WWOOFing in Costa Rica

I am so excited! After learning all of these things about food production I actually get to be a part of it! This January, three friends and I are going to Costa Rica to work on organic farms for two weeks.

Just yesterday we got our confirmations back for our spots at the farms, and so we are all set to go!

The first place we are going is called Rainsong Sanctuary . It is on the southern tip of the Nicoya Peninsula, on the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica. It is actually an animal sanctuary, so we will be working with animals there in addition to "learning tropical gardening (biodynamic, permaculture, co-creative)." A contact in Costa Rica said that this is an absolutely gorgeous place to be. 

The second place we are going is called Finca La Flor (or Flower Farm) in the Orosi valley about 1.5 hours outside of San Jose. Here our volunteer work will deal with organic agriculture, botanical gardening and forestry, domestic animals and medicinal plants.

Though I have always helped out in my mom and grandmother's gardens, this will be multiple hours a day of working outside on the farms.

Who knows? Maybe they'll make a farmer out of me....

Traveling

Food in airports is pretty much universally bad. It baffles me that people would take a place where they already are getting bad food to choose to get the worst food available: fast food.

The line at McDonalds in the airport was huge. Which also makes no sense. Much of the appeal of McDonalds is the quickness with which you get your food. If you are waiting a long time to buy a bunch of junk, why wouldn't you just go next door to the fake-Italian-cafe-style sandwich shop and get a much healthier dinner for about the same amount of money and one-third of the wait?

Food, Inc. Reactions

"Hungry for change?"

 
I found the documentary, "Food, Inc." so horrifying and yet inspiring at the same time. I really liked the cinematography, the shots of Michael Pollan in his kitchen, the pan through the grocery store, with the cart moving seemingly on its own, the farmers in their fields, and so on. I really liked Michael Pollan; his eyes turn up at the corners, giving him a happy-looking face, even though he deals with and is discussing tragic issues. (I thought, too, that it is amazing that the author of Fast Food Nation still enjoys burgers and fries!)

The movie opens as a cart rolls through the grocery store, and the narrator enlightens the viewers on the "illusion of diversity" that the grocery store presents. I knew that corn was in a lot of products, and my section went to the grocery store to investigate this ourselves. I was still shocked, however, when they named some of the things that corn is an ingredient in. I would never have thought (and don't understand why) corn is an ingredient in batteries, charcoal, diapers or motrin. What purpose can it serve in these sorts of items? I also did not realize how many of the "technical" names on the ingredients list were by-products of corn, which is why in section we overlooked so many products, thinking they didn't have corn in them because we didn't know all of its manifestations. 

"Who knows a farmer anymore?"

                           --Michael Pollan

After asking dozens of farmers to view their chicken raising facilities, only one (a woman named Carole) would let the crew inside. I learned that the chickens' feed (which has growth hormones in it) causes the chickens to grow about two-three times faster than they naturally would. This rapid increase in size, however, is not in proportion with the development of their bones and organs. The chickens we saw were stumbling pathetically around. The chicken farmer said that they can only take a few steps before they fall over because they're bodies can't carry the amount of weight that they've put on. 

With this kind of farming system, I have to question who would want to know a farmer? Or rather, who would enjoy visiting a farm? The giant food production companies keep the farmers under their thumb because the farmers are in such serious debt, leaving the individual farmers with no say in their own business. I learned that the typical chicken farmer with 2 chicken houses borrows $500,000 and makes $18,000.


"To have no say in your business, it's degrading," Carole said. "It's like being a slave to the company." 


It's interesting to me that most people's conception of farming is still the classic one of the farmer with their personal land and their animals and working it as best they can. But, it's a wholesome image. The reality of farming today is much worse, however, and yet, the classic view of farming is still considered an undesirable career in our society. I would much rather be one of the traditional farmers than one who is a puppet to a larger agricultural enterprise. 

