ARTICLES  ABOUT  FOOD

 

HOME

.

GENERAL INFORMATION

.

WHO WE ARE

.

FAQ's

.

RECIPES

.

NEWSLETTERS

.

ARTICLES ABOUT FOOD
new: Food Threat

.

CONTACT INFORMATION

.

PRODUCE SUMMARIES

.

FARM
DIRECTIONS

.

 

.
FOOD THREAT
Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble

    By Robert Weissman
    Common Dreams

    Wednesday 19 March 2008

    There have been few experiments as reckless, overhyped and with as little potential upside as the rapid rollout of genetically modified crops.

    Last month, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a pro-biotech nonprofit, released a report highlighting the proliferation of genetically modified crops. According to ISAAA, biotech crop area grew 12 percent, or 12. 3 million hectares, to reach 114. 3 million hectares in 2007, the second highest area increase in the past five years.

    For the biotech backers, this is cause to celebrate. They claim that biotech helps farmers. They say it promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries. "If we are to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of cutting hunger and poverty in half by 2015," says Clive James, ISAAA founder and the author the just-released report, "biotech crops must play an even bigger role in the next decade."

    In fact, existing genetically modified crops are hurting small farmers and failing to deliver increased food supply - and posing enormous, largely unknown risks to people and the planet.

    For all of the industry hype around biotech products, virtually all planted genetically modified seed is for only four products - soy, corn, cotton and canola - with just two engineered traits. Most of the crops are engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide sold by Monsanto under the brand-name Round-up (these biotech seeds are known as RoundUp-Ready). Others are engineered to include a naturally occurring pesticide, Bt.

    Most of the genetically modified crops in developing countries are soy, says Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and co-author of "Who Benefits from GM Crops," a report issued at the same time as ISAAA's release. These crops are exported to rich countries, primarily as animal feed. They do absolutely nothing to supply food to the hungry.

    As used in developing countries, biotech crops are shifting power away from small, poor farmers desperately trying to eke out livelihoods and maintain their land tenure.

    Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less frequent spraying, but, concludes "Who Benefits from GM Crops," these biotech seeds "allow farmers to spray a particular herbicide more frequently and indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop." This requires expenditures beyond the means of small farmers - but reduces labor costs, a major benefit for industrial farms.

    ISAAA contends that Bt planting in India and China has substantially reduced insecticide spraying, which it advances as the primary benefit of biotech crops.

    Bt crops may offer initial reductions in required spraying, says Freese, but Bt is only effective against some pests, meaning farmers may have to use pesticides to prevent other insects from eating their crops. Focusing on a district in Punjab, "Who Benefits from GM Crops" shows how secondary pest problems have offset whatever gains Bt crops might offer.

    Freese also notes that evidence is starting to come in to support longstanding fears that genetically engineering the Bt trait into crops would give rise to Bt-resistant pests.

    The biotech seeds are themselves expensive, and must be purchased anew every year. Industry leader Monsanto is infamous for suing farmers for the age-old practice of saving seeds, and holds that it is illegal for farmers even to save genetically engineered seeds that have blown onto their fields from neighboring farms. "That has nothing to do with feeding the hungry," or helping the poorest of the poor, says Hope Shand, research director for the ETC Group, an ardent biotech opponent. It is, to say the least, not exactly a farmer-friendly approach.

    Although the industry and its allies tout the benefits that biotech may yield someday for the poor, "we have yet to see genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better," says Shand. "Biotech seeds have not been shown to be scientifically or socially useful," although they have been useful for the profit-driven interests of Monsanto, she says.

    Freese notes that the industry has been promising gains for the poor for a decade and a half - but hasn't delivered. Products in the pipeline won't change that, he says, with the industry focused on introducing new herbicide resistant seeds.

    The evidence on yields for the biotech crops is ambiguous, but there is good reason to believe yields have actually dropped. ISAAA's Clive James says that Bt crops in India and China have improved yields somewhat. "Who Benefits from GM Crops" carefully reviews this claim, and offers a convincing rebuttal. The report emphasizes the multiple factors that affect yield, and notes that Bt and Roundup-Ready seeds alike are not engineered to improve yield per se, just to protect against certain predators or for resistance to herbicide spraying.

