For decades, we’ve relied on antibiotics to treat infection. In a scary turn of events, however, we’re finding that when used improperly, these drugs are ineffective or can even worsen the problem by creating “superbugs” — bacteria that have become antibiotic-resistant. 

Probably the most egregious example of improper antibiotic use comes from the livestock industry. Some 70 percent of total antibiotic use occurs in the livestock industry to speed growth and ward off disease, and some in the medical community are warning that we’re headed for disaster. Antibiotics are routinely used whether the animals are sick or not — breaking the first and most important rule of protecting antibiotic efficacy. 

Enter Rep. Louise Slaughter’s H.R. 1549/S.619: The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009. The bill is designed to prevent the agricultural use of antibiotics important to human health unless the animals are sick. 

Livestock organizations such as the United States Cattlemen’s Association state that if passed, American producers could no longer compete with foreign markets and our meat would have to be imported. Opponents claim that at the very least, meat prices would skyrocket to offset the increased costs experienced by producers. 

Supporters of the bill maintain that antibiotic resistance adds millions to healthcare costs — $4 to $5 billion per year, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts. The group also states that 300,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths are caused by food contaminated by dangerous pathogens and bacteria such as Salmonella and E. Coli each year, and these bugs are becoming increasingly antibiotic-resistant. 

What do you think?  Do you support this legislation? Let us know your thoughts.

Photo by iStockphoto

If you’ve ever found yourself thinking that we’re overly critical of factory farms, take a moment to read this nauseating profile of Smithfield Foods’ hog farms from Rolling Stone magazine. 

Author Jeff Tietz reports that “Smithfield estimates that its total sales will reach $11.4 billion this year. So prodigious is its fecal waste, however, that if the company treated its effluvia as big-city governments do — even if it came marginally close to that standard — it would lose money.” That’s a lot of poop, people. 

The article goes on to tell about farms littered with pig carcasses (as many as ten percent of factory-farm hogs die before slaughter due to the conditions in which they live, according to one study), and about people succumbing to the fumes from hog waste lagoons. Lagoons, which, according to Tietz, contain a combination of toxic substances such as ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, cyanide, phosphorous, nitrates and heavy metals (not to mention  your typical gut-wrenchers: salmonella, cryptosporidium, streptocolli and giardia). 

If, like any good capitalist, you want to send Smithfield a message by avoiding its products, here’s a list of brands that sell their meat. What is Paula Deen thinking, ya’ll?

Photo by iStockphoto/Bruce Works

You’ll read here and there these days that industrial agriculture is more environmentally friendly than organic agriculture or traditional, diverse farming practices.

The writer is, almost without exception, someone who makes a living, directly or indirectly, from industrial agriculture. That doesn’t change the fact that they are, in their reasoning, perfectly correct. Industrial agriculture pollutes in ways organic and traditional growers do not, but its efficiency also creates environmental benefits.

As humanity’s population grows and we sprawl across the planet’s empty spaces, the efficiency of our food production becomes more and more important. As much as I believe in organics and grass-feeding, I don’t believe that I can produce 100 calories of soybeans or a pound of hamburger in a smaller space than the industrial farmer. I need more room, and generally more time, to do what I do.

If I have a hungry world to feed and I feel a sense of urgency, then it’s time to cultivate, irrigate and spray. It’s time for genetic engineering, herbicides and artificial fertilizers. That’s the way to produce the maximum amount of food using the minimum time and space.

I’m not talking about sustainability. I’m talking about efficiency.

Our toughest philosophical problem these days is what I call the Austerity Conundrum. A lot of people believe in human dominion and unfettered expansion. That leads us to a world in which we will, eventually, have minimal resources available to each person. We can’t expand production forever, so if we continue expanding demand we end up stretching our resources thin. It’s a grim certainty.

Unfortunately, many of our conservation efforts lead us to more or less the same conclusion.  When conservationists suggest that everyone should ride bicycles and that no human being should use more than five squares of toilet paper per session, they are tacitly endorsing the goal of maximum human efficiency, a goal that willfully averts the gaze from the underlying issue of population growth.