"We need to be Goliath"

                  --Gary Hirshberg (Stonyfield Farm CEO)

The agricultural industry has gotten huge and small at the same time. The production has increased immensely into this huge network of farmers and factories and large areas of land used for CAFOs, but the actual number of companies (or farms, if you want to call them that, though I would argue that they do not merit the image that that name invokes) has shrunk, they are "Goliath industries." The top four biggest beef production companies control 80% of the beef market, and Tyson is the biggest meatpacking industry in the world. These big companies have big influences; the U.S. government promotes corn production by subsidizing the farmers, and giving them the incentive to overproduce on such a large scale because these financially powerful companies lobby for that. It is a terrifying thought to me that our government is controlled by the industries it is supposed to be keeping an eye on. 

I'm in the process of reading Fast Food Nation and "Food, Inc." references the implementation of the assembly line model of production in the early McDonalds restaurants. This, I think, is where the problem really starts. McDonalds used the assembly line to be more efficient and to produce things in the same way every time. However, in order for them to really be efficient, the products they were using to produce their food had to be the same too. As fast food companies adopted this method, the demand for cookie-cutter ingredients to the food greatly increased. The best way to insure the uniformity of these ingredients was to use the same supplier at every branch of the restaurant. So, from these large companies came the demand for large suppliers.

The assembly line is now used in the slaughter houses and even in the way that the animals and plants are raised. Everything is mechanized and simplified down to an efficient, standardized system.In the movie, they refer to Tyson's production, saying, "all birds that come off farms have be almost exactly the same size...not producing chickens, it's producing food." It is not enough anymore the package the chicken so that when it arrives at the store or the restaurant it is a uniformly sized piece of meat, now we want the living chicken itself to be identical to its neighbor.  

This goal of efficiency is a terrible one for everyone affected by the process. As already mentioned, the animals suffer (like the deformed chickens) from inhumane conditions in their CAFOs. (People criticize farmers, true farmers, for being heartless when they kill their animals, but at least those animals have had decent, healthy lives in the outdoors with clean living conditions and good feed and so on...). The consumers suffer too. A large part of the movie was about a woman who is fighting for "Kevin's Law," named after her son who died from contracting ecoli from a contaminated piece of meat when he was a toddler. (This part of the movie actually made me cry). More recently there was a recall of peanut butter for being contaminated with salmonella. The assembly line system is set up so that it produces as much as possible in as little time. But, in order to do this, unclean facilities are used (like the CAFOs) and so purity of the product is sacrificed for the rapidity of its production. 

The workers in these assembly lines are also damaged by the process. They are not mentally stimulated. They are not engaged in their work.They are doing the same job over and over again every day, so they do not need to focus on what they are doing. In this way, contaminated products might escape their notice. The repetitive motions also can lead to carpel tunnel or other health problems. Doing the same thing becomes habit and no longer requires any focus, but in the meat packing industry, where the workers are yielding knives and saws, this can lead to serious injury. 

In addition to all of these concerns, the workers themselves are treated terrible. Many of them are immigrants who cannot get better jobs or demand better conditions. Many of these big companies treat their workers the same as the animals: lives to use at their disposal. When one batch of workers is not satisfactory they are easily gotten rid of because there are more desperate for a job. The movie showed a raid of immigration authorities on some of the workers from a Smithfield plant. The raid did not occur at the plant, however, but at the homes of the workers. We were told that Smithfield has an agreement with the immigration authorities: they turn over 15 names a day so that the immigration authorities look like they are doing their job well, in exchange for not interfering in the Smithfield plants, which would disrupt the assembly line. Another example of what money can buy.

Finally, though, this focus on efficiency sucks the joy out of the process. When we are so wrapped up in the end product there is no enjoyment in the creation of the product itself. It is Marx's "The Alienation of Labor" to a tee: workers are so focused on the material gains from production that they are alienated from the process of production. The things that we do, however, shape us, and so in being alienated from our actions we alienate ourselves from ourselves. We also become alienated from our fellow workers because we have no interest in what we share, and we are alienated by the dependence we have on our employers. Though I am not sure communism is the answer, I think Marx got this much right.

