“Level 8” Nuclear Disaster Campaign Launched

Urgent Demand for International Response to Ongoing Nuclear Reactor Meltdowns in Fukushima Kicks Off at NYC Climate March

The “Level 8” Nuclear Disaster campaign is focused on mobilizing governments and organizations in every country to demand modification of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s current 7-level scale that indicates the severity of nuclear accidents. This newly proposed “Level 8” would firmly classify the gravity of the situation in Fukushima as a crisis calling for an unprecedented, internationally coordinated response of resources and aid in answer to a global nuclear emergency.

Three Petitions for you to sign & share:
http://campaigns.350.org/p/fixfukushima
http://tinyurl.com/avaaz-DeclareFukushimaLevel8
http://tinyurl.com/moveon-DeclareFukushimaLevel8

We’re Monitoring Radioactivity – Can We Monitor Fracking Emissions?

Farms Not Arms has been working with the Fukushima Response Campaign and Safecast to set up a global network of citizens monitoring nuclear radiation. After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Safecast was on hand to record and release some of the first data on where the plumes had gone over Japan. They coupled radiation detectors with GPS monitors, put them on cars, and drove around, sending readings wherever they went. Their release of data prompted the Japanese Government to release some of their own data.

The Fukushima Response Campaign [FR] has been working in Northern California to train people to use Geiger counters, take readings, and send them in to Safecast. An initial plume of radiation came over in the air when Fukushima first exploded, and the crippled plant continues to pour millions of tons of contaminated water into the ocean off Japan, but at this point no large plume of Fukushima radiation is hitting the west coast of the United States, either in the air or the water. However many feel its arrival is inevitable. The idea of FR is to establish a base, a benchmark of the background radiation before substantial Fukushima radiation does hit, so that when it does, we will know it. State and federal agencies have so far been lax in their monitoring, and hopefully this citizen effort will prompt more monitoring by official institutions. Fukushima Response has been teaming up with similar groups on the West Coast to build a network of monitors, and Safecast is building a rapidly growing global network of data points.

One of the functions of Fukushima Response [FR] and Safecast has been to debunk false or mistaken or exaggerated reports of radiation spikes. Such reports erode the credibility of those who are trying to call attention to the continuing danger of the crippled reactors, like crying wolf too often. In one case, a strip of sand with higher than normal radiation was discovered on Maverick Beach, where the high waves are. FR was able to get a sample tested and establish that the radiation was not from Fukushima. This helps establish FR as a reliable source of information in an information-crowded universe. As the citizen monitoring network grows, it is almost inevitable that more sources of radiation will be discovered. This kind of network puts technology and information that used to be understood by only a few in the hands of the people, educating and empowering us.

[I have recently been informed of another citizen monitoring group in the Tennessee Valley that is documenting radiation releases from nuclear power plants. http://www.matrr.org/ ]

It occurred to me that this type of citizen monitoring network might apply to the fracking situation. I recently watched a webinar on fracking put on by Food and Water Watch and the Land Stewardship Project, and then watched the Weather Channel report on fracking in the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas. A big problem in TX is the lack of hard data on exactly what toxic chemicals are being released into the air by the fracking operations. People report burning eyes, choking and shortness of breath, but it is intermittent and as yet there is no way to conclusively prove the cause. The energy company is supposed to be monitoring the air, but in one case discussed in the report, the nearest monitor is twenty miles away! If monitors could be set up at those sites they could establish a baseline for “clean air,” and then whenever the emissions occur they could be recorded and analyzed, and a map of exposure data points could be established, which would help make a case for curtailing or shutting down the operations.

Another aspect of this is the radioactivity itself. It is known that drilling for oil often brings up material that is radioactive. That was one of the possible explanations put forth for the high readings on that strip of Maverick Beach. Radioactive material tends to collect and concentrate in oil pipelines, and there could have been one under that beach. It is entirely possible that there could be elevated radiation levels at various points around fracking operations, especially in those settling ponds for material that has returned from the depths. Has anyone been checking the material in the collecting ponds of fracking operations for radiation? This might prove to be valuable and necessary information.

These thoughts should be treated as brainstorming. I am not an expert on monitoring air for toxics, but I’m sure the technical knowledge is out there. In any case, citizen monitoring empowers us by making the unknown known and educating people in general to the real state of the environment in which we live, and which we are recreating all the time.

