Eastern Fish and Chips

Eastern cod has been a classic story of overfishing, with fish populations crashing and the fisherman along with it. That's why I found it curious that hook-caught Georges Bank cod off the eastern seaboard is going for certification by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) as a sustainable fishery.

Eric Brazer Jr., of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association, told The Cape Codder that last fall the hook and line fishing sector off Cape Cod, Mass., passed the "first assessment to getting certified" under rigorous sustainable harvesting standards set by the MSC.

MSC, founded by World Wildlife Fund and Unilever, hasnow certified 21 other fisheries around the world as "sustainable."

The news on cod was reported by Sustainable Food News (requires subscription) in March and I have seen no follow-up anywhere else. Perhaps prospects for the fish have changed, if you consider this small item in a Green Guide story from 2003:

According to NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), the cod population of New England’s Georges Bank has yet to recover, despite restrictions placed on its fishing since 1994. This year, Canada shut down all its cod fisheries to protect the species’ plummeting numbers. “We’ve seen species after species, such as the Georges Bank cod and Bocaccio rockfish on the Pacific Coast, that have collapsed under federal management,” says Susan Boa, program manager of the Seafood Choices Alliance (SCA). Lee Crockett, executive director of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, says that fisheries managers have allowed catches that were too large for too long, bringing about the collapse of these populations over the last decade or two.

Right now, Seafood Watch only recommends buying Pacific line-caught cod, because those fisheries have been managed sustainably. (Icelandic cod, not on this list, is also well-managed). But so far, the program advises to "avoid" Atlantic cod. Here's the current cod recommendations (click graphic to enlarge), but this may well change if Atlantic line-caught cod wins MSC certification. - Samuel Fromartz

The Corn Quandary

Lisa Hamilton, a writer I hope more people will soon be familiar with, has an interesting take on ethanol from the farmer's point of view.  "If you actually are a farmer, ethanol and the high corn prices it brings is looking less and less like a blessing -- and more like a curse," she writes on AlterNet.

While the price of corn may be at a glorious four dollars a bushel now, when it evaporates farmers will likely be left to pay for costs that reflect a boom but profits that reflect a bust. Considering that much of the biofuels industry is already calling corn an archaic fuel source, looking forward instead to cellulosic ethanol, this crash is bound to happen within the next few years. ... It's beginning to feel ominously like the lead-up to the farm crisis of the 1980s, when high times led to unsustainable debt. They fear that the near future holds widespread foreclosure, not rural salvation.

What Hamilton proposes is not a boom-and-bust cycle, but a way to ensure farmers get a fair price for their goods. "What farmers need in order to rebuild their communities and secure their farm incomes is not an ethanol boom -- or any kind of boom for that matter. They need a system that offers a fair return for their product all the time, not just during a fuel crisis."

A Bay Area Bargain: The Farmers Market

Local and organic foods usually get slammed for being more expensive, the luxuries of rich people, elitist, and so on. I demolished the assumptions about organic consumers in my book, citing a body of consumer market research that has shown income has no bearing on an organic purchase. In short, people earning $150,000 a year are just as likely as those earning $50,000 a year to buy organic food. The Hartman Group, which studies such things, has found income one of the least useful indicators in targeting this market.

Now to the farmers' market, which also feeds such perceptions. Ethicurean points to Becks and Posh, written by Sam Breach, who actually took the time to compare farmers' market prices with Safeway supermarket.  This was just not any farmers' market, but the San Francisco Ferry Plaza market, which has a reputation for being the most elitist in the nation. What did she find? On a fixed list of items, she spent 29 percent less  at the farmers' market.

As for the elitist argument, we have thriving farmers' markets in wealthy and lower-income sections of Washington, DC. Actually, the latter, in Anacostia, operated by the Capital Area Food Bank and opening for the season next week, does well because it has no competition. The neighborhood has had no supermarket since 1998 so the only food sources have been high-priced convenience stores and a lot of fast food joints that don't tend to offer fresh produce. In other words, fresh food could not be had at any price before this farmers' market opened.

On this score, Whole Foods has been complaining for some time that people perceive it as pricey, when it's actually quite competitive compared with Trader Joe's and other supermarkets across the same items. In Washington DC, I've found they are the price leader on organic milk but have not done an in-depth comparison on other products. We encourage any shopper out there to do the comparison (so we don't have to).

- Samuel Fromartz

Food Writing Redux

Columbia Journalism Review has an interesting take on the new food journalism, peeling back the curtain on the assumptions of sustainable ag advocates with a few swipes at Michael Pollan thrown in for good measure.

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 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.