Gary Hirshberg's quote, however, is a hopeful one. Despite the daunting power of these industries, there is still hope. Hirshberg's argument is that aligning with other "Goliath" companies (like Walmart, in his case) can help make "Goliaths" out of the companies, like Stonyfield, that are attempting to remedy the way things are done now. He also points out that the tobacco industry was once this powerful, controlling government policy and having similarly devastating effects on everyone touched by their reach. But, that is no longer the case, and this fact demonstrates that irresponsible industrial behavior can be changed. He also mentions that the organic industry has been growing 20% annually, making it one of the fastest growing industries in the food system. 

The agricultural system is also extremely reliant on fossil fuels for its production of cheap food. As the fuel prices rise, the price of production for these companies will also rise. They have no other means of production, and are so mechanized that any chink in their machinery might disrupt the whole system. In the discovery of alternate sources of energy, which would require a revamping of the agricultural industry's production system, there is hope for change as well.  

"When we run an item past the supermarket scanner, we are voting!"

The average consumer may not feel very powerful. I certainly don't when I hear about these super-giant companies and their leverage in Congress and their extensive empire of food production. But, in assuming that we have no power and no influence, and thus not changing our own life styles we are "outsourcing responsibility" (as farmer Joel Salatin said). The consumer does have power. If more people choose to buy their food from local or organic farmers that use humane, sustainable methods it will make a difference. If more people choose to grow their own food, it will make a difference. It will also reconnect people with the joy of production: it is extremely satisfying to cultivate something and then serve it to your friends at dinner and say, these are tomatoes from my garden. (I always loved planting carrots as a kid, because I loved feeling them POP from their nest of dirt as i pulled them out of the ground).

I'll admit that after watching "Food Inc." I felt like I would never want to eat food again. (This lasted about two hours). Instead, I am inspired to be more aware of where my food is coming from and how it is being produced.

"You can change the world with every bite"

Interview with Margiana Petersen-Rockney

"We need to be focusing on changing the way we live" says Brown student Margiana Petersen-Rockney. And Margiana is doing just that through the creation of her Community Supported Agriculture project, which promotes the distribution of local produce. 


Margiana applied for an UTRA last year and used it to begin her own Community Supported Agriculture project last summer. Community Supported Agriculture has become a popular way for people to buy fresh, local produce. Farmers sell shares of their farm and during the farming season the consumers receive a box or bag of produce (and sometimes other products, like eggs or chickens) every week. 


Margiana's first experience with CSAs was in high school. 


"I knew this old many whose land was likely going to be sold for development," she says. "My high school environmental team decided to take on that land and set up a CSA on that land."


Since then, that CSA has become a certified non-profit, organic 65-person CSA.


Her newest project is taking place on her family farm, Rosasharn farm. Margiana grew up on a dairy-goat farm in Rehoboth, MA and is now using about 1.5 acres of the farm for vegetable cultivation.


"One thing about farming is that it is hard to make money doing," Margiana says.


Her CSA last summer, however, did not need to because it was funded by Brown. Margiana tried to make the CSA a food-justice, low-income CSA because, "the local food movement really is sort of an elitist thing."


Margiana worked with another Brown student and an intern from Colby College, David, to bring their CSA into an urban low-income setting. Fifty families from the Head Start Food Stamp Program signed up with their CSA. The plan was that the families could pick up their boxes at the Broad St. farmers market. Unfortunately, the Head Start that the CSA was working with stopped existing.


"We were left scrambling," Margiana says. "We couldn't contact people. So, we ended up donating half our produce to Camp St. Ministry and selling the other half."


Although the food-justice aspect of the CSA was unsuccessful last year, the farming itself was very successful. Margiana is continuing her CSA another year and trying a few new things.


"Ideas I've been working on include bringing pasture poultry in and possibly mushroom growing," she said. "You go into the woods and harvest logs and stumps and plug them with whatever gourmet mushrooms you want, use your forest resources. You can do this in early spring before the real farming work starts."


This coming summer it will be just Margiana and Colby intern David working on the CSA. She anticipates that they will be able to make about $3000 each for the summer with 25 families holding shares.


"But you can't live on that," she adds. "You have to figure out way smarter ways to farm."


