The FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) announced recently that it was increasing the dose of X-rays that can be used to “treat” food by 50% - high enough to induce radioactivity. This FDA ruling is dangerously flawed.
FDA officials say that any radioactivity in food will be short-lived and “trivially low.” This conclusion was not based on any official health standard, but on an unpublished opinion from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a facility best known for refueling nuclear weapons and incinerating radioactive waste. Many workers there have been stricken with cancer, and the lab has released tons of radioactive and toxic waste into the environment since the 1940s.
Again, the FDA failed to conduct animal toxicity experiments required by law. Numerous health problems have been observed in lab animals fed irradiated foods, including premature death, stillbirths, mutations, tumors, organ damage and stunted growth. Right now, school districts are deciding whether or not to buy irradiated ground beef to serve in their cafeterias for the next school year. — States’ food service directors information, http://www.safelunch.org
— “FDA: Radioactive Food Safe to Eat” Food Alert, Public Citizen, Feb/March 2005, cmep@citizen.org, http://www.foodactivist.org
Unfortunately, Dick Baird is moving back to South Carolina at the end of the school year. The Community Sustained Agriculture program has not become self-sustaining at Halleluiah Farm, and he has a farm in SC that is home. He’s got some spring stuff in the ground, and started in the green house. The decision to let go of this CSA is pretty fresh, so all details of how the farm will proceed are still in the works. He will be in touch with all who signed up for the CSA program.
Other Organic Growers in the Area
Ed
Mclean
will have spring produce at Gertie Mae’s on the square in Clarkesville
(754-0406)
Linda
Lovell
(754-8082) will have her produce at home.
Johnna Tuttle (Medicine Eagle) - contact
her for information about purchasing plans and locations. (706) 348-6752
or raptorsrun@hotmail.com
PLEASE contact Adele at adelek@alltel.net if you know of other organic growers in the area, so that she can help get the word out!
GE
Crops in Mexico
Spring
2005
On February 15, the Mexican government voted to legalize genetically engineered (GE) crops. Up until now, GE crops have been banned in the country in order to keep GE contamination away from what is the world’s most diverse, important, and pure collection of maize (corn) varieties.
Although surveys reveal the vast majority of Mexican citizens oppose the legalization of GE crops, intense pressure from the U.S. eventually won over. Monsanto, which owns the patents and distribution rights to 91% of GE seeds in the world, is now one of the leading advertisers in Mexico, second only to Coca-Cola.
— http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/mexicoapprove022805.cfm
Fast
Food Nation
Winter
2004/2005
A package arrived in the mail two days ago for my two-year-old son. A belated Christmas present from some South Carolina buddies, it rattled enticingly when he shook it. “Open right now!” he said, delighted that I had taken a knife to the packaging tape. The box was full of little knick-knacky toys, magnets, puzzles. But the first thing he lifted from the box and opened was a play-doh toy that, I noticed after a minute, was a product tie-in with a fast food restaurant: the yellow play-doh gets pushed up into a French fry box to resemble an actual box of fries. The golden doh arched up and over the box. “These yummy!” he said, making pretend-munching noises.
I had been revisiting Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation in preparation for this review, and I couldn’t have asked for a clearer example of one of his points in the book: that kids are increasingly targeted by fast food marketers in attempts to embed product/corporation familiarity and loyalty at the earliest possible age. (The recommended age for the toy in my son’s hand was 2 years and up.) Fast Food Nation has been on my class list of recommended books for the 12th grade book project for several years, ever since the book struck me as a wonderful way to spark students’ critical consciousness of the pervasiveness of fast food in our culture. ACE has lately been sparking a critical consciousness about the ways and means of food production, too, so Fast Food Nation is a perfect book to recommend in this newsletter.
Schlosser’s research ranges from the beginnings of fast food in 1940s California to fears of mad cow disease today, from the difficulties faced by small-time organic cattle farmers to the science of synthetic tastes and smells on which the industry depends. Among his most disturbing chapters is his report on the dangers of working in slaughterhouses (and the exploitation of the mostly minority workers there), placing him in the muckraking tradition of Upton Sinclair. As recently as twenty years ago, most of the people working in the meat packing industry were skilled, unionized workers; today, Schlosser reports, most of them are recent immigrants — non-unionized and with limited proficiency in English. In a largely self-regulated industry, these workers have little recourse in the face of injury and exploitation. Schlosser’s larger point looms behind this and the other chapters in the book: the convenience of fast food masks the immense toll the industry takes on consumers and our culture.
Fast Food Nation offers a deluge of facts, but Schlosser’s writing is always readable, always accessible. He draws rich portraits of people on both the production and consumption sides of the industry, people whose stories of hardship or injury typify what’s wrong with “the all-American meal.”
Partly as a result of reading Fast Food Nation, I decided to have it my way with the golden arches of play-doh fries. I threw them away. Just don’t tell our South Carolina friends!
— Ben Tanner, ACE Board Member
Who
Owns What You Eat?
Fall
2004
Do you know who owns some of your favorite natural foods? Odwalla is now owned by Coca Cola, Kashi is owned by Kellogg’s, and Back to Nature cereal is owned by Kraft — the same folks who produce Velveeta and Oscar Mayer.
Over the last ten years, sales of natural and organic foods have been growing at an average annual rate of 24%, whereas sales for the total food and beverage market have been growing in the low single digits. In 2002, American consumers spent nearly $36.4 billion on natural and organic products. This exploding demand has caught the attention of multinational corporations, and they want in.
In 1999, H.J. Heinz purchased a 20% stake in the Hain Food Group, and General Mills bought Small Planet Foods (Cascadian Farms, Muir Glen).
In 2000, Kraft (itself owned by Philip Morris) picked up Boca Burger, the Hain Food Group acquired Celestial Seasonings (becoming The Hain Celestial Group), and Unilever purchased Ben & Jerry’s. Acirca was formed as a private equity group (groups who invest in companies that they intend to eventually sell for a profit) and acquired the sales and marketing rights of Walnut Acres.
In 2001 Coca-Cola nabbed Odwalla and Fresh Samantha juices, and Acirca gobbled up Mountain Sun, Mallina’s Finest, and Fruitti DiBosco, folding them into the Walnut Acres name, and also bought ShariAnn’s Organic.
2002 saw Dean Foods buy out White Wave, and Hain Celestial picked up Imagine Foods.
In 2003, Dean Foods acquired Horizon Organic, Kraft nabbed Back to Nature, and Acirca fulfilled its investment goals by selling its holdings to The Hain Celestial Group.
