I'm Seeing Green

Cows and Global Warming

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) would not approve; here's a prestigious UN report that strongly suggests we eat less meat, not because of health reasons but to mitigate global warming. Turns out that producing, transporting and eating meat create 18% of all global warming  gases (well, maybe not eating it unless you masticate it for an inordinate time;) transportation creates the next-largest amount at 13%. From the Guardian:

People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer

Dr Rajendra Pachauri [Nobel Prize winner in 2007,] chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.

His comments are the most controversial advice yet provided by the panel on how individuals can help tackle global warning.

Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel's chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems - including habitat destruction - associated with rearing cattle and other animals. It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport, he said.

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds, for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide. The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century.

However, Chris Lamb, head of marketing for pig industry group BPEX, said the meat industry had been unfairly targeted and was working hard to find out which activities had the biggest environmental impact and reduce those. Some ideas were contradictory, he said - for example, one solution to emissions from livestock was to keep them indoors, but this would damage animal welfare. 'Climate change is a very young science and our view is there are a lot of simplistic solutions being proposed,' he said.

[Image by skinnydey  licensed by Creative Commons]

No to Cloned Animal Products

Washington, D.C., September 3, 2008 – The Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth today announced that 20 of America’s leading food producers and retailers have stated that they will not use cloned animals in their food.  The companies include Kraft Foods; General Mills; Gerber/Nestle; Campbell Soup Company; Gossner Foods; Smithfield Foods; Ben & Jerry’s; Amy’s Kitchen; California Pizza Kitchen restaurants; Hain Celestial; Cloverland, Oberweis, Prairie, Byrne, Plainview, and Clover-Stornetta Dairies; and grocers PCC Natural Markets, Albertsons, SUPERVALU, and Harris Teeter.  The move by these companies represents a growing industry trend of responding to consumer demand for better food safety, environmental, and animal welfare standards.

“This rejection of food from clones sends a strong message to biotech firms that their products may not find a market,” says Lisa Bunin, PhD, Campaigns Coordinator at the Center for Food Safety.  “American consumers don’t want to eat food from clones or their offspring, and these companies have realistically anticipated low market acceptance for this new and untested technology.”  This sentiment is echoed by General Mills in their letter to the Center which identified “consumer acceptance” as an important consideration with respect to the potential use of ingredients from clones in their products.

Kraft Foods expressed a similar position in a letter stating that although they defer to the conclusions of the FDA on the safety of ingredients from cloned animals, “product safety is not the only factor we consider in our products.  We must also carefully consider additional factors such as consumer benefits and acceptance...and research in the U.S. indicates that consumers are currently not receptive to ingredients from cloned animals.”

In May 2008, the Center for Food Safety began reaching out to companies involved in the production, use, and sale of meat and milk products, regarding their position on the use of food from clones.  In response, three of the top-earning food manufacturing companies indicated that they will not be using ingredients from clones or their offspring. 

Kraft Foods, North America’s second largest food and beverage company, reported revenue of approximately $37.2 billion in 2007, with products such as Cracker Barrel, Cool Whip, Velveeta, Oscar Meyer, and Philadelphia Cream Cheese.  General Mills, another leading American food processing company, with brands that include Pillsbury, Betty Crocker, Totino’s, Yoplait and Haagen-Dazs, reported revenue of approximately $12.4 billion in 2007.  Gerber/Nestle, a top international food manufacturing company and leader in baby food and infant formula production, whose brands include Carnation, Toll House, Lean Cuisine, and Stouffer’s reported approximately $121 billion in revenue in 2007; Bringing their total revenue for 2007 to $170.6 billion.

Ben & Jerry's Social Mission Director, Rob Michalak, told the Center for Food Safety “Cloning presents a host of complex social, economic and animal welfare consequences.  The decision to approve clones for food use was rushed through, under the radar, without a proper, comprehensive review.  As a result, we now need to establish a national registry and tracking framework so that people know where the clones are.”

Ben & Jerry’s, Amy’s Kitchen, Clover-Stornetta, Oberweis Dairy, Prairie Farms Dairy, Plainview Dairy, PCC Natural Markets, and Hain Celestial have gone one step further by stating that they would not use ingredients from clones or their offspring.  The Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, and the American Anti-Vivisection Society are working to obtain more commitments of this kind.

