Ranching’s Role in Building Healthier Soils, Video by UC Davis

/by

Author: University of California Davis | Published: April 2017 

Skyelark Ranch uses rotational grazing while raising sheep in Northern Calif. This can benefit plant growth, drought resistance, and the climate.

Skyelark Ranch is a pasture-based livestock ranch in Yolo County’s beautiful Capay Valley. In 2010, after several years of working in environmental conservation, Alexis and Gillies followed their passion for combining local, high-quality food production with sound environmental stewardship practices to a begin a life in sustainable livestock production.

WATCH THE VIDEO HERE

Superlative Alternative: Organic Cotton

/by

Author: Eleanor O’Neill | Published: May 25, 2017 

Today, cotton is the second most used fiber in apparel manufacture, after synthetics.

And I’ve found the subject of organic cotton one of the most frequently discussed when talking about sustainable fashion. Perhaps because it’s an easy concept to understand, in theory, and also because it is now widely accessible.

But what does organic really mean when it comes to cotton?

I’m often asked, what are the environmental benefits of organic vs conventional cotton production? How much more, on average, does a garment made of organic cotton cost? Is there a difference in the way it feels against your skin? And to be frank, there were only a few answers I felt comfortable giving until now. So I decided to dig a little deeper for everyone’s benefit.

Let’s start with a clear and digestible summary of what organic production means.

It is ‘a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects.’ It ‘combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved.’ (Life Cycle Assessment for Organic Cotton, 2016).

What is organic cotton?

In a nutshell, it’s cotton that is not grown with the aid of chemicals or artificial substances but in a way that gradually and naturally builds soil fertility, and protects biodiversity.

KEEP READING ON THE HUFFINGTON POST

Bionutrient Food Association: “We Can Solve These Problems”

/by

Published: May 2017 

The Bionutrient Food Association is working with producers to establish growing practices that yield more nutritious crops, while developing a standard for nutrient-dense foods and a handheld tool to measure those nutrient levels. The idea behind the tool is to use existing technology, like the camera in a Smartphone, to scan produce right in the grocery store, measuring the nutrient-density of the consumer’s food options.

The Association’s mission is to empower consumers to choose the most nutrient-dense foods, ultimately rewarding farmers for their improved growing practices.

Food Tank spoke with Dan Kittredge, founder of the Bionutrient Food Association and an organic farmer himself, to discuss why he thinks we need a definition of nutrient density, and the power he sees in this standard to transform the food system.

Food Tank (FT): What first inspired you to start working on nutrient density in food?

Dan Kittredge (DK): It started when I, as somebody who grew up on an organic farm, when I got married I had no other viable skillsets besides farming. And I came to terms with the fact that my crops were not healthy. They were succumbing to infestation and disease, and I was not economically viable. And I knew I needed to do a better job.

FT: What does the Bionutrient Food Association do to promote nutrient density in our food supply?

DK: Our core work is training growers. We work with growers of all sizes across the country, across North America, in what we call principles of biological systems. And we walk them through the growing season, walk them through the year, and talk about how plants grow in relation to the soil and microbiology, and help farmers identify what the main factors are so they can address them. That’s been our core work.

Our overt mission is to increase quality in the food supply. And by quality, I’m referring to flavor, aroma, and nutritive value, which is often times virtuous to nutrient density. So we’re now at a point where we have, I think, sixteen chapters across the country.

And we’re actually working on a definition of what quality means to density in the amount of nutrients. You know, what is the variation in nutrient levels in crops and trying to give consumers the ability to test that at point of purchase. Something along the lines of a handheld spectrometer, something that would be essentially, if a Smartphone had the right sensors, something that could be in your phone. You know, give the consumer the ability to test quality at point of purchase and then make your decisions accordingly, as an incentive to inspire the supply chain to change its practices.

FT: What does soil have to do with nutrient density?

DK: Well for the general public, I think we need to understand what nutrient density is first, because it’s a term that is thrown around a lot without a clear understanding of what it means. So for us, nutrient density is, you have greater levels of nutrients per unit calorie in a crop, better flavor, better aroma, and better nutritive value.

Basically, those compounds that correlate with nutrition, with flavor, and aroma in crops, are built from the soil and through a well-functioning microbial ecosystem. So plants evolved with a gut flora, in the same way that we have a gut flora, that digests their food for them. The bacteria and the fungi in the soil are fed by the plants. When the plant makes sugar in the leaves, it injects that sugar into the soil to feed the soil life, who then digest the soil and feed the nutrients up to the plant.

So it’s only when you have a well-functioning soil life, when the soil is actually flourishing, with vitality, with life, that’s the only time when you’re going to get the plants having access to the nutrients necessary to have nutrient dense crops.

So in many cases, farmers engage in management practices that are counterproductive. Tillage, bare soil, adding fertilizers, fungicides, insecticides, a lot of the basic practices of agriculture are systemically counterproductive to nutrient density in crops. Which is why we have pretty categorical data from USDA and other sources about the decreasing levels of nutrition in food over time.

KEEP READING ON FOOD TANK 

New Book Examines Agroecology As the Future of Farming

/by

Author: Lisa Kaschmitter | Published: May 2017 

The Institute for Food and Development Policy, a nonprofit known as Food First, released a new book entitled Fertile Ground: Scaling Agroecology from the Ground Up, edited by Groundswell International Executive Director and co-founder Steve Brescia.

Fertile Ground presents nine innovative case studies authored by agroecologists from Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, North America, and Europe to make a case for promoting the use of agroecology worldwide.

“There are about 2.5 billion people in the world, on 500 million farms, involved with smallholder family agriculture and food production. Their creative capacity to farm productively and sustainably with nature, instead of against it, is perhaps the most powerful force that can be unleashed to overcome the interlinking challenges of hunger, poverty, climate change, and environmental degradation,” says Brescia. “This is the essence of agroecology.”

KEEP READING ON FOOD TANK 

With Climate Chaos, Who Will Feed Us?

/by

Published 2014

The Industrial Food Chain uses 70% of the world’s agricultural resources to produce just 30% of our global food supply. Conversely, the Peasant Food Web provides 70% of the global food supply while using only 30% of agricultural resources.

The Peasant Food Web encourages diversity through breeding millions of varieties of thousands of crops, nurturing thousands of livestock breeds and aquatic species, while the Industrial Food Chain has narrowed this vast cornucopia down to a dozen crops, a handful of livestock species and collapsing fish stocks.

The Industrial Food Chain wastes two-thirds of its food production, devastates ecosystems, causes over $4 trillion in damages, and either under-nourishes or over-feeds 3.4 billion people. The Peasant Food Web is environmentally and nutritionally constructive.

