Sunday, October 26, 2008

Here's an unusual concept:

Click on Image for more information!

Financial Meltdown Worsens Food Crisis

As Global Prices Soar, More People Go Hungry

By Ariana Eunjung Cha and Stephanie McCrummen
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, October 26, 2008; A01

SHANGHAI -- As shock waves from the credit crisis began to spread around the world last month, China scrambled to protect itself. Among the most extreme measures it took was to impose new export taxes to keep critical supplies such as grains and fertilizer from leaving the country.

About 5,700 miles away, in Nairobi, farmer Stephen Muchiri is suffering the consequences.

It's planting season now, but he can afford to sow amaranthus and haricot beans on only half of the 10 acres he owns because the cost of the fertilizer he needs has shot up nearly $50 a bag in a matter of weeks. Muchiri said nearly everyone he knows is cutting back on planting, which means even less food for a continent where the supply has already been weakened by drought, political unrest and rising prices.

While the world's attention has been focused on rescuing investment banks and stock markets from collapse, the global food crisis has worsened, a casualty of the growing financial tumult.

Oxfam, the Britain-based aid group, estimates that economic chaos this year has pulled the incomes of an additional 119 million people below the poverty line. Richer countries from the United States to the Persian Gulf are busy helping themselves and have been slow to lend a hand.

The contrast between the rapid-fire reaction by Western authorities to the financial crisis and their comparatively modest response to soaring food prices earlier this year has triggered anger among aid and farming groups.

"The amount of money used for the bailouts in the U.S. and Europe -- people here are saying that money is enough to feed the poor in Africa for the next three years," said Muchiri, head of the Eastern Africa Farmers Federation.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 923 million people were seriously undernourished in 2007. Its director-general, Jacques Diouf, said in a recent speech that he worries about cuts in aid to agriculture in developing countries. He said he is also concerned by protectionist trade measures intended to counteract the financial turmoil.

Although the price of commodities has come down in the past few months, Diouf said, 36 countries still need emergency assistance for food, and he warned of a looming disaster next year if countries do not make food security a top priority.

"The global financial crisis should not make us forget the food crisis," Diouf said.

Commodity prices have plummeted in recent weeks as investors have shown increasing concern about a global recession and a drop in the demand for goods. Wheat futures for December delivery closed at $5.1625 on Friday -- down 62 percent from a record set in February. Corn futures are down 53 percent from their all-time high, and soybean futures are 47 percent lower.

Such declines, while initially welcomed by consumers, could eventually increase deflationary pressures -- lower prices could mean less incentive for farmers to cultivate crops. That, in turn, could exacerbate the global food shortage.

In June, governments, donors and agencies gathered in Rome to pledge $12.3 billion to address the world's worst food crisis in a generation. But only $1 billion has been disbursed. An additional $1.3 billion, which had been earmarked by the European Commission for helping African farmers, is tied up in bureaucracy, with some governments now arguing that they can no longer afford to give up that money.

"The financial crisis is providing an excuse for people across the spectrum -- governments, multilateral organizations, companies -- to not do the right thing," said Oxfam spokeswoman Amy Barry.

The precarious aid situation is compounded by export taxes and bans imposed this year by a number of grain- and fertilizer-producing nations, including China, India, Pakistan, Ukraine and Argentina.

E.U. Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has criticized export restrictions because they "drive up world prices and cut off supplies of raw materials." Such restrictions, he said, "invite a cycle of retaliation that is as economically counterproductive as it is politically hard to resist," Mandelson said last month.

China -- the world's biggest grain and rice producer and the biggest exporter of certain types of fertilizer -- could see its moves having ripple effects on vulnerable countries.

"The world relies on China for food security," said Anthea Webb, China country director for the U.N. World Food Program. "The world supply and demand is a big equation, and China is a big part of that."

China's new taxes on fertilizer exports, which went into effect Sept. 1, range from 150 to 185 percent. Chinese authorities said they need to ensure that prices are low at home to protect their own farmers and ensure an adequate supply of food for their residents.

Although the measure has been good for China, it has been devastating to other countries. A dozen Chinese fertilizer companies said they had stopped exporting this month.