Most recently, in 2004 Group Danone (Dannon Yogurt) completed its purchase of Stonyfield Farms.
Then what will happen to the quality of ingredients and processing? Many natural food companies grew out of counter-culture values that reflected concerns about health, the environment, social responsibility, and overall sustainability. Will the new owners respect those ideals?
Kraft has already admitted to reformulating some of the Back to Nature products. One out of every five Ben & Jerry’s employees has been fired since Unilever took over. Group Danone has agreed to support Stonyfield Farms’ “profits for the planet” corporate-giving program for at least a decade beyond the time that former owner Gary Hirshberg leaves the company.
The buyout trend is ongoing, and things can change rapidly, so shoppers would do well to research the companies they are interested in. Information is available on www.organicconsumers.org.
— Sevananda Co-Options, Sept 2004, 404-681-2831.
Why would Mexico, whose people still subsist on maize (mostly tortillas), whose farmers still grow more maize than any other crop, ever buy corn from an American farmer? Because he can produce it more cheaply. Actually because he can sell it much more cheaply. That is the effect of our subsidy policy which allows our farmers to undersell Third World farmers.
The river of cheap American corn began flooding into Mexico after NAFTA took effect in 1994. Since then the price of corn in Mexico has fallen by half. A 2003 report by the Carnegie Endowment says this flood has washed away 1.3 million small farmers, who could now be among Mexico’s urban unemployed or day laborers in the US.
The small farms could now be part of industrial farms that use chemical- and water-intensive practices to compete. Fertilizer runoff into the Sea of Cortez starves its marine life of oxygen, and Mexico’s scarce water resources are leaching north, one tomato at a time.
Meanwhile the small farmers struggling to hold on in Mexico must grow their corn on increasingly marginal lands, contributing to deforestation and soil erosion. Cheap corn has even driven the growth of animal feedlots, sewage concentration and water and air pollution.
The small farmers in southern Mexico are responsible for maintaining the genetic diversity of the species, growing hundreds of different, open-pollinated varieties. This irreplaceable diversity saved the American crop in 1970 when a fungus decimated the hybrid corn, and genes for resistance were found in southern Mexico. Cheap corn threatens to dry up the pool of generic diversity on which the future of the species depends.
Free trade may not be so rational after all.
— Michael Pollan, ŒA Flood of US Corn Rips at Mexico,” Los Angeles Times, April 23, 2004.
We offer ten good reasons:
1. Locally grown food tastes better. The fresher the better, and in the supermarkets it’s often several days since picking.
2. Local produce is better for you. Fresh produce loses nutrients quickly. Food that is frozen or canned soon after harvest is actually more nutritious than what is trucked in.
3. Local food preserves genetic diversity. Local farms usually grow a number of varieties to provide a long season of harvest, an array of eye-catching colors, and the best flavors. Some varieties may be heirlooms, passed down from generation to generation, because they taste good. Having many varieties can save a species.
4. Local food is GM-free (GM = genetically modified). Local farmers don’t have access to genetically modified seed, and most of them wouldn’t use it even if they could.
5. Local food supports local families. Food prices are at historic lows, often below the cost of production. The farmer now gets less than 10 cents of the retail dollar, even when cutting out the middleman.
6. Local food builds community. Knowing the farmers gives you insight into the seasons, the weather, and the miracle of raising food. It could give you access to a farm where your children and grandchildren can learn about nature.
7. Local food preserves open space. The beautiful green landscape will survive only as long as farms are financially viable. You can help preserve agriculture.
8. Local food keeps your taxes in check. Farms contribute much more in taxes than they require in services, unlike suburban development.
9. Local food supports a clean environment and benefits wildlife. A family farm values fertile soil and clean water. Cover crops prevent erosion and replace nutrients used by the crops. Cover crops also capture carbon emissions and help combat global warming, possibly 12-14% of the carbon emitted by vehicles and industry. The patchwork of fields, meadows, woods and ponds provide cover for many species of wildlife.
10. Local food is about the future. We want future generations to have access to nourishing, flavorful, and abundant food.
— Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project, info@Buyappalachian.org, 564 Indigo Bunting Lane, Marshall NC 28753-6430.
Healthy
Produce
Winter/Spring
2004
If you are looking for produce without pesticides, a handy Shopper’s Guide lists the 12 popular fresh fruits and vegetables that are consistently the most contaminated with pesticides, and the 12 least contaminated.
If organic is not an option, this guide can help. Small doses of pesticides can affect people, especially during critical periods of fetal development and childhood While washing and peeling may help, pesticide residues can remain, and valuable nutrients can go down the drain with the peel. Organic is recommended.
Here is the list of produce most contaminated with pesticides: apples, bell peppers, peaches, pears, celery, potatoes, cherries, red raspberries, grapes (imported), spinach, nectarines, strawberries.
For a copy of the one-page notice send $1 and a self-addressed envelope to ACE.
— Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce, Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org, and www. stonyfield.com.
Chicken
Victory
Winter/Spring
2004
Congratulations to Georgia chicken growers. HB 648 is now law despite strong opposition from the Poultry Federation.
After years of reports of patterns of abuse of farmers, the new law provides that farmers have a right to be present when their chickens are weighed, and they have a right to learn the "feed conversion ratio," how much feed it takes to get how many pounds of chicken.
Thanks to all those who called and wrote to their representatives for this first step.
— Sierra Club Georgia Legislative Report 2004, and Barry Edington
USDA
Rescinds Controversial Changes to Organic Standards
Winter/Spring
2004
The USDA announced yesterday that it will rescind changes to organic food standards made last month that would have cleared the way for use of antibiotics on organic dairy farms, toxic pesticides on organic fields, and more. The changes — first reported in Grist (ahem) — prompted a wave of protest from many organic farmers, though not from some agribusiness conglomerates that want to rake in a bigger share of the booming $11 billion-a-year organic-food market. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman announced the reversal, citing “a tremendous amount of interest” and public concern in recent days in the wake of media reports on the issue (ahem). The news was met with an outpouring of praise from enviros, legislators who support the standards, and smaller-scale organic farmers. “We were really stunned,” said Nancy Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farm, an organic producer. “It really doesn’t happen often that democracy prevails and voices are heard.”
straight to the source: The New York Times, Marian Burros, 27 May 2000, http://www.gristmagazine.com/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=2519
straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Carol Ness, 27 May 2004, http://www.gristmagazine.com/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=2520
the backstory, in Grist: Organics program weakened under Bush administration changes, activists say in Muckraker http://www.gristmagazine.com/muck/muck051804.asp?source=daily
Fresh
from the Farm
Winter/Spring
2004
“Georgia Grown” says a lot about our food. We are most fortunate to have a long growing season with fertile soil and many growers involved. Many local farmers’ markets supply fresh produce.
