organic

...now browsing by tag

Study Shows Benefits Of Organic Agriculture

Saturday, October 8th, 2011

If you ask most people why they buy organic, they say that they think organic produce is healthier and tastes better. But studies have consistently undercut the backing for both of these motivations. Some studies have shown that organic fruits and vegetables have higher antioxidant levels than their conventional counterparts, but others have not. Some say that pesticide residue clinging to conventional produce could be dangerous, but others, including the USDA, have said that it’s harmless. Blind taste tests of organic and conventional fruits and vegetables have shown that most people can’t reliably tell the two apart. So does it really make sense to buy organic produce — especially given that it often costs so much more than conventional produce?

A major study on organics says, “Yes, absolutely.” But the study indicates that the best reason to buy organic produce isn’t that it’s worlds healthier or better-tasting than conventional produce.

Instead, the 30-year comparison of organic and conventional growing methods, carried out by the highly respected Rodale Institute, in Kurztown, PAshows that there are huge ecological benefits to organic agriculture. The study also goes a long way to disproving the oft-repeated mantra, “Organic agriculture can’t feed the world.” Side-by-side match-ups of the yield on organic and conventional plots showed no difference whatsoever in overall corn, soy or wheat production per acre. Indeed, in years of drought conditions, yields in organic plots were 30% higher than those in conventional plots.

On the phone with the Huffington Post, Mark Smallwood, executive director of the Rodale Institute, summed up the findings this way: “If we’re looking to feed the world for the next 50 years, conventional can do it. But if we’re looking at feeding the world for the next 1500 years, we must switch over to organic.”

There is one caveat. The Rodale Institute’s study compared yields in relatively small (50′ x 30′) plots of land, not entire farms. Macro-scale studies of yields on organic and conventional farms have sometimes produced dispiriting figures on organic yields.

But, especially when it comes to a long-term comparison of the two methods, the Institute’s reportsupports this conclusion with some eye-opening statistics.

Much of the sustainability gap between conventional and organic systems can be attributed to differences in total petroleum-product use. Both methods call for diesel fuel to power tractors and farm equipment. But 41% of conventional systems’ petroleum goes to nitrogen-based fertilizers, which cannot be used on organic farms. This means that organic agriculture uses 45% less unsustainable energy than conventional agriculture. For similar reasons, organic farms produce 40% less greenhouse gas emissions than conventional farms.

The other key divide between the two systems was related to soil health. Conventional agricultural systems rely on crude-oil-dependent artificial fertilizers for the soil’s macronutrient content. This means that, unlike organic systems, they do not support the soil’s microbiological community, which can produce the same macronutrients without the use of crude oil. So when oil supplies start to run out, conventional farms will be left without a reliable way to maintain their soil’s macronutrient base — while organic farms’ soil will be virtually unaffected. That same macrobiological community also helps organic soil retain water, which fights erosion and drought.

The study even indicated that organic produce was cheaper for farmers to grow than conventional produce. Organics’ marginally higher labor costs are offset by the savings of not buying fertilizer. The cost parity of the two is borne out by national data on farmer incomes. According to census data, organic farms are almost twice as profitable as conventional ones.

So why is organic produce more expensive? “One of the reasons is that there aren’t enough organic farms. It’s because demand is higher than supply,” Smallwood said. “It’s simple economics.”

This demand may be driven more by overblown health claims than by ecological altruism. But the Rodale Institute study shows that ecologically benefits of organic agriculture are so great that anything that helps encourage it is probably good — even something that could be called a noble lie.

Source: Huffington Post

Posted in Vegetable Production | No Responses »

47% Of Supermarket Meat Has Drug Resistant Staph Bacteria

Saturday, April 16th, 2011

Meat in the U.S. may be widely contaminated with strains of drug-resistant bacteria, researchers reported Friday after testing 136 samples of beef, chicken, pork and turkey purchased at grocery stores.

Nearly half of the samples — 47% — contained strains of Staphylococcus aureus, the type of bacteria that most commonly causes staph infections. Of those bacteria, 52% were resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

DNA testing suggested the animals were the source of contamination. Environmental health scientist Lance Price, the study’s leader, said the animals most likely harbored these drug-resistant pathogens because antibiotics routinely are fed to livestock to promote growth and prevent disease in crowded pens on large farms.

