ChewsWise Blog

ChewsWise Blog

Fifty million pounds of shrimp

That's how much Wal-Mart buys each year, 50 million pounds, and if it pays 2 cents more per pound a year, it can set operating standards for the farms -- something the retail giant is starting to do. That extra $1 million seems like a deal, if it will clean up this aquaculture industry.

This is a huge issue since shrimp is the number 1 seafood choice and Wal-Mart is the number 1 buyer. Seafood Watch advises avoiding the stuff, largely because of the mangrove forests destroyed by this activity. (The farms also use copious amounts of antibiotics). Wal-Mart's move in this area came out last week at the Monterey Bay Aquarium conference and was mentioned in a piece by Corie Brown in the LA Times. We'll see how well they follow through.   

Speaking of Wal-Mart, the company also agreed to post new signs on organic food products, according to an announcement by the USDA's National Organic Program. This will make sure that the products behind the signs are, in fact, organic rather than something else. Wal-Mart was taken to task over the signs by organic advocates and then state and federal regulators took a close look too. After months of denying there was a problem, Wal-Mart agreed to changes.

Mulling Over Green Practices and Blue Oceans

By Samuel Fromartz

Chews Wise has been notably silent over the past few days. Such is the life of an itinerant blogger. A sustainability conference took me to the Monterey Bay Aquarium on the central coast of California and the talk – and the fish – were too engaging to otherwise post.

For those who haven't visited the aquarium, I highly recommend it. One evening, after the conference had concluded, and dinner was done, I sat upstairs in front of a giant glass wall (perhaps 60 feet wide and 20 feet high) staring into a blue expanse of water that faded into the distance. From the dark interior, giant blue fin tuna would appear suddenly and then circle around, occasionally flicking their fins and darting forward at incredible speed. Others swam around slowly amid the other species. The room was darkly lit, accentuated by quiet music to create a meditative mood.

Blue
Blue fin tuna at the aquarium

I sat there for a half-hour marveling at the blue fins, whose population in the oceans is fast dwindling. So much is being harvested so fast that prices are falling and frozen fish are being stockpiled even as the population collapses. So this is how the other 80 percent of the earth lives … or has lived. (For this reason, I also highly recommend the aquarium's Seafood Watch wallet card on smart choices in seafood.)

The conference was engaging, focusing not just on seafood, but also agriculture, energy use in food systems, and the issues of scaling up sustainable practices (a panel I moderated), and punctuated by keynote talks. One by Fred Kirschenmann from the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture in Iowa, stuck out for its cogency. Kirschenmann, a longtime organic grain farmer and philosopher, made the point that sustainability was more of an ideal than a set of procedures. Akin to Justice, say. And despite farming now for decades, he hasn't reached the ideal on his farm, but was always reaching for it. The point was well taken, for he's talking about an evolutionary process. In too many green endeavors, organics included, the focus has been on meeting the lowest-common denominator required by law. That bar is necessary to prevent some who would rather not meet it from passing off their products, fraudulently, as green. But what's forgotten is that the bar is a bare minimum to say, in effect, 'you're on the path.' It's a beginning, not an end.

That has certainly been the case with organic farming, which I've argued was envisioned as a post-industrial method of farming that progressed forward. It wasn't a return to some pre-industrial idyllic past. Innovation has been paramount and methods improved largely by pragmatic farmers trying to do it right. But the question that organic and other sustainable movements will face in the years ahead is whether they can move forward and simultaneously ratchet the bar higher. In this way, sustainability not only spreads, but is refined and improved. The worst-case scenario, of course, is something quite different – a lowering of standards or a fight against improvement – and there is a risk of that happening too. Some argue that has happened, but I am not so pessimistic. I don't think we need to throw out the entire regime and start from scratch.

Many farmers have eschewed the organic label, arguing they are more 'sustainable' or 'beyond organic.' But without knowing more about their individual methods and day-to-day choices, I'm not really certain what that means. As one moderator said at the conference, sustainability may mean putting two solar panels on the roof and nothing more. Although I'm sympathetic to the gripes about the cost of certification and the time involved in record-keeping, I still want to know what producers mean by the terms they use and whether their practices are recognized. Otherwise, I fear that their self-defined regime won't even meet an accepted base level. And without getting to the starting gate, there's no room to improve. As Kirschenmann said, sustainability is a process, an ideal, but it still needs a foundation to build upon.

