Role of agriculture, food discussed at new summit

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Discussion on the food we eat was the main dish March 30 at BizWest’s inaugural Food and Ag Summit.

The summit, held at the Ranch Events Complex in Loveland, Colo., featured speakers from colleges, farms, food processors and various marketing and educational agencies who are experts in their fields.

Kimberly Willard, director of events and marketing at BizWest, said the even was prompted by trends and opportunities in the conventional agricultural and natural foods industries.

“We had a steering committee that met to decide what needs should be discussed,” Willard said. “We had it pinned down by February. It was quick work, but it wasn’t born yesterday.”

Willard said the event drew about 200 attendees. Panels spoke on topics such as regenerative agriculture, global trade and raising money to finance and grow business.

Aileen Rickert Ehn, chair of the Agricultural Sciences and Technology department at Aims Community College, moderated a panel on recruiting for talent in agricultural businesses.

“In people’s minds, agriculture goes straight to the farmer on his tractor,” Ehn said. “But we’re also talking about food processing, natural foods and technologies.”

She noted that attendees of the panel she moderated were not necessarily people looking for laborers or employees with a background in the industry, but people with passion, integrity and a good work ethic.

“It’s not the same as it was 100 years ago when people who worked in agriculture came from a farm,” Ehn said. “Now, about 70 percent of people in agriculture haven’t come from a farm.”

Students flocking a agriculture now are doing so, she said, because they believe in the industry and what it’s doing. And with a broader knowledge of the agricultural industry comes the understanding of just how many career opportunities exist, from processing to drone technology, to natural foods and clothing.

The summit also featured panels on how immigration reform may present challenges to the industry, global trade and regenerative agriculture.

Steve Hoffman is managing director of Compass Natural Marketing, an agency that services natural, organic and sustainable enterprises. He spoke on the panel concerning regenerative agriculture and took part in the GMO debate held at the end of the summit.

Hoffman talked about the effect agriculture has on climate change and what farmers can do to help.

“Whether you’re a person who believes climate change is human made or natural, the impact of agriculture still needs to be considered,” Hoffman said.

Hoffman said farmers should be considering ways to draw carbon back into the depleted soil to improve soil health and present a positive solution to carbon building up.

Michael Brown of Greeley, attended the summit. While he doesn’t farm, his father-in-law did and his brother-in-law is continuing the tradition. Brown said he was particularly interested in the panel on immigration reform.

“I didn’t know about the H2A program that brings laborers to work on farms,” he said. “I don’t think a lot of people realize how much of an impact immigration has on agriculture.”

The H2A program helps farmers anticipate labor shortages and transports nonimmigrant foreign laborers to farms to work.

Brown called the summit “amazing” and said there was a lot of good information, even for people who are not in the industry.

For those who missed the summit, there is next year.

“It won’t be a carbon copy,” Willard said. “We’ll decide what issues are important and have a whole new summit.”

Source: The Fence Post

HFG/CFS AT NATURAL PRODUCTS EXPO WEST

HFG/CFS AT NATURAL PRODUCTS EXPO WEST

With its more than 70,000 visitors and 3,000 exhibitors, Expo West is the Coachella of the food industry. Catering to those interested in alternative ways of eating and producing food, Expo West began in 1980 – a time when organic food was still a “hippie-thing”, but GMOs hadn’t entered the market yet (commercial sale of GMOs began in 1994). Today, clean and green eating is all the rage, and Expo West has become an eclectic mix of big players exhibiting alongside new start-ups. Expo West is a must-visit for those who consider themselves part of the Food Movement.

HFG’s friend, Boulder-based organic industry marketing guru Steven Hoffman (Managing Partner, Compass Natural) is an Expo veteran – he’s attended the event a whopping 31 times and remains as enthusiastic as ever. Hoffman said of the event: “What stood out at Expo West was the overall record-breaking attendance and energy at the show. People from all over the world attend Expo West, as it has become the world’s primary showcase of healthy, natural and organic food and products innovation.” Hoffman, former Rodale Institute CEO Timothy LaSalle and others were part of a panel on regenerative agriculture that focused on the role of healthy soils in reversing climate change. The climate momentum we witnessed during last year’s COP21 in Paris is far from over – the industry is now catching up with what scientists and experts have been saying for years.

Expo West took place just a few days before we defeated the DARK Act, a federal bill that if passed would have preempted states from labeling GMOs. But labeling is not where it ends. Another issue that came up more than once was the future of the processed food industry. With new genome editing techniques on the horizon, how will we define GMOs in the future? Where is biotech headed and how will it influence our work as advocates and our lives as consumers? The sentiment at Expo was mostly in support of organic and sustainable foods, whereas in the exhibit halls one could still pick up products vaguely labeled as “natural”.

The “Non-GMO Verified” logo was very much present in the hall, but as Steven Hoffman rhetorically puts it: “Non-GMO product growth continues to be strong, but is it at the expense of a full commitment to organic?” Non-GMO verified products can still be produced with toxic synthetic chemicals, sewage sludge and irradiation. Organic is not a trend – at HFG/CFS, we believe that organic should be the floor, not the ceiling, of food production. Focusing on non-GMO can make shoppers even more confused than they are now due to the overwhelming abundance of labels and certifications.