“These findings really point to serious problems with the way food animals are raised in the U.S. today,” said Price, who directs the Center for Food Microbiology and Environmental Health at the Translational Genomics Research Institute, a nonprofit biomedical research center in Phoenix.

Last summer, the Food and Drug Administration urged the meat industry to cut back on antibiotic use out of concern that the practice breeds drug-resistant bacteria in stockyards and makes antibiotics less effective in humans.

But other scientists said it was premature to conclude that antibiotics in animal feed were to blame. About half of all humans have staph bacteria in their noses or throats, and a food handler with poor hygiene could introduce the pathogen to the food supply, said Beilei Ge, a food scientist at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.

The meat and poultry samples tested in the study represented 80 brands and were purchased in Los Angeles, Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Flagstaff, Ariz., and Washington, D.C.

Scientists incubated the samples for up to 24 hours in a broth that was kept at human body temperature and used genetic tests to determine whether they contained the staph bacteria. Then they treated them with vancomycin, oxacillin, tetracycline and other antibiotics to determine whether they were resistant to the drugs.

The research was funded by the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, which opposes the routine use of antibiotics in animal feed.

About 11,000 people die every year from S. aureus infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and more than half of those deaths are from the hospital “superbug” methicillin-resistant S. aureus, or MRSA.

The direct risk that consumers may acquire a staph infection from meat can be reduced by cooking meat thoroughly and washing all foods and surfaces that come into contact with raw meat, whether or not it is resistant to antibiotics.

However, Caroline DeWaal, director of food safety at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C., said the study results suggest that consumers might benefit by wearing gloves when they handle raw meat. “It’s making us rethink our advice to the public,” she said.

The American Meat Institute, which represents producers, said Friday that the country’s meat and poultry supply was safe. And data from the CDC show that cases of food-borne illness in the U.S. have declined 20% in the last decade.

William Marler, a leading food safety attorney, said it was helpful to test meat samples available in stores because the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service focused its testing on meat production facilities.

“It’s good to see more people doing retail testing because it shows us that our meat is far less sanitary than most consumers would think,” he said.

But the bigger threat to public health is that widespread antibiotic use in livestock could make the drugs increasingly ineffective in humans, Price said.

The American Medical Assn., the World Health Organization and other medical groups have warned that the misuse of antibiotics in food animal production may be creating a serious problem for human health by fostering development of drug-resistant bacteria.

Studies in Canada and Denmark show that taking antibiotics out of animal feed makes antibiotic-resistant bacteria less prevalent in both animals and people with no ill effects for animals or ranchers, Price said.

“Our lifesaving medications are being used as tools to make animals grow faster,” Price said. “We must do everything we can to protect these antibiotics that protect our health.”

Source: Los Angeles Times

Posted in Factory Farming, Meat Production | No Responses »

Whole Foods, Organic Valley and Stonyfield Surrender To Monsanto.

Thursday, January 27th, 2011

In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation’s 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America’s organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it’s time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto’s controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for “coexistence” with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.

In a cleverly worded, but profoundly misleading email sent to its customers last week, Whole Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and “seed purity,” gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the “conditional deregulation” of Monsanto’s genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. Beyond the regulatory euphemism of “conditional deregulation,” this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S.

In exchange for allowing Monsanto’s premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM wants “compensation.” In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers’ and rural residents’ risk of getting cancer), WFM expects the pro-biotech USDA to begin to regulate rather than cheerlead for Monsanto. In payment for a new broad spectrum attack on the soil’s crucial ability to provide nutrition for food crops and to sequester dangerous greenhouse gases (recent studies show that Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases), WFM wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis to agree to pay “compensation” (i.e. hush money) to farmers “for any losses related to the contamination of his crop.”

In its email of Jan. 21, 2011 WFM calls for “public oversight by the USDA rather than reliance on the biotechnology industry,” even though WFM knows full well that federal regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) do not require pre-market safety testing, nor labeling; and that even federal judges have repeatedly ruled that so-called government “oversight” of Frankencrops such as Monsanto’s sugar beets and alfalfa is basically a farce. At the end of its email, WFM admits that its surrender to Monsanto is permanent: “The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well True coexistence is a must.”

Why Is Organic Inc. Surrendering?