It’s important to adjust tastes and expectations to what is in season, and to “think local” rather than to be dependent on produce shipped thousands of miles. Those imported foods lose their flavor and nutrients because they had to be picked seven or more days earlier.
It’s good to hear plans for “kitchen gardens” with plans to freeze and can for later use. We are blessed by a local cannery, and the horticulture department at North Georgia Institute in Clarkesville. Emphasis is on flavor and freshness over appearance.
Family farms are in crisis but hopeful signs are growing, such as concerns for nurturing land. Willie Nelson had a well-received concert to found Farm Aid. Sustainable, diversified production is helping farmers get off the treadmill of corporate farming. The desire is to pass better soil on to future generations.
Are you aware of the growing trend to community supported agriculture? In less than 30 years, 1,200 families nationally subscribed up front for a weekly box of fresh fruits, berries and vegetables. A local farmer supplies them for the season (Dick Baird in Hoschton, 706-654-2591).
Check your Farmers’ Bulletin and local ads for up-to-date offerings. Remember that freshness increases flavor. Truly ripe fruits make the best preserves. There is no need to discard a whole peach or apple that has a bruise or blemish.
Sources: Margot Roosevelt, “Fresh Off the Farm,” Time, Nov. 3, 2003; Willie Nelson, “A Fight for Survival,” Sept./Oct. 2002, Organic Gardening.
— Dotty Parsons
Irradiated
Foods
Fall
2003
Food industry lobbying groups and even federal government officials have insisted for nearly half a century that Americans who eat irradiated food have nothing to worry about. They say it’s nutritious, safe, wholesome, and tastes just like regular food.
On the other hand, The Food and Drug Administration did not determine a level of radiation to which food can be exposed and still be safe for human consumption, as the law requires. The FDA relied on lab research which did not meet modern scientific protocols.
Research dating to the 1950s has revealed a wide range of problems in animals that ate irradiated foods, including premature death, a rare form of cancer, stillbirths and other reproductive problems, genetic damage, organ malfunctions, stunted growth and vitamin deficiencies.
Irradiation masks and encourages filthy conditions in slaughterhouses and food processing plants. Irradiation can kill most bacteria in food, but it does nothing to remove the feces, urine, pus and vomit that often contaminate beef, pork, chicken and other meat.
Irradiation destroys vitamins, essential fatty acids and other nutrients in food — sometimes significantly. The process destroys 80% of vitamin A in eggs and 48% of beta carotene in orange juice, but the FDA nonetheless legalized irradiation for these products.
Irradiation can change the flavor, odor and texture of food — sometimes disgustingly so. Pork can turn red; beef can smell like a wet dog; fruit and vegetables can become mushy; and eggs can lose their color and become runny.
Irradiation disrupts the chemical composition of everything in its path not just harmful bacteria, which the food industry often claims. Scores of new chemicals called “radiolytic products” are formed by irradiation — chemicals that do not naturally occur in food and that the FDA has never studied for safety. One such chemical, called 2-DCB, was recently found to promote the cancer-development process in rats, cause genetic damage in rats, and cause genetic and cellular damage in human and rat cells.
The World Health Organization did not follow its own recommendation to study the toxicity of “radiolytic products” formed in high dose irradiated food before proposing in Nov. 2000 that the international irradiation dose limit — equal to 330 million chest x-rays be removed.
Soon, some irradiation plants may use cesium-137, a highly radioactive waste material left over from the production of nuclear weapons. This material is dangerous and unstable. In 1988, a cesium-137 leak near Atlanta led to a $40 million taxpayer-funded cleanup.
Because it increases the shelf life of food and utilizes large, centralized facilities, irradiation encourages globalization and consolidation of the food production, distribution and retailing industries. These trends have already forced multitudes of family farmers and ranchers out of business, reduced the diversity of products in the marketplace, disrupted local economies in developing nations, and put American farmers and ranchers at a great economic disadvantage.
In our part of Georgia, three supermarket chains sell irradiated meat:
•
Bi-Lo, 864-675-5521, PO Box 99, Mauldin, SC 29662
• Winn-Dixie, 904-783-5000; 5050 Edgewood Ct, Jacksonville, FL 32254
• Publix, 863-688-1188 X 5285, 1936 George Jenkins Blvd, Lakeland
FL 33815.
— www.citizen.org/cmep/foodsafety/food_irrad/articles.cfm?ID=8724
Herbicide
Resistance
Fall
2003
In recent years, cotton farmers have become increasingly reliant on one mode of attack on weeds: glyphosate-based herbicides. Roundup is the most common of these products. But Roundup can kill cotton plants along with weeds. New technology over the last decade changed this.
Cotton varieties were developed that can stay healthy when sprayed with Roundup. These are called Roundup-Ready. It was an economical blessing and a versatile, time-saving, environmentally benign tool that farmers embraced, said Stanley Culpepper, UGa Extension Weed Scientist.
But just as man can engineer a cotton variety that doesn’t die when sprayed with Roundup, nature can engineer a weed that doesn’t mind glyphosate. According to Culpepper, it already has happened. Roundup-resistant horseweed is being reported in several states, including Tennessee, he said.
Herbicides don’t cause plants to become mutants. All it takes is one weed plant in a field to be genetically different, Culpepper said. All the other weed plants in the field are killed when sprayed, but not the resistant one. It makes seed.
Next year there are a few more resistant plants. If the process is allowed to continue, the offspring of that one resistant weed will cover the field. Farmers can’t become too dependent on this technology.
— Billy Skaggs, Hall County Extension Agent, Gainesville Times 8/7/03.
What Mr. Culpepper did not say is that with Roundup Ready technology even more herbicide is used than before, since it won’t hurt the cotton plant but must kill everything else. So we are getting further away from non-chemical techniques and still have to deal with the spreading resistance of weeds. Plus breathing in more synthetic chemicals.
Organics
Victory
Fall
2003
Once again, pressure from consumers has foiled an attempt to change the definition of organic. It had taken thousands of letters and phone calls to get the US Dept. of Agriculture to come up with a definition that satisfied us consumers — no bioengineered foods, no sludge as fertilizer, no spraying with synthetics, and, in particular, feeding organic animals with only organic feed.
Then an enterprising Georgia Congressman thought to help his important constituent by removing the requirement of organic feed, in case that feed was unavailable — but the chickens would still be labeled “organic.”
