By Julie Ma
The future of urban farming is under construction in Sweden as agricultural design firm Plantagon works to bring a 12-year-old vision to life: The city of Linkoping will soon be home to a 17-story "vertical greenhouse."
The greenhouse will serve as a regenerating food bank, tackling urban sprawl while making the city self-sufficient. Plantagon predicts that growing these plants in the city will make food production less costly both for the environment and for consumers, a key shift as the world's population grows increasingly urban-80 percent of the world's residents will live in cities by 2050, the United Nations estimates. "Essentially, as urban sprawl and lack of land will demand solutions for how to grow industrial volumes in the middle of the city, solutions on this problem have to focus on high yield per ground area used, lack of water, energy, and air to house carbon dioxide," Plantagon CEO Hans Hassle says.
The greenhouse is a conical glass building that uses an internal "transportation helix" to carry potted vegetables around on conveyors. As plants travel around the helix, they rotate for maximum sun exposure. Hassle says the building will use less energy than a traditional greenhouse, take advantage of "spillage heat" energy companies cannot sell, digest waste to produce biogas and plant fertilizers, and decrease carbon dioxide emissions while eliminating the environmental costs of long-distance transportation. And growing plants in a controlled environment will decrease the amount of water, energy, and pesticides needed.
View the Original article
Saturday 31 March 2012
Friday 30 March 2012
Farming Communities Facing Crisis over Nitrate Pollution, Study Says
By Stett Holbrook
Nitrate contamination in groundwater from fertilizer and animal manure is severe and getting worse for hundreds of thousands of residents in California's Central Valley farming communities, according to a study released Tuesday by researchers at the University of California, Davis.
Nearly 10 percent of the 2.6 million people living in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley might be drinking nitrate-contaminated water, researchers found. And if nothing is done to stem the problem, the report warns, nearly 80 percent of residents could be at risk of health and financial problems by 2050.
High nitrate levels in drinking water have been linked to thyroid cancer, skin rashes, hair loss, birth defects and "blue baby syndrome," a potentially fatal blood disorder in infants.
The report is the most comprehensive assessment so far of nitrate contamination in California's agricultural areas.
The problem is much, much, much worse than we thought," said Angela Schroeter, agricultural regulatory program manager for the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, a state water agency.
View the Original article
Nitrate contamination in groundwater from fertilizer and animal manure is severe and getting worse for hundreds of thousands of residents in California's Central Valley farming communities, according to a study released Tuesday by researchers at the University of California, Davis.
Nearly 10 percent of the 2.6 million people living in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley might be drinking nitrate-contaminated water, researchers found. And if nothing is done to stem the problem, the report warns, nearly 80 percent of residents could be at risk of health and financial problems by 2050.
High nitrate levels in drinking water have been linked to thyroid cancer, skin rashes, hair loss, birth defects and "blue baby syndrome," a potentially fatal blood disorder in infants.
The report is the most comprehensive assessment so far of nitrate contamination in California's agricultural areas.
The problem is much, much, much worse than we thought," said Angela Schroeter, agricultural regulatory program manager for the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, a state water agency.
View the Original article
Thursday 29 March 2012
Fifty-Five Members Of Congress Call On FDA To Require Labeling Of Genetically Engineered Foods
Center For Food Safety, This morning a bicameral letter signed by 55 Members of Congress was sent to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg calling on the agency to require the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods. The bicameral, bipartisan letter led by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) was written in support of a legal petition filed by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) on behalf of the Just Label It campaign and its nearly 400 partner organizations and businesses; many health, consumer, environmental, and farming organizations, as well as food companies, are also signatories. Since CFS filed the labeling petition in October 2011, the public has submitted over 850,000 comments in support of labeling.
"Consumers are being misled about the foods they are purchasing," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. "FDA's two-decade old decision is bad policy based on outdated science and must be revoked. The American consumer deserves the same fundamental freedoms and choices of other nations' citizens."
In the U.S. there is overwhelming public demand-consistently near 95%-for the labeling of GE foods. The U.S. policy of not requiring GE labeling makes it a stark outlier among developed and developing nations. Nearly 50 countries have mandatory labeling policies for GE foods including South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, China, Australia, New Zealand, the entire European Union, and many others.
In its 1992 policy statement, FDA allowed GE foods to be marketed without labeling on the basis that they were not "materially" different from other foods. However, the agency severely limited what it considered "material" by targeting only changes in food that could be recognized by taste, smell, or other senses - applying 19th century science to the regulation of 21st century food technologies. The outdated standard has no legal basis in the statute and was adopted by FDA despite a lack of scientific studies or data to support the assumption that GE foods are not materially different from conventional foods.