According to informed sources, the CEOs of WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor, now USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack’s previous electoral campaigns. Vilsack was hailed as “Governor of the Year” in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto corporate jet on the campaign trail. Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic Inc.’s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and locavores. The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this to my face. They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost, and that it’s time to reach for the consolation prize. The consolation prize they seek is a so-called “coexistence” between the biotech Behemoth and the organic community that will lull the public to sleep and greenwash the unpleasant fact that Monsanto’s unlabeled and unregulated genetically engineered crops are now spreading their toxic genes on 1/3 of U.S. (and 1/10 of global) crop land.

WFM and most of the largest organic companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The so-called Non-GMO Project, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on so-called “natural” foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI’s sales and are routinely contaminated with GMOs.

From their “business as usual” perspective, successful lawsuits against GMOs filed by public interest groups such as the Center for Food Safety; or noisy attacks on Monsanto by groups like the Organic Consumers Association, create bad publicity, rattle their big customers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Costco, Supervalu, Publix and Safeway; and remind consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto’s GMOs.

Whole Food’s Dirty Little Secret: Most of the So-Called “Natural” Processed Foods and Animal Products They Sell Are Contaminated with GMOs

The main reason, however, why Whole Foods is pleading for coexistence with Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and the rest of the biotech bullies, is that they desperately want the controversy surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? Because they know, just as we do, that 2/3 of WFM’s $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called “natural” processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs. We and our allies have tested their so-called “natural” products (no doubt WFM’s lab has too) containing non-organic corn and soy, and guess what: they’re all contaminated with GMOs, in contrast to their certified organic products, which are basically free of GMOs, or else contain barely detectable trace amounts.

Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as “natural.”

Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called “natural” food as certified organic food, coupled with the takeover of many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.

Covering Up GMO Contamination: Perpetrating “Natural” Fraud

Many well-meaning consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as “natural,” and those nutritionally/environmentally superior and climate-friendly products that are “certified organic.”

Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and certified organic, conveniently glossing over the fact that nearly all of the processed “natural” foods and products they sell contain GMOs, or else come from a “natural” supply chain where animals are force-fed GMO grains in factory farms or Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).

A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large formerly organic brands from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called “natural” ingredients. With the exception of the “grass-fed and grass-finished” meat sector, most “natural” meat, dairy, and eggs are coming from animals reared on GMO grains and drugs, and confined, entirely, or for a good portion of their lives, in CAFOs.

Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while genuine organic farmers and ranchers continue to lose market share to “natural” imposters. It’s no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic, while well-intentioned but misled consumers have boosted organic and “natural” purchases to $80 billion annually-approximately 12% of all grocery store sales.

The Solution: Truth-in-Labeling Will Enable Consumers to Drive So-Called “Natural” GMO and CAFO-Tainted Foods Off the Market

There can be no such thing as “coexistence” with a reckless industry that undermines public health, destroys biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world’s 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. There is no such thing as coexistence between GMOs and organics in the European Union. Why? Because in the EU there are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor GM consumer food products on supermarket shelves. And why is this? Because under EU law, all foods containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled. Consumers have the freedom to choose or not to choose GMOs; while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are safety-tested and labeled. Of course the EU food industry understands that consumers, for the most part, do not want to purchase or consume GE foods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the concept expressed by a Monsanto executive when GMOs first came on the market: “If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”

The biotech industry and Organic Inc. are supremely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don’t want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont – the same people who brought you toxic pesticides, Agent Orange, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are acutely aware of the fact that every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods. Why? So that we can avoid buying them. GMO foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from getting a public discussion in Congress.

Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don’t hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers’ right to know what’s in their food. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called “Citizens United” case gave big corporations and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy media coverage and elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. Perfectly dramatizing the “Revolving Door” between Monsanto and the Federal Government, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly chief counsel for Monsanto, delivered one of the decisive votes in the Citizens United case, in effect giving Monsanto and other biotech bullies the right to buy the votes it needs in the U.S. Congress.

With big money controlling Congress and the media, we have little choice but to shift our focus and go local. We’ve got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.

The Organic Consumers Association, joined by our consumer, farmer, environmental, and labor allies, has just launched a nationwide Truth-in-Labeling campaign to stop Monsanto and the Biotech Bullies from force-feeding unlabeled GMOs to animals and humans.