In addition, Friends of the Earth has worked with top U.S. grocers to determine their policy on the use of cloned animals and their offspring in their food, and presented them with over 8,000 signatures from consumers who reject products made from these animals.  To date, Albertsons, SUPERVALU and Harris Teeter have informed Friends of the Earth that they will not sell products from cloned animals.  SUPERVALU, owner of Shaw’s, Cub Foods, Acme Markets, and partial owner of Albertsons, is the second-ranked grocer in the nation, with a reported 2008 revenue of $44 billion.  Albertsons, which operates more than 300 Albertsons supermarkets nationwide, reported over $40 billion in revenues in 2006.  North Carolina-based grocer Harris Teeter reported $3.3 billion in revenues, supplying upwards of 90% of parent company Ruddick’s profits.

“Grocers are recognizing that people do not want to eat food from cloned animals,” said Gillian Madill, Genetic Technologies Campaigner at Friends of the Earth.  “Food safety authorities must also recognize this and – in keeping with their public interest mandate – enact labeling regulations that allow Americans their fundamental right to choose.”

The American Anti-Vivisection Society, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Citizens for Health, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Farm Sanctuary, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Humane Society of the United States, Organic Consumers Association, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Interfaith Center on Cooperate Responsibility have sent FDA over 150,000 letters from their supporters who oppose the unlabeled introduction of cloned animals and their offspring into the US food supply.

The Center for Food Safety is national, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. On the web at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org

Free Carbonated Water?

A couple of years ago, while I knew the word "sequestering," I would have been hard pressed to suggest a use for it other than the forced incarceration of juries, to which the word "sequestration" is quaintly applied by our legal profession. Certainly the phrase "carbon sequestration" would've drawn a blank stare from anybody except certain scientists.

Carbon sequestration, or the forced incarceration of carbon gas so that it does not contribute to global warming, is now commonly discussed, though still rarely implemented. Trapping it by pumping the gas deep underground is the plan:

Today, EPA is proposing a rule that supports promising technologies to prevent industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Secure, long-term underground storage of the greenhouse gas is one way scientific innovation could lessen the effects of climate change.

"Today's proposal paves the way for technologies that would protect public health and help reduce the effects of climate change," said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. "With proper site selection and management, geologic sequestration could play a major role in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

EPA's proposed regulation creates a consistent, national framework for the injection of carbon dioxide underground and protection of underground drinking water resources. The rule would create a new class of injection wells under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act's Underground Injection Control (UIC) program.

The proposed rule builds on the existing UIC program, including extensive requirements to ensure wells are appropriately located, constructed, tested, monitored, and ultimately, closed with proper funding. It would apply to owners and operators of wells that will be used to inject carbon dioxide into the subsurface for the purpose of long-term storage.

Carbon capture and storage is part of a portfolio of technologies available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EPA is coordinating with the Department of Energy on carbon sequestration research and development

Of course, if the CO₂ does migrate to the drinking water supply, would we not all enjoy free carbonated water and thus reduce the use of bottled carbonated water or carbonation systems?

Just a wild thought...

Damn the Poor, Full Speed on Biofuels Ahead!

You didn't read it in the NY Times (or most major newspapers in the US,) but a "secret" study by (of all places) the World Bank refutes the US position that diverting crops to biofuels is a significant cause of the food price rise worldwide. With Mr. Bush being a strong proponent of biofuels (from wheat grass amongst other sources,) the US position is not surprising (it's that less than 10% .is attributable to biofuels.)

Mr. Bush also angered Indians (and maybe the Chinese, but they did not respond,) by his off-the-cuff remark that the rise in food prices was because the Indians and Chinese were eating more food nowadays.

[image credit:  Steve Jurvetson via wiki commons]

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.

"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday....

"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."

The news comes at a critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy. Leaders of the G8 industrialised countries meet next week in Hokkaido, Japan, where they will discuss the food crisis and come under intense lobbying from campaigners calling for a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels.

