|
|
 
|
Wal-Mart's organic push may force down production standards
(Thursday, June 1, 2006 -- CropChoice news) --
1. Rise in rate of twin births may be tied to dairy case 1. Rise in rate of twin births may be tied to dairy case
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR American women who eat dairy products appear to be five times as likely to
give birth to fraternal twins as those who do not, according to a new study,
and one explanation may lie in dairy products from cows injected with synthetic
growth hormone.
Dr. Gary Steinman, an assistant clinical professor of obstetrics at the
_Albert Einstein_
(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/albert_einstein/index.html?inline=nyt-per) College of Medicine, reached that
conclusion by looking at the medical records of 1,042 mothers who were vegans
consuming no dairy products and comparing them with those of mothers who
regularly ate dairy products.
His findings appear in the May issue of The Journal of Reproductive Medicine.
Eating dairy products increases blood levels of insulinlike growth hormone,
or I.G.F., and it is this increased hormone level that is associated with
increased rates of multiple ovulation.
In a study published in 2000 and cited in the findings, vegan women had
concentrations of I.G.F. that were 13 percent lower than those in women who
regularly consumed dairy products.
Multiple births are associated with increased health risks for mothers and
infants, but Dr. Steinman said he was not prepared to use these findings as the
basis for advising women about diet before pregnancy.
"Since this is the first time diet has been implicated in an important role
for determining twinning rate," Dr. Steinman said in an e-mail message, "it
must be confirmed by others before rigid recommendations can be made concerning
health care."
Insufficient diet in general lowers the rate of twin births, but Dr. Steinman
said he had found evidence that the rate was directly related to levels of
growth hormone.
"The more I.G.F., the more the ovary is stimulated to release additional eggs
at ovulation," he said.
Animal studies, in rats and mice as well as in cattle, have convincingly
demonstrated that increased serum levels of growth hormone are associated with
increased ovulation.
All cow's milk has bovine growth hormone in it, naturally produced by the
animal's pituitary gland. Many dairy farmers inject their cattle with
recombinant bovine somatotropin, a synthetic version of the naturally occurring
hormone. This increases size and milk production, but it has another effect: cows
with higher growth hormone levels produce more twins.
The consumption of any dairy products increases blood levels of insulinlike
growth hormone in humans, and consuming milk from cows that have been injected
with synthetic growth hormone can have a correspondingly larger effect.
About one-third of American dairy cows are in herds where the hormone is
used, said a spokesman for Monsanto, the only manufacturer of synthetic bovine
growth hormone in the United States.
The evidence that eating dairy products increases the chances of multiple
ovulation is suggestive, but not conclusive. Many factors, dietary and other,
affect the rate of twin births. A study this month in Lancet, for example,
suggests that the B vitamin folic acid may increase the survival of embryos in
in vitro fertilization
procedures, resulting in more twin births.
Fraternal twins run in families, so genetics
also plays an important role. And the recent rise in
the birth rate of twins is at least partly attributable to delayed
childbearing, as older mothers are more likely to have twins.
The rate of twin births has also increased significantly since 1975, when
assisted reproductive technology came into wide use. But these factors alone,
Dr. Steinman said, do not explain the continuing increase in the rates in the
United States since 1994, when recombinant bovine somatotropin was approved
for sale.
In 2003, the United States had 3 sets of twins per 100 live births — more
than twice the rate of Britain, where growth hormone injection is banned.
(Triplets and higher multiple births raise this figure to 3.18.)
Dr. Steinman suggested that one significant reason for the large difference
was the recombinant bovine somatotropin.
"I am not claiming to be the first to show that variations in dietary amounts
can affect the twinning rate," Dr. Steinman said. "What is new is specifying
what in the diet may have this effect and how."
2. 'NofFactory farmed organics'; consumers across the U.S. tell the USDA to not allow
imposter organics
CONTACT: Organic Consumers Association
Ronnie Cummins, 218-349-3836 or Adam Eidinger, 202-744-2671
WASHINGTON - May 25 - Across the United States, thousands of consumers are responding to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) public comment period on revisions to the
National Organic Program (NOP). A number of the USDA revisions relate to the "access to
pasture" requirement for organic dairies. The Organic Consumers Association and other
public interest groups are very concerned that the USDA NOP regulations contain
loopholes and imprecise language that could continue to allow milk produced at giant
intensive confinement dairy feedlots to be labeled as "USDA Organic."