 

https://www.facebook.com/FukushimaResponseCampaign

http://blog.safecast.org/

https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org

http://landstewardshipproject.org/

http://stories.weather.com/fracking

Federal Dysfunction Opens Door to “Monsanto Protection Act”

From foodandwaterwatch.org

Monsanto Hitches a Ride on Must-Pass Budget Bill

By Patty Lovera

If there is one thing you can count on with this Congress, it’s drama over money. The month of March has seen plenty of funding fights, with sequestration in the beginning of the month and an ugly process to prevent a federal government shutdown at the end.

One of the many problems with operating this way is how many opportunities for mischief stop_monsanto_p_act_350are available when Congress is dealing with a huge package of “must pass” legislation. That’s exactly what happened last week when Congress passed a “continuing resolution” to fund the federal government for the rest of the year (the President signed it into law this week). This continuing resolution was necessary because Congress did not complete the normal process for setting budgets for federal agencies and the government has been running on an extension of the previous year’s budget that was about to run out.

Besides keeping the government open, the continuing resolution also contained two terrible “riders” that do more than set funding levels – they also change how USDA operates. The first stops USDA from enforcing contract fairness rules for contract poultry growers, allowing big chicken companies to continue to treat them unfairly. Food & Water Watch and hundreds of farm groups worked to include these vital provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill to protect farmers from unfair and deceptive practices by meatpacking and poultry companies.

Read the whole article . . . 

Foodopoly and Farmers

At the 33rd Annual Eco-Farm Conference, Jan. 23-26, 2013, Wenonah Hauter gave a plenary presentation based on her book Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America.

Wenonah Hauter is Executive Director, Food and Water Watch, Washington DC http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/

Hauter’s main theme, and one of the main themes of the entire conference, was that “it is critical for the food movement to become more political and help build the power to hold elected officials accountable” (Eco-Farm conference booklet p 27). We have been “voting with our forks” for some time now, and it has made a substantial difference, but if we want to make the big changes that will make our food systems sustainable and make clean, healthy food available to all, we will need to become more politically organized.

Michael Pollan expressed the same idea in a recent New York Times Magazine article entitled “Vote for the Dinner Party,” http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/vote-for-the-dinner-party/, and a recent book from Food First, entitled Food Movements Unite! http://www.foodfirst.org/en/Food+Movements+Unite extends the argument to the entire globe, where roughly the same conflicts are going on between large corporate or, in some cases, sovereign investors on the one hand, and local, small or medium sized, usually more sustainable farmers who are being undermined and put out of business by the conglomerates.

We need to build political power to change the structure of our food system, said Hauter. The USDA claims there are two million US farms, but Hauter says that is a BIG exaggeration. There are many fewer. One third of those two million have annual sales less than $1,000, and two thirds are under $10,000. They count hobbyists and part time farmers, people who should not be counted. There are actually under one million full-time farmers using their own labor. Eighty percent of these get government subsidies that keep them afloat, often just barely. Even small and middle size farmers don’t make it without the government. Farm income averages $19,000, and the subsidies are half of that! Most farm households need off-farm income to survive. This is NOT a fair market. Farmers pay more for their inputs than they get out of their crop.

PepsiCo is the Number One food company, Hauter said, worth $64 billion, and it made $6.4 billion in profit last year. Then she asked everyone to stand up—there were several hundred people in the hall–and then said “Sit if you have eaten any of the following,” and proceeded to read off a list of at least a couple dozen PepsiCo products. After two or three, most everyone had sat down (despite the fact that we were all organic and clean food advocates), but she went on reading. Only one man stood at the end, and most of us thought he was kidding. Point made. [Besides Pepsi, PepsiCo owns the brands FritoLay, Tropicana (including Dole), Quaker, and Gatorade, and all the products under those brands. A more complete list is available at http://www.pepsico.com/Brands.html ]

These big corporations benefit from government subsidies, said Hauter, and it is easy to say just end the subsidies, but we need to look deeper. You can’t just end the subsidies because lots of people depend on them after 17 years of an evolving program. The subsidies are a band-aid on an ailing system. The deeper problem is that the food corporations who buy up the food cheap simply don’t pay a reasonable price for the food they use.

