GOOD HUSBANDRY GRANTS

Its' now time to get your applications in for the Good Husbandry Grant program sponsored by the Animal Welfare organization. The grants can be used to address any compliance challenges, as well as to help maintain compliance which includes things like improved housing and improvement to pasture.

For details and assistance in submiting your application by September 30, 2011, go to the AWA website at http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org/farmers/grants-
for-farmers/.

C & D Family Farms of Knox, Indiana has been accepted into the Animal Welfare Approved program. They also received a grant from Chef Rick Bayless' Frontera Farmer Foundation, established to promote sustainable Midwestern farms serving Chicago.

Other Grants of Interest

Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program

Summary: Community Food Projects should be designed to (1): (A) meet the food needs of low-income people; (B) increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs; and (C) promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues; and/or (2) meet specific state, local, or neighborhood food and agriculture needs for (A) infrastructure improvement and development; (B) planning for long-term solutions; or (C) the creation of innovative marketing activities that mutually benefit agricultural producers and low-income consumers
Who Can Apply: private, nonprofit entities meeting specific requirements as listed in the Request for Applications (RFA)
Amount: $10,000 to $300,000
Examples: expanding access to healthy and local foods in a low income, high unemployment area by employing teens to develop community gardens and market their produce; a county-wide operation of community kitchens for micro-enterprise development with low-income participation and leadership; and improving access to healthy foods through a variety of methods, including supermarket development, promoting local produce, a community kitchen and educational programs
More Info: NIFA website

Summary: Established to promote and expand direct marketing
Who Can Apply: agricultural cooperatives, producer networks, producer associations, local governments, non-profit corporations, public benefit corporations, economic development corporations, regional farmers’ market authorities and tribal governments
Amount: $2,500 minimum, $100,000 maximum
Examples: Use for educational workshops, permanent signage, supplies for underserved farmers and markets, advertising, consumer education, ads, evaluations and impact, market research, enhance product value and sales
More Info: AMS website

Summary: “Designed to help farmers and ranchers expand their current customer base for products that will result in enhanced profitability through value-added activities with particular emphasis on new and emerging agricultural markets.”
Who Can Apply: independent producers, farmer or rancher co-ops, agricultural producer groups and majority-controlled producer based business ventures
Amount: $100,000 maximum planning phase, $300,000 working capital phase
Examples: a process that changes the form of a raw product and increases its value, such as slaughtering livestock, processing tomatoes or making cheese; funding is also available for renewable energy and marketing
Contact: Each state has its own Rural Development program, schedule & staff. Contact info is available here.
More Info: Rural Development website

Quilter's Comfort Certified Organic Teas, locally blended in small batches by Bloomington's Patricia C. Coleman RSMT are Reiki energized and quartz potentized. The teas, one consummer shouted across a downtown street "Is the best I have ever tasted"! includes "Patricia's Delicious" which is the original blend, "Cold Thyme", Owl and Pussy Cat's Berry Green, Players Pub's Bluesy Green, I LOVE Me, and recently released Orange Earl Grey, All Ears and All Ears 2 No Caffeine which were created by request of the Small Group Ministry Program - Chalice Circles of the Bloomington, Indiana Unitarian Universalist Church blended to support deep listening; and ChamomileHip Hop.

Herbs and teas have been documented throughout history with regards to their spiritual, nutritional and medicinal properties.

Currently the Owl and Pussy Cat's Berry Green Tea is only available at the Runcible Spoon and the Players Pub's Bluesy Green is only being served at the Players Pub. On St. Patrick's Day the Pub released "Bluesy Green" inviting every visitor wearing green to have a free cup of "their" tea. Other tea blends are being served at Max's, Rachael's, Roots, Runcible Spoon, and the Players Pub. Some of the delicious and nutritious blends are available for purchase at Bloomingfoods East and Downtown, Food Works, Players Pub and most will soon be available at Goods for Cooks.

When asked about Quilter's Comfort and local food, Patricia looks forward to having enough income from the business to contract with local growers to provide herbs for her teas, spice blends,mixes and herbal bodycare products. And because she is also an artist, dreams of a little tea room/gallery space. For now, she's taking things one day at a time to keep up with the many different task necessary to keep her business growing.

Questions about what is new can be sent to quiltcomfort@quilterscomfort.net. Visit the Quilter's Comfort website at www.quilterscomfort.com. Stop by often for new product information and updates.

Be Well, Be Healthy: NBC's Natalie Morales asks the experts when it makes the most sense to splurge on more expensive organic foods. Watch the full report here:

Bloomington orchard! communitiestakeroot.org

Earth Day Network Everyday!

The Truth About Vitamins & Supplements
by Ronnie Cummins, National Director, OCA
The Organic Consumers Association is proud to announce a new nationwide campaign called Nutri-Con: The Down Side of the Vitamin & Supplement Industry. Nutri-Con will expose the hazards and limited effectiveness of synthetic vitamins and supplements, and strive to create mass consumer awareness and marketplace demand for truly organic, "naturally occurring" vitamins, botanicals, and supplements.
Part of this campaign will be the implementation of a new set of Naturally Occurring Standards (NOS), certification procedures, and labels which are truly "organic and beyond," and to expose the fact that 90% or more of the vitamins and supplements now on the market labeled as "natural" or "food based" actually are spiked with synthetic chemicals.