1. Who feeds us today?

The Industrial Chain: Provides 30% of all food consumed (crops, fish, etc.) but uses about 70-80% of world’s arable land to grow 30-40% of crop-derived food; 1 accounts for >80% of fossil fuels 2 and 70% of water 3 used in agriculture; causes 44-57% of emitted GHGs annually 4; deforests 13 million ha 5 and destroys 75 billion tons of topsoil 6 each year; controls almost all of the 15% of food that is traded internationally 7 (i.e., 15% of all the food produced in the world) and dominates the $7 trillion commercial grocery market,8 while leaving almost 3.4 billion either undernourished or overweight.9 6

The Peasant Web:

Provides >70% of total food eaten by people:10 15-20% via urban agriculture; 11 10-15% from hunting and gathering; 12 5-10% from fishing; 13 and 35-50% from farms (harvests 60-70% of food crops from 20-30% of arable land); 14 accounts for <20% of fossil fuel 15 and 30% of water used in agriculture; 16 nurtures and sustainably uses diversity and dominates the 85% of the world’s food grown and consumed within national borders; 17 is the major (often sole) provider of the food that reaches the 2 billion hungry and undernourished.18

The Industrial Chain:

Provides 30% of all food consumed (crops, fish, etc.) but uses about 70-80% of world’s arable land to grow 30-40% of crop-derived food; 1 accounts for >80% of fossil fuels 2 and 70% of water 3 used in agriculture; causes 44-57% of emitted GHGs annually 4; deforests 13 million ha 5 and destroys 75 billion tons of topsoil 6 each year; controls almost all of the 15% of food that is traded internationally 7 (i.e., 15% of all the food produced in the world) and dominates the $7 trillion commercial grocery market,8 while leaving almost 3.4 billion either undernourished or overweight.9 6 The Peasant Web: Provides >70% of total food eaten by people:10 15-20% via urban agriculture; 11 10-15% from hunting and gathering; 12 5-10% from fishing; 13 and 35-50% from farms (harvests 60-70% of food crops from 20-30% of arable land); 14 accounts for <20% of fossil fuel 15 and 30% of water used in agriculture; 16 nurtures and sustainably uses diversity and dominates the 85% of the world’s food grown and consumed within national borders; 17 is the major (often sole) provider of the food that reaches the 2 billion hungry and undernourished.18

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

Quantity and Quality of Soil Carbon Sequestration Control Rates of Co2 and Climate Stabilization at Safe Levels

/by

Author: Tom Goreau | Published: May 3, 2017 

Today’s CO2 atmosphere concentrations will lead to devastating increases in global temperatures and sea level over the thousands of years that cold deep ocean waters warm up, even if no more fossil fuel CO2 is added. Long-term impacts shown by climate records are much greater than IPCC projections, which are politically mandated to only include short-term initial responses. They ignore 90% or more of the long-term climate impacts that will affect future generations for millions of years unless CO2 is rapidly reduced to pre-industrial levels, giving policy makers a false sense of security. Even complete emissions reductions cannot remove the existing CO2 excess already in the atmosphere, only increased carbon sinks can do so, and only soil has the capacity to store it in time to avert runaway climate change. CO2 can be reduced to safe levels in decades if 1) current carbon farming sequestration practices are applied on a large scale, 2) lifetime of soil carbon storage is increased with biochar, and 3) with large scale restoration of coastal marine wetland peat soils, especially using new electrical stimulation methods. Regenerative Development strategies to reverse climate change by increasing soil and biomass carbon need to be implemented by UNFCCC.
Keywords: CO2 sequestration, soil carbon, lifetime, burial rates, stabilization time, reversing climate change, regenerative development

Introduction, scope and main objectives

Climate change strategies claiming that 2 degrees C warming or 350 ppm are “acceptable” sentence coral reefs and low lying countries to death. Corals are already at their upper temperature limit (Goreau & Hayes, 1994). The last time global temperatures were 1-2 C warmer than today, sea levels were 6-8 meters higher, equatorial coral reefs died from heat, crocodiles and hippotamuses lived in London, England, yet CO2 was only 270 ppm (Goreau, 1990; Koenigswald, 2006, 2011).

CO2 in the atmosphere (>400ppm) is already way above the pre-industrial (270ppm) levels consistent with modern global temperature and sea level, and millions of years of ice core and deep sea climate records show that current atmospheric CO2 levels will lead, over thousands of years, to steady state global temperatures and sea levels around 17 degrees Celsius and 23 meters higher than modern levels (Goreau 1990, 2014; Rohling et al., 2009).

It takes thousands of years for this response to happen to the CO2 already in the air because the deep ocean, which is around 4 degrees Celsius and holds nearly 95% of the heat in the earth climate system, takes 1600 years to turn over, and until the deep ocean warms up we won’t feel the full effect at the surface. This time lag is ignored in IPCC projections. Once the earth enters a super Greenhouse, like those the last time when CO2 was last 400 ppm millions of years ago, temperatures and sea levels were indeed around 17 celsius and 23 meters higher respectively (Rohling et al., 2009). The excess CO2 (and temperatures) will take from hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years to be finally buried in sediments and geologically removed from the system (Goreau, 1995). The oceans cannot serve as a major sink without turning them into dead zones stinking of hydrogen sulfide and devoid of life above bacteria.

However, there is a vastly faster biological short-circuit to the slow geological burial of CO2, namely rapid enhancement of biomass and soil carbon sinks, especially in the tropics, which could stabilize CO2 at safe levels rapidly (Goreau, 1987, 1990, 1995, 2014). Worldwide we have already lost about half the carbon in the Earth’s living biomass, and about half the carbon in soils that have been converted to farming and grazing, but restoring these natural CO2 sinks (“Geotherapy”) can absorb excess fossil fuel carbon at the lowest cost.

Main objectives:

1) Identify scientifically-sound safe CO2 levels from climate records

2) Determine how quickly CO2 can be stabilized to prevent extinction of coral reefs and flooding of low-lying coasts, based on quantity and quality (long-lived fraction) of soil carbon sequestration and global atmospheric CO2 input-output models.

3) Identify the specific methods and locations for the fastest and most effective reduction of CO2 to safe levels.

Methodology

The rate at which CO2 can be stored in soil can be done depends on the quantity and quality (in terms of lifetime) of carbon sequestration, and the target. The “safe” CO2 target in terms of global temperature and sea level changes is identified as preindustrial CO2 levels from nearly a million years of Antarctic Ice Core, fossil coral, and deep sea sediment climate records.

IPCC model projections are not used because they seriously under-estimate long term impacts due to use of the wrong time horizons for calculating impacts. Steady-state temperature and sea level for TODAY’S 400 ppm CO2 level are around 17 degrees C warmer and 23 meter higher than now (Rohling et al.: 2009; Goreau, 1990, 2014), and it takes thousands of years for the deep ocean to warm up, only then we will feel full impacts. IPCC estimates don’t include this lag.