Iowa farmer George Naylor gets more specific about the question of subsidies in a 2006 Mother Jones interview. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2006/04/how-fix-agriculture#disqus_thread

“Well, the number one thing is farm policy that fails to put a floor under farm prices. A farm bill should act much like a minimum wage. The bottom rung of the whole structure is the production of protein, carbohydrates and oil. If farmers aren’t going to get some sort of minimum price for them, they’re going to be out doing whatever they can to produce more of them, which will only make prices lower. But at the same time, when the prices go very low, purchasers of these products—like Cargill, Tyson, ADM and Smithfield—get to buy them very cheap. And then they can feed industrial livestock very cheaply and basically take over most of the livestock production.”

Seed prices have also been rising precipitously, and not just GMO seeds, said Hauter. Farmers must sell into a concentrated market, with a few big corporate buyers, where there is not much room for a farmer to negotiate a price, so prices are driven down. So you can’t just de-subsidize, because you would drive a lot of farmers out of business, and then corporate agribusinesses would come along and gobble them up and just get bigger. We’ve gotta make more change than that.

During the New Deal years [1933-36], the US government created measures to deal with the periodic overproduction of commodity crops such as corn, wheat, and cotton, and the resulting precipitous drop in prices to the farmer, which was putting farmers out of business by the thousands. They set a floor under grain prices, created reserves to buy the extra production in bumper years and release it in leaner years, and introduced conservation measures to induce farmers to take their most sensitive lands out of production. This assured that the farmer would get a decent price for his or her work, that food would be affordable even during years of poor harvest, and that we would avoid further disasters like the American “dust bowl” of the 1930s, so graphically depicted in the Ken Burns documentary, that spawned some of these measures.

These programs were all attacked as “socialist.”  Large capitalist investors wanted people to leave the farms and move into the cheap manufacturing labor force, while making the farms bigger and more “efficient.” Over the years, Congress has managed to chip away at the New Deal programs, and had virtually eliminated these measures by the Clinton administration. The 1996 “Freedom to Farm” bill is often called “Freedom to Fail” by farmers. This took the government completely out of the process and deregulated the commodities markets. Prices dropped precipitously. So the Government, in order to keep some of these farmers in business, invented subsidies, using taxpayer money to grow commodities [which now include soybeans and canola]. This situation is now virtually permanent. Only the grain traders, in the end, benefit from the system. They get to buy cheap, while taxpayers reimburse the farmers, but not enough to help them prosper. The availability of cheap grains and beans creates confined animal feeding operations [CAFOs], which in turn allows much more grain and beans to be grown to feed the animals.

The farmer receives 2-3 cents of every dollar spent on a bag of chips, Hauter reported, while 98 cents goes to the food companies. Ninety percent of the food budget of Americans goes for processed food. Tastes become habituated, enhanced by advertising. While there are thousands of products, in terms of the actual food substances involved, there is very little diversity in the American diet; a few companies make most of the products, using a few ubiquitous ingredients. American kids see 5000 food ads a year on TV, most of them for junk. Four conglomerates control the bulk of the American food market. One dollar of every three spent for food in America goes to WalMart, a $400 billion+ company that made 40 billion in profit last year, and the Walton family holds as much wealth as the bottom 40% of Americans! http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/17/534591/walmart-heirs-wealth-combined/?mobile=nc

Even the organic food market is largely controlled by large companies. Most of the smaller original organic companies have been bought out by larger non-organic companies, to fill their “niche” markets. And in the organic retail sector, Whole Foods dominates; they bought out most of their competitors. UNFI has no competitors in the natural and organic food distribution world; they drive local coops out of business. UNFI made 18% profit last year. They should be subject to anti-trust laws, said Hauter, but Reagan’s people eviscerated the anti-trust laws.

We need a longer-term vision, said Hauter. We need to break up the foodopoly. We can’t let a few companies control our food. We need to fight for the food system we want. We need anti-trust enforcement. We can “vote with our fork,” but we must also vote with our vote and hold these companies responsible. We need to demand anti-trust enforcement on food companies, and control the biotech industry. Fifteen states now have GMO labeling campaigns, she said. We need to stay politically active.

GMO Update, Eco-Farm Conference 2013 and Beyond

The GMO Update panel at the Eco-Farm Conference featured four people who have been prominent in the ongoing campaign to label and otherwise regulate the spread of genetically modified organisms [GMOs] into our food chain and environment.