    Beyond the social disaster of contributing to land concentration and displacement of small farmers, a range of serious ecological and sustainability problems with biotech crops is already emerging - even though the biotech crop experiment remains quite new.

    Strong evidence of pesticide resistance is rapidly accumulating, details "Who Benefits from GM Crops," meaning that farmers will have to spray more and more chemicals to less and less effect. Pesticide use is rising rapidly in biotech-heavy countries. In the heaviest user of biotech seeds - the United States, which has half of all biotech seed planting - glyphosate-resistant weeds are proliferating. Glyphosate use in the United States rose by 15 times from 1994 to 2005, according to "Who Benefits from GM Crops," and use of other and more toxic herbicides is rapidly rising. The U.S. experience likely foreshadows what is to come for other countries more recently adopting biotech crops.

    Seed diversity is dropping, as Monsanto and its allies aim to eliminate seed saving, and development of new crop varieties is slowing. Contamination from neighboring fields using genetically modified seeds can destroy farmers' ability to maintain biotech-free crops. Reliance on a narrow range of seed varieties makes the food system very vulnerable, especially because of the visible problems with the biotech seeds now in such widespread use.

    For all the uncertainties about the long-term effects of biotech crops and food, one might imagine that there were huge, identifiable short-term benefits. But one would be wrong.

    Instead, a narrowly based industry has managed to impose a risky technology with short-term negatives and potentially dramatic downsides.

    But while it is true, as ISAAA happily reports, that biotech planting is rapidly growing, it remains heavily concentrated in just a few countries: the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China.

    Europe and most of the developing world continue to resist Monsanto's seed imperialism. The industry and its allies decry this stand as a senseless response to fear-mongering. It actually reflects a rational assessment of demonstrated costs and benefits - and an appreciation for real but incalculable risks of toying with the very nature of nature.


    Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, DC-based Multinational Monitor, and director of Essential Action.

  -------

 

Eat your oats - Concluded the scientists

History and uses of oats

Lance Gibson and Garren Benson write about oat. They say, “little history of oat is known prior to the time of Christ. Oats did not become important to man as early as wheat or barley. Oats probably per­sisted as a weed like plant in other cereals for centuries prior to being cultivated by itself. Some authorities believe that our present cultivated oats developed as a mutation from wild oats. They think this may have taken place in Asia Minor or south­eastern Europe not long before the birth of Christ.

Probably the oldest known oat grains were found in Egypt among remains of the 12th Dynasty, which was about 2,000 B.C. These probably were weeds and not actually cultivated by the Egyptians. The oldest known cultivated oats were found in caves in Switzerland that are believed to belong to the Bronze Age.

Oats have been used as livestock and human foods since ancient times. Some have been used as pasture, hay or silage; but most have been used as a feed grain. Oat straw has been important bedding for livestock through history.” In Samuel Johnson's dictionary, oats were defined as "eaten by people in Scotland, but fit only for horses in England." The Scotsman's retort to this is, "That's why England has such good horses, and Scotland has such fine men!"(1)

top

Nutritional value of oats

There has been an increase in oats used for human food in recent years. Oat Bran has received considerable attention from the medical community for its nutritional value and its health enhancing roles. One and a half ounces of raw, rolled oats contain 160 calories, 3.5 grams of fat or 1.5 grams of polyunsaturated fat and 1.3 grams of monounsaturated fat, 2.8 grams of fiber, 2.5 micrograms of folic acid, 0.7 mg of vitamin E and that oat is a good source of B vitamins. Oats contain more linoleic acid, B vitamins, vitamin E, soluble fiber and protein than other grains. (2)

Including oat in our diet regularly has various beneficial effects:

