Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU... Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.
A U.S. State Department official said it routinely coordinates trade and investment matters to support U.S. firms, including "providing assistance in opening markets, leveling the playing field, protecting intellectual property rights, and resolving trade and investment disputes."
Tuesday evening, the James Beard Foundation – famous for its focus on fine dining – hosted a book release party for Wenonah Hauter, executive director of DC-based watchdog group Food & Water Watch and author of the new book, Foodopoly. The second collaboration between the two organizations – the first was a unique event where New York City’s Chef Kerry Heffernan prepared a series of dishes featuring invasive species of seafood – Hauter’s book launch drew high-profile good food advocates, including nutritionist Marion Nestle (who announced that Foodopoly will serve as the “bible” for her upcoming Food Advocacy course at NYU), reporter and author Fred Kaufman, TEDx Manhattan organizer Diane Hatz and others, all rubbing elbows amongst a performance of sorts: suit-clad purveyors of agribiz assured attendees that those cheese and crackers we not too bad for you, other actors offered small doses of candy antibiotics and “scientists” in lab coats offered test tubes of high fructose corn syrup, all to illustrate the problems created by an increasingly consolidated food system. Luckily, the highly talented Mary Cleaver, perhaps (but probably not really) New York City’s least famous green caterer, was on hand with more appealing appetizers.
I first met Wenonah in 2007 (GRACE has worked with Food & Water Watch on some projects over the years) and have always admired her, but Foodopoly crystallizes what interests me most about her work: the deep sense of fairness that informs it. The book begins with a look back, beginning around the last half of the nineteenth century, when farmers – a much greater segment of the population at that time – became a "dynamic political force" as their collective wealth plummeted, and moves up through the Obama administration's impotent 2010 antitrust investigations, with stops at key moments in the history of agriculture: the formation of the Committee for Economic Development; the implementation (and subsequent dismantling) of parity programs, including strategic grain reserves; the 1953 appointment of ideologue Ezra Benson as secretary of agriculture and that of his more infamous protege, Earl "Get Big or Get Out" Butz (1971); the farm debt crisis of the 1980s; the Clinton-administration's rush toward globalization through NAFTA and the WTO; the rapid approval and adoption of genetic engineering practices and more.
Hauter goes on to explain each major sector of food production (and for this alone, Foodopoly deserves an A-list spot on any foodie’s bookshelf). In each of these chapters, the scenery changes but the plot remains the same. In the various arms of the meat industry, in biotech, in vegetable production and even organics, extreme concentration of power in the hands of a few huge companies has enormous negative impact on the way we produce and consume food, at great cost to society, especially when we account for hidden costs in public health and environmental impacts.
For the uninitiated, Hauter breaks down the complex nature of our food system and the issue of consolidated power. Whereas oversimplified caricatures of industrial producers paint a picture of individual farmers seeking to ramp up production for the sake of profits, Hauter explains how vertical integration and extreme consolidation have tied the hands of not only farmers but also other small and mid-size business owners along the supply chain. For example, she illustrates concepts like captive supply (a hallmark of a monopolized market, captive supply arrangements allow large companies to use the producer’s supplies to maximize their own profits – in the case of cattle, meatpackers contract with producers to deliver at some future date, and often the agreements allow the meatpackers to lower the price on delivery), which rules supreme in the beef industry:
These [smaller-scale] cattle producers receive lower prices than they might get at auctions and receive worse terms than a more favored supplier. The meatpacker often manipulates the price, since it is dominant in both buying and selling. Captive supply arrangements also favor some producers with special premium prices and terms. They are often the giant feedlots that can provide many heads. This disadvantages smaller sellers, who must rely on the cash market that meatpackers dominate. And these arrangements are confidential, creating a market that is so opaque that one supplier has no idea what prices others are receiving.