Consumers raised such a fuss, with thousands more letters and phone calls to Congress, that the attempted amendment failed, with the help of Senator Leahy of Vermont. The organic definition is safe, and the USDA verified that the supply of organic feed is plentiful.
Why
Buy Organic?
Winter
2002/03
The Keep Antibiotics Working (KAW) campaign notes a recent study in Consumer Reports that found that 49% of brand-name whole broiler chickens bought in food stores in US cities were contaminated with Campylobacter and/or Salmonella bacteria.
These two bacteria are the most common causes of food poisoning in the US, resulting in 3.3 million illnesses and 650 deaths annually. Also, 90% of the Campylobacter and 34% of the Salmonella tested were resistant to at least one antibiotic.
Says a Sierra Club scientist, "More than half of the antibiotics fed to factory-farmed animals to compensate for crowded conditions are identical, or nearly identical, to the ones doctors rely on for treating sick people."
Contact KAW at 202-572-3250.
— "Poisoned Poultry," E Magazine, March/April 2003, p. 24.
It’s
the Berries
Winter
2002/03
Are organics really better? A new study backs that up. Tests of pesticide-free strawberries, blackberries, and corn found that they contain up to 58% more polyphenolics, health-boosting compounds, than conventional crops grown on neighboring plots.
Polyphenolics have antioxidant properties and may help protect against cancer and heart disease. The organic produce also had more ascorbic acid, which the body converts to vitamin C.
The study, conducted by researchers at the University of California at Davis, was recently published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
— www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward.id=881
Organic
Fieldale?
Winter
2002/03
Rep. Nathan Deal has been explaining why his bill should exempt poultry from having to use expensive organic feed as just evening up the field. After all, he says, allowing Fieldale to feed their “organic” chickens with non-organic feed is just like allowing farmers to plant non-organic seed and call their produce organic.
Not so, says the Organic Consumers Association. Farmers are allowed to use commercial seeds ONLY if organic seeds are documented to be not available. They must not use fungicide- or insecticide-treated seeds or genetically engineered seeds.
Poultry producers are allowed to use day-old chicks from conventional hatcheries — BUT the chicks must be managed organically from the second day after hatching. So the chicks are the conventional “seeds” but then get the full organic treatment.
Both crop and livestock farmers must follow the standards through the entire production cycle. For crop producers, that means organic management and only approved materials through harvest and sale. For livestock, it means 100% organic feed and only approved medications and feed supplements for the life of the animal.
If you want to get that exempting bill off the books, you can ask your congressional representatives to support its repeal, S.457 in the Senate, HR 955 in the House. Both are called The Organic Restoration Act. Both have had good support on both sides of the aisle, but our own reps need to hear from us, at 202-224-3121 or write to them at US Senate, Washington DC 20510, or US House, Washington DC 20515.
And tell your grocer you will not buy Fieldale chickens, a.k.a. Springer Mountain Farms or Redding. At least this tells us that organic foods are known to be worth the good press they have been getting. Organics are one of the brightest prospects in all agriculture.
After decades of trying to get a toehold in our supermarkets, irradiated meat will be sold locally by the Publix chain. In Hall County frozen irradiated ground beef, chicken breasts and chicken tenderloins will go on sale early in 2003.
People are looking for ways to protect themselves from gaps in the country’s meat inspection system. In 1998, Sara Lee recalled millions of pounds of hot dogs and deli meat after 21 people died in a Listeria outbreak from a Michigan processing plant. In 2000 a three year old Milwaukee girl died and 600 were sickened from E. coli that came from a Colorado Excel meat plant. Recently, ConAgra recalled 19 million pounds of ground beef contaminated with E. coli, and a major Listeria outbreak occurred in Pennsylvania.
Will irradiation keep food safe? Government officials and corporate executives worldwide have decided that our food can safely be “treated” with any dose of radiation. Without studying what high-dose radiation did to the foods, that group of officials met at the World Health Organization in November 2000 and ignored its own 1994 recommendation to study the results of tests. No consumer groups or representatives of the public were present, only representatives from irradiation companies and food industry trade groups. It was clear from the 1950s, when the Atomic Energy Commission began promoting radiation as a way to preserve food, that a dose sufficient to achieve complete sterilization would also produce unpleasant and dangerous degradation products in the food itself. Therefore, the program used less radiation, thus scaling back to “possibly extending the shelf-life of some foods.”
In the late 1960s, the Army produced irradiated ham, to provide ham sandwiches for the frontline troops. However, in 1968 the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) declared the irradiated ham could not be considered safe.
Despite the setback, in 1986 the FDA issued a scientifically controversial decision approving the irradiation of spices, pork, fruits and vegetables. The data that the FDA relied on have been challenged.
Somehow, despite great effort, no market for irradiated foods developed. The public would not buy it, but the government kept trying.
Although cobalt-60 was the original source of radiation, the government urged a shift to cesium-137.
Some critics suspect the shift was a way to use up the limited supply of cesium-137 and thus create a demand for more. After all, in 1998 the government was willing to lease it for 0.83 cents a curie per year, while cobalt-60 sold for $1 a curie on the open market.
The demand for more cesium-137 would require reprocessing nuclear waste instead of burying it somewhere. Then the cesium, and piles of nuclear waste, would become the responsibility of states, not the federal government. Furthermore, plutonium could be extracted from the wastes simultaneously ‹ useful for bomb making but also attractive to terrorists and rogue governments.
At the same time, pressure was building up to shift from burning fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) to using clean alternative energy. While nuclear power production is centralized and therefore controllable, solar and wind are dispersed, therefore politically uncontrollable. So political pressures and the power of the entrenched nuclear industry worked against renewable energy, despite public distaste for radiation. If irradiated food could be accepted by the public, perhaps our fear of radiation would dissipate.
Heavy duty marketing is the latest tool. The food irradiation industry is now allowed to use the term “cold pasteurization” instead of “irradiated.” Fast-food restaurants and schools may use unlabeled irradiated meat. Recently, the Secretary of Agriculture was directed not to prohibit the purchase of irradiated food for the National School Lunch program and the Child Nutrition Program.
Marketing cannot hide the fact that radiation knocks some electrons out of their orbits, breaking chemical bonds, leaving behind a trail of ions ‹ free radicals. New chemicals are formed. These can include carcinogens such as benzene, toluene, and cyclobutanones, which cause genetic damage in human and rat cells.
Irradiation also destroys the nutritional content of food, depleting essential vitamins and nutrients. Feeding tests in other countries showed that test animals did not do well when fed irradiated food.