A major underlying theme of this campaign will be to steadily inform and remind consumers that Big Pharma's prescription and over the counter drugs are generally hazardous substances offering no real solution to our health problems; while preventive health and wellness promotion, traditional holistic remedies, and complementary medicine practices represent the "organic road" to health.
In terms of wellness promotion, there is no doubt that an organic whole foods-based diet and a healthy lifestyle are the "best medicine" for those of us trying to survive and keep our families healthy in the toxic soup of 100,000 synthetic chemicals that surround us everyday, polluting our food, water, medicines, homes, and environment.

As we complement our organic whole foods-based diet with herbs and supplements, we need to make sure that these vitamins and botanicals are derived from naturally occurring plant and mineral sources, and that they contain no synthetic chemicals whatsoever.

As part of this campaign, OCA will be posting an eye-opening new book, The Vitamin Myth Exposed, by Brian Clement of the Hippocrates Health Institute, in several installments. ( Read the Prologue & Chapter 1 here) This book is nothing less than the opening salvo in a campaign that OCA believes will revolutionize the $20 billion vitamin and supplements industry. OCA sees this effort as part of our ongoing efforts to establish and safeguard strict organic standards in food and farming, clothing, body care, and other important consumer sectors.

We invite you to please circulate The Vitamin Myth Exposed widely to friends and family, and to talk to your local natural foods store or coop about joining forces with the OCA in this important new campaign.

For Health and an Organic Future,
Ronnie Cummins " 01/18/10 - Proposed Dose Limits on Vitamin Supplements in Europe Found to be Scientifically Flawed
" 11/19/09 - Victory in the Senate for Alternative Health Freedom and Dietary Supplements

Due to overwhelming opposition from consumers and rBGH-free dairies, Rep. Friend passed on the opportunity to hold a House vote on Bill 1300, and now the Indiana legislature is adjourned and HB 1300 is dead.

Washington paid out a quarter of a trillion dollars in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2009, but to characterize the programs as either a "big government" bailout or another form of welfare would be manifestly unfair – to bailouts and welfare.

After all, with bailouts taxpayers usually get their money back (often with interest), while welfare recipients are subjected to harsh means-testing, time-limited benefits, and a work requirement, all in order to receive modest-to-pitiful government benefits that are more or less uniform for every applicant. READ

Economic Research Report No. (ERR-99) 81 pp, June 2010

A series of coordinated case studies compares the structure, size, and performance of local food supply chains with those of mainstream supply chains. Interviews and site visits with farms and businesses, supplemented with secondary data, describe how food moves from farms to consumers in 15 food supply chains. Key comparisons between supply chains include the degree of product differentiation, diversification of marketing outlets, and information conveyed to consumers about product origin. The cases highlight differences in prices and the distribution of revenues among supply chain participants, local retention of wages and proprietor income, transportation fuel use, and social capital creation.

Keywords: Local foods, case studies, direct marketing, intermediated supply chains, farm-to-retail, farm-to-school, farmers markets, food miles, ERS, USDA

Chapters are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. READ REPORT

CLICK FOR AN OVER-VIEW OF WATER PRIVATIZATION
Our hands have been full, we welcome your emails with information for updating this water section!

ISDA - Clean Water Indiana Program

Did you know ?

• Once GMO's are released into the environment they can never be recalled.
• We have been eating GMO food since 1996
• The United States grows 75% of the world's genetically engineered crops
• Most GMO crops are engineered to require the use of toxic weed killers
• Labeling of GMO foods is required in Europe, Japan, Russia and Australia, but not in the US

At the top of the world wide news is Genetic Engineering of the food we eat. Altering genetic makeup of species undermines and destroys the genetic foundation of agricultural systems world wide. Local Food believes that with the use of world altering technologies being applied to what we eat, that it is a small thing to ask that all GE foods and modified food products be labled. Monsanto and other American mega food corporations are spending six million to defeat the measure. Local Food supports your right to know what you are consuming and support the choice of consumers being knowledgeable about their food. The Organic Consumers Association have been lobbying against these giants with less than $150,000, yet the volunteer effort is strong and excellent work is resulting. Of course they can use your help. Much information can be found on the subject of GE foods at Genetically Engineered Food Alert . Another site, Genetically Modified Food News has a listing of over 2000 news articles about Genetically Modified Organisms in the food chain.

The Union of concerned Scientist have great articles like:

• Listing of genetically engineered foods currently allowed on the market
• Genetically engineered salmon
  

Feel free to forward this informative publication to family and friends, place it on websites, print it, and post it. Knowledge is power.

