In the last years of his life King received criticism not just from the segregationists in the South but even from Democratic Party leaders in the North and black leaders in the civil rights movement. He had started talking about worker’s rights, a more equitable distribution of wealth, and how unjust the war in Southeast Asia was.

The most polite thing I can recall him being called by his enemies was “troublemaker.” But he became a threat to the incomes of some of our most powerful individuals and corporations and that very well could have been what got him killed rather than civil rights.

There are quite a few really wonderful speeches besides his “dream speech, “although that is a magnificent piece of oratory. I heard the whole thing this morning. It’s only about 15 min. Most people only hear the speech beginning after his segue into the dream portion (that’s the point where he veered from his prepared text after Mahalia Jackson encouraged him to, “tell them about the dream Martin”). Here’s the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs

Below, the link will take you to a few poignant minutes snippet of King’s last speech (April 4, 1968)… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL4FOvIf7G8&feature=related

MAK

I demand organic. It’s that simple. I know, you’re thinking, “Of course you demand organic. You wrote the Organic Manifesto and grew up on an organic farm.” True, but, even if I didn’t, I would demand organic and so should you. In lieu of giving you my big speech about how organics can feed the planet and make us safer, I will focus on one very good reason why I demand organic: GMOs. Genetically Modified Organisms, or, as the FDA says, foods that have undergone genetic modification, meaning they’ve been engineered and altered at the genetic level “using any technique, new or traditional.”

Choosing organic is the only way, right now, that I can make sure I am not feeding my family potentially dangerous biotech ingredients. And although the food manufacturers have done a tobacco-industry-worthy job of trying to convince us that GMOs are safe, the truth is that the science is starting to say otherwise.

There aren’t a whole lot of comprehensive studies out there on GMOs and the health impact they have on humans because scientists have to ask permission to do them, and because GMOs are patented by two major corporations, Monsanto and Syngenta. These patents make it extremely difficult to gain access to the information needed to study how GMOs affect human health. That said, here’s a sampling of what has been published about GMOs:

So far, there’s only been one published study on how GMO ingredients affect us when we eat them. It was in the journal Nature Biotechnology, and it found that after we eat GMO soy, some of the GMO genes are transferred to the microflora of our intestines and those GMO genes are still active.

Another study, published in Reproductive Toxicology, found Bt-toxin (used in genetically modified Bt corn) in the blood of 93 percent of the pregnant women studied and their babies. The study authors suggest that aside from eating products made from GMO crops, eating meat from animals fed GMO crops may lead to a “a high risk of exposure.”

Finally, an Italian study published in The Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry found that in young and older mice fed Bt corn, there were changes to their immune systems that corresponded with allergic and inflammatory responses. In humans these same inflammatory changes are associated with arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, allergies, and autoimmune diseases.

So here are three studies: One reports that GMOs survive in our bodies — they aren’t killed in the stomach, as some have suggested, but travel to the intestine where they remain active in the body. Another study reports that we are exposed to these GMOs, not only from the GMO foods themselves, but also from eating animals that eat GMO foods. And finally, animal studies reveal that these GMOs may be linked to disease.

So I say, Just Label It!

Right now there is a grassroots effort underway to mandate the FDA to label GMO foods. In October, The Just Label It: We Have a Right to Know campaign filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require mandatory labeling of GMO foods. It is supported by more than 450 businesses and organizations dedicated to food safety and consumer rights and more than 400,000 people have already raised their voices to tell the FDA we have the right to know what is in our food.

If there’s nothing for us to worry about, then seed and chemical companies should freely allow studies to be done so that food companies can confidently label their products. Show us the science saying that there’s nothing to worry about, and then label products, proudly: “Made Using Biotechnology.” (Hmmm, “M.U.B” — well, I’m sure their PR teams would come up with something catchier.) But the point is, show us the real science behind the safety claims, and then put your money where your mouth is. Although, according to a study in the journal Food Policy, studies that “cast genetically modified products in a favorable light” often have authors with either financial or professional ties to industry. So perhaps their mouths are already full.

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t blame the scientists. The problem is that most scientists are blocked from doing the non-biased work they need to do because seed companies will not fund or give permission for research unless they have the right to control what gets published. Which means that studies that cast an unfavorable light never see the light. We need transparency!

Again, I say Just Label It!

It seems like a simple solution, but manufacturers have decided that, if given the choice, we the consumers might not choose to buy GMO products. So, they’ve decided not to give us a choice, which doesn’t seem very American.

And the FDA says they have “no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding.” Maybe I should send them some of those studies, in case they missed them. Or maybe they should use some of the government money that is currently being spent to subsidize GMO crops to fund non-biased research that benefits the American people.

So, until our government and big business catch up, here’s what you can do to stay safe:

Demand Organic! GMOs are banned in organic farming and in organic food, although as the U.S. Department of Agriculture approves more genetically engineered crops, the risk of cross-contamination through pollen increases.

Sign the Just Label It petition. Having choices in the marketplace is something that Americans take pride in, but that right is stripped of you every time you set foot in a grocery store because GMOs aren’t required to be labeled. Ask the FDA to change that policy.

Know the Usual Suspects. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, and sugar (in nonorganic form) are the five ingredients most likely to be genetically engineered. Eighty percent of the packaged foods in the U.S. contain GMOs. If you can’t buy organic, then look for the Non-GMO Project Verified seal. The group tests for GMOs, but not for pesticide residues.