Utilizing scientific data, legal precedent, and consumer power the OCA and our local coalitions will educate and mobilize at the grassroots level to pressure giant supermarket chains (Wal-Mart, Kroger, Costco, Safeway, Supervalu, and Publix) and natural food retailers such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s to voluntarily implement “truth-in-labeling” practices for GMOs and CAFO products; while simultaneously organizing a critical mass to pass mandatory local and state truth-in-labeling ordinances – similar to labeling laws already in effect for country of origin, irradiated food, allergens, and carcinogens. If local and state government bodies refuse to take action, wherever possible we must attempt to gather sufficient petition signatures and place these truth-in-labeling initiatives directly on the ballot in 2011 or 2012. If you’re interesting in helping organize or coordinate a Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling campaign in your local community, sign up here: http://organicconsumers.org/oca-volunteer/

To pressure Whole Foods Market and the nation’s largest supermarket chains to voluntarily adopt truth-in-labeling practices sign here, and circulate this petition widely:http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22309.cfm

Source: Organic Consumers Association

Posted in Dietary Industrial Complex | No Responses »

USDA Fires Organic Farming Specialist For Having An Opinion

Wednesday, January 19th, 2011

The free exchange of ideas is so essential to a healthy democracy, it was particularly disturbing to learn that Mark D. Keating was terminated as an Agricultural Marketing Specialist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program (NOP) for expressing personal opinions in communications with the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).

In an interview, Mr. Keating said the official reasons given for his termination were a “complete fabrication.” He added, “I was the guy who knew too much.”

Mr. Keating brought 20 years of experience in various aspects of organic farming to his government service. He was once an organic farmer himself and played a key role in the development of the USDA’s organic standards and the establishment of the sustainable agriculture program at the University of Kentucky. “Abandoning traditional processes has brought new problems,” he said.

Mr. Keating is convinced that it was the “political hierarchy” at the USDA rather than knowledgeable civil servants who were responsible for his termination. When asked whether powerful corporate interests had sought his dismissal, he said he had no evidence to support such a claim. He did say that giant agribusiness believes it has provided the “most abundant and cheapest food supply in the world” and the criticism leveled at it by sustainable farming advocates has led to “hurt feelings” in the industry.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a national alliance of local state and federal resource professionals, is urging the NOP to reverse its decision. PEER contends that Mr. Keating did not contradict official policy, but was aiding an advisory panel in formulating recommendations for official policy.

PEER argues that his termination:

• Violates Obama administration policies encouraging “free and open inquiry” by scientists and other technical specialists; and

• Is at odds with policies adopted by other agencies, such as the Department of Interior, promoting the “free exchange of ideas” while formulating policy.

Mr. Keating’s job description called for “wide latitude to exercise independent judgment” to “influence, motivate, and persuade the very diverse constituent population of the NOP.” Since he was hired just last April, Mr. Keating was still a probationary employee with limited rights to appeal his dismissal.

If, as Mr. Keating maintains, the official reasons given for his dismissal were fabricated, then why was he fired? He says the truth lies in the answer to, “Who in the political leadership would object to my work?”

Undue Corporate Influence at USDA?

Last September, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published the results of a survey of USDA scientists and inspectors responsible for food safety. “Hundreds of scientists and inspectors responsible for food safety have personally experienced political interference in their work, and that’s bad for public health,” said Francesca Grifo, director of UCS’s Scientific Integrity Program at the time. “Both the administration and Congress need to act.”

More than 1,700 respondents took part in the survey, which was conducted for UCS by the Iowa State University Center for Survey Statistics. Most of the respondents had worked at their agency for more than ten years.

Disappointing Appointments at USDA

Back in 2008, Ronnie Cummins, executive director of Organic Consumers Association (OCA), told Democracy Now! about his opposition to the appointment of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture:

“Vilsack has been an ardent promoter, not only of genetically engineered foods and crops, but also of the extremely controversial biopharmaceutical crops, which involves [inaudible] pharmaceutical drugs or industrial chemicals into food crops. Even, you know, quite a few people in the biotech industry are alarmed by these biopharmaceuticals, since you could get dangerous drugs throughout the food supply.”

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote, “Unfortunately, Mr. Obama on Wednesday chose Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa who has longstanding ties to agribusiness interests, as agriculture secretary – his weakest selection so far.”