"If we export abroad, we can make zero profit or even a loss," said Liu Chengyong, the sales manager at Henan Yuzhongao Technological Agricultural Co., which produces about 150,000 tons of fertilizer a year.

It is unclear whether the export taxes are legal under the World Trade Organization. Technically, the WTO bans all export taxes as barriers to free trade but allows for exceptions in emergency situations.

Soaring fertilizer prices triggered by China's taxes are deepening the food crisis in parts of Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Somalia.

Eustace Muriuki, general manager of Mea Ltd., the second-largest fertilizer importer for East Africa, said the price of a bag of fertilizer is currently about five times what it was a little more than a year ago.

Muriuki imports about a quarter of his fertilizer from China. He said losing China as a supplier would be particularly painful because it has been a relatively cheap and easy option, with so many shipping vessels traveling between China and Africa.

Betty Kibaara, an analyst with the Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development in Nairobi, said China's decision is only going to make a bad situation worse in Kenya.

Kenya's post-election crisis this year displaced hundreds of thousands of farmers who planted their cornfields late or not at all, and often without fertilizer because the price was too high.

The current harvest, which continues through November, is producing a yield that is worse than expected. And if fertilizer prices are still soaring during the next planting season, the country's deficit of corn -- its staple food -- will only grow. "We are in big trouble," Kibaara said.

McCrummen reported from Nairobi. Researcher Liu Liu in Beijing contributed to this report.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

NCHS Data Brief from CDC

Food Allergy Among U.S. Children: Trends in Prevalence and Hospitalizations

Amy M. Branum, M.S.P.H. and Susan L. Lukacs, D.O., M.S.P.H.

PDF version 484 KB

Page Content

Key findings
Four out of every 100 children have a food allergy
Food allergy among children in the United States is becoming more common over time
Children with food allergy are more likely to have asthma or other allergic conditions
Recent data show hospitalizations with diagnoses related to food allergies have increased among children

Summary Definitions Data source and methods About the authors
References Suggested citation

Key findings

  • In 2007, approximately 3 million children under age 18 years (3.9%) were reported to have a food or digestive allergy in the previous 12 months.
  • From 1997 to 2007, the prevalence of reported food allergy increased 18% among children under age 18 years.
  • Children with food allergy are two to four times more likely to have other related conditions such as asthma and other allergies, compared with children without food allergies.
  • From 2004 to 2006, there were approximately 9,500 hospital discharges per year with a diagnosis related to food allergy among children under age 18 years.

Note: See Definitions for an explanation of reported food allergy.

Food allergy is a potentially serious immune response to eating specific foods or food additives. Eight types of food account for over 90% of allergic reactions in affected individuals: milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, soy, and wheat (1,2). Reactions to these foods by an allergic person can range from a tingling sensation around the mouth and lips and hives to death, depending on the severity of the allergy. The mechanisms by which a person develops an allergy to specific foods are largely unknown. Food allergy is more prevalent in children than adults, and a majority of affected children will "outgrow” food allergies with age. However, food allergy can sometimes become a lifelong concern (1). Food allergies can greatly affect children and their families’ well-being. There are some indications that the prevalence of food allergy may be increasing in the United States and in other countries (2-4).

Keywords: allergy, National Health Interview Survey, National Hospital Discharge Survey

Four out of every 100 children have a food allergy.

Figure 1 is a horizontal bar chart showing the percentage of children with a reported food or digestive allergy among all U.S. childrein in 2007, according to age, gender, and race and ethnicity groups.

In 2007, an estimated 3 million children under age 18 years (3.9%) had a reported food allergy.

Children under age 5 years had higher rates of reported food allergy compared with children 5 to 17 years of age. Boys and girls had similar rates of food allergy.

Hispanic children had lower rates of reported food allergy than non-Hispanic white or non-Hispanic black children.

Food allergy among children in the United States is becoming more common over time.

In 2007, the reported food allergy rate among all children younger than 18 years was 18% higher than in 1997. During the 10-year period 1997 to 2006, food allergy rates increased significantly among both preschool-aged and older children.

Figure 2 is a line graph showing the percentage of children with reported food or digestive allergy from 1997 through 2007 by age group.

Children with food allergy are more likely to have asthma or other allergic conditions.