So-called organic dairy "industry leaders," including two of the largest organic dairy
companies in the nation, Horizon Organic (a subsidiary of Dean Foods and a supplier to
Wal-Mart); and Aurora Organic (a supplier of private brand name organic milk to Costco,
Safeway, Giant, Wild Oats and others), are purchasing the majority of their milk from
feedlot dairies where the cows have little or no access to pasture, and have routinely
been imported from conventional farms, where the animals have been weaned on blood
plasma, fed genetically engineered feed, slaughterhouse waste, and poultry manure, and
injected or treated with antibiotics, according to research carried out by the organic
watchdog group, the Cornucopia Institute. Together, these corporations control up to 65
percent of the organic dairy market.
"Many stores, especially big box stores, such as Wal-Mart, are scrambling to sell more
products with the organic label as consumer demand for these products increases. Instead
of the stocking more high-quality organic products, these industrial farms and retail
giants are selling the public low-quality products. We are calling on the USDA to stop
allowing these companies to label these sham products as organic," says Ronnie Cummins,
executive director of the Organic Consumers Association.
Tens of thousands of consumers have responded to alerts from the Organic Consumers
Association and have signed on to a petition demanding that the USDA close loopholes in
organic dairy standards. See full text at
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/oca/campaign.jsp? campaign_KEY=3567
OCA is encouraging the public to vote with their consumer dollars in the marketplace,
and put pressure on Congress and the USDA to safeguard organic standards. The USDA is
seeking public comment until June 12, 2006 and already consumer pressure on the USDA has
generated attention from major news organizations such as The New York Times, San
Francisco Chronicle, and National Public Radio. According to a study by the Consumers
Union, 60 percent of consumers say they would NOT pay a premium price for organic milk
if they knew the cows were confined and not given the opportunity to graze on pasture.
"Of course industrial agribusiness wants their products labeled as organic, but they
must abide by organic standards. These intensive confinement dairy feedlots are a clear
example of putting profit above ethics. The USDA has a yearly budget of $90 billion
coming from our public taxes, and yet the USDA still refuses to allocate anything more
than crumbs ($10 million annually) to organics, meanwhile allowing inhumane and non-
sustainable industrial farming practices to creep into organic production. Organic
consumers will not be satisfied until strict organic standards are implemented, and
until Congress allocates sufficient funds to help family-scale American farmers make the
transition to organic and meet our growing demand for organic food and other products,"
says Cummins.
3. Farmers' markets go beyond green By JULIA MOSKIN IN 2004, Nina Planck, who had just been dismissed as director of the New
York City Greenmarkets, wrote in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times:
"Perhaps it is time Greenmarket itself had some competition."
Next month, that meditation will materialize when Ms. Planck opens two
outdoor food markets in Lower Manhattan. Every Saturday, these "hybrid"
markets, like weekly markets in Europe, will offer more diverse products
than a strictly defined farmers' market. With local makers of guacamole and
sorbet selling alongside organic farmers, Ms. Planck is striking a symbolic
blow at the farmers-only Greenmarket model.
"I think the farmers' market movement has failed consumers in not making it
possible to buy everything they need for Saturday night dinner," said Ms.
Planck, whose tenure at Greenmarket was short and tumultuous. "It's time to
be more inclusive. It all helps local farms find a market."
Many in the alternative agriculture movement are surprised to hear that Ms.
Planck, a vocal and frequent defender of the American family farm, will be
running a market that could sell guacamole made from Costco avocados.
"It can be very confusing to the public when farmers' markets start looking
more like supermarkets," said Randii MacNear, manager of the farmers' market
in Davis, Calif., and an expert in farm marketing. "What's the message?"
American food shoppers who seek alternatives to agribusiness have never had
so much choice about how to spend their food dollars. But they are still
adjusting to being pelted with information on how to eat well. In its
February issue, Consumer Reports magazine assessed the relative pesticide
contents of organically and conventionally grown produce, and found that for
many fruits and vegetables, the difference was imperceptible. Is this reason
enough to forsake expensive organic bananas and broccoli?
And what if your shopping agenda has issues other than health, like saving
family farms, sustainability and soil conservation?
"For a long time it seemed very simple," said Rena Mikulski, a school
administrator in Brooklyn, who was shopping for greens at the Union Square
Greenmarket last Wednesday. "Organic was good. Farmers' markets were good.
Everything else was not good. Now I don't know how to choose anything. Is it
local? Is it sustainable? Is it organic? Which is better? I don't know."
The hand-wringing among organic farmers that greeted Wal-Mart's announcement
last week that it would begin stocking large quantities of organic produce
reveals the tumultuous state of the alternative agriculture movement. In the
1960's, the movement began with far-out notions such as shortening the food
chain between farmers and eaters, and entertaining the possibility that
agribusiness might not have consumers' best interests at heart. At that
time, both organic labeling and a national network of urban farmers' markets
seemed like remote possibilities. Now that both of those have been achieved,
consumers, farmers and food policy experts are at a point of soul-searching.
