Safina's Blue Fin Blues

I've eaten blue fin tuna -- the last time was perhaps 3 years ago. No longer. I now know enough to understand this fish is in danger of collapse - as in disappearance - as this illuminating post by Carl Safina makes clear. He's author of Voyage of the Turtle and other books and co-founded Blue Ocean Institute (which like several others, has very useful information on sustainable seafood choices).

His post on the ineptitude of bureaucrats 'managing' the fishery is astute.

The largest remaining Atlantic bluefin population-which breeds in the Mediterranean-is now also endangered with collapse. The quota for fishing in the eastern half of the Atlantic and in the Med is more than double what the Commission’s own scientists recommend. Moreover, recent catches have exceeded the limit by more than 50%. Actual catches are about 230% higher than scientists recommend, meaning that for every one fish that can be sustainably caught, fishermen are killing more than three. The population has halved since the 1970’s, with most of the decline occurring in the last 5-6 years. It’s the familiar Bluefin story: Illegal fishing is rampant, too many fish are being caught, and the population is headed for collapse.

Image source: National Geographic

Who Needs California?

OK, we're getting to the time of year when produce fiends like me begin to wish they live in California, because the veggies there never stop. But this past year, I had pretty good luck in DC, growing my own and eating veggies from the garden from late-April through this week. It may even go longer, though today we had our first real snow and it might have blown out the lettuce. We'll see.

Here are some pictures taken last Sunday of the veggies we've been eating (not pictured are kale and Swiss chard, both still going strong). Many people give up the garden in August, but for me that's when things really got going. I seeded a lot of greens, especially Asian greens in August and September, and am still reaping the bounty. For awhile now, most of the produce we've been buying is fruit. That little patch of mesclun mix lettuce, by the way, would amount to more than one pound.

Click on the image to start the slide show:

The Price of One Penny

In the long and sordid history of farmworkers, a few glaring examples manage to jump out of the background noise and make national news. Such is the case with the decision by Burger King to refuse handing out a one penny price increase to tomato pickers in Florida because it has been so vehemently opposed by conservative growers.

Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, weighed in in on this issue in the N.Y. Times:

Migrant farm laborers have long been among America’s most impoverished workers. Perhaps 80 percent of the migrants in Florida are illegal immigrants and thus especially vulnerable to abuse. During the past decade, the United States Justice Department has prosecuted half a dozen cases of slavery among farm workers in Florida. Migrants have been driven into debt, forced to work for nothing and kept in chained trailers at night. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers — a farm worker alliance based in Immokalee, Fla. — has done a heroic job improving the lives of migrants in the state, investigating slavery cases and negotiating the penny-per-pound surcharge with fast food chains.

He pointed out that the pay increase was tiny compared with the bonuses reaped by Burger King's equity owners. It would also be tiny in comparison to the amount spent at this season's charity balls, which gather the  wealthiest to raise money for the needy. Were the root of the problem - poverty - addressed head on with decent wages, fewer feel-good band aids would be needed.

I would venture that this decision by Burger King's management - disastrous from a public relations point of view - will not go away soon.

USDA Gives Update on Organic Pasture Rule

A new organic pasture regulation has been fully reviewed by the USDA, bringing it one-step closer to completion, Barbara Robinson, deputy administrator for the USDA's National Organic Program (NOP), said Wednesday.

In an update at the National Organic Standards Board meeting underway in Arlington, Virginia, Robinson said the the NOP is working on the supplemental language to the regulation, dealing with the economic impact of the regulation, compliance with the paperwork reduction act, and impact on small producers. "We're going to get this done shortly and then it goes over the OMB (Office of Management and Budget)," she said.

USDA expects to run into some issues with OMB, which has viewed every organic regulation except for materials as a "major rule" that needs extra vetting. That means OMB will likely take another 60 days for review, in which time Congress will also get to look at it. Robinson said she plans to visit with OMB when USDA first sends over the regulation for review to impress the importance of it.

The upshot seems to be that the regulation won't be out of OMB until late first-quarter, which presumably is when it will first be published for comment.