Pamm Larry, from Chico, CA, was the Grassroots Instigator of Prop 37, the ballot initiative to label GMOs in CA.

Wenonah Hauter is Executive Director, Food and Water Watch, Washington DC, and author of Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in Americahttp://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/

Rebecca Spector is West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety [CFS] in San Francisco, CA; CFS is one of the main organizations legally challenging the release of GMOs. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/

Dag Falck is the Organic Program Manager, Nature’s Path, British Columbia; he has been involved in GMO campaigns in Canada. He says there are GE-free zones in 10 cities in BC; there’s no teeth to them, but they are statements, a step in the right direction. http://us.naturespath.com/home

Here are some of the main points they made.

All these folks considered Prop 37 a success! It lost by less than 3%, and over 6 million Californians voted for it. It catalyzed a national movement and started a national discussion, made national news, and now there are GMO labeling efforts in the works in several more states.

Rebecca Spector from CFS reported on an independent post-election poll, available at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/2013/01/09/post-prop-37-poll-shows-strong-public-support-for-future-ge-food-labeling/

Prop 37 won the vote on the actual election day, 51%-49%, but lost the advance voting 56%-44%. Partly this was because of the TV attack ads run by the opposition, which got there first, in the tradition of “swift-boating.”  But this poll shows that 67% of the people still support GMO labeling: 21% of people who voted “No” still support labeling; they were convinced that prop 37 was “poorly written,” faulty.

The breakdown on Prop 37:

Latinos voted 61% Yes; Asians voted 61% Yes; African Americans voted 56% Yes; Democratic women voted 60% Yes; voters under 30 voted 55% Yes; LA County voted 52% Yes; and the SF Bay Area voted 56% Yes.

Caucasians as a group rejected the measure 58%-42%. And while people with a college degree voted against the measure 55%-45%, this same group reported in this latest poll that they support the concept of labeling GMOs by a whopping 68%-27%. Taken together, this fact plus the fact that young voters supported Prop 37 and that more people voted Yes later in the campaign, after they had seen the Yes ads, bodes well for future GMO labeling campaigns.

There is now a Washington State GMO labeling initiative. Wenonah Hauter said that many other states are considering similar measures. There is now a Coalition of States for GMO labeling. http://interoccupy.net/blog/gmo-labeling-coalition/ We need the states to prompt the feds; that is often how these changes happen, in states first [e.g., marriage equality, marijuana legalization].

CFS is working at the national level, they have a labeling petition to the FDA, and have 1.2 million comments in support. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/2012/10/01/why-california-needs-prop-37-center-for-food-safety’s-position-on-the-food-labeling-initiative/ We WILL get GMO labeling, says Spector. She said many companies are quietly working to source and use non-GMO products.

There are bills in Congress about labeling or banning GMO salmon, and Sen. Boxer and Rep. DeFazio are proposing labeling all GMO foods. There is lots of activity happening, we are “on the verge.”

One big fight right now is over the pending approval of the farming of GMO salmon. This would be the first GMO animal approved for release into the food chain and, inevitably, the environment. Critics say escaped GMO salmon could decimate the naturally existing salmon population. For more info, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon;   http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/fda-ruling-on-gmo-salmon-worries-alaska-fishermen

Another is the pending USDA approval of GMO corn resistant to herbicides 2,4D and dicamba. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/business/energy-environment/dow-weed-killer-runs-into-opposition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Both of these herbicides are more acutely toxic than glyphosate [main ingredient in Roundup], and their use will undoubtedly skyrocket if they are approved. Weeds have developed resistance to Roundup, so GMO corporations are developing crops resistant to 2,4D and dicamba as well as glyphosate. Critics say weeds will eventually develop resistance to these herbicides as well, forcing us onto a treadmill of ever-increasing herbicide use and new resistant GMOs, a boon to the bottom line of companies that sell both seeds and herbicides. For the CFS explanation of the situation, go to http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/04/CFS_FSR_spring_2012.pdf

One of the most interesting consequences of this campaign is that large corporations that own smaller organic companies, that were formerly “in hiding,” came out against labeling and exposed themselves that way to boycotts of their organic products, and bad publicity in general, as transparency was increased. http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/ http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/08/prop37/

And the latest news: according to the NY Times, major food companies, including PepsiCo, ConAgra, and Wal-Mart, are considering lobbying for a national labeling program. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/business/food-companies-meet-to-weigh-federal-label-for-gene-engineered-ingredients.html?_r=0 Undoubtedly they will try to get one that best suits them, but their effort shows they have recognized the inevitability of labeling as Americans become more aware of the existence of GMOs and the issues involved.