"I do believe that the organic movement has been co-opted by big
agribusiness," said Mike Biltonen, a fruit farmer in the Rondout Valley in
New York's Catskill region. Large-scale organic farms equipped to supply
huge retail clients like Wal-Mart and Whole Foods, he said, may use approved
products for pest and disease control that were not designed for
large-scale, continual use.
"Even though they are allowed, if you're spraying copper-based fungicides on
your plants, you're going to end up with heavy metals saturating your soil,"
he said. "If you use a lot of sulfur, you're going to quickly upset the
soil's ecosystem. That's not what I call sustainable."
Some American farmers, especially those who raise animals for dairy, eggs
and meat, have become disenchanted enough with the system that they are
choosing not to become certified as organic farmers, even if their methods
meet or, often, exceed the organic standards.
Warren Weber is a leading organic farmer in Marin County in California and
one of the farmers who helped write the state's organic regulations 30 years
ago. "A lot of small farmers here are opting out of organic, which I find
amazing," he said. "Consumers fought so hard to get that labeling, and now
they're just letting go." Farmers' claims that they are "better than
organic" are unverifiable, he said. "Farmers are only human, and there are a
lot of opportunities for shortcuts," he added.
After the ideological and financial decisions that conscientious farmers
make about how to grow crops, raise animals and manage land, come choices
about getting the food to market.
"Farmers' markets are not for everyone," said Gina Walker, a small organic
grower of salad and greens in northern Columbia County. Ms. Walker said that
for a small farmer, sparing staff and vehicles to send to farmers' markets
is impossible. "And the weekend is the only time I get to see my kids," she
said. "There's no way I'm going to leave for the city at 4 a.m. and come
back at 8 at night."
Farm-to-market sounds like a beautiful relationship, but the reality
includes long days and hard choices. Can a farmer make jam from her
neighbor's plums, and sell that? Can she make jam from fruit trucked in from
outside the region? (Many markets call this "the no-marmalade rule.") If two
farmers bring lamb shoulders the same day, who sets the price? What about
cornhusk dolls and dried flowers?
In California and Texas, a statewide farmers' market authority makes such
decisions. Elsewhere, markets are run by a hodgepodge of local authorities,
professional managers or a combination.
Greenmarket, which runs most of New York City's farmers' markets, is the
largest farm-to-city system in the country and is run by the nonprofit New
York City Council on the Environment. Greenmarket's rules are among the
strictest in the country: Farmers or farm staff must attend the market; farm
marketing associations, which can be helpful to small farms that share
costs, are not allowed to sell.
Elsewhere in the country, and the rest of the world, markets usually include
independent "food artisans" selling scratch products like tomato sauce,
fresh pasta, home-cured olives, sausages and butter, but Greenmarket allows
only bakers and market farmers to do so. Greenmarket cheeses can be made
only by farmers who raise their own dairy animals. Ms. Planck's definition
of "local" includes the entire Northeast region; Greenmarket farmers, by the
rules, must live within 200 miles of the city.
Ms. Planck's Real Food markets will include farmer co-ops, local artisans
(people who make food from ingredients they've bought) and farmer-purveyors
(farmers who sell produce grown by other farmers in the region). Market
rules stipulate that if a product can be grown locally, it must be, but
avocadoes and lemons, for example, can be bought.
Opening June 17 in Petrosino Park (on Lafayette Street between Spring and
Kenmare Streets) and at the corner of Downing and Bleecker Streets, the
markets will run through Dec. 23. Greenmarket is also planning new markets
downtown this summer. "We're always happy when local farmers have more
opportunities to sell what they grow," said Gabrielle Langholtz,
Greenmarket's publicity manager.
Ms. Planck says that there should be room at markets, and at the American
dinner table, for any product that supports local agriculture, however
indirectly. "Instead of a food chain, I see a food web, with many points of
entry," she said. She draws the line, however, at farmers' market crafts.
"Crafts are for tourists," she says. "Markets should be for shoppers."
4. U.S. House of Representatives gives $3 million boost to USDA organic research program
NEWS RELEASE SANTA CRUZ, Calif. (May 25, 2006) - The U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment to its 2007 Agriculture Appropriations Bill on Tuesday increasing funds for the USDA Organic Transitions research program from $1.8 million to $5 million for the next fiscal year. Offered by Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA), Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), and Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI), the amendment passed on the House floor by a resounding voice vote.
