The White House Organic Farm Project

The White House Organic Farm Project is a non-partisan, petition-based initiative to respectfully request that the 44th President of the USA oversees the planting of an organic farm on the grounds of The White House.

TheWhoFarm project was founded by Daniel Bowman Simon and Casey Gustowarow, 2 young graduates who met in the Philippines during a US Peace Corps Volunteer mission. Daniel and Casey have traveled accross the USA to visit schools, food pantries, farmers’ markets, festivals in an effort to inform the nation of TheWhoFarm and the petition. They have a “TheWhoFarmMobile”, which is two school buses fused together with an organic edible garden on the roof.  

Michael Pollan (Knight Professor of Journalism, UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism) has endorsed the project: “Since enhancing the prestige of farming as an occupation is critical to developing the sun-based regional agriculture we need, the White House should appoint, in addition to a White House chef, a White House farmer. This new post would be charged with implementing what could turn out to be your most symbolically resonant step in building a new American food culture. And that is this: tear out five prime south-facing acres of the White House lawn and plant in their place an organic fruit and vegetable garden.”

Sources: http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/11/26/will-obama-plant-an-organic-farm-on-the-white-house-lawn/, http://www.thewhofarm.org/

Our children will accuse us

 This documentary just came out in France, it was made by Jean-Paul Jaud.

It tells the story of a little French community at the foot of the Cévennes Mountains, in which the mayor, aware of the health risks which threaten a young population exposed to the 76,000 tonnes of pesticides used each year in France, has decided to make the school canteen organic.

The objective of the documentary is to raise awareness of the environmental tragedy that is currently taking place: the poisoning of our countryside by chemical agriculture and the damages it has caused to public health, espcially that of our children.

The film consists of many interviews (children, parents, health care workers, farmers, scientists and researchers) of people telling about their own experiences, listing the problems, but also suggesting possible solutions.

Many figures are used to back the documentary up, here are a few (no source was mentionned):

• In Europe every year 100,000 children die of diseases caused by the environment.
• In Europe, 70% of cancers are linked to the environment: 30% to pollution and 40% to food.
• In Europe cases of cancer in children have been increasing by 1.1% yearly for 30 years.
• In France the number of cancers in males has increased by 93% in 25 years.

French film critics have been really negative, telling the documentary was far too tragic, dramatizing the situation and making one feel guilty. Even though I agree there is dramatization, I still believe this is a great initiative. Anything that will raise awareness on the subject is good to take, any movie that will make people think more should be respected!

Have a look at the trailer (English subtitles)!

Sources:

http://www.nosenfantsnousaccuseront-lefilm.com/

Serious sustainability according to Michael Pollan

Michael Pollan is Knight Professor of Journalism, UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism. In a conference about Serious Sustainability on September 17th, he explained his thoughts about the way agriculture should evolve.

Some interesting facts and figures…

• About counting fossile fuels calories, it’s always good to remember that while we should be able to produce 2.3 calory of food with 1 calory of fossile fuels, farms now usually need one calory of fossile fuel to grow one calory of food. On a distribution level, 10 calories of fossile fuels are needed for 1 calory of food available. And if you buy meat, remember that 55 calories are needed to produce only one calory of beef…
• Half of our crop land worldwide is used to feed animals
• A quarter of the food grown in America is wasted
• Between 17 and 34% of pollution comes from agriculture, and meat production is responsible for 18% of the Greenhouse gases
• Since 1960, there has been a dramatic increase of diet related chronic diseases

Organic farming statistics for the UK updated

The latest statistics produced by Defra on the organic farming sector in the UK were released on 3 July 2008 .

 

See document on this link:

 

https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/orgeng.pdf 

 

 

 

Organic statistics for Canada

See link below for a full report on organic farming in 2006 in Canada:

http://www.cog.ca/documents/Stats06.pdf

Marketing organic fish

 

 

This is the story of a well marketed organic product, the “No Catch” organic cod.

 

The “No Catch” brand was launched in May 2006.

 

The idea:  a revolutionary scheme to grow organic cod in Scottish fish farms, touted as the ethical answer to a global crisis in fish stocks.

 

 

 

 

 

Although cod is a favourite among consumers in the UK, there had been concern about its rapidly diminishing stocks, leading to restrictions on cod fishing in the Irish Sea, North Sea and off West Scotland. No Catch argued that its product was better for the environment because it came from a sustainable source, and was higher quality because it reached shops faster than cod caught in the wild (it did not need to be caught and then frozen).