But, as Food Safety News reports, a federal labeling law might not be such a good thing if it is a weak law and it includes preemption, meaning no state or municipality may pass a law more stringent than the federal law. This is not the case with all federal laws, but is often the result of “compromise” legislation like that being considered by large food companies. For more details, the article is at http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/02/will-a-federal-compromise-on-gmo-labeling-trump-state-law-forever/#.URVSh465M1N

Many of these articles are brought to our attention by the Eco-Farm GE News Service, which is the best source I know of breaking news about GMOs. To subscribe, go to www.eco-farm.org and join the GE News email list.

The take home message from this presentation is that political action works! We need to Take Back Our Democracy! We need to continue to let our legislators know these things are important to us. We have more power than we know if we can unite to use it.

33rd Annual Eco-Farm Conference: Worth Knowing About

I was fortunate to be able to attend the thirty-third annual Eco-Farm Conference, January 23-26, at Asilomar Conference grounds in Pacific Grove, CA, entitled “Feed the World You Want to Live In.”

“The EcoFarm Conference is the oldest and largest gathering of ecologically sustainable agriculture advocates in the West. For 33 years, we have convened to create, maintain, and promote healthy and just food/farming systems. The multi-day conference yields myriad opportunities for over 1,500 participants to network with colleagues, discover the newest ecological agricultural research and techniques, and build, both individually and as a community.” http://ecofarm2013.org/

It is always uplifting to be around this crowd, some of the nicest, sweetest people you could know, all of them hard at work doing positive things for the economy, the environment, and human health. Most of the people here were not here just thinking about farming, they were actually doing it, or something closely related. These are real, serious people, gritty people, people who make their living in agriculture and the agricultural food chain, day in and day out, often bucking the trends in their mainstream culture, especially those pioneers who have been with Eco-Farm from the beginning, when organic was considered the far-out “fringe,” or simply an interesting “niche” market with a few good ideas to be expropriated by the mainstream industrial agriculture system. They accentuate the positive—progress in healthy and sustainable farming practices—while exposing and opposing the barriers to achieving this.

Eco-Farm has an organizational sense of history that is palpable at this conference. These have been movers and shakers in the organic and sustainable and just food movement, some of them for more than 30 years; some of them were THERE when the Eco-Farm conference was 40 people under a tree. Almost everyone who is well-known nationally or internationally for their work in the “food movements” has been through this conference, people like Frances Moore Lappe, Vandana Shiva, Robert Rodale, Bill Mollison, Alice Waters, Dolores Huerta, Ken and Diane Whealy [The Seed Savers Exchange], Wes Jackson, John Jeavons and others, as well as people who are well known within the movement like the Lundberg Family [organic rice], the folks from Veritable Vegetable [organic produce wholesalers], The Frey Family [organic wines], Warren Webber [first certified organic farm in California, still going strong], Wendy Johnson, [long time gardener at the Green Gulch Farm Zen Center], Mark Mulcahy [organic produce marketer and radio host], The Straus Family [organic dairy], Jesse Cool [organic chef], Miguel Altieri [UC Berkeley professor and proponent of “agroecology”], Larry Jacobs and Sandra Belin [Jacobs/Del Cabo], Full Belly Farm [hosts of the “Hoes Down” every year], Amigo Cantisano [organic farmer, consultant, and advocate, one of the founders of Eco-farm] and many, many more. These are some of my heroes, people who are making a real and positive difference in human society.

Every year the conference devotes a plenary session to highlighting three successful organic farmers, who get up on stage in front of several hundred people and tell their stories: how they got into farming, their philosophy, and where they are going with their farming efforts. It has been an uphill battle for many. The occupation of farming in general is risky because there are some important factors, especially the weather, that are out of human control, and others, notably government policy towards farming and broad market trends, that have been largely out of the control of the average farmer. This year two of the three “successful farmers” reported “near-bankruptcy, last-ditch-gamble” events as part of their stories.