The Organic Transitions program provides competitive grant funding to research, education and extension projects that help farmers address the challenges of modern organic production and marketing. "We must take steps to help this industry improve and allow these competitive grants to assist in the process," said Rep. Leach, a Republican from Iowa's 2nd district.
With the House working to cut nearly $100 million dollars from 2006 spending levels for agriculture programs, the increase for organic research was particularly significant. Several members of the House rose to speak in support of the bill, including Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee; Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH); and Representatives Holt and Kind.
"It should come as no surprise that the demand for organic, pesticide-free foods has skyrocketed in recent years," said Holt, a New Jersey Democrat. "This amendment is good for farmers and good for consumers," he added.
"The broad support for the amendment was likely a result of so many members of Congress hearing directly from constituents about the importance of this program," said Brise Tencer, Legislative Coordinator for the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF). Many members of OFRF's Organic Farmers Action Network, along with colleagues in the rapidly growing organic industry, contacted their Representatives to urge them to support the amendment. The four-month-old Network is comprised of more than 500 farmers who have chosen to receive updates and action alerts on public policy issues that pertain to organic agriculture.
The Senate will now develop its own version of the 2007 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. The two chambers will then reconcile differing provisions of the legislation in a conference committee. If the Senate includes the same $5 million for the Organic Transitions program in its version, the change is very likely to be included in the final bill forwarded to President Bush later this year for his signature.
A full list of organic program appropriations for the 2007 fiscal year is available online at www.ofrf.org/policy. OFRF will provide updates and action alerts on this site as the Senate bill moves forward.
# # #
The Organic Farming Research Foundation was founded in 1990 to foster the improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming practices. Working organic farmers from across the United States comprise the majority of OFRF's Board of Directors.
5. Wal-Mart's organic push may force down production standards
Baking Business Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has announced plans to sell more organic food, and has asked its suppliers - including Kellogg Company, Kraft Foods and Pepsi - to increase their range of products to meet demand.
The Bentonville-based retailer told the New York Times that it intends to sell a greater range of organic products at a 10% premium - significantly lower than the current organic premium, which stands at 20-30%.
While the move will no doubt increase accessibility to healthier organic products, some critics have said the effect may lower organic standards, squeeze farmers' incomes, and undermine health benefits. Many also argue that mass manufacturing goes against the very concept of organic production.
Regardless of this, the New York Times said Wal-Mart's move to be more organic will take place this summer. And a spokesperson for the retailer told the BBC that Wal-Mart has already begun to increase its organic food offerings in its Supercenters and Neighborhood Markets.
While the move is in-line with the company's current strategy of enticing more urban and upscale consumers into its stores, Wal-Mart's new push worries Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, an advocacy group that lobbies for strict standards and the preservation of small organic farms.
"This model of one size fits all and lowest prices possible doesn't work in organic," Mr Cummins told the Amherst Times, adamant that Wal-Mart does not care about the principles behind organic agriculture. "Their business model is going to wreck organic the way it's wrecking retail stores, driving out all competitors."
"They're going to end up outsourcing from overseas and places like China," he said, "where you've got very dubious organic standards and labor conditions that are contrary to what any organic consumer would consider equitable."
6. Going crazy for ethanol
By Steven Pearlstein You got to hand it to Elmer. When it comes to getting the government to subsidize the same activity not just once, but several times over, nobody can touch the American farm lobby -- not even the Alaskans.
Let's consider the case of ethanol, which thanks to numerous government policies has now overtaken Manhattan real estate, derivatives trading and high-tech start-ups as the investment opportunity du jour for the smart-money set.
For starters, there's the 51-cent rebate on the federal fuel tax for every gallon of ethanol added by refiners to their gasoline products. Or, if they prefer, refiners instead can take a 54-cent credit off their federal income taxes.
And then there is the federal mandate, written into last year's energy bill, that will require refiners to buy a minimum of 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by the year 2012, nearly double the current production.
To encourage investment in plants to turn corn, sugar or agricultural wastes into ethanol, there's a 10-cent-a-gallon tax credit for "small" producers, which is now defined as anyone producing up to 60 million gallons. At the current market price of $2.90 a gallon, that would be a $175 million-a-year business.
And a full accounting would also include the government's price supports for corn, including that used for ethanol.
Of course, it wouldn't be right for the government to stimulate all that production and then open the border to cheap Brazilian ethanol, so Congress very thoughtfully imposed a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.
And let's not forget the myriad state subsidies. They range from direct producer payments (16 states) and tax credits (seven states) and fuel tax reductions (eight states), to grants and subsidized loans and requirements that government car and bus fleets run on ethanol-based fuels.