CSAs are built around the concept of reciprocation. Most CSA shares, Margiana says, involve a volunteer requirement of about five hours working on the farm throughout the season. For people in the city, however, the five hours of donation time can be spent by taking responsibility for the distribution of the produce once it is delivered to the city.


Another example of the reciprocity involved with CSAs is in the land use itself. Marigana is allowed to use her family farm as the site for her CSA, and in return provides her family with vegetables. This, she says, is common for CSAs. Young farmers often can't afford their own land and so they set up CSAs on other land that is not being used by its owner in exchange for giving them food. The land-owners further benefit by receiving tax deductions on their land for using it for agricultural purposes.


The reciprocity also extends between CSAs. Some CSAs in Southern MA and RI are starting to work together more, so Margiana is in contact with some other CSAs. This, she says, is "a really important thing that needs to happen more."


Right now, they are still harvesting and delivering produce to people every week, including vegetables like carrots, beets, kale, swiss chard, green onions, spinach and arugula. (Margiana's off-campus house is a member of the CSA and gets a weekly delivery). Margiana's CSA is also in the process of putting up a greenhouse. They plan to buy seeds over winter break and start harvesting again as soon as the ground thaws. Margiana spends almost every weekend at the farm, but since mid-September, she says, it's been mostly David on a day-to-day basis. 
(These photos are of their vegetables from their website rosasharnfarm.com)


They are also putting together a flyer for the coming season in which people can check off the session that they want to subscribe to. According to Margiana, the summer session will be from May through September 1 and the fall session will be from September 1 to December 1, with a discount if you sign up for both. 


In the future, Margiana says, "I definitely see myself farming and don't know why I'm here at Brown. It's definitely a struggle for me personally."


For Margiana, farming is great because "you are actually doing productive things, not just sitting around thinking about things. You see results." Farming provides her a connection to basic needs and understandings. Part of its appeal is the good work and spiritual connection.


"It's healthy work for the mind," she says. "I love cooking, eating and growing."


Margiana admits that she has also done some work with international agriculture, but finds it frustrating that people tend to focus on problems elsewhere when there are many problems closer to home.


"I think the change in the world that needs to happen at this point needs to come from individual lifestyle choices," she says. "Maybe it has to start on a little scale. Beyond that, yeah, I think change has to be a lot bigger, but it has to start small."


For further information on Margiana's CSA check out the farm website: www.rosasharnfarm.com
and the blog: www.rosasharnfarmcsa.blogspot.com

Response to "Omnivore's Delusion"

The Time's article "Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food" gives a great overview of the problems in the modern food industry, and how this affects the health and well-being of humans, animals and the environment.

"The Omnivore's Delusion: Against Agri-Intellectuals," written by Missouri farmer, Blake Hurst,  argues against many of the points made by modern "agri-intellectuals," like the points made in "Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food."

Hurst opens his argument by telling about a flight that he took in which a man sitting near him was condemning the modern farming industry. Hurst takes offense, saying,

"He was a businessman, and I’m sure spends his days with spreadsheets, projections, and marketing studies. He hasn’t used a slide rule in his career and wouldn’t make projections with tea leaves or soothsayers. He does not blame witchcraft for a bad quarter, or expect the factory that makes his product to use steam power instead of electricity, or horses and wagons to deliver his products instead of trucks and trains. But he expects me to farm like my grandfather, and not incidentally, I suppose, to live like him as well."

I think Hurst has a valid point. Farming is a difficult and complicated enterprise, and it is not fair to suppose that reading a book or several articles makes you an expert on the subject and therefore an entitled critic. It is also easy for people, like me, and this businessman, to critique farming techniques when we are not relying on their output to make a living, and in fact, are benefiting from them at every meal. Hurst's reaction is totally reasonable. Most people would balk at the idea of being asked to do things in an "old fashioned" way when newer ways are much more efficient and productive. There would be a lot of protest if all  Brown students were suddenly told that they had to hand write all of their notes and their final papers.