During the presidential campaign many sustainability advocates were encouraged by this statement from then candidate Obama, “”We’ll tell ConAgra that it’s not the Department of Agribusiness. It’s the Department of Agriculture. We’re going to put the people’s interests ahead of the special interests.”

Source: Alternet

Posted in Dietary Industrial Complex | No Responses »

An 11 Year Old Can Figure It Out

Monday, November 29th, 2010

11-year-old Birke Baehr presents his take on a major source of our food — far-away and less-than-picturesque industrial farms. Keeping farms out of sight promotes a rosy, unreal picture of big-box agriculture, he argues, as he outlines the case to green and localize food production.

Posted in Real Food, Videos | No Responses »

Want To Grow A Bigger Potato? Organic May Be The Way

Sunday, July 4th, 2010

The balanced mix of insects and fungi in organic fields does a superior job of keeping pests in check, leading to larger plants, according to researchers at Washington State University in Pullman. Potato plants exposed to conditions typical of pesticide-treated fields fared more poorly in the research team’s experiments.

The findings may help potato growers cut back on spraying and make more effective use of natural predators to control pests, said entomologist David Crowder, who led the study published Thursday in the journal Nature.

“The goal is to learn as much as we can about how these natural enemies are doing their jobs and what impact they’re having, so we can incorporate their effects into management practices,” he said.

Washington is second only to Idaho in potato production in the nation, and the state’s crop is valued at nearly $700 million a year. But potatoes can be very vulnerable to pests. Washington potato farmers applied more than 19 million pounds of weed- and bug-killing chemicals in 2005, according to the latest data available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Less than 1 percent of the state’s potatoes are organically grown, and even many organic farmers use some type of chemicals or natural toxins to control pests. But farmers are under pressure from such companies as McDonald’s — the nation’s top potato customer — to green up their practices.

“People who buy a lot of potatoes are asking the growers to reduce insecticide use as much as possible, to document pesticide use, and include biological control as a consideration,” said WSU entomologist William Snyder, a study co-author.

Snyder recently received a $2 million USDA grant to help potato growers shift their practices.

“We have some pretty progressive farmers who already spray much less, compared to the industry average,” Snyder said. “It’s kind of ‘organic lite.’”

The Washington State Potato Commission also funds some of Snyder’s research and hopes to translate the science into practical advice its members can use, said Andrew Jensen, the group’s research director.

For the Nature study, the WSU scientists wanted to find out whether a balanced mix of insects could be beneficial. They examined bug counts from conventional and organic fields around the world, growing a range of crops.

Since many pesticides wipe out the majority of insects, it wasn’t surprising to discover that the conventional fields were often dominated by only a few hardy species. In contrast, the organic fields had a much more even mix.

But would that mix provide any real-world advantage? To test that, Crowder set up 42 potato plots enclosed in fine mesh. He seeded each of his mini fields with Colorado potato beetles, one of the industry’s worst scourges. Then he added varying numbers of insects, fungi and microscopic worms called nematodes that attack the beetles’ eggs and larvae.

The potato plots with the most balanced mix of insects and fungi, typical of organic fields, performed the best: Pest numbers were 20 percent lower and plants were 30 percent bigger than in the plots with the lopsided insect mix typical of pesticide-treated fields.

The study didn’t follow the potatoes to harvest, but plant size is closely correlated with potato size and yield, Crowder said.

Though it’s not clear how the results would scale up, the study does suggest that farmers who reduce pesticide use might be able to rely on a mix of natural predators to take up the slack in controlling pests, he added.

The work also suggests a way to short-circuit the “pesticide treadmill” that forces farmers to use more and different chemicals as pests evolve resistance, said an accompanying article in Nature from researchers at the University of Zurich in Switzerland.

The results have broader ecological implications, Crowder said. Scientists have long focused on the number of species in an ecosystem as a measure of its health. The WSU experiments show that it’s also important to have a balanced mix of species.

Research on organic farming has received short shrift in the past, said Jennifer Miller, sustainable-agriculture coordinator at the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides in Boise.

“Often the natural pest control that’s happening on organic farms is overlooked,” she said. “It’s really great to see research looking at the value of this effect and cheaper ways of pest management that come with reduced pesticide use.”