This is not to discredit the power and beauty of the conservation movement. Conservation ignites the human imagination. An aesthetic of simplicity is inherently a part of the spiritual practice of frugality and generosity. What we, as individuals, do not consume will be consumed by other living things. And the planet will benefit from our stewardship.

But our logic is flawed if we believe efficiency will solve our puzzles.

The only sustainable human future is a stable human future – a future in which both our population and our consumption are stabilized. While we focus on efficiency we ignore more compelling issues.

ISTOCKPHOTO/LILLIDAY

Look out filthy, disease-ridden factory farms: There’s a new kid in town. An organization has surfaced to restore law and order, Wyatt Earp/Dodge City-style. 

The Center to Expose and Close Animal Factories (CECAF) was launched April 30, with the objective to “achieve safe, sensible, and sustainable farming and ranching in America through policy development, public education, corporate pressure, community forums and advocacy partnerships.” The launch of this group couldn’t be more appropriate, considering that a Smithfield Foods swine operation is rumored to be ground zero in the recent H1N1 swine flu outbreak. 

Attorneys and co-founders Charlie Speer and Richard Middleton plan to use the experience they gained from the more than 300 lawsuits they helped bring against industrial agriculture giants to mobilize communities in opposition of factory farms, which it says endangers the health of both humans and the environment. With an armory of regulatory, legal and legislative tools, CECAF is on a mission to end the inhumane and dangerous practices of confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.   

Don't forget to sign up to receive e-mail updates on CECAF's progress. 

Let’s address the elephant (or should I say “pig”) in the room: Across the globe, illness is spreading due to completely avoidable circumstances. The link between factory farms and H1N1 is clear. While no one can blame the hog industry for asking the World Health Organization to change the name of the illness to H1N1 (the virus contains swine, avian and human components), I have a really hard time not blaming them for the current epidemic, as well as each and every one of those deaths.   

In fact, some believe the virus can be traced directly to a Smithfield Foods hog farm. Read more on the topic in this piece, “Swine Flu Outbreak Could Be Linked to Smithfield Factory Farms” from Grist. 

Today the Cornucopia Institute issued an alert, calling to action its troops in support of organic and sustainable agriculture. Three bills have been introduced to Congress (HR 875, 759 and 1322), all designed to strengthen our country’s food safety system, but all falling short. 

Like the Organic Consumers Association, the Cornucopia institute was quick to point out that none of the bills are backhanded attempts from agriculture giants to cripple organic producers, as many have been led to believe. (Read HR 875: No Need for Alarm ... Yet.) But they do urge you to visit their website to read up on the bills, and contact your representatives to make your opinions known. As always, sample message wording and contact info for members of Congress are supplied — it will take a matter of minutes to make a big difference!

ISTOCKPHOTO/MARGITA BRAZE

The bill is designed to address inadequacies in our food safety system, but it doesn’t create controls specifically for filthy factory farms. Instead it applies the typical one-size-fits-all regulations on the entire industry, which almost always spells trouble for small producers who don’t have the extra funds to implement them. 

You can learn more about the bill, OCA’s stance, and tell your representatives that revisions are needed through this handy tool. Simply plug in your zip code and all the work is done for you! Speak out for organic farming.

ISTOCKPHOTO/Dave Hughes

An announcement from our friends at The Pew Charitable Trusts:  

LEGISLATION TO HELP CURTAIL OVERUSE OF ANTIBIOTICS ON FACTORY FARMS TO BE INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS

Chipotle CEO joins Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and leading antibiotic expert to discuss the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009 

Nearly one year after the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production recommended that America reform the way food animals are raised, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) will reintroduce on Tuesday, March 17, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009 (PAMTA). The bill will seek the withdrawal of antibiotics important to human health from use on factory farms unless animals are sick. Medical experts agree that the misuse of antibiotics in industrial farming directly contributes to a dramatic rise in antibiotic-resistant infections in humans. The news media have also weighed in on the issue, including in an op-ed today from columnist Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times. 