  • Oats have gained a valuable reputation for lowering blood cholesterol levels. Studies show that a person who eats 1 ½ ounces of oatmeal each day will show a loss of 3% in total cholesterol and a 14% reduction in bad cholesterol after two months.
  • Oats are good for diabetics since they prolong the absorption of carbohydrates into the bloodstream. This means dramatic changes in blood sugar levels are less likely to occur. “ oats contain polysaccharide components called beta-glucans. Researchers at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto concluded from their human clinical trial that oat beta-glucans are a useful functional food ingredient for reducing postprandial glycemia. In the study, diabetic subjects were randomly assigned to eat a prototype beta-glucan cereal type, a commercial oat bran breakfast cereal or white bread. The beta-glucan bar had a significantly lower glycemic index than the other two treatments, leading researchers to conclude the addition of beta-glucan predictably reduced glycemic index while maintaining palatability.”(3)
  • Oat fiber helps constipation.
  • Cooked oatmeal is great for the heart. Ron Kennedy, M.D. promotes oat as well. He states, “the U.S. Government has now determined that the amount of beta-glucan needed to impact your heart health is approximately 0.75 gram per serving.”(4)
  • Smokers who are trying to quit the habit are sometimes advised to eat ½ ounce of rolled oats per day. It seems to help calm the nerves, curbing withdrawal symptoms.
  • Oat fiber is a rich source of water-soluble beta-glucans, which have been associated with the ability to enhance the function of the immune system significantly. The gum in the oats promotes the production of protective intestinal lubricant, and now appears to improve the adhesive capabilities and the growth rates of beneficial bacteria strains.

top

(1) Lance Gibson and Garren Benson of Iowa State University, Department of Agronomy, Origins, History and Uses of Oat and Wheat 
(2) The Healing Doctor, Foods That Heal by Lombardi Publishing Corporation, 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 3304 New York, NY 10118-0069
(3) 12/8/03 Natural Products Industry Insider, p.33
(4) Ron Kennedy, M.D., A New Way to Lower Your Risk for Heart Disease – America’s #1 Killer
.
Mad cow disease in the U.S.

Is mad cow disease causing thousands of human deaths in the U.S.?

Thanks to a massive marketing blitz (funded by scarce taxpayer money) the U.S. Government has been working overtime to alleviate the public's concerns about Mad Cow Disease and its human counterpart Creutzfeldt Jacob Disease (CJD). Consumers no longer know who to trust. Regardless, experts on all sides of the political spectrum agree with one basic fact: the two diseases are undeniably connected. In both cases, aberrant proteins, known as prions, begin to multiply and literally cause holes in the brain, ultimately leading to death. According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control, hundreds of CJD human fatalities have been occurring in the U.S. every year, but until now, they have simply been written off as unexplainable and spontaneous cases. At the same time, it is well known that ingesting meat contaminated with these prions causes the same fatal reaction to occur in the human body. Based on that basic understanding, coupled with the fact that the vast majority of U.S. cattle are never tested for Mad Cow Disease, scientists like Dr. Michael Gregor, a world renowned expert on the issue, and dozens of research institutions around the world are now linking these deaths to the food supply.

 Source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/GregerCJD.cfm

 

top

Who do you trust?

The Bush Administration gave the USDA Secretary of Agriculture position to Anne Venemon (who once served on Monsanto's Calgene Board of Directors). She appointed Dale Moore as her Chief of Staff. Prior to playing his new role of "protecting" consumers from food safety threats like Mad Cow Disease, Dale Moore was the chief lobbyist for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Source: http://www.usda.gov/agencies/gallery/moore.htm

 

Breaking news: human life may be worth as much as a nickel!

Although the U.S. banned beef imports and frowned upon the UK when Mad Cow Disease related CJD began to take the lives of British citizens, recently revealed documents show little has been done to protect U.S. consumers from similar outbreaks within our own borders. In fact, internal USDA papers dating back to 1991 show that the U.S. government (and related lobbyists) have been basing food safety related decisions  on corporate profit margins over human health. Specifically, the USDA refused precautionary measures that would mitigate the possible outbreak of Mad Cow Disease, stating that "the cost to the livestock and rendering industries would be substantial." This assessment may be true, depending on what the price of human life is. Indeed, the cost of testing all cattle for this fatal disease would add 3 to 5 pennies per pound to the price of beef.

