Coffee Camp Pipes Up

The specialty coffee industry is waking up to USDA's decision to revamp organic inspections for small farmers in the Third World - an issue I wrote about at Salon. The decision is expected to curtail organic coffee supplies in the U.S. and choke off a market for poor farmers. Here's an excerpt of a letter from two coffee companies sent to industry associations:

 
Given a little careful reflection, I think this pending USDA actionamounts to disastrous unintended consequences. As you know, small farmer groups are supplying the U.S. coffee industry with many great and interesting coffees from around the globe. From Timor, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Colombia, El Salvador and Mexico just to name a few.
 
The U.S. Coffee Industry and American consumer has benefited considerably from these certified small farmer groups. But the benefits of organic certification go far beyond providing us with coffee.
 
Organic certification is often a keystone around which communities can organize. In my personal experience I have seen health clinics built in Timor, schools in Colombia, improvements crop in yield and income, better environmental practices, access to micro-loans and pre-crop-financing throughout the coffee growing world---all as a result of organic certification.

These farmers are on a playing field that will never be level. As far as I know, this USDA action comes without any consultation or input from the coffee industry.

I think it is extremely important that the SCAA, the Pacific Coast Coffee Association and The Roaster’s Guild come out strongly in support of these small farmer groups and we oppose these pending changes to USDA law. (Emphasis added)

Letters have also been written to Congress. Although the coffee industry is organizing, this will also effect tea producers, banana growers and cocoa bean farmers. All those specialty organic chocolate bars people have been gobbling up may be a thing of the past due to this USDA ruling.

Addendum -- The Salon story was picked up in the Wall Street Journal's Informed Reader (subscription required) column yesterday, p. B9 . (Thanks to Sandy at Green Mountain Coffee Roasters for pointing it out),

- Samuel Fromartz

Smell the Coffee

I'm always a bit torn whether to break news on the blog or on an outlet with larger distribution. In the case of a  USDA ruling that could severely impact organic coffee supplies - as well as other organic agricultural products from the Third World - I chose the latter. Check it on on Salon.com.

Are GM Crops Behind the Bee Collapse?

The collapse of bee populations has been in the news lately, but a recent thread has suggested that this may be the result of genetically modified crops. Der Spiegel in Germany reports (March 22): "No one knows what is causing the bees to perish, but some expertsbelieve that the large-scale use of genetically modified plants in the US could be a factor."

How so? GM crops have been created by inserting the gene of a bacterial insecticide - Bt - so that they resist certain pests. But the pollen also contains Bt and bees pick it up. One study found a relationship between the Bt toxin and bee deaths. Der Spiegel says:

The study in question is a small research project conducted at the University of Jena from 2001 to 2004. The researchers examined the effects of pollen from a genetically modified maize variant called "Bt corn" on bees. A gene from a soil bacterium had been inserted into the corn that enabled the plant to produce an agent that is toxic to insect pests. The study concluded that there was no evidence of a "toxic effect of Bt corn on healthy honeybee populations." But when, by sheer chance, the bees used in the experiments were infested with a parasite, something eerie happened. According to the Jena study, a "significantly stronger decline in the number of bees" occurred among the insects that had been fed a highly concentrated Bt poison feed.

According to Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a professor at the University of Halle in eastern Germany and the director of the study, the bacterial toxin in the genetically modified corn may have "altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry -- or perhaps it was the other way around. We don't know."

Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times higher in the experiments than in normal Bt corn pollen. In addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively lengthy six-week period.

Kaatz would have preferred to continue studying the phenomenon but lacked the necessary funding. "Those who have the money are not interested in this sort of research," says the professor, "and those who are interested don't have the money."

Organic Beats Clones, 12-0

Big win for the anti-cloning organic camp Thursday.

The National Organic Standards Board, which previously had a draft recommendation to ban clones in organic livestock but which left the issue of their progeny unresolved, did what many consumer groups and farmers wanted: they banned the progeny too. (See our previous post for background on the issue and also organic dairy farmers' response).

The livestock committee of the NOSB - the citizens advisory panel to the USDA on organic regulations - apparently kept their pencils sharpened Wednesday night to get the language right and passed the recommendation at their meeting in Washington Thursday. So not only will  clones be banned from organic systems, but also any of their offspring - which is the main way that they will enter the food supply.

