Even as the FDA announces new guidance for the “judicious use of medically important antibiotics in food-producing animals,” an acknowledgment that routine use of antibiotics as growth promoters or as prophylactics is not “in the best interest” of public health, resistance to change remains strong in farm and veterinary circles.
Nowhere is the entrenchment of the status quo more evident than in the veterinary profession itself. I was disappointed to come across a recent article co-authored by a former, and respected, professor. The article examined factors associated with isolation of mutiple antibiotic resistant (MAR) E. coli infections on cattle farms in the Western US. One of the findings of the study was that organic dairies have fewer cases of this type of infection than conventional dairy farms. Age of animals and geographic location, among other factors, were also examined and had varying affects on development of resistance.
The fact that organic dairies experience fewer multiple antibiotic resistant E. coli isolates is great news for both producers and consumers of organic products. Unbelievably, the authors chose to downplay this result. Their conclusion?
MAR in fecal E coli isolates from cattle was influenced by factors not directly associated with the use of antimicrobials, including geographic region, animal age, and purpose (beef vs dairy). (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010;236:1338–1344)
I think there is a glaring omission here. Organic farms use no antibiotics . If they do, they are not certified organic. Therefore, organic farming can not be said to be unrelated to antibiotic use. I’m not saying other factors on organic farms don’t contribute to the findings. It’s likely that better management practices and cleaner facilities also play a role. After all, farms that don’t use antibiotics must keep their cows from developing disease. It’s simply outrageous that the authors do not discuss the findings on organic farms at all.
Change is coming to animal agriculture. Consumers have demanded it, and science demonstrates that it is necessary.
A local foods blogger at http://realfoodlittlerock.blogspot.com/ has the full story on the farmers that were shut down in West Little Rock yesterday with a full load of freshly harvested food. Please join her in taking action to make it possible for the West Little Rock Market to continue. The botttom line is that the farmers must apply for a variance to city zoning ordinances in order to continue to market on Mondays at PA. This process can take quite some time, and, obviously, peak harvest season is already upon us. These farmers have much to lose, and so do the consumers who depend on them. You can help by urging the city to get this approval finished as quickly as possible. Write or call Mr. Dana Carvey, at 371-4844 or write dcarney@littlerock.org. Let him know you appreciate and support our local farmers, and that you believe a vibrant farmer’s market is an asset to the West Little Rock community.
Kudos to Jody Hardin, of the Certified Arkansas Farmers Market, Foodshed Farm Basket a Month Club, and the Argenta Market (among other endeavors). Jody has been fighting for local farmers for years, and one battle that still rages is the fight to keep local farmers markets local. Frustrated by wholesalers undercutting local growers at the Rivermarket, Jody started a source-verified market in Argenta three years ago and has never looked back. The debate over farmers markets is national, and recently, a town in Wisconsin took up the issue. Jody was among those interviewed by the New York Times for the story. Thanks to his work, Little Rock (and Hot Springs Village as well as Searcy) is ahead of the curve, and, our certified farmers’ markets provide truly local foods year round. Check out the Market this Saturday and support some great farmers. You’ll find the best in fresh and even organically grown local produce in Argenta.
(I’m a huge fan of local farmers, local foods, and organic foods. This is a spontaneous endorsement, and I have no financial interest in the markets to disclose!)
Even as the local food movement has entered an encouraging period of growth, significant roadblocks to local markets exist. One of the biggest issues facing local farmers markets is the influx of cheap produce that is not grown locally. A large percentage of this produce comes from shipments to large grocery chains that are rejected by the company for a variety of reasons, including temperature discrepancies and minor blemished incurred during shipping. These shipments are sold very cheaply to local wholesalers by truckers anxious to get back on the road for their next shipment. The wholesalers then put the produce up for sale on the roadside or at local farmers markets at a deep discount.
Selling such cheap produce at local farmers markets puts farmers at a disadvantage. The deep discounts wholesalers can offer on their produce cannot be met by local farmers without a loss, and, as a result, the local farmers lose money. The state may also lose money, because these wholesalers may unfairly take advantage of sales-tax exemptions given to local farmers. Consumers lose, too. Many consumers believe that foods offered at farmers markets are locally grown and fresh, rather than blemished goods rejected by the national grocery chains.