A definitive highlight at Expo was the Living Wage panel with David Bronner (CEO, Dr. Bronner’s), The Fairness Project, Cambridge Naturals, Ben & Jerry’s and Fair World Project. It’s hard not to support the Fight for $15 – a national campaign that urges states to raise the minimum wage. And yet it’s important to see this fight from the employer’s perspective. The discussion provided great insight into how Dr. Bronner’s, Cambridge Naturals and Ben & Jerry’s have made it their mission to enforce fair labor policies and how this approach can make for a better product and a happier consumer.

See you at next year’s Expo West!

Don't Be Fooled by the Senate's GMO Fake Labeling Bill

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Commentary

By Steven Hoffman, Managing Director, Compass Natural

VIEW FULL ARTICLE HERE: FOODCONSUMER.ORG

“If you already belong to the more than 90% of Americans who want food produced with GMOs to be clearly labeled, then call your Senator today at 888.897.0174 and tell them to vote AGAINST the GMO fake labeling bill." – Former U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich

BOULDER, CO (June 29, 2016) – Pro-GMO labeling supporters were planning on celebrating on July 1 – the date when Vermont’s GMO labeling legislation becomes the first mandatory GMO labeling law of the land.

The state’s bold initiative protecting the consumer’s right to know compelled major food companies including General Mills, Campbell Soup, Kellogg and others to announce they would label for GMOs not just in Vermont, but throughout the U.S., just like they have to do in 64 other countries.

Instead, just as we were beginning to see actual GMO disclosures in plain English on food packages across the country as a result of the Vermont law (see photo, right, taken in a Colorado supermarket), a new proposed GMO labeling bill introduced in the U.S. Senate on June 23 seeks to overturn Vermont’s GMO labeling law and ban states from ever passing GMO labeling laws altogether.

Source: Food Consumer

The Growing World of Organic

Source: Wikimedia Commons

The Growing World of Organic: Number of U.S. Certified Organic Producers,  Worldwide Organic Acreage Hit All-time High

By Steven Hoffman

To satisfy domestic and international demand for all things organic, growing consistently at a double-digit pace, the number of certified organic producers in the U.S. hit an all time high in 2014, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in April 2016.Additionally, 43.7 million hectares, or over 100 million acres, of worldwide agricultural land was in organic production at the end of 2014 – a record high, as well, says the Swiss-based Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in its 2016 state of the global industry report, produced in partnership with IFOAM Organics International, the world’s leading organic producer association. According to new market data released by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service National Organic Program (NOP), there are now 21,781 certified organic operations in the U.S., and 31,160 certified organic operations worldwide. The number of domestic certified organic operations increased by almost 12% between 2014 and 2015, representing the highest growth rate since 2008 and an increase of nearly 300% since record keeping began in 2002, says NOP. The total retail market for organic products is valued at more than $39 billion in the U.S., and over $75 billion worldwide, reports USDA.

Organic: “Fastest Growing Segment of American Agriculture”

Organic food is one of the fasting growing segments of American agriculture," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "As consumer demand for organic products continues to grow, the USDA organic seal has become a leading global standard. The increasing number of organic operations shows that USDA's strong support for the vibrant organic sector is helping to create jobs and opportunities in rural communities." According to USDA, consumers are increasingly seeking out local foods, and industry data estimates that local food sales in the U.S. increased to $12 billion in 2014, up from $5 billion in 2008. USDA reports that it has invested more than $1 billion to over 40,000 local and regional food businesses and infrastructure projects since 2009 to boost growing markets for organic products and local foods. USDA has also established a number of resources to help organics producers find technical and financial resources to help them grow domestically and abroad, the agency said in a press release. The site www.usda.gov/organic creates a one-stop resource for operators, and USDA has made market and pricing information for approximately 250 organic products available free of charge through USDA's Market News. In 2015, USDA reported it made more than $11.5 million available to assist organic operations with their certification costs. Additionally, USDA’s NOP has made available to the public a list of certified organic operations and data on organic producers via its recently launched website https://apps.ams.usda.gov/integrity/. With the new database, made possible by the 2014 Farm Bill, organic certifiers can add new operations and report changes to existing operations at any time, allowing USDA to report updated counts of certified organic operations throughout the year. Additional information about USDA resources and support for the organic sector is available on the USDA Organics Resource page. Global Growth: 2.3 Million Organic Producers Worldwide Today, more farmers are cultivating organically on more land in more countries than ever before, according to FiBL’s 2016 report, The World of Organic Agriculture, released in February 2016. At the end of 2014, 2.3 million organic producers were farming, ranching or otherwise engaged in organic production on 43.7 million hectares (108 million acres) of organic agricultural land worldwide, says FiBL. In all, 172 countries reported organic farming activities in 2014 (up from 77 countries in 1999 when data was first collected). (For comparison, the total estimated agricultural land worldwide is 1.5 billion hectares.) Overall, 40% of the global organic agricultural land is in Oceania (including Australia) (17.3 million hectares), followed by Europe (27%; 11.6 million hectares) and Latin America (15%; 6.8 million hectares). Australia is the country with the largest organic agricultural area (17.2 million hectares), with 97% of that area used for grazing, followed by Argentina (3.1 million hectares, and the U.S. (2.2 million hectares). In terms of numbers of organic producers, most are small-scale landholders, and India was number one with 650,000 producers, Uganda second with 190,552 producers, and Mexico with 169,703 organic producers. Of note, reports FiBL, are the countries with the largest share of organic agricultural land relative to total farmland. Leading in this category are the Falkland Islands (36.3%), Liechtenstein (30.9%) and Austria (19.4%). In eleven countries, more than 10% of all agricultural land is organic, including the above mentioned plus Sweden, Estonia,Samoa, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Italy and others. The leading markets for organic products worldwide include the U.S. at number one with 27.1 billion Euros in sales and growing at 11%, followed by Germany (7.9 billion Euros), France (4.8 billion Euros) and China (3.7 billion Euros), reported FiBL. Sources of content and charts: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service National Organic Program; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) in partnership with IFOAM Organics International.

