Agribiz BFF Bill Northey Defeats Reformer Francis Thicke for Iowa Ag Secretary

Republican Bill Northey was reelected Iowa secretary of agriculture, defeating organic farmer Francis Thicke 63 to 37 percent, despite being roundly criticized for his handling of the Wright County Farms 500 million salmonella-tainted egg fiasco.

As I wrote here in September, if Thicke (pronounced "TICK-ee") managed to unseat Northey, it would have been a huge win not only for sustainable agriculture in Iowa, but for the nation as we begin gearing up for the next Farm Bill. "The triumph of a reform candidate like Francis Thicke would demonstrate to Washington that a change in agricultural policy would in fact be welcome in much of the farm belt," Michael Pollan, food-system journalist and UC Berkeley professor, told me by email.

Well, with a margin that wide, it's safe to say that the opposite message has been sent. Agricultural reform may have been collateral damage from a different kind of cultural war, however: Iowa voters turned out in droves to remove three state Supreme Court judges who had ruled that same-sex marriage was legal. But while they also elected a Republican governor, they mysteriously voted in three Democratic congressmen in contested districts and approved an environmentalist-backed constitutional amendment.

The ag-sec race seems to have been about preserving the status quo. Incumbent Northey is a fourth-generation corn and soybean farmer whose reelection campaign was endorsed by the Iowa Farm Bureau (his grandfather was its president) and also, at the last minute, a Democratic Party power broker and former Monsanto lawyer. Thicke, meanwhile, was endorsed by such sustainable agriculture bigwigs as Pollan, Wendell Berry, Wes Jackson, and former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower, along with Robert Kennedy, Jr. -- which may have ended up hurting him in the eyes of Iowa voters.

View the Original article

Plenty Of Foods Harbor BPA, Study Finds

Some communities have banned the sale of plastic baby bottles and sippy cups manufactured using bisphenol A, a hormone-mimicking chemical. In a few grocery stores, cashiers have already begun donning gloves to avoid handling thermal receipt paper out of fear its BPA-based surface coating may rub off on the fingers. But how's a family to avoid exposure to this contaminant when it taints the food supply?

It's a question many people may start asking in response to data posted online November 1 in Environmental Science & Technology by a team of university and government scientists. Indeed, the last author on the paper is Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

In recent years, she's teamed up with toxicologist Arnold Schecter of the University of Texas School of Public Health on market-basket analyses of foods for various potentially toxic pollutants. Like Birnbaum, Schecter initially gained renown for studying dioxins. Now, both have moved into the BPA arena.

In their team's new paper, the Texas contingent locally purchased three samples of each of 31 types of canned or plastic-packaged foods. Another four examples of fresh meat and eight different types of pet food were also collected. All were analyzed for BPA - and 60 percent of the different food products hosted measurable quantities. Ironically, pet food contained less of the pollutant than did most of the items destined for human consumption.

View the Original article

Where Has All The Water Gone?

Mankind is moving buckets and buckets of water from land to the ocean.

Sometimes science moves slowly and sometimes quickly. This is an instance of quick.

A couple of weeks ago TheGreenGrok covered a paper by Tajdarul Syed of the University of California, Irvine, et al who used hydrologic data to estimate the rates at which water flowed from the continents to the sea. They found that the rate rose over the study period from 1994 to 2006 and that the strongest component of that increase was an increase in evaporation over the ocean. The authors noted that such trends, if they continue into the future, would be evidence of an intensification of the hydrologic cycle, in which increased evaporation over the ocean leads to increased precipitation over the continents and subsequently more river discharge into the ocean.

While I had some reservations about the study -- recognizing, as the authors did, that the time period wasn't sufficiently long enough to draw conclusions about changes in the hydrologic cycle, and finding there were uncertainties in the numbers they derived -- I generally saw the paper as but another confirmation of the fact that our climate is changing. (To be clear, the findings of Syed et al were and are in no way central to the climate change issue but in line with it.)

But a new piece of the puzzle has been added with a report just out in the journal Geophysical Research Letters by Yoshihide Wada of Utrecht University in the Netherlands and colleagues. And that new piece calls into question the conclusions of Syed et al.

The Wada et al paper is about groundwater, but before we get to the specifics, a little background.

View the Original article

What the Midterms Mean for Federal Ag-Policy Reform

The House and Senate ag committees, that two-headed monster that dominates federal ag policy, both have a new look after the midterms.

In short, the Senate committee is getting a new chair, while the rest of it remains largely the same. The House committee's transformation is much deeper -- not only has it shifted from Democratic to Republican leadership, but more than a third of its members were ousted by the electorate.

What does this mean for farm policy ahead of looming 2012 Farm Bill negotiations? First, the details.

