 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
.
Regional Farm & Food Project Earth Day 2008 News If you think social action can save the planet these news stories should interest you! 13 news stories...
1. What the Media Missed in the Big Beef Recall Big Beef Recall Proves Small is Safer It has been widely reported that on February 17, 2008, Westland/Hallmark Meat Company, of Chino, California, issued the largest beef recall in history. 143 million pounds of beef, most of it already eaten, was recalled because the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service was embarrassed by an undercover video, which surfaced on Youtube at the end of January, showing extreme animal abuse, and proving that sick animals were being put into the food supply. Even as they were demanding the recall, according to the New York Times, “Agriculture officials said there was little health risk from the recalled meat because the animals had already passed pre-slaughter inspection and much of the meat had already been eaten. In addition, the officials noted that while Mad Cow disease was extremely rare, the brains and spinal cords from the animals—the area most likely to harbor the disease—would not have entered the human food chain.” This story raises two important issues about USDA food safety policies: 1.) The difference between food safety inspection processes in very large plants versus very small plants, and 2.) The efficacy of the National Animal Identification System as a food safety program. The difference between food safety inspection processes in very large plants versus very small plants In a very small USDA-inspected meat processing plant, one that slaughters a cow an hour, or about 8 to 10 cows a day, the USDA inspector sees every animal individually for a visual health inspection before the animal is killed. If the inspector deems the animal healthy looking, the processor may then kill the animal. Once a cow is killed, it is eviscerated into a stainless steel tray and the heart, lungs, and liver are separated and visually inspected to ensure the tissue is healthy looking. The head is removed and placed in a separate tray where it is also inspected. After evisceration, if the inspector discovers anything indicating the animal was not in good health, the inspector may demand the carcass be quarantined until further inspection, or that the carcass be destroyed and removed from the premises. In a very small USDA-inspected meat processing plant—whether the animals being processed are cows, pigs, sheep, goats, lambs, turkeys, or chickens—slaughter work does not begin until the inspector is present and gives permission to proceed, the inspection is one continuous process from live animal to carcass, and the inspector has absolute authority over the process. One small-scale meat processor I spoke with said having a USDA inspector in his plant was like driving your car with a state trooper in the back seat. Yes, the state trooper’s presence is going to ensure you comply with the rules of the road to the letter of the law, but it’s also very intimidating, and creates a situation where absolute authority may be corrupted without the presence of checks and balances to ensure fairness. Yet, if we all drove our cars with a state trooper in the back seat, there would probably be many fewer traffic accidents. Where is the USDA inspector in a plant that processes 100 cows an hour? How much time does he spend looking at each animal? Where is the inspector in the fabled plants that process one thousand cows an hour? How many USDA inspectors are there per animal per hour in large meat processing plants? How much time lapses between the visual inspection of the live animal and the time the animal is killed? Are each animal’s vital organs examined before the carcass is processed? Is each animal given the same rigorous, individual inspection it would receive in a very small meat processing plant? How did it happen that sick animals made it onto the kill floor at Westland/Hallmark? Where was the USDA inspector? Do the owners of multi-million dollar processing facilities, with hundreds of employees, producing thousands of pounds of meat a day, have the same experience with their USDA inspectors as the owners of very small meat processing plants? Did the owners of Westland/Hallmark Meat Company feel like they were driving their business with a state trooper in the back seat? Evidently not. If the presence of USDA food safety inspectors is what ensures the safety of our meat supply, then the meat processed in very small USDA-inspected facilities, where each individual animal receives inspection at multiple points in the process, must be significantly safer than meat processed in very large USDA-inspected facilities where each animal is inspected at fewer points in the process, and inspections are more rapid, making them more superficial. Conversely, if the inspection processes in very large USDA-inspected facilities are adequate to ensure food safety; then the enormous cost-burden of current USDA inspection regimens for small-scale processors seems unjustified. The efficacy of the National Animal Identification System as a food safety program The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is one of the largest government programs ever proposed, and undoubtedly one of the most invasive and expensive, creating a massive new bureaucracy on the scale of the IRS for animals. According to the USDA, it is a food safety program intended to protect animal health and human health. In NAIS, the USDA proposes every livestock animal in the nation be tagged, from birth to death, with an identification number that includes a premises ID number for the location where the animal is kept. All animal movements would be reported via websites so a database search could locate the animal and/or the animal’s premises within 48 hours. This feature is known as 48-hour trace-back. Would NAIS have prevented the largest beef recall in history? No. The Westland/Hallmark beef recall, which occurred weeks after the meat was distributed in the marketplace, was not for tainted meat or food found to be unsafe; it was a punishment for breaking food safety rules, spotlighting lax inspection processes, and embarrassing the USDA. Would NAIS have prevented any of the beef recalls of the past few years? No. Those beef recalls were made after meat was distributed in the marketplace and eaten by people who became ill. Industrial meat processors, wholesalers, and retailers do not maintain individual animal identification from kill to packaged table cuts. The cows were separated from their identification in the course of processing the meat. Without DNA testing, the best trace-back system could lead only to the date of consumption, dates of production, and batch numbers, but not to an individual animal. And consider this, one bite of tainted hamburger could contain meat from two cows from two different farms. Which one would we blame? In an industrial system where the meat in a hamburger comes from more than one cow, how does NAIS ensure food safety? It doesn’t. Why small is safer The technology, machines, and money in large scale industrial meat processing plants give the appearance of being safe compared to the low-tech, age-old systems of smaller facilities, but the fact is personal attention and care for quality ensure food safety, not technology. USDA inspectors are better able to ensure safety in smaller facilities that operate at a slower pace. Likewise, NAIS gives the appearance of creating a food safety system until you look at how industrial meat is processed, packaged, and sold, and see all the disconnects in the information chain between the animal’s identification and what ends up in your mouth. And NAIS doesn’t protect animal health either. It gives the appearance of protecting animal health until you see the cost of NAIS is lower per animal for the largest operators—one ID each for the 20 birds in your back yard versus one ID for the entire 20,000 bird flock in a chicken factory—providing a direct incentive to lower NAIS implementation costs by concentrating animals in the numbers and places that nurture pathogens of both animal and human disease. Proponents of large-scale industrial meat processing facilities and NAIS are getting away with “playing the food safety card.” But if we look at the facts, we see small-scale processing is safer for human and animal health because people working in small places are more accountable. There is less time/distance between the components of a smaller system enabling faster trace-back when problems do arise. In small facilities, carcass profitability and source verification are built into processing, sales, and marketing activities. And producing smaller batches of product presents less risk. When is comes to raising livestock and processing meat, small isn’t just safer, small is smart. More on the issue... AgWeb April 1, 2008
Revised Monday Hog Slaughter - 418,000 2. Miracle Tomato & the Small Revolution Expo Miracle Tomato & The Small Revolution Expo will bring together local farms, restaurants, green businesses and initiatives, climate change organizations, scholars, activists and artists – all those who are shaping our collective futures in the areas of food quality, safety and availability, and sustainable solutions for home, school, work, agriculture and municipalities. All events will take place at Basilica Industria, 110 Front St., Hudson, NY. Friday, April 25, 7:30 MIRACLE TOMATO performance only. Tickets: $20 Written and performed by Jessica Cerullo. A play for one actress and 303 tomatoes. Angelina, the youngest of triplets birthed in the family tomato plot, reveals not only the history of the controversial fruit/vegetable, but also her own, as she employs the help of her identical sisters Valentina, a bio engineer, and Josephina, a food activist. Projected slides by Asli Ayata, photography by David Schulz; music and tomato handlers assist in telling the story. Saturday April 26, 2:00 till 6:30 The Small Revolution Expo