The vote was 12-0 with one abstention.

Just shows what  a little activism will do.

- Samuel Fromartz

Delays, Delays

Just about every public comment at the hearings of the National Organic Standards Board begins with a thank you to the panelists. For their hard work. For all the time they put in on complicated issues. For the members who do this in their spare time. For sifting through issues and then making recommendations to the USDA on organic regulations.

Then the speakers, who have five minutes (and amazingly try to do power point presentations in that time) invariably turn to the USDA's National Organic Program staff who sit at a side table at the meeting. They  thank them too. Because you are understaffed. Because we understand why it takes so long to get things done.

And then they make their comments.

One issue, though, has taken a particularly long time to get completed, trying the patience of even the most patient petitioners. Two years ago, perhaps a hundred or more dairy farmers descended on an NOSB meeting in Washington, DC, and asked that the regulations on pasture be refined so that all cows meet a minimum hurdle on grazing (preventing feedlot organic farms). This followed recommendations made since at least 2000 for the same regulation.

Two years ago, the NOSB sent its most recent recommendation on the issue to the National Organic Program: That cows graze for at least 120 days a year and obtain 30 percent of their nutrition from fresh grass.

Then the farmers waited ... and waited.

They were told last year that the regulation would be completed soon. Now, the National Organic Program said at this week's NOSB meeting that the pasture regulation should be complete by the end of the year.

To which one cynic whispered to me: "Which year?"

Trawling for Real Shrimp

It doesn't take a PhD to realize that the price of shrimp has fallen dramatically over the past several years, so fast, in fact, that shrimp consumption has doubled in the past decade. So why is shrimp so cheap?

Gourmet has a good piece on this in its March issue (sadly, not online) by Barry Estabrook, "Do I Dare Eat a Shrimp?" What the article makes clear is that there are truly bad choices, when it comes to these little crustaceans, and less bad ones, but what's not clear is whether there is really a good choice.

First, the bad. Shrimp farms have proliferated in the developing world, created largely by ripping out mangrove swamps and putting in shrimp ponds. These farms kill native fish and pollute surrounding waters, leading to more forest destruction. Like much of factory farming, they are particularly prone to pests and disease, so they become a dumping ground for more than 20 antibiotics and pesticides. One of the most potent, the antibiotic chloramphenicol, can be toxic to humans and is banned for use in the U.S. Plus, these shrimp eat fish protein, which can lead to depletion of feeder stocks (one of the hidden costs of fish farming in many species).

Not surprisingly, the article asserts these shrimp don't taste very good either.

On the back of these operations, the price of shrimp has fallen dramatically, putting trawlers in U.S. waters out of business. But even these operations, which are catching real and tasty shrimp, are not benign. The problem, as with much of the fishing the world, is by-catch (that is, all the stuff that is killed and thrown overboard to catch the fish you want). Used to be it took 10 pounds of by-catch to get one pound of shrimp; now larger-holed nets have reduced that ratio to two-to-one.

But the wild catch amounts to only 200 million pounds a year, compared with the 1.4 billion pounds Americans eat each year. So it looks like farmed shrimp is here to stay, so the question becomes whether it can be done sustainably.

One company in Florida, OceanBoy Farms, is trying with closed inland pens. It recycles its water, grows Talapia feedstock fish, which are vegetarian (a good choice for people too), and also feeds the shrimp organic soybeans for protein. It avoids antibiotics and chemicals by having a superclean, bio-secure environment. Now fish farmers the world over are visiting the operation, since it does not depend on ripping out forests.

Only problem: the shrimp taste okay, not great, and are more expensive than the competition. (Recall that the competition doesn't spend the money to do things right -- it simply rips out more forest).

So what's a consumer to do? The clear choice is to buy a product that can be as close to sustainable as possible, either wild or farm-raised. Right now, that choice usually leads to U.S. suppliers. Or you could choose to stop eating shrimp and make your little dent in the 1.4 billion pounds consumed. Personally, I think it makes more sense to support those trying to do things right and create an alternative.

Now, enjoy your shrimp cocktail.

What's Wrong With My Pet?

One of the most surprising aspects of the current recall of contaminated pet food was how many brands were involved. Sixty million packages, representing about 1 percent of all dog and cat food supplies, have been pulled off store shelves. They were manufactured by one company. (Reuters story). Hundreds of unlucky pets ate the food and suffered kidney failure. The number is expected to rise.