To meet global Geotherapy goals of restoring planetary life support systems to health, not only is increased soil carbon storage needed in every terrestrial habitat and ecosystem, but increases in soil carbon storage lifetime will also be essential. We calculate here how long it takes to reduce atmospheric CO2 to safe preindustrial levels and show the results graphically as a function of the global increase in net carbon burial on the land surface (the soil carbon sequestration quantity parameter), and as a function of the fraction of long-lived carbon that does not decompose (the soil carbon sequestration quality parameter).

Results

Current agricultural practices only return about one ton of carbon per hectare per year, and very little of this, perhaps 1% is long lived, so typical practices would take thousands of years to drawdown the excess, coral reefs will die, and coasts flood. On the other hand, best practice carbon farming is capable of burying tens of tons per hectare per year (Toensmeier, 2016), and using biochar up to tens of percent of soil carbon can be long lived, which would allow the dangerous excess CO2 to be removed in decades, and avert the worst runaway global climate change impacts (Figures 1 & 2).

KEEP READING ON SOIL CARBON ALLIANCE 

Why GMOS Are Prohibited in Organic Agriculture?

/by

Author: André Leu

GMO protagonists promote the image that they are only speeding up the natural

crossbreeding used by farmers for millennia by inserting the new gene with the

desired trait directly into the new organisms. They further assert that there is no

evidence of any adverse health effect from the consumption of GMO foods as they

are substantially equivalent to non-GMO foods. This distortion of the facts needs to

be corrected.

The Natural Breeding Misconception

One critical issue is that multiple genes are being transferred across kingdoms and

species such as bacteria, viruses, plants and animals in ways that do not occur by

natural breeding methods.

All living things are classified according to a ranking system that starts with species.

Closely related species are grouped together under a rank that is called a Genus.

Closely related Genera (the plural of genus) are grouped together under the rank of

Family. Closely related Families are grouped together under the rank of Order. There

are seven ranks. Starting with the highest they are: kingdom, phylum or division,

class, order, family, genus, species.

Plants, Animals, Fungi, Viruses and Bacteria belong to separate Kingdoms. Natural

breeding can take place between some species that belong to the same genus and

very occasionally between species of different genera. However species that belong

to different families do not breed and definitely species that belong to different

Kingdoms such as plants, animals, fungi, bacteria and viruses do not breed in nature.

Plants for example do not breed with animals, bacteria or viruses.

Genetic engineering allows for the transfer of multiple genes between Kingdoms in a

way that can never occur naturally. This is something that has never occurred before

and it creates a new frontier with many uncertainties due to science’s limited

understanding about genetics.

The Single Gene Misconception

The other great misconception is that researchers are only inserting one new gene.

At this stage science is not sophisticated enough to insert a single gene and get it to

work. To overcome this problem, scientists have to combine the gene with the

desired trait (such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide production) with other genes

that will make it work (promoter genes). Researchers also insert genes that help

them to identify if the new gene is working within the chromosome (marker genes).

This becomes a complex construction of transgenes, known as a gene cassette, that

can come from bacterial, viral, fish, plant and other sources.

Inserting the Gene Sequence

Another misconception is that the gene is neatly inserted into the cell. Genes are

grouped together inside the cell in long strands call chromosomes. Researchers use

what can be best described as a shotgun approach when they push new genes into a

chromosome. They either shoot the genetic material into the target cells, insert it

after weakening the cell membrane with an electric shock/chemical, or use a

modified microorganism such as a virus or bacteria to infect the target cell with the

new genes. The problem with these approaches is that the researchers do not know

if genes have been inserted into a chromosome, if there are multiple copies, if they

will work and how they will work.

Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes

The most common method of discovering if the new gene will work involves using

Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes. In the current generation of commercially

released GMOs, these genes come from bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. The

marker genes are attached to the gene with the desired trait (herbicide resistance as

an example) and they are shot or infected into the target cells. These cells are then

cultured and an antibiotic is added. The cells that live have adopted the new genes

as they are resistant to the antibiotic.

These are then grown out as plants. The problem with these plants is that every part

of the plant has genes for antibiotic resistance. Many scientists and medical

professionals have expressed concerns about these genes being horizontally

transferred into the gut and mouth bacteria of humans and animals eating genetically

modified food. They are worried that this could create bacteria that are resistant to

the antibiotics needed to cure infections.

Horizontal gene transfer is where microorganisms take up genes directly through

their cell walls rather than by the normal method of reproduction. It has been shown

to occur with the antibiotic resistant super bugs. (Shoemaker et al. 2002)

When the potential danger of this was pointed out to the genetic scientists they

dismissed it as impossible. Several studies have since shown that these antibiotic

resistance genes can be transferred to bacteria in as little as two hours after eating

genetically modified food.

New Scientist in July 2002 reported on a scientific experiment that showed that this

can happen to bacteria in the human digestive system: For the first time, it has been

proved that bacteria in the human gut can take up DNA from genetically modified

food. (Coghlan 2002)

Currently every commercially released GMO plant has the antibiotic resistance genes

in every cell. They should be withdrawn from commercial production for this reason

alone, given the rise in antibiotic resistant human pathogens.

The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Promoter (CaMV 35S)

When foreign DNA is inserted into organisms, three things usually happen. The most

common one is that the foreign DNA is digested to provide energy and building

blocks for the cell. It can also be rejected. The other response is to close over the

foreign DNA and deactivate it.

All of these responses are defence mechanisms to overcome attacks by pathogens

(disease). The host organism defends itself by getting rid of the foreign proteins. This

is the reason why transplant recipients have to take anti-rejection drugs. When

organisms detect foreign DNA a whole range of responses, collectively known as the

immune system, can be activated to repel or destroy the invaders.

When foreign genes are shot/infected into a cell, they tend to be digested, rejected or

closed over. Either way this means that the target organism will not have the desired

trait from the new gene.

To overcome this, genetic scientists build a construction, called a gene cassette, with

a section of the cauliflower mosaic virus that is called CaMV 35S promoter. The

CaMV gives the signal that activates or promotes the new gene. It ensures that the

gene is active so that its desired trait, like herbicide resistance, works in the new

plant.

Problems with the CaMV 35S

There are several problems with the CaMV. Every current GMO plant is part virus.

Every cell of their bodies contains the active section of a virus. With billions of these

plants now released into the environment, many scientists believe that there is a

great risk of horizontal transfer of the viral genetic code from GMO plants into

invading viruses, creating new virulent transgenic viruses. (Ho et al. 1999, Ho et al.

2009, Ho 2013)

In a paper published in the peer reviewed scientific journal, Microbial Ecology in

Health and Disease, Ho et al. (1999) wrote: ‘It has been known for some time that

recombination can occur between different CaMV viral strains in plants (19), between

different homologous parts of an integrated CaMV viral sequence in transgenic

plants (20) and between an integrated transgene and an infecting virus (21).’