Source: Seattle Times

Posted in Vegetable Production | No Responses »

‘Dirty Dozen’ Produce Carry More Pesticide Residue

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

If you’re eating non-organic celery today, you may be ingesting 67 pesticides with it, according to a new report from the Environmental Working Group.

The group, a nonprofit focused on public health, scoured nearly 100,000 produce pesticide reports from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine what fruits and vegetables we eat have the highest, and lowest, amounts of chemical residue.

Most alarming are the fruits and vegetables dubbed the “Dirty Dozen,” which contain 47 to 67 pesticides per serving. These foods are believed to be most susceptible because they have soft skin that tends to absorb more pesticides.

“It’s critical people know what they are consuming,” the Environmental Working Group’s Amy Rosenthal said. “The list is based on pesticide tests conducted after the produce was washed with USDA high-power pressure water system. The numbers reflect the closest thing to what consumers are buying at the store.”

Special report: Toxic America

The group suggests limiting consumption of pesticides by purchasing organic for the 12 fruits and vegetables.

“You can reduce your exposure to pesticides by up to 80 percent by buying the organic version of the Dirty Dozen,” Rosenthal said.

The Dirty Dozen

Celery

Peaches

Strawberries

Apples

Domestic blueberries

Nectarines

Sweet bell peppers

Spinach, kale and collard greens

Cherries

Potatoes

Imported grapes

Lettuce

Not all non-organic fruits and vegetables have a high pesticide level. Some produce has a strong outer layer that provides a defense against pesticide contamination. The group found a number of non-organic fruits and vegetables dubbed the “Clean 15″ that contained little to no pesticides.

The Clean 15

Onions

Avocados

Sweet corn

Pineapples

Mango

Sweet peas

Asparagus

Kiwi fruit

Cabbage

Eggplant

Cantaloupe

Watermelon

Grapefruit

Sweet potatoes

Sweet onions

What is a pesticide?

A pesticide is a mixture of chemical substances used on farms to destroy or prevent pests, diseases and weeds from affecting crops. According to the USDA, 45 percent of the world’s crops are lost to damage or spoilage, so many farmers count on pesticides.

The Environmental Protection Agency, the FDA and the USDA work together to monitor and set limits as to how much pesticide can be used on farms and how much is safe to remain on the produce once it hits grocery store shelves.

“In setting the tolerance amount, the EPA must make a safety finding that the pesticide can be used with ‘reasonable certainty of no harm.’ The EPA ensures that the tolerance selected will be safe,” according the EPA’s website.

Although the President’s Cancer Panel recently recommended that consumers eat produce without pesticides to reduce their risk of getting cancer and other diseases, the low levels of pesticides found on even the Dirty Dozen are government-approved amounts.

Can small amounts of pesticides hurt you?

The government says that consuming pesticides in low amounts doesn’t harm you, but some studies show an association between pesticides and health problems such as cancer, attention-deficit (hyperactivity) disorder and nervous system disorders and say exposure could weaken immune systems.

The Environmental Working Group acknowledges that data from long-term studies aren’t available but warns consumers of the potential dangers.

“Pesticides are designed to kill things. Why wait for 20 years to discover they are bad for us?” Rosenthal said.

Some doctors warn that children’s growing brains are the most vulnerable to pesticides in food.

“A kid’s brain goes through extraordinary development, and if pesticides get into the brain, it can cause damage,” said Dr. Philip Landrigan, chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

Can pesticides be washed away?

Not necessarily. The pesticide tests mentioned above were conducted after the food had been power-washed by the USDA. Also, although some pesticides are found on the surface of foods, other pesticides may be taken up through the roots and into the plant and cannot be removed.

“We’ve found that washing doesn’t do much,” Rosenthal said. “Peeling can help, although you have to take into account that the pesticides are in the water, so they can be inside the fruit because of the soil.”

All fresh produce, whether it’s grown with or without pesticides, should be washed with water to remove dirt and potentially harmful bacteria. And health experts agree that when it comes to the Dirty Dozen list, choose organic if it’s available.

“To the extent you can afford to do so, [parents] should simply buy organic, because there have been some very good studies that shows people who eat mostly organic food reduce 95 percent of pesticides [in their body] in two weeks,” Landrigan said

Source: CNN

Posted in Health | No Responses »