A Circular Firing Squad?

Ethicurean posts on the uproar over Slow Food Founder Carlo Petrini's diss of the San Francisco Farmers Market, which he describes as elitist. What I find remarkable about his rant is that he joins Alice Waters at the end of the day to have a great meal at Chez Panisse, which I don't recall being a diner for the working class. I also seem to recall Slow Food charging $250 for a dinner here in Washington. Yes, for a good cause. Like those pricey heirloom tomatoes in San Francisco that support small farmers. My prediction: this will end badly if Slow Food doesn't do some damage control....

Should Organic Livestock Have Access to Antibiotics?

By Samuel Fromartz

Hue Karreman, a prominent veterinarian who works with organic dairy farmers in Pennsylvania, has published a highly provocative essay on NewFarm.org arguing that organic livestock farmers should consider the use of antibiotics in rare instances – a practice currently banned by organic regulations.

"In essence, when it comes to an individual animal needing truly prompt, effective treatment for a serious infection on an organic farm, the US organic rule may compromise animal welfare," he writes.

His argument opens up a Pandora's box in organics, since the label for so long has been associated with "antibiotic and hormone-free" production methods. Surveys show those labels are a major reason organic milk is so popular with consumers. It is growing at about 20 percent a year.

While I don't expect the prohibition on antibiotics to change soon, Karreman makes an interesting argument – and one not particularly new. (He made the same point when I was working on my book and I include it in chapter 6.)

The main issue with antibiotics is their overuse, which allows bugs to build up resistance. This renders the drugs impotent in humans as well. But Karreman finds the one-time or rare use of the medicine distinctly different from the regular "sub-therapeutic" use of the drugs in livestock production, which is the main cause of rampant overuse.

One reason these therapies are so popular in conventional farming is that the animals suffer from diseases associated with confinement, or a poor diet. The low-forage diet in feedlot beef production, for example, increases the fat content in the muscle, but it also raises the chance of acidosis - or stomach acidity - which in turn is associated with disease. One way to reduce those diseases is to administer low levels of antibiotics, a common practice.

Ideally, organic animals avoid those pitfalls by grazing an adequate amount of time on fresh grass and avoiding the stress of a high-production regime. (Organic dairy cows, for example, produce less milk than conventional animals).

But what happens when an organic animal gets an infection? Currently, under organic production rules, the farmer is required to treat the animal with approved methods (that include herbal remedies, homeopathy, even acupuncture, all of which can be quite successful). But if the animal does not respond to approved therapies, the animal must be given antibiotics and then removed from the organic farm. They can never return.

Karreman believes this end-result puts farmers in a bind. The animal may suffer if the farmer waits to see whether it can heel without antibiotics, yet, if they administer the drug right away they must sell the animal. "Who is to say what medication will be used and when will it be started in the disease process?" He asks.

The issue this raises, of course, is whether organic milk will be able to maintain its distinct identity in the marketplace if antibiotics are allowed.

And like other parts of the organic regulations, would opening the door to rare use of antibiotics invite more extreme practices, such as the sub-therapeutic use that is so objectionable? If you consider the ways the rules have been bent on issues like grazing, that is not unlikely.

Karreman has been one of the few, if not the only one within the organic industry, to stick his head on this issue and make this proposal. At the very least, he faces an uphill battle.

Organic Pasture Rule Coming Soon

By Samuel Fromartz

It has taken several years and many attempts to beef up a regulation requiring organic livestock to graze on pasture. Now it appears, there may be light at the end of the tunnel.

If this rule passes, as many farmers, retailers and advocates hope, cows will be required to graze on fresh grass for a minimum amount of time each year.

A coalition of dairy groups is pushing for a floor of 120 days on pasture, with 30 percent of the cows' nutritional needs coming from fresh grass. Previously, the regulations only required "access to pasture," which meant a cow might rarely get a blade of fresh grass and live out its productive life on huge feedlots. A clear pasture regulation would end that practice, though it is unknown what the final rule will actually say.