The scientists further stated: ‘It means, in effect, that recombination of the CaMV

promoter elements with dormant, endogenous viruses may create new infectious

viruses in all species to which the transgenic DNA is transferred.’ (Ho et al. 1999)

When GMO scientists and researchers are questioned on this the standard reply is

that the cauliflower mosaic virus is harmless and doesn’t affect humans. Many

harmless viruses change into forms that can be serious. The various forms of the flu

are the classic example. Seventy years ago AIDS and Ebola were restricted to

monkeys and didn’t affect humans. SARS is a slightly modified common cold virus

and is now a seriously fatal disease with the potential for massive epidemics.

According to the journal Nature, April 2003: ‘In a simple overnight experiment,

researchers transformed a coronavirus that is lethal to cats into one that infects

mouse cells by replacing a single gene. The result strengthens the idea that the

SARS coronavirus might have arisen when an animal and human virus met and

swapped genes, says the study’s lead scientist’ (Pearson 2003)

The fact is no scientist can predict what would happen if transgenic viruses and

bacteria emerged from GMO plants. It was only a short time ago these same

scientists were saying pollen drift from GMOs would not affect nearby crops and that

the horizontal transference of antibiotic resistant genes from GMOs into gut

microorganisms was not possible. Ho et al. (1999) concluded that ‘Horizontal transfer

of the CaMV promoter not only contributes to the known instability of transgenic lines

(30), but has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses or creating new viruses in all

species to which it is transferred, particularly in view of the modularity and interchangeability

of promoter elements (8).’

Adverse health effect from GMOs

The GMO industry states that there is no evidence that the consumption of GMOs

has resulted in any adverse health effects in animals or humans. They state that they

are substantially equivalent to non-GMOs so that any concerns are considered as

irrational emotional concerns that are not validated by science. The industry literature

is a classic case of cherry picking data by ignoring a substantial body of evidence

showing a range of adverse reaction to GMOs in published studies.

Zdziarski et al. 2014 conducted a meta review of all the long-term published

comparison feeding studies of GM produce that contains the three most common

specific traits found in commercialized GM crops: herbicide tolerance via the EPSPS

gene and insect resistance via cry1Ab or cry3Bb1 genes.

The researchers only found 21 studies for nine (19%) out of the 47 crops approved

for human and/or animal consumption. They could find no relevant peer reviewed

studies on the other 38 (81%) approved crops. They further found that most of the

studies (76%) were performed after the crop had been approved for human and/or

animal consumption, with half of these being published at least nine years after

approval, which showed that overwhelming majority of GM crops have been

approved without published peer reviewed feeding and safety studies. Of equal

concern, the researchers found inconsistencies in the methodologies and a lack of

defined criteria for outcomes that would be considered toxicologically or

pathologically significant. Critically, they found a lack of transparency in the methods

and results, which made comparisons between the studies difficult. They stated:

‘The evidence reviewed here demonstrates an incomplete picture regarding the

toxicity (and safety) of GM products consumed by humans and animals.’ (Zdziarski et

al. 2014)

This study clearly shows that GM crops are being approved for animal and human

food despite a lack of published evidence based scientific feeding studies to show

that they are safe. By not requiring these studies to generate evidence of safety,

regulators are in effect approving GM crops on the basis of data free assumptions.

Seralini et al. (2011) published a study that reviewed 19 studies of animals fed with

GMO soy and corn in the peer reviewed scientific journal Environmental Sciences

Europe. The studies covered more that 80% of the GMO varieties that are widely

cultivated around the world.

Their review found significant levels of negative effects to kidneys and livers in the

animals that were fed GMOs. The scientists stated: ‘…the kidneys were particularly

affected, concentrating 43.5% of all disrupted parameters in males, whereas the liver

was more specifically disrupted in females (30.8% of all disrupted parameters).’

(Seralini et al. 2011)

One of the key conclusions is that the current testing methodologies (small sample

sizes, inadequate doses, inappropriate controls), length of feed trials (only 90 days)

and the parameters measured (lack of toxicological testing and data) are insufficient

to evaluate the health problems that are caused by diets of GMOs. The scientists

clearly stated that this lack of proper testing protocols is socially unacceptable in

terms of consumer health protection.

Substantially non-equivalent

Regulatory authorities use a basic chemical analysis of a GM variety and compare

this with it closest non-GM variety. If this chemical composition is much the same, the

GM variety is declared as substantially equivalent and suitable for uncontained

commercial release.

Bohn et al. (2014) were able to discriminate between organic, conventional and GE

soybeans without exception, based on vitamin, fat and protein content. Furthermore,

they were able to distinguish GM soybeans from both conventional and organic by

their glyphosate and AMPA (glyphosate degradation product) residues, as well as

substantial non-equivalence in numerous compositional characteristics of soybeans.

The researchers stated, “Using 35 different nutritional and elemental variables to

characterise each soy sample, we were able to discriminate GM, conventional and

organic soybeans without exception, demonstrating ‘substantial non-equivalence’ in

compositional characteristics for ‘ready-to-market’ soybeans” (p. 207).

Multiple Health Problems

A peer-reviewed study published by Swanson et al. (2014) found a strong correlation

between the rise in the production of GMOs, use of glyphosate and 22 chronic

diseases in the USA such as diabetes, obesity, lipoprotein metabolism disorder,

Alzheimer’s, senile dementia, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and autism.

The study showed how this rise in glyphosate exposure is due to the increase in

glyphosate tolerant GMO crops in the USA and cited numerous scientific studies

showing how glyphosate can cause or increase susceptibility to these diseases.

Seralini et al. (2011) published a study that reviewed 19 studies of animals fed with

GMO soy and corn in the peer reviewed scientific journal Environmental Sciences

Europe. The studies covered more that 80% of the GMO varieties that are widely

cultivated around the world.

Their review found significant levels of negative effects to kidneys and livers in the

animals that were fed GMOs. The scientists stated: ‘…the kidneys were particularly

affected, concentrating 43.5% of all disrupted parameters in males, whereas the liver

was more specifically disrupted in females (30.8% of all disrupted parameters).’

(Seralini et al. 2011)

One of the key conclusions is that the current testing methodologies (small sample

sizes, inadequate doses, inappropriate controls), length of feed trials (only 90 days)

and the parameters measured (lack of toxicological testing and data) are insufficient

to evaluate the health problems that are caused by diets of GMOs. The scientists

clearly stated that this lack of proper testing protocols is socially unacceptable in

terms of consumer health protection.