Why water privatization is not your friend
"……..Formerly, water - clean, healthy water was practically a right. It didn't matter who I was. Turn on the tap and the water flows. If it didn't, there was hell to pay and we could vote the water commissioners, councilmen, or whoever was responsible, out of office and even demand that they be heavily fined or jailed for betraying a public trust.
Once privatized, what was our water isn't a right anymore. It is a product. If it becomes more profitable to do something else with it than sell it to us at whatever rate the market will bear, then we'd better get used to not having any water."http://www.canyon-news.com/artman/publish/article
_3763.php

Open pollinated seed vs Monsanto genetic engineered seed: David and Goliath? Extracts from Monsanto's Destruction of Seed Cleaners and the Immense Threat to Human Access to Seeds
by Linn Cohen-Cole

Life itself depends on seeds. Multinational biotech corporations such as Monsanto have been genetically engineering them, promoting GE-seeds as producing better yields, helping the starving of the world, using less pesticides and as a boon to small farmers.

Independent studies already show crop failures and a link between GE-crops and organ damage and various diseases and it's clear they are designed to require petroleum-based pesticides and the use of pesticides has gone up with their use.

But even if the GE-seeds were wonderful and all that was promised, the real problem is the patents they come with.

In India, where Bt-cotton farmers have been committing suicide in huge numbers because of debt, Monsanto sells Bt-cotton seed at 1000% higher than normal seeds. [See extracts of article here.] The seeds come with a contract that must be signed, preventing farmers from collecting seeds off their own land at the end of the season - an historic rupture of humankind's free access to natural growth.

As astounding a move as that is, they are doing more. They are actively and aggressively and thoroughly removing access to normal "open pollinated" seeds, the ones we have known since the beginning of time, that farmers have collected and saved and shared among each other.

In the Midwest, where Monsanto sells GE-corn and GE-soy, it also bought up the "normal seed" companies so farmers no longer have places to go for normal corn or soy.

And though GE-corn cross pollinates with normal corn over miles and miles - so maintaining organic corn is nearly impossible now - if its GE-crop is found on a farmer's land, Monsanto sues.

Monsanto is now working to eliminate the last man standing between humans and corporate privatized seeds - the seed cleaner.

The farmers have had three choices - to buy normal seed (now almost gone), to buy GE-seeds at huge cost (and going up); or to collect their own seeds and use them the next season.

If a farmer has even 10 acres, collecting and cleaning those seeds is a huge task. If he has 1000, it would be an impossible task without the seed cleaner whose equipment can separate out seed in just a few hours and whose costs are 1/3 that of buying normal seed. The seed cleaner is the man who makes sustainable agriculture possible.

Monsanto is picking off seed cleaners now across the Midwest, in Missouri, in Indiana, and now in Illinois, where they are going after Steve Hixon.

Shortly after someone broke into Mr. Hixon's office and he found his account book on his truck seat where he would never have left it, every one of his remotely located and very scattered customers had three men arrive at each farm, going out onto it without permission, and serving close to 200 farmers.

Mr. Hixon, and state police who were called in, believe a GPS tracking device may have been put on Mr. Hixon's equipment. All of his customers are being sued and are being intensely pressured to settle, with the men coming back again and again and with daily calls and letters. It appears they are [asked to choose] between being sued or settling out of court or testifying against him that he encouraged them to clean GE-seeds.

The first words out of the judge's mouth when Moe Parr, a seed cleaner in Indiana was sued, were "It's a honor to have a fine company like Monsanto in my courtroom."

Monsanto is working closely with the FDA in redefining seeds as a potential health hazard, subject to bioterrorism, and under that rubric to create rules for importation (controlling access).
http://pratie.blogspot.com/2008
/12/open-pollinated-seed-vs
-monsanto.html

Food For Thought

Local Food is a resource for local food and related information. Your support, submissions and suggestions are welcome. Our individual and collective actions shape the world we see around us. May every community develop a local food website to assist the locals in putting money back into the community via food related businesses that are owned by members of the local community.

As previously mentioned, I have had a long interest in local food, and am pleased to be well into my tenth year sharing through this medium.

My current food question is why are GMO's being given such free rein in the US, when many other countries are taking a more cautious approach in consideration of their people, animals and environment?.

Occassionally we are asked, why our readers are not seeing this status reflected by local business advertising here. We can not answer that. We suggest them to ask it of those they would like to see represented here. Readers are also asking us toinclude more information about food related news around the area. We would love to have food reviews, articles and notice of new locallly owned food establishments. If you have something to share E-mail localfood@greendove.net.

Local Food
Bloomington, IN

* By Miriam Reimer
The Street, March 2, 2011
Straight to the Source

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Food Safety page.

NEW YORK -- Are you getting what you pay for on your plate?

The recent class-action lawsuit brought against Taco Bell raised questions about the quality of food many Americans eat each day.

Chief among those concerns is the use of cellulose (read: wood pulp), an extender whose use in a roster of food products, from crackers and ice creams to puddings and baked goods, is now being exposed. What you're actually paying for -- and consuming -- may be surprising.