Tickets available at http://www.wtdtheater.org and at Spotty Dog Books & Ale and at the Columbia County Chamber of Commerce. For a full listing of the exhibitors, please visit "Miracle Tomato" Contact: Benedicta Bertau/Walking the dog Theater 3. Science Says Organic is 25% More Nutritious NEW EVIDENCE SETTLES A LINGERING QUESTION – IS ORGANIC FOOD MORE NUTRITIOUS? BOULDER, CO – March 19, 2008 – A comprehensive review of 97 published studies comparing the nutritional quality of organic and conventional foods shows that organic plant-based foods (fruits, vegetables, grains) contain higher levels of eight of 11 nutrients studied, including significantly greater concentrations of the health-promoting polyphenols and antioxidants. In this first comprehensive review of the scientific literature comparing nutrient levels in organic and conventional food completed since 2003, a team of scientists conclude that organically grown plant-based foods are 25% more nutrient dense, on average, and hence deliver more essential nutrients per serving or calorie consumed. Nutrient levels were studied in 236 matched pairs of foods with scientifically valid results on the levels of 10 nutrients, plus nitrates (high levels are undesirable because of food safety risks). Each matched pair contains, for example, an apple crop grown organically and another apple crop from a nearby conventional farm with similar soils, climate, plant genetics, irrigation systems, nitrogen levels, and harvest practices. The new report is published as a “State of Science Review” by The Organic Center and is entitled “New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-based Organic Foods.” The co-authors are Charles Benbrook, the Center’s Chief Scientist, Xin Zhao of the University of Florida, and three Washington State University (WSU) scientists Jaime Yáñez, Neal Davies, and Preston Andrews. Dr. Andrew Weil, a Center board member, wrote the “Foreword.” The full report and its executive summary are freely accessible on the Center’s website 4. Nanotechnology: Out of the Laboratory and onto Your Plate March 11, 2008 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Untested nanotechnology is being used in more than 100 food products, food packaging and contact materials currently on the shelf, without warning or new FDA testing, according to a report released March 11, 2008 by Friends of the Earth. The report, Out of the Laboratory and onto Our Plates: Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture, found nanomaterials in popular products and packaging including Miller Light beer, Cadbury Chocolate packaging and ToddlerHealth, a nutritional drink powder for infants sold extensively at health food stores including WholeFoods. "Nanotech food was put on our plates without FDA testing for consumer safety," said Ian Illuminato, Friends of the Earth Health and Environment Campaigner. "Consumers have a right to know if they are taste-testing a dangerous new technology." Existing regulations require no new testing or labeling for nanomaterials when they are created from existing approved chemicals, despite major differences in potential toxicity. The report reveals toxicity risks of nanomaterials such as organ damage and decreased immune system response. "Nanotechnology can be very dangerous when used in food," said report co-author Dr Rye Senjen. "Early scientific evidence indicates that some nanomaterials produce free radicals which destroy or mutate DNA and can cause damage to the liver and kidneys." Report co-author Georgia Miller, Friends of the Earth Australia Nanotechnology Project Coordinator, said many of the world's largest food companies, including Heinz, Nestle, Unilever and Kraft are currently using and testing nanotechnology for food processing and packaging. Without increased federal oversight, these companies could begin sale of these products whenever they choose. "There is no legal requirement for manufacturers to label their products that contain nanomaterials, or to conduct new safety tests," said Miller. "This gives manufacturers the ability to force-feed untested technology to consumers without their consent." Nanotechnology, the manipulation of matter at the scale of atoms and molecules, is now used to manufacture nutritional supplements, flavor and colors additives, food packaging, cling wrap and containers, and chemicals used in agriculture. "Friends of the Earth calls on the FDA to stop the sale of all nano food, packaging, and agricultural chemicals until strong scientific regulations are enacted to ensure consumer safety and until ingredients are labeled," said Illuminato. The report, released internationally today in the U.S., Europe and Australia details more than a hundred nano food, food packaging and food contact products now on sale internationally. The Australian government has already welcomed the report and announced that it will begin exploring regulation of nano food and nano agriculture as a result of the report. The full report can be found at http://www.foe.org. Friends of the Earth is the U.S. voice of an influential, international network of grassroots groups in 70 countries. Since 1969, Friends of the Earth has been at the forefront of high-profile efforts to create a more healthy, just world. One of its current campaigns focuses on combating the spread of nanotechnology without regulation and oversight. http://www.foe.org This article appeared in Rachel's Democracy & Health News which highlights the connections between issues that are often considered separately or not at all. http://www.rachel.org 5. The Perfect Storm: Climate Change, Peak Oil, and Farm Subsidies The New York Times These days you hear a lot about the world financial crisis. But there’s another world crisis under way — and it’s hurting a lot more people. I’m talking about the food crisis. Over the past few years the prices of wheat, corn, rice and other basic foodstuffs have doubled or tripled, with much of the increase taking place just in the last few months. High food prices dismay even relatively well-off Americans — but they’re truly devastating in poor countries, where food often accounts for more than half a family’s spending. There have already been food riots around the world. Food-supplying countries, from Ukraine to Argentina, have been limiting exports in an attempt to protect domestic consumers, leading to angry protests from farmers — and making things even worse in countries that need to import food. How did this happen? The answer is a combination of long-term trends, bad luck — and bad policy. Let’s start with the things that aren’t anyone’s fault. First, there’s the march of the meat-eating Chinese — that is, the growing number of people in emerging economies who are, for the first time, rich enough to start eating like Westerners. Since it takes about 700 calories’ worth of animal feed to produce a 100-calorie piece of beef, this change in diet increases the overall demand for grains. Second, there’s the price of oil. Modern farming is highly energy-intensive: a lot of B.T.U.’s go into producing fertilizer, running tractors and, not least, transporting farm products to consumers. With oil persistently above $100 per barrel, energy costs have become a major factor driving up agricultural costs. High oil prices, by the way, also have a lot to do with the growth of China and other emerging economies. Directly and indirectly, these rising economic powers are competing with the rest of us for scarce resources, including oil and farmland, driving up prices for raw materials of all sorts. Third, there has been a run of bad weather in key growing areas. In particular, Australia, normally the world’s second-largest wheat exporter, has been suffering from an epic drought. O.K., I said that these factors behind the food crisis aren’t anyone’s fault, but that’s not quite true. The rise of China and other emerging economies is the main force driving oil prices, but the invasion of Iraq — which proponents promised would lead to cheap oil — has also reduced oil supplies below what they would have been otherwise. And bad weather, especially the Australian drought, is probably related to climate change. So politicians and governments that have stood in the way of action on greenhouse gases bear some responsibility for food shortages. Where the effects of bad policy are clearest, however, is in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels. The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a “scam.” This is especially true of corn ethanol: even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But it turns out that even seemingly “good” biofuel policies, like Brazil’s use of ethanol from sugar cane, accelerate the pace of climate change by promoting deforestation. And meanwhile, land used to grow biofuel feedstock is land not available to grow food, so subsidies to biofuels are a major factor in the food crisis. You might put it this way: people are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states. Oh, and in case you’re wondering: all the remaining presidential contenders are terrible on this issue. One more thing: one reason the food crisis has gotten so severe, so fast, is that major players in the grain market grew complacent. Governments and private grain dealers used to hold large inventories in normal times, just in case a bad harvest created a sudden shortage. Over the years, however, these precautionary inventories were allowed to shrink, mainly because everyone came to believe that countries suffering crop failures could always import the food they needed. This left the world food balance highly vulnerable to a crisis affecting many countries at once — in much the same way that the marketing of complex financial securities, which was supposed to diversify away risk, left world financial markets highly vulnerable to a systemwide shock. What should be done? The most immediate need is more aid to people in distress: the U.N.’s World Food Program put out a desperate appeal for more funds. We also need a pushback against biofuels, which turn out to have been a terrible mistake. But it’s not clear how much can be done. Cheap food, like cheap oil, may be a thing of the past. