1. Eat Wild. Eat Wild’s State-by-State Directory of Farms. 2011. Web. 1 Feb. 2011.
Eatwild.com is a website dedicated to spreading the gospel of grass-feeding to consumers. As a part of this mission, the group has compiled a list of farms that they consider exceptional in the good food movement. These farms have been selected for a variety of different farming practices, such as certified organic, certified humane, kosher, all-grass fed cattle, etc. It is notable that the claims of these farmers are not substantiated by any organization other than the farmers or the eatwild staff, but the standards which eatwild uses to assess a farming operation can be found linked to on the page. Features of the directory that make it particularly useful are its weekly updates and inclusion of farms from every state as well as parts of Canada, for consumers across North America.
2. Bartlett, Thomas. “Field of Discord: At Public Colleges’ Sustainability Centers, Farming
Groups Sow Influence.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle
Mag., 27 June 2010. Web. 31 Jan. 2011.
This article speculates on a recent decision at Iowa State University not to hire Ricardo Salvador to the school's Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture based on a comment he made about grass-feeding being more natural for cattle as opposed to corn-feeding. The article goes into some detail on the benefits of grass-feeding, but more importantly it discusses the effects of corporate interest on issues of sustainability. The author points out Iowa is number one producer of corn in America, and describes the influence the surrounding farming community may have had on the university's decision. The case of Mr. Salvador at Iowa State presents a precedent taking place wherever the interests of factory farming are involved.
3. Organic Trade Association 2011 Press Releases. OTA Deeply Disappointed with Failure
to Protect Farmer and Consumer Choice. 27 Jan.2011. Web. 31 Jan. 2011.
This recent press release from The Organic Trade Association expresses concern over the USDA's approval of alfalfa genetically engineered by Monsanto to resist Roundup for this year's upcoming planting season. The article cites the risks to the future of organic farming by the widely unregulated growth and production of current genetically engineered crops such as corn and soybeans as a reason for their displeasure to see genetic modification extending to other crops (i.e. alfalfa hay). This article has a clear bias towards those interested in buying organic products, but also points out the profitability of the organic farming industry in America, an industry which would be lost if genetically modified crops were to become an inescapable part of all farming. The article ends by reminding the reader there is still a dearth of scientific investigations on the effects-positive or negative-of genetically modified food on the human body.
4. n.p. “Food, Inc. Movie and Seed Patents.” Monsanto.com. Monsanto, n.d. Web. 2 Feb.
2011.
Monsanto responds to the attention the documentary Food, Inc. brought towards its seed patents in their own words. The company first briefly mentions the film, and then goes on to explain the incentive for innovation presented by patenting. The company asserts that without the right to patent and subsequently profit off of a product, scientific curiosity and research in genetic modification for any purpose would cease to exist. Next, the company describes the history of patents on plants and seeds, going as far back as 1873. This time line outlines specific patents and court rulings from the past that the company feels justify its possession of hundreds of seed patents to date. By displaying the history of seed patenting in this way, Monsanto is saying it is a practice that has been accepted for hundreds of years, and Food, Inc.'s slant on the issue is not a sufficient basis to form an opinion.
5. “21 CFR Part 184-Direct Food Substances Affirmed as Generally Recognized as Safe.” GPO Access. n.d. National Archives and Records Administration. Web. Feb. 17 2011.
To give you a better idea of what constitutes a GRAS substance, I included the official list provided by the Food and Drug Administration. Unfortunately, this list is not comprehensive because “it is impracticable to list all substances that are used in food on the basis of the GRAS provision.” (FDA). Still, I think seeing a sample of the kinds of items generally recognized as safe gives the general public some perspective on the term. One might find it particularly disturbing to see some ingredients, despite being considered safe, require a "maximum level of use," some as low as 0.005% of the total ingredients in your food in the case of Tannic acid, a chemical used in industrial processing of certain dairies, meats, candies, and drinks.
6. Schoenherr, Neil. “New findings in India’s Bt Cotton Controversy: Good for the Field, Bad for the Farm?” Physorg.com. Physorg News. Feb. 7 2011. Web. Feb. 17 2011.