Cellulose is virgin wood pulp that has been processed and manufactured to different lengths for functionality, though use of it and its variant forms (cellulose gum, powdered cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, etc.) is deemed safe for human consumption, according to the FDA, which regulates most food industry products. The government agency sets no limit on the amount of cellulose that can be used in food products meant for human consumption. The USDA, which regulates meats, has set a limit of 3.5% on the use of cellulose, since fiber in meat products cannot be recognized nutritionally.

"As commodity prices continue to rally and the cost of imported materials impacts earnings, we expect to see increasing use of surrogate products within food items. Cellulose is certainly in higher demand and we expect this to continue," Michael A. Yoshikami, chief investment strategist at YCMNet Advisors, told TheStreet.

Manufacturers use cellulose in food as an extender, providing structure and reducing breakage, said Dan Inman, director of research and development at J. Rettenmaier USA, a company that supplies "organic" cellulose fibers for use in a variety of processed foods and meats meant for human and pet consumption, as well as for plastics, cleaning detergents, welding electrodes, pet litter, automotive brake pads, glue and reinforcing compounds, construction materials, roof coating, asphalt and even emulsion paints, among many other products.

>>> Read the Full Article

The Beginning Farmers website reports:

It is with great sadness and a certain amount of disbelief that we report the untimely passing of Chris Bedford, a staunch and true advocate for local food and sustainable agriculture, a prolific and eloquent activist and writer, and a talented filmmaker who shared many important stories about the people and issues that made up the local food movement.

Chris' work - both his writings and his films have been featured on this website a number of times over the years. I urge all of you to look at his work ....

For complete information contact http://www.beginningfarmers.org

Dear EarthTalk: I've been hearing more and more references to the need to clean up our agricultural practices for reasons pertaining to health, food quality, even global warming. What are the major environmental issues today associated with agriculture? -- Tony Grayson, Newark, NJ

What amazes many environmental advocates to this day is how the widespread adoption of synthetic chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers for use in agriculture was dubbed the "Green Revolution," when in fact this post-World War II paradigm shift in the way we produce food has wreaked untold havoc on the environment, food quality and human health.

Agricultural output has certainly increased as a result of these changes, but with the vast majority of the world's farms now relying on petroleum-derived synthetic chemicals to grow crops and petroleum-derived fuels to drive the engines of production-modern agriculture has become overwhelmingly toxic to the atmosphere and is hastening global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that agricultural land use contributes 12 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions; here in the U.S. almost 20 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions come from agricultural sources.

Intensive use of chemicals isn't good for our nutrition intake, either. Overworked, depleted agricultural soils generate fruits and vegetables with fewer nutrients and minerals than those produced by farmers decades ago. And much of the food we eat is laced with chemicals that end up in our bloodstreams.

Beyond its effect on the food we put in our bodies, modern agriculture generates large amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous and other fertilizers running off into our streams, rivers and oceans, compromising not only the quality of our drinking water and the health of riparian ecosystems, but also causing those huge oxygen-depleted ocean dead zones we hear about in coastal areas such as the Gulf of Mexico.

Yet another issue with modern farming is the amount of animal waste generated and concentrated in small areas, which creates unsanitary and potentially dangerous conditions for the animals and humans alike. And the widespread use of antibiotics on farm animals to keep disease in check results in the development of stronger strains of bacteria that resist the antibiotics used by humans to ward off infection and sickness.

Also, many worry about the potential impacts of the widespread use of genetic engineering, whereby genes in plants, animals and microorganisms are manipulated to select for specific traits. These genetically modified organisms, reports Greenpeace, "can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms," thus contaminating the natural environment in unforeseeable and uncontrollable ways.

The good news is that rapidly increasing consumer demand for healthier food is forcing agribusiness to see the wisdom of moving away from business-as-usual. Organic farming, which eschews chemical fertilizers and pesticides in favor of more natural choices, holds considerable promise for greening up our agricultural systems. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, organic cropland acreage averaged 15 percent increases between 2002 and 2008, although certified organic cropland and pasture accounted for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. total farmland in 2008. So we still have along way to go.

CONTACTS: IPCC, www.ipcc.ch; USDA, www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine ( www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

The Grass is Not Always Greener
July 5, 2011 | By Andrew

It seems that “the green, green grass of home” might not be so “green” in the near future, thanks to a scandalous announcement from the United States Department for Agriculture (USDA) that it won’t regulate a new genetically modified (GM) lawn grass seed developed to be resistant to Monsanto’s toxic Roundup herbicide.

Despite ongoing protests and legal challenges from environmental groups, land managers, federal agencies and other organizations, the USDA’s decision paves the way for the unregulated use of GM lawn seed in U.S. neighborhoods – and a potentially dramatic increase in the use of a toxic herbicide that is increasingly being linked to adverse impacts on human health and the wider environment.

Kentucky bluegrass is one of the most popular domestic grass varieties in the U.S. and is commonly sown for use in gardens, parks and school fields. Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (Scotts) has genetically modified Kentucky bluegrass so that it is resistance to a commonly used herbicide, glyphosate. This means that users can sow the grass seed and use the herbicide to kill off weeds without harming the lawn, and would result in the first ever GM plants available for actual use by the general public. Sounds like a time saving solution? Well, as with any genetically modified ‘quick-fix’, there are significant hidden dangers that we all need to urgently consider.