Irradiation does not protect against recontamination if food is improperly handled by shippers, retailers or consumers. It cannot stop Mad Cow disease or Foot and Mouth disease. It cannot kill viruses such as Hepatitis or Norwalk. While it does kill certain harmful microorganisms, it does nothing to remove the filth that often sullies meat in slaughterhouses. Clean production, not irradiation, is the true solution.
Tell Publix that you don’t want irradiated meat for yourself or your family. You can write to the home office: Charles H. Jenkins, Jr., CEO, Publix Super Markets, PO Box 407, Lakeland FL 33802-0407, or call him at 863-688-1188 ext. 5285. You can tell the manager at any Publix supermarket that you will not buy irradiated meat.
— www.citizen.org/cmep/foodsafety; Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly #573, www.rachel.org; E Magazine Nov/Dec 2002;
Safe
Organics
Fall
2002
The first detailed scientific analysis of organic fruits and vegetables, published May 8, shows that they contain a third as many pesticide residues as conventionally grown foods.
The debate got going last February when John Stossel, on the ABC program “20/20,” reported that levels of pesticide residues in conventional produce were similar to those in organic produce, making organic claims a fraud. Though Mr. Stossel retracted his statement — such testing had never been conducted — his report alarmed the public.
Edward Groth III, a senior scientist at Consumers Union and a co-author of the report, said, “This report shows rather convincingly and compellingly that organic foods are much less likely to have any residues, that when they have residues they have fewer and that the levels of the residues are generally lower.”
Pesticide residue data were collected on a wide variety of foods by the US Dept. of Agriculture, the California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, and Consumers Union, and covered more than 94,000 food samples from more than 20 crops, of which 1,291 samples were organically grown, about 1.3%.
The study also looked at why organic foods contained any pesticide residues. When residues of persistent insecticides, like DDT, were excluded, the percentage of organic samples with residues dropped to 13% from 23%.
Opponents of organic agriculture, like the American Council on Science and Health, which gets 40% of its financing from industry, disagreed. “So what?” asked the council’s Dr. Gilbert Ross. “I think the amount of pesticide residues to which we are exposed on our foods pose no significant health risks to human beings.” The Environmental Protection Agency disagrees and has been working to reduce pesticide levels since 1996.
Dr. Groth said the amount of residues in conventional food was well below the level that is clearly unsafe but above the level scientists say is probably safe.
“There is a large gray area in between,” Dr. Groth said, “and we need a wide safety margin which is not wide enough with conventional produce. This is especially true when we talk about infants and children because they are still developing.”
— Marian Burros, The New York Times, “Study finds far less pesticide residue on organic produce,” 3/8/02, Food Additives and Contaminants Journal.
Food
Irradiation
Fall
2002
“It’s accepted that the animals will enter the kill floor caked with feedlot manure ... Rather than try to ... keep the animals from living in their own waste or slow the line speed — all changes regarded as impractical — the industry focuses on disinfecting the manure that will inevitably find its way into the meat. This is the purpose of irradiation (which the industry prefers to call “cold pasteurization”). It is also the reason that carcasses pass through a hot steam cabinet and get sprayed with an anti-microbial solution before being hung in the cooler at the National Beef plant.”
— New York Times Sunday Magazine, March 31, 2002.
After sales of properly labeled irradiated hamburger flopped in Florida and Wisconsin, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) was successful in an 11th hour attempt to hoodwink meat eaters. Harkin added a 396-page amendment to the Farm Bill that allows irradiated foods to be mislabeled as “pasteurized.” Corporations seeking to use the “pasteurized” label would only have to apply for permission from former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, the Republican Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Moreover, the Harkin-inspired amendment directs HHS to revisit all existing irradiation requirements, with no provision for public input. The new law also permits the National School Lunch Program to serve irradiated meat without consulting or even informing the children or their parents.
— Wild Matters (formerly Food & Water Journal), June 2002.
Tasty
Apples
Fall
2001
A study in the journal Nature, Apr 19, 2001, counters arguments that organic farming systems are less efficient and produce lower yields than conventional farming systems. Conducted by researchers at Washington State University from 1994 to 1999, the study compared organic, integrated and conventional apple orchards and found that while all three systems gave similar apple yields, the organic system had the greatest environmental sustainability, profitability and energy efficiency.
In the study, the organic system did not use synthetic pesticides or fertilizers and relied on compost, mulch, pheromone mating disruption (PMD), Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and thinning fruit by hand. By contrast, the conventional system used synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, PMD and chemical fruit thinner. The integrated system used compost, synthetic fertilizers, mulch and herbicides.
There were no observable differences in physiological disorders, or pest and disease damage across the three systems. However, the study found that the organic apple system had the highest soil quality, profitability, energy efficiency and taste appeal.
Organic apples were the most profitable due to price premiums and quicker investment return. The price premiums reflect consumer willingness to pay extra for organic produce. In the long term, the organic apple system recovered initial costs faster than the conventional system.
Despite higher labor needs, the organic system expended less energy on fertilizer, weed control and biological pest control than the conventional and integrated systems.
A consumer taste test found that organic apples were less tart at harvest than both conventional and integrated apples. They were also found to be sweeter than conventional apples after six months of storage.
— Steve Tvedten, steve@getipm.com, www.panna.org
Irradiated
Meat
Fall
2001
After one child died from eating e.coli contaminated hamburger last year, the meat industry pushed irradiation as the solution, rather than cleaning up the meat packing process.
But the public wasn’t buying it. Citing poor sales and little consumer interest, more than 80 grocery stores and meat markets in Florida and Wisconsin that began selling irradiated ground beef last year have pulled the products off their shelves. Major retailers Wal-Mart and Publix have backed out of deals to sell irradiated ground beef.
Other states where irradiated beef is still being test marketed are all in the North or West, not in the South. Few irradiated food items are being sold, even though the Food and Drug Administration legalized the irradiation of wheat in 1963, potatoes in 1964, spices in 1983, pork in 1985, fruit and vegetables in 1986, poultry in 1990, red meat in 1997, and eggs last year.
‹ Public Citizen Nov/Dec 2001, www.citizen.org, 202-588-1000..
Slimed!
Summer
2001
I’ve been slimed! I was at the house subcommittee hearing on the house bill for farmers’ rights recently, writes Shar Porier. The room was filled with unknown “suits,” company execs, subcommittee members, poultry farmers and the executive director of the Georgia Poultry Federation. Abit Massey was his name.
Now this man has a way with words. At 90 miles per hour, Massey rattled on about how happy the poultry farmers in Georgia were. ...The farmers present weren’t laughing. They found no humor in comments made at their expense, literally. The Georgia Poultry Federation is funded in part by “donations.” These “donations” are, in fact, required and are based on a farmer’s potential earnings. They pay his salary. He’s supposed to be looking out for them.