[Editor’s Note: Add Charts; see .jpg files attached.]

Senate Introduces Bill to Overturn Vermont’s Mandatory GMO Labeling Law in Favor of Watered-Down National Standard

June 27, 2016

By Steven Hoffman

[Editor’s Note: See two photos and captions to accompany the article, below.]

GMO labeling proponents were planning on celebrating on July 1 – the date when Vermont’s GMO labeling legislation became the first mandatory GMO labeling law of the land. The small state’s bold initiative protecting the consumer’s right to know compelled major national food brands including General Mills, Campbell Soup, Kellogg and others to announce they would label for GMOs not just in Vermont, but throughout the U.S.

Yet, just as we were beginning to see actual GMO labeling disclosures on food packages across the country as a result of Vermont’s labeling law (see photo, below), a new proposed GMO labeling bill introduced in the U.S. Senate just hours before the Fourth of July holiday recess seeks to overturn Vermont’s new law and ban states from ever passing GMO labeling laws altogether.

Unlike Vermont’s law that requires plain English text on the ingredient panel, the Senate bill – the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard – introduced by ranking Senate agriculture committee members Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Pat Roberts (R-KS), calls for a watered-down national standard that would offer manufacturers the option of placing QR code symbols or toll-free numbers on packages instead of plain English text to disclose if GMO ingredients are present. Those using QR codes or “smartlabels” would have to add a phrase such as “Scan here for more food information,” but would not be required to use the term “GMO” or “Genetic Engineering” on the label – a key point to which GMO labeling proponents strongly object.

Loophole, Loopholes and More Loopholes

In another concession to the biotech industry, the Senate bill would tightly define genetic engineering to include only recombinant DNA techniques, which involve transferring a gene from one organism to another different species. As such, all new biotechnology methods, such as CRISPR and gene editing, would be exempt from the national disclosure standards.

Milk or meat from animals fed GMO feed would be exempt from labeling for GMOs, and similarly food sold in a restaurants “or similar food retail establishment” would not have to label for GMOs.

Additionally, according to the Senate bill’s language, foods that have been refined to have the DNA removed would not be subject to any GMO labeling requirements, including refined sugar from GMO sugar beets, corn syrup from GMO corn and oil from GMO canola, William Hallman, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Human Ecology at Rutgers University, told Food Navigator USA.

The Stabenow/Roberts bill also omits a provision of House bill H.R. 1599 (dubbed by GMO labeling proponents as the DARK Act) that would require FDA to define the use of the word “natural” on food labels but leave it to the agency whether to allow genetically engineered ingredients.

Regarding penalties for non-compliance, while Vermont’s GMO labeling law calls for a stiff fine of $1,000 per day per product, there is no such penalty under the Senate bill. If the Stabenow/Roberts bill passes, USDA would have no authority to require recalls of products that don’t comply with the labeling requirements, and there would be no federal penalties for violations. States, however, could impose fines for violations of the standards under state consumer protection rules, reported Successful Farming.

The GMO Labeling Standard that Isn’t

Basically, by pre-empting Vermont’s law immediately, along with calling for a two-year delay in any implementation of a national standard – along with loopholes so big you could drive a truck through them – the Senate bill is the federal mandatory GMO labeling standard that isn’t, critics decry.

Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin criticized the two-year delay and pre-emption of Vermont’s law, among other provisions proposed in the bill, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) said he would do "everything I can" to defeat it. “People have a right to know what is in the food they eat," Sanders said in a statement.

“While much has been made of the significant problems with the type of labeling proposed in this bill (QR codes, 800 numbers and websites), an equally big problem is that the bill is filled with huge loopholes, meaning that most GMO products could escape any sort of labeling at all, Non-GMO Project Executive Director Megan Westgate told Food Navigator. “Indeed, this watered-down legislation is a world away from the rigorous protocols required of any product bearing the Non-GMO Project Verified label.”

"This proposal falls short of what consumers rightly expect — a simple at-a-glance disclosure on the package," said Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Just Label It and organic food company Stonyfield Farm, in a June 23 statement issued from Just Label It.