While it is unfair to ask only farmers not to take advantage of improvements in technology, I don't think that demand is unreasonable, if all people, not just farmers, are held accountable to it. We could all benefit from relying less on our gadgets and more on ourselves to get things done. If it is prescribed that farmers refrain from using pesticides, suburbanites should be made to bike or walk to work. Everyone must make sacrifices in order for our world to improve. 

Also, many of the farming practices that I particularly object to, from what I have learned about them, are the ones that treat animals and workers inhumanely, like in the CAFOs, rather than smaller-scale individual farmers' practices. These establishments promote such widespread devastation: bad health and treatment of animals and workers, destruction of the land, pollution of nearby land and so on. This strikes me as really, terribly, morally wrong in so many ways and I think that there is just no excuse for this sort of enterprise. It is difficult, however, to draw the line. What makes this more wrong than a farmer that sprays his crops with pesticides that wipeout wildlife of the area, and affect humans in towns nearby through the watershed? Perhaps it is the concentrated mass of the CAFOs destruction that makes it seem worse. Or maybe because the results are more obvious. At what point does it become ok to favor certain beings? All agricultural practices require the manipulation of the environment, which includes some sort of judgment on the value of one life form over another (one plant's right to occupy a space versus a "weed's" right to that space) according to human self-interest. Perhaps Daniel Quinn is right in suggesting that the ultimate "fair" solution is to revert to a hunter-gatherer-type life (though the word "revert" reflects our society's assumption that our agricultural way of life is the more advanced way, and so "convert," implying that the two ways are more equal would be a better word choice).

Hurst makes a similar point in asserting that for every choice there is always a trade-off:

"Herbicides cut the need for tillage, which decreases soil erosion by millions of tons....The combination of herbicides and genetically modified seed has made my farm more sustainable, not less, and actually reduces the pollution I send down the river. " 

I'd never thought of this (because I am not a farmer, and not an expert, and don't have the knowledge base to know this, so more appropriately I should say I have never heard of this before).

In talking about raising animals, Hurst says,

"We can do that [change the way we raise animals], and we may be a better society for it, but we can't change nature. Pigs will be allowed to "return to their mire," as Kipling had it, but they'll also be crushed and eaten by their mothers. Chickens will provide lunch to any number of predators, and some number of chickens will die as flocks establish their pecking order."

I agree with Hurst here, at least in that we cannot change nature. I do not, however, agree that this is a bad thing. Yes, it has some consequences, the loss of a few chickens or pigs and so less profit, but I would pay this price in exchange for better overall health for those chickens and pigs (while they live), and for the surrounding land and the humans who work with and consume the animals. 

To end his piece, Hurst defends the farmer's connection to the land:

"Concern about this alienation, both between farmers and the land, and between consumers and their food supply, is what drives much of the literature about agriculture. The distance between the farmer and what he grows has certainly increased, but, believe me, if we weren't closely connected, we wouldn't still be farming. It's important to our critics that they emphasize this alienation, because they have to ignore the "industrial" farmer's experience and knowledge to say the things they do about farming.

Farmers are certainly more connected to the land than anyone who has no regular contact with it. And, while some farmers may harm the land through the use of pesticides or damaging farming techniques, people harm their bodies all the time through bad diets, little exercise, the use of drugs or medicines, and yet they are no less connected to their bodies. The solution, as I see it, is more contact with nature for the entire population. The Waldorf school's "Forest Kindergarten" (For Forest Kindergartners, Class Is Back to Nature, Rain or Shine) ) is an excellent example of how this could be implemented into society. Even in cities, projects like urban farms (Urban Farming, City Goats: Barnyard Animals in Backyards, The Rooftop Garden Climbs Down Walls)would increase people's interaction with nature and result in a better appreciation for it and more respect towards it. This is an easy thing to change on an individual basis: take a walk in a park, or plant a garden, or send your kids to play outside instead of letting them watch tv. In many ways, it is a money-saver too.

Organic vs. Non-Organic Apple Pies

I decided to bake two pies, one using only organic ingredients, and the other using non-organic ingredients, from the exact same recipe and compare the results. 