“I don’t know anything that’s perfect,” he said as he stood there next to me addressing the representatives. “We get a lot of calls from people who want to get in the business. Companies have waiting lists for people who want to get in the business.” He said UGA had done a ten-year study and they found broilers had the highest probability of profit.
Hmm. Was that highest probability of profit for the poultry farmers or the poultry companies? From the men who had just poured their guts out about how they’d been plucked by the industry, I figured he was talking about the companies. We all just heard how companies cut off farmers leaving them with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debts.
The gist of Massey’s oration? To sum it up, something like - legisla-tion? They don’t need no stinking legislation! All of a sudden I felt like I’d been slimed! Eeewww! Massey suddenly transformed before my eyes into a money-green glob! ...
Spoofin’ aside, by using a little common sense, it would be to the poultry industry’s and the legislators’ best interests to treat the farmer better. Give the farmers a contract that’s fair and equitable. If the state can legislate an organization like the Georgia Egg Association into existence and mandate egg farmers pay dues into it to keep it going, seems they could legislate a fair contract for poultry growers. Poultry giants could easily work with farmers to make farms profitable again.
They could also work with environmentalists and accept some of the responsibility for disposing of the waste and by-products that’s not harmful to the land and water. Share some of the financial burden with the farmer.
If changes are not made, it may not be long before Georgia begins to lose all that ag income. And, oh my, what would happen to all those lobbyists running around? ... Where would certain elected and appointed government officials get those little perks? Those weekend travel jaunts in private company jets? Those donations to campaign funds?
— Shar Porier, Banks County News, Aug. 22, 2001
New
Farm Rules
Spring
2001
Although local meetings have generated hot opposition to changes in land use regulations, by now most farmers have learned that they are exempt from present regulations, if they are below 2200 feet in altitude or outside a recharge area, thanks to county rules.
“Local governments may exempt land uses existing prior to promulgation of water supply watershed protection plans,” says the Habersham County regulation.
The Clean Water Act requires that farmers keep all wastes from entering streams. But, and this is a big but, until there is evidence that streams are polluted, farmers are not required to fence off their pastures or have buffers over 25 feet in most places.
Then why all the noise? Some suspect it comes from developers who want to be free to build close to streams, causing sediment to run off, clouding the streams with silt, removing tree canopy at the edge, thereby raising water temperatures. In the 1992 Habersham Land Use Resolution, “The only restriction appears to be that existing owners who want to violate the setbacks to our rivers and streams by building homes now will have to obtain a variance to do so. I suspect that these lot owners and other interests have inflamed the agriculture community,” said Robert E. Ballow in a letter to the editor, Northeast Georgian, 5/10/01.
Now change is on the horizon. Under the terms of a 1992 judicial consent decree between NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) and EPA (federal Environmental Protection Agency), the EPA and USDA came up with a new CAFO rule (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations), signed Dec. 15, 2000. It was published in the Federal Register last Jan. 12 and you can get a copy at www.epa.gov/owm/afo.htm. But be warned - it’s hundreds of pages long and in legal language. For a fact sheet, guide and schedule of public meetings try www.epa.gov/owm.afos/rule.htm or call 202-260-7786.
Your county agent has all the information on what’s in the new rule and can guide you through it. Be warned again - the Extension Service and the Georgia Poultry Justice Alliance do not agree on what could result from the proposed rule. Its purpose is to keep streams free of agricultural pollution that comes from our growing industrialized animal production, replacing the small farms of the past.
The history that led to these proposed changes includes the outbreak of water-borne disease in the Delmarva area (Delaware-Maryland-Virginia) where litter from poultry raising, heavily concentrated along the coast, led to polluted rivers and diseased fish in the rivers and in the ocean. Pfiesteria outbreaks were traced to excess manure runoff.
Poultry growers will come under the new rules if they 1) have a one-time capacity more than 100,000 birds or 30,000-100,000 under certain conditions, or 2) have a one-time capacity of 50,000 or more. This definition would affect at least 80% of all poultry farms, that is, any grower with at least two chicken houses.
Currently only poultry operations with liquid manure or continuous flow watering systems are subject to permit requirements. With the proposed changes, dry litter operations will be included, so that anyone who buys or acquires at least 12 tons of litter (one truckload) to use as fertilizer will have to keep it 100 feet from any federal waters which the agent says could mean even a drainage ditch. This provision will probably attract the most criticism and could be revised.
One of the major points of contention is the adoption of co-permitting between CAFO growers and processors. Growers have long tried to get processors to accept partial responsibility for handling litter and dead chickens, to no avail.
As contracts are now written, animals remain in the ownership of the corporate integrators (the processors) as long as they are alive, but the burden shifts to the farmer when the animals die. Thus the entire financial burden dealing with factory farm pollution falls on contract farmers, and on the taxpayers if the operation is insolvent.
The Extension Service argues that once processors take on liability for dead animals, they can be sued and could be forced out of business, and this could affect the entire industry. Right now many growers are having a hard time meeting the payments on their bank loans and are trying to sell their farms. Their contracts with processors often prevent them from comparing their terms with other growers. (See next article.)
Deadline for public comments is July 30, by mail or e-mail. But you will need to identify the specific paragraph you are commenting on. Your extension agent has a list of topics with their paragraph numbers. For the position of the Georgia Poultry Justice Alliance, go to www.gpja.com, or edington57@aol.com, or call 770-330-8331.
New
Farm Legislation
Spring
2001
Family Farm Cooperative Marketing Amendments Act (HR 230) requires processors to bargain in good faith with contract producers, and includes provisions regarding USDA enforcement, mediation and accreditation of producer bargaining associations.
Poultry Farmers Protection Act (HR 231) amends the Producers & Stockyards Act to give the USDA full enforcement authority similar to what already exists for beef and hogs. Commented Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, “There is no question that farmers and ranchers now more than ever need to join together to bargain for better contractual terms. This law would give farmers and ranchers the power to band together and negotiate agreements to give them their fair share of the profits created in production agriculture.”
Contact your congresspersons at 202-225-3121 or write to them c/o US House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington DC 20515.
Sewage
Sludge
Spring
2001
A proposal to put sewage sludge on pastures in Habersham County brought out many concerned neighbors to a meeting on May 24 in Cornelia City Hall. The SCS Company of Tucker, GA, promised a clean, trouble-free operation and green pastures with no ill effects from the sludge.