“Senators Stabenow and Roberts reached a deal that tramples on the rights of consumers, and the rights of states like Vermont to protect their own citizens. Instead, the Senate appears poised to pass a bill clearly intended to serve the interests of Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association,” said Ronnie Cummins, international director of the Organic Consumers Association, representing 2 million online and on-the-ground members.

OTA Defends Its Endorsement

In a concession to the organic industry, prompting a controversial endorsement of the Stabenow/Roberts bill from the Organic Trade Association (OTA), producers who have secured a “certified organic” designation from USDA would be allowed to clearly display a “non-GMO” label on their products.

Announcing that the bill “would for the first time require mandatory GMO labeling nationwide,” OTA said, “This legislation includes provisions that are excellent for organic farmers and food makers – and for the millions of consumers who choose organic every day – because they recognize, unequivocally, that USDA Certified Organic products qualify for non-GMO claims in the market place.”

In defending OTA’s position to endorse the Stabenow/Roberts bill, “A compromise bill was happening with or without us,” wrote OTA CEO Laura Batcha and Chair Melissa Hughes in a June 27 letter to membership.

 “This legislation isn’t nearly perfect,” Batcha and Hughes continued. “Some critics say it is a victory for big agriculture and big corporate interests. We understand how some may be fundamentally dissatisfied with this compromise solution, especially as it includes an option to reveal the presence of GMOs through technology that would require a smartphone and Internet access. OTA doesn’t like that option, and we are urging all companies, faced with the choice of how to disclose GMO ingredients, to choose to print a simple and clear statement of GMO content on the product label.”

“Saving the Biotech Industry”

Sen. Roberts, in an interview, said that the bill would “save” the agriculture biotech industry from being denigrated by opponents. “We have not only saved it we have protected it,” he said. “We have to do that. How are you going to feed 8.5 billion people down the road if you don’t have agricultural biotechnology?” Roberts said the electronic code link would let industry provide detailed educational materials on the safety of GMOs to educate consumers. Small manufacturers could use websites or telephone numbers to satisfy the requirements, he said.

Sen. Stabenow said the bill is a “win for consumers and families. For the first time ever, consumers will have a national, mandatory label for food products that contain genetically modified ingredients.”

With Congress in recess, the bill’s introduction came too late to prevent Vermont’s GMO labeling law from going into effect on July 1.

Sen. Roberts said he has talked with Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX), co-sponsor of HR 1599, which calls for banning state GMO labeling laws and voluntary labeling over mandatory labeling of GMOs. H.R. 1599 passed the House in July 2015. Speaking of his discussion with Conaway in Bloomberg News, Roberts said, “He thinks this is the best possible bill under the circumstances in the Senate knowing we have to get 60 votes. But I don’t’ know that I can get 60 votes to go to conference.”

# # #

Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural, providing brand marketing, PR, social media, and strategic business development services to natural, organic and sustainable products businesses. He served as Marketing Director for the Arrowhead Mills organic brand, is the former Editorial Director of Natural Foods Merchandiser Magazine, former Education Director of Natural Products Expo East and West, and co-founder of LOHAS Journal. Contact steve@compassnatural.com.

© 2016, Compass Natural LLC 

Photo Caption:  Instead of plain English text disclosures, which began appearing in supermarkets across the country in Spring 2016 as a result of Vermont’s GMO labeling law (the Cheerios package above was spotted in a Colorado supermarket), the Stabenow/Roberts bill would allow manufacturers to opt for QR code symbols or toll-free 800 numbers only to disclose GMO ingredients in their products.

Photo Caption:  U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee ranking members Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Pat Roberts (R-KS) on June 23 introduced a bill to overturn Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law in favor of a watered-down national labeling standard. The bill was backed by the pro-biotech lobby and GMA, however groups including Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food Safety, Food Democracy Now, Just Label It and others criticized it for failing to require text on the package.

The Soil Solution: Regenerative Farming

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Regenerative-farming techniques could reverse climate change through enhancing the soil.

By Eli Wallace

When scientists and environmentalists talk climate change, doom and gloom is often the main topic. Scientific American reported last spring that the earth was essentially at or close to the “point of no return,” in terms of carbon emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in 2009 that unless drastic action was taken between 2015 and 2020, it would be too late to save the ice caps, let alone polar bears, coastal infrastructure and the temperate, predictable weather patterns we know and love.

So it’s not every day you hear an environmentalist declare we can actually reverse global warming.

A woman from a neighboring village sells her produce at Vía Orgánica’s rural market in Peñon de los Baños. In addition to production at the ranch, Vía Orgánica sources produce from more than 100 campesino farmers in the region. Photo courtesy The Valhalla Movement.

Steven Hoffman, managing director of the Boulder-based environmental marketing group Compass Natural and an avid environmentalist with ties to Regeneration International, visited the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21 Global Climate Summit) in Paris this year, where the reversal of global warming through soil regeneration was a major focus.

“People keep talking about reducing carbon emissions and getting to carbon neutral, but that’s not enough anymore,” Hoffman says. “We’re already heating, so we need to take the excess from the atmosphere. A lot of people want to make new technology that can help solve our previous technology problems.”

Hoffman says the conversation around carbon emissions usually centers on personal consumption and oil use, even though 50 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions comes from agriculture.