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07krugman.html 6. Harvard Studies Find No Link Between Eating Eggs and Heart Disease World Poultry The Harvard School of Public Health has conducted a research study of 10,000 individuals, revealing if a link exists between egg consumption and developing heart disease in adults. The Guardian, Charlottetown, reports that the study showed that eating an average of one egg per day has little effect on total blood cholesterol levels and doesn’t increase the risk of heart disease or stroke. The research did indicate that excess saturated and transaturated fats have the greatest impact on blood cholesterol levels. “We need to reinforce the need to get the message to individuals that one of the key things is saturated and trans fats,” Sandy Schwenger, a registered dietician. According to her, eggs contain only 1.5 g of saturated fat and no transaturated fat. “After a full medical assessment by Harvard School of Public Health, they found no links between eating eggs and developing cardiovascular disease in healthy adults,” Schwenger said, adding that Canada’s Food Guide suggests eating two eggs a day. Besides being a great source of protein and good taste, she stated that an additional advantage of eating eggs is that are usually on hand and low in calories. “It’s convenient for the most part and always in the fridge. It has 14 essential nutrients, and an excellent source of protein.” More from the Harvard School of Public Health Fats and Cholesterol - The Good, The Bad, and The Healthy Diet "Eat a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet." Most of us have heard this simple recommendation so often over the past two decades that we can recite it in our sleep. Touted as a way to lose weight and prevent cancer and heart disease, it's no wonder much of the nation - and food producers - hopped on board. Unfortunately, this simple message is now largely out of date. Detailed research -much of it done at Harvard - shows that the total amount of fat in the diet, whether high or low, isn't really linked with disease. What really matters is the type of fat in the diet. New results from the large and long Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial showed that eating a low-fat diet for 8 years did not prevent heart disease, breast cancer, or colon cancer, and didn't do much for weight loss, either.(1-4) What is becoming clearer and clearer is that bad fats, meaning saturated and trans fats, increase the risk for certain diseases while good fats, meaning monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, lower the risk. The key is to substitute good fats for bad fats. And cholesterol in food? Although it is still important to limit the amount of cholesterol you eat, especially if you have diabetes, dietary cholesterol isn't nearly the villain it's been portrayed to be. Cholesterol in the bloodstream is what's most important. High blood cholesterol levels greatly increase the risk for heart disease. But the average person makes about 75% of blood cholesterol in his or her liver, while only about 25% is absorbed from food. The biggest influence on blood cholesterol level is the mix of fats in the diet. Eggs Long vilified by well-meaning doctors and scientists for their high cholesterol content, eggs are now making a bit of a comeback. Recent research by Harvard investigators has shown that moderate egg consumption--up to one a day--does not increase heart disease risk in healthy individuals.(5) While it's true that egg yolks have a lot of cholesterol--and, therefore may slightly affect blood cholesterol levels--eggs also contain nutrients that may help lower the risk for heart disease, including protein, vitamins B12 and D, riboflavin, and folate. So, when eaten in moderation, eggs can be part of a healthy diet. People with diabetes, though, should probably limit themselves to no more than two or three eggs a week, as the Nurses' Health Study found that for such individuals, an egg a day might increase the risk for heart disease. Similarly, people who have difficulty controlling their blood cholesterol may also want to be cautious about eating egg yolks and choose foods made with egg whites instead. What About Margarine vs. Butter? For years, margarine was pushed as a heart healthy alternative to butter. Butter was known to be filled with cholesterol and saturated fat that were bad for blood cholesterol and increased the risk of heart disease. Because margarine was made from unsaturated vegetable oils, it was assumed it would be better for the heart. Unfortunately, research showed that this wasn't necessarily the case. Some forms of margarine - specifically the hard stick margarine - were actually worse for the heart than butter. This was because they contained large amounts of trans fats. The Nurses' Health Study found that women who ate 4 teaspoons of stick margarine a day had a 50 percent greater risk of heart disease than women who ate margarine only rarely. (9) So, what should you choose to use? The best option is to use liquid vegetable oils or a soft tub margarine that is labeled trans fat free or non-hydrogenated. If you choose a soft margarine, be sure that it's also low in saturated fat. 7. EU Dinosaurs Crush Sustainable Agriculture in Poland The New York Times STRYSZOW, Poland —Depending on your point of view, Szczepan Master is either an incorrigible Luddite or a visionary. A small farmer, proud of his pure high-quality products, he works his land the way Polish farmers have for centuries. He keeps his livestock in a straw-floored “barn” that is part of his house, entered through a kitchen door. He slaughters his own pigs. His wife milks cows by hand. He rejects genetically modified seeds. Instead of spraying his crops, he turns his fields in winter, preferring a workhorse to a tractor, to let the frost kill off pests residing there. While traditional farms like his could be dismissed as a nostalgic throwback, they are also increasingly seen as the future — if only they can survive. Mr. Master’s way of farming — indeed his way of life — has been badly threatened in the two years since Poland joined the European Union, a victim of sanitary laws and mandates to encourage efficiency and competition that favor mechanized commercial farms, farmers here say. That conflict obviously matters to Mr. Master. But it is also of broader importance, environmental groups and agriculture experts say, as worries over climate change grow and more consumers in both Europe and the United States line up for locally grown, organic produce. For reasons social, culinary and environmental, small farms like Mr. Master’s should be promoted, or at least be protected, they say. They not only yield tastier foods but also produce few of the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. In part because Poland has remained one of the last strongholds of small farming in Europe, it is also a rare bastion of biodiversity, with 40,000 pairs of nesting storks and thousands of seed varieties that exist nowhere else in the world. But European Union laws are intended for another universe of farming, and Polish farmers say they have left them at a steep disadvantage. If they want to sell their products, European law requires farms to have concrete floors in their barns and special equipment for slaughtering. Hygiene laws prohibit milking cows by hand. As a result, the milk collection stations and tiny slaughterhouses that until a few years ago dotted the Polish countryside have all closed. Small family farming is impossible. “We need to reward them for being ahead of the game, rather than behind it,” said Sir Julian Rose — an organic farmer from Britain — who, with his Polish partner, Jadwiga Lopata, founded the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside some years back and has been fighting the regulations. “The E.U. has adopted the same efficiency approach to food as it has to autos and microchips,” he said. “Those who can produce the most are favored. Everything is happening the reverse of what it should be if they care about food and the environment.” The small farmers who have rallied behind the coalition here in southern Poland have touched a deep nerve and gained broad influence. Ms. Lopata received the prestigious Goldman Prize for protecting the environment for her quest to preserve traditional farms. Prince Charles visited her farm (by helicopter) with its solar panels and the black sheep (responsible for mowing the grass) in the yard. All 16 states of Poland have now banned genetically modified organisms in defiance of European Union and Word Trade Organization mandates. Last month, the Polish Agriculture Ministry announced that it planned to ban their import in animal fodder, another refusal to accept European Union policy. In Brussels, headquarters of the European Union, officials say they have no desire to undo Polish tradition. “We are not advocating the industrialization of European farming — from our side we think there is a place in Europe for all shapes and sizes of farms,” said Michael Mann, spokesman for the European Commission Agriculture Directorate. But, he said: “There has to be some restructuring to become more competitive and less reliant on subsidies. Farming is a business. They will have to look for market niches.” The European Union currently pays farmers who meet health and sanitary standards a subsidy, to help maintain Europe’s farming tradition and as an acknowledgment that