Cornelia sludge from the sewage treatment plant comes mostly from Fieldale with little industrial waste, according to SCS. The neighbors worried about pathogens blowing from the sites, odors, and chemical buildup in the soil. Cornelia would benefit by saving money on landfill fees for its sludge, with 650 dry tons per year being produced. The neighbors thought the city would benefit while Habersham landowners would pay the price in deteriorating land values. The pastures are all outside Cornelia city limits.
SCS would take monthly soil samples but the main supervision would be by EPD, based on an annual soil sampling.
As long as soil pH is near neutral, 6.5-7.0, most metals do not move easily into plants or water. But above 7.0 arsenic, selenium and molybdenum become more available and move into plants. So pH has to be carefully regulated. Georgia soils are known to be acidic and require lime, but rain is often acidic, and depending on the rate of rainfall, need more or less lime to keep the pH in neutral range.
Using nitrogen as a base of measurement to keep pastures green means you could get too much phosphorus which is plentiful in sludge.
Pathogens could also be a problem in the Class B “biosolids” produced at the Cornelia plant even if sludge is fully incorporated into the soil, which the SCS presentation did not show. Even so, access to the sites would have to be restricted under EPD rules which also specifies buffers around streams and wells. Both EPD and the Cooperative Extension Service recommend sludge as fertilizer on pastures.
If human wastes were the only substances entering the sewage treatment plant, then sewage sludge would contain only nutrients and should be returned to the land.
Unfortunately, Cornelia’s plant receives all of Fieldale’s wastes, not only chicken parts but all the cleaning materials used to keep the plant clean, which means lots of the chlorine used to disinfect the assembly line area. This element, along with all the pesticides, disinfectants, gasoline runoff, industrial solvents and anything else washed into the storm sewers after a good rain, ends up at the treatment plant. That mixture turns into a brew that can have disastrous effects when used as fertilizer.
Sewage can be mutagenic, causing inheritable genetic changes, but no one seems sure what that means for humans or animal health, although there is anecdotal evidence of animals losing weight after feeding on pastures treated with sludge.
The movement of metals from soils into groundwater, surface water, plants and wildlife depends on many factors: plant species, soil type, soil moisture, soil acidity, sludge application rate, slope, drainage and the specific chemistry of the toxins and of the sludge itself. A buildup of toxic heavy metals in soil today would be a prescription for trouble 30 to 50 years down the road.
The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences was concerned that if such a buildup occurred and the soils were no longer “agronomically managed” but were left alone to be washed by acid rain in perpetuity, what might happen.
Toxic metals and organic industrial poisons can be transferred from sludge-treated soils into crops. Lettuce, spinach, cabbage, Swiss chard and carrots have accumulated toxic metals and/or chlorinated hydrocarbons when grown on soils treated with sludge. In some instances, toxic organics contaminate the leafy parts of plants by simply volatilizing out of the sludge.
Sheep eating cabbage grown on sludge developed lesions of the liver and thyroid gland. Pigs grown on corn treated with sludge had elevated levels of cadmium in their tissues.
Farmers must depend on the word of the sludge supplier. Only an aggressive, independent oversight agency can protect public health. Who has confidence that EPA, EPD or the Cornelia city government can play that role?
To have a public hearing you must request one in writing. Address Jeff Larson, Water Protection Branch EPD, 4220 International Parkway #101, Atlanta 30354.
-- Rachel’s Environment and Health Weekly #561, 8/28/97, erf@rachel.clark.net, 410-263-1584, fax 410-263-8944.
Farm
Trends
Spring
2001
-
Amount of farm subsidies passed by Congress last winter, in billions:
$28
-
Percent that farm subsidies have increased since 1996: 300
- Percent of farm subsidies that go to large, corporate farms: 75
- Percent of agricultural production controlled by the wealthiest 8 percent
of farmers: 72
- Amount of campaign contributions given by agribusiness in 1999-2000
election cycle, in millions: $58
-- Institute for Southern Studies, www.southernstudies.org
No
Mad Cows
Winter
2000/1
While mad cow disease has not been found in U.S. cattle, a variation has appeared in deer and elk. Last July the U.S. Department of Agriculture said it had detected possible TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy) in a herd of imported sheep used to make milk and cheese in Vermont. TSE has not been found to be transmitted by dairy products. If concerned, feed your children more vegetable proteins and choose organically grown meat, which has not been fed animal parts, the source of infection, while avoiding deer and elk meat.
-- The Green Guide, Mothers & Others, Sept./Oct. 2000. 1-888-ECO-INFO.
Food
Irradiation
Fall
2000
Too much nuclear waste on hand? Maybe we could use it to irradiate food to kill dangerous bacteria.
That bright idea did occur to some companies. But public opposition was so strong, the food industry, led by Titan Corp., wants Congress to change the term “irradiation” to “cold pasteurization” or “electronic pasteurization.”
This language is in a rider to HR 4461/SR 2536, the FY 2001 Dept. of Agriculture Food and Drug Administration appropriations bill. If it passes it would weaken already weak labeling requirements.
What’s wrong with irradiating food? The Food and Drug Administration says it’s OK to irradiate flour, potatoes, bacon, apples, cantaloupes, onions and peppers. But a study of irradiated eggs showed them to be deficient in Vitamin A and niacin, and subject to free radicals. Irradiation causes salmonella to mutate to resistant forms, and even makes the yolks watery.
In a US army test, studies showed serious health problems in lab animals that were fed irradiated foods, including premature death and cancer.
Irradiation masks the wretched conditions in today’s factory farms.
Chickens are debeaked and crammed by the tens of thousands into huge poultry houses where they wallow in their own filth, breathe air so thick with ammonia and dust that workers are advised to wear respirators.
Currently, research is underwritten by MDS Nordion, an Ottawa-based company with links to a Canadian government agency responsible for the proliferation of nuclear technology to China, India and Pakistan.
For a free copy of the 32 page article by Dr. Jacob Schubert published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization in 1969, which contains results of lab tests, contact Public Citizen at 202-454-5123 or email mworth@citizen.org, or write to them at 215 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Washington DC 20003.
Chicken
Growers Alliance
Fall
2000
Poultry farmers met on Sept. 14 to address their problems within the industry.
The Georgia Poultry Justice Alliance recently formed to “provide safe working conditions, fair wages, benefits for plant workers and catchers, fair contracts for growers, and reasonable environmental controls that protect Georgia’s waterways and drinking supplies,” said Barry Edington, chairman of the Alliance.
Growers are in competition with each other, even though they work for the same company. Their contracts prevent them from sharing information or complaints, say members of the Alliance.