View the Original article
"Consumers are being misled about the foods they are purchasing," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. "FDA's two-decade old decision is bad policy based on outdated science and must be revoked. The American consumer deserves the same fundamental freedoms and choices of other nations' citizens."
In the U.S. there is overwhelming public demand-consistently near 95%-for the labeling of GE foods. The U.S. policy of not requiring GE labeling makes it a stark outlier among developed and developing nations. Nearly 50 countries have mandatory labeling policies for GE foods including South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, China, Australia, New Zealand, the entire European Union, and many others.
In its 1992 policy statement, FDA allowed GE foods to be marketed without labeling on the basis that they were not "materially" different from other foods. However, the agency severely limited what it considered "material" by targeting only changes in food that could be recognized by taste, smell, or other senses - applying 19th century science to the regulation of 21st century food technologies. The outdated standard has no legal basis in the statute and was adopted by FDA despite a lack of scientific studies or data to support the assumption that GE foods are not materially different from conventional foods.
View the Original article
Wednesday 28 March 2012
Marin's Organic War on Pests
By Nels Johnson
Veteran county landscape chief David Hattem and his colleagues are waging a nontoxic war against pests, armed with weeding gloves, mulch, custom vermin traps, rodent-hunting owls and other organic weapons including predatory insects.
You could hardly see the 2,000 tiny encarsia formosa stingless wasp pupae, or the 1,000 delphastus catalinae beetles Hattem spread in the foliage and interior gardens inside the Marin County Civic Center on Thursday. They joined 250 cryptolaemus beetles released in the building a couple weeks ago.
The predatory critters feast on white flies and mealybugs while posing no harm to workers, visitors or gardens. It was the third time in a year that bugs have been unleashed to combat other bugs at the Civic Center.
Hattem's crew in the past year also battled an invasion of sow bugs at the county jail with organic "Eco Exempt" products, erected owl nesting boxes at the Civic Center, deployed several dozen custom box rat traps with small entry holes that block other animals, pulled weeds by hand and installed "sheets" of mulch to repel invasive plant growth.
It's all part of the county's award-winning integrated pest management program that has become a national model of how to curb weeds, rats, wasps, garden bugs and related pests without harming the environment. The goal is to minimize use of chemicals while eliminating use of toxic material whenever possible.
View the Original article
Veteran county landscape chief David Hattem and his colleagues are waging a nontoxic war against pests, armed with weeding gloves, mulch, custom vermin traps, rodent-hunting owls and other organic weapons including predatory insects.
You could hardly see the 2,000 tiny encarsia formosa stingless wasp pupae, or the 1,000 delphastus catalinae beetles Hattem spread in the foliage and interior gardens inside the Marin County Civic Center on Thursday. They joined 250 cryptolaemus beetles released in the building a couple weeks ago.
The predatory critters feast on white flies and mealybugs while posing no harm to workers, visitors or gardens. It was the third time in a year that bugs have been unleashed to combat other bugs at the Civic Center.
Hattem's crew in the past year also battled an invasion of sow bugs at the county jail with organic "Eco Exempt" products, erected owl nesting boxes at the Civic Center, deployed several dozen custom box rat traps with small entry holes that block other animals, pulled weeds by hand and installed "sheets" of mulch to repel invasive plant growth.
It's all part of the county's award-winning integrated pest management program that has become a national model of how to curb weeds, rats, wasps, garden bugs and related pests without harming the environment. The goal is to minimize use of chemicals while eliminating use of toxic material whenever possible.
View the Original article
Tuesday 27 March 2012
Regional Democrats urge FDA to label GMOs
By Jason Hoppin
Santa Cruz - Highlighting a growing issue in California and across the county, a group of 55 Democratic lawmakers on Monday urged the Food and Drug Administration to require the labeling of genetically modified foods.
A letter sent to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg endorses the approach taken by a group of environmentalists, food labeling advocates and organic food producers who are petitioning the agency to reverse a 20-year-old, hands-off policy toward alerting consumers to genetically altered foods.
"Two decades later, I think we've seen a shift in consumer dialogue. People want more information," said Colin O'Neil, a regulatory policy analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Food Safety, who praised the letter.
In 1992, the FDA declined to label genetically altered food, reasoning that if it looks, smells and tastes similar to non-modified foods, no label was needed. But later FDA rulings - including one dealing with irradiated food - have taken a stricter line and called for more disclosure.