We hear a lot these days about how “small businesses” are the backbone of our economy. Part of the “justice” in the “just farming systems” advocated and supported by Eco-Farm is the contention that farming ought to be a respectable occupation in which a good farmer, who is an independent businessperson, a “small” businessperson, a middle class person, potentially the backbone of our economy, can make a decent living. This conference is devoted to helping people do just that. [And make that world-wide!]

Though the cultural shift toward local organic healthy fresh whole food is blossoming, the barriers to starting in as a farmer, organic or not, are still daunting. Eco-Farm encourages young people, farmers and would-be farmers, to come to the conference, and they provide some scholarships. They scholarship a number of immigrant farm workers to the conference every year, hold workshops in Spanish, and have translators for plenary sessions. They go out of their way to be inclusive. This year, through donations, Eco-Farm was able to give scholarships to 150 new and low-income farmers to attend.

These conferences are thorough and intelligent and full of information. They try to present and understand all sides of any issue, e.g. they have had pro-GMO speakers at several conferences for open debates, and treated them respectfully, while arguing vigorously. They try to bring in the latest in organic technology and practices, and the latest info and updates on legislation and regulation, both federal and state. You can catch up and get informed at the Eco-Farm conference.

This year’s presenters included a former CA State Agriculture Commissioner who also served as Undersecretary of Agriculture in the Clinton Administration; the current head of the CA Department of Pesticide Regulation, who used to be head of the California Certified Organic Farmers [CCOF]; a highly placed person in the California Department of Food and Agriculture [CDFA]; a person on the US Organic Standards Board; and a person who is personal advisor to US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, all giving updates and their perspectives on what is going on inside the government agencies interacting with farmers. This list highlights the progress that has been made over the years, thanks largely to efforts by healthy food advocates, in influencing government programs and policies, which are huge and often determining factors in the direction of agriculture both in America and world-wide. But their presentations emphasized that the system still heavily favors large, corporate farming systems that continue to degrade our environment, provide less healthy food, and put smaller farmers in perilous positions.

And beyond these agencies is Congress, where policies get determined and funding gets appropriated. Congress recently extended the current Farm Bill till September 2013, but lowered funding for conservation, organic growing, fruit and vegetable farming, and beginning farming and ranching program, and entirely cut funding for other programs including organic research, organic marketing, and farmers market programs. On the other hand, subsidies to growers of corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola were not locked in for the next five years. The issue of subsidies and the Farm Bill are complex and continually developing; renewal of the Farm Bill comes before Congress again this summer. I hope to explore these issues further in future blogs; I think more people ought to be familiar with the provisions and implications of the Farm Bill, because it affects almost every area of our lives: food prices, poverty, public health, the environment, jobs.

Though critical of these various agencies, nonetheless the Eco-Farm people are not afraid to interact and cooperate with these agencies. In fact, they cultivate relationships with these people in positions of power. This year the USDA sponsored the track of twelve workshops “For Beginning Farmers,” with diverse workshops including “Record Keeping Computer Programs for Organic Growers,” “Homesteading Your Way into Economic Self-Sufficiency,” “Organic marketing 101,” “Getting Off to a Good Start with Your CSA,” and other presentations designed to help bring in new farmers, something the USDA considers a high priority, as the number of farmers in the US has been steadily shrinking and their average age increasing for at least two decades.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture [CDFA] sponsored a track of four workshops for “Water Stewards,” recognizing that maintaining a clean water supply for all, especially in an intensely agricultural state like California, is going to be a greater and greater challenge as the years progress.

And United Natural Foods, Inc. [UNFI], the leading distributor of natural and organic foods in the US, sponsored a track of five workshops for “Merchants, Handlers and Distributors,” including one subtitled “Strategies for Natural Food Retailers to Compete with the Big Boys,” despite being one of those “big boys.” Like the federal and state agencies, UNFI and other large food sellers, such as Whole Foods, come under fierce and detailed scrutiny at these conferences, yet they continue to help sponsor the events, and are recognized for the positive contributions they have made, while their perceived shortcomings are noted and opposed. Some of these critiques will be discussed in future blogs related to this conference.