So the question is, why was this report a "secret?"

See also this story.

Food Prices on the Rise

The rising price of food is noted everywhere and many blame the diversion of crops to biofuel. US Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer and the Bush administration disagree, as they're pushing biofuels as an alternative energy source; from AP:

The Bush administration is defending its decision to push food-based biofuels as food costs rise at home and abroad, saying the renewable fuels are only a small part of the problem.

Some have blamed the food crisis in part on policies backed by the White House and Congress that divert corn, soybeans and other crops to fuel.
 
According to Department of Agriculture economists, higher corn prices increase animal feed and ingredient costs for farmers, ranchers and food manufacturers, but pass through to consumers at a rate less than 10 percent of the corn price interestingly

Interestingly enough, this article in the Nation seems to concur, suggesting it is policies by the WTO and the World Bank that are to blame:

When tens of thousands of people staged demonstrations in Mexico last year to protest a 60 percent increase in the price of tortillas, many analysts pointed to biofuel as the culprit. Because of US government subsidies, American farmers were devoting more and more acreage to corn for ethanol than for food, which sparked a steep rise in corn prices

The diversion of corn from tortillas to biofuel was certainly one cause of skyrocketing prices, though speculation on biofuel demand by transnational middlemen may have played a bigger role. However, an intriguing question escaped many observers: how on earth did Mexicans, who live in the land where corn was domesticated, become dependent on US imports in the first place?

That the global food crisis stems mainly from free-market restructuring of agriculture is clearer in the case of rice. Unlike corn, less than 10 percent of world rice production is traded. Moreover, there has been no diversion of rice from food consumption to biofuels. Yet this year alone, prices nearly tripled, from $380 a ton in January to more than $1,000 in April. Undoubtedly the inflation stems partly from speculation by wholesaler cartels at a time of tightening supplies. However, as with Mexico and corn, the big puzzle is why a number of formerly self-sufficient rice-consuming countries have become severely dependent on imports.

The concept of "food sovereignty" is considered an "alternate paradigm,"..."Farmers' groups have networked internationally; one of the most dynamic to emerge is Via Campesina (Peasant's Path). Via not only seeks to get "WTO out of agriculture" and opposes the paradigm of a globalized capitalist industrial agriculture; it also proposes an alternative--food sovereignty. Food sovereignty means, first of all, the right of a country to determine its production and consumption of food and the exemption of agriculture from global trade regimes like that of the WTO."

Not on my Horizon

There is no term yet for fraudulent organic claims, as "greenwashing"means fraudulent or excessive claims to be "green." But the business of organic, and the entry of large corporations into the organic food chain, inevitably raises warning flags

After years of buying Horizon organic products (owned by Dean Foods,) I started reading negative press about them. Horizon uses a mass production system much like conventional farming. According to this story from salon.com,  the cows "laze in crowded pens atop the brown hardpan of the Idaho desert," and have access to the outdoors (but only in summer,) but are hardly an example of "Happy, healthy cows produce better milk for you and your family," as the Horizon cartons state. They are also fed a grain-heavy diet which causes them to produce more milk, but is not healthy for them.

Then from the well-named Cornucopia Institute, whose Director Mark Kastel says "Factory dairy farms are playing loose with the organic rules."

After a three-and-a-half year battle with Dean Foods regarding the legality of milk it labels as Horizon Organic, the country’s most aggressive organic industry watchdog filed additional legal actions today. Dean, the nation’s largest dairy processor, with nearly $12 billion in sales and controlling 50 different milk brands, has obtained a large percentage of its organic milk supply from giant factory farms milking thousands of cows each.

The Cornucopia Institute has filed a formal legal complaint with the USDA claiming that one of Dean’s Horizon suppliers, a dairy in Snelling, California, was skirting the law by confining the majority of their cows to a filthy feedlot rather than allowing them fresh grass and access to pasture as the federal organic regulations require.

The Organic Consumers Association is organizing a boycott of Horizon and five other "private label" brands supplied by Aurora organic diaries.