This article outlines the findings of one recent study which found planting genetically engineered BT cotton did positively affect crop yields, but not to the extent previously demonstrated. In fact, in the long run the farmer needs to spray more pesticides anyway due to the increase of insects unaffected by the GM cotton, which is engineered to produce their own insecticide. Researcher Glenn Stone explains the economic reports compiled claiming better crops after adopting BT cotton seem to relate to other factors as well, like a farmer’s production rate before switching seed. The findings of these two studies suggest perhaps wealthy farmers are better able to cultivate these crops because they can afford the cost of the expensive technologies (i.e. pesticides) needed to sustain these crops over several growing seasons. According to Stone’s assertions, BT cotton and other GMOs may prove to be less effective worldwide in just a short time.
7. Roa, C. “Gene Use Restriction Technologies.” fbae.org. Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education. n.d. Web. Feb. 17 2011.
In this reading the author strives to argue in favor of GURTs-gene use restriction technologies. Also referred to as “The Terminator Gene,” GURTs are a specific type of GMO in which the seed is sterilized, so it cannot be saved after one season’s planting. Some common fears associated with this technology include how it may affect developing nations ability to produce, and seed companies’ attempts to control seed to increase profits. This article takes the side of the biotechnology companies, claiming GURTs could help preserve organic foods by preventing cross-pollination among other valuable uses, including controlling plant pathogens from spreading by genetically modifying an affected strain of seeds and containing the disease. It gives one a different idea of the possibilities of genetic modification, but at times still sounds very much driven by the profits to be reaped from selling seed that cannot be saved, listing "Prevent the unauthorized or illegal cultivation of transgenic crops" as another benefit of restriction technology.
8. “What’s the problem?” Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environment Programme. 2008. Web. Feb. 17 2011.
The Convention on Biological Diversity provides the reader with an explanation of the key factors affecting biodiversity today such as overpopulation, genetic modification, and sustainable agriculture. First, it describes the forces driving the loss of biodiversity (in agriculture and other ecosystems) like the switch from farming in polycultures to monocultures and the use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides to control weeds. Particular emphasis is placed on the idea that sustainable farming practices, much like sustainable sources of energy, need to explored so we can meet the demands of consumers worldwide while preserving our environment.
9. Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: The Penguin Press, 2006. Print.
The Omnivore’s Dilemma explores the history, processing, and practicality of three different sources of food: industrial, organic, and the largely abandoned hunter-gatherer. This book is incredibly well researched, going into great detail about each step in the “food system” that leads from the farm (or the forest) to your plate. Also, Pollan's account of how industrial, and later organic foods established themselves among American consumers is the most comprehensive I have ever read. At the end of each section he prepares a meal using ingredients produced by each system and describes them in terms of their nutritional value, as well as their sustainability as food sources. From this experiment, Pollan concludes because of its reliance on fossil fuels for transportation and industrial processing, conventional agriculture is just as impractical in the long run as a hunter-gatherer society would be in modern day America. One particular strength of this book is the informative tone maintained throughout, where most literature about the food industry struggles to provide an unbiased critique.
10. Foer, Jonathan. Eating Animals. New York: Little, Brown, and Company, 2009. Print.
Jonathan Foer takes a much more radical stance against factory farming than Michael Pollan, but his book is equally valuable in terms of information. Obviously, Foer has chosen to focus on the negative outcomes to livestock and the consumer due to how the animals are raised, fed, and processed. If you can get past the author’s transparent vegetarian agenda, his in-depth look at the meat processing industry raises certain questions. For example, why does the chicken inspector he interviews no longer eat chicken? Or, why is it that turkeys raised naturally (free of antibiotics and able to roam around outside) are able to fly, but those raised on factory farms can’t? Why is it completely acceptable for cattle farmers to see "downed" cows littering the landscape? One may not agree with Foer’s unshakable idealism, but it is hard not to desire these answers. I believe he follows in the footsteps of Upton Sinclair in his critique of the industry, and it is well worth the read.
11. Farm Subsidy Database. Environmental Working Group. January 2009. Web. 30 March 2011.
This website gives the reader a state-by-state breakdown of how US subsidies are being distributed among farmers. The information provided includes how much money a state receives, how many farmers in each state get this money, who gets the most money and who gets the least, and what crops are being funded by the government. For instance, West Virginia alone received 16.9 million dollars in 2009, but 72% of that money went to the top 10% of the state's farmers (based on annual income). Some of the listings include corn, soybean, and dairy subsidies, among other things. From 1995-2009, West Virginia spent $165 million bolstering these commodities. Anyone who pays taxes should be interested in browsing this site, because that’s your money the government is handing to these farmers. With that much money at stake, it’s important to see if you support where it’s going.