This is another wake up call about the risks of centralization in the food supply. Although the cause of the current outbreak has not been identified (wheat gluten is suspected), a bad ingredient in a massive batch of food can become a national issue. This is reminiscent of the e. coli crisis in spinach last year that killed three people and sickened 200 throughout the nation. It was traced to one field.

Lists of affected pet food brands are on http://www.menufoods.com/recall/.

Organic Dairy Wants Stronger Cloning Ban

More than 850 organic dairy farmers came out strongly against the use of cloned animals and their offspring in organic livestock farming.

They issued a number of statements just a week before the National Organic Standards Board - the citizen advisory panel to the USDA's organic program - takes up the issue in a hearing. The Food and Drug Administration late last year issued an opionion that is expected to lead to the approval of cloned animals in the food supply as soon as this year.

The livestock committee of the NOSB recently recommended a ban on clones, but left open the issue of whether progency should be banned as well. (See our previous post for background on the issue).

"...it is imperative that progeny of clones be unequivocally disallowed as well as clones,"  the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Association said. "This is not a question to be taken up when the need arises in the future—the need is here now.  Cloned bulls are in existence whose semen is destined for the artificial insemination market should the ban on cloning be lifted." 

The main way cloned animals are expected to come into the food supply, is through progeny rather than through cloned animals themselves. FOOD Farmers, the group that includes NODPA and the Western and Midwest Organic Dairy Producers Alliances, said:

It does not matter that there is no test to determine whether an animal is derived from cloning or not. The National Organic Program is a process based program, not a test based program. As with field histories, purchased feeds, etc., we producers have to verify through our recordkeeping, affidavits, and paper trail that the organic standards process has been followed. So too will it be necessary to document that no cloned livestock or progeny are brought into a herd of organic livestock or transitioned to organic production. If the necessary documentation is not available on animals, then they will not be able to be considered for organic production.

The individual farms sell to Horizon Organic, Organic Valley, Stonyfield Farms, Humboldt Dairy, as well as through smaller cooperatives including Upstate Farms Cooperative, Organic Choice and LOFCO, independent manufacturers and direct to the consumer.

They issued statements Friday, the day comment was due at the USDA.

An Organic Vegan Twinkie Arrives

This publicity stunt was so good you could taste it.

Author Steve Ettlinger held a book launch party in New York City Thursday night to celebrate publication of Twinkie, Deconstructed: My Journey to Discover How the Ingredients Found in Processed Foods Are Grown, Mined (Yes, Mined), and Manipulated into What America Eats.

During the party at McNally Robinson bookstore in Soho, various Twinkies were offered up for taste tests. There was a "gourmet" Twinkie from Nancy Olson of New York's Gramercy Tavern, an organic-vegan Twinkie by celebrated vegan dessert chef Fran Costigan, and commercial varieties including the Hostess originals, Little Debbie’s Golden Cremes, and Lady Linda Original Crème Fingers.

So which rated the most stars?

Organic vegan Twinkie, photo by Linda Long

"Well, within 45 minutes, the organic-vegan and gourmet versions were gone," says Marci Harnischfeger, our reporter on the scene. "In fact, patrons were plucking them so fast, trays were empty before servers could set them on the table. The commercial varieties seemed to be a hit too, especially with the ‘tweens who could be seen holding boxes of them under their arms and stuffing their faces."

Her favorite - the organic-vegan Twinkie.

Here's her take on it:

"It's much less sweet-tasting than the original, but still retained the ‘mmmm’ factor when it hit my mouth. Nutty, toasted, almost raisiny flavored cake with a cool and refreshing cream filling that left no aftertaste. It was reminiscent of a Twinkie, yet not an exact replica-an aspect I quite enjoyed," she said.

The vegan Twinkie was made with organic ingredients including white and whole wheat pastry flours, maple syrup, and expeller-pressed canola oil; the vegan pastry cream consisted of tofu, agave syrup (a sweetener), almond and vanilla extract, arrowroot (a thickener) and agar (a gel). Costigan plans to have the recipe available soon and when she does, we'll post it.