In 2007, 29% of children with food allergy also had reported asthma compared with 12% of children without food allergy.

Figure 3 is a vertical bar chart comparing the percentage of children with food allergy who also have asthma, eczema or skin allergy, and respiratory allergy to children without food allergy.

Approximately 27% of children with food allergy had reported eczema or skin allergy, compared with 8% of children without food allergy.

Over 30% of children with food allergy also had reported respiratory allergy, compared with 9% of children with no food allergy.

Recent data show hospitalizations with diagnoses related to food allergies have increased among children.

From 2004 to 2006, there were an average of 9,537 hospital discharges per year with a diagnosis related to food allergy among children 0 to 17 years.

Figure 4 is a vertical bar chart showing the average annual number of hospital discharges per year among children younger than 18 years with any diagnoses of food allergy from 1998 through 2006.

Hospital discharges with a diagnosis related to food allergy increased significantly over time from 1998-2000 through 2004-2006.


Reported food allergy has increased among children of all ages in the United States over the last 10 years. Nationally representative survey data corroborates reports of increasing food allergy in the United States, and our findings are similar to those reported in other countries. There is some difference in reported food allergy according to Hispanic ethnicity, with lower reported rates among Hispanic children compared with non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black children. However, reported food allergy does not appear to differ by sex.

Children with food allergy are two to four times as likely to experience other allergic conditions and asthma than children without food allergy. This is of great importance as children with coexisting food allergy and asthma may be more likely to experience anaphylactic reactions to foods and be at higher risk of death (5,6).

Hospitalizations having at least one diagnosis related to food allergy also increased from 1998-2000 through 2004-2006. This finding could be related to increased awareness, reporting, and use of specific medical diagnostic codes for food allergy or could represent a real increase in children who are experiencing food-allergic reactions.


  • Reported food allergy, National Health Interview Survey (NHIS): is defined by an affirmative answer to the question "During the past 12 months, has (child) had any kind of food or digestive allergy?”
  • Food allergy diagnosis, National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS): is defined by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes relevant to food allergy and anaphylaxis related to food allergy.
  • Reported asthma (NHIS): is defined by an affirmative answer to the question "Has a doctor or health professional ever told you that (child) had asthma?”
  • Reported eczema or skin allergy (NHIS): is defined by an affirmative answer to the question "During the past 12 months, has (child) had eczema or any kind of skin allergy?”
  • Reported respiratory allergy (NHIS): is defined by an affirmative answer to the question "During the past 12 months, has (child) had any kind of respiratory allergy?”

Data source and methods

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) was used in this analysis to estimate the prevalence of food allergy among children in the United States. The NHIS is a multipurpose health survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics, and is the principal source of information on the health of the civilian, noninstitutionalized, household population of the United States. The NHIS consists of a Basic Module and variable Supplements. The Basic Module, which remains largely unchanged from year to year, consists of three components: the Family Core, the Sample Child Core, and the Sample Adult Core. Questions from the child core related to food allergy, asthma, and other allergic conditions were used for this analysis. The 2007 NHIS questionnaire containing these questions can be viewed at:

The NHIS uses a multistage sample designed to represent the civilian noninstitutionalized population of the United States. In 2007, approximately 9,500 children were sampled. Each sampled child is assigned a weight in order to reflect their representation of the U.S. child population. In order to make estimates on a national level, it is necessary to utilize the person’s basic assigned sampling weight for proper analysis. Therefore, the data for this analysis were weighted to make national estimates.

The National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) was used in this analysis to estimate the number of hospital discharges among children attributable to food allergy. The NHDS is a national probability survey designed to meet the need for information on characteristics of inpatients discharged from nonfederal short-stay hospitals in the United States. The NHDS collects data from a sample of approximately 270,000 inpatient records acquired from a national sample of about 500 hospitals. Only hospitals with an average length of stay of fewer than 30 days for all patients, general hospitals, or children’s general hospitals are included in the survey. Federal, military, and Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals, as well as hospital units of institutions (such as prison hospitals), and hospitals with fewer than six beds staffed for patient use, are excluded.

The NHDS uses a three-stage sampling design procedure to produce national estimates of hospital discharges. Weights are assigned to each sample record. When used collectively, the sample is representative of the United States.