In a press statement conveniently released just before the busy holiday weekend, the USDA stated that Scotts’ proposals did not require any regulation because the organisms used in generating the GM Kentucky bluegrass were not considered to be plant pests, and that Scotts also did not use a plant pest to genetically engineer the Kentucky bluegrass. In effect, the USDA contended that the GM plant was “substantially equivalent” to non-GM Kentucky bluegrass and therefore did not require more stringent safety testing. In addition, as the GM process involved a single gene insertion, the USDA argued that this did not actually result in the creation of a new species of Kentucky bluegrass. Once again, no additional regulations were deemed necessary.

It seems that, with the helping hand of the USDA, the powerful biotech industry is having its cake and devouring it. Despite using state-of-the-art “biolistics” recombinant DNA technology to splice a single gene from one completely unrelated plant variety (Arabidopsis thaliana) to confer glyphosate herbicide tolerance to another, the USDA does not consider this GM crop to be a ‘new’ plant species, thereby avoiding regulation. Yet Scotts (and other biotech companies for that matter) can also claim full intellectual property rights on their ‘new’ GM plants and exercise complete control over how the seed is used. I call that a ‘win-win’ situation for Big Ag where we, the public and the farmers, are the ultimate losers.

Call me a cynic but it came as no surprise to find out that Scotts is also Monsanto’s exclusive agent for the international marketing and distribution for consumer usage of Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that any future sales of Scott’s GM herbicide-tolerant grass seed will also result in increased sales of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. After all, that’s the whole purpose of Monsanto’s agreement with Scotts: they want to maximize the sales of their toxic herbicide. And with over 50,000 square miles of U.S. lawns out there, our yards and parks represent a huge and hitherto untapped market for the GM industry.

But ever since Scotts first announced its intention to develop GM Kentucky bluegrass seed, environmental campaigners have raised alarm over possible environmental impacts associated with its widespread domestic use. As Kentucky bluegrass is wind-pollinated and readily hybridizes with other grasses, they warned that GM Kentucky bluegrass would easily cross-pollinate and contaminate wild grass relatives, as well as non-GM Kentucky bluegrass grown by organic farmers as livestock feed. They warned that the sowing of GM lawn seed would also inevitably lead to the emergence of herbicide-resistant weed problems and an inability to remove herbicide-resistant weedy grasses from naturally protected areas. They also warned of the associated increased use of glyphosate herbicide and even more toxic pesticides where glyphosate becomes ineffective.

greenberg gmo 448These concerns are well-founded: glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, which is already widely used by farmers with Monsanto as ‘Roundup Ready’ crops, including soy, maize and canola. There are already many unintended consequences of GM crops, with the widespread development of herbicide-resistant weeds, novel pest and soil nutrient problems. And despite early promises that GM farming would dramatically reduce the quantities of herbicides used in agriculture, research now shows that Roundup use in the U.S. has actually increased 15-fold since 1994 when the first herbicide-tolerant GM crops were introduced.

Scientists are now finding that glyphosate is widely present in our soils, waters and on our food as a result of the explosion in its use over the last two and a half decades. More troubling, however, is that independent scientific studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is resulting in a number of potential human health problems, including birth defects from exposure during pregnancy, as well as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (a type of blood cancer) and other forms of cancer in animals and humans. Evidence also suggests that glyphosate may affect the nervous system and could even be implicated in Parkinson’s disease. Independent scientists have reported that the agrochemical industry has known about birth malformations in experimental animals caused by even low doses of glyphosate since the early 1990s.

The introduction of GM glyphosate-resistant Kentucky bluegrass will force us all to become subjects of an experiment that should have happened in the USDA’s laboratories – not in our lawns, backyards, in our local neighborhoods, and in parks where our kids play. This experiment will further increase the use of this toxic herbicide, and will inevitably lead to the cross-pollination with wild relatives and the many environmental problems this will entail. The potential human health impacts have yet to be discovered, but I know I would plow my lawn up if I thought this seed was in it. For the sake of a few weeds, are the potential risks of GM lawns really worth it?

Read the Q&A from APHIS here.

Reprinted from Animal Welfare Approved -
http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org/2011/07/05/the-grass-is-not-always-greener/

To read these articles and more go to the Organic Consumers Website.