it is more expensive to farm in Europe than in other parts of the world. It also provides matching funds to all European Union national governments for agricultural development, to upgrade and modernize farms. The national governments decide what types of projects qualify, but the boundaries are loosely defined. In various countries they have included buying new equipment and developing organic cultivation, as well as turning nonperforming farms into bed-and-breakfasts. In a coming review of such polices, the European Commission is planning to encourage spending more money to develop organic agriculture. “The whole idea is to empower farmers,” Mr. Mann said. “They don’t need to change anything if they don’t want to,” he added. “But they have to survive in business. If you’re still milking cows by hand, maybe you would want to use the money to put in a new system.” While overall farm income in Poland has gone up since the country has joined the European Union, that is certainly not the case for the small farmers here. In Poland, 22 percent of the work force is employed in agriculture, and the country boasts by far the highest number of farms in Europe. Most of them are tiny. The average farm size is about 17 acres, compared with about 59 acres in Spain, France and Germany. There are 1.5 million small farms in Poland. Only Italy, with its proliferation of high-end niche agricultural products, compares to Poland in its abundance of small producers. But the fall of Communism and, more recently, European Union membership have opened this once cloistered land to global forces: international competition, sanitary codes, trade rules and the like. Sir Julian recalls that at an agricultural conference in 1999 a pamphlet advertised “Poland up for grabs!” That is what has happened, he said. In a market newly saturated with huge efficient players, these small traditional farmers are being overwhelmed. The American bacon producer Smithfield Farms now operates a dozen vast industrial pig farms in Poland. Importing cheap soy feed from South America, which the company feeds to its tens of thousands of pigs, it has caused the price of pork to drop strikingly in the past couple of years. Since European Union membership, the prices of pork and milk have dropped 30 percent. In early March, hundreds of Polish farmers demonstrated outside the office of Prime Minister Donald Tusk, complaining that they were losing money on each hog they raised. Anyway, Mr. Master said, raising pigs for sale was a nonstarter. He is forbidden to slaughter his own pigs, and the nearest abattoir that meets European Union standards is hours away; there are only five in all of Poland. “It is impossible for me to farm,” he lamented over beet soup, in his ragged sweater and black work pants. He and his wife know that the European Union offers subsidies and loans to modernize traditional farms. But, they say, it is not enough money, it is not what they want and they are not adept at navigating the bureaucracy. They tried to fill out the paperwork to get certified as an organic farm but found it overwhelming. Poland has a tradition of small farming that has persisted for centuries. Unlike farmers in the rest of Eastern Europe, Poland’s farmers even resisted collectivization under Communism. Now, Ms. Lopata said, they are “organic by default,” and “at the vanguard of an ecological, healthy way of food producing.” In a small barn covered with matted straw, Barbara and Andrzej Wojcik say they feel like outcasts. They used to make a decent living selling pork from pigs they raised as well as the milk and butter from their six cows. But they said that with the price of pork so low they could not afford to raise pigs slowly, the traditional way. As for milk, their local collection station closed a few years ago. So they have no way to get their products to market, even if they buy the required stainless steel equipment. Now they have sold all but two of their cows and reverted to subsistence farming. They live off their parents’ pensions, barter and a bit of money selling sewed crafts. “The new laws are killing us,” Ms. Wojcik said. Mr. Mann, from the European Commission, acknowledges that small farmers in places like Poland may have to adapt. “There is a place for the small farmer,” he said, “but they have to be smart and not rely on payouts.” But deft adaptation seems hard here, a place set in its ways — and may be bad for the environment anyway. A collective system for selling organic vegetables to the city, devised by Ms. Lopata, never got off the ground. “They tend to be very individualistic,” she said. “They think they survived Communist efforts to collectivize them, so they will survive this. They don’t realize the European Union and the global market are even harder.” Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company 8. Food Facts: Results from Marketing & Food Systems Research What have we learned about local food economies? A new resource summarizes the findings of Leopold Center research in marketing and food systems in an easy-to-use, web-based format. Topics include food miles and place-based research to research on niche meat markets, transaction costs and various aspects of the grape and wine industry. The resource is designed for use by farmers, food entrepreneurs, local food system practitioners and other researchers. "Food Facts: Results from Marketing and Food Systems Research" is available as a 32-page printable document (with photos by Leopold Center Director Jerry DeWitt), or on the web at: www.leopold.iastate.edu/research/marketing_files/food/food.htm. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture 9. A New Film: FLOW For Love Of Water FLOW For Love Of Water Irena Salina's cautionary documentary is determined to stir things up. Water, the quintessence of life, sustains every creature on Earth. The time has come when we can no longer take this precious resource for granted. Unless we effect global change, impoverished nations could be wiped from the planet. Roused by a thirst for survival, people around the world are fighting for their birthright. Under the cover of darkness, African plumbers secretly reconnect shantytown water pipes to ensure a community's survival. A California scientist exposes toxic public water supplies. A "water guru" promotes community-based initiatives to provide water throughout India. The CEO of a billion-dollar water company argues for privatization as the wave of the future. A Canadian author pops the cork on bottled water, unveiling the disturbing realities that drive profits in the global water business. "FLOW: For Love of Water" is an inspired, yet disturbingly provocative, wake-up call. The future of our planet is drying up rapidly. Focusing on pollution, human rights, politics, and corruption, filmmaker Salina constructs an exceptionally articulate profile of the precarious relationship uniting human beings and water. While each community's challenges are unique, the message is universal--the time to turn the tide is now. There will be a panel discussion following the film. Panelists: Irena Salina - Irena Salina was born in France and acted in French theatre before moving to New York to study with Charles Laughton at the Actors Studio. Her first short film, "See You on Monday," screened at the Hamptons International Film Festival. "Ghost Bird: The Life and Art of Judith Deim," her first documentary feature, played a number of festivals, won the award for best documentary at the Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival and the President's Award at Mexico's prestigious Ajijic International Film Festival, and is a Sundance Channel favorite. Alex Matthiessen - Mr. Matthiessen has been Hudson Riverkeeper and President of Riverkeeper since 2000. He has guided Riverkeeper's transformation into one of the country's most respected local environmental advocacy groups. Under his tenure, Riverkeeper has undergone a period of pronounced growth with more than a doubling in staff, an eight-fold increase in membership, and a quadrupling of the budget, reflecting more robust and diversified funding streams. Katherine Nadeau - Water & Natural Resources Program Associate, Environmental Advocates of New York. Katherine joined Environmental Advocates of New York in January 2007 and has directed our successful campaign on the Great Lakes Compact--the eight-state water use agreement that was ratified by New York in March 2008. She is currently working to change the flawed, and possibly illegal, water pollution permit program in place at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Prior to joining Environmental Advocates, Katherine worked as an environmental advocate and community organizer for the Onondaga Nation, a sovereign Native American nation fighting for the complete restoration of Onondaga Lake--a Superfund site. She has also worked as an organizer, community outreach director, and legislative associate with the New York Public Interest Research Group. Karisa Centanni - Education Coordinator, The Honest Weight Food Co-op. Karisa has been the Education Coordinator at the Honest Weight Food Co-op, a consumer owned and operated full service natural foods grocery store in Albany, for nearly two years. Honest Weight has been a staunch supporter of environmental and social justice projects in the Capital District of NYS. Ms. Centanni brings a unique experience, a recent trip to Chiapas, Mexico, with Equal Exchange to observe the real effects of Fair Trade for small farmers there, to this discussion. Sabrina Wells - Sabrina's environmental non-profit experience includes two years as the watchdog program coordinator at the Hudson Riverkeeper. She holds a BA in environmental policy from Prescott College in Arizona and is pursuing a Masters of Public Policy at the University of Albany. Sabrina is focusing her research on international environmental justice issues, resource allocation, and trade policy. She is currently a fellow in the Women in Public Policy Fellowship program and is working at the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation where she is addressing climate change and environmental justice issues. This screening is made possible with public funds from the New York State Council on the Arts, a State agency. The screening is presented in part by the Hudson Valley Programmers Group (HVPG), a touring roadshow program that brings filmmakers to the region, providing them opportunities to exhibit their work and interact with audiences at various venues throughout the Hudson Valley. Presented with the help of Riverkeeper -- Defending the Hudson. Protecting Our Communities. 