In an interview, Barbara Robinson, Deputy Administrator for the USDA's National Organic Program, told me that a pasture rule should be released for comment this summer, though she was doubtful that it would take effect by the end of this year.

ROBINSON: I'm hopeful that we'll see something this summer. It is drafted. It's in clearance, we've gone back and forth with our attorneys who are the first level of review and it's with them again for a second review and then it has to make its way through the department and to OMB (Office of Management and Budget).

FROMARTZ: And that can happen by the summer?

ROBINSON: Again, I don't know but I'm hoping because it's my no. 1 priority and has been. You don't often have a deputy administrator who works on a pasture rule or on any rulemaking but I have been. It's kind of been my baby.

Once the proposed rule is published, the public will get an opportunity to comment. Those comments will then be incorporated into the final rule, which will be published. At that point, the rule would probably take effect within 30 days with a transition period for farms to come into compliance.

But she added: "I don't think it would be in the effect by the end of the year."

The rule could also hit roadblocks once it's sent over to the Office of Management and Budget in the next couple of months. Robinson said there has been a great degree of interest in this rule, as there is with the entire organic program. "Everybody and their brother gets to look at it and they ask, why you changed this paragraph. It takes forever," she said.

Robinson said the rule could also run into problems if "we really got it wrong. Then we might have to republish the proposed rule but I don't think that would be the case. I think we got it right," she said.

 

Farm Bill Reform in a Chokehold?

Ken Cook, the ag-wonk-meister over at Mulchblog, has an insightful post on the political dynamics of the farm bill in the House of Representatives. Now wait! Before you finish that yawn, consider that the way the endgame is being played out may mean that the unprecedented attempt to break the farm bill monopoly may falter. And what would that mean? No change in the subsidies, little new money for nutrition instead of king corn, and all those sustainable agriculture initiatives - as they used to say where I grew up - fugetaboutit!

Cook reports that House Agriculture Committee chairman Colin  Peterson - a reasonable, open-minded Democrat - has heard a wide spectrum of views. "All this openness doesn't amount to much, of course, if the committee fails to act on any of the ideas proposed, and the committee's word is the last word on final legislation, with no views to the contrary entertained on the House floor," he writes. The committee has historically represented special ag interests rather than the newcomers at the door who want reform.

So, despite the open hearings and warm welcome given to these new voices, it looks like it's the same-old, same-old at the Capitol. And I thought the Dems would be able to break the hammer-lock of these entrenched farm interests. Silly me.

After Lapses, Wal-Mart Steps Up Organic Oversight

Wal-Mart agreed to step up oversight of its organic labeling, after the state of Wisconsin cited the company for numerous inaccuracies.

According to the Cornucopia Institute, which first raised the issue last year, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection told Wal-Mart’s legal counsel that “use of the term ‘Wal-Mart Organics’ in combination with reference to a specific non-organic product may be considered to be a misrepresentation and therefore a violation” of Wisconsin state statutes. 

The AP reports that Wal-Mart "said Tuesday it has given updated guidelines to its employees." The story continues:

Wal-Mart said that green tags on their shelves, which identify food as organic, may have inadvertently or mistakenly been placed, or accidentally shifted in front of the wrong item.

"Our green organic signing is for additional consumer convenience to show that an organic alternative is available. It is not a label," the company said in a statement. "The USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) certification label is featured on the packaging of the organic selections we offer and consumers should always rely on this USDA certification label for proper organic verification."

That quote is an interesting bit of semantics, since it essentially says shoppers should understand the difference between a "label" and a "sign." We're not sure the USDA organic program would agree.

Wal-Mart said it is working with store associates to have the identifying tags checked periodically for accuracy.

James Rabbitt, director of the state Bureau of Consumer Protection, said that as long as Wal-Mart keeps in place additional measures to ensure that nonorganic products are not identified by shelf tags as being organic, his agency will not pursue the matter further, other than to monitor Wal-Mart's practices for compliance.

GMOs Lose in Recent Court Rulings

In two recent court decisions, genetically modified crops suffered defeat.