According to estimates by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 50 million pounds of antibiotics — nearly 70 percent of all antibiotics sold in the United States — have been used in food animals for purposes other than treating disease since PAMTA was last introduced two years ago. Antibiotics are commonly fed to entire flocks or herds in their daily feed or water to compensate for overcrowded, often unsanitary conditions and to promote weight gain, giving rise to new strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. At the same time, few new antibiotics are entering the market to take the place of ineffective ones. The Food and Drug Administration last approved a new antibiotic for humans in 2003. 

The Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming is joining the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, and countless others in working to protect human health by eliminating the misuse of antibiotics in food animals. To learn more, visit www.saveantibiotics.org.   

The National Animal Identification System — what exactly will it mean for small- and medium-size farmers? By now you’ve likely heard our thoughts on the subject (in The Truth About the Animal ID Plan, and Speak Out Against NAIS), but here’s a number-crunching look at how NAIS will affect New York farmer Shannon Hayes, from yesterday’s op-ed in The New York Times.

A familiar scene: You’re standing at the refrigerated case in the supermarket, staring at a carton of eggs and trying your best to remember if it was “free range” or “cage free” that most benefitted the birds and produced the healthiest eggs. Good news: Sustainable Table has created a handy wallet-size reference card to eliminate the confusion surrounding the multitude of meat label claims we’re faced with these days. Just print and fold the card, and be sure to have it with you when grocery shopping to help you decipher the true meaning behind claims like natural, hormone-free, artisan, grass-fed and many more. 

Not sure what the label “biodynamic” means, if anything? Just whip out your glossary card and decide for sure if it truly is a premium product that’s worth that premium price tag.  

Happy shopping!

DON BAYLEY/ISTOCKPHOTO

PHOTO BY BRYAN WELCH

The first “green revolution” has not been an unqualified success. It’s had its downsides. Farmers have generally stopped raising their own food as production has shifted to “monocultural” crops with global market value. So, when economies decline and geopolitical structures teeter, farmers are in the same dire straits as everyone else. They have, largely, surrendered their ability to live off their land or to supply their own communities with a balanced diet. The visionary scientist Wes Jackson[1] describes modern agricultural economies as “brittle.” When an entire region depends on a single product — say corn — and an unusual weather pattern devastates the corn crop one year, the region’s economy is also devastated. Most modern farmers don’t even raise their own vegetable gardens.

Pesticides, herbicides and industrial fertilizers pollute water supplies and destroy wildlife. Even as the White House and the Ford Foundation were trumpeting industrial agriculture’s achievements, Rachel Carson was taking note of the sudden decline of wildlife around the world where pesticides were used. New health problems proliferated in farming communities around the world. According to the National Cancer Institute within the U.S. National Institutes of Health, farm workers face unusually high incidence of leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma, soft tissue sarcomas, and cancers of the skin, lip, stomach, brain and prostate.[2]

The bare earth between the rows of corn or soybeans erodes in the absence of the root structures and decomposing plant matter that enrich undisturbed soils. Plant varieties are developed to maximize the nutrition derived from every square meter. As that nutrition is pulled from the soil and trucked away to feed human beings and livestock, the soil is depleted and the crops are increasingly dependent on artificial fertilizers. Those fertilizers are specifically designed to benefit the crops immediately, and have no lasting positive impact. The soil is, gradually, robbed of its natural assets.

Furthermore, there’s good evidence that, as we’ve increased the productivity of our farmland, we’ve also made our food less nutritious. Some studies suggest that up to 75 percent of the natural minerals we would expect to find in a piece of fruit or a bowl of spinach may be missing if our fruits and vegetables are grown with aggressive industrial agricultural practices. [3]

The next president of the United States will have a lot on his plate. Energy, the economy, foreign relations, healthcare … these may be the main dishes on the current political agenda menu, but it would be a very bad idea to overlook another that seems to be simmering on the back burner: food policy. 

Many thanks to Michael Pollan, who pointed this out in an excellent letter published in The New York Times Magazine. In it he urges the president-elect to consider a food garden on the White House Lawn and rethink the subsidies that are shaping the current landscape of industrial agriculture. He urges our future “farmer in chief” to decentralize our food system, thus increasing the security and safety of our food. Most importantly, he identifies the connection between a sound food policy and high-profile issues such as healthcare, energy independence and climate change. 