Over and over, Hauter hammers home the point that the gross monopolization of the food system is the root of its problems, but she’s not being redundant – it’s just that the same is true throughout the food system. With concentrated market power in the hands of so few (four companies control 80 percent of the cattle market, four companies own 66 percent of the pork market, four companies own 58 percent of the poultry market and so on – with JBS and Tyson in this top four in all three markets) an hourglass-shaped system is created, with those companies able to exert pressure on both food producers and consumers. When prices drop for farmers, the savings are never passed along to the consumer and likewise, price spikes don’t translate to profits for farmers. Consumers and farmers alike are also left with the public health and environmental damage caused by large-scale intensive livestock agriculture, which creates massive amounts of concentrated waste, as evidenced by the rapid rise of poultry CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations).
For instance, layer hens can produce as much manure as the sewage generated in medium-size cities in the counties where the poultry farms are concentrated. The 13.8 million layer hens in Mercer County, Ohio, produce as much untreated waste as the entire population of greater Dallas-Fort Worth, as do the 20.1 million broiler chickens on factory farms in Shelby County, Texas. The 7.7 million layers in Sioux City, Iowa, produce as much manure as all the sewage in Seattle. And the 17.5 million broilers in Franklin County, Georgia, produce as much waste as the greater Philadelphia metro area.
And of course, producers and consumers are not the only ones whose choices are limited by this setup – as these megamultinationals grow in power, they exert it upon lawmakers, who in turn make it easier for the companies to prosper through toothless or nonexistent legislation and failure to implement existing rules. Increasingly, industry calls for – and is granted – the right to regulate itself. Sometimes, laws are passed that are just tough enough to put a lot of smaller scale producers out of the business, leading to even more consolidation.
But all is not lost, at least not yet. And even if it’s not going to save the world, you can keep shopping at the farmers’ market! In fact, you will need the sustenance to fight the good fight. In a final chapter called “The Way Forward,” Hauter offers specific policy recommendations across the food system, from fair markets to organic standards to genetic engineering to food advertising. This chapter is a call to arms for anyone who is seeking to increase access to high quality food, grown – and marketed – fairly.
The San Francisco Gate called the book “politically brave” and it truly is. It takes great courage to speak truth to power, and Wenonah Hauter has got it in spades. Foodopoly is a compelling read and a rock-solid resource for anyone trying to figure out how we went from a nation of healthy farmers to a fast food nation, and how we might be able – with hard work – to get home again.
We are naturally disappointed that the USDA does not wish to endorse Meatless Monday, particularly since cutting out meat once a week helps achieve two key recommendations in the USDA Dietary Guidelines -- reducing saturated fat intake and increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables.
Today's cattlemen are significantly more environmentally sustainable then they were 30 years ago. A study by Washington State University found that today's farmers and ranchers raise 13 percent more beef from 13 percent fewer cattle. When compared with beef production in 1977, each pound of beef produced today produces 18 percent less carbon emissions; takes 30 percent less land; and requires 14 percent less water," Alexander said.
"This is truly an awakening statement by USDA, which strongly indicates that USDA does not understand the efforts being made in rural America to produce food and fiber for a growing global population in a very sustainable way," Alexander said. "USDA was created to provide a platform to promote and sustain rural America in order to feed the world."
We launched our Rain Crow Ranch hot dogs last spring and were very pleased with their success. The price is within range of its high end conventional counterparts so it is a good starting point to step into the grassfed world. Families love the idea of 100 percent grassfed beef from whole muscle cuts, no chemicals and simple spices.
"We were very pleased that the court granted our request to have oral argument regarding Monsanto's motion to dismiss our case today," said Daniel Ravicher of the Public Patent Foundation, lead lawyer for the Plaintiffs. "The judge graciously permitted both parties to raise all the points they wished in a session that lasted over an hour. While Monsanto's attorney attempted to portray the risk organic farmers face from being contaminated and then accused of patent infringement as hypothetical and abstract, we rebutted those arguments with the concrete proof of the harm being suffered by our clients in their attempts to avoid such accusations. The judge indicated she will issue her ruling within two months. We expect she will deny the motion and the case will then proceed forward. If she should happen to grant the motion, we will most likely appeal to the Court of Appeals who will review her decision without deference."