On Monday,the European Patent Office revoked Monsanto's patent for genetically engineered soybeans, ending a 13-year battle. The ETC Group, which bought the law suit, said:

The patent was vigorously and formally opposed by Monsanto itself until the company purchased the original patent assignee (Agracetus) in 1996. The technology related to the now-revoked patent has been used, along with other patents in the company’s portfolio, to corner 90% of the world’s GM soybean market.

In a second decision last week, a federal court in San Francisco ruled that the USDA's approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered alfalfa was illegal. The judge ordered the USDA to ban any further planting of the seed until it carried out an Environmental Impact Statement.

The court's fear was that the alfalfa would spread to non-GMO fields (just as occurred in the past year with GMO rice). The locations of all the GMO alfalfa fields must now be disclosed so that growers of organic and conventional alfalfa “can test their own crops to determine if there has been contamination,” according to the Center for Food Safety, which brought the suit.

Price War Coming in Organic Milk?

One question I have had was whether the coming glut of organic milk will lead to lower prices for consumers. Well, the company that owns Horizon Organic, the largest organic milk company in the nation, thinks the answer is yes and that admission sent the stock of parent Dean Foods down nearly 10 percent today.

According to a report in Bloomberg News:

Dean Chief Executive Officer Gregg Engles said organic milkoutput may surge 40 percent this year, creating ``a wall'' of supplies that will prompt rivals to try ``to stimulate demand through lower prices." Dean Foods, the biggest organic milk producer in the U.S., will counter with increased investment in Horizon Organic, its most profitable brand, Engles said.         

What is less clear is whether organic dairy farmers will take a hit and suffer lower prices at the farm-gate. I've heard that Organic Valley is holding the line on prices and have also seen other anecdotal reports that processors are trying to hold back supplies. ''We don't want to harm the viability of organics and the price point that farmers need to make a decent living,'' Organic Valley CEO George Siemon told the New York Times.

Why are supplies jumping 40 percent in a year? Because farmers had until last June to begin the year-long conversion to organic production before more stringent rules took effect. As a result, many jumped into the market at the same time and now all those supplies are starting to come on line.

- Samuel Fromartz

BIG Organic Java Victory

Organic Coffee is safe, for now.

In a victory for organic farmers in the developing world, the USDA's National Organic Program has backed down and said that for now there will be no immediate change in the way these farmers are certified.

The NOP had previously announced that it was changing certification procedures for these farms. The change would have increased costs sharply and choked off the supply of organic coffee, cocoa and other crops grown by farming co-ops in the Third World, an issue I wrote about on Salon.com.

In a statement issued Wednesday, the NOP said it would work closely with the National Organic Standards Board -  the citizens advisory panel on organic regulations - before making any changes. This comes after a petition campaign which generated thousands of signatures, even in the absence of any major media coverage.

For those who think organic regulations have been compromised by big business, this shows - as other actions have in the past - that transparency and advocacy work.

The NOP statement can be read in full here.

- Samuel Fromartz

Eastern Market: After the Burning

By Samuel Fromartz

In the pre-dawn hours of Monday morning, Eastern Market, the 134-year-old food market just blocks from my home in Washington, D.C., burned down. No one was hurt but lost in the embers of the three-alarm fire were neighborhood businesses - several butchers, a fish monger, two vegetable stands, a cheese vendor, a pasta maker, a bakery and a market lunch counter – 14 market stands in all. Together they made up the heart of a community, a place where you could step out of the frenzied politics of Washington and eat a decent crab cake sandwich. You would  run into friends and neighbors at the market during the weekend, or find yourself rushing there in the evening to grab homemade ravioli, a few bratwurst, or a pleasant conversation with the vendors. It's hard to put a value on the place, but you certainly realize it when it's gone.

Img_2271

Built in 1873, Eastern Market reeked of character, with huge steel beams in the high vaulted ceiling, tall glass windows, and old freezer cases where the vender's goods were displayed. Down on one end of the hall, you could buy sweet, chewy, rugelach, or roast chicken on a spit, and down the other end, crab cakes, fried fish and oysters, and French fries. On weekend mornings, the breakfast line at the Market Lunch counter wound out the creaky wooden doorways and down the block. The line was nearly as long at lunch - the slowest fast-food in Washington.