GM Maize Linked to Cancer, Liver and Kidney Disease

The only lifetime comparison feeding study found that rats fed a diet that contains a

proportion of GM maize or minute residues of Roundup has resulted in significantly

higher increases of tumours, kidney disease, liver damage and other negative health

effects.

The study led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini and published in Food and Chemical

Toxicology has found that both the GM maize and Roundup acted as endocrine

disrupters and resulted in the females dying 2 – 3 times more than the control

animals. (Seralini et al. 2014)

The females that were fed either GM maize or non-GM maize with minute roundup

residues developed large mammary tumours almost always more often than and

before the controls. All the non-control females, except for one that had ovarian

cancer, had mammary hypertrophies (enlarged mammary glands) and in some cases

hyperplasia with atypia (nodules in the mammary glands).

These pictures are examples of the types of mammary gland tumours (breast cancer)

that the scientists found in the rats. Photos permission of Seralini et al 2014.

The pituitary gland was the second most disabled organ and the sex hormonal

balance was modified in females fed with the GMO and Roundup treatments.

The treated males presented 4 times more large palpable tumours (large enough that

they can be felt by hand) than controls and these occurred up to 600 days earlier.

The treated males had liver congestions and necrosis that were 2.5 – 5.5 times higher

than the controls as well as marked and severe kidney nephropathies (kidney

damage) that were also generally 1.3 – 2.3 greater than the controls.

This study was the first 2-year feeding trial conducted on rats designed to see the

effects of a GM diet over an animal’s lifetime. Currently, no regulatory authority

requests mandatory chronic animal feeding studies to be performed for edible GMOs.

However, studies consisting of 90-day rat feeding trials have been conducted by the

biotech industry even though there is no requirement to do this.

The standard comparison of the chemical composition used for establishing

substantial equivalence of the GM maize used in this study (NK603) revealed no

particular difference and consequently it was classified as substantially equivalent.

Similarly, a 90-day feeding trial showed no significant differences between the

controls and the rats fed the GM maize variety.

The results of the 2 year feeding study show that the current regulatory system for

approving GM crops for consumption are inadequate for assessing the effects of

eating these foods over a normal lifetime.

Uterine and stomach damage in pigs

Currently there is only one large sample size published peer reviewed comparison

study of a GM diet in pigs. This is significant as pigs have a gastrointestinal tract and

other organs that are physiologically similar to humans. Carman et al. (2013) found

that the GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM-fed

pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs. GM-fed pigs had a

higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% of GM-fed pigs

compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs.

Carman et al. (2013) stated: ‘Even though pigs are physiologically similar to humans,

particularly for gastrointestinal observations, very few toxicology studies have been

conducted on them for GM crops (Walsh et al., 2012a). In doing this study, we not

only used animals that were physiologically similar to humans, but we also weighed

and internally examined organs and took blood for biochemical analysis. We further

used a large enough sample size (168 pigs, 84 per group) to be able to determine

statistical significance for key toxicological outcomes.’

GM Soy has adverse effect on the offspring

One of the most concerning issues is the negative effect that occurs in the offspring

of rats and mice that are fed GM diets. These effects include increased infant

mortality, reduced litter sizes and reduced body weights of the offspring.

In experimental trials male and female mice were fed GM soy and then mated. The

early stage embryos (4-8 cells) showed a temporary decrease in gene expression.

This was not found in embryos whose parents ate natural non-GM soy. (Oliveri 2006)

There is strong body of science that shows that subtle changes to gene expression in

embryos can cause permanent negative effects in the development of offspring.

A Russian rat study conducted by Dr Irina Ermakova and colleagues found that

offspring of rats fed in GM soy had higher levels of mortality than rates fed with non-

GMO soy. (Ermakova 2006)

The scientists noted that babies of the rats that were fed GMO diets developed at

slower rate, had lower weights and looked markedly different than the babies of rates

that were fed non-GMO diets. Images permission of Jeffery M Smith

The photo on the upper right is the offspring from mothers fed natural soy. In the

lower left is the GM group. Images permission of Jeffery M Smith

The GMO group has a significant reduction in average weight. Images permission of

Jeffery M Smith

Difficulties with conception

Dr. Ermakova and her colleagues found that the mated offspring of the GM group did

not conceive. This is a serious concern that needs to be fully investigated with more

scientific research. (Ermakova 2006)

GM soy damages testicles

One of the possible causes for the developmental differences and the lack of fertility

in the offspring of mice that are fed GMOs is that several studies have found that

GMO diets cause structural changes to the testicles. A study published in the

European Journal of Histochemistry found that testicles of mice fed GM soy had

altered structures and functions that influenced sperm development. (Vecchio 2004)

Images permission of Jeffery M Smith

GM potatoes damaged rats

Studies published in highly respected medical journal The Lancet and in the peer

reviewed Journal Nutrition and Health by Dr Arpad Pusztai showed multiple serious

problems with rats that were fed GM potatoes. The scientific studies found that the

rats that were fed on the GMO developed smaller brains, livers and testicles, had

partial atrophy of the liver and damage to immune system. The studies showed that

the rats developed potentially precancerous cell growth in the linings of their stomach

and intestinal walls. (Pusztai 2002, Ewen and Pusztai 1999)

The picture on the left is the intestinal wall of a rat that was fed on non-GMO potato.

Picture on right is from a rat that was fed on GMO potato. These types inflammatory

growths are potentially precancerous and can lead to bowel cancer, which has

become one of the forms of cancer that is increasing in humans.

Images permission of Jeffery M Smith

The picture on the left is the stomach wall of a rat that was fed non-GMO potato. On

the right is the stomach wall of a rat that was fed the GM-potato. These inflammatory

growths are potentially precancerous. Images permission of Jeffery M Smith

GMO soybean products

There are several animal studies that show range of adverse effects from consuming

GMO soybean products. Mice fed GMO soy for 8 months had a profound drop in the

amount of digestive enzymes produced by their pancreas. (Malatesta 2002 a,

Malatesta 2003). Researcher also found that the liver cells were damaged or

misshapen and there was altered gene expression. They found that there was a

higher rated metabolic activity that suggested that the liver was reacting to a toxic

insult. (Malatesta 2002 b)

The above photos show how the membrane surrounding the nuclei of liver cells was

more irregular in the GM-fed mice. Images permission of Jeffery M Smith.

The above photos show that within the nuclei of the liver cells, the structure called the

nucleoli was also misshapen in the GM-fed mice. Images permission of Jeffery M

Smith.

Rats fed GM soy also showed changes in their livers. Images permission of Jeffery M

Smith.