With all that government-induced demand, and the price of gasoline going through the roof, it should be no surprise that the wholesale price of ethanol (a gasoline substitute) has reached $2.90 a gallon. That's double what it was only a year ago. And with the cost of ethanol production around $1.25 a gallon, that works out to an operating margin of more than 50 percent.
It's no wonder, then, that investment capital is now pouring into renewable fuels. Everyone from Goldman Sachs, Bill Gates, Richard Branson and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla to any corn farmer with a credit line is getting into the game.
"We'll be the Arabs of the Midwest," John Becker, manager of an Iowa farm cooperative, told The Post's Peter Slevin earlier this month. Yeah, right.
You're probably thinking at this point that I'm dead set against government subsidies for ethanol. I'm not. Because of the economic, environmental and national security costs imposed on the country from excessive reliance on imported oil, it's probably a good idea for the government to engineer a shift to renewable fuels. But at this point, we're overdoing it.
From what I can see, the most effective policies are the ones that boost demand for ethanol until the industry has a chance to attract capital, and develop cheaper and more plentiful sources of ethanol than corn, while attaining critical mass for the distribution network. The energy bill took a step in that direction by establishing a guaranteed floor for the market of 7.5 billion gallons a year. We could double that number, as some senators have proposed. Or we could follow Brazil's lead and require that all new cars be able to run on either ethanol or gasoline, which would add about $100 to the price of a car. To overcome the natural reluctance of big oil companies, the government could mandate that each gas station provide at least one ethanol pump by 2015.
There's also an argument for a big increase in federal research spending to speed development of ethanol production based on agricultural waste material. President Bush is for that. So is Hillary Clinton.
Beyond that, however, the government needs to step back and let the markets set prices, allocate capital, choose winning technologies and balance supply and demand. Right now, all the overlapping incentives interact in ways that distort the price of corn and sugar and inflate the cost of farmland. They have created an investment bubble in corn-based ethanol that is almost certain to cause hardship and dislocation when it bursts. And, in the case of the fuel tax rebate, they may also create the perverse effect of subsidizing the already-record profits of independent refiners and major oil companies.
By contrast, a simpler ethanol strategy that boosts demand for a variety of crops for energy production could create just the right political and economic conditions to finally wipe out many agricultural support programs that cost taxpayers $20 billion a year, drive up food prices and stand in the way of trade agreements.
Think of it this way, Elmer. What we have here is a grand bargain, one that will not only wean the United States from its dependency on foreign oil, but also free you from your decades-long dependence on government subsidies while giving your kids a shot at a productive and prosperous future down on the farm. So do we have a deal?
7. American Corn Growers endorse Rep. Herseth's iniatives on renewable fuels
Contact Larry Mitchell at 202.835.0330 WASHINGTON, May 12, 2006 The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) has endorsed legislation introduced recently by Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., along with fourteen cosponsors to expand and update federal programs to increase the availability and production of domestic biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.
“We applaud Ms. Herseth for her leadership and initiative in bringing forth new and bold approaches to helping America move toward energy independence,” said Larry Mitchell, ACGA’s Chief Executive. “Her new plan will expand the production, delivery and dependability of the nation’s growing biofuels industry.”
The new legislative proposal (H.R. 5372) will expand the current requirements for the use of domestic renewable fuels, provides incentives for U.S. auto makers to produce more “flex-fuel” vehicles, expands the number of retail fuel outlets that sell ethanol and biodiesel, accelerates and expands research into advanced biofuel production (including cellulosic ethanol production from sources such as switchgrass) and provides for a strategic farmer owned grain reserve for biofuel production similar to the strategic petroleum reserve.
“Ms. Herseth’s programs will help our nation to achieve the goals set forth by President Bush in his State of the Union Address for ‘an energy independent America,’” said Mitchell. “As patriotic Americans, we much prefer this approach to expanding domestic production of biofuels over other plans to help import ethanol from foreign countries. We congratulate her on her vision; urge expeditious passage by Congress and swift enactment by the President. The time to advance America’s energy independence is at hand and there is no time to wait.”
Original cosponsors of the Herseth bill include Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, Representatives James E. Clyburn, D-S.C. (Democratic Caucus Chair), Collin Peterson, D-Minn., (Ranking Member of the House Committee on Agriculture), Bob Etheridge, D-N.C., Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, Jay Inslee, D-Wash., Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., Tim Holden, D-Pa., Harold Ford, D-Tenn., John Salazar- D-Colo., Ron Kind, D-Wisc., Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Betsey McCollum, D Minn.
-30-
| |