"At issue is the fundamental right consumers have to make informed choices about the food they eat," the lawmakers' letter reads. "Labeling foods doesn't imply a product is unsafe or will be confusing to consumers as some may argue."
FDA officials could not be immediately reached for comment. More than four dozen countries require labels on genetically altered food.
The letter was signed by both California's U.S. Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and 14 Democratic members of Congress, including Reps. Anna Eshoo, of Palo Alto, and Sam Farr, of Carmel, the latter of whom represents the fertile Salinas and Pajaro valleys.
The federal petition is separate from a statewide initiative now circulating to put food labeling on the November ballot. The California effort would slap a general label on any genetically modified food, while the FDA petition aims to note which specific ingredients have been modified.
View the Original article
Santa Cruz - Highlighting a growing issue in California and across the county, a group of 55 Democratic lawmakers on Monday urged the Food and Drug Administration to require the labeling of genetically modified foods.
A letter sent to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg endorses the approach taken by a group of environmentalists, food labeling advocates and organic food producers who are petitioning the agency to reverse a 20-year-old, hands-off policy toward alerting consumers to genetically altered foods.
"Two decades later, I think we've seen a shift in consumer dialogue. People want more information," said Colin O'Neil, a regulatory policy analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Food Safety, who praised the letter.
In 1992, the FDA declined to label genetically altered food, reasoning that if it looks, smells and tastes similar to non-modified foods, no label was needed. But later FDA rulings - including one dealing with irradiated food - have taken a stricter line and called for more disclosure.
"At issue is the fundamental right consumers have to make informed choices about the food they eat," the lawmakers' letter reads. "Labeling foods doesn't imply a product is unsafe or will be confusing to consumers as some may argue."
FDA officials could not be immediately reached for comment. More than four dozen countries require labels on genetically altered food.
The letter was signed by both California's U.S. Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and 14 Democratic members of Congress, including Reps. Anna Eshoo, of Palo Alto, and Sam Farr, of Carmel, the latter of whom represents the fertile Salinas and Pajaro valleys.
The federal petition is separate from a statewide initiative now circulating to put food labeling on the November ballot. The California effort would slap a general label on any genetically modified food, while the FDA petition aims to note which specific ingredients have been modified.
View the Original article
Monday 26 March 2012
Organic Produce from China: Can You Trust it?
By Deborah Kotz
A few days ago, my mother forwarded me a link to a local TV news report accusing Whole Foods of selling organic frozen vegetables, under its 365 brand, that were picked and packaged in China -- including one called California Blend. While some Chinese farmers, no doubt, stick to guidelines for growing organic by curtailing their use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, many may not, and it's tough for a consumer to discern from the packaging, according to Charles Benbrook, chief scientist of the non-profit Organic Center.
I stopped by Whole Foods today and found frozen organic edamame that came from China -- see the photo of the product above -- but was unable to find other frozen vegetables from China.
Whole Foods spokesperson Heather McCready told me via e-mail that the company was well aware of the "misleading and inaccurate" news report that first ran in May 2008.
"As of the summer of 2010, we are no longer sourcing any of our Whole Foods Market 365 Everyday Value frozen vegetables from China EXCEPT for frozen edamame (shelled and unshelled, organic and conventional)," McCready wrote. "We want to be clear that we didn't stop sourcing from China because of quality or food safety concerns."
Whole Foods said it was a business decision made after finding other suppliers in the United States and elsewhere that could supply the same or better quality at cheaper prices.
I did notice that several packages of the store's organic frozen vegetables were packaged in Mexico and wondered how much trust consumers can put into organic seals from other countries. In the United States, the organic seal falls under the regulation of the US Department of Agriculture with strict standards on the use of artificial chemicals, irradiation, and genetic engineering. That seal can also be used for foods packaged in other countries that have US accredited inspectors.
View the Original article
A few days ago, my mother forwarded me a link to a local TV news report accusing Whole Foods of selling organic frozen vegetables, under its 365 brand, that were picked and packaged in China -- including one called California Blend. While some Chinese farmers, no doubt, stick to guidelines for growing organic by curtailing their use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, many may not, and it's tough for a consumer to discern from the packaging, according to Charles Benbrook, chief scientist of the non-profit Organic Center.
I stopped by Whole Foods today and found frozen organic edamame that came from China -- see the photo of the product above -- but was unable to find other frozen vegetables from China.