10. Another Outrageous Act of Bio-Piracy From: Mary-Howell and Klaas Martens <kandmhfarm@sprintmail.com> Hello group, I seem to be overloading this forum with bad news lately. At the Seeds and Breeds conference earlier this month we were brought up to date on an outrageous act of bio-piracy that has occurred in our country. I want to alert as many people as possible about it and enlist your help in developing an effective response. There is a gene from teosinte that causes gametophytic incompatibility in corn between corn plants that do not carry the gene and those that do. Simply stated, it is used to prevent genetic contamination from pollen drift between different types of corn. It has been used for over 40 years in crops like popcorn and white corn where pollen drift from yellow dent corn (including GM corn) makes the crop unsuitable for its intended use. When the risk of contamination from GM corn became a problem for organic farmers, several corn breeders including Walter Goldstein of the Michael Fields Institute and Margaret Smith at Cornell began work on incorporating this gene into their best non-GM corn inbreds as a way to prevent GM contamination of the seed stock and to make the crop much less susceptible to contamination from pollen drift. I understand there are already a few varieties that have this gene. About 3 or 4 years ago, we learned that a patent application had been filed by Hogemeyer seeds (my spell check wants to make it Hog Meyer) calling it "Puramaize" claiming that they had "discovered" this gene and wanted patent rights on it. The patent office refused to accept evidence from corn breeders who had worked with this gene prior to the patent claims and granted him the patent. Upon getting the patent, Hogemeyer contacted Margaret, Walter and the others who were already working with the trait to demand that they stop using it unless they obtained a license from him to use it. (And of course they pay him a royalty on any sales they make) We were contacted last fall by Blue River seeds to tell us that they would be selling corn with the Puramaize gene and hoping we would promote it to our customers. We told him that we would not sell any seed that had the Puramaize trait as long as Hogemeyer held an illegally (as far as we are concerned) granted patent on it. That is a tough ethical choice for us. We need to do everything we can to limit GM contamination yet we can't reward bio-piracy by making it profitable. I feel we need to send a strong message to Hogemeyer and other bio-pirates that we will not reward their criminal actions financially. The Puramaize patent is going to be challenged in the courts this year. In the mean time though, my hope is that organic farmers will let him and other aspiring bio-pirates know that we won¹t let them profit from their rights to stolen genes by not buying corn seed that is licensed with the Puramaize trait regardless of what happens in the courts. I want to ask all of you to spread the word about this and to help us boycott the commercial sale of products containing pirated genetics. If Hogemeyer succeeds in stealing this trait and profits from it, we are opening the door to more piracy in the future. He is putting on a big push to market his ill gotten patent right now. Please tell your seed suppliers not to carry Puramaize products and that you won't buy from them if they do. We need to alert consumers about the story behind Puramaize I am afraid that if we don¹t show bio-pirates in no uncertain terms that we will not tolerate this kind of theft, and nip this in the bud, they will be encouraged to try to keep on stealing genes. Thank you, [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] More information on the issue: New Website Lays Bare the Unintended Consequences of Genetic Engineering Research reports from the mainstream technical literature may change the tenor of the public conversation about biotechnology. The Nature Institute has unveiled a new website designed to set the public debate about genetic engineering upon a more accessible scientific foundation. Distilling a voluminous technical literature, the website gathers together -- often in the researchers' own words -- information about both the intended and unintended consequences of transgenic experiments. The emerging picture tells a dramatic story -- one that has scarcely begun to inform the public conversation to date. The website, available at http://nontarget.org, is part of The Nature Institute's ongoing project on "The Nontarget Effects of Genetic Manipulation." Nontarget effects have proven both extensive and unpredictable. The evidence for their occurrence, while mostly buried in the technical literature, is not disputable or even particularly controversial. It's simply not widely known. Once it is known, the frequently heard claim that genetic manipulation of organisms is a "precise science" without dramatic risks will either be voiced no more or will be recognized as dishonest. As project director, Craig Holdrege, describes, “if you manipulate one or more genes in an organism using the techniques of biotechnology, the so-called side-effects -- which are not side-effects at all, but include direct responses by the organism to the invasive actions of the engineer -- can occur anywhere and everywhere in the organism. They are not predictable, are little understood, and have mostly unknown consequences for health and the environment. The intended result may or may not be achieved in any given case, but the one almost sure thing is that unintended results -- nontarget effects -- will be achieved.” Holdrege, whose most recent book, Beyond Biotechnology, deals with the practical and philosophical implications of genetic engineering, maintains that a great deal of the discussion of genetic engineering practices can become calmer and more focused once the basic facts revealed by the extensive research to date are more widely known. Holdrege believes that “we can hardly fail to acknowledge a need for caution when we are dealing with a powerful technology that is changing organisms and environments around the globe -- organisms and environments that cannot simply be restored to their previous state when we discover the unpredicted results of transgenic experiments.” The Nature Institute 11. Helping School Fundraisers Go Local As part of our commitment to promote local food, the Regional Farm & Food Project is launching a project to encourage groups to use local products in fundraisers. We're looking for vendors that might be interested in participating. If you make a product that could be given as a gift (sadly, potatoes do not qualify!), such as cheese, jam, honey, maple syrup, teas, dried herbs, spice mixes, soaps, etc., we'd like to hear from you. We plan to model the program on that used by Berkshire Grown. See their website at http://www.berkshiregrown.org/support_community.html#fund. The Berkshire Grown fundraiser program has a website describing the program, with downloadable forms showcasing each product with beautiful photos and sharp ad copy describing the product and farm or company. The fundraising group, e.g. school PTO, deals directly with the producer- they contact the producer before starting the fundraiser, take orders and arrange for pickup or delivery of the products. The fundraising group buys the product at wholesale prices, sells at retail and keeps the difference as their profit. We are developing a website for the fundraiser program and will link it to the Regional Farm & Food Project website. We are asking for a $75 annual fee to be a vendor in the program (we may offer a lower promotional fee this year since the program is just starting up). We're doing a pilot program at a few elementary schools in the Bethlehem school district to work out the bugs in the project. Please contact Cheryl Nechamen at 518-346-4820 or Cheryl@farmandfood.org for more information. Stuffed and Starved - food riots across the globe ...Global food prices have risen dramatically, adding a new level of danger to the crisis of world hunger. In Africa, food riots have swept across the continent, with recent protests in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Mauritania and Senegal. In most of West Africa, the price of food has risen by 50 percent—in Sierra Leone, 300 percent. In the United States there has been a 41 percent surge in prices for wheat, corn, rice and other cereals over the past six months. We speak with Raj Patel, author of "Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System"... coming out on April 25th. ...AMY GOODMAN: Very good to have you with us. What’s causing this surge in food prices around the world? RAJ PATEL: Well, it’s a number of factors. For a start, there were just bad harvests last year. Some people say that this is a sign that climate change is biting in agricultural economies. And it’s certainly the case that there was some very bad weather, particularly in Australia, last year. So there’s a low level of crops available. But on top of that, there are a few other factors. One of them, one of the issues, is that governments, particularly the US government, is very keen on biofuels. Biofuels are fuels