 

The packaging was a departure from traditional fish branding and highlighted the brand’s ethical credentials. It emphasized the product’s origins and that it was “tasty, totally natural fish”. It added that it was the world’s first organic, sustainable cod and used the line “Good for you, great for fish”.

Slogan for the campaign was “No Catch… Just Cod”. They used mostly press/outdoor, internet and PR to create awareness of the product.

 

 

  

 

 

After a month, the brand had already won several major industry awards including the Scottish Food and Drink Excellence Awards where, in addition to winning both the ‘Fish and Seafood’ and ‘Food Service Product’ categories, it picked up the prestigious ‘Supreme Award’ which recognises the overall, top food and drink product in Scotland. Business sounded good with press releases boasting No Catch cod was hitting the shelves of 640 supermarkets in Switzerland and being sliced up in Japanese sushi bars in London.

 

Anyway, despite all those marketing efforts, No Catch seemed to be ahead of themselves, failing to understand the scale of the challenge they were taking on. While the firm’s owners had had “very ambitious” plans, it turned out there were far too many uncertainties growing Britain’s most popular fish in a cage. Indeed, they take three years at least to mature, they lose weight when they spawn and mortality rates are high. Also, the organic feed was expensive, and they were forced to produce fewer fish to meet organic welfare standards. The market was difficult. The environmentally concerned consumers seeking to avoid politically incorrect wild cod from the North Sea were confused. They faced other alternatives such as line caught cod, or Pacific cod, making it hard for No Catch to gain the necessary premium. And premium was badly needed when the only part of the fish being sold was the “loin” (an unusual industry term for a creature without legs). That meant no less than 80 per cent of every fish was wasted.

 

Ultimately the organic cod farm has been shut down after it lost £40m in three years.

 

I believe this story shows how organic products can benefit from a good marketing campaign (in this case it enabled very quick awareness of the product, wide distribution, winning prizes, etc). But it also highlights the fact that surfing on the organic wave is not always successful. Growing organic food is demanding, requires time and experience, which obviously the founders of No Catch did not really have.

 

Sources:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/11/fishing.organics?gusrc=rss&feed=global

http://www.ing-media.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,11,14,89

http://www.shetlandmarine.com/2008/04%20Aquaculture/no_catch%20caught_out.htm

http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/design/article/560584/sustainable-seafood-firm-adds-cod-brand/

 

 

 

Is organic salmon possible?

 

                          

 

 

There is currently a big debate around the definition of organic fish. While organic meat is a pretty simple concept (basically it comes from an animal that only ate organic food, was raised outdoors and was left free of antibiotics), when it comes to defining organic fish, there is no such clear answer.

 

Officially, organic fish is farm-raised, and fed with organic food.  It involves no pesticides, no dyes, no antibiotics, no GMOs, lower stocking densities, better water quality .

 

So obviously it does not include wild fish. The reasons are:  

• There is no control over pollution levels in the waters where wild fish is found.

• There is a growing worldwide problem of over fishing, resulting in endangered and extinct species whereas organic farmed fish is produced in a sustainable manner.

• The “organic” label, strictly speaking, applies only to agriculture, which catching is not.

 

Still, organic farm-raised fish is far from guaranteeing perfect organic to consumers:

• One can not be certain that a farm-raised carnivore fish eats 100% organic food. While there is broad agreement that the organic label is no problem for fish that are primarily vegetarians (like catfish and tilapia) because organic feed is available, fish that are carnivores (salmon, for instance) are a different matter because they eat other fish, which cannot now be labeled organic. And while in conventional aquaculture, you can replace animal protein by plant protein and then substitute amino acids that are absent in the plant protein, such synthetics are banned from organic operations.

• Organic fish farms are criticized because the fish are not living in a “natural” environment. Environmentalists argue that many farm-raised fish live in cramped nets in conditions that can pollute the water, and that calling them organic is a perversion of the label. Organic principles demand that livestock (which includes fish) should be able to express its ‘natural’ behaviour pattern and be kept as close to natural stocking densities as possible. This requirement can be satisfied for mussels without difficulty, and trout and many other freshwater fish are reared in large ponds/reservoirs at low stocking densities. The ‘natural’ density for salmon, however, is almost impossible to achieve, so it is doubtful that a truly organic salmon can ever be farmed.