The Senate: Power struggle at the top

Senate Committee chair Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), a Blue-Dog Democrat with fierce loyalty to her state's industrial meat and cotton interests, is out (as expected).

Associated Press is reporting that her likely successor is either Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) or Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), the subject of speculation last week, now has only an "outside chance" of grabbing the gavel, AP reports.


View the Original article

Reducing Urban Water Use Around the World with Compost Toilets

Theodore Roosevelt once noted that "civilized people ought to know how to dispose of the sewage in some other way than putting it into the drinking water." But that's what we're still doing every day.

The one-time use of water to disperse human and industrial wastes is an outmoded practice, made obsolete by new technologies and water shortages. Yet it is still common around much of the world. Water enters a city, becomes contaminated with human and industrial wastes, and leaves the city dangerously polluted. Toxic industrial wastes discharged into rivers and lakes or into wells also permeate aquifers, making water -- both surface and underground -- unsafe for drinking.

The current engineering concept for dealing with human waste is to use vast quantities of water to wash it away, preferably into a sewer system, where it may or may not be treated before being discharged into the local river. The "flush and forget" system takes nutrients originating in the soil and typically dumps them into the nearest body of water. Not only are the nutrients lost from agriculture, but the nutrient overload has contributed to the death of many rivers and to the formation of some 405 "dead zones" in ocean coastal regions. This outdated system is expensive and water-intensive, disrupts the nutrient cycle, and can be a major source of disease and death. Worldwide, poor sanitation and personal hygiene claim the lives of some 2 million children per year, a toll that is one-third the size of the 6 million lives claimed by hunger and malnutrition.

Sunita Narain of the Center for Science and Environment in India argues convincingly that a water-based disposal system with sewage treatment facilities is neither environmentally nor economically viable for India. She notes that an Indian family of five, producing 250 liters of excrement in a year and using a water flush toilet, contaminates 150,000 liters of water when washing away its wastes.


View the Original article

How Lead Gets Into Urban Vegetable Gardens

If you're a vegetable gardener in a lot of older cities, there's a fair chance you have a significant amount of lead in your soil. One common mitigation approach is to build a raised bed and fill it with freshly composted, low-lead soil from elsewhere, right? Maybe not, according to researchers studying the mysterious case of the lead contamination found within raised beds in community gardens in the Boston communities of Roxbury and Dorchester.

"Raised beds are surrounded by a sea of contaminated soil," said Daniel Brabander of Wellesley College. Brabander, his students and colleagues have been studying the lead in 144 backyard gardens in coordination with The Food Project, an organization committed to food security, nutrition and sustainable urban agriculture. Eighty-one percent of the gardens they studied were found to have lead levels above the U.S. EPA limits of 400 micrograms of lead per gram (µg/g) of soil.

To solve that problem, raised wooden beds with freshly composted soil were installed in backyard and community gardens by the Food Project. But the researchers have found that the soil in raised beds that starts with as little as 110 micrograms of lead per gram of soil rose to an average of 336 µg/g of lead in just four years.

Just how this is happening is the focus of a Nov. 1 presentation by Emily Estes at the meeting of the Geological Society of America in Denver.

"We're trying to get a better handle on the mode of transport and the source," said Estes. That means some pretty detailed monitoring and chemical analyses of the minerals in the soils as well as the kind of lead that's in the soil.


View the Original article

USDA Issues Draft Environmental Assessment of GM Sugar Beets

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) of genetically modified sugar beets, including an option to permit planting of the beets under certain conditions.

A federal district judge ruled in August that the planting of GM sugar beets should be halted until the USDA completes an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), expected to be completed by the end of May 2012. However, the USDA said that it would allow limited planting of the sugar beets while the EIS was prepared and issued permits to four companies, which are understood to have already planted seedlings to produce seed for the 2012 crop - a move that the court ruled was illegal last month.

The USDA said its EA has been drafted in response to a request from KWS SAAT AG and Monsanto - currently the only supplier of GM sugar beets - for administrative action to allow continued cultivation of Roundup Ready sugar beets under certain conditions.

Deputy administrator for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service APHIS biotechnology regulatory services Michael Gregoire said in a statement: "APHIS takes its role in protecting plant health very seriously and is well aware of the importance of this decision for sugar beet growers and processors. We are issuing this environmental assessment to share our decision-making process as transparently as possible and allow for public comment."

Three alternatives

The draft EA puts forward three alternatives: Deny the request for partial deregulation or similar action, halting production until the EIS is completed; authorize production under APHIS-imposed conditions to limit potential plant pest risks; or allow partial deregulation "under conditions imposed by Monsanto/KWS through technology stewardship agreements, contracts or other legal instruments."

Under this third alternative, APHIS would no longer regulate Roundup Ready sugar beets. 


View the Original article