“Yes, we need to increase renewable energy, but that’s only half the equation. All of the carbon in the air used to be in the ground, and industrial-scale agriculture is responsible. If you ignore that, you’re missing the practical, easily applied solution that we can address immediately.”

That solution, regenerative farming, focuses on increasing organic matter in the soil, which would up the amount of carbon in the soil. “We could sequester more than 100 percent of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic-management practices,” reported the white paper “Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change,” published by Rodale Institute, a nonprofit agricultural research group.

Nurturing the soil is a major component of regenerative farming that could turn the tide of global warming by sequestering more carbon in the soil. Photo by Lawrence Miglialo, courtesy The Valhalla Movement.

“Organic farming nurtures the living soil,” Hoffman explains. “Plants draw carbon from the air to their roots, where it’s sequestered in soil and used by microbes, worms and other organisms.”

Regenerative-farming practices are a focused, stricter subset of organic farming. They include conservation tillage, maintaining biodiversity, composting, mulching, planting cover crops, rotating crops, and no tolerance for synthetic pesticides and fertilizers that disturb soil life.

Agricultural Overhaul

To reach the goal of 100-percent sequestration of current carbon emissions, a drastic overhaul of agricultural management practices is required. However, “Even if modest assumptions about soil’s carbon-sequestration potential are made, regenerative agriculture can easily keep annual emissions to within the desirable range necessary… [and we would have] a good chance of limiting warming to 1.5° C by 2020,” the Rodale Institute argued.

“Big agriculture drains the soil, so the industry has to add a bunch of amendments—pesticides and chemical fertilizers—to get anything to grow. They’ll tell you that’s how they’re going to feed the world,” Hoffman says.

In addition to organic farming, Rancho Vía Orgánica is a natural retreat center with adobe buildings, walking trails, solar power, rainwater catchment, and gray water and composting systems. Starting in April, the ranch will offer monthly eco tours, where participants cans learn about the latest in organic regenerative-farming and ranching techniques. Photo by Lawrence Miglialo, courtesy The Valhalla Movement.

But he contends organic practices can produce yields comparable to conventional agriculture. The Rodale Institute agrees, pointing out that “yields under organic systems are likely to be more resilient to the extreme weather accompanying climate change,” and noting that “in drought years, yields were consistently higher in the organic systems” tested in its Rodale Institute Farming System Trial, which lasted 30 years.

The institute went on to say, “the continued use of the trope that ‘we will soon need to feed nine billion people’ as justification for seeking ever-greater yields is duplicitous. Hunger and food access are not yield issues. They are economic and social issues, which, in large part, are the result of inappropriate agricultural and development policies that have created, and continue to reinforce, rural hunger.”

Hoffman attended the Paris summit on behalf of Regeneration International and calls the “4 per 1000” initiative decided there “historic.” “The initiative is to increase soil carbon matter .04 percent per year over time to stop the increase in carbon in the atmosphere. It’s the first time in the history of climate change that international governments are discussing the role of soil,” Hoffman says.

Another part to the soil solution is reversing desertification and soil erosion.

“Holistic planned grazing” can reverse both, says the Boulder-based Savory Institute. In 2013, founder Allan Savory put forth the theory that grasslands evolved to depend upon wild herds to break down organic material. Essentially, holistic planned grazing uses livestock to mimic the wild herds of yesteryear, like the great bison herds that roamed America before the 1800s.

With the buffalo herds gone, we now use controlled burning for the same effect, but that releases large amounts of carbon and accelerates desertification by leaving soil uncovered. Savory has had remarkable results employing holistic planned grazing. In one South Dakota study, the technique resulted in total stoppage of soil erosion, a 77-percent decrease in bare ground, and a 40-percent decrease in the space between plants.

“If we [use holistic planned grazing], we can take enough carbon out of the atmosphere and safely store it in the grassland soils for thousands of years,” Savory said in a 2013 TED Talk. “If we do that on about half the world’s grasslands, we can take us back to pre-industrial [carbon] levels while feeding people.”

Take Action

Hoffman says spreading awareness of regenerative farming and supporting organic farms and food products are simple steps everyone can take. In your own yard, he suggests you avoid the monoculture of a grassy lawn as well as chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that damage topsoil (along with beneficial pollinators and soil organisms). If you have children, teach them sustainable gardening so the next generation of gardeners is familiar with organic practices and values organic food.

“You have to work it from every angle,” Hoffman says. “Never believe individual actions don’t make a difference. The organic industry grew because of individuals, one consumer at a time. We have a responsibility to vote with our dollars.”

Source: Home and Garden Magazine

GMO Mushroom Waved Through by USDA

Source: Wikimedia Commons

GMO Mushroom Waved Through by USDA, Potentially Opening Floodgates for Wave of Frankenfoods

A new gene-editing technology doesn't seem to bother our federal food regulator.

By Steven Hoffman / AlterNet

May 10, 2016

Repeat after me: Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats.

That’s CRISPR, a new GE technology that uses an enzyme, Cas9, to cut, edit or remove genes from targeted region of a plant’s DNA. Because it doesn’t involve transgenics, i.e. inserting genes from foreign species into an animal or plant, foods produced in this manner just received a free pass from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be sold into the marketplace.