Spread the Word. The best solution is education. The more people who know about the hazards of GMOs, the less people will want to consume them. And voting with our dollars is one of the most powerful ways to send the message: We demand the right to know what is in our food! Share this message with as many people as you can so that companies hear us loud and clear.

Farmer/philosopher Joel Salatin says get off your laptop, get in the dirt and live with it.

Joel Salatin is heralded as the high priest of the pasture. And for good reason. The Virginia farmer speaks the gospel of local, clean, and healthy eating. No pesticides. Uber-organic. Just a man and his earth—with as little government interference as possible. Devotees are eating it up.

Now, he’s out with a new clarion call for a nation of unhealthy eaters: Get off your laptop and get your hands dirty. Get close to the earth. Understand where your food and fuel comes from. Before it’s too late.

Listen to the full broadcast at http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/10/10/joel-salatin

This hour On Point: Food philosopher, Joel Salatin.

Guests

Joel Salatin, third-generation alternative farmer and owner of Polyface Farms in Viginia’s Shenandoah Valley. He raises livestock using holistic and chemical-free meathods of animal husbandry. His new book is, “Folks, this ain’t normal”.

Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation’s largest general farm organization.
From The Reading List

The New York Times “For 44 years on the western edge of the Shenandoah Valley, three generations of Salatins (of which he’s the middle) have raised grass-fed livestock on rough and hilly land without recourse to an ounce of chemical fertilizer or a fistful of seed, in close touch with the soil, the seasons and themselves, using methods meant to mimic nature.”

Bloomberg Businessweek “We have seen new business models emerge over the last decade for dozens of industries including travel, advertising, and publishing—all relying heavily on technology-based improvements in productivity and changes in distribution associated with the Internet.”

National Geographic “Today an enthusiastic band of scientists has gone back to that fork in the road: They’re trying to breed perennial wheat, rice, and other grains. Wes Jackson, co-founder and president of the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, has promoted the idea for decades. It has never had much money behind it. But plant breeders in Salina and elsewhere are now crossing modern grains with wild perennial relatives; they’re also trying to domesticate the wild plants directly.”
Excerpt

Children, Chores, Humility, and Health

“We need something for our young people to do” is a common refrain in adult circles today. Daily news reports about roving teenagers getting into mischief during the wee hours of the morning don’t make any sense to me. Every time I see that a group of young people has caused some fracas at 2 a.m. I wonder, “Who has time and energy to be out cavorting at 2 a.m.?”

Our children went to bed at 9 or 10 p.m. and were grateful for the opportunity. Our apprentices and interns normally dismiss themselves from our company and head off to bed as soon after dark as they can get there.

That young people today, at least when they are not in school, spend the day lounging around, hanging out, and then go into the wee hours burning off excess energy is aberrant in the first degree. Add to that the pastime of playing video games, exercising only thumb muscles and fingertips, and folks, we have a situation that just ain’t normal.

When the biggest thrill in life is becoming competent enough on the video game to achieve level five performance, what kind of environ¬ment are we creating for our future leaders? When I sit in airports and watch these testosterone exuding boys with their shriveled shoulders and E.T. looking fingers passing the time on their laptops, I realize that this is normal for them. This isn’t happening because they are sitting in an airport trying to while away the time. This is actually how many, if not most, of their hours are spent —recreation, entertainment, and playing around.

Contrast that with historical normalcy. Here is a list of chores for young people since time immemorial:

1. Chopping, cutting, and gathering firewood. In the days before petroleum and electricity, every able bodied person contributed to keeping the household warm during the winter months. This wood accumulation required a knowledge of the forest and of what kind of wood burns well. Not all wood is created equal. Resinous woods like evergreens coat the inside of the chimney and unless mixed half and half with nonresinous will accumulate too much soot on the inside of the chimney or flue. This highly combustible residue can become a fire hazard. Whenever we cut down a pine tree, therefore, we want to look around for at least equal parts hardwoods to balance out the fuel for the fireplace or woodstove. Green wood cut from standing, living trees con¬tains 30 percent or more water, and this moisture retards the fire because before the wood can burn it must evaporate the water.

A skilled wood gatherer knows to seek dead and dry wood for imme¬diate burning but to stockpile the green wood for future burning. But all dead and downed wood is not equally dry. If the dead wood is up off the ground a little, it will be perfect. A standing snag is ideal most of the time. Sometimes it has already rotted and turned to powder —common in soft deciduous trees like poplar or red maple.

If the dead or downed wood is on the ground, it may be too rotten to burn. Burning wood is essentially an extremely fast rotting process: What soil microbes do over an extended period, a fire does in a short period. If the combustible carbon is already decomposed through the rotting process, nothing is left to burn.

All wood gives off about the same BTUs per pound, but different woods weigh different amounts per cubic foot. Heavy woods like white oak and hickory give off twice as much heat per cubic foot than light woods like poplar or white pine.

Gathering wood, then, requires a fair amount of knowledge to be done well. Beyond the knowledge is the skill to gather it efficiently. Obviously if we’re going to the forest to bring in firewood, we will take our tools like a chainsaw (modern), crosscut or bucksaw (premodern), or ax (old). Or imagine the Native Americans who either used stone axes or built fires around big trees to fell them. That required yet another whole skill set — one that I don’t possess.