A wide coalition of organic dairy farmers is pushing for a requirement that ruminants receive at least 30 percent of their nutritional needs from fresh grass during the growing season, but not less than 120 days.   Currently, the organic regulations only require "access to pasture," which meant a cow might rarely get a blade of fresh grass and live out its productive life on feedlots. A clear pasture regulation would end that practice, though it is unknown what the final rule will actually say.

Organic dairy farmers have been pushing for a change in this regulation since at least 2000, and the new rule change language has been under review at the USDA since 2005.

Amid Protests, Pennsylvania Shelves Milk Action

Pennsylvania has decided to delay its order drastically limiting what processors can say on milk labels, due to a rising public backlash, the St. Louis Post-Gazette reports. But the stay may only last for one month.

The issue had blindsided Governor Ed Rendell, who received complaints about his Agriculture Secretary's decision. "The governor's office, which was not involved in the initial decision, will participate in reviewing the new rules 'both in the way they were promulgated and their effect,'" Rendell's press secretary said in the press report.

Opponents of the decision are still wary, since the delay is only temporary. The key issue is whether the state will widen the panel reviewing the issue to include legitimate representatives of consumer groups who oppose the state action.

"There was some level of surprise," Chris Ryder, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, said of the opposition to the state's new labeling restrictions. "We weren't anticipating quite this response."

Pennsylvania's Milk Cover-Up

By Samuel Fromartz

If one trend has been clear in recent years it's the desire by consumers to know where their food comes from and how it's produced.

Product labels – whether organic, local, or produced without antibiotics and hormones – provide a way for consumers to get that information and make a choice.

So why is Pennsylvania swimming against the tide? Late last month, the state Department of Agriculture told 19 dairies that they cannot use language such as "Our farmers’ pledge: no artificial growth hormones," or "From cows not treated with the growth hormone rBST," starting January 1, 2008.

Ohio, New Jersey and Indiana are reportedly mulling similar restrictions. If this occurs, consumers will be denied the right to choose the milk they want and farmers banned from describing their practices.

Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff said the action was promoted by concerns among "consumer groups," farmers and processors, though the action was entirely in line with the policy position of Monsanto, which makes synthetic bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST).

Surveys clearly show consumers desire more transparency — not less — on milk labels. Lake Research Partners found 80 percent of consumers supported the labeling of rBGH-free milk products. The Natural Marketing Institute found that 53 percent of shoppers look for dairy products free of artificial hormones. And Opinion Research found 81 percent of respondents would prefer to buy dairy products derived from cows that do not receive synthetic hormones, assuming little or no pricing difference.

Critics and scientists have raised questions about a possible link between rBGH and a cancer-promoting hormone in humans -- a link denied by Monsanto and other scientists. What is known is that the drug does increase the risk of animal illness, though it also boosts milk production by about 10 percent, which is the reason it is used. Although the Food and Drug Administration approved rBGH in 1993, it has been banned in the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

Wolff argues that since the synthetic bovine growth hormones are indistinguishable from naturally occurring hormones and cannot be detected in milk a label that indicates their absence would be impossible to verify. All milk is also tested to be free of antibiotics, so there's no reason to label their absence either.

But Pennsylvania's action also limits statements about production practices, making it impossible for consumers to identify producers who follow a regime they agree with. Starting in January, a farmer cannot say on a milk label, "I don't use rBGH or antibiotics on my farm" – even though this statement may be factually correct.

Such production claims can be verified. Inspections are required by law for organic farms, for example. Conventional milk producers can issue legal affidavits about their practices under penalty of fraud. But Pennsylvania closed off this avenue by saying that such affidavits were now unacceptable as a basis for label claims.

Organic milk companies have not been exempt from the action. Aurora Organic Dairy and Horizon Organic have gotten letters from the state.

This whole debate isn't new, but it has gained steam as national companies sought out milk produced without rBGH and crimped Monsanto's market for the drug. Dean Foods, the largest milk processor in the nation, has switched some plants to rBGH free milk production. Starbucks, Safeway, and Kroger are going that way too; Chipotle Mexican Grill also plans to convert its entire cheese supply by the end of the year. Many natural food stores have long sold milk produced without synthetic hormones.

By stating they avoid milk produced with rBGH, these companies are following federal directives on the matter. As early as 1994, when the Food and Drug Administration approved Monsanto’s synthetic growth hormone, the FDA allowed production claims, such as "from cows not treated with rBST."