In an April 2016 letter to Penn State researcher Yinong Yang, USDA informed the associate professor of plant pathology that his new patent-pending, non-browning mushroom, created via CRISPR technology, would not require USDA approval.

“The notification apparently clears the way for the potential commercial development of the mushroom, which is the first CRISPR-Cas9 gene-edited crop deemed to require no regulatory review by USDA,” reported Chuck Gill in Penn State News.

Why does this anti-browning mushroom not require USDA regulation? ”Our genome-edited mushroom has small deletions in a specific gene but contains no foreign DNA integration in its genome," said Yang. "Therefore, we believed that there was no scientifically valid basis to conclude that the CRISPR-edited mushroom is a regulated article based on the definition described in the regulations."

The USDA ruling could open the door for many genetically engineered crops developed using CRISPR-Cas9 technology, said Penn State. In fact, just days after USDA's notification regarding Yang's anti-browning mushroom, the agency announced that a CRISPR-Cas9-edited corn variety developed by DuPont Pioneer also will not be subject to the same USDA regulations as traditional GMOs.

In response to Pioneer's "Regulated Article Letter of Inquiry," about the new GE corn product, the USDA said it does not consider the CRISPR corn "as regulated by USDA Biotechnology Regulatory Services," reported Business Insider.

Not so fast, cautions Michael Hansen, senior scientist for Consumers Union. Just because USDA says CRISPR needs no regulation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which uses the international CODEX definition of “modern biotechnology,” would “clearly include” the new Penn State CRISPR mushroom, says Hansen.

“The biotechnology industry will be trying to argue to USDA that these newer techniques are more "precise and accurate" than older GE techniques and should require even less, or no scrutiny,” he says. “Thus, the issue of what definition to use for GE is a crucial one,” Hansen points out.

“The government does realize that there is a disconnect between USDA and EPA and FDA about what the definition of genetic engineering is, and that is part of the reason why it is in the process of reviewing the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology,” Hansen says. “Thus, the last sentence in USDA’s letter to Dr. Yang at Penn State would say, ‘Please be advised that your white button mushroom variety described in your letter may still be subject to other regulatory authorities such as FDA or EPA.’”

Yang does plan to submit data about the CRISPR mushroom to the FDA as a precaution before introducing the crop to the market, he says. While FDA clearance is not technically required, Yang told Science News, “We’re not just going to start marketing these mushrooms without FDA approval.”

Gary Ruskin, co-director of the advocacy group U.S. Right to Know, told Fusion on April 25 that the organization’s concerns about genetically engineered food crops extend to Penn State’s new CRISPR mushroom. “What are the unknowns about CRISPR generally, and in particular, in its application in this mushroom?” he asked. “Regulators should determine whether there are off-target effects. Consumers have the right to know what’s in our food.”

In Europe, however, where anti-GMO advocates have strongly opposed CRISPR, Urs Niggli, director of the Swiss Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) was recently quoted in the German newspaper Taz that CRISPR may be different from traditional GMO technologies and could alleviate some concerns groups like FiBL have with older gene-editing techniques. His comments have since been subject to much interpretation and criticism among both pro- and anti-GMO circles.

While biotech proponents claim that CRISPR has much to offer, Nature reported in June 2015 that scientists are worried that the field's fast pace leaves little time for addressing ethical and safety concerns. The issue was thrust into the spotlight in April 2015, when news media reported that scientists had used CRISPR technology to engineer human embryos. The embryos they used were unable to result in a live birth. Nature reported that the news generated heated debate over whether and how CRISPR should be used to make heritable changes to the human genome. Some scientists want to see more studies that probe whether the technique generates stray and potentially risky genome edits; others worry that edited organisms could disrupt entire ecosystems, Nature reported.

Appetite for Organic Tops $35 Billion

The organic products industry grew to be a $35-billion business in 2013, reported the Organic Trade Association (OTA) in May 2014. The reported 11.5% increase from 2012 is the fastest growth rate in the last five years. The OTA expects this growth will continue over the next two years. “Consumers are making the correlation between what we eat and our health, and that knowledge is spurring heightened consumer interest in organic products,” said Laura Batcha, executive director and CEO of OTA.

Organic products are comprised of foods, flowers, fiber, household products and pet food. Organic food sales, which accounts for about 92% of total organic sales, were $32.3 billion in 2013. Organic food sales broke the $30 billion mark in 2012 and, according to the OTA, now accounts for more than 4% of the $760 billion in annual food sales in the United States. While total foods sales have averaged an annual average growth of 3%, the growth rate of organic food sales has grown an average of 10% every year since 2010.

Although continued growth is expected in the sale of organic products, there is still confusion among consumers about what organic means. The message of organic can be lost next to the presence of “natural” products and the long debate around GMOs, cautioned the OTA.

“The entire organic industry needs to rally around helping consumers better understand and appreciate all the values that certified organic brings to the table,” said Batcha. “Consumer education is critical to grow the organic industry,” she added.

Food fight: Who will deliver knockout punch in GMO battle?

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Food fight: Who will deliver knockout punch in GMO battle?

by Michelle LeJeune on April 4, 2016

In this corner, weighing in with Big Food, farms and biotechnology companies, trade associations and thousands of scientific experts: the pro-GMO viewpoint.