But I do know how to run a chainsaw — a wonderful modern inven¬tion. I also know how to swing an ax, sharpen an ax, and replace the handle on an ax —all skills I developed as a youth. Once the wood is cut, it must be loaded into a vessel: trailer, pickup truck bed, hay wagon, whatever. It never ceases to amaze me when I go to the woods with our apprentices and interns how much I have to teach about efficiently gathering wood. First, we stack the branches with all the butts facing one way and uphill because the fluffy branch ends tend to build verti¬cal height faster than the butts. If you stack the branches haphazardly, the pile gets too high too fast. By carefully placing the branches, we can get far more on the pile.
When we begin picking up the cut pieces of wood, we want to get the vessel as close to the wood as possible. No walking — pitch it into the vessel. If the piece is too big to throw, of course, then you may have to walk, but we want to keep backing the vessel into the cut wood to minimize walking. Obviously, if we pitch the wood to the vessel, we want to position our bodies between the vessel and the wood we’re pick¬ing up. This way we can reduce the throw by the length of our bodies and our arms —usually a distance of nearly five feet.

By swiveling back and forth this way, we can load the wood twice as fast as if we’re behind the pieces throwing them into the vessel. And three times faster than if we’re picking them up in our arms and carry¬ing them over to the trailer. I know some people are reading this think¬ing, “Wow, that sounds like a lot of work. I’m glad I just turn on the thermostat and the heat starts.”

This is an excerpt from FOLKS, THIS AIN’T NORMAL by Joel Salatin. Copyright © 2011 by Joel Salatin. Reprinted by permission of Center Street. All rights reserved.

Minnesota’s organic farmers may now have greater protection against neighboring farmers’ pesticide use. The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently held that when chemical pesticides drift from one farm to another, the resulting damage may provide a basis for claims of trespass, nuisance and negligence. The decision reverses the lower court’s determinations that Minnesota does not recognize trespass by particulate matter and that the damages necessary to sustain causes of action for negligence and nuisance cannot exist unless pesticide contamination exceeds the five percent limit established by National Organic Program (NOP) regulations. With organic farming becoming increasingly widespread and profitable, this decision may have far-reaching implications for those involved in Minnesota’s agriculture industry.

Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Oil Co.

In its July 2011 decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals considered what remedies, if any, were available to organic famers whose crops were contaminated as a result of overspraying pesticides. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Oil Co., No. 73-CV-09-5042 (Minn. App. July 25, 2011). Upon deciding to transition to organic production, the plaintiffs, Oluf and Debra Johnson, asked the defendant, Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company (Paynesville), which engaged in the business of commercial pesticide spraying, to take precautions against overspraying when treating fields adjacent to the Johnson farm. Despite these requests, the Johnsons’ fields were damaged as a result of overspraying by Paynesville on five separate occasions over a ten year period.

After each of the latter four oversprays, the Johnsons contacted the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), which required the Johnsons to take the affected fields out of organic production for a period of three years. In addition, following the second overspray, the Johnsons were forced to sell affected crops at lower, non-organic prices, and after the third and fourth oversprays, the MDA required the Johnsons to burn or plow under the affected crops.

Following the final 2008 overspray, the Johnsons filed suit, alleging trespass, nuisance, negligence per se and battery. Though the district court initially granted a temporary injunction that prohibited Paynesville from spraying within a one-quarter mile radius of the Johnson farm and required Paynesville to provide advance notice of spraying activities in the area, the district court ultimately dismissed all of the Johnsons’ claims.

Particulate Drift and National Organic Program Regulations

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal of the trespass, nuisance and negligence per se claims. To prevail on a claim of trespass, a plaintiff must show that 1) he or she has rightful possession of the property, and 2) the defendant unlawfully entered that property. In a previous trespass case, the Court of Appeals had held that “invasive odors” emanating from a pig feeding lot could not constitute “unlawful entry” by the defendant. Wendinger v. Forst Farms, Inc., 662 N.W.2d 546, 550 (Minn. App. 2003). The Wendinger court, referring to the fumes as “particulate matter,” found that though these fumes impaired the enjoyment and use of the property, they did not harm the plaintiff’s possessory rights. Id. Thus, the court in Wendinger held that nuisance, not trespass, was the appropriate cause of action. Id.

Relying on the Wendinger court’s use of the phrase “particulate matter,” the district court in Johnson decided that because the pesticides that drifted onto the Johnsons’ farm were also particulate matter, there could be no claim of trespass. The Court of Appeals determined, however, that the district court misapplied Wendinger, explaining that unlike fumes, the pesticides “affect[ed] the composition of the land” by clinging to soil and plants and killing organisms. In so holding, the court joined other jurisdictions, including Alaska and Washington, in determining that trespass can occur by way of particulate matter.

The Court of Appeals also disagreed with the district court’s nuisance and negligence per se analysis. The district court relied on its interpretation of the organic certification scheme created by NOP to determine that the Johnsons had not suffered any damages as a result of the pesticide drift. The federal regulations, adopted by Minnesota in Minn. Stat. § 31.925, state that “[a]ny field or farm parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as ‘organic’ must . . . [h]ave had no prohibited substances . . . applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop.” 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b). A separate provision states that if “residue testing detects prohibited substances at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency’s tolerance for the specific residue . . . , the agricultural product must not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced.” 7 C.F.R. § 205.671.