Reference: Rampton, S and J. Stauber. Mad Cow USA Common Courage Press; 
Source: http://prwatch.org/books/madcow.html

 

Millions of consumers unite

Last year, while the E.U. tested 10 million cattle for Mad Cow, the U.S. only tested 20,526 cows out of 35 million slaughtered. In response to this threat to food safety and consumer rights, the OCA has launched a massive campaign to pressure the USDA into creating standards that emulate those of Japan and the EU. Every day, thousands of citizens are signing on to this important petition. Help the OCA in achieving its goal of gathering over a million petition signatures, demanding that the U.S. Government adopt and enforce: ~ Mandatory testing for all cattle brought to slaughter, before they enter the food chain. ~ Ban the feeding of blood, manure, and slaughterhouse waste to animals.

Please forward this email to family and friends!
Sign the petition here: http://organicconsumers.org/madcow.htm

 

top

Got blood?

The Mad Cow Disease outbreak in the UK sent off global warning signals, regarding various beef industry practices that perpetuate the disease. On the top of this list was the logical push to ban feeding cows to other cows, since the disease spreads via ingestion of infected beef. Despite this, in order to maximize profit margins in the U.S., calves are regularly fed cow blood as a protein supplement.  The OCA is coordinating a donation drive to post a quarter page educational ad in the Sunday Washington Post, highlighting the obvious threats of cow cannibalism to the human food supply. Check out the ad and consider donating to this educational campaign!

Source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/gotblood.cfm

 

Genetically engineered crops

Family farmers vs. transnational corporations

In Mendocino County CA, voters will be deciding whether or not to ban genetically modified crops, to protect the county's organic farmers from possible contamination from neighboring GE crops. The vote will be held March 2, 2004 and would make the county the first in the U.S. to pass an anti-GMO resolution. The biotech industry has responded with a goliath investment into persuading the voters of the county against the measure. Indeed, the biotech battle plan is to call every household in the county with a paid 20-30 minute conversation, in order to assuage voter concerns about GE issues. Can Mendocino organic family farmers compete with transnational corporations?

Your help is needed: http://www.gmofreemendo.com/

 

top

Organic toxic sludge

Much of what you flush down your toilet likely ends up being spread on local farm fields as fertilizer for the food you eat. At face value, it seems like a perfectly natural process. Historically, manure has been a preferred fertilizer for farmers worldwide. In the U.S. 60% of sewage sludge is treated, dried and shipped out to the farm.  Proponents claim the sludge has only low levels of bacteria, but what about the chemicals homeowners and industry dump into the wastewater system? Those toxins don't just disappear. When applied to the soil, they work their way into the ground water, the air, and the plants we eat. Award winning scientist, David Lewis, a microbiologist, was recently fired from the Environmental Protection Agency for his criticism of the U.S. Government's sewage sludge policies. Lewis and  likeminded opponents question how the EPA, in 1992, determined that  sewage sludge was too toxic to continue dumping in the oceans, yet  it's perfectly legal to apply the same stuff to food crops intended  for human ingestion. The EPA is now considering selling this same sludge under the label "organic compost".

Write a letter to the EPA, expressing your concerns: http://www.organicconsumers.org/foodsafety/sludge011504.cfm

 

Extending the Harvest
by Rose Mirabai Lord

This is the time of year when many of us find ourselves with too many tomatoes or peppers or onions to know what to do with.  We have worked hard to grow this wonderful produce and the last thing we want is to see it go to waste.  Of course there is always the option of putting the excess on the compost heap and allowing it to contribute to next year’s harvest but wouldn’t it be nice if we could salvage at least some of it for our nutritional needs and culinary pleasure during the long winter months?  Here are some suggestions for making that possible.