Ettlinger preferred the Gramercy Park Twinkie, describing it as “refreshing.” He said he could “taste butter” and pronounced it “sweet not overwhelming.” Plus, it left “zero film on the teeth." In short, it was exactly what it was supposed to be: “a treat."

Although Ettlinger described himself as a "whole foods" type before he began this book project, he ate Twinkies at various stages of investigating what went into the product. This hunt took him from phosphate mines in Idaho to corn fields in Iowa, from gypsum mines in Oklahoma to oil fields in China, in the process, "demystifying some of America’s most common processed food ingredients—where they come from, how they are made, how they are used—and why," as his web site puts it.

On his Twinkie-eating journey, he said the flavors of oil, polysorbate 60, and the cellulose gum particularly stood out. We wonder if they might have a certain terroir?

By the way, Ettliinger also posted this interesting nexus of ingredients in a Twinkie.

What's in Your Water?

The Environmental Working Group is launching a new study to see what's in bottled water. But first, it needs to build a database. They've set up a link to compile this info from bottled water drinkers, asking:

• What brand?
• Where did you purchase it?
• How much did you pay?
• What type of container?

Considering their work on other issues like pesticide residues, the results should be interesting.

Mexico Halts US Rice at Border

Mexico this week temporarily stopped shipments of U.S. rice at the border and asked that future loads be certified "GMO Free," according to Dow Jones (subscription required). Two shipments were held up at the border, although they were eventually released and allowed to enter Mexico after the USDA intervened.

The USDA last week told rice farmers not to plant a variety of conventional rice that was contaminated with unapproved genetically modified material. Previous cases of contamination have shut down U.S. rice exports to other nations.

How Transparency Works

By Samuel Fromartz

I just read three pieces that show the power of transparency in the food system.

First was the op-ed in the Times I missed yesterday on the conditions of sows in the pork industry (should we call it the pig industry?). Nicolette Hahn Niman points out that Smithfield Farm recently decided to stop using gestation cages which "virtually immobilize pigs during their pregnancies in metal stalls so narrow they are unable to turn around."

Getting rid of gestation crates (already on their way out in the European Union) is welcome and long overdue, but more action is needed to end inhumane conditions at America’s hog farms.

Of the 60 million pigs in the United States, over 95 percent are continuously confined in metal buildings, including the almost five million sows in crates. In such setups, feed is automatically delivered to animals who are forced to urinate and defecate where they eat and sleep. Their waste festers in large pits a few feet below their hooves. Intense ammonia and hydrogen sulfide fumes from these pits fill pigs’ lungs and sensitive nostrils. No straw is provided to the animals because that would gum up the works (as it would if you tossed straw into your toilet).

You get the picture. I saw another email on how this sort of knowledge is affecting producers - in this case, in the dairy industry. The source was Dairy Line, a trade publisher for milk producers.

They are concerned that "well-funded activists" are raising questions about rBST, the synthetic growth hormone that pumps up milk production (and reduces the productive lifespan of cows). They blame the activists, but the fact is, consumers are voting for rBST-free milk with their wallets the more they hear about the issue.

As organic milk - which cannot be produced with synthetic hormones and antibiotics - has raised awareness on this issue, other non-organic milk companies have followed suit and are banning rBST (which is not approved for use in Europe).

The email goes onto state that "similar scenarios have developed in other arenas in recent months ... issues that affect poultry and pork production and 'We’re concerned dairy is coming under the same kind of attack,'" the email said.

As consumers learn more, production methods come under greater scrutiny and traditional agriculture feels the heat. It's happening across the food system.

Finally, transparency can effect decisions at the farm. Albert Straus, of California's Straus Family Creamery (an organic milk producer) decided to test his feed for GM contamination. According to Time magazine, he "was alarmed to find that nearly 6% of the organic corn feed he received from suppliers was "contaminated" by genetically modified (GM) organisms.

So Straus and five other natural food producers, including industry leader Whole Foods, announced last week that they would seek a new certification for their products, "non-GMO verified," in the hopes that it will become a voluntary industry standard for GM-free goods. A non-profit group called the Non-GMO Project runs the program, and the testing is conducted by an outside lab called Genetic ID. In a few weeks, Straus expects to become the first food manufacturer in the country to carry the label in addition to his "organic" one.

The bottom line: Transparency changes food production decisions. It is now having a measurable impact on what we eat.