that are derived from corn, from sugar cane, and they’re being presented as a way of achieving energy independence. The trouble is, of course, that the biofuels drive up the price of these commodities, which means that poor people can’t afford them anymore. On top of that, you’ve got an increasing demand for meat in developing countries. And as people get richer in those countries and they shift to something that looks more like an American diet, you have a situation where the grains are being diverted away from poor people and into livestock. So, again, that’s driving up the price of grains. And finally, I think one of the major issues is, of course, the price of oil. I mean, one of the problems with the way our food reaches us today is that it is industrial, it is very fossil fuel-intensive, not just to the distance the food travels, but also in the fertilizer. You know, fossil fuel is required to produce fertilizer, pesticide, these sorts of things. And so, when the price of oil is over $100 a barrel, that combines with all the other factors to make a perfect storm where food prices are absolutely beyond the means of the poorest people. AMY GOODMAN: Ethanol has been posed as an alternative to oil. What is your response to that? RAJ PATEL: It’s an alternative to oil if you’re in the grain business. It’s an alternative to oil if you are one of the large industrial grain processors who are looking and lobbying very hard to make money out of the transformation of grain into ethanol. But it’s an absurd idea. I mean, in terms of just the carbon, the level of carbon that’s in—the level of CO2 that it takes to produce ethanol is much higher than the actual—you know, the saving that you get from burning ethanol. So, in terms of a climate change strategy, ethanol is madness. And sadly, all the major presidential candidates at the moment seem to have been drinking the Kool-Aid on this one. And it seems to be something that doesn’t enter popular discourse as one of the grave dangers in modern American agricultural policy. AMY GOODMAN: Raj Patel, you write in the beginning of your book, “Our Big Fat Contradiction,” that “the hunger of 800 million happens at the same time as another historical fact: that they are outnumbered by the one billion people on this planet who are overweight.” Talk about that contradiction. RAJ PATEL: Yeah—well, I mean, it’s a contradiction actually that you see everywhere. I mean, you see it in the States. I mean, the US is the most obese country on the planet. There are only three in ten Americans are now at a normal body weight. And at the same time last year, about thirty-five million Americans went hungry at some point last year. So this contradiction between hunger and obesity is worldwide. And in the past, we had a situation where the rich were fat and the poor were thin. Today, because our food comes from the sort of industrial market of highly processed food that extracts value from poor farmers and gives us processed, highly fatty food, a sort of fast food, as convenience food for people living in cities. Well, the upshot of that is that you’ve got both poor people who are going hungry and poor people who are predominantly overweight. I mean, it’s a sad contradiction that today in the United States the lower your income, the more overweight you’re likely to be. AMY GOODMAN: Raj Patel, we’ve had this controversy in the presidential race, the stepping down of the head of Burson-Marsteller from the campaign, Mark Penn, from the campaign of Hillary Clinton, because he met with the Colombian ambassador. They have retained his lobbying company to lobby on behalf of a so-called free trade agreement between Colombia and the United States. Bush is giving that agreement to Congress to pass on. What about the so-called free trade and how it affects food prices around the world? RAJ PATEL: Well, I mean, one of the reasons that you’re seeing food price riots right now is because all the countries that you listed, from Haiti to Senegal to Burkina Faso to India, they are largely hitched to an international economy where they have to import grain in order to be able to consume it. And this is a consequence of the US pushing a so-called free trade agenda, where countries are being forced to lower their tariff barriers, to stop protecting farmers. And as a result, what you’re seeing is that the countries that are worst affected by this are the ones that have most enthusiastically been forced to embrace free trade. The countries that are doing—that are not suffering quite as badly are countries that have a lot of support for agriculture. I mean, the support is distorted, particularly in the US and the European Union, but even in China or Japan or South Korea. Rice, for example, in South Korea and Japan, is treated as a cultural good. The Japanese and South Korean governments fought very hard to exempt food from the strictures of free trade. So, absolutely, free trade has a great deal of responsibility to bear here, because countries have been forced into using free trade. And, of course, when the price of food goes up globally, countries have no reserves, they have no policies, they have no recourse, if they’re being forced to be part of the free trade system. So, yes, I think it has a great deal of responsibility. The full text of the interview is at http://www.democracynow.org 13. Fighting the Cow Industrial Complex An excerpt from Chapter 9 of "The Politics of Farming: moving agriculture from commodity to community" The Cow Industrial Complex is a deeply integrated cluster of industries so interdependent upon one another for a cheap supply line their relationship could be described in an economic Domino Theory. Knock one of them down and each of them in succession could fall. Hundreds of different products in dozens of different industries are made from cow parts. They all depend on the animal factory system of cheap cow manufacturing. The Cow Industrial Complex includes the manufacturers of fertilizer and seed for cattle feed crops, mainly corn and soybeans, 70% of which are grown to feed livestock, not people; millions of acres of government subsidized farms growing corn and soybeans, and the manufacturers of all of the heavy machinery and equipment required to plant and harvest those millions of acres and bring them to market; the animal factories that depend upon cheap feed from subsidized crops, and cheap antibiotics from pharmaceutical companies to speed the growth and slow the death of livestock in animal factories; the pharmaceutical companies that sell 70% of their antibiotics to the livestock industry, making them increasingly useless for treating human and animal health; the dairy industry, farmer co-ops, and milk processors that make milk, cream, butter, and cheese among the most profitable foods for supermarkets to sell; the processed food manufacturers that depend upon cheap corn syrup and soy to make cheap food for people and animals; the slaughterhouses that process a thousand cows an hour, the meat processing facilities that fit meat from one hundred cows into one hamburger, and the rendering plants that supply the manufacturers of the 650 different products—health and beauty aids, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies made from cow parts; the millions of restaurants, convenience stores, and supermarkets whose most popular food is hamburger and most popular beverages contain corn syrup; the advertising agencies, public relations firms, marketers, and media that promote the products that come from cows and subsidized feed crops; the granaries, truckers, and distribution companies that move cows, feed crops, food, and merchandise to market; a government bureaucracy with thousands of employees dedicated to preserving the status quo of cheap, abundant American corn, soy, beef, and milk; plus the investors, stock market traders, brokers, analysts, economists, consultants, insurance companies, and banks who live off the system’s financial transactions; and thousands of non-government organizations, trade associations, industry analysts, scientists, research organizations, lawyers, lobbyists, and legislators who feed themselves by protecting the interests of the Cow Industrial Complex. Industrial complexes are embedded in our society and culture, the economy, and the natural world. There are many different kinds of industrial complexes: military, healthcare, education, cow. All are characterized by the deep interdependencies of business and government. They are the invasive species of industrialization—now that they have proliferated it will be extremely difficult to root them out. In fact, eliminating deep industrialization is tantamount to planning our own evolution. If industrialization is not the destiny of our species, what is? We may not know what comes after the Industrial Age, but we do have some clues. Here at the peak of industrialization we are manufacturing nature, recombining biota to grow new life forms, recombining quanta to build microscopic machines, combining both to build what some call living machines. The convergence of biotechnology and nanotechnology are redefining life itself. Life used to come from nature. Now it comes from a factory. Life used to be sacred. Now it’s a commodity to be traded on a mercantile exchange. Commodities used to fill trucks, now they’re invisible. What are the rules in a world where so many new inventions are invisible? What are the rules in a world where living things and machines are merging? What does the right to life mean when life comes from a factory? Do clones have a right to life? Will human clones have the right to vote? So much of the way we live is based on the expectation that we will some day die. Do robots have a right to life? What are the civil rights of entities that live in perpetuity? Will we give the invisible the same rights as our species? Does a business have a right to life? Does