Harvesting
For storage purposes, choose your most perfect specimens, un-bruised or damaged fruits and vegetables.  Pick them on a day when the weather is cool and dry so the produce is not wet or heat stressed.  Brush off loose dirt but do not wash.

top

Curing
As far as the bulbs (onions, garlic, shallots) are concerned, the first thing you should do is to cure them.  That involves 1.) spreading them in a dry, shady spot, 2.) cutting off the tops and roots – near the base of the bulb and 3.) letting them dry until the tops are quite dry and the outer skin is papery thin.  If the weather is rainy, step one should be done on screens indoors.  Once these bulbs are sufficiently dried they can be hung in mesh bags from the ceiling of your basement, garage or a spare room.  However, be forewarned that the “fragrance” of the bulb, especially garlic, will permeate the area in which they are stored, at least for a while.  Humidity in the bulb storage area should not be higher than 70%
.

Types of Storage

Indoor
Many vegetables can be stored indoors in wooden crates or boxes but this should be done in a cool, dark area such as a basement or un-heated spare room.  Some vegetables, especially the root vegetables will require high humidity, in the 80 – 95% range.  The vegetables should be set in such a way in their storage boxes so they do not touch each other.  Such root vegetables as carrots, brussel sprouts, Chinese cabbage and leeks should be dug up with their roots intact and stored in boxes of moist (not wet) builders sand, exactly as they were growing in the ground and, again, not touching each other.   They should be sprinkled occasionally with water.  The roots will not grow but will draw moisture from the sand.  Carrots will keep all winter.

top

Outdoor
Window Well – Line the bottom of a window well with dry twigs, leaves and some straw or hay.  Alternate layers of straw or hay with the vegetables, making sure that the veggies do not touch each other.  Put a board over the top and cover the entire thing with a tarp or heavy plastic held down with bricks or stones.

Pit – Dig a pit or a trench, 2-3 feet deep. Cover the bottom with layers of stones and cover the stones with dry leaves or straw.  Put vegetables in a barrel or metal garbage can, alternating layers of straw, dry leaves or wood chips with the vegetables.  Put the containers in the pit and pack straw or hay around them with a 6 inch layer on top.  Cover the pit with a board and anchor the board with bricks or stones.

Cold Frame – Cold frames can be used for storage as well as for growing vegetables in the cold winter months.  Layer the vegetables with packing material (same as for window well or pit) ending with a 6 inch layer of packing material.  Cover the lid of the cold frame with a tarp to keep out light and anchor the tarp.

Processing
If you are going to process some of your fall harvest by freezing or canning, process them as soon after they are picked as possible and store them in usable quantities.

top

Freezing
Most fruits and vegetables, with the exception of leafy greens, can be frozen and, if properly prepared, will keep well from one harvest to the next.  They should be prepared for freezing as soon after picking as possible; immediately is best.  All produce should be thoroughly washed in cold water and drained before preparing for freezing but should not be left soaking.  Wash small amounts at a time with frequent changes of water.  Cores, pits, seeds, skins or shells should be removed.  Vegetables are generally scalded or parboiled and then plunged into ice water.  Many fruits can just be peeled, if necessary, and sliced before “dry-freezing” but many people like to sprinkle the fruit with a little bit of sugar to bring out some of the juice and create a syrup.  A natural sugar such as Sucanat is recommended. All frozen produce should be stored in good quality freezer bags or heavy-duty plastic wrap and packages should be sealed so that they are air and moisture-proof.  It’s also important to label and date each item.  You may want to make a puree of certain items such as spinach, pumpkin, squash, cranberries and strawberries before freezing.  The purees can be used in recipes, as sauces or simply served by themselves.

top

A Word About Canning
My German born grandparents lived on a dairy farm in Albany, Minnesota.  When I was a child my grandmother would send us a box of goodies for Christmas which included canned fruit spreads from her own garden.  They were wonderful!  Canning is time-consuming, tricky and, if not done properly can be dangerous.  Very few people in our society have the time to learn about this process or to do it properly.  For those reasons we will not discuss it in this article.  However, if you do have the time and want to learn this time-honored means of extending the harvest, there are still books on the market that will tell you how to do it.  Or, better yet, find a grandmother who can teach you.

Recommended Reading:  Too Many Tomatoes, Squash, Beans and Other Good Things by Lois M. Landau and Laura G. Myers.
.

 

Spiritual Food CSA

4209 East-West Highway Chevy Chase, MD 20815
tel: 301-654-4899, e-mail: info@spiritualfoodcsa.org