A maximum of seven diagnostic codes was assigned for each sample abstract. Further information about the NHDS can be found at:

The ICD-9-CM codes used to identify food allergy in the NHDS included 477.1 (allergic rhinitis due to food), 558.3 (allergic gastroenteritis and colitis), 692.5 (contact dermatitis due to food in contact with skin) 693.1 (dermatitis due to food taken internally), 995.6 (anaphylactic shock due to adverse food reaction with specific codes for unspecified food, peanuts, crustaceans, fruits and vegetables, tree nuts and seeds, fish, food additives, milk products, eggs, other specified food), and 995.7 (other adverse food reactions not elsewhere classified). Trend tests were performed to evaluate changes in reported food allergy over time using weighted least squares regression. Chi-square tests were performed to evaluate differences in food allergy between groups. All estimates shown have an unweighted sample size of 30 or greater and a relative standard error less than or equal to 30%. All significance tests were two-sided using p <>

About the authors

Amy M. Branum and Susan L. Lukacs are with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics, Office of Analysis and Epidemiology, Infant, Child, and Women’s Health Statistics Branch.


  1. Sampson HA. Update on food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol; 113:805-19. 2004.
  2. Sicherer SH. Food allergy. Lancet; 360:701-10. 2002.
  3. Sicherer SH, Munoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA. Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the United States determined by means of random digit dial telephone survey: a 5-year follow-up study. J Allergy Clin Immunol; 112:1203-7. 2003.
  4. Grundy J, Matthews S, Bateman B, Dean T, Arshad SH. Rising prevalence of allergy to peanut in children: data from 2 sequential cohorts. J Allergy Clin Immunol; 110:784-9. 2002.
  5. Bock SA, Munoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA. Further fatalities caused by anaphylactic reactions to food, 2001-2006. J Allergy Clin Immunol; 119:1016-18. 2007.
  6. Colver AF, Nevantaus H, Macdougall CF, Cant AJ. Severe food-allergic reactions in children across the UK and Ireland, 1998-2000. Acta Paediatr; 94:689-95. 2005.

Suggested citation

Branum AM, Lukacs SL. Food allergy among U.S. children: Trends in prevalence and hospitalizations. NCHS data brief, no 10. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2008.

Copyright information

All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may be reproduced or copied without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated.

National Center for Health Statistics


Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D.

Acting Co-Deputy Directors

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D.

Michael H. Sadagursky

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Vitamins Present GMO Challenges for Organic Industry

Genetically modified microorganisms are increasingly used to manufacture vitamins, enzymes, flavors, and other food additives. These products present challenges to organic processors who want to avoid using GM ingredients and to organic certifiers who must interpret vague GMO prohibition rules to prohibit their use.

GM microorganisms are replacing chemical, synthetic methods to produce vitamins, flavors, enzymes, and other food additives. Proponents say GM microorganisms are easy to cultivate, don't require harsh chemicals, are environmentally friendly, and use less energy.

To produce a food additive such as a vitamin, genetic engineers will identify a microorganism that can produce the additive, such as a bacteria or fungi, and genetically alter it. The GM microorganism is then placed in fermenters, closed stainless steel tanks that are used to create conditions where the microorganism can thrive and produce the desired product in large quantities. When the growth and production is complete, the vitamin is isolated and purified. Proponents say that no traces of microorganisms are present in the final product, and no GM DNA is detectable.

GM microorganisms are used to make vitamin B2 (riboflavin), vitamin C (ascorbic acid), xanthan (a thickener), citric acid, and enzymes used in cheeses, breads and baked goods, alcoholic beverages, and juice.

While proponents say production of GM microorganisms is safe, there has been one major catastrophe. In 1989, an L-tryptophan food supplement, produced using a genetically engineered microorganism, was responsible for the deaths of 37 people and disabling of several thousand more in the United States.

GMO concerns According to the National Organic Program, vitamins are non-agricultural, synthetic substances that are allowed as ingredients in organic food processing. Organic food processors commonly fortify cereals and beverages with vitamins E and B.

Organic processors face GMO challenges with vitamins, says Brian Baker, research director, Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI). "More and more vitamins are coming from genetically modified sources."