The recipe I chose is the one on the side of the red Pillsbury refrigerated pie crust box:

INGREDIENTS:

         Crust:

1 box (15 oz) Pillsbury refrigerated pie crusts, softened

          Filling: 

6 cups thinly sliced, peeled apples (6 medium)

3/4 cup sugar

2 tablespoons all-purpose flour

3/4 teaspoon ground cinnamon

1/4 teaspoon salt

1/8 teaspoon ground nutmeg

1 tablespoon lemon juice

I used organic Granny Smiths, an organic lemon, organic sugar and a refrigerated, pre-made organic pie crust for the organic pie. (I would say this constitutes at least 70% of the ingredients of the pie, if not 95%, and so my pie would be certifiably organic!)

Directions:

1. Heat oven to 425 degrees Fahrenheit. Place 1 pie crust in ungreased 9-inch pie plate. Press firmly against side and bottom. 

2. In a large bowl, gently mix filling ingredients; spoon into crust-lined pie plate. Top with second crust. 

3. Wrap excess top crust under bottom crust edge, pressing edges together to seal. Cut slits of shapes in several places in top crust.
4. Bake 40-45 minutes until apples are tender and crust is golden brown. Let cool on cooling rack at least 2 hours before serving. 

While I was peeling the apples I noted a few interesting differences between the raw apples. The non-organic apples were much smaller than the organic ones, which was surprising to me. I would have thought that the non-organic ones would have been bigger, due to genetic engineering or some other unnatural manipulation. The non-organic apples were much shinier (most likely as a result of wax on the skin) and also had a much more even color, while the organic apples had spots of different shades of green. 


When I had my friends and family taste test the raw apples there was a distinct difference between the taste and texture of the two:

 I also noticed, as I was peeling and slicing, that the non-organic apples turned brown much quicker than the organic apples, which was also surprising. I would think there would be more preservatives on the non-organic apples. Even after I squirted lemon juice onto the non-organic apples, however, they continued to brown more quickly than the organic ones.

These are the non-organic apples, which are browning at their centers.

Unfortunately, the picture of the organic apples is on my other camera that I consequently broke by dropping it on its lens, with the lens extended as I was photographing the apples, and so the photo is trapped on that memory card. But, to get a sense of the contrast, the next time you bite into an apple look at the color right then, and that is what the organic apples continued to look like the entire time I was baking, even without lemon juice applied to keep them fresh. 




Another difference I noted when I was cooking was that the organic sugar consisted of much bigger granules and was brown rather than white, because it is less processed. The picture to the right is the filling of the organic ingredients and the photo below is the non-organic ingredients. 


After baking the pies there were some notable differences as well. The non-organic pie crust was much bubblier and had a much more uneven color. 


The taste of the two pies was very different as well. 
Most people liked the non-organic pie better, but regardless of preferences of taste, everyone agreed on the differences between the two:


The general verdict was that the non-organic pie was sweeter and more buttery, the flavors blended together better, the apples were softer.
The organic pie had a more distinctive cinnamon flavor and the apples had a more distinct texture, a "more apple-y taste."


It was interesting to note the contrast between the raw apples and the baked apples: everyone said that the raw non-organic apples were crispier but the organic baked apples were more crisp. Also, the raw organic apples were sweeter, and less tart, and so we predicted that they would be less flavorful once baked in the pie. In reality, however, they maintained their flavor better than the non-organic apples. 


Some of the difference in flavor between the pies may be due to a flaw in my scientific method: in order to save time (and money) I used refrigerated, pre-made pie crusts, instead of making my own. The texture of the pie crusts, however, were different, and contributed to the difference in the taste of the pie. If I had made the pie crusts also, using organic flour and sugar and salt, and the corresponding non-organic ingredients I don't think that there would have been much a difference in taste. (I considered baking a cake or some other baking project for my comparison experiment, but decided that what I made needed to be something that involved fresh fruits or vegetables, because I didn't think there would be much of a difference otherwise).



The sugar, too, affected the taste. My theory is that the organic sugar, being less processed, with bigger granules, did not permeate the mixture as well, leaving the organic pie to be less sweet. For this same reason the flavors in the non-organic pie were judged to "blend together better." 


