Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Keep the list in mind when you shopping for food

http://votersedge.org/california/ballot-measures/2012/november/prop-37/funding


FundingInfo

YES

RANKCONTRIBUTOR NAMETOTAL
1MERCOLA.COM HEALTH RESOURCES LLC$1,199,000
2KENT WHEALY$1,000,000
3NATURE'S PATH FOODS U.S.A. INC. FINE NATURAL FOOD PRODUCTS$660,709
4DR. BRONNER'S MAGIC SOAPS ALL-ONE-GOD-FAITH INC.$620,883
5ORGANIC CONSUMERS FUND$605,667
6ALI PARTOVI$288,975
7MARK SQUIRE$258,000
8WEHAH FARM, INC., DBA LUNDBERG FAMILY FARMS$251,500
9AMY'S KITCHEN$200,000
10THE STILLONGER TRUST, MARK SQUIRE TRUSTEE$190,000
$9.2 million raised in total

NO

$46.0 million raised in total
RANKCONTRIBUTOR NAMETOTAL
1MONSANTO COMPANY$8,112,867
2E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.$5,400,000
3PEPSICO, INC.$2,485,400
4GROCERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION$2,002,000
5KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC.$2,000,500
6BAYER CROPSCIENCE$2,000,000
7DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC$2,000,000
8BASF PLANT SCIENCE$2,000,000
9SYNGENTA CORPORATION$2,000,000
10COCA-COLA COMPANY$1,700,500
Download all contributions

Breakdown by
state

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Food security: Growing trouble



Nature
 
490,
 
483–484
 
(25 October 2012)
 
doi:10.1038/490483a
Published online
 
Calestous Juma assesses a call for policy to feed the world at a time of squeezed production and soaring prices.

Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity

Lester Brown W. W. Norton: 2012 160 pp. $27.95, £20
ISBN: 9780393088915
Buy this book: US UK Japan
We forget that part of the impetus behind the Arab Spring was the food price spikes of 2007–8. As, globally, we continue to deal with the political and diplomatic ramifications of that, another price spike is projected — this time as a result of serious recent drought in the United States, Latin America and South Asia.
These events are key to assessing the policy relevance of environmental analyst Lester Brown's Full Planet, Empty Plates. Brown's message is that the deteriorating world food situation has far-reaching geopolitical ramifications that demand urgent policy action. Saving civilization, says Brown, needs to be a contact sport, “not a spectator sport”.
The book offers some general indication of how that saving might happen — not least through galvanizing the international community. And it stresses the global and systematic nature of the challenges. But the book is silent on the urgent need for an institutional response that matches the magnitude of the problem.
Brown argues that the biggest threat to global stability is the potential for food crises in developing countries. That risk is exacerbated by population growth: some 219,000 people are joining the dinner table every night. Meanwhile, the rise in affluence is driving up demand for grain-intensive livestock and poultry products — at a time when nearly one-third of US grain output is being diverted from food to fuel for cars. These challenges are compounded by degradation of farmlands, water scarcity, climate change and the fact that grain yields are starting to plateau.
According to Brown, the overall effect of these dynamics is a dangerous transition from a time of plenty to one of food scarcity. The result is a global rush for land, and “a new geopolitics of food”. Brown avers: “Food is the new oil. Land is the new gold.” Yet the newness of this thesis is overstated: food has always been a geopolitical issue. The green revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, for example, was inspired by geopolitical considerations; one being the possibility of popular uprisings following famines in countries such as India and Mexico, as was well documented by John Perkins in Geopolitics and the Green Revolution (Oxford University Press, 1997).
How does Brown envisage tackling the dilemmas? He asserts that conventional supply-oriented policy measures such as offering farmers financial incentives and higher price support are simply not enough. Measures of demand form the centrepiece of the book's policy response. They include stabilizing the global population, eradicating poverty, reducing meat consumption and changing biofuels policies by curtailing the growth of the industry and switching to electric vehicles.
On the face of it, Brown's proposals seem sensible. However, the book focuses on what needs to be done, but provides very little indication of how such policies might be implemented. As a result, there are few new insights on how the world can avert the “food breakdown”. Although poverty eradication is a desirable goal, so far it has remained elusive, and there are no new ideas here on tackling it.
Probably the weakest aspect of Full Planet, Empty Plates is its failure to clearly outline the institutional mechanisms through which to address the challenge. So far, the world has tried to deal with the issue largely through international bodies such as the United Nations. Their efficacy is now in question, but there is no discussion of alternatives. And the solutions Brown cites derive from national efforts. What works for one country may not work for all.
For example, he alludes to efforts by organizations including the World Bank and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to work out principles for governing land acquisitions in developing countries. This has emerged as one of the most controversial aspects of African agriculture, with most of the land deals concentrated in countries such as Ethiopia, Ghana, Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique, South Sudan and Zambia.
These are relatively poor countries that need enhanced capability in resource management. Simply offering new guidelines won't do it. Ethiopia, for example, has a long-term vision to modernize its agriculture, but Brown offers little indication of how such countries could play a part.
There have been previous predictions of food crises. A variety of creative responses — especially those made possible by advances in science and technology — helped to forestall disaster and buy the international community time. The green revolution, by introducing inputs such as fertilizer and high-yielding crop varieties, boosted food production. Brown ignores technology, however, even though almost all of the measures he proposes — from the management of population to the expansion of prosperity and switching of energy sources — require the marshalling of human ingenuity.
The green revolution offers another important insight: Latin America and Asia responded to the food crises by expanding local food-production capacity. A global network of agricultural research institutes was created under the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) to promote such capacity. The CGIAR is probably the most important geopolitical innovation ever created in response to food crises. The world will need to either strengthen it or offer an alternative.
Full Planet, Empty Plates is a call to arms against the wolf at the door. Admitting the presence of a wolf is one thing; designing an attack strategy is another. For that, we need to turn elsewhere.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Calestous Juma is professor of the practice of international development at Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to: 