Vitamins E (tocopherols) and C are the most common vitamins raising GMO concerns, since E is derived from soy and C from corn. But Baker believes that both B2 and B12 (cyanocobalamin) are now primarily derived from GM microorganisms. Meanwhile, biotechnology companies have received patents in recent years to produce other vitamins, such as A (betacarotene) and C, from GM microorganisms.

A few years ago, Baker warned the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) about increasing GMO risks with vitamins in a letter, stating, "The NOSB should be aware that a growing number of vitamins are produced using genetically engineered organisms, making it ever more necessary to develop natural and from organically produced and non-synthetic sources."

Inconsistent interpretation of GMO ban

According to Gwendolyn Wyard, processing program reviewer at organic certifier Oregon Tilth, the use of B vitamins creates challenges for organic food companies and for organic certifiers. The NOP rule states that an organic product "must be produced and handled without the use of excluded methods," such as genetic engineering.

The problem, says Wyard, is that the language in the NOP regarding excluded methods is ambiguous. "This has led to inconsistent interpretations of the GMO prohibition by organic certifiers," she says.

"An organic processor putting a GM-derived vitamin in their product could say 'I have handled a product without the use of an excluded method,'" she says.

The processor may have also received a statement from the vitamin supplier saying that GM DNA is not detectable in the vitamin.

One organic certifier may allow the GM-derived vitamin to be used because the processor did not use an excluded method even though the vitamin is a product of genetic engineering, an excluded method, and contains no detectable GM DNA. Another certifier would focus on the fact that the vitamin was produced using an excluded method and therefore should be prohibited in a product labeled organic.

OMRI and Oregon Tilth favor the latter interpretation. "We look at the microorganism," Wyard says.

There is precedence for this interpretation. The NOSB has ruled that rennet derived from a GM microorganism, chymosin, is prohibited in organic processing.

Wyard calls the inconsistent interpretation of organic rules on vitamins a "big can of worms" that organic certifiers need to solve amongst themselves rather than taking it to the NOSB.

The increasing use of genetic engineering to make vitamins presents challenges for organic processors who have to use non-GMO ingredients. "What happens when you want to use a substance that is on the national list of approved substances, and the only things available are from GMOs?" Wyard asks.

Saturday, October 18, 2008



Help stop the commercial planting of genetically engineered papayas in Florida and the mainland US -- the first major cultivated GE tree on the US mainland.

The US Department of Agriculture is accepting public comments between now and November 3, 2008 on a petition that would allow commercial growing and marketing of the first genetically engineered (GE) papaya trees on mainland US soil. If approved, this would remove all regulatory oversight of this GE variety by USDA of a virus-resistant papaya tree known as the Ring Spot Virus Resistant Papaya.

This petition has implications for all other GE tree species, as the USDA and the industry want to gauge what the public's reaction will be. It is critical that all concerned about the threat of GE foods and GE trees respond to this USDA petition. Several hundred field trials of GE trees have been conducted already, many for forest trees, such as poplar, loblolly pine, and sweetgum, that grow on millions of acres in natural environments across the US.

The USDA admits that this GE papaya will contaminate both organic and conventional non-genetically engineered papaya groves if it is approved. Since all commercial papaya trees are cultivars that are relatively cross compatible within the same species, Carica papaya, contamination via GE papaya pollen carried by wind, bees and other insects will infiltrate the papaya groves of organic and conventional growers. The proposed buffer zones between GE papaya and other papayas will not prevent genetic contamination from being spread by pollinating insects.

Approval of this GE papaya tree also further opens the door to the commercialization of GE varieties of other tropical and subtropical tree species. In Hawaii, a previously approved virus resistant [Hawaiian] papaya has caused extensive contamination of organic, conventional and wild papaya groves on most of the Hawaiian Islands in just a few years. This contamination has spread far more quickly than the USDA predicted in its initial assessment. Once native and cultivated papaya varieties are contaminated with transgenic pollen and the resulting seeds are planted, there is no calling it back.