The district court relied on this second standard to determine that because the Johnsons submitted no evidence that their crops tested above the five percent tolerance level, they had suffered no damages, as they could have sold their crops at organic prices. The Court of Appeals disagreed with this conclusion, explaining that the five percent provision could not be read in isolation and that, ultimately, a certifying agent has the discretion to decertify crops even if they test below the five percent contamination threshold. Accordingly, the damages pleaded by the Johnsons were sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment, allowing their claim to proceed to trial for resolution.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals’ decision expands the remedies available to organic farmers who suffer damages as a result of pesticide drift. It correspondingly increases the risk faced by conventional farmers and commercial pesticide spraying companies applying chemical pesticides and herbicides in the vicinity of organic farms. Though pesticides may not be visible, they constitute physical “particulate matter” and have the ability to invade the possessory rights of landowners, thereby creating a cause of action for trespass. Further, any contamination may constitute “damage” for the purposes of nuisance or negligence per se claims if an organic certifying agent determines that affected crops do not met NOP regulatory standards. Conventional farmers and commercial pesticide spraying companies should take extra precautions when spraying near organic farms. Ultimately, with the ever-growing market for organic foods and resultant increase in the presence of organic farms, courts will continue grappling with the difficult task of balancing the interests of organic farmers with those of conventional farmers.

Jennifer Singleton is a law clerk at Larkin Hoffman. She is currently a third year student at the University of Minnesota Law School

In this short documentary he investigates the reality of farming genetically modified crops in the USA ten years after their introduction. He travels across the US interviewing farmers and other specialists about their experiences of growing GM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEX654gN3c4&feature=player_embedded

Quietly slipping under the radar last week the Town of Barre was the second municipality in the state to pass a measure supporting food sovereignty. The first was Barre City on March 4, 2011. In both towns food sovereignty was expressed as the “right to save seed, grow, process, consume and exchange food and farm products.” Barre City voters were asked if they “Resolved to declare sovereignty over [these rights].” They said yes by a vote of 686 yes to 220 no. Barre Town’s numbers on May 10 were strikingly similar (673 yes- 200 no) when passing the Vermont Resolution for Food Sovereignty, a document written by members of the Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty in December of 2010.

The Resolution passed by Barre Town asserts that the People have the right and responsibility, individually and through their elected officials, to resist any and all infringements on the rights to save seed, grow, process, consume and exchange food and farm products within the State of Vermont. The statement is intended to catalyze and inspire a conversation among all of the people in Vermont about food freedom and security in a time of global unrest and to stand as a template and measure by which all food and agricultural policy in the State of Vermont should be held against.

The Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty is a grassroots coalition of individuals from highly divergent political, religious and socio-economic backgrounds.They are an entirely self-funded and self-motivated activist group dedicated to protecting the basic human right to save seed, grow, process, consume and exchange food and farm products within the state of Vermont. VCFS is committed to addressing and resisting infringements on these rights in a positive, productive way, actively engaging in finding responsible solutions which increase opportunity and freedom for Vermont’s food producers and consumers while solidifying Vermont’s reputation as a vanguard in the local, healthy food movement.

It must be tough writing a book about good food. Because you can’t give readers a literal taste of what you’re talking about, all you can do is try and convince people that you have a superfine palate and keep using words like “delicious” and “yummy” over and over.

This is why the book CHEESEMONGER: A LIFE ON THE WEDGE by Gordon Edgar (Chelsea Green; 2010) is a cut above most books about food. Not merely a cheese brochure with “flavor profiles” of various cheeses (though it does offer great info about various cheeses at the end of each chapter), CHEESEMONGER is like having beer with a smart friend who knows cheese so well that you want to keep buying drinks to hear everything he knows.

Gordon Edgar is the eponymous “cheesemonger,” the head buyer and seller of cheese at San Francisco’s famous Rainbow Co-op grocery store. If you know this worker-owned co-op, you won’t be surprised that the author brings a classic punk ethic to the topic and that CHEESEMONGER houses no sacred cows. From the book’s first chapter, Edgar unapologetically slaps cheese out of the hands of bloodless aesthetes who are more concerned with status and prestige of cheese, with a description of his annual nightmare about coolers full of rotten, moldy cheese in the midst of a busy holiday at the store. “All the beautiful cheese is going concave — hardening and disintegrating — and I am helpless.” No, food porn this is not.

After all, retailing cheese isn’t a dainty job. It’s loaded with bare-knuckled politics between producers and global sellers, and the daily race against decay is always a ticking clock — but Edgar seems to relish the “true grit” involved with cheesemongery. Indeed, his idea of what defines a real cheesemonger might shock the brie-and-water-cracker set, involving as it does kicking a sales rep out of the grocery store (“you need to defend your turf if you’re going to be a cheesemonger”) and shedding one’s own blood in the glorious cause of selling fine cheese. Edgar’s accoount of having a cheese toothpick driven into his finger under the force and weight of a giant, falling wheel of hard Reggiano made me wince and laugh in can’t-look-away sympathy. Let’s hear it for blood-and-guts retailers!

