In co-sponsoring a bill to exempt agricultural pesticides sprayed over water from the Clean Water Act, Senator Blanche Lincoln had this to say: “Congress never intended for agricultural chemicals to be regulated under the Clean Water Act.” (NYT). Oh, of course not. Everybody knows agricultural chemicals are completely safe, and spraying them over water is really no big deal. On this issue, as on so many, many others, the Senator has sided with her Republican counterparts. The bill is co-sponsored by Saxby-Chambliss, Rep, Ga. One begins to wonder which of the two is really leading the Senate ag committee.
The bipartisan duo argues that regulating pesticides sprayed over water places an undue burden on farmers. Pesticide residues in drinking water place an undue health burden on the men, women, and children who drink water (everyone, last I looked), but who’s counting? Maybe if we don’t look for pesticide residues in drinking water, we won’t find them, and the problem will just go away. Out of sight, out of mind.
Growing food is expensive. Continuing to ignore the very real human health and environmental problems associated with pesticide use may keep food prices artificially low, but it only delays the inevitable.
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.
Genetically modified alfalfa, marketed by agri-giant Monsanto, will likely be planted in the near future, following a ruling by the Supreme Court that overturned a California-court ban on the plants pending a full environmental impact study. According to the AFP, the ball is now firmly in APHIS’ court. (APHIS = Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service).
“Until such time as the agency decides whether and how to exercise its regulatory authority, however, the courts have no cause to intervene,” the ruling said.
In the age of unbridled corporate influence in government, it’s fairly clear that the agency will not choose to exercise regulatory authority.
Proponents of further study prior to introducing such modified organisms point to the very real possibility of cross-contamination of the introduced gene into wild-type alfalfa stock. Because the gene makes the plant resistant to a proprietary Monsanto herbicide, use of the crop will promote heavier application of the chemical. That will likely lead to more environmental contamination as well as more chemical residues on alfalfa products.
Monsanto may have the Feds in their pocket, but consumers can still fight back. Refuse to buy GMO products, or meat products from animals fed GMOs. This means buying organic or from local, trusted growers. Consumer pressure can and does effect change.
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.
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.
Recent Comments