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Are Fruits and Veggies Less Nutritious Now?


Are Fruits and Veggies Less Nutritious Now?

Today's produce is less nutritious than yesteryear's. But that's not necessarily bad news.

Square Cored Watermelon
Today's typical watermelon contains 38% less vitamin A than a similar watermelon harvested in 1950.
For some food lovers, particularly those who follow the harsh critique of modern agriculture, it's become conventional wisdom that today's fruits and vegetables aren't as nutritious as they used to be. A landmark 2004 University of Texas synopsis of studies that compared what's now on store shelves to vegetables from 1950 found declines of 5% to 40% in certain nutrients among 43 types of produce. Much (but not all) of the produce we eat today does indeed contain lower nutrient levels than that from our parents' and grandparents' days.
But this kernel of truth is missing a bushel of context. One reason for the decrease in nutrient density in today's produce is a relentless, century-long focus on increased yield that has helped feed an exploding population. The industrialization of American agriculture, for all its problems, sustained a huge growth in population and a huge shift in where Americans lived.
"Post-World War II, nearly half the U.S. population was living on a farm feeding America," says Gene Lester, PhD, a plant physiologist with the USDA. "Now we have 1% to 2% of the population feeding the other 99%, and we have much less acreage devoted to farmland." Plus, there are more than 313 million of us today, compared to 150 million in 1950, which means a lot more mouths to feed.
In addition to yield, produce has also been bred for increased disease-resistance and shelf life, ease of transport, and consumer appeal. Occasionally, that has worked in nutrition's favor. Carrots have been bred over the years to be a deeper, darker orange, and their vitamin A levels have more than doubled as a result. But more often, the result has been illustrated by the state of broccoli—selectively bred to hold up better in shipping, but now also with less calcium and magnesium.
Higher yields also have helped control prices so that American consumers spend less of their income on food than almost anyone in the world. In real dollars, it costs about half as much to grow vegetables now as it did in 1950.
Now, critics point out that vast monocultures (huge areas devoted to a single crop), mechanization, and abundant use of chemicals also cause serious environmental damage. That's a valid point, and it prompts a valid question about our food supply: Should food remain so cheap? If environmental degradation is a trade-off for yield, that's a strong argument that we ought to be paying more for dinner.
Those issues will be with us for a long time—and they have no simple fixes. But there is a bright spot: The decline in nutrients may be on the cusp of reversing.
Selecting plants for yield doesn't necessarily have to result in a loss of nutrition; it's just harder to crossbreed for more than one quality at a time. "While focusing on yield, we took our eye off the ball with regard to the concentration of nutrients," Lester says.
Seed developers are beginning to course-correct, and its not just the boutique companies. Monsanto, one of the world's biggest agricultural biotech companies, recently collaborated with Apio, Inc., to release Beneforté broccoli, which has two to three times the level of the phytonutrient glucoraphanin compared to ordinary broccoli. And they developed it the old-fashioned way, with Mendelian cross-breeding. Gardeners, meanwhile, can try one of Burpee's Boost line of seeds with higher levels of nutrients such as carotenoids and vitamin C.
If you're looking for more nutrients from your vegetables right now, Lester advises choosing ones that are largely the same as they were in Eisenhower's time: dark leafy greens.
And buy locally. Because produce loses some nutrients after harvest, you may do better shopping at a local farmers' market, where items are more likely to have been picked recently. These days, buying local produce is getting easier, precisely because the nature of farming in the United States is undergoing more changes. From 2002 to 2007 (the latest year with data), there were more than 75,000 new farms in the U.S., and they look more like what we picture when we think "farm": more diversified crops, less acreage. These are also the farms that have helped fuel the resurgence of heirloom fruits and vegetables—often lower-yield and sometimes higher-nutrition varieties that can date back centuries.
But the single most effective strategy for getting more nutrition from fruits and vegetables is also the simplest: Just eat more of them. In the end, it's not the quality of the produce but the lack of appetite for it that compromises many Americans' diets.
Tamar Haspel|From the June 2012 Issue

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Citing Drug Resistance, U.S. Restricts More Antibiotics for Livestock

Citing Drug Resistance, U.S. Restricts More Antibiotics for Livestock

WASHINGTON — Federal drug regulators announced on Wednesday that farmers and ranchers must restrict their use of a critical class of antibiotics in cattle, pigs, chickens and turkeys because such practices may have contributed to the growing threat in people of bacterial infections that are resistant to treatment.