"Our lawyer did a good job explaining the current injustice farmers face. We have a right to be secure on our farms and to be free from Monsanto's GMO trespass. If we become contaminated by Monsanto, not only is the value of our organic seed crop extinguished but we could also be sued by Monsanto for patent infringement because their contamination results in our 'possession' of their GMO technology. We have farmers who have stopped growing organic corn, organic canola and organic soybeans because they can't risk being sued by Monsanto. It's not fair and it's not right. Family farmers need justice and we deserve the protection of the court."
It's simple. I don't want the companies who've already poisoned the earth and our personal environments with clever chemicals to own the genes of our crop plants and use them to threaten our farmers. They have already proved that they can't be trusted with our future.
All organisms are embedded in ecosystems whose workings we only vaguely understand. Given the depth of our ignorance, it is shockingly risky to allow Nature to be treated as a Lego toy, replacing her parts at will. All the problems we predicted genetically-engineered organisms would create have occurred, insect resistance, weed resistance, toxic changes in the soil organisms. We have NO IDEA how much more Nature will tolerate.
Therefore, it is desperately important that farmers who wish to produce our food without genetically engineered seeds should be assured by law that they can do so. The law should eliminate the possibility that a farmer can be sued as the consequence of the uninvited trespass of GE organisms onto his or her farm. This suit must go forward in the courts. In the long run all our lives depend on it.
This all depends upon us deepening our understanding of the relationship between food, energy, water, and economic security, and then creating policies which reward producers who base their farming systems on these principles. Simply because, if we do not consider the whole picture and take steps with the health of the whole system in mind, not only will we suffer from rising food prices, we will also see the overall resilience of our economies and, in some instances, our ecological and social systems too, becoming dangerously unstable.
....Imagine if there were a global food shortage; if it became much harder to import food in today's quantities, where would countries turn to for their staple foods? Is there not more resilience in a system where the necessary staple foods are produced locally, so that if there are shocks to the system, there won't be panic? And what is more, not only can it be much more productive than it currently is, strengthening small farm production could be a major force in preserving the traditional knowledge and biodiversity that we lose at our peril.
Nobody wants food prices to go up, but if it is the case that the present low price of intensively produced food in developed countries is actually an illusion, only made possible by transferring the costs of cleaning up pollution or dealing with human health problems onto other agencies, then could correcting these anomalies result in a more beneficial arena where nobody is actually worse off in net terms? It would simply be a more honest form of accounting that may make it more desirable for producers to operate more sustainably -- particularly if subsidies were redirected to benefit sustainable systems of production. It is a question worth considering, and I only ask it because my concern is simply that we seek to produce the healthiest food possible from the healthiest environment possible -- for the long term -- and to ensure that it is affordable for ordinary consumers.
Questioning the conventional worldview is risky business. And the only reason I have done so is for the sake of the younger generation and for the integrity of Nature herself. It is your future that concerns me and that of your grandchildren, and theirs too.
Around this time last summer, I was on a tour boat on Lake Yellowstone with my family, where we learned that lake trout, a non-native species introduced around 1995 (presumably by an angler), had grown extremely problematic for the ecosystem of the lake -- in particular, for the prized cutthroat trout, which is easily preyed upon and out-competed by the larger lake trout.
Not only was there no fishing limit on lake trout but in fact, the only rule about catching them was that if you weren't going to eat them, you had to kill them before throwing them back. According to our tour guide, you could cart a fresh-caught lake trout to any of the park's restaurants for professional cooking and earn a pat on the back from the chef and staff.
"Welcome to the invasive species smorgasbord! Let's eat them before they eat us."