For the past several years, Monsanto has sought to limit these absence claims because they believe they disparage competing milk. In 2003, it sued Oakhurst Dairy in Maine over a label statement that read, "Our farmers' pledge: no artificial growth hormones." The suit was settled out of court, when Oakhurst added the qualifying language: "FDA states: No significant difference in milk from cows treated with artificial growth hormone."

Last year, Monsanto appealed to the FDA to review the approved label wording for rBGH and also sought action from the Federal Trade Commission regarding advertising of rBGH free milk.

The FDA declined to act, noting that it would only intervene in cases where fraudulent claims – as opposed to product descriptions – were made on the milk label. In dismissing Monsanto's complaint, the FTC also found no instance where a national company made false claims about rBST.

Having failed to limit the label in the federal arena, it now appears Monsanto is lobbying state governments to cover up the labels and reduce consumer choice.

Pennsylvania was the first to fall. If other states follow, consumer choice and a farmer's right to free speech will be dealt a blow.

But consumer groups, farmer organizations and milk processors are fighting back, first off with a letter writing campaign to the governor. Expect more action ahead.

First, It Was Organic v. Local

Now it's Organic v. Fair Trade. William G. Moseley points out in the San Francisco Chronicle that tensions are growing acute between these two movements, spurred out by the demand for local food. (Via Lainie's awesome Organic Confidential blog).

If local is the new organic, and demand for imported organic food drops off, then African farmers who depend on organic export markets will have no alternative but to produce conventionally grown food for export. Local activists respond that these farmers should focus on local markets in Africa, but Moseley says they've already done that.

Many farmers in the poorest of African nations - where I do my research - already supply local markets with their grains and produce. While not formally recognized as such, these markets are virtually organic because most poor African farmers restrict pesticide use to traditional export crops such as cotton, cacao and coffee, while local foodstuffs are grown with few or no chemical inputs.

If the local food movements in Europe and North America reduce their demand for organic and fair trade products from afar, the most likely consequence is that African farmers who have entered these niche markets will return to producing their export crops in the conventional, pesticide-intensive manner. While local food markets can provide some income for these farmers, they still are reliant on export opportunities for the bulk of their cash income.

Food miles gives a one-dimensional view of socially responsible food production, though the reality is more complicated. The Soil Association tried to tackle this issue by seeking a fair trade designation for any air shipments of organic food -- a noble step, but one which might still limit these markets.

The question I had after reading Moseley's piece was whether some, all or most exports actually create cash for farmers, or whether these markets follow the plantation model and siphon cash out of the local economy. Again, I would think the answer is not simple.
 

Back From Tahiti!

I wish. Actually I've been up to my eyeballs in other projects. Still, a few things have caught my attention, such as the dictatorial decision by Pennsylvania to ban certain milk labels describing hormone- and antibiotic-free production practices. A flurry of reports have appeared here and here and here. I'm looking into it and hope to post more soon.

Is Organic Better?

Well, researchers on a four-year European Community-funded study think so.

Preliminary results of the $26 million study, conducted at Newcastle University in the UK, found that organic fruit and vegetables contained up to 40 percent more antioxidants. These compounds are thought to play a role in warding off cancer and heart disease. Organic milk contained up to 60 to 80 percent more antioxidants than conventionally produced milk in the summer, and 50 to 60 percent higher levels in the winter. Organic milk also was found to contain higher levels of vitamin E.

The primary researcher, professor Carlo Leifert, said the figures were so dramatic that they would the equivalent of eating an extra portion of fruit and vegetables every day.

The study is in line with others at the University of California Davis, which found higher levels of antioxidents in organic tomatoes. Harold McGee explains that organic crops rely on these substances to ward off pests and diseases in the absence of chemical treatments.

In the Newcastle study, the crops and livestock are raised at a research farm. Details on the work, including several videos, can be found at the researchers' web site.

- Samuel Fromartz

The British Are Coming...