[Sample comments to submit below. Please add any additional comments of your own.]
1. Go to:

2. Double click on Docket - APHIS-2008-0054 - at the top of the page

3. Double click on small yellowish box directly below "ADD COMMENTS" in the right hand column

4. Enter public commenter information. You may add attachments to document your concerns!

5. Double click on NEXT STEP under ACTION at page bottom to enter your comments into Docket.

The following comments are in reference to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0054 I oppose the deregulation of genetically engineered papaya trees for the following reasons:

1. Genetic contamination is a serious and growing threat. Flowers and seeds in organic and conventional papaya groves will become contaminated with GE papaya genes via pollen transported by bees and other insects that travel many miles in search of pollen. The result is that organic and conventional papaya growers will lose their markets for non-GE papayas as DNA testing confirms the contamination, as it already has with GE papayas in Hawaii. An organic tree might remain organic itself, but the pollen, honey and seeds will be contaminated, and trees planted from the GE papaya seeds will bear contaminated fruit.

2. The approval of perennial GE papaya trees would be a dangerous precedent setting step by USDA, opening the floodgates for more GE trees including fruit, nut, ornamental, and paper-pulp and timber species, as well as trees engineered for soil remediation, and other traits. Approximately 80 species and varieties of trees are currently undergoing gene splicing research and development for commercial use. Many of these are native species vital to ecosystems in much of the US.

3. There are serious and mounting concerns about a broad range of health effects associated with consumption of GE crops, GE pollen, and GE-produced honey. For example, consumers may suffer allergic reactions due to unexpected toxins in GE foods. The GE papaya pollen may produce unintended effects such as allergic reactions in sensitive individuals and the USDA has not properly evaluated the potential for allergic reactions. The USDA has also failed to consider the potential for allergens or other novel substances in the GE papayas, GE papaya pollen, or GE papaya-produced honey to interfere with pharmaceuticals being used by consumers.

4. The papaya fruit, seeds, latex, and leaves contain carpaine, an anthelmintic alkaloid that could be dangerous in high doses to the heart (it affects myocardium directly) and the circulatory system. Carpaine is one of the major alkaloid components of papayas, and has been studied for its cardiovascular effects. The USDA has not fully evaluated the health effects of alkaloids such as carpaine and related alkaloids on consumers eating GE papaya, pollen, honey or fruit juices and foods containing GE papaya ingredients. The USDA has not fully studied whether the GE papaya trees produce a different alkaloid chemistry or overall phytochemistry compared to organic, conventional or wild papayas. Other papaya alkaloids and phytochemicals have not been adequately studied for their human health effects. This despite widespread evidence that the genetic engineering of plants can alter expression of genetic traits apparently unrelated to the intentionally inserted trait.

5. There are serious and mounting concerns about the genetic stability of the artificial gene combinations and the artificially inserted genes used in GE papaya trees. The USDA claims that the papaya ring spot viral resistance gene and other inserted genes are sufficiently genetically stable, but the testing has only been performed for approximately ten years and not the entire, decades-long pollen-producing life span of a papaya tree. Over the long life of a papaya tree, an RNA virus such as papaya ring spot virus is susceptible to many cycles of recombination, leading to the creation of new plant viruses that could infect a wide variety of plants. This can also occur with the viral DNA that has been inserted into these papayas.

6. The deregulatory petition completely ignores potential effects on bees and other pollinator species. Today honey bee colony collapse disorder known as CCD is a serious and growing problem for apiaries and bee-pollinated crops including in Florida where the GE papaya trees will be grown. Although unintended effects are common in GE crops (and are part of regulatory human health assessments), there is extremely little assessment of possible environmental impacts from unintended effects. There are no studies that would allow us to evaluate the potential hazards of GE tree pollen or GE papaya tree pollen for a variety of insects, or for consumers of honey. We also do not know how animals and insects that browse on papaya leaves might be affected.

7. The USDA's environmental assessment admits that the GE papaya readily hybridizes within its species Carica papaya. Thus, there may be a significant potential for gene flow into native perennial papaya varieties. GE papaya trees will be long lived, and capable of contaminating orchards and native papaya tree populations for several decades. One GE papaya tree will be able to produce thousands of GE seeds and extensive quantities of pollen, and will be capable of spreading fertile GE papaya seeds and pollen into the environment for many years. The petition did not adequately evaluate the relative fitness of GE papaya varieties as compared to native papayas; it is possible that the GE varieties would become more successful in natural settings, and out-compete non-GE varieties, as they have in parts of Hawaii. We challenge the USDA's spurious claim that contamination would be positive by reducing potential reservoirs for harboring the papaya ring spot virus in the wild; this claim is not supported by any data.