Take a look! This is a comprehensive plan from someone who really knows their stuff.

Photo by ISTOCKPHOTO/Melih Kesmen

OK, we know all about the genetically engineered corn, rice and soybeans, but a GE cow? It’s true, the FDA is taking public comment on the regulation of altering animal DNA in an attempt to increase their resistance to diseases such as BSE and produce healthier food products, such as meat with increased levels of omega-3 fatty acids. That doesn’t sound that bad, does it? But wait, that’s not all: Scientists also want to alter animals’ genetics to make them more susceptible to diseases that affect humans (such as cancer) for the purpose of research. How about a hypoallergenic pet? That’s also on the table. Need an organ transplant? We’ll have an animal that’s been engineered for that, too. They’re even wanting animals to produce human pharmaceuticals such as insulin. 

If these animals are approved for the food system (they’re not, yet), the FDA states plainly that it will not be required to label the products that contain them. 

Read more about the proposal and make your comments here.  

For centuries now Dr. Thomas Robert Malthus has been, on and off, an object of derision because people associate him, unfairly, with predictions of a doomsday scenario in which humanity should long ago have suffered a population catastrophe. In fact, that wasn’t part of his fundamental thesis. He was, explicitly, putting a bee in the bonnets of the enlightenment philosophers who visualized a Utopian future for humanity in which every individual would have enough to eat. Malthus suggested that wouldn’t be achieved as long as population growth continued apace and, indeed, he seems to have been proven right by the events of the intervening centuries.

He was wrong about the arithmetic increase of the food supply. We’ve managed to make food supplies increase geometrically. Even so, someone is always starving.

In Robert Heinlein’s science-fiction novel, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,”[1] one of his characters warns, “It is never safe to laugh at Dr. Malthus; he always has the last laugh.”

Those who want to take the risk and discredit Malthus might nevertheless point to two “green revolutions.” The first one came during the 20^th century when new science helped create sudden, astonishing growth in our food supply. In 1968 William Gaud, former director of the United States Agency for International Development called the achievement a “green revolution”[2] in a speech. He believed that the growth in our agricultural productivity would revolutionize human life worldwide. In fact, we did increase food production to keep up with worldwide population growth. The innovation that made this agricultural revolution possible was funded by wealthy nations like the U.S. who were concerned that famine in nearby poor nations, like Mexico, could threaten economic security.[3] U.S. Vice President Henry Wallace, The Rockefeller Foundation and Mexican President Manuel Avila Camacho got the wheels turning. The Ford Foundation and others soon pitched in to provide money to scientists who were working to increase food supplies. The production of cereal grains in developing nations more than doubled between 1961 and 1985.[4] In places like Mexico and India the gains were orders of magnitude more impressive.

Still, true to Malthus’ predictions, poverty and famine persisted. We fed a lot of people, but we never managed to feed everyone. Throughout the last quarter of the 20^th century the newspaper stories about mountainous piles of surplus grain in North America routinely ran side-by-wide with stories about starving multitudes in Africa.

The battle has begun: On August 13 the organization known as Yes on Prop 2 — Californians for Humane Farms filed a suit in federal district court against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Egg Board (AEB) for what they call the “unlawful expenditure of $3 million in federal funds.” 

Proposition 2 is a ballot initiative in California to outlaw extreme confinement of livestock, such as gestation crates for swine or battery cages for poultry, to be voted on this November. The trouble began when the Humane Society of the United States found that the AEB approved the $3 million in checkoff funds to fight the initiative. Because it’s illegal to use checkoff funds for political purposes (they are essentially taxes collected from livestock producers to fund research, education and marketing of a particular commodity), the AEB and USDA claim that their use of the funds is to educate Californians about current farming practices. That’s not what internal documents obtained by the Humane Society indicated, however.

Read the press release from the Humane Society here, and details about the situation along with correspondence between the Humane Society and the USDA/AEB here.

I guess we’ll see what the judge has to say.