 

So in the end, as consumers, what should we go for? What kind of salmon should we buy?

 

 

My opinion is that, since it is not really possible to buy 100% organic salmon, the best is then to focus on the environmental consequences of our purchase more than on the “organic or not” question. For that purpose, it can be very helpful to look at labels like “Marine Stewardship Council”, that recognize, via a certification programme, sustainable marine fisheries and their products.

 

Sources:

 

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/our_solutions/sustainable_fishing/sustainable_seafood/index.cfm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/business/28fish.html

http://www.owelln.com/2008/05/fish-standards

 

http://www.buyorganic.com.au/blog/index.php/2006/11/organic-fish

 

http://www.msc.org

 

Organic statistics for the UK

A few figures from the Organic Centre Wales on how organic farming was progressing in the UK the last few years:

• By December 2006, 498,646 hectares of land were managed to organic standards across the UK and 121,137 hectares were under conversion

• Between December 2005 and December 2006, the total area of fully organic land decreased by 7%. However, the amount of land in organic conversion increased by 41% over the same period.

• There are 4,639 organic and in-conversion producers in the UK, 15.3% of which are based in Wales. Wales has the highest % of organic and in-conversion land as a proportion of the total land of the UK: 5.5%

• There are 2,404 registered organic processing outlets in the UK, 5.2% of which are based in Wales. The number has increased from 112 to 125 (the processors include importers, abattoirs, bakers, stores and wholesalers (updated)

• Direct sales of organic food through box schemes, farmers’ markets and farm shops grew by 54% to £146 million during 2006

• Sales of organic products sold through supermarkets increased by 21% in the same time period 

• Imports of organic produce sold by some supermarkets increased by 1% from 46% in 2003 to 47% in 2005 and reduced to 34% in 2006.

Source: Defra’s statistics January 2007, http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/statistics/index.shtml 

 

About the benefits of organic food

So far, there had only been little evidence on the superiority of organic produce over conventionally grown produce. But things have started to change.

In October last year, new evidence was found showing that organic food was healthier. Indeed, the biggest study ever into organic food (a four-year “Quality Low Input Food” project funded by a £12 million European grant) found that organic produce was more nutritious than ordinary produce.

The project’s team grew fruits, vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent organic and non-organic sites across Europe. In particular, part of the research was carried out on a 725-acre farm in the Tyne valley, which is attached to Newcastle University, where the team systematically investigated produce from the two farming techniques. Findings of the research came from Professor Carlo Leifert, project co-ordinator: “We have shown there are more of certain nutritionally desirable compounds and less of the baddies in organic foods, or improved amounts of the fatty acids you want and less of those you don’t want.” The scientists found that antioxidant levels in organic milk were up to 90 per cent higher than in conventional milk, and that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as 40% more antioxidants. They also had higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc. Professor Leifert said the differences were so marked that organic produce would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. “If you have just 20% more antioxidants and you can’t get your kids to do five a day, then you might just be okay with four a day”.

Overall, the team said the findings called into question the current stance of the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA), which is neither for nor against organic food.

Indeed, despite the research findings, the FSA still does not openly encourage consumption of organic food. In fact, below is what you can read on the FSA’s website:

Is organic food and milk more nutritious?

Consumers may choose to buy organic fruit, vegetables and meat because they believe them to be more nutritious than other food. However, the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view.

Nutrient levels in food vary depending on many different factors. These include freshness, storage conditions, crop variety, soil conditions, weather conditions and how animals are fed. All crops and animals therefore vary in nutrient level to some extent. The available evidence shows that the nutrient levels and the degree of variation are similar in food produced by both organic and conventional agriculture. All processed food, including organic, has a nutrient content that is dependent on the nutrient content of ingoing ingredients, recipe and cooking methods. The impact of processing on nutrient levels will be the same for products made from organically and conventionally produced ingredients.

What about organic milk?
While the nutrient profile of organic milk appears to be different from non-organic milk, care must be taken when drawing conclusions as to the nutritional significance of this. Dairy sources of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids are not a viable alternative to eating oily fish. Milk contains the shorter chain form of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (alpha-linolenic acid), while the forms present in oily fish are the long chain fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acids (DHA)).