These weren't high-end gourmet retailers selling rare artisan foods, nor were they local food purveyors pushing a 100-mile diet. But they were the antithesis of the bland suburban shopping mall, with longstanding relationships with neighbors on Capitol Hill. The small businesses worked in a very traditional way: they bought from wholesalers and resold the food in the market, with a smile and a free banana thrown in your bag. I've been to a few other old markets that had a same feel, whether the Soulard Market in St. Louis (built in 1843), the Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia (1892) or Pike Place Market in Seattle (1907), which was the most touristy of the lot. Although Eastern Market attracted tourists, it was primarily a working market and the soul of Capitol Hill.

Outside, on the weekend, a mishmash of produce sellers lined the street under the permanent steel awning (which was just reconstructed in the last year or so). There was the old woman in the lawn chair sitting next to her portable heater who has been there for eons, offering goods from the wholesale market. But there were local growers, too, who made a point to show up, with tomatoes, peppers, asparagus and greens. Then there were specialty food sellers like Uncle Brutha, with his superlative hot sauce, who recently expanded into a nearby store. On Sunday, the craft vendors took over, selling jewelry, paintings, furniture, hats and assorted bric-a-brac. Lately, the market seemed to be more vibrant, but that may have reflected the general upswing in the neighborhood, which has been seeing a renaissance, especially among businesses.

Img_2268

I rode my bike by the market both Monday and Tuesday. The street was still cordoned off, fire trucks present. You could see inside the battered windows at the charred and twisted remnants of the place, though the brick shell was intact. The roof had collapsed in a few places, and vendors were standing outside being interviewed by the media. Most put on a stoic face, though neighbors wondered aloud how a public building, owned by the city, could have been allowed to operate without a basic sprinkler system. Considering the hundreds if not thousands who made their way into the market each weekend, the city was lucky the fire occurred in the off hours. Plus, everyone was worried about the loss of this landmark. A row house across from the market hung a banner outside, "We love our vendors."   

The fear now is that the center of the neighborhood will be gone, or rather is gone, up in smoke. The mayor has promised to rebuild the place, but that will take up to $30 million and 18-24 months before it is finished. Our non-voting representative in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is seeking federal funds for the project. The neighborhood has rallied and within 24 hours was collecting money for the businesses and employees whose entire livelihood was based on the market, the great fear being they will move on before the place is rebuilt.

Hopefully, they will not. Hopefully, Eastern Market will be rebuilt in a timely fashion and in a way that keeps true to its hardscrabble and neighborly character and not become just another culinary destination for the well-heeled. At the same time, I would acknowledge that its character had some costs, since the building was clearly wanting of a paint job and a deep cleaning; it also apparently needed workable electrical wiring (the likely culprit in the fire). So perhaps this will present an opportunity for the landlord to renovate the place without losing what was once there, so that it could become once again the vibrant heart of a neighborhood that is now sorely feeling its loss.

USDA to Rule on Organic Coffee Limits

I've written extensively about a USDA decision last year that could shut down markets for organic coffee, cocoa and bananas from the developing world. Now, it appears that this spate of publicity and activism on the issue has caused the USDA to listen.

Last Thursday, representatives from the National Organic Coalition, Equal Exchange, Rural Advancement Foundation International USA, and the National Cooperative Grocers Association met with the USDA to discuss the issue. They also presented a petition with more than 300 organizations and 3,600 individual signatures objecting to the policy. (A copy of the letter and signatories is posted in a pdf here).

In an email, the National Organic Coalition said "the USDA is promising a statement of clarification very soon. We are uncertain as to what that statement will look like, and we remain concerned." In a separate statement Equal Exchange said:

The USDA assured us that they had heard from us, and you, “loud and clear” and that in “two or three days” they would issue a statement that they thought would make us “happy.” They would not share any more details other than to offer a little more explanation of how they perceived the issue.  Given the stakes, complexities and interests involved, we cannot assume that the USDA statement will completely solve the problem.  (Also, given the nature of any federal agency, it could actually be weeks, not days, before they release their statement.)

Chews Wise will report on this important ruling as soon as we get word. Updates are also available at Equal Exchange's web page.

- Samuel Fromartz