12. Robbins, Jim. “Farmers Find Organic Arsenal to Wage War on Pests.” Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 29 November 2010. Web. 30 March 2011.
This New York Times article describes organic approaches to pest control. Because organic standards do not allow for the use of harsh chemical pesticides and herbicides, farmers have to rely on nature to control insects and weeds. According to the article, the goal of an organic farmer is to make their farm as much like a natural ecosystem as possible. So, they may plant certain flowers or “cover crops” to attract insects that will eat other insects to protect their cash crops. Apparently, increasing the varieties of flora one grows and the species of insects on your farm can work just as well, or even better, than spraying pesticides and herbicides in the long run. The most important message to take away from this article is the impact of biodiversity on sustainable farming. Although factory farms discourage biodiversity by growing in monocultures the environment’s natural tendency towards variety can be very effective for increasing crop yields and decreasing insect predation.
13. Sulzberger, A. G. “States Look to Ban Efforts to Reveal Farm Abuse.” Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 13 April 2011. Web. 13 April 2011.
In Iowa, there is currently a bill up for legalization that would ban the possession or distribution of images from industrial animal processing plants. The bill was drafted after several large producers of meat and eggs in the state came under fire for videos made by animal rights activists posing as employees. The companies claim the use of deception warrants criminal activity, while the animal rights groups claim they are investigating questionable and unsanitary handling of our food, and the attorney general acknowledges the bill may violate the first amendment. The article makes an interesting parallel between what these activists are doing today with muckraker Upton Sinclair’s expose of the meatpacking industry at the turn of the century, which led to major reforms in the regulation of our food and the formation of the FDA. The bill is still being considered and unfortunately is receiving the support of representatives from both parties.
14. Folsom, Burton Jr. “The Origin of American Farm Subsidies.” The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, April 2006: 34-35. Web.
This article gives an account of how crops came to be subsidized, starting with the resistance to such programs shown by government officials of long ago. In fact, at our nation’s birth, the forefathers saw fit to state in the constitution that the government must not impose regulations on American farmers. That standard was widely upheld until the 1930s when President Hoover set up a farm subsidy program to try and save farmers feeling the effects of the Great Depression. Folsom views this as a mistake in American farming policy, and calls on the Supreme court to finally take us back to the policy adopted by the constitution. It is notable that this article was written in 2006; since then the government has actually worked to increased farm subsidies, rather than reform them.
15. Tilman, David. “The Greening of the Green Revolution.” Nature, 19 November 1998: 211-212. Web.
In this Nature article, Tilman describes two studies conducted to show that organic agriculture can produce yields comparable or even greater than those produced using conventional agriculture. Conventional farming uses chemical fertilizers to add nitrogen and other essential elements in plant growth to the soil, but this can pollute groundwater and wear out the soil over time, so scientists have been looking for other methods of increasing crop yields. The main study being summarized took place over ten years and compared crop yields when using nitrogen based fertilizer, manure from farm animals, or crop rotation with legumes (known for their ability to revitalize soil by fixing nitrogen) to grow corn. The findings suggest that not only are farming systems based on manure and legumes just as productive as chemically based systems, but also enhance the quality of the soil over time instead of depleting it. In addition, the article asserts that organic farming on a large scale would have fewer adverse effects on the nitrogen cycle, the earth’s natural process of nitrogen fixation from the atmosphere to soil and water.
16. “Eat Local, Buy Local, Be Local.” Sustainabletable.com, Eat Well Guide. January 2009. Web. 21 April 2011.
Sustainabletable.com provides a comprehensive overview of the benefits to the economy and the environment of purchasing food produced locally. The article presents the issue by first defining how local is local before segueing into how the reader can eat by these standards, such as learning what vegetables are grown at particular times of the year or not being afraid to ask exactly where a cut of meat from the deli counter came from. The benefits to this type of eating include support for one’s local economy and producing a smaller carbon footprint, because fewer fossil fuels are burned when your food does not have to travel far. To give the reader more information, links are provided throughout the article so one can easily find out more detail about certain aspects of the local food movement. It even provides some interesting seasonal recipes to encourage local shopping.