Having been a grocery guy myself, I love what Edgar is doing in CHEESEMONGER. It’s obviously a book born from a desire to have longer conversations with his customers than social appropriateness will allow. As a reader, you can appreciate how thoroughly and intelligently Edgar addresses, say, the various issues swirling around raw milk cheeses — the health risk to pregnant women, the fact that French cheeses are often pasteurized for American market — and laugh, too, at the image of shoppers who just wanted to zip into the co-op for some Coby Jack. (“Time out, dude, time out! I gotta get home and actually eat this cheese, ok?”)

One of the great strengths of this book is that Edgar is a master at popping holes in long-standing myths — for example, what Edgar might call the “know your farmer” or “tell their story” chestnuts. This is a marketing strategy and little more, when you think about it, one that really does nothing but make customers feel good about buying whatever. From CHEESEMONGER:

“After all, things happen. One longtime cheesemaker I know has an incredible amount of integrity. I would never doubt his word. He would never engage in shady activities. But he also had no idea that workers at his cheese plant were using cheesemaking vats weekly for drunken Jacuzzi parties with women they picked up at the local bars. If they hadn’t gotten a little too drunk one night and been discovered passed out when the morning milk arrived I would never have heard this story. Of course, there’s little actual danger to the cheese in this scenario since the first thing any reputable cheesemaker does before making cheese is clean and sanitize everything. But I believe my point is clear.”

CHEESEMONGER is the rare food book that doesn’t mythologize any aspect of food production.

By the end of the book, however, I believe I had a slightly different idea of what a “cheesemonger” was than the author did. Cheesemongers are more than just tough-guy retailers, because Edgar is a cheese lover, too, after all, and this shines through the pages. His life was changed by an Antique Gruyere, he says, but he also loves visiting the small local farmers who produce milk for his beloved local cheeses. Being a proper cheesemonger (or a produce monger, or wine monger, for that matter) means simultaneously zooming out and zooming in on your love. This double-vision allows CHEESEMONGER to be equally concerned with all constituencies in the “cheese chain,” from small dairy farmers and historic cheeses, to bullying sales reps, to how cheese is best sold in a grocery store. By the end of the book, your cheese acumen isn’t limited to taste profiles, but nor are you so zoomed far out into the socio-political or nutritional stratosphere that you lose the flavor, that “oniony undertone,” of Edgar’s life-changing Gruyere.

CHEESEMONGER is a chewy book for the foodie whose appetite isn’t easily sated.

A story has been developing over the past month involving lies, toxic sludge, Hollywood celebrities, and poor, inner city school children. It centers around the Environmental Media Association (EMA), a group of environmentally conscious Hollywood celebs, and the “organic” school gardens they’ve been volunteering at for the past past couple years. Stars like Rosario Dawson, Amy Smart, Emmanuelle Chriqui, and Nicole Ritchie have generously adopted Los Angeles schools, visiting the schools and helping the children garden. What the celebs didn’t know is that their organization’s corporate donor – Kellogg Garden Products – sells both organic compost and soil amendments and ones made from sewage sludge. Seventy percent of Kellogg’s business is products made from sewage sludge. Sewage sludge is not allowed on organic farms and gardens.

In late March, the Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) wrote to EMA, alerting them that Kellogg products contain sludge, which may jeopardize the safety and the organic status of the gardens. As a result of the letter, John Stauber, founder of CMD, then met with Ed Begley, Jr., famous environmentalist and EMA board member, who was concerned about the possibility that sludge was used on the gardens.

Following that meeting, a reply came back from EMA’s President, Debbie Levin, who has been called “Hollywood’s Conscience,” asking CMD to stop communicating with Ed Begley, Jr. and to call off its public campaign against the use of Kellogg products on the LA school gardens. She asserted that her organization never claimed the gardens were organic. Then, in the next week, EMA removed the word “organic” from its webpage about its school garden program… but left it in on some pages. (See screenshots here) EMA refers to the gardens as “organic” in a fundraising form, leading donors to believe they are contributing to organic school gardens. Ironically, in 2003, EMA gave an award to King of the Hill for its episode titled “I Never Promised You an Organic Garden.” Talk about foreshadowing.

SFGate and Mother Jones each wrote articles on this story, published a few days after Levin’s initial email reply. The Mother Jones piece features a picture of Rosario Dawson gardening with children, with a bag of Kellogg’s Amend (made from sewage sludge and contaminated with dioxins and other hazardous material) behind them. The article says:

“This was one of those unfortunate weird things,” says EMA president Debbie Levin, who hadn’t known anything about Amend before the shoot. Amend, she later learned, is not approved for organic farming because it’s made from municipal sewage sludge.

And

So what to do if you’re a home gardener who wants compost without the sewage? Try checking the website of the Organic Materials Review Institute, which vets agricultural products used by certified organic farmers. That’s the preferred approach of Levin, who stresses that no Kellogg Amend was ever actually applied to EMA’s gardens (though one school may have inadvertently ordered a different sludge-based product). “Everything was according to what we asked for,” she says. “We use the organic stuff.”

That much is old news. According to Levin, she and EMA were unaware that Kellogg products contained sludge, but not to worry because the products in the photos were never used. (Does that mean the bags of Amend that appear in many pictures of the school gardens were brought in for use as props in photo ops and then removed? Even if that were the case, it’s unfortunate that an environmental organization is giving that sort of free publicity to an environmentally unsound product like Amend.)