software have a right to life? Does a living machine composed of organic matter, driven by software, and owned by business have a right to life? Will it have the right to vote? What about the right to bare arms? The choices we make today will set the precedents for answering these questions. Future rule makers will look to the past for guidance. Will our species extend the right to life and the claim to civil rights to inhuman, eternal entities? We already have. In the fight for earth-friendly agriculture, humane treatment of animals, a healthy, nutritious food supply, and antibiotics that work, the roadblock is billions of dollars invested in a system that prevents those things. Pick any point in the process to dissemble the Cow Industrial Complex and you will run into a wall of money, and suits claiming their corporations have the same civil rights as people. But corporations are not people. Corporations exist in perpetuity. They do not have a mother or father, and they do not die. They do not have a species, a race, or a gender. They do not enjoy life, liberty, or happiness. They do not have a conscience, emotions, or intellect. They do not eat, sing, or dance. They are not sentient beings. They do not love. They do not have children. They don’t get stuck in traffic jams. They don’t use a cane, wear glasses, or sit in wheelchairs. They don’t have diabetes. They cannot be sent to jail, hit by a bus, or starved to death. They do not need food, shelter, education, or healthcare. They don’t need a ride to work. They don’t show up to vote at the polls, and they don’t shake hands or kiss babies. Corporations are not people. They are simply organized money. Should money have the same rights as people? Corporations are a way for us to do business. They exist on paper as a way of identifying an enterprise separately from the people who operate it, enabling them to pool their money to fund it, share the resulting profits or losses, and pass on the business to other people. Corporations are a reflection of the people who own and operate them, but corporations are not people. Today, our courts have interpreted the law to mean that corporations have the same civil rights as people, and they can compete with people for the government’s favor. Since they aren’t human, corporations replace our right to vote with the money they give to politicians. But if people have the right to vote, and corporations have the right to vote, then some people are getting to vote twice, once as a human, and once again as the owner of a corporation. When money votes government serves the interests of money rather than people, the process of government is perverted by greed, government officials are corrupted, and the law becomes a tool for creating wealth. Citizens should not have to compete with corporate money to influence government. Our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people. Corporations are not people. When our country began, the founders formed a government of citizens, most of whom were farmers. Today, we are governed by suits, most of whom work, have worked, or will work for corporations. Suits blur the line between government and business. Armies of suits swarm the nation’s capital seeking wealth, penetrating government institutions, and manipulating government processes. Government suits and corporate suits have become interchangeable. Today, we have a government of the money, by the money, for the money. When suits game the government there is always a winner and a loser. One business grows, another doesn’t. When the government spends our tax dollars to subsidize fossil fuel companies, renewable energy products look more expensive by comparison. When the government provides tax advantages to pharmaceutical companies, it puts preventative medicine and alternative therapies at a disadvantage. When government props up the price of commodities, it tilts the playing field against new innovations and diverse markets. When government bails out industry giants, bloated inefficient business models are put on life support while entrepreneurships have to fend for themselves. Each time it tinkers with business, government creates as many problems as it solves. Suits have made growing business the main work of government. Legitimate competition in the marketplace has been replaced by gaming the legislative process for market advantages. Corporations have become increasingly dependent upon government favors for opportunities for growth. At the same time, government has become increasingly dependent upon the financial contributions of corporations to fund growth in its operations. Big business feeds big government. Suits have distorted the purpose of government. There are many kinds of wealth. Our species depends upon the wealth of natural resources—air, water and soil. The Earth’s natural environment is what sustains our life form, not money. Shouldn’t the government be growing our environmental wealth? We cannot survive without the social capital of family, culture, and community that nurtures us from cradle to grave. Shouldn’t the government be growing our social wealth? Shouldn’t a government of the people, by the people, for the people value environmental and social capital equal to money? People can’t eat money for breakfast. We can’t breathe it, drink it, or talk to it. Money does not hug us when we cry or pick us up when we fall. In fact, money doesn’t really exist except in our imaginations where we believe little pieces of paper and lumps of metal entitle us to buy stuff. Money represents our values. It is a way to store the value we accumulate and account for it. Money can be gold or silver, carved beads or salt. It is just a tracking system for what we owe and what others owe us. The proof that money is a belief system is in the fact that if we lose faith in our money, it becomes worthless. When we lose faith in the value of our money there is usually a run on the bank. We want to put our hands on the actual physical cash instead of simply seeing it itemized on our bank statement. When they get to the bank, most people find they can’t get their cash out because it was never in there in the first place. Money, as they say, only exists on paper. Without cash to pay for things, people start swapping stuff. They trade tangible values like goats, silk, buffalo skins, jewelry, firewood, rice, salt, or flour. Our ideas about money today are more complex because our business deals are more complex. But money is just a means of exchange. Wisely, our nation’s founders thought it was important for the government to distinguish between the permanent essentials of human life and liberty for all people, and transient beliefs like culture and religion that come and go with time and temperament. Our species requires a hospitable environment and social network to survive the elements, find food and shelter. Our economy is an artifact of that human existence. It is an expression of our values. Wealth is not warmth and money does not grow food. Would the founders of our nation have condoned letting one class of people—suits—run the government? Would they have supported giving the vote to transient, invisible, invented money? Money is a magnet for more money. Money seeks monopoly. A more diverse power structure would balance the values of people, planet, and profits. Imagine a world where corporations have to deliver social and environmental benefits to renew their charter. A world where corporations could not go on forever regardless of their infringement on the public good, their violation of the law, or their violation of the public trust; a world where corporations could be brought to an end for criminal activity; a world where corporations had no role in government elections. Suits would have little incentive to try to manipulate government to their advantage if government was prohibited from treating businesses unequally. If all businesses were treated in the same way, just as we treat all religions the same way, many government resources currently devoted to exercising the will of suits seeking wealth would have to find other means to justify their existence. More resources could be devoted to conserving our environment, protecting commonly held resources, restoring our ravaged planet, and ensuring social welfare. If all businesses were treated equally, to eliminate pollution, instead of regulating individual industries or production processes, our government might simply say our goal is zero pollution, and all polluters will be given X amount of time to phase out all pollution. To eliminate our trash problem, instead of regulating a particular product, substance, process, or place, we might adopt a policy of 100% recycling, and require all manufacturers to provide for the recycling of all their products. To have a healthier food supply and keep antibiotics working, we might phase out 100% of antibiotics in our food. To address the global water crisis we might claim access to potable water as a human right, and restrict all commercial use of water. If we separate business and state the way we separate religion and state, we shift the focus of government from ownership to stewardship. We make it clear that corporations are not people and are not entitled to the rights of people. We set the priority for government to balance the interests of society, the environment, and the economy, not the interests of one at the expense of the other two. We reduce government corruption by eliminating the conflict of interest between government welfare and corporate welfare. And we level the playing field for all businesses. The notion of separating business and state is light years from our present reality. The Cow Industrial Complex is not going away any time soon. Suits playing on our worship of money have consolidated power in our democracy the way religious leaders have consolidated power in theocracies around the world. In