Four film documentaries were featured at the conference. Betting the Farm is the story of a group of dairy farmers in Maine, dropped by their national milk company, who banded together to launch their own milk company, Maine’s Own Organic Milk [MOO Milk]http://www.moomilkco.com/.  Edible City: Grow the Revolution ediblecitythemovie.com features urban farming all around the country, revolutionary in several ways, highlighting a project in Oakland, CA. The Farmer and the Horse http://www.thefarmerandthehorse.com/ follows three farmers out of the suburbs and back to the land. All three of these emphasize the risks and hard work involved, and the rewards of doing it and being successful.

The one I saw was Symphony of the Soil by Deborah Koons Garcia, and it turned out to be one of the highlights of the conference for me. This is a beautiful, intriguing film that makes the case that healthy soil is the source of health for us all, and that degradation of soil is putting our food systems, and our water and air, our very civilization, at risk. Nonetheless there ARE solutions, as the film emphasizes. This documentary manages to convey a college-level course in the latest soil science and connect it to our lives without sounding like a lecture. It is both eye-opening and mind-opening. Find out more at http://www.symphonyofthesoil.com/.

One of the most heart-warming aspects of the conference for me was seeing all these vibrant, energetic young people with smiles on their faces, serious about their work, determined to become successful farmers and clean food advocates. They are inspiring in their freshness and idealism, and yet grounded in realism. Many of them are already actively farming. One young woman who just graduated from UC Davis and worked on the Prop 37 campaign is planning to become a “food lawyer” to defend the environment and family farming. Another graduate is working on a project that could change the way the state manages the salmon cycle. Others are helping produce documentary films about farming and the environment like the ones mentioned above.

I sat down at breakfast opposite a group of seven young people and their professor from Williams College in Massachusetts. They had been in California for almost a month on a winter project, staying and working at organic farms, culminating in the Eco-Farm conference. They were excited and enthusiastic about their experiences so far, and sad that this phase was over. Each of them will be required to write a report, which will all be edited and assembled by the group, as a group report. This seems to me to be the cutting edge of education, going outside the classroom to experience what it is like in the “real world,” and then working cooperatively to create a joint product. I told them that even though it was still morning they had already made my day.

Further posts related to this conference to follow.

For more information on Eco-Farm [The Ecological Farming Association] go to http://www.eco-farm.org/

Two articles about legislation regarding GMOs

The first article, from The Progressive, talks about riders to the House of Representatives 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill [aka the Farm Bill] that would enable Monsanto and others to go ahead and plant GMO crops even while court-ordered reviews of their safety are still taking place, before any results have come in.

The second, from the Pesticide Action Network, describes a petition by farmers to the Secretary of Agriculture to stop approval of new GMOs resistant to stronger herbicides like Dicamba and 2,4D. Approval of these crops would undoubtedly lead to a huge rise in the use of these powerful and destructive substances.

Both of these articles highlight the “insider”process by which these new and powerful technologies with uncertain outcomes are being streamlined into the food chain of the world. At the same time they demonstrate that public scrutiny is on the rise and give hope that movements for food justice and healthy food can catch up with the corporate insider advantage and take back control of our food systems for the farmers and the people.

Monsanto Gets Its Way in Ag Bill
By Jim Goodman, December 13, 2012
The Progressive

“The Farmers Assurance Provision” is the title of a rider, Section 733, inserted into the House of Representatives 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. Somehow, as a farmer, I don’t feel the least bit assured.

The only assurance it provides is that Monsanto and the rest of the agriculture biotech industry will have carte blanche to force the government to allow the planting of their biotech seeds.

In addition, the House Agriculture Committee’s 2012 farm bill draft includes three riders – Sections 1011, 10013 and 10014. These amendments would essentially destroy any oversight of new Genetically Engineered (GE) crops by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

For the rest of the article and more on the subject, go to

http://progressive.org/monsanto-gets-its-way-in-ag-bill

Farmers to USDA: Stop new GE crops
from Pesticide Action Network

In Iowa earlier this week, organic and conventional farmers delivered over 40,000 petition signatures and a clear message to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack: Stop the approval of “next generation” GE corn and soy crops. Now.

Dow’s 2,4-D-resistant corn is the first of 10 herbicide-resistant crops in the queue pending USDA approval, with Monsanto’s dicamba soy and others not far behind. If approved, these new GE crops would dramatically drive up the use of harmful pesticides, placing the burden of increased costs and health risks on farmers and local communities.

For the rest of the article and more on the subject go to

http://www.panna.org/blog/farmers-usda-stop-new-ge-crops