conventional.) The Center also makes a convincing case that the FAS researchers botched the measurement of another key micronutrient, polyphenols.
But what I find most immediately significant is this: Both studies found that conventionally grown produce has substantially higher levels of nitrates than organic—most likely from widespread use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer on conventional farms.
This consensus around a nitrogen gap suggests a non-trivial advantage for organic food: A growing body of literature indicts heightened levels of nitrates in the U.S. diet as a significant health menace. For a while, we’ve known that nitrates are a powerful carcinogen.
The latest: a rather stunning recent report from the Journal of Alzheimer Disease (press release here) linking nitrates in food to “increased deaths from diseases, including Alzheimer’s, diabetes mellitus and Parkinson’s.”
The study’s lead author, Suzanne de la Monte of Rhode Island Hospital and Brown University, declares that we have become a “nitrosamine generation,” exposed to increasing levels of nitrogen-derived compounds that pose a threat at even in low doses. She indicts nitrate-preserved foods like bacon—but also conventional agriculture.
According to de la Monte, “We receive increased exposure through the abundant use of nitrate-containing fertilizers for agriculture,” which are both taken up in food crops and also seep into drinking water.
De la Monte reports that incidence of the diseases in question—Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and type 2 diabetes—have “all increased radically over the past several decades and show no sign of plateau.” According to de la Monte:
Because there has been a relatively short time interval associated with the dramatic shift in disease incidence and prevalence rates, we believe this is due to exposure-related rather than genetic etiologies.
The press release adds:
The findings indicate that while nitrogen-containing fertilizer consumption increased by 230 percent between 1955 and 2005, its usage doubled between 1960 and 1980, which just precedes the insulin-resistant epidemics the researchers found. They also found that sales from the fast food chain and the meat processing [industry] increased more than 8-fold from 1970 to 2005, and grain consumption increased 5-fold.
To me, the study stands as a pretty damning indictment of industrial agriculture—and in particular efforts to extend its alleged benefits to the global South. Hey, grow more food with our agrichemicals—and melt your brains and become dependent on pharmaceutical insulin in the process!
It bears remembering, too, that industrial agriculture’s reliance on synthetic fertilizer contributes significantly to climate change [PDF] and coastal dead zones.
Organic agriculture, meanwhile, relies on slow-release fertilizers that don’t get taken up as readily by plants, leaving lower residue levels in food. And because organic ag builds carbon in soil, it also tends to hold nitrogen better, not letting it leach into soil or air nearly as much.
From The Grist
Filed under: Environmental Issues
‘Feeding the world’–or consuming it?
Posted 5:04 PM on 31 Aug 2009
by Tom Philpott
In the ongoing debate about whether sustainable agriculture can “feed the world,” it’s important not to lose sight of what industrial agriculture is doing to ecosystems—both in specific areas and on a grand scale.
Producing and distributing lots and lots of calories, leveraged by fossil fuel and synthetic fertilizers and poisons, may solve certain short-term problems; but the practice also creates long-term ones that won’t be easily solved.
In June, a study emerged showing that so-called inert ingredients in Roundup, Monsanto’s widely used flagship herbicide, can kill human cells even at low levels—“particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells,” reports Scientific American. This is an herbicide that’s used on virtually all of our nation’s corn and soy fields, covering tens of millions of acres of cropland. (It’s also widely used by landscapers and on home lawns.)
Then there was the recent atrazine imbroglio. For years, the EPA has been assuring the public that the highly toxic herbicide, still widely used in the Corn Belt, wasn’t showing up in drinking water in worrisome levels. Turns out that was a lie, as some excellent muckraking by the Huffington Post Investigative Fund revealed. Atrazine exposure has been strongly associated with reproductive health maladies, including a rise in hermaphroditism among frog populations.
Note that corn and soy production, as practiced today, is completely reliant on these two broad-spectrum herbicides.
Now comes news about the hazards of another input critical to the project of industrial agricultire: synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. When farmers apply nitrogen to farm fields, a certain amount enters the atmosphere as nitrous oxide. And according to a study conducted by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and published in Science, human-generated nitrous oxide is now the No. 1 contributor to ozone-layer depletion.
The study is the first ever to look closely at nitrous oxide’s role as an ozone destroyer. The results are alarming. From a summary of the study on the NOAA website:
For the first time, this study has evaluated nitrous oxide emissions from human activities in terms of their potential impact on Earth’s ozone layer. As chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which have been phased out by international agreement, ebb in the atmosphere, nitrous oxide will remain a significant ozone-destroyer, the study found. Today, nitrous oxide emissions from human activities are more than twice as high as the next leading ozone-depleting gas.
The withering away of the ozone layer, which was slowed but not stopped by the 1987 Montreal Protocol phasing out CFCs, is no trivial matter. As the NOAA summary puts it:
The ozone layer serves to shield plants, animals and people from excessive ultraviolet light from the sun. Thinning of the ozone layer allows more ultraviolet light to reach the Earth’s surface where it can damage crops and aquatic life and harm human health.
Moreover, the Montreal Protocol does not regulate nitrous oxide.
Of course, agriculture-induced nitrous oxide isn’t just eating the ozone layer. It’s also a greenhouse gas with 300 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide.
Thus the implications of agriculture’s reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilizer are literally earth-shaking: The way we’re feeding ourselves is contributing dramatically to two processes—climate change and ozone depletion—that could literally make the planet uninhabitable by humans.
Worse still, we my be seriously underestimating industrial agriculture’s nitrous oxide emissions. When considering agriculture’s contribution of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere, scientists have assumed that about 1 percent of the nitrogen fertilizer applied by farmers ends up in the atmosphere as nitrous oxide. The EPA operates under that assumption, as did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the real number may be considerably higher. A 2008 study [PDF] by the Nobel-winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen found that as much as 5 percent of nitrogen fertilizer applied by farmers turns into nitrous oxide—which would make agriculture a much larger contributor to climate change (and ozone depletion) than is currently assumed.
On top of all of that, nitrogen runoff from agriculture is also strongly implicated in the creation of coastal dead zones—large algae blooms that suck oxygen out of the sea and snuff out marine life.
What all of this points to is the need to bring ecological considerations into agriculture. And in fact, there’s already a budding field known as agroecology. Agrocecology is now at best a fringe field in academia; as public funding for university research dries up, giant agribusiness firms like Monsanto increasingly finance—and control—the research agenda. They have little interest in ecology and vested interests in pushing their own proprietary products.