Here’s the new part of the story. Mud Baron, a Master Gardener who worked for the LA Unified School District’s garden program from 2006 to 2011, has come forward, with a signed, notarized affidavit, alleging that he informed Levin and others at EMA that some Kellogg products contained sewage sludge, which is not permissible on organic gardens, as early as summer 2009. (See his statement here.) Levin repeatedly assured him that all of the products donated from Kellogg would be organic.

Baron also says he questioned the appropriateness of an environmental group promoting a corporation that sold sewage sludge as “compost,” and those concerns were ignored and overruled as well. (Kellogg products identify the sewage sludge only as “compost” on product labels. The packages use the word “organic,” misleading some gardeners that they are appropriate to use on organic gardens.)

Baron says he continually raised the issue of sewage sludge in Kellogg products, but Levin responded “We’ve been doing our projects for 20 years, we know what we are doing.” Yet order records from the schools betray that one high school ordered 192 bags of Gromulch, made with sludge, in 2010 alone. Baron adds that the resource-strapped schools shared the donations they received from Kellogg, so the 384 cubic feet of Gromulch may be split among several schools’ gardens. And worse, a 2010 test by San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission found dangerously high levels of cancer-causing dioxins in Kellogg’s Amend. (Gromulch was not tested.)

Thus far, the response to CMD’s Food Rights Network) from EMA’s Executive Director Greg Baldwin is that in the future, EMA will ensure that only organic (OMRI-listed) products are used in the school gardens. Furthermore, they will no longer refer to the gardens as organic.

There is no evidence that EMA has notified the LA Unified School District, the schools, the children, the children’s parents, the celebrities who were promoting the school gardens, the donors who provided the funding for the gardens while believing they were organic, or all of EMA’s board members that the school gardens are not organic and may contain sewage sludge from Kellogg Garden Products. When asked in an email, Levin refused to answer whether these steps were taken yet or not.

Lisa Graves, executive director of CMD, says, “We are demanding that EMA end the greenwashing now, and end its relationship with Kellogg and any other organization that refuses to clearly label its products as ‘derived from sewage sludge.’ We are also asking that EMA notify the children, the schools, and the donors who contributed money for the “organic” gardens. Last, EMA must remediate the gardens that have been contaminated.”

Your move, EMA.

Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Glyphosate-Tolerant Alfalfa
Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044

We own and operate Deer Run Farm, a certified organic beef-producing farm. This is a grass and forage based cow/calf to finished beef operation. It has been certified organic since 1999. Prior to 1995 we farmed conventionally. In addition I have a business consulting company specializing on performance analysis methods and general management for organic and small farms.

As an organic animal farmer I have easily co-existed with neighbors choosing to use genetically engineered (GE) corn and soybeans and the industry that supports them. This is done with simple – although costly – measures to minimize genetic contamination of my crops and the crops of seed producers. Six years ago I heard of the possibility of GE alfalfa from an alfalfa seed grower. I was concerned that because alfalfa is a perennial, is pollinated over long distances and seed is grown in geographically confined areas with shared equipment that there is high probability of significant contamination between GE and non-GE varieties especially in seed production. This would have the effect of eliminating alfalfa from the organic production model.

This concern is high because alfalfa is an important part of my production system just as it is for most organic meat and dairy producers and elimination would have significant, negative economic impact.

I was hoping that a strong strategy for containing contamination would evolve but it has not. The draft EIS does nothing to mitigate my concerns. I strongly reject the conclusion of the draft that Glyphosate-Tolerant alfalfa should be moved to non-regulated status.

Genetic Contamination

The primary deficiency in the study is the conclusion that genetic contamination between GE alfalfa and other alfalfa can be contained to some fraction of one per cent. The rationale for this conclusion relies on all farmers of seed and forage following “Best Practices” defined by the patent holders. In the real world “best” is an “ideal” with actual practices always something less than that – and always with some cases significantly less. Here are the specific problems with the effectiveness of the practices. The bullets correspond to those in the FGI “Best Practices” on page 103 of the EIS.