# Why Dietitians Say that Fluoride and Sugar are Safe for Kids

# Compostable or Recyclable? Why Bioplastics Are Causing an Environmental Headache

Author: Karin Heinze
Japan fulfils all the important criteria and also has the potential to rapidly expand its internal market for organic products. This is the conclusion drawn in a comprehensive study of the Japanese organic market that has been published in English by the business consultants ABC Enterprises in collaboration with IFOAM Japan (IFJ) and other experts in the context of the Organic Market Research Project (OMR). The report “Japanese Organic Market 2010-2011” investigates, for example, distribution stages, consumer behaviour and the cooperation between agriculture, processing, the food trade, the relevant authorities and research. You can order your copy of the report via Organic-Market. Info. (Picture: BioFach in Tokyo’s trade fair centre)

READ ARTICLE

Sometimes, big break throughs happen when you look at a problem from a new perspective. Instead of asking why does a cancer grow, medical researchers asked how does a cancer grow. This led to the observation that, for a cancer to grow, it needs to be fed. Each cell in our body is in direct contact with a blood vessel that brings it nourishment and takes away waste products. The same is true for a cancer cell. As a cancer grows and spreads, as the number of cancer cells multiplies, the blood vessel system supplying these new cells also has to grow. The cancer can only grow if each of its new cells has a blood vessel next to it to give it food. This process of new blood vessel growth (either for normal or cancer cells) is called angiogenesis. If angiogenesis is stopped, cells cannot grow. There are now some cancer specialists who believe to stop cancers from growing, stop angiogenesis.

Scientists have developed cell models of angiogenesis in the lab. They can now study factors that inhibit or slow down angiogenesis. Their findings show that many food and food ingredients are anti-angiogenic, they stop the growth of new blood vessels.

Although there are currently few clinical trials which have shown that the introduction of such anti-angiogenic foods into the diet can effectively slow down or stop cancer growth, the initial reports are very encouraging. The foods and beverages which have been identified so far would be very easy to incorporate into a "normal diet. Cancer patients looking for ways to accompany more traditional cancer treatments may want to start by adding anti-angiogenic foods to their diet.

1. Additional reading
2. Dulak, L. 2005. Nutreaceuticals as anti-angiogenic agents: hopes and realities. J. Physiology Pharmacology, 56, Suppl 1, 51-691.

REPRINTED FROM Medicinal Food News - http://www.medicinalfoodnews.com/vol14/foods-that-starve-cancer

Interesting video -

Posted on Mar 14, 2011 in Featured Article, Hunger

“…language is a treacherous thing, a most unsure vehicle…” – Mark Twain

The importance of how we use language emerged at the recent Indiana Humanities Council/Indiana’s Family of Farmers/WFYI Hunger event (listen to it, here). During introductory remarks, a United Nations study was quoted that projected a 70 percent increase in food demand by 2050. The way to meet this demand, argued the panelist, was largely going to be through biotechnology. An implicit link was established between technology and the hunger problem. Later, panelists were asked about the biggest myth surrounding hunger. The first myth mentioned was “that there isn’t enough food” and everyone agreed this was true. In fact, recent studies have shown that approximately 40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted, putting the costs in the tens of billions of dollars.

I was struck with the seeming paradox of these two positions. On one hand everyone agreed we have enough food to feed the hungry. On the other hand, we will need to produce 70 percent more food in the not-too-distant future. What to make of this? Do we need more food or not?

It comes back to the way the language surrounding the discussion was being used. The comingling of the terms “hunger” and “food demand” is fundamentally problematic. Hunger is a term largely defined by its physiological components: a painful sensation from the want of food or the lack of a certain number of calories for an individual. It can be universally understood across time and space. Its causes are relatively straightforward as poverty and hunger are tightly linked across the globe.

Food demand, however, is highly contextual, dynamic, and deeply embedded in culture as well as economics. Take food demand in China as an example. Chinese demand for protein (and the grains required to support this meat production) has been skyrocketing in recent years as its middle class rapidly emerges. Developing new technologies to increase food production is a response to Chinese food demand, an issue distinct from feeding China’s hungry.

I would argue that this is not simply an issue of semantics, but is very pragmatic. If we are to embrace technology as the primary solution to our hunger problem, we will likely not be successful. We have enough food and solving hunger is about poverty alleviation, geopolitics, international aid, and distribution systems. On the other hand, if we tackle global poverty in order to meet food demand, we also may fall short. Understanding population growth and stages of economic development would likely be more useful.

We must recognize that words matter and as the seriousness of the subjects increase, we should be increasingly careful about how we use language. Working together on challenging issues means starting from a common vernacular so that the solutions we propose are appropriate for the problems we face.

Reprinted from post written by Tim Carter, the director of Butler University’s Center for Urban Ecology from http://www.indianahumanities.org/foodforthought/index.php/2011/03/you-say-
potayto-i-say-potahto/m the

Natural Beauty Summit America (Included as Food for the Body)

The global natural care market reached a volume of US$ 23.1 billion in 2010, up from US$ 20.1billion in 2009, according to Kline’s Global Natural Care Market Report. Like any emerging growth industry, the natural care beauty industry faces challenges ranging from sustainability to ethical and to ecological issues. The Natural Beauty Summit America "A new challenge fort he Beauty World" is one in a series of international summits that bring the value chain of participants together to delve into and debate those major challenges. It will take place in New York from 6 October to 7 October 2011.