In the opposite corner, weighing in with thousands of nervous American eaters, organic farmers, organic food-product makers and scientific experts who also number in the thousands: the anti-GMO viewpoint.

It’s this Foodie Century’s boxing match, and the stakes are high for both sides. Those with the first view stand to lose millions of customers to the perception that food containing genetically modified organisms is harmful when eaten, even indirectly through animals who have eaten GMO feed. Those with the second view believe they stand to lose their health by eating genetically modified food.

So who’s right?

Safety first

One of the first things a fourth-generation famer on the pro-GMO side will tell you is that seeds that have been genetically modified, which is any genetic alteration done to make a plant produce a desired characteristic (for example, resistance to weed-killing chemicals that don’t kill the corn plant), are “good.”

Dave Eckhardt of Eckhardt Farms plants barley, wheat, pinto beans, sugar beets and corn for grain and silage in LaSalle. When interviewed, Eckhardt was in a race against time to plant onions ahead of a spring storm that dumped two feet of snow the next day.

Genetically engineered foods “are necessary,” Eckhardt said. “As we take more acres out of production for homes and business, it’s imperative that they are used to keep food affordable. For farmers to be profitable, we need the traits.

“I’m not trying to jam GMOs down anybody’s throat,” he added.

“GMO technology frees him up from some pesticide use and makes him a better neighbor, Eckhardt said. “I don’t have to put down cutworm pesticide because the plants can fend off the cutworms. They (GMO seeds) are safe.”

“As we take more acres out of production for homes and business, it’s imperative that they are used to keep food affordable. For farmers to be profitable, we need the traits.”

Dave Eckhardt, Eckhardt Farms

“The system is what I challenge. We are here to challenge the dominant form of agriculture. It’s chemical warfare, and we aren’t going to feed the world this way.”

Steve Hoffman, Compass Natural LLC

To prove it, Eric Brown, communications director for the Greeley-based Colorado Corn association references 1,783 studies conducted from 2002 to 2012 by a variety of sources around the world, which were further examined by Italian scientists in 2013. Those scientists’ conclusion, published in the journal “Critical Review of Biotechnology” in 2013, was that a scientific consensus does exist that GMOs are not harmful. Brown added that the American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences, World Health Organization, the European Commission, and many others among the world’s most respected scientific organizations have all found GMOs to be safe. He noted that each GM seed variety takes an average of $136 million and 13 years to bring to market because of safety studies.

Dangers cited

One of the first things someone opposed to GMOs will tell you is that a growing body of research brings up valid concerns with safety and mounting use of pesticide as well as the increased incidences of cancer. Together with increased use of glyphosate, a common weed controller also found in Roundup, it adds up to GMOs making our food supply dangerous.

Steve Hoffman, who heads up a company and a website called Compass Natural LLC, addresses, these topics in the rapid-fire delivery of a man who is used to having to make his points quickly.

“The system is what I challenge,” he said. “We are here to challenge the dominant form of agriculture. It’s chemical warfare, and we aren’t going to feed the world this way.”

Hoffman’s website is a landing place for green-business insiders to share news, insights, trends, commentary and analysis in the $290 billion market for natural, organic, and eco-friendly foods.

Hoffman points to “No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety,” a report endorsed by 300 scientists worldwide and presented in 2014 by A. Hilbeck in an open-access publication called SpringerOpen. The report disagrees with the findings of the Italian scientists mentioned by Brown. It states that real research of GMO safety hasn’t been done. Therefore, it says, “claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by objective analysis,”

The report indicates a probable bias in existing studies. The owners of GMO products require contracts in order to control analysis and its publication, and therefore most published studies on the topic were, “performed by biotechnology companies which are also responsible for commercializing these GM (genetically modified) plants.”

Higher yields touted

The GMO case for being an important component in solving the problem of world hunger mostly revolves around higher yields for crops that you don’t see in a grocery store. Corn used for animal feed is one example. In Colorado, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistic Service reported that yields were stagnant over the 15-year period beginning in 1980 prior to GMO-trait approval, but that they saw a 36 percent increase from 1995 to 2010 after GMO-trait approval.

“Any crop expert will tell you that GMOs played a significant role in that production increases, especially when considering the reduction in so many inputs (fuel, pesticides, water, land) per bushel,” Brown said.

But do GMOs stand between humanity and a food crisis? Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association said nothing could be further from the truth.

“There are no GMO seeds marketed as producing higher yields,” she said. “Roundup is sprayed on plants that are used for animal feed and junk food such as corn, alfalfa, soybeans, canola and sugar beets.”

She maintained that the seeds used in GMOs are the ones with proven high yields and are mixed with GMO traits, and that similar yields might just as easily be produced by spraying crops with pesticides. Further, she said, traditional farming practices are better at feeding people. Baden-Mayer referred to a 2011 United Nations report titled, “Eco-Farming Can Double Farm Production in 10 Years,” which states, “Agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80 percent in 57 developing countries.”