Britain's Tesco, the world's third-largest supermarket chain, raised $2 billion in debt for its Fresh and Easy grocery stores in the United States -- aiming to open three per week. Citigroup analysts said Tesco's U.S.launch could "potentially go down as a genuine turning point in the industry, possibly comparable with Wal-Mart's decision to start opening Supercenters in the 1980s."

The Economist earlier this year said: "If Tesco gambles small and wins, competitors will have time to copy it before it reaches critical mass. Placing a big bet is more dangerous, but it may be the best way to exploit a model that can be scaled up rapidly into thousands of stores across a market." Check out the Economist article for more details about the venture.

In UK, Air-Freighted Organic To Be Fair Trade

By Samuel Fromartz

In a significant decision for global organic food markets, Britain's Soil Association, the nation's premier certification body, has decided to continue certifying air-freighted organic food so long as the products meet ethical standards.

This would bring a "fair trade" designation to organic food, balancing the benefits of trade in developing countries with concerns about rising carbon emissions. "The association rejected calls from the public, environmentalists and some of its own producers for a ban on all air-freighted organic food, deciding this would penalize many poor countries which benefit in terms of jobs and wages from growing organic food for British consumers," the Guardian newspaper reported.

"It is neither sustainable nor responsible to encourage poorer farmers to be reliant on air freight but we recognize that building alternative markets that offer the same social and economic benefits as organic exports will take time," Anna Bradley, chair of the Soil Association's standards board, said.

The proposed standards require organic food producers in developing countries to contribute substantially to the social needs of communities and workers, and guarantee wages and good working conditions.

Significantly, sea-container shipped organic foods will not need to comply with the new standard, a Soil Association press officer said. That means spices and other foods with a long-shelf life that are often shipped by sea will get a pass. So will goods shipped by truck from, say, Turkey.

Although developing countries were the focus of the new standard, it does apply to any air-shipped organic foods, whether from Africa or from the US, Europe, and New Zealand. Perishables such as produce are often air-freighted. The London Telegraph reported that sweet potatoes and salad flown in from the U.S. would likely be stripped of their organic status.

"It's right to continue to allow some organic air freight. Most people say that they only support air freight if it delivers real environmental and social benefits. This linking of organic and fair trade standards does that," Peter Melchett, the Soil Association's policy director, said in the Guardian.

Image source: Soil Association

The Soil Association consulted nearly 200 organizations, including the World Trade Organization, governments and UN bodies. New Zealand, Kenya and the UK's Department for International Development argued strongly against a ban. Supermarkets recognized the public disquiet and argued for a labelling system, and UN bodies urged extreme caution to protect vulnerable economies, the Guardian said.

Patricia Francis, executive director of the Geneva-based International Trade Center (ITC), which is a joint agency of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the World Trade Organization, questioned whether the new certification scheme would be too restrictive.

"Meeting these standards costs money - laboratories, audits and more. Too many standards will hurt African farmers," she said in a BBC report.

The Guardian said that the Soil Association punted when faced with the issue (though it used the word "fudged.") "This is not to single out the organic watchdog for special opprobrium. It has simply made a trade-off, just as many shoppers do in their Saturday-afternoon trolley dashes," the paper said in its editorial.

Chefs: Eat Your Own Dog Food

In the high-tech world, they used to have a saying, "eat your own dog food." It's the equivalent of walk the talk. Here's the foodie world equivalent in a wonderfully considered piece on Alice Waters, who lent her good name to a controversial gated development in Montana. Charlotte McGuinn Freeman, who lives nearby, writes at Ethicurean:

I cannot see how a gated development of second-homeowners who will fly in and out on their private jets can be called sustainable or viewed as contributing to the health of our community. So I cannot understand why Alice Waters — someone who has always seemed to be deeply invested in the health of real communities, someone who wanted to build a restaurant that was like a home, someone who is creating gardens in underserved elementary schools, someone who is actively promoting real, slow, actual food purchased from real farmers – I cannot understand why she has lent her support to a developer who seems to represent everything that is antithetical to real community-building.

As I commented on the post, the food world has been caught in a closed-end loop on sustainability for some time, since it is accessible to so few. It needs to break out beyond this "leading" edge if it is going to get anywhere. And I think, in this piece, Freeman is offering a reality check. Are mission and values aligned in the work? A question, obviously, not just for companies who get most of the heat.