BT Corn

In a study by Monsanto made public because of a lawsuit, rats fed Bt corn developed

signs of liver and kidney toxicity. These included kidney inflammation and kidney

lesions, and decreased kidney weight. The latter symptom is typically related to blood

pressure problems. They also developed increased basophiles that are related to

allergies. The study showed that they had increased lymphocytes or white blood cells

that are part of the immune system indicating a reaction to infection or possibly

disease. There was a 10% increase in blood sugar and decreased immature red

blood cells by 50%. (Burns 2002, Seralini 2007)

GM Corn

When Liberty Link corn was fed to chickens, twice the number of chickens died. But,

the test conducted by the industry was designed so poorly; even a doubling of the

death rate was not statistically significant. (Leeson 1996)

FlaverSavr Tomato

The first GM crop that was looked at by the US FDA was the FlavrSavr tomato,

engineered to have a longer shelf life. Calgene, its producers, were the only

company to give the United States FDA raw feeding study data. They did a study

with rats but the rats refused to eat the tomato.

They force fed rats the FlavrSavr tomato for 28 days. 7 of 20 rats developed stomach

lesions. Another 7 of 40 died within 2 weeks. In the documents made public,

scientists said that the study doesn’t show “a reasonable certainty of no harm.” The

FDA did not block the introduction of the tomato.

The company had created two lines of the GM tomato, both with the same gene

inserted. One was associated with these high rates of lesions and deaths, the other

was not. The company voluntarily decided to market the one that was not associated

with the rat problems.

This also provides an example of how the same crop inserted with identical genes,

may have very different results. And it provides a good example of what can go

wrong with GMOs. (FDA 1993, Pusztai 2002)

GM pea

In Australia, CSIRO researchers took a gene from a kidney bean that produced

proteins that acted as a pesticide, and inserted it into peas to kill the pea weevil. The

researchers did an allergic-type test on mice that no other GMO food crop developer

had done before.

When they exposed mice to the pesticide proteins from the kidney beans, it caused

no reaction. They expected the same to happen when mice were exposed to the

“same” protein produced by the transgene inside the peas. In fact, the amino acid

sequence was identical in both proteins as the one produced by both the bean and

the pea. But the mice developed an inflammatory response to the protein produced in

the GMO peas. It was an immune type response that was very dangerous,

suggesting that the peas might create a deadly anaphylactic shock or other types of

immune or inflammatory reactions in humans.

To understand why the GMO pea caused the severe allergy problems, the

researchers looked very carefully at the protein structure and found that the sugars

that had attached to it had a slightly changed pattern. They said it was the slightly

changed pattern of the sugars that made the peas harmful.

The problem is that the potentially deadly GM peas had already passed all the allergy

tests that are normally used to get GM foods on the market. The only reason they

were stopped was because the crop developer had chosen to use a mice study that

had never been used on any other GM food crop. This shows that the regulatory

system, as practiced, is a failure, and may be letting deadly allergens on the market.

To the credit of the CSIRO they discontinued bringing the GMO pea to commercial

production. (Prescott 2005)

GM L-tryptophan and human deaths

In the late 1980s an epidemic that killed about 100 Americans and caused another 5-

10,000 to fall sick or become permanently disabled was traced to an amino acid

health supplement called L-tryptophan. L-tryptophan is a common amino acid that is

found in milk products. For many years it was extracted from milk and sold as health

supplement to for aiding sleep and calming mood disorders.

A Japanese company Showa Denko started to produce L-tryptophan from genetically

engineering the bacteria. The epidemic was traced back to the L-tryptophan that was

produced from the genetically engineering the bacteria. (Mayeno and Gleich 1994)

Effect on mothers and children

The greatest concern for humans is that the toxin from pesticide producing GMOs

can be found in bloodstream of women and their unborn children. A Canadian study

published in the scientific journal, Reproductive Toxicology, found the pesticide toxin

from GMO crops in the blood samples of women and their unborn babies.

The GMO toxin was found in 93 percent of maternal blood samples and of greater

concern in 80 percent of fetal blood samples. These women were eating the typical

Canadian diet. (Aris and Leblanc 2011)

A peer-reviewed study published in Journal of Applied Toxicology that researched the

combination of the GMO-produced Bt toxin pesticides and Roundup found that they

altered the normal life cycle of cells in human organs. The researchers concluded: “In

these results, we argue that modified Bt toxins are not inert on nontarget human

cells, and that they can present combined side effects with other residues of

pesticides specific to GM plants.” (Mesnage at al. 2013)

Given the evidence of the damaging changes to the offspring of animals fed a GMO

diet, the Canadian study should be the cause of great concern amongst health

professionals and regulators to ensure that the GMO foods that are currently being

consumed are not doing damage to our future generations.

Conclusion

Zdziarski et al. showed there are no studies showing the safety of overwhelming

majority (81%) the main commercially released GMOs. Furthermore they showed

that the existing studies are inadequate to determine that GMOs are safe for human

and animal feed. The data from the published studies cited in this article show that

the assertion by the GMO industry that there is no evidence of damaging health

effects from the consumption of GMO foods is clearly wrong. The data show that the

current situation where there is no mandatory requirement for feeding studies to be

conducted for GMO’s before their commercial release should be seen as neglect of

good science by regulatory authorities. The policy that GMOs are ‘substantially

equivalent’ to non-GMOs and therefore do not need testing is a data free assumption

given that Bohn et al. were able to discriminate GM, conventional and organic

soybeans without exception, demonstrating ‘substantial non-equivalence’ in

compositional characteristics for ‘ready-to-market’ soybeans and that Séralini et al.

were able to demonstrate considerable adverse health outcomes from GM foods

deemed as substantially equivalent. The results of the 2 year feeding study show that

the current regulatory system for approving GM crops for consumption are

inadequate for assessing the effects of eating these foods over a normal lifetime. It

shows that the voluntary 90-day trials used by industry are inadequate to test for

adverse effects and therefore should be disregarded as evidence of safety. The

results of the Carman et al. study shows the need to test these foods on animals that

have gastrointestinal tracts and other organs that are physiologically similar to

humans.

The current testing methodologies (small sample sizes, inadequate doses,

inappropriate controls), length of feed trials (only 90 days) and the parameters

measured (lack of toxicological and histopathological testing and data) are

insufficient to evaluate the health problems that are caused by diets of GMOs. The

research scientists clearly stated that the lack of proper testing protocols is

unacceptable in terms of human health protection.

Until all the commercially released GMOs are tested on animals with gastrointestinal

tracts and other organs that are physiologically similar to humans and that these

tests evaluate the effects of eating these foods over a lifetime, the GMO industry and

the government regulators have no published peer reviewed scientific evidence that

the consumption of GMO foods are safe for humans and animals. In reality they are

using data free assumptions that these novel foods are safe and given that there is a

substantial body of published studies showing adverse health effects, this should be

seen as totally unacceptable.

References Cited

Aris A and Leblanc S, 2011, Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to

genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.

Reproductive Toxicology. 2011 May; 31(4):528-33. Epub 2011 Feb 18.