Growers say they must accept chicks not up to standards, and feed that may be contaminated or moldy. Often, 10 to 11% of the chickens will be of such low quality that they cannot be sold and must be disposed of at the grower’s expense.
“The company is not telling us if the flocks are spoiled. We have no control over the chicks. No control over the feed. We have no bargaining power,” said one grower.
Another said, “The integrators are probably out in the parking lot right now taking down tag numbers.”
The next meeting of the Alliance will be 7 PM Friday Oct. 20, at the Jackson Electric Membership Corp. auditorium in Jefferson. in conjunction with the Packers and Stockyards Administration. For information call 770-330-8338.
-- Shar Porier, Banks County News, 9/20/00.
Chicken
Rules
Fall
2000
How do you get rid of poultry waste? The companies, which own the birds, say it’s the growers’ responsibility. The growers want the companies to share disposal costs.
The Georgia Board of Natural Resources had proposed rules to require sharing these costs, also to increase the size of buffers around chicken operations. But the poultry item was removed from the September agenda after the attorney general’s office said the board had no authority to adopt several of the provisions.
The DNR board is having a harder time imposing restrictions on the poultry industry than it did last year with hog farmers. Both industries have had well publicized waste water spills, and fish kills have been traced to manure runoff from chicken houses where poultry farms are concentrated.
In mid-September Tyson Foods reported that its Cumming rendering plant spilled 300,000 to 400,000 gallons of waste water into Big Creek, which flows into the Chattahoochee.
Environmental groups have found common cause with some chicken farmers in calling for the state to force the giant poultry companies, or integrators, to help pay to dispose of the wastes. “In Northeast Georgia, disposing of chicken waste as fertilizer is becoming increasingly difficult,” said Becky Edington of Jackson County. “We don’t want to be saddled with sole responsibility.”
Kentucky is the only state that has imposed an integrator liability provision, and it is subject to a lawsuit. Nancy Stoner, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said she’s not surprised. “These are big companies that have found a way to externalize a lot of their costs. That’s what it’s all about.”
-- Dave Williams, “Poultry Farm Crackdown Hits Legal Snags in Georgia,” Savannah Morning News, 9/24/00;
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair reversed himself last week when he acknowledged that there was "potential for harm" as well as benefit from GM crops and foods. Last year Blair accused pressure groups of being "irrational" but not this year.
Following the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in Montreal in January, and the European Commission's announcement on plans for a European Food Safety Agency, this is one more step in the international debate on GM foods.
Germany recently prevented approval for a GM maize variety. Swiss-based Novartis, which developed the insect-resistant "Bt 176" strain, is considering a legal challenge.
Greenpeace activists publicized the meeting by boarding a freighter due to deliver 60,000 tons of US commodity soybeans, an unknown proportion of which is genetically modified, to Liverpool. Five of the activists were arrested early on Feb. 28. The cargo is owned by Cargill.
Today over 30 different GE fruits and vegetables are on the market, mostly varieties of soybeans, corn, potatoes, tomatoes and squash. These transgenic crops grow on more than 50 million acres in the US. In 1998, an estimated 40% of the soybean crops and 30% of the corn crop were GE.
Because these two products are widely used in processed foods, up to 70% of the processed foods lining our supermarket shelves including infant formula, soda, corn or potato chips, margarine, ice cream, bread and ready-made meals could contain GE components, with no label to distinguish them.
In the research pipeline are bruise-resistant potatoes with genes from wax moths, corn with firefly genes, and potatoes with genes from a chicken. Consumer advocates worry that GE organisms have not been safely tested over the long term. Health experts warn that GE foods could lead to increased allergies as new proteins from organisms never before eaten as food are introduced into human and animal food chains. This is exactly what happened in 1998 when a Brazil nut gene was introduced into soybeans to increase the protein content of animal feed.
In plants, antibiotic-resistant genes are used as "markers" that indicate which cells have taken up foreign genes. Though they have no further use, the antibiotic-resistant genes remain in the plant tissue and could be passed onto bacteria in the intestinal tracts of humans and animals, rendering antibiotics ineffective.
Once "biological pollution" starts, there is no stopping it. Lab researchers at Cornell University found that insect-resistant corn genetically engineered with the toxin Bt could be killing the Monarch butterfly. Field studies at Iowa State U showed similar results. Swiss researchers found that Bt crops affect beneficial predators like lacewings and ladybugs that eat insects that feed on GE plants.
If you own shares of chemical companies (DuPont, Dow, American Home Products, Monsanto), food processing companies (Philip Morris or Coca-Cola), or restaurant chains (McDonald’s or Pepsi), you can put these shares to work for the environment. Contact Michelle Chan-Fishel at mchan@foe.org or call 202-783-7400 ext. 242.
-- Friends of the Earth, Summer 1999, www.foe.org/safefood.
Also you can find organic food at Publix, Harry’s, Whole Foods, Food Fare, or the Higher Ground food co-op that meets in Cornelia. Call ACE for information.
No
Terminator Seed
Fall
1999
Congratulations to all those who wrote, phoned and faxed Monsanto to stop production of the Terminator Seed. We won!
Monsanto issued a public statement saying that because of the outcry, it would not proceed as planned. The Terminator Seed would have prevented farmers from using the seeds produced the first year from being used for a second crop.
This does not mean that Monsanto will stop its use of other bioengineered (genetically modified, or GM) products. The company sees its future in GM. Says Paul Hawken, “In Europe, Monsanto has become the most reviled American corporation. No small achievement.”
— Rachel’s Environmental and Health Weekly, #668, Sept. 16, 1999
U.S. farmers face lower prices than expected for many GM crops, as many European, Japanese, and domestic markets are boycotting altered foods. Next year, with reduced demand for GM seeds, there may not be enough non-modified seeds to meet farmers’ needs.
Millions of acres of GM crops now being harvested include 35% of the U.S. soybean crop, 35% of the corn crop, and 39% of the cotton. Archer-Daniels-Midland told suppliers to keep altered crops separate and is offering premium prices for non-modified crops. Farmers who paid extra for modified seeds now must pay for separating the crops and testing for purity.
— Environmental News Service, Sept. 24, 1999
The top five gene giants (AstraZeneca, DuPont, Monsanto, Novartis and Aventis) account for nearly two thirds of the global pesticide market, almost one fourth of the global seed market, and virtually all of the transgenic seed market. Mergers have helped: Rhone Poulenc and Hoechst became Aventis, CibaGeigy and Sandoz became Novartis, and DuPont swallowed Pioneer Hi-Bred earlier this year.
— Rural Advancement Foundation International, www.rafi.org