It is imperative that state lawmakers acknowledge this problem and that steps are taken to ensure that locally grown foods are given a fair chance at local markets. Jody Hardin has some ideas for what this policy might look like:
If we can persuade our policy makers to see we need this fairness to be mandated throughout the state as law: to provide designated, fair trade markets exclusively to our states farmers and only their produce be allowed, it would be an automatic game changer for the fresh market farmer! I’m thinking, perhaps, that we may propose to host a CAFM market on Saturday at the River Market, and ask all the other non farm vendors as well as farmers who want a second day to to sell on, to move to a Sunday market with a new distinction as “International Bazaar or Flea Market”, for example. This would help the merchants drive two big business days downtown and it would segregate the tax exempt farmers from those who are required to pay state sales taxes from re-selling, giving the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, and state a legitimate reason to make the distinction into a law and increase tax revenue. Mixing farmers with re-sellers will never be fair to local small farmers or the local food system.
I recently received an annual update from Jody Hardin, of Foodshed Farms, Basket-a-Month Community Supported Agriculture (BAM), and the Certified Arkansas Farmers’ Market (CAFM). With the help of people like Jody and his great support group at Foodshed Farms, fresh local foods are being made available to people all over the state, and consumers are spending money in their own communities to help local farmers.
Foodshed Farms’ Basket a Month CSA alone has put over $500,000 back into the local economy over the 4 years it has been running. When the local markets in Argenta, Hot Springs, and Searcy are added, total economic impact is estimated to reach $1,000,000 over the same 4-year period. The local foods movement is growing rapidly. Jody is in discussions with 3 additional Arkansas communities to start local affiliates of the CAFM.
Jody’s estimates do not include the economic impact of other local food clubs such as that provided by the Arkansas Sustainability Network, an organization that conducts a year-round, on-line only market. Many local growers produce for both markets, reaching different populations in the area.
Everyone can take advantage of the wonderful, fresh produce, meat, dairy, and other items grown and marketed locally. This spring will be a good time to plug into the local foods movement and find out how satisfying it can be to participate in the community.
Tomorrow’s post will deal with the obstacles still facing local agriculture.
Thanks to CREDO Action for an alert regarding the USDA approval of Monsanto’s genetically modified alfalfa. Those of you who follow this blog will remember past discussions about the problems with GMOs in the food chain. These problems include possible health effects (GMOs have yet to be adequately studied for toxicity), loss of biodiversity, and control of food supply and markets by large corporations like Monsanto (a company that has proven itself ready and willing to viciously pursue its agenda at the expense of farmers). In the case of Monsanto’s alfalfa, the USDA acknowledged that the GM alfalfa is virtually certain to “contaminate” existing, wild-type plants.
Organic farmers will be hardest hit by the spread of GM alfalfa to existing crops. Organic food can not contain any GMOs. Organic dairy farmers that unknowingly feed alfalfa contaminated with the GMO seed could lose certification. Farmers growing alfalfa that becomes contaminated with Monsanto’s product could be held legally liable for patent infringement and face lawsuits.
The USDA/APHIS has determined that Monsanto’s seeds meet the Obama administration’s standards (here). You may submit comments on this decision through February 16, 2010. CREDO has made it easy with a standard comment to click and submit, or you may submit your own comment (always recommended) on the regulations.gov website.
A recently released study found evidence of toxicity in rats fed three genetically modified corn varieties, including the Monsanto Roundup Ready variety that is widely grown in the US and can contain herbicide residues. Two other strains contained the gene for Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (BT), a product of certain bacteria with insecticidal properties.
We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world. NK 603 has been modified to be tolerant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues of this formulation. MON 810 and MON 863 are engineered to synthesize two different Bt toxins used as insecticides. Approximately 60 different biochemical parameters were classified per organ and measured in serum and urine after 5 and 14 weeks of feeding. GM maize-fed rats were compared first to their respective isogenic or parental non-GM equivalent control groups. This was followed by comparison to six reference groups, which had consumed various other non-GM maize varieties. We applied nonparametric methods, including multiple pairwise comparisons with a False Discovery Rate approach. Principal Component Analysis allowed the investigation of scattering of different factors (sex, weeks of feeding, diet, dose and group). Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded. -Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726
Recent Comments