• On selling seed. Good practice but exactly how is it detected and contract terms enforced? In addition, this subject brings up something that was mentioned in the input comments to the EIS but not addressed by the EIS. A seed producer asked what action from the patent holder would follow if the producer had planted a non-GE alfalfa for seed and it was significantly contaminated (his question used 10% as an example) through no fault of his own. This question should have a second part: if the producer sells the seed it will be contaminated. He has nothing to force him to test for the genes. Will the sale be contested by the patent holder? The EIS is deficient in not addressing these questions.
• Beehive removal. There is a significant deterrent to accomplishing the intent. The hives are not the property of the farmer under contract. Unless the apiarist is party to the license contract what is keeping him/her from removing his own property? Further, there is no provision for hives owned by others on land owned by others but adjacent to fields where GE alfalfa is grown. The EIS does not address these situations.
• Isolation. This is covered in two bullet points. The first establishes isolation distances. The second puts all responsibility on maintaining these distances on producers who wish to grow non-GE seed. Not surprising because the methodology is parallel to that for organic grain crops. This just plain won’t work in practice for alfalfa. With isolation distances in miles it is obvious that not all non-GE seed producers will have control over land between GE fields and their own fields. Without control they will run the risk of having someone between the two locations decide to grow either GE alfalfa for seed (required to register) or forage (not required to register) after they have made the decision to plant their fields. At the very least it guarantees non-GE alfalfa producers will be put at a significant competitive disadvantage. APHIS knows this. There is no plan in the EIS to control it. This is a major flaw in the whole case made for deregulation.
• Stand removal. Sounds good on paper but in practice complete stand removal is problematic. I’m not a seed grower but I’ve talked to 3-4 of them, I’ve talked to degreed university forage specialists and I have seen correspondence that indicate this to be virtually impossible to achieve. As a user of non-GE seed I have no faith in the methodology concluded in the EIS to stop contamination.
• Cleaning of equipment. As an organic producer we have to do equipment cleaning. It’s very difficult to achieve. Combines have hiding places for big seeds like cereal grain where it is even more likely for small seeds to hide. Unless you have a custom operator who does only organic crops you will have contamination. The EIS takes a very naïve stance on this subject.
• MTA requiring forage to be cut at 10% bloom. They may “require” it but field conditions make it impossible. Fields can be too wet at that point. Fields can change hands during mid-season. Plants can be missed at cutting. Seeds can be accidentally dropped anywhere leading to plants not in fields to be cut. Seeds can be co-mingled with non-GE seeds and planted. I’ve seen all of this right here in my county and on my own farm. The EIS totally misses the real-world situation.

Organic Production Practices & Markets

From the standpoint of someone who understands the characteristics and economics of the organic market and organic production systems there are several areas where the EIS misses the reality of the facts of the real world.

1.     Alfalfa is much more important to organic producers than to their conventional counterparts. Thus not having organic alfalfa available because of contamination would have a dramatic and negative cost impact. Factors that make alfalfa more valuable for organic producers are:

• The study focuses on dry matter yield, quality and market price of alfalfa hay as main parameters for evaluation of trends and markets. (Pp 48-51) This approach looks at alfalfa primarily as a cash crop. Organic production and conventional grass based pasture models approach alfalfa and other crops in a system of production with the saleable product being meat or milk or milk products. An important cost difference for hay grown in an animal system versus as a cash crop is the availability of animal manure as a nutrient source. A cash crop system usually depends on purchased nutrient inputs – in the case of alfalfa this is usually potash. Organically approved sources of purchased potash are, on average, double conventional sources. By careful use of animal sources, the cost of producing hay on our farm is about the same as hay production on non-organic farms in our area. Yields since we became certified are no different than when we used conventional practices. The conclusion on pp 48 and 49 that “value” or “price” of organic alfalfa is 15-20% more expensive than conventional is confused. The study mixes the concepts of price, value and cost. Price comes from the dynamics of the supply and demand of hay in a market. This has only slight relationship to cost. If you don’t purchase alfalfa hay then cost is the cost of production and not the market price.
• Alfalfa is high in protein (20% or so if harvested right) and with hay costs about equal to conventional hay this provides forage protein at conventional costs. Protein from organic grain sources is 2.5 to 3 times more expensive than conventional protein. For example, early last year our local price for conventional 44% soy meal was $325/ton while organic meal was $960. Therefore, using protein from alfalfa is an important cost containment practice.
• Chemical and petroleum based nitrogen fertilizer is not available to organic producers. Nitrogen is available in the form of animal manure but often not in sufficient quantity on a self-contained animal farm. Legumes like alfalfa are a good source of nitrogen for crops following alfalfa and accompanying it as in mixed hay and pasture.
• Because alfalfa is a perennial it has the potential through management to persist as a hay crop. The same is true of grasses grown with it. On our farm, for instance, we let alfalfa go to full bloom or beyond at least once a year to build root reserves and make sure there is stubble left in the fall to mitigate damage from icing. We regularly have stands last 6-8 years. This cuts down on total cost of hay because establishment cost is spread over more years. On erodible land this dramatically cuts down on soil loss. Weeds in these grass/alfalfa stands are not a problem with timely cutting.
• Organic producers must graze animals more than conventional farmers. This is currently driven by consumer preference but is now part of the NOP. Alfalfa is an important addition to pastures. It makes them more drought resistant and is a perennial legume versus many popular pasture legumes that are not.
• There is an overlapping niche market where alfalfa is extremely central: grass fed beef and milk from grass fed cows – both organic and non-organic . Contrary to the model explained first on p 139 where beef is finished in feed lots and thus has little input from alfalfa, the grass fed producers in the upper Midwest make ample use of alfalfa in pastures and harvested forage. Feed is usually 65% of total cost of an animal going to slaughter and composed entirely of legumes and grass. It is common for the legume content to be 60-70% of hay and 50% of pasture. The legume of choice in hay is alfalfa and about half of the graziers use alfalfa in their pastures.

2. Throughout the EIS there are many descriptions of market trends and forces in terms of averages or majorities. See especially pages 56-60. The conclusion seems to be that the consumer-driven market for GE food is not real because on average American eaters don’t care if they eat GE food – especially after education. This may be true but there is a small group of people who consider themselves well educated on these subjects and totally reject GE food. You may disagree with their “education” but that’s what they believe. These consumers have this and other reasons for buying organic. This is nature of a niche market. Table 3-16 indicates that the organic niche is growing at a CAGR of 24% for dairy and 38% for beef. To those of us who sell organic products to this niche, growth rates of this magnitude allow pricing and other marketing opportunities that are important. In real terms that means we can sell organic pasture based beef at $2.00 per pound Hot Carcass Weight (after processing, transportation and all marketing costs) versus conventional at $1.40 (USDA AMS Feb 2010). Thus, if we lost organic certification and had to sell on the conventional market we’d experience a 30% reduction in revenue per head.