Research has shown that the short chain form found in plant and dairy sources does not appear to be as beneficial as those found in oily fish, which have been shown to be protective for cardiovascular disease, and may also have beneficial effects on foetal development. Although the shorter form can be metabolised to the longer forms, in humans the conversion appears limited.

Isn’t there evidence that organic food is safer and more nutricious?

It is true that some scientific papers reach this conclusion. However, others find no difference. As in any field of science, to reach a robust conclusion it is necessary to evaluate the weight of evidence across a range of published papers. Care should be taken over reliance on single papers.

The Agency maintains a close watch on scientific papers that evaluate organic food and will continue to assess new research as it is published.

So, given the new evidence on organic food’s advantages, why does the FSA not encourage its consumption?

This question was asked once again this week, after Lord Krebs’ (former head of the FSA) interview with the Observer newspaper. In this interview, he, again, refused to encourage organic consumption, saying on the opposite that families were getting confused about what was healthy and were not helped by statements from the organic lobby that their produce was healthier than normal foods. He said that parents who wanted their children to eat healthily should focus more on serving them extra fruits and vegetables or on giving them less salt, and less on giving them expensive organic produce.  He repeated that there was no reliable, peer-reviewed evidence to show that there was any clear health benefit to eating this “green” produce 

Of course the Soil Association quickly hit back at those claims that there was no reliable evidence to suggest eating organic was better for you, asserting that “no other food has higher amounts of beneficial minerals, essential amino acids and vitamins than organic food” and quoting recent research.

BUT WHAT SHOULD WE THINK, AS CONSUMERS? WHO’S RIGHT AND WHO’S WRONG? 

As always, the solution lies in compromise and both the Soil Association and Lord Kreb are right in a way.

Defenders of organic produce are probably right to say it is healthier than conventionally grown produce. If you have to choose between an organic apple and a conventionally grown one, the organic one will probably be more nutritious, as research is starting to show.

But there is also truth in the FSA and Lord Kreb’s thoughts. Indeed, I agree that buying organic food should not prevent from adopting a healthier diet. Just because something is labeled organic does not mean it is healthy, especially since nowadays you can find organic Macaroni & Cheese, organic candy bars and so on. Since the basis of healthy diet is before anything else a good balance between meat, fish, fruits and veggies, salt, sugar, etc, can’t we see organic produce as a bonus that will make this diet even healthier?

To conclude, I think we could put this debate into perpective by not forgetting that “health” is not the only motivation for buying organic food. Motivation can also come from the idea of animals having more space to roam and live in generally happier conditions, fruits and vegetables being grown without any risk of dangerous pesticides or insecticides leaking into the environment, etc. There’s a bigger picture to the “healthier or not” debate.

Sources: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/nfood129.xml, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7067226.stm,  http://www.independent.co.uk/money/invest-save/what-effect-will-organic-food-have-on-your-wallet-796117.html, http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/farmingfood/organicfood/#h_9 

American tips on buying organic food

From the American TV channel ABC 4 News together with ShopSmart magasine, nothing really new but some good principles to remember and that can help reduce the end price of your organic purchases:

• Prioritize your purchase: since packaged foods are processed, even if they’re organic, it’s better to focus your organic spending on fresh foods like meat, milk and produce. Remember that certain types of produce retain pesticide residue more than others: if a fruit or vegetable comes with a protective peel, buying organic is less important. So try to invest in organic peaches, apples, nectarines, strawberries, cherries, pears and grapes. Key vegetables to buy organic: lettuce, spinach, celery, potatoes and sweet bell peppers.
• Be aware that misting in the grocery store can spread pesticide residue from conventional produce onto organic produce. So look for displays where the organics are displayed separately.
• You may skip the Natural Foods Store : nowadays many mainstream grocery stores carry organic options.
• Go generic: many grocers now offer their own store brand organics.
• Look for organic items in the bulk bins. It’s often less expensive to buy grains, beans and pasta that way, and you can buy only what you need.
• Have a look at the organic brands’ websites. Some of them offer coupons that can generate substantial savings.
• Remember certain labels aren’t worth the money. For example, the terms “cage free” and “free roaming” on eggs aren’t tightly regulated. And if a product is described as “natural,” that’s only as reliable as the company making the claim. Instead, look for the labels “USDA Organic, ‘Certified Organic” and “100-percent Organic.” Those are claims regulated by the Department of Agriculture and held to a high standard.

 Source: http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0625d95e-d83f-4f72-b4d7-4defc76bec3c