Weird science

In a story with so many layers, it isn’t surprising that cancer comes up. In this case, it’s through a 2012 study published in “Food and Chemical Toxicology” by Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini, referenced by Hoffman, that showed glyphosate (again, found in Roundup), a probable carcinogen in laboratory rats that were exposed to it and died of tumors.

People are exposed to glyphosate through consumptions of plants and animals that eat plants sprayed with this weed killer.

Does that mean increased cancer risk?

Hoffman said yes and pointed to the Seralini study as well as an article published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer last year in “The Lancet Oncology” that classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans.

Mark Sponsler, executive director of Colorado Corn, said no. He said drinking large amounts of coffee, another probable carcinogen, is just as likely to cause cancer and death.

“Glyphosate is among the most researched and tested compounds on the planet,” he said. “GMO haters and people who believe Monsanto is the evil empire attempt to define what science is.”

GMO labeling issues

No discussion of the GMO issue would be complete without touching on the topic of labeling. Here, too, the knots to untangle are complicated for both sides. Connecticut, Maine and Vermont have passed GMO labeling laws. Thirty other states have introduced some kind of GMO labeling legislation. In Colorado, Proposition 105, which called for labeling, lost in the polls in 2014.

But what if you just want to have a non-GMO label on your granola? As the owner of Boulder Granola, Jody Nagel is a natural-foods vendor who has navigated these waters and has emerged as confused as when she began. It cost her thousands to get the non-GMO project label with the butterfly, the one retailers and their customers recognize most.

“We were already USDA-certified organic, but the retailers trust the non-GMO project,” she said. “It took us a year to get certified that way, and even if there is no change in ingredients, it cost an additional $1,200 a year to keep it.”

Nagel said she wished the whole GMO thing were simpler, but she said she moved to Colorado from Connecticut for organic food. The increased scrutiny of food purity is why she’s here and in business in the first place.

“That’s what my brand has always been about,” Nagel said. “Our motto is, ‘Unleash your inner hippie.’ I’m not talking about a hippie from the ’60s. I’m talking about a modern-day hippie who is saying, ‘Wait a moment. What are we allowing here? I like that we are questioning things.’ ”

A new ag event is planted

Photo: Fort Morgan Times

A new ag event is planted

The first BizWest Food and Ag Summit draws around 200 people

By Stephanie Alderton

Times Staff Writer

The staff of eastern Colorado business publication BizWest believes their first annual Food and Ag Summit was a success.

The Boulder- and Fort Collins-based magazine hosted the inaugural Summit on Wednesday at The Ranch in Loveland. It was their first agriculture-focused conference, and it drew about 175 farmers and food experts from all over Colorado to hear and participate in panel discussions on some of the hottest topics in today's agriculture.

BizWest Publisher Jeff Nuttall said the company plans to make it an annual event.

"We've been doing events in conjunction with our digital and print publications for a long time, but we had not done anything in the food and ag space," Nuttall said. "So we decided it was time to venture into that."

[An estimated 175 people attended the first-ever BizWest Food and Ag Summit on Wednesday. The conference featured panel discussions on topics like]
An estimated 175 people attended the first-ever BizWest Food and Ag Summit on Wednesday. The conference featured panel discussions on topics like immigration, global trade and GMO's. (Stephanie Alderton / Fort Morgan Times)

The conference started with a talk from Devin Koontz of the Federal Drug Administration about the Food Modernization Act and how it affects farmers. The rest of the day was taken up by panel discussions on topics like immigration issues, global trade and genetically modified organisms, or GMO's.

Although many of the panels were about issues that affect nearly all farmers, such as immigration and financing, the conference's focus leaned toward organic and all-natural food production, which is often a touchy subject among traditional farmers. During the lunchtime "Regenerative Agriculture" panel, four people from the organic industry discussed the environmental benefits of organic and all-natural farming, as well as the increased demand for it among some consumers.

Advertisement

"There are many different companies that want to be able to tell their customers that they're producing their food in a sustainable way," said Rich Conant, a professor of ecosystem science and sustainability at Colorado State University. "Employers want to hire the best people that they can find, and those people are often interested in working for a company that makes a difference."

Steven Hoffman, managing director of Compass Natural Marketing, and L. Hunter Lovins, president of Natural Capitalism Solutions, made the case that organic farming can reverse climate change and replenish depleted ecosystems. A few people in the audience voiced skepticism about this.

Nuttall said each panel was designed to present a balanced perspective of the issues, though. In the GMO debate that finished out the conference, Hoffman joined a crop sciences professor, the board president of the Colorado Corn Growers Association and the director of marketing for Silk plant-based foods and beverages in a lively discussion.

A few minor technical difficulties plagued the conference, such as low battery on microphones and a malfunctioning video presentation. But for the most part, Nuttall said the feedback he received from attendees was positive.

"The people I had a chance to talk to thought it was very impactful," he said. "I know I learned a lot, and I look forward to more of the same."

Each guest at the Food and Ag Summit received a survey card with questions about their experience, including their thoughts on what the next conference topics should be. The BizWest team hasn't decided what next year will look like yet, but Nuttall said many of this year's topics will probably still be major issues then.

Stephanie Alderton: 970-867-5651 ext 227, salderton@fmtimes.com or twitter.com/slalderton

Source: Fort Morgan Times