Why did my visit to the Manhattan-based James Beard House inspire me to recall that ecological factoid from my visit to the nation's oldest national park? Last Wednesday night, Kerry Heffernan, head chef for Central Park's South Gate Restaurant, prepared a delectable feast based on four exotic invasive varieties of seafood: green crab (known to most fisherfolk as bait for blackfish), Asian carp, lionfish and blue tilapia.
The brainchild behind the event was Washington, D.C.-based Food & Water Watch, producers of the Smart Seafood Guide. In partnership with James Beard House, the watchdog organization had invited Chef Kerry to prepare the invasives Iron Chef-style -- with a little more than a day's notice. This isn't much time to get acquainted with the four exotic new ingredients, but Heffernan managed the challenge admirably, at least, according to this amateur seafood lover.
I'll be honest -- I'd expected something that might challenge my sense of adventure a little more-something slimy, maybe -- but all four dishes were delicious. Food porn isn't my thing, so I'll spare you the details and instead fill you in on what drew me to the event.
I like seafood, but... even with productions like Food & Water Watch's Smart Seafood Guide, Blue Ocean Institute's Seafood Guide and Monterrey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch Guide , I still find the "rules" around seafood difficult to navigate, mostly because:
Aside from the Yellowstone example, there are many cases of invasive species wreaking havoc, on water and on land, on ecosystems around the globe. Eating them would seem not only to mitigate harm, but to actively improve the "invaded" ecosystem. With so many proverbial genies let out of so many proverbial bottles -- is it possible to fish and market and eat our way out of a situation that, at least in part, we've fished and marketed and eaten our way into?
New York Times reporter Elisabeth Rosenthal suggests a cautious optimism, noting:
Scientists emphasize that human consumption is only part of what is needed to control invasive species and restore native fish populations, and that a comprehensive plan must include restoring fish predators to depleted habitats and erecting physical barriers to prevent further dissemination of the invaders.
"We are not going to be able to just eat our way out of the invasive species problem," Dr. Kramer said. "On the other hand, there are places where this can be a very useful part of the strategy."
Food & Water Watch director Wenonah Hauter is enthusiastic about the potential benefits of marketing invasives, noting that in order to do so effectively, supply chains need revamping and some of the species may need some added sex appeal, in some cases, through re-naming.
At last week's event, Chef Kerry spoke to a "learning curve," for himself and other chefs, but also acknowledges the role chefs can play in promoting more sustainable seafood choices. In true James Beard fashion, foundation vice president Mitchell Davis called this a "cutting edge" culinary trend, one that the foundation was happy to get behind.
Count me in. Below, some information on the seafood we sampled last week. Here's to guilt-free seafood smorgasboards!
Asian carp
Actually a catch-all term for eight different varieties of carp, including the common goldfish, and silver carp, known for their tendency to jump -- high -- when spooked by boats. Cultivated for over 1,000 years in China, the varieties of Asian carp generally referred to as invasive in the U.S. are grass, black, silver and bighead carp. Over the last decade or so, Asian carp have been the subject of controversy and legislation, as many worry that some of these varieties will make their way into the Great Lakes. Asian carp are believed to be low in mercury, though the FDA has yet to evaluate them for contaminants. Prolific breeders, they can out-compete other fish for feed like algae and phytoplankton.
But how does it taste?
Chef Kerry describes them as sweet and mild, like whitefish. He also noted that the large fish was difficult to debone, a likely reason that this fish has not caught on in the U.S.
Lionfish
Native to the Indo-Pacific, the aptly-named lionfish (also known as the scorpion fish, or firefish) is believed to have been introduced to East Coast waters, including the Caribbean, by pet owners releasing aquarium fish into coastal waters. The lionfish is prey to no known predators, is a voracious eater, grows fast and reproduces year round. It is quite impressive with its spines, which can cause death in other sealife and major discomfort for unlucky swimmers of the human variety.
But how does it taste?
Chef Kerry couldn't think of a counterpart and described it as a cross between John Dory and monkfish.