Whole Foods spokesperson Heather McCready told me via e-mail that the company was well aware of the "misleading and inaccurate" news report that first ran in May 2008.
"As of the summer of 2010, we are no longer sourcing any of our Whole Foods Market 365 Everyday Value frozen vegetables from China EXCEPT for frozen edamame (shelled and unshelled, organic and conventional)," McCready wrote. "We want to be clear that we didn't stop sourcing from China because of quality or food safety concerns."
Whole Foods said it was a business decision made after finding other suppliers in the United States and elsewhere that could supply the same or better quality at cheaper prices.
I did notice that several packages of the store's organic frozen vegetables were packaged in Mexico and wondered how much trust consumers can put into organic seals from other countries. In the United States, the organic seal falls under the regulation of the US Department of Agriculture with strict standards on the use of artificial chemicals, irradiation, and genetic engineering. That seal can also be used for foods packaged in other countries that have US accredited inspectors.
View the Original article
Sunday 25 March 2012
Fake Meat America Could Love by Tom Philpott
By Tom Philpott
I've always recoiled from highly processed and packaged fake meat: you know, turkeyesque tofu logs for the holiday table, or pink, spongy "not-dogs" for the summer grill. But in last Sunday's New York Times, Mark Bittman raised a provocative question:
Isn't it preferable, at least some of the time, to eat plant products mixed with water that have been put through a thingamajiggy that spews out meatlike stuff, instead of eating those same plant products put into a chicken that does its biomechanical thing for the six weeks of its miserable existence, only to have its throat cut in the service of yielding barely distinguishable meat? Why, in other words, use the poor chicken as a machine to produce meat when you can use a machine to produce "meat" that seems like chicken?
Bittman's point is spot-on. You can't directly eat the kind of corn and soy that dominates US farmland-it isn't readily digestible. Modern livestock farms are really factories for turning those crops into animal flesh that can be transformed into steaks, chops, wings, nuggets, and whatnot. And in doing so, Bittman points out, factory farms rack up enormous collateral damage: horrific suffering for sentient creatures, huge stores of manure that can't be safely recycled into soil, over-reliance on antibiotics, routine abuse of labor in factory-scale slaughterhouses, and more.
It's especially tragic, then, the meat produced in these factories is pretty flavorless, especially if you've tasted a truly free-range chicken against a factory one, or a grass-fed burger alongside its feedlot analogue. So why, Bittman asks, not leave the birds, hogs, and cows out of it and just directly consume the feed crops after they've been processed to taste something like meat? By doing do, you sacrifice little or no flavor, while sidelining a whole raft of destructive practices.
Bittman points to a company called Savage River Farms that has produced a soy-based product that mimics chicken, down to the way it shreds. Bittman says he couldn't tell it from real chicken when he was served a burrito made with it.
View the Original article
I've always recoiled from highly processed and packaged fake meat: you know, turkeyesque tofu logs for the holiday table, or pink, spongy "not-dogs" for the summer grill. But in last Sunday's New York Times, Mark Bittman raised a provocative question:
Isn't it preferable, at least some of the time, to eat plant products mixed with water that have been put through a thingamajiggy that spews out meatlike stuff, instead of eating those same plant products put into a chicken that does its biomechanical thing for the six weeks of its miserable existence, only to have its throat cut in the service of yielding barely distinguishable meat? Why, in other words, use the poor chicken as a machine to produce meat when you can use a machine to produce "meat" that seems like chicken?
Bittman's point is spot-on. You can't directly eat the kind of corn and soy that dominates US farmland-it isn't readily digestible. Modern livestock farms are really factories for turning those crops into animal flesh that can be transformed into steaks, chops, wings, nuggets, and whatnot. And in doing so, Bittman points out, factory farms rack up enormous collateral damage: horrific suffering for sentient creatures, huge stores of manure that can't be safely recycled into soil, over-reliance on antibiotics, routine abuse of labor in factory-scale slaughterhouses, and more.
It's especially tragic, then, the meat produced in these factories is pretty flavorless, especially if you've tasted a truly free-range chicken against a factory one, or a grass-fed burger alongside its feedlot analogue. So why, Bittman asks, not leave the birds, hogs, and cows out of it and just directly consume the feed crops after they've been processed to taste something like meat? By doing do, you sacrifice little or no flavor, while sidelining a whole raft of destructive practices.
Bittman points to a company called Savage River Farms that has produced a soy-based product that mimics chicken, down to the way it shreds. Bittman says he couldn't tell it from real chicken when he was served a burrito made with it.
View the Original article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)