Veronica Lukasova for The New York Times

Cephalosporins commonly treat humans as well as animals like chickens.

The medicines are known as cephalosporins and include brands like Cefzil and Keflex. They are among the most common antibiotics prescribed to treat pneumonia, strep throat, and skin and urinary tract infections. Surgeons also often use them before surgery, and they are particularly popular among pediatricians.

The drugs’ use in agriculture has, according to many microbiologists, led to the development of bacteria that are resistant to their effects, a development that many doctors say has cost thousands of lives.

Antibiotics were the wonder drugs of the 20th century, and their initial uses in both humans and animals were indiscriminate. Farmers became so enamored of the miraculous effects of penicillin and tetracycline on the robustness of cattle, chickens and pigs that the drugs were added in bulk to feed and water, with no need forprescriptions or any sign of sickness in the animals.

By the 1970s, public health officials had become worried that overuse was leading to the birth of killer infections resistant to treatment. Since then, the Food and Drug Administration has undertaken fitful efforts to wean farmers, ranchers and veterinarians from excessive use of the medicines, but the vast majority of antibiotics used in the United States still go to treat animals, not humans. Meanwhile, outbreaks of illnesses from antibiotic-resistant bacteria have grown in number and severity.

A decade ago, the F.D.A. banned indiscriminate agricultural uses of a powerful class of antibiotics, called fluoroquinolones, that includes the medicine Cipro. Wednesday’s announcement was another of the F.D.A.’s incremental steps.

“We believe this is an imperative step in preserving the effectiveness of this class of important antimicrobials that takes into account the need to protect the health of both humans and animals,” said Michael R. Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods at the agency.

Cephalosporins are not used as widely in livestock as penicillin, since they require a prescription from veterinarians. But the drugs are routinely injected into broiler eggs and used in large doses to treat infections in cattle and other animals.

The new rule will restrict only some of these uses and is therefore a modest step that, while applauded by consumer advocates, led many to call for far tougher measures.

“This is particularly important because cephalosporins are so important to human health, but it’s only a first step,” said Laura Rogers of the Pew Charitable Trusts, which has advocated restricting agricultural uses of antibiotics.

The F.D.A. initially proposed cephalosporin restrictions in 2008 but withdrew the rule before it could take effect because of opposition from veterinarians, farmers and drug companies. The rule announced Wednesday is less strict than that one, since it still allows veterinarians to use the drugs in to treat sick animals in some ways the F.D.A. has not specifically approved, and wide discretion to treat small-scale-production animals like ducks and rabbits. The rule bans routine injections of cephalosporins into chicken eggs and large and lengthy dosing in cattle and swine.

Dr. Christine Hoang, assistant director of scientific activities at the American Veterinary Medical Association, said the new rule was a vast improvement over the one proposed in 2008.

“We thought the original order was too broad and unnecessarily prohibited uses that were not likely to cause problems for human health,” Dr. Hoang said.

Dr. Scott A. Brown of Pfizer, which makes cephalosporins used in animals, said the company “acknowledges the intent of the proposed order to respect veterinary discretion in determining the appropriate and responsible use of cephalosporin antibiotic medicines in the interest of animal health and human health.”

The F.D.A. has yet to make final a guideline proposed in 2010 that would edge the agency closer to banning uses of penicillin and tetracycline in feed and water for the sole purpose of promoting the growth of animals or preventing illness that results from unsanitary living conditions. This issue has generated intense controversy among farmers and ranchers who contend that public health officials have exaggerated the danger of agricultural uses of antibiotics to humans.

When asked about the penicillin guideline, Mr. Taylor of the F.D.A. said, “We’re hopeful that in the coming months, we’ll be able to carry forward on that work.”

Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a Democrat from New York and a microbiologist, said the F.D.A. had been too slow and too timid. “We are staring at a massive public health threat in the rise of antibiotic-resistant superbugs,” she said. “We need to start acting with the swiftness and decisiveness this problem deserves.”

But Dr. Gatz Riddell, executive vice president of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, a veterinarian group, said the dangers of agricultural uses of antibiotics had been greatly exaggerated. “It is highly misunderstood in the human-health community how much antibiotics are used in animals who are not sick or at risk of becoming sick,” he said.