On the one hand, it was encouraging that giants like Wal-Mart (one of the five above) would start selling organic foods. On the other hand, if the word "organic" is to have any meaning at all, it must be strictly enforced. The USDA is somewhat hands-off on this issue, as the definition of organic for milk products is fairly vague and its certification procedure lax.

Is that Fish Organic?

You'd think that labeling something "organic" is pretty straightforward, as the standards are widely accepted and easily applied. It's not the same for "natural," a much misused label that has no standard and no enforcement, with the result that it has no meaning when used by so many corporate food processors.

Fish should be easier to label especially if caught in the ocean...it's free-range and unlikely to have added antibiotics or hormones. But in reality there is no standard, as this story from the Organic Consumers Union notes, "Fish can't be certified organic in the United States, because federal rules governing organic foods don't cover fish."

 

The short answer is that the "organic" fish are farmed salmon, from British Columbia and Scotland. Their producers say the salmon are being raised in a cleaner environment with more room to swim than most farmed fish. They get better food; some even eat certified organic feed. They're not given antibiotics or hormones. Chemicals aren't used to clean their nets.

The Center for Food Safety is concerned as well:

[It] today sent letters to the Attorneys’ General of 49 states urging the top state law enforcement officials to take action against the misleading practice of labeling seafood imports as “organic.”  The state-based effort to protect the integrity of organic food labels is a follow up to the complaints filed by the Center last year with the USDA and Federal Trade Commission.  To date, these federal agencies have left the complaints unanswered, while U.S. consumers are increasingly confronted with imported seafood misleadingly labeled as “organic”, despite the fact that there are no U.S. organic seafood standards in place. 

In today’s action, the Center for Food Safety calls upon USDA to prevent consumer deception by enforcing existing organic labeling laws and regulations until new standards are finalized.  The Center, which is joined in this effort by Food & Water Watch, has identified the practice of allowing seafood to be labeled as “organic” in absence of regulations as unfair, deceptive and misleading - a violation of the states’ consumer deception and misrepresentation laws.

“Allowing importers to label their seafood ‘organic’ when it does not have to meet any U.S. standards is a disservice to American consumers, who have come to trust and believe in the organic label,” said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety.  “USDA’s refusal to stop importers from calling their products organic when many of them use antibiotics, parasiticides, or feed that would not be permitted under U.S. regulations is dishonest.  Consumers have the right to know that the labeling on their food is truthful and accurate and we’re asking the states to protect that right.”

Is it Meat if Grown in a Petri Dish?

So here's one for the Ethicist, that entertaining column in the NY Times which deals with readers who report on their ethical qualms...if you believe that eating meat is akin to murder, how about if the meat were produced in the laboratory? Would you feel the same about eating meat if you knew it did not come from a living, breathing, pain-aware animal?

If you have not heard about artificial or in-vitro meat, join the club. The idea in not new, as the reference to a NY Times article from 2005 shows.

From Peak Energy, this story [and image]:

Animal Rights group PETA recently announced a $1 million reward for the first person to make in-vitro meat (leading Bruce Sterling to dub them "People for the Ethical Treatment of Alien Lumps of Flesh).

But Ingrid Newkirk, one of the PETA's founders, said the decision to pay for a prize caused "a near civil war in our office." Many PETA members, the New York Times reported, "are repulsed by the thought of eating animal tissue, even if no animals are killed."

Artificial meat is a topic usually left to science fiction writers (see Kornbluth & Pohl, H Beam Piper, Samuel R Delany, Frank Herbert, Rudy Rucker or John Brunner for some examples), with a "meat beast" (or some other form of artificial protein produced in a vat) gracing the bowels of many spaceship kitchens and basements of remote arcologies, where raising livestock isn't an option.

Advocates for in vitro meat claim it is safer, healthier, more humane and less polluting to produce - as well as being one way of adapting to rising demand for food and constraints on the supply of inputs to traditional industrial agriculture. But one question remains, should a commercial meat production process ever be put into action - can we get past the "yuck" factor ?

The beat, or the research, goes on. wiki reports that "The Dutch government granted a two million euro subsidy for the project. In Amsterdam the culture medium is studied, while the University of Utrecht studies the proliferation of muscle cells and the Eindhoven university will research bioreactors."