Two well known beauty experts in both the European & USA market, Marie Alice Dibon and Sandie Jaidane, co-created the 7th edition of this international meeting, which will bring together the international leading market researchers like Kline, Data Monitor, and Informed Intuition with beauty and media experts that studied the market evolutions, new consumers and their expectations. High level discussions in this forum will cover: the latest issues in beauty regulations, current and future natural technologies; natural brands and retailers’ partnerships, living with and optimizing social media, consumer insights, and innovative & provocative trends in sustainability. More information is available here: www.naturalbeautysummit.com

Source: Natural Beauty Summit

Local Food News is a forum for the topic of food and what is happening in the Bloomington community and the world that affects what is on our tables. Information found here is available to inform the consuming public so that we may all have needed information about the changing face of food to assist us in making responsible sustainable food choices.

Local food is a resource for building local food networks, supporting sustainable agriculture and growing awareness on living in harmony with nature.

Clearing up the Confusion about Organic Wine

There is a lot of interest and a lot of confusion about organic wine these days. The interest stems from the increasing presence of wines with organic claims on store shelves and from wine consumers who want organic alternatives to conventional wines. Most of the confusion has to do with the labeling of these organic wines.

Grapegrowing like most other farming is organic by origin, but like most other farms, most vineyards today are not organic. A more recent history of organic wine and the labeling of organic wine dates back to 1990 when congress passed the National Organic Foods Act. The goal of the Organic Foods Act was to protect producers, handlers, processors, retailers, and consumers of organic food by assuming that foods labeled as organic were in fact organic. The Organic Foods Act put the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in charge of establishing regulations for organic foods and food products. They in turn established the National Organics Standards Board (NOSB) to advise them. Since fermented beverages were included in the Organic Foods Act, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) which regulates wine labeling also became involved. The ATF said they would allow organic claims on the label if the claims were documented by an accredited or recognized certifying agency and that the certification had to be submitted for approval with applications for label approval. The ATF did not allow finished products (i.e. wines) to be designated as organic. This changed when Hallcrest Vineyards and the Organic Wine Works challenged the ATF and became the first exception based on an inspection of raw materials, production methods, and records by The California Department of Health Services, Food and Drug Branch. Since then, only a few wineries have followed the same course and become certified processors of organic wines.

Along came the National Organic Program (NOP), also part of the USDA. The NOP’s goal has been to set guidelines for the processing and labeling of organic products and to maintain the “National List” of allowed and prohibited substances. According to the NOP and the ATF who have stated that all label approvals filed with them must comply with the USDA relating to the NOP, there are four categories that organic wines can claim: 100% Organic, Organic, Made With Organic Ingredients, and Some Organic Ingredients. Today, these categories define organic wine so understanding the differences among the four categories is important if you want to know what you are really buying.

The standards are being monitored and regulated by the individual certifying agencies who are in turn being monitored and regulated by the USDA so be careful and make sure you trust the certifying agency that the label identifies.
Organic

For a wine to be labeled “Organic” and bear the USDA organic seal, it must be made from organically grown grapes and give information about who the certifying agency is. A wine in this category cannot have any added sulfites. It may have naturally occurring sulfites, but the total sulfite level must be less than 20 parts per million.
Made with Organic Grapes - or Made with Organically Grown Grapes

The wine in this category must be made from organic grapes, but it can include added sulfites.
The Confusion about Sulfites

What seems to further complicate the subject of organic wine is the subject of sulfites. Sulfite or sulfur dioxide is used as a preservative in wines. It has strong antimicrobial properties and some antioxidant properties. The health effects or consequences of sulfites are debatable though a small percent of the population does suffer a sensitivity reaction to them. A wine can make the claim,“Sulfite Free” or “ No Added Sulfites - Contains Naturally Occurring Sulfites”, but if sulfites are added and the total sulfites in the wine are above 10 parts per million, it must make the statement, “Contains Sulfites.” A wine that makes the claim Sulfite Free must have no detectable sulfites. There is some controversy about whether it is really possible for a wine to have no sulfites, but no detectable sulfites means that current ATF analysis is not sensitive enough to detect the presence of sulfites at such low levels. No Added Sulfites means that the winery did not add sulfites to the wine but there may be naturally occurring sulfites in the wine that occur as a byproduct of fermentation.

According to the NOP labeling laws. Any of the NOP categories could claim to be Sulfite Free or have No Added Sulfites, but the 100% Organic and Organic categories must meet one of these criteria. The Made with Organic Ingredients and Some Organic Ingredients categories may or may not have added sulfites.
Conclusion

According to the law, all organic claims must be stated on the label so you have to read labels carefully to know what is in the bottle. Also, be careful of the way that stores advertise and shelf the various wines. It may not be the same as what the bottle labels state. Organic Consummers

* During World War I and World War II, the US government asked its citizens to plant gardens in order to support the war effort. Millions of people planted gardens. In 1943, Americans planted over 20 million Victory Gardens, and the harvest accounted for nearly a third of all the vegetables consumed in the country that year.
* Planting a Victory Garden today is a great way to relieve some of the strain of the worsening recession while reducing your carbon footprint.
* Planting a Victory Garden reduces global warming pollution, gasoline demand and the cost of food. Instead of traveling many miles on fossil fuels from farm to table, your food would travel from your garden to your table, saving you money and saving the planet! An Organic Consumer Action!