3.     Nowhere in the EIS is there mention of producer preference per se for non-GE feed for his cattle – that is, not solely driven by market or the NOP. This would include anyone not convinced of the safety of the modified proteins found in GE feed/food. (See page 33 of EIS.) There is a long list of studies that say it’s no different than other proteins found in foods but there is a list (shorter) of compelling studies that say differently. With the emergence of epigenetic research the whole subject becomes even more important. Therefore, some elect to stay with traditional feed/food and avoid the risk. With approval of GE alfalfa this choice will be taken away as conventional alfalfa is significantly contaminated.

4.     The EIS discussion of organic alfalfa seed doesn’t fit with reality. On pp 53, T12 & T13, the study implies that there are so few sources of organic seed that organic farmers use non-organic seed free of prohibited coatings. (The EIS leaves out a crucial proviso: there can be no GMO’s in such seed.) I have four local sources of organic alfalfa seed. I have purchased certified organic alfalfa seed for six years without difficulty. Attachments 1 and 2 are lists of seed producers and suppliers who have alfalfa seed. Of course there are few suppliers; only 3,000 acres of organic alfalfa were seeded last year. And it is true that there are fewer varieties available than for non-organic alfalfa. However, the most important attributes from variety differences are winter hardiness, pest resistance and disease resistance; there is an array of these attributes that along with good management make these seed varieties quite sufficient for organic systems.

I am extremely concerned that if Glyphosate-Tolerant GE alfalfa is de-regulated that American and Canadian alfalfa seed sources will be contaminated so much as to mean alfalfa can no longer be certified organic and, for that matter, anyone electing to use non-GE alfalfa will no longer have that choice. I will be faced with some very painful alternatives. One alternative is to keep alfalfa in our system but give up organic certification. This means a 30% reduction in revenue with the same cost – not really a solution. Another alternative is to move to other forage legumes that can be certified organic. This will result in our needing about 40% more land to keep the same revenue (the difference in yield from alfalfa to the next best: red clover.) It would also result in more establishment events and increased possibility of erosion because these other higher yielding legumes are not perennials.

GE alfalfa should not be deregulated.

James Munsch
S995 Bagstad Lane
Coon Valley WI 54623

The Mark News
by Alexandra Morton – Professional biologist; Founder of non-profit Salmon Coast Field Station for research.

As I stand behind a young mother at the market checkout counter, the biologist in me wonders if my species no longer recognizes food. Item after item bears no resemblance to any food item that our species evolved to consume. Even the apples in the plastic bag were too toxic for any insect to touch. This would be like watching a mother bear trying to feed her cubs rocks and empty shells. I would not give that bear’s lineage high potential for survival. I look sadly at the mother, who without a doubt is trying her best to please and feed her children. She is just too distant from her roots as a living creature on planet earth to recognize what real food looks like.

Ten thousand years ago, glacier melt-water scoured the rocky British Columbia coast and the humans that first stepped into this landscape could barely survive. Birds brought the seeds of the hardy little shore pine, empty rivers beckoned to salmon as they swam past. Forest, fish, and humans hung on and eventually flourished.

These people’s lives depended on salmon and salmon are dependable because they return on a very precise schedule. The world around them can prosper if they set their clocks to the salmon. Legends and rules steeped the culture of the first people. They must have damaged some salmon runs and they must have learned from that, because without our current wealth of understanding of salmon biology, they managed the wild salmon runs extremely well.

They did this because their lives depended on it. I would argue we are no different today. In a world of corporate food experiments gone bad, there should be a global body created immediately to safeguard the remaining natural systems that produce clean air, food, and water. B.C. is one of these systems, and our wild salmon are a food resource we may dearly wish we had better managed.

Consider this. The city of Vancouver is a world-class city, producing waste like all other cities and yet one of earth’s largest wild salmon runs is still trying to migrate through its streets. This is a miracle, a gift no other city in the world can boast of! But, like the young mother, the city no longer recognizes food. The fish are vanishing and we don’t care because we think it has nothing to do with us.

Oh the folly of us humans. It pulls deeply at me as I have children and know we are risking their lives simply because we are disconnected and foolhardy. We actually think fish farms will feed the world. We drill deep into the earth, suck up oil, refine it, pour it into generators, all to throw food – real fish caught and moved the length of the planet and made into pellets – into pens where over-fed, fat farm fish defecate tons daily, despoiling the natural systems around them.

Lift your heads people and look at the sky. Power we cannot even measure blows storm clouds, oxygenating the ocean with waves, pouring water into watersheds where billions of salmon hatch. As they flow from the rivers, trillions of natural solar panels absorb the sun, making food which salmon collect and carry back to us land dwellers, and lay it at our feet even as they start the cycle over again.

This is the stuff of life. This is what made us. This is what we need. This is food security. We will live or die as a species based on whether we relearn how to work with the planet or not.