the United States, money is a religion. Suits are the high priests of wealth. Corporations have the status of deities. And we, the people, are blinded by faith. Friday, April 18th, 7:00 p.m. Book signing after the presentation made possible by The Book Loft. Author Gary Paul Nabhan, a professor and the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant," has been a primary shaper of the local and indigenous foods movement in the U.S. He's an expert in local foods and indigenous foods and an advocate for their preservation. For further information: 413 528 4422 x10 Friday, April 18, 9am to 3pm A local foods luncheon is part of a conference organized by the North Country Regional Foods Initiative to examine the role of Adirondack North Country Foods in community and economic development. North Country Regional Foods Initiative Project Coordinator Katherine Lang says, "This event will look at the ways communities benefit from and support local food initiatives. Conference participants will develop strategies and identify policies that will strengthen consumer and institutional connections with regional farmers and local food entrepreneurs." Adirondack Harvest, the Adirondack North Country Association, GardenShare, Inc., Cornell University, Cornell Cooperative Extension, the Community and Rural Development Institute, and New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets are sponsoring the 9am to 3pm event. Lang says economic developers, government officials, planning board members, institutional representatives, restaurant owners and farmers are registered for the conference. Registration details are online at www.regonline.com/northcountryfoods or call 315-379-9192. Friday & Saturday, April 18-19 Hosted by Stone Barns Center for Food & Agriculture, The Animal Welfare Institute, & the Cornell Department of Animal Science. Featuring: Paul Willis – Iowa producer and pig specialist for Niman Ranch; Keith Thornton – British author of Outdoor Pig Production; Chuck Talbott – West Virginia producer and former animal science professor who has focused on sylvo-pastoral opportunities with pigs; and Tim Holmes – North Carolina Producer and certifier for The Animal Welfare Institute. $60 per person. Fee includes breakfast both days & lunch on Friday. To register visit http://www.stonebarnscenter.org or call 914 366 6200 x151 Saturday, April 19, 11:30 am Saturday, April 19, 11 am - 4 pm Featuring local farmers, speakers, environmental and food-related films, info tables, food samples, live music, a local foods lunch, free tree and shrub seedlings, a clothing swap, Save the Pine Bush book sale, a chance to learn about environmental and social issues from local activist groups, and much, much more. This event is family friendly and educational, as well as a lot of fun. All are welcome to join us! For more information, contact Jessica 482-3312x120 or jessica@hwfc.com. Saturday, April 19, 9:00 am - 12 noon Interested in learning to grow exotic and wild mushrooms? Come learn about mushroom log production: what you need, species, and tips on producing and marketing. Each participant will have a chance to inoculate a log and take home an inoculated oyster mushroom kit! This is a hands-on workshop. Cost is $15, and includes a kit. Call JJ Schell at (518) 234-4303 or (518) 296-8310 for more information and to register. Class size is limited, please register by April 16. Farmscape Ecology Program
These walks give you a chance to really become familiar with the spring flowers of our County. If you attend a series of them, you will see the same species at different stages of development and get a sense for the different species assemblages in different habitats. We also share lots of interesting information about the ecology and lore of these wonderful early “harbingers of spring”. Please check our web-site during the week before each walk for directions (www.hawthornevalleyfarm.org/fep). Hawthorne Valley Farm Ecology Walks
All Hawthorne Valley Farm Ecology Walks will start in front of the Farmstore. Tuesday, April 22, 6-8 pm Saturday, April 26, 2008, 11am- 1pm Walter and Linell Gaipa operate Marion Gardens as a wholesale grower of potted herb and vegetable plants. They grow over 120 varieties of herbs and scented geraniums, conventionally and 70 varieties of vegetables and herbs certified organic in 28,000 sq. ft. of greenhouses. Also on site is a retail operation, run by their son Chris who also sells unique annuals and perennials, all grown on site. The growing operation is highly mechanized and progressive, utilizing technology as much as possible to maximize efficiency and produce the highest quality product. $5 NOFA-NY Members / $15 Non-Members. Call Kate Mendenhall to Pre-Register (585) 271-1979, projects@nofany.org May 3, 8 am -1:30 pm Cornell Berry Extension Specialist Laura McDermott will describe site selection, profitability and berry production. The program will feature other speakers from Cornell Cooperative Extension of Putnam County, Putnam County Soil and Water Conservation District, and Putnam County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board. Free blueberry seedling to the first $25 registrants. Workshop cost is free. Pancake breakfast at the farm is $5. Register by calling (845) 278-6738. Saturday & Sunday, May 3 & 4, 2008, 10am-5pm rain or shine Visit 14 fiber farms and learn the fine art of spinning, weaving, felting and many other handcrafted fiber arts. There will be ongoing demonstrations, animals such as rabbits, goats, sheep, llamas and alpacas to interact with, and artisans to help you with questions about fiber, or try your hand at a new fiber craft. For more information call Vicki Askew @ 518-692-2083 or visit this website for a map and information on participating farms: www.WashingtonCountyFiberTour.org Monday & Tuesday, May 5 & 6 For this first-of-its-kind conference, we have assembled experts from early adopter jurisdictions around the country, as well as leading New York land use professionals, to provide insights for attorneys, governmental officials, planners, consultants and developers. Hear about the factors that go into a successful regulatory program, the appropriate scope of local review in the Hudson River Valley and surrounding regions, and the best way for developers to respond to the concerns leading to these new regulations. Registration: call (800) 854-8009 or email registrar@lawseminars.com LIVESTOCK WORKSHOP SERIES
More details about each of these sessions, including directions to the farms, can be found at Workshops to Teach How to Start a Food Business and Process Pickled Foods Are you a farmer who has extra product year in the field or hanging on tree each growing season and want to maximize your businesses income by processing the product in to a value added product? Do you have a special recipe everyone tells you should bottle and sell? Food manufacturers, small-scale processors of specialty foods, and farmers interested in value added processing or any one interested in starting a small-scale food manufacturing business should attend these upcoming workshops. On Friday, May 16, the Recipe to Market workshop will be held at 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m at Proudfit Hall on Route 22 in Salem. The workshop will provide future food entrepreneurs with knowledge of critical issues needing consideration before launching a food manufacturing business. Participants will obtain a good grounding in food business basics, and a road map pointing to where you need to go before launching that business. On Saturday, May 17, the Good Manufacturing Practices for the Production of Acidified (Pickled) Foods workshop will be held at 8:30 am to 4:00 pm at the Battenkill Kitchen, Inc. on 58 East Broadway in Salem. The workshop will provide hands-on practical training designed to provide current and future small processors with the basic elements needed to understand the main processing steps, critical control points and record keeping to safely manufacture specialty food products for the marketplace. Both technical information and practical training will be demonstrated by the production of BBQ-type sauce and pickled vegetables at the workshop. This is a hands-on workshop with lab exercises. The workshops are presented by the NYS Food Venture Center,Department of Food Science & Technology at Cornell University. The workshops are hosted by the Battenkill Kitchen, Inc and Cornell Cooperative Extension Washington & Saratoga County. Registration for each class is $50 and includes materials. Participants should bring their own lunch. Snacks and refreshments will be provided. Workshops are limited in size and the deadline to register is May 9. For more information about the workshops and the Battenkill Kitchen, Inc. visit www.battenkillkitchen.org or call Paula Schafer at 518-746-2560. Thursday, May 22, 7:30 pm Joseph Stanislaw, an expert on international energy issues, will lead us through an examination of a new locally scaled energy economy. Tickets are 5 BerkShares/$5 at the door. More information on this E. F. Schumacher Society public lecture at http://www.smallisbeautiful.org. Saturday, May 24, 1:00-4:30 p.m. For new farmers, old farmers, and "wannabe" farmers from Saratoga and surrounding counties with an interest in cattle, horses, sheep, or goats. Come and learn about high tensile, poly wire, poly tape, gates and panels, posts, corner supports, energizers, installation, and proper grounding. Seminar presented by Todd Dyer, Skyview Fencing and Pole Barns, Chatham, New York. This is an opportunity to learn from, and have your questions answered by, a professional fence installer. Reservations requested by May 9th. Registration Fee: $5 per person. Light refreshments provided. RSVP by May 9 to: CCE of Saratoga County, Attn: Dave Leggett, 50 West High Street, Ballston Spa, NY 12020 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