With the awareness that meat cultivation has all kinds of side-effects, from the excessive carbon footprint of the meat to the ethical issues in factory farming, growing meat in-vitro may indeed become a viable alternative.

Time to consider Vegetarianism

With the "eat locally grown food" movement on the rise and the term "food-miles" joining  "locavore" in  our vocabulary, this study points out that the majority of environmental effects of our food chain is in its production, not in its transport. So it might behoove us to eat less damaging food...of which red meat is the king.

Substituting chicken, fish or vegetables for red meat can help combat climate change, a new study suggests. In fact, putting these foods on the dinner table does more to reduce carbon emissions than eating locally grown food, researchers report in the May 15 issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Environmental advocates and retailers urge customers to purchase goods from local sources to. The idea is that food grown locally requires less fuel for shipping to the store. The new study does not argue that point. Yet few studies have compared greenhouse gas emissions from food production to those of transportation.

The production phase is responsible for 83 percent of the average U.S. household's greenhouse-gas burden with regard to food, while transportation accounts for only 11 percent, the new study found. The production of red meat, the researchers conclude, is almost 150 percent more greenhouse-gas-intensive than chicken or fish.

"We suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household's food-related climate footprint than 'buying local,'" the researchers write. “Shifting less than one day per week's worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more greenhouse-gas reduction than buying all locally sourced food.

As much of the developing world gets more disposal income, in addition to the exponential increase in cars, there has been a steady rise in meat consumption. Both are contributing seriously to global warming.

This UN report on the effects of livestock farming concurs; livestock use over 30% of eht earth's entore land surface.

Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

Good Food

Two for the Good Food News

In an historic move this Tuesday, the Maine House of Representatives took the final step on a controversial bill that would provide Maine's farmers with new protections and assurances when they choose to grow crops that have been genetically engineered. This groundbreaking effort on the part of the Maine Legislature comes after nearly a year and a half of dialogue and compromise amongst many of the key players in Maine's agricultural economy.

Originally brought forth by Rep. Jim Schatz of Blue Hill, working closely with the Protect Maine Farmers campaign, a statewide grassroots effort of Food for Maine's Future to defend and promote small diversified family farms, the final version of the bill is being lauded by all players as a significant step forward in genetic engineering policy at the state level. The Senate version of the bill which was accepted by the House of Representatives on Tuesday has three important components, but lacks a fourth that was added as an amendment by the House last week. The final version of the bill prevents lawsuits for patent infringement against farmers who unintentionally end up with genetically engineered material in their crops, ensures lawsuits that do occur will be held in the state of Maine, and directs the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources to develop and implement Best Management Practices for Genetically Engineered Crops.

And another No to the use of genetically engineered rice:

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) welcomes the decision by Cera Products, manufacturer of performance drinks for athletes and oral rehydration solutions, to reject use of Ventria’s rice-derived compounds in Cera’s products.  The Maryland-based company recently declared its position in a letter responding to a 2007 CFS report entitled “A Grain of Caution: A Critical Assessment of Pharmaceutical Rice.”

The CFS report assesses a range of concerns associated with Ventria’s development of rice genetically engineered as a “biofactory” for production of recombinant human proteins with putative pharmaceutical properties.  The report also stated that Cera Products, Inc. had displayed interest in marketing products containing Ventria’s compounds, based on public statements made by Dr. William Greenough, cofounder and scientific advisory board member of Cera Products.

In the letter sent to the Center for Food Safety on February 20, 2008, Cera Products President and CEO Charlene Riikonen affirmed: “Our company is not ‘a likely partner with Ventria,’ (as stated on page 22 of your paper), nor are we including or plan to include any GMO rice in our products.  We do not know enough about it for one thing, and certainly further research is needed to support any claims as well as issues and concerns regarding the GMO rice.”

“We welcome Cera Products’ rejection of Ventria’s genetically engineered pharmaceutical rice compounds,” said Bill Freese, CFS science policy analyst and author of the report.  “Ventria’s products have not been adequately tested, may pose risks to consumers, and have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  What’s more, use of these compounds has not been proven to offer any advantages over existing oral rehydration therapies.”