Burns JM, 2002, 13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863

Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption

Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002, December 17, 2002

Bohn T, Cuhra M, Travail T, Sanden M, Fagan J and Primicerio R, 2014,

Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: glyphosate accumulates

in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. Food Chemistry. 153: 207-15.

Carman JA, Vlieger HR, Ver Steeg LJ, Sheller VE, Robinson GW, Clinch-Jones CA,

Haynes JI, John W and Edwards JW, 2013, A long-term toxicology study on

pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet, Journal

of Organic Systems, 8(1): 38-54.

Coghlan A, 2002, GM crop DNA found in human gut bugs, New Scientist, 18 July

2002, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2565-gm-crop-dna-found-inhuman-

gut-bugs.html#.VGcUOr7lelI (Last viewed 15 November 2014)

Ermakova IV, 2006, GMO: Life itself intervened into the experiments, Letter

EcosInform N2 (2006): 3-4.

Ewen SWB and Pusztai A, 1999, Effect of diets containing genetically modified

potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine, Lancet,

1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4.]

FDA, 1993, Department of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16,

1993. As quoted in Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl, 1993, “Flavr Savr

Tomato: . . . Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions

From Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert

Panel’s Report,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993)

Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J, 1999, Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter – A Recipe

for Disaster?, Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 1999; 11: 194–197

Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J, 2009, New evidence links CaMV 35S promoter to

HIV transcription. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, 21: 172–174.

Ho M, 2013, The New Genetics and Natural versus Artificial Genetic Modification.

Entropy, 15(11),4748-4781. https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/11/4748

(Viewed: 14 October, 2013)

Leeson S, 1996, The Effect of Glufosinate Resistant Corn on Growth of Male Broiler

Chickens, Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph,

Report No. A56379, July 12, 1996.]

Malatesta M et al., 2002 a, Ultrastructural Analysis of Pancreatic Acinar Cells from

Mice Fed on Genetically modified Soybean, Journal of Anatomy 201, no. 5

(November 2002): 409;

Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan, Rocchi M.B, Serafini S, Tiberi C, Gazzanelli

G, 2002 b, Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses

of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean, Cell

Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180

Malatesta M, Biggiogera M, Manuali E, Rocchi M. B. L., Baldelli B, Gazzanelli G,

2003, Fine Structural Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed

on GM Soybean, Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385-388.

Mayeno AN and Gleich GJ, 1994, Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and tryptophan

production: a cautionary tale. Tibtech 12, 346-352. Morphometrical and

Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on

Genetically Modified Soybean,” Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180

Mesnage R et al., 2013, Cytotoxicity on Human Cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt

Insecticidal Toxins Alone or with a Glyphosate-Based Herbicide, Journal of

Applied Toxicology 33, no. 7 (July 2013): 695–99. Originally published online

February 2012

Oliveri et al., 2006, Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Preimplantation

Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean, 48th

Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy),

September 7-10, 2006.

Pearson H, 2003, Deadly virus effortlessly hops species – Genetic engineering helps

reveal origin of deadly ‘flu, Nature doi:10.1038/news030331-4, Published

online 2 April 2003,https://www.nature.com/news/2003/030331/full/news030331-

4.html (last viewed 15 November 2014)

Prescott VE et al., 2005, Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas

Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity, Journal of Agricultural Food

Chemistry (2005): 53.

Pusztai A, 2002, Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of

GM food, Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84;

Seralini GE, Cellier D and Spiroux de Vendomois J, New analysis of a rat feeding

study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity by

(2007) Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 52, 596-602.

Seralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D

and Spiroux de Vendômois J, 2014, Republished study: long-term toxicity of a

Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.

Environmental Sciences Europe, 2014: 14.

Seralini GE, Mesnage R, Clair E, Gress S, de Vendomois J and Cellier D, 2011,

Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible

improvements. Environmental Sciences Europe, 23: 10.

Shoemaker NB, Vlamakis H, Hayes K & Salyers AA, 2002, Evidence for extensive

resistance gene transfer among Bacteroides spp. and among Bacteroides and

other genera in the human colon. Applied and Environmental Microbiology

67,561 – 5682001.

Swanson NL, Leu A, Abrahamson J & Wallet B, 2014, Genetically engineered crops,

glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of

America, Journal of Organic Systems, 9(2), 2014

Vecchio L et al, 2004, Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically

Modified Soybean, European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec

2004): 449-454.]

Zdziarski IM, Edwards JW, Carman JA and Haynes JI, 2014, GM crops and the rat

digestive tract: A critical review, Environment International 73 (2014) 423–433

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT HERE

A Narrow Focus on Boosting Farm Production Can Result in Land Degradation, Deforestation and Pollution

/by

Author: Sophie Hares | Published: May 3, 2017 

Efforts to fight rural poverty need to take better account of the environment and local culture to avoid exacerbating the problems they are meant to solve, researchers said.

Agricultural development programmes should consider more than just economic growth when trying to move people out of the poverty trap, and consider the links between social and ecological systems, said a paper published on Wednesday in the journal Science Advances.

“If you’re ignoring nature and culture, even the economic equations show there would be adverse consequences,” said co-author Jamila Haider from the Stockholm Resilience Centre.

Traditional seed types and agricultural practices risk being lost, alongside cultural links to crops, through development projects to introduce higher-yielding and more marketable crops.

In some cases, a rise in production has resulted in worse land degradation, including deforestation and pollution, and left communities more exposed to shocks, said the researchers.

They also noted cases where new seed types failed because local customs and environmental conditions were neglected.

The report said “resilience thinking” could shed light on why many aid projects – including those that pay for seeds, fertilizers, and machinery – fail to help people out of poverty.

KEEP READING ON TRUST.ORG

Fair World Project Launches Grow Ahead Crowdfunding Platform to Facilitate Direct Lending and More for Small-scale Farmers

/by

Published: May 3, 2017 

Leading fair trade advocacy organization, Fair World Project (FWP), has announced the launch of Grow Ahead, a crowdfunding platform to facilitate direct lending, farmer-to-farmer trainings, and scholarships to support farmer-led agroecology projects throughout the Global South. Individual consumers can forge an intimate link with frontline farmer organizations, directly fund farmer initiatives, and support the global effort to address climate change on the farm.

“Small-scale farmer organizations in the developing world are historically under-resourced, with limited access to the capital needed to grow their organizations beyond their day-to-day needs. Most development funding for agriculture is focused on industrial and chemical-dependent practices, often through a single company’s supply chain, or as part of an initiative focused on a single technology. Grow Ahead intends to bridge the resource and funding gap, acting as a launch pad for larger, regional agroecological development campaigns that focus on whole farm systems, not solely on individual commodities,” states Fair World Project Executive Director Dana Geffner.