For my experiment, I think these flaws in control are ok, because I was not testing just the difference in the apples, but instead the differences between an entirely organic or non-organic pie. It would be an interesting follow-up, however, to use organic apples with a non-organic crust and non-organic sugar, and organic apples with a non-organic crust and organic sugar, or non-organic apples with variations on the other two variables and see if the differences in taste were still as drastic.

Defining Organic

I've always wondered what exactly it means for food to be organic. There is a lot of hype about buying organic foods, and I know that the premise of organic production is to produce food in a way that doesn't harm the environment, for example, by not using pesticides and other chemicals. But, what exactly falls under organic production?

The USDA Natural Agriculture Library provides this definition:
"Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations.  Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones.  Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation."

Additionally, it mentions organic production systems, which include using cover crops, manure and crop rotation to fertilize the soil, practicing rotational grazing, refraining from using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, or hormones and antibiotics for animals. Organic farms also should emphasize biodiversity and focus on using renewable resources.

I, unfortunately, am not involved in the production of my own food, however, and so I don't deal with the methods of organic production on a regular basis. (Though, I am being more and more inspired everyday to become more involved with food production, whether by tending a garden, of which there are several around campus, or having my own garden at home, or going to work on farm for a period). I do deal with buying food on a regular basis, though, from a grocery store, or, when available, a farmers market. So, I am also curious to know how to appropriately judge foods labeled "organic." With foods that consist of a variety of ingredients, however, must every ingredient be organically produced or just some? Within a spectrum of this sort, what are the requirements for a food to be considered organic?

In my research I learned that farms with a gross income of less than $5,000 do not need to be certified by the USDA to claim to be organic. (I imagine the USDA would be run crazy trying to certify so many small-scale operations. Also, if a farm is operating on that small of a level, they are probably intimately connected with their customers, and so the customers can judge for themselves the truthfulness of the farms' claims to being organic).

Products that are labeled 100% organic must be just that: every ingredient must be organic, except for salt and water. Merely labeling a food "organic," however, indicates that 95% of that food is organic. The 5% of the ingredients that are not organic must be on a list of approved "nonagricultural substances," and both 100% and 95% organic products cannot be produced using prohibited methods. Products that fall under this category can use the USDA seal in their advertising and on the front of their packaging.   

Another option in organic food products is products made with some organic ingredients. The phrase "made with organic ingredients" can be used if at least 70% of the ingredients are organic, and can be advertised on the front of the packaging. The USDA seal, however, cannot be used. (It is also interesting to note that other labels, like "hormone-free," "free-range" or "sustainably harvested" do not have additional restrictions for their use)

So, in this example, the cereal box to the left would be (as labeled) 100% organic, the second box from the left would be 95% organic, the third would be at least 70% organic and the last would not have USDA organic certification.
(http://webharvest.gov/peth04/20041031121516/www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Consumers/brochure.html)


The penalty for purposefully mislabeling or selling a product as organic that does not meet the National Organic Program's requirements is a fine of up to $11,000.

In talking about smaller-scale farmers that make a living off their private farms I would imagine that most of them would want to use organic methods of production. Their life is based around their farm and they develop such a relationship with the land and with the animals that using chemicals to harm them seems counterintuitive to me. Then again, financially, farming is a difficult method of sustaining yourself, so it makes sense that people turn to whatever measures they can to make ends meet. I would think, however, that no matter how you tried, local farmers cannot compete with the huge mass-producing farms. So, growing organically would be the best way to find a niche in the local community market, because it slightly distances the local products from the mass-produced ones. (Though the mass-production of organic products is increasing as well). This, though, brings up a whole other issue, of local vs. organic (though they are not necessarily at odds, so perhaps this is not the best way of phrasing the issue).

"Agricorps" Follow-Up

After writing last night, I thought I'd better check to make sure that there wasn't already an existing Agricorps organization that I'd overlooked.

Upon typing "agricorps" into Google, however, the first link that came up was a wikipedia link. I clicked on it, and learned that an agricorps organization does exist.....in StarWars!