Following is an article we continue running on the safety of plastics. Have updated information you would like to share? Send it this way!

As a recycling and reuse director, I educate people everyday in regards to these matters. There is a plastic that is stable that will not leach into the water when reused, frozen or microwaved. They sell these reusable 'jugs' at our local organic co-op and they come with the lids that are used for drinking. I can't tell you what # plastic it is, but there should be a little sign or sticker on it that explains that the container won't leach. They look like mini water jugs that people use in their homes or offices, you know, the bigger 5 gallon containers. The other great thing about these containers is that it is the exact amount of water you are supposed to drink in a day.

I always encourage folks to buy products packaged in anything other than plastic, and the only other packaging that's worse than plastic is Styrofoam, which is a type of plastic that is completely toxic. And of course, buy products that use the least amount of packaging.

And, my nutritionist is totally against microwaves period. If you do the research, there's some scary stuff about how it changes the molecular structure. But, I still use mine to heat up water and to reheat some stuff. I just try to keep it to a minimum.

Even if it is a container is #1 or #2 it can still leach if it is reused. Over a period of time, the plastic breaks down and leaches.

Here is a container website. I had no idea that there were so many to choose from. These containers are actually a #7, which is a polycarbonate. It's the most durable kind of plastic and highly recyclable as well. There are numerous studies and plastics are extremely complicated. Although there are only 7 numbers, there are technically hundreds of different plastics. Some studies say that #7 also leaches, but most studies indicate that it only leaches if the integrity has been compromised or only after several years of usage. So, if the container is cracked, cloudy or damaged don't use it. This website also has stainless steel water bottles.

Use #7 for food storage ie…real Tupperware brand. Don't put plastic in the dishwasher or microwave. That compromises the integrity, and fatty foods are more susceptible to leaching. #1 and #2 are technically the safest, but they have short life shelf. After a soda or water bottle has been opened, it shouldn't be used after about 5 days. Milk jugs, #2's, are the same way. So, while they are safest short term, the #7 polycarbonate is safer for long term use/reuse. I used to reuse my cottage cheese, butter and yogurt containers. Studies show that they are probably the most unsafe and break down the fastest. But, #5's are the most environmentally friendly to make, which is why Stony Field Farms decided to change to #5, because most communities will only accept #1 and #2 bottles for recycling. Although, that technology is also changing.

For some guidelines onusing plastic, check out the Green Guide.

Melissa A. Kriegerfox, (previouslly)Monroe County Solid Waste Management District, Recycling and Reuse Director & Indiana Recycling Coalition President, 812-349-2019, www.mcswmd.org -

The conference sessions include:

Session 1:Functional Food Components: Source and Potential Benefits in Health and Disease
Session 2A:Functional Food Components and Chronic Diseases (Diabetes, Cancer and Obesity)
Session 2B: Functional Food Components and Chronic Diseases (Diabetes, Cancer and Obesity)
Session 3: Functional Food Components and other Diseases
Session 4: Development of Functional Food Products
Session 5: Posters Presentation Session and Workshop
The participants for the 9th International Conference come from every aspect from the globe, having abstracts accepted more than 30 countries; Saudi Arabia, Israel, Canada,Taiwan, Brazil, Iran, India, Australia, Oman, Egypt, United States of America, Ukraine, China, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Phillipines, Nigeria, Peru, Lithuania, South Africa, Spain, Libya, Portugal, Croatia, Pakistan, France, Sweden, Russia, Armenia, Kenya, Georgia, and more.
Conference Organizing Committee includes Conference chairman: Danik M. Martirosyan, PhD, Founder of Functional Food Center, USA ,Co-chairman: Garth Nicolson, PHD, Professor, President of Institute for Molecular Medicine, S. Laguna Beach, California, USA, Co-chairman: Jiang X. Kang, MD, PhD, Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, USA
For information contact the Functional Food Center reply-dffdaf23c8-644fb4b1c0-4f33@u.cts.vresp.com

For mail, please use our business address:
Functional Food Center
1212 Hampshire LN, Suite 213
Richardson, TX 75080

The director of Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine, Dr David Katz said that the American food supply is very salty. Dr Katz seconded Dr Kuklina's views and said that excess salt intake has increased the number of deaths from heart diseases to 100000 per year.

The solution to this problem is also indicated. The recent Institute of Medicine report suggests that sodium levels in processed food should be brought down to solve this problem.

According to the report, the salt intake of almost 70 percent adult should be 1500 mg approx per day, only 5.5 percent people could meet this level.
The recommended amount of salt for others is less than 2300 mg per day.

Dr Kuklina suggested reducing the consumption of processed food and resorting to fresh food items will solve the problem . She said that canned vegetables should be rinsed with water before usage and one should also read the product labels to check the salt quantity before consumption

Although some food companies have indicated that they will reduce the sodium content in their products but consumers are advised to eat home cooked food to avoid any health problems caused by excess salt intake.
USA NEWS WEEK