In 2015, Fair World Project (FWP) collaborated with the Latin American and Caribbean Network of Fair Trade Small Producers (CLAC) in a contest soliciting small-scale farmer groups to share their experiences and best practices in confronting climate change in their communities. Farmer submissions demonstrated impressive steps to adjust to the growing challenge of climate change, by diversifying farms, promoting on-farm innovation, and improving soil fertility, among other practices. To read more about this project, https://clac-comerciojusto.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/climate-change-latin-america.pdf

“These agroecological strategies for combating climate change and feeding hungry communities, such as use of cover-crops and compost to sequester carbon and boost soil fertility and organic matter, must be a global priority, scaling up and out in coming years. Small-scale farmer organizations have the potential to quickly and effectively implement cost-effective climate-resilient tactics, while simultaneously generating a multiplier effect, expanding their experience and organizational impact,” states Grow Ahead Director Ryan Zinn.

Despite the serious threat that climate change poses to humanity in general, and to small-scale farmers in particular, proven solutions like small-scale regenerative agriculture that have a long track record of success. However, these regenerative methods proven to mitigate climate change receive little government or market support and safeguards.

KEEP READING ON PR NEWSWIRE

Approach With Caution: An Assessment of Fair Trade USA’s Domestic Labeling Initiative

/by

Authors: Dana Geffner and Kerstin Lindgren| Published: May 5, 2017 

Fair Trade USA’s (FTUSA) label is showing up on fruits and vegetables in produce departments around the country. Unfortunately, that’s not necessarily a step forward for farmworkers.

In Fair World Project’s recent report Justice in the Fields we evaluate seven different labels claiming to benefit farmworkers either domestically or internationally. We conclude that Fair Trade USA (FTUSA) is a program to “Approach With Caution”. We recommend four other labels ahead of FTUSA.

As we explain in our report, fair trade is a movement and a market descriptor that emerged out of the need for marginalized small-scale producers in the global south to organize and gain access to global markets. The application of the term “fair trade” to an ever-expanding scope of geographies and production settings is confusing and misleading to consumers who rely on it to identify products made by small-scale producers. This expansion of scope also threatens small-scale producers who suddenly find themselves competing against large-scale producers using the same term. These are real concerns that also led us to rate Fair Trade USA poorly as a farmworker justice label. This “Approach With Caution” warning applies equally to FTUSA’s more established work on medium- to large-scale farms in the Global South.

The concerns we outline here also mirror similar concerns with FTUSA’s separate standards for fisheries and apparel, both of which are also now open to domestic production and labeling.

Why Approach Fair Trade USA with Caution?

FTUSA may be the program with the most marketing resources, but they are not the program closest to the ground. That means there has been a lot of buzz about FTUSA’s entry into the domestic market and the casual observer may be led to believe they are the only alternative to the conventional system of low wages and poor conditions on the field. Not only is that not true, the net benefit of this labeling program may well be negative as it draws attention away from stronger, farmer-led programs.

The reality is that three of the four programs we rated higher than FTUSA are U.S. programs that have been working in this context for longer than FTUSA. And although union membership in general is down, independent, grassroots unions like Familias Unidas por la Justicia are breathing new life into this tried and true organizing model.

While it is certainly true that there is room for multiple approaches to provide a remedy and alternative to exploitation on the field, our analysis revealed that FTUSA’s approach does not add any strong or unique features to the landscape. It is, at best, a corporate social responsibility program.

Farmworker-Led: Does It Really Matter?

We often say that all stakeholders, especially intended beneficiaries, of any program need to be at the table for its development, enforcement, and monitoring. This may sound like an academic ideal, or even just a courtesy to include those who are the target beneficiaries. But having multiple representatives of beneficiaries and a balanced stakeholder development is vital. If you look at the Fair Trade USA standards, you may see that they include common sense elements. Workers must wear protective equipment, workers must be paid directly for all work they perform on a regular schedule, workers must have rest breaks and work overtime only if willing. These are all good basic requirements and, unfortunately, not guaranteed on conventional farms.

In contrast, Agricultural Justice Project (AJP), Fair Food Program (FFP), and Equitable Food Initiative (EFI) were all created with farmworker organizations as founding members and, although they take different approaches and have room for improvement, have one or more elements that positions them as leaders in the field—and shows the importance of farmworker perspective in the development of standards.

AJP requires phasing out piece rate, a form of payment associated with wage theft, increased physical risk, and discrimination, requires living wages or transparent pay negotiations between farmworkers and managers, and requires toxin reduction and least toxic alternatives to pesticides and other chemicals to be used in all cases.

FFP requires all farmworkers to be hired directly by the farm, increasing accountability. FFP has also developed a model complaints resolution program and a legally binding mechanism to transfer money directly from the most profitable end of the supply chain to the most economically disadvantaged.

EFI has developed comprehensive training programs for both auditors and on-farm leadership committees.

While FTUSA covers the bare bones minimum requirements for working conditions, they fail to cover new ground or take the lead in fair pay, democratic organization, or other key areas of worker empowerment. Instead, in an industry known for its exploitation of workers, FTUSA’s standards stick to small improvements that could best be described as adequate.

Adequate Standards, Inadequate Enforcement

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers, the farmworker organization that developed the FFP, makes the strong case that standards without enforcement amount to empty promises. FFP’s enforcement elements include worker-to-worker training, a 24-hour complaints hotline that has become a hallmark of the program, and legally binding contracts with market consequences for non-compliance.

AJP’s monitoring and enforcement incorporates independent worker organizations that help conduct worker interviews and remain available in between audits to hear worker complaints.

Annual audits are very important in understanding how a certified entity operates. But they are not sufficient to understand the full picture of what is happening, especially when announced ahead of time. If a farm is employing child labor, for example, they may ask the children to stay home the day of the audit. Protective equipment may be dusted off and handed out for the audit period even if workers don’t have consistent access throughout the year. A group of workers may be consistently assigned fields were conditions are least favorable (lower yielding plants, for example, on a farm where workers are paid by what they are able to pick) and that might not be clear to an auditor based on a day or week of observation.

Workers must be able to describe in their own words through interviews and complaint resolution channels what is really going on and how well their needs are being met. They also must be empowered to improve their conditions, both by reporting violations of established standards, and in proposing innovations. FTUSA relies too heavily on annual audits conducted by professional auditors without farmworker organization participation. Though farms do have some worker committees, the mandated committees have a narrow scope: administration of a premium or making recommendations for health and safety improvements. These committees are not guaranteed to have the authority or power to investigate the full range of worker grievances or to negotiate with management beyond their narrow scope.

There is too much margin for complaints to be buried or missed in this system and not enough opportunities for workers to be empowered to change their own pay and conditions. With inadequate enforcement, barely adequate standards quickly become meaningless.

KEEP READING ON THE HUFFINGTON POST