The beginning of the article was as follows:

"The Agricultural Corps (or AgriCorps) was one of the several branches of the Jedi Service Corps staffed by young Jedi learners, ages 6-16. Among the Padawans, assignment to the AgriCorps was considered a demarcation of inability. The function of the Corps was to aid in tending to and harvesting crops for the Republic."

(Interesting to note, that even in the scifi Star Wars universe, being assigned to work as a farmer was considered a "demarcation of inability")

This made me chuckle.

"Agricorps"

I just read Lisa Hamilton's article "Why not start Agricorps, for a new crop of farmers?" (The link to it can be found under the articles section to the right) and am really intrigued by her idea of an "Agricorps."

As I mentioned, at my Thanksgiving dinner this year we had eight Americorps volunteers who are working at the Shaw Nature Reserve doing prairie restoration. In a sense, however, the tasks that they are currently performing don't differ much from what they might be doing if they were working on farm: weeding, planting, evaluating the soil, etc. Hamilton brings up the point that people might object to having an organization (her proposed "Agricorps") that sends volunteers to help private farms, that are working to make a profit for themselves, rather than providing some service to the community. Hamilton then goes on to discuss that perhaps we should consider farmers public servants. And I definitely agree.



As this chart from the National Agriculture Statistics Services shows, the number of farms and farm workers is steadily and continuously decreasing. A small number of bigger and bigger factory farms are the sources of production for the majority of their particular product. The centralization of this production however, is damaging to the environment. One area is not meant to sustain hundreds of animals or only one type of crop.

Decentralizing farm production by increasing the number of farms spread throughout the country is really important. It is difficult, however, for small farms to sustain themselves in competition with the mass-producing factory farms that have production down to a science. A service that provided volunteers as extra hands on these small farms could make a huge difference in helping them get on their feet. It would also give the volunteers a sense of the hard work and knowledge base that is required to be a successful farmer, and increase the social value of farming as a career, further encouraging more people to become farmers and decentralize farm production.

WWOOF is a world-wide organization that does this sort of thing. I am actually going to participate in the WWOOF Costa Rica program this January, and am really excited to go and spend time on an organic farm in Costa Rica. My motive for participating in the WWOOF organization, in addition to curiosity about organic farming, is because it allows for cheap traveling. The volunteers are required to pay for their own transportation, but are given room and board (for free or for a small sum) in return for a few hours of work a day, and the rest of their time is theirs to spend as they wish. In this way, volunteers can experience a new place cheaply.

There is a WWOOF United States program, but I don't think that some states, like Missouri, for example are going to attract many travelers looking to see exotic sights and travel inexpensively. (I feel justified in using Missouri as an example since it is my home state). So, an "Agricorps" organization would have to have some other "pull-factor" to entice people to participate.

Another idea would be to have schools take their children to nearby farms on a daily (or weekly) basis to work and in that way implement a respect for the land and for farming in them, and perhaps inspire some of them to become farmers. (Sort of like the Waldorf School's Forest Kindergartners: www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/nyregion/30forest.html).

Section Investigation

This week in my environmental science section, we set off to the grocery stores to investigate what kinds of foods had corn (in some form) as an ingredient. The idea came from the movie "King Corn" (which I haven't actually seen). My classmates said that in the movie a group goes to the supermarket and had a lot of difficulty finding foods that don't contain corn, so we decided to try it ourselves.

We started out at East Side Market and split into pairs, each taking a different aisle. I ended up in the organic section, investigating organic chips and frozen foods and cereals. Interestingly, the most prominent ingredient in this section was soy, rather than corn.

Everyone else, though, found that corn was an extremely prevalent ingredient, in all sorts of foods, from frozen meals to cereals and crackers, to taco mix, even to rice! What was most interesting, however, was the fact that corn was even an ingredient in cleaning products! We found shampoos and conditioners containing corn, and also products like Febreze.

After visiting East Side Market, we decided to check out Whole Foods. The results were pretty similar, though we did find that more products in Whole Foods had detailed ingredient lists.

Now that I have a better sense of how prevalent corn is in my life, I want to King Corn to learn more about this staple.