European green crab Introduced on the East Coast in the early 1800s, likely as a castaway on a European ship, the European green crab was discovered on the West Coast as well during the late 1980s. The FDA has not performed testing on the Green Crab specifically, but it is considered likely to not contain high levels of mercury or PCBs because it is sensitive to these contaminants itself.
But how does it taste?
Chef Kerry notes that the green crab boasts more flavor than its blue counterpart, but that its small size makes for time-intensive meat-picking. He used it in a delicious crab soup and says he's waiting for molting season to try it out as a soft-shell crab.
Blue tilapia
Native to Northern and Western Africa and the Middle East, also known as Israeli tilapia, blue tilapia were, in some cases, intentionally introduced as weed control in Gulf state lakes, and are currently wreaking havoc in lakes in Florida, Texas and Nevada.
But how does it taste?
Compared to its farmed counterpart (which, so long as it's grown right - we like recirculating systems - are quite sustainable) blue lake tilapia has a less "muddy" flavor, according to Chef Kerry.
Originally published at Ecocentric.
"Momentum is growing immensely for our rally at the school on Thursday, where hundreds of supporters will gather, led by the students, to exercise our collective power to keep the school open. Supporters are coming from many groups and organizations, schools, and neighborhoods of Detroit, and from as far as Traverse City, and Chicago, each about a five hour drive. I'm told Danny Glover is flying in as well. Anyone who can get here by noon Thursday should come to the school at 2750 Selden."
As for my keeping on keeping on, I do believe that we are in serious trouble -- maybe fatal trouble, that is, maybe it's too late to stop the express train we've been riding on -- but as I say to my students, suppose it's too late? What are we going to do? Lie around reading novels and eating bon-bons? I think we should all try to live as responsibly as possible because it's the right thing to do, and it's what's most likely to give our lives purpose. Working in the garden makes me happy, and after the incredibly heavy rainstorms and flood warnings of the last week, I had no flooding!
We have a role to play. We've got to choose food that reflects our values. But further, we have hands-on work to do building projects in our communities that make them more like they should be -- from gardens in public schools to farmers markets in low-income communities. And we've got to stand together to push for federal policy that serves eaters and farmers before it serves corporations.
Is the first-term Obama administration "dissing" his base and following the money? What are people dissatisfied with this failure to do?
The answer: Eaters must become more political. We can't just vote with our forks.
We didn't rely on WalMart to get lead out of gasoline. Nor did we wait for WalMart to take on Big Tobacco. If we want to raise kids in communities with healthier food, we can't rely on WalMart to bring that about. We need better public policies.
Everyday citizens can stand in support of the Charter, too, and I hope they do. During the run up to the last iteration of the Farm Bill (if not before), while industry lobbyists were busy greasing the palms of every politician they could get in front of, good food advocates called for renaming the legislation the Food Bill. Because, as fewer and fewer of us are tied to the land, average citizens don't always see a connection between themselves and policies ostensibly geared toward those who still do raise crops and animals. But we all eat, so the Farm Bill affects all of us. And those of us who still have jobs pay taxes, so we should care about how our tax dollars influence our food systems, too. Because the State of the Food Union is not so strong. But it could be, with a little help from friends on the inside.
Originally published at Ecocentric.]]>
"It is imperative that the FDA halt the rushed and reckless approval process surrounding genetically engineered salmon before this product ends up on consumers' plates. It is equally imperative that the public let the FDA know their concerns about GE salmon and the agency's shoddy evaluation of this product's possible impacts on the environment and consumer health before November 22nd -- and let their members of Congress know they don't want this fish to hit store shelves."
At Trader Joe's, we work with reputable suppliers that have a strong record of providing safe and healthy work environments and we will continue to make certain that our vendors are meeting if not exceeding government standards throughout all aspects of their businesses.
"The women Costa talks to have already got plenty of press. There are others, no doubt, who need it."