8. There has been no short-term or long-term safety testing or feeding trials for toxicity or other adverse effects of the construct of eight genes inserted into the GE papaya trees. GE papayas have not been tested on animals, birds or humans for safety. Toxicity tests are necessary since unintended genetic effects are known to occur with gene splicing. USDA has ignored the need for scientific studies of gene splicing and for comprehensive studies of the environmental consequences of GE plantings since the USDA has not adequately consulted with the Food and Drug Administration or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for their regulatory input.

Neil Carman, Ph.D. Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee

This Action Alert is a cooperative effort of the STOP GE Trees Campaign:

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Open Letter to the President-Elect by Michael Pollan: Farmer in Chief

Dear Mr. President-Elect,

It may surprise you to learn that among the issues that will occupy much of your time in the coming years is one you barely mentioned during the campaign: food. Food policy is not something American presidents have had to give much thought to, at least since the Nixon administration - the last time high food prices presented a serious political peril. Since then, federal policies to promote maximum production of the commodity crops (corn, soybeans, wheat and rice) from which most of our supermarket foods are derived have succeeded impressively in keeping prices low and food more or less off the national political agenda. But with a suddenness that has taken us all by surprise, the era of cheap and abundant food appears to be drawing to a close. What this means is that you, like so many other leaders through history, will find yourself confronting the fact - so easy to overlook these past few years - that the health of a nation's food system is a critical issue of national security. Food is about to demand your attention.

Complicating matters is the fact that the price and abundance of food are not the only problems we face; if they were, you could simply follow Nixon's example, appoint a latter-day Earl Butz as your secretary of agriculture and instruct him or her to do whatever it takes to boost production. But there are reasons to think that the old approach won't work this time around; for one thing, it depends on cheap energy that we can no longer count on. For another, expanding production of industrial agriculture today would require you to sacrifice important values on which you did campaign. Which brings me to the deeper reason you will need not simply to address food prices but to make the reform of the entire food system one of the highest priorities of your administration: unless you do, you will not be able to make significant progress on the health care crisis, energy independence or climate change. Unlike food, these are issues you did campaign on - but as you try to address them you will quickly discover that the way we currently grow, process and eat food in America goes to the heart of all three problems and will have to change if we hope to solve them. Let me explain.

After cars, the food system uses more fossil fuel than any other sector of the economy - 19 percent. And while the experts disagree about the exact amount, the way we feed ourselves contributes more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than anything else we do - as much as 37 percent, according to one study. Whenever farmers clear land for crops and till the soil, large quantities of carbon are released into the air. But the 20th-century industrialization of agriculture has increased the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the food system by an order of magnitude; chemical fertilizers (made from natural gas), pesticides (made from petroleum), farm machinery, modern food processing and packaging and transportation have together transformed a system that in 1940 produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil-fuel energy it used into one that now takes 10 calories of fossil-fuel energy to produce a single calorie of modern supermarket food. Put another way, when we eat from the industrial-food system, we are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases. This state of affairs appears all the more absurd when you recall that every calorie we eat is ultimately the product of photosynthesis - a process based on making food energy from sunshine. There is hope and possibility in that simple fact.

In addition to the problems of climate change and America's oil addiction, you have spoken at length on the campaign trail of the health care crisis. Spending on health care has risen from 5 percent of national income in 1960 to 16 percent today, putting a significant drag on the economy. The goal of ensuring the health of all Americans depends on getting those costs under control. There are several reasons health care has gotten so expensive, but one of the biggest, and perhaps most tractable, is the cost to the system of preventable chronic diseases. Four of the top 10 killers in America today are chronic diseases linked to diet: heart disease, stroke, Type 2 diabetes and cancer. It is no coincidence that in the years national spending on health care went from 5 percent to 16 percent of national income, spending on food has fallen by a comparable amount - from 18 percent of household income to less than 10 percent. While the surfeit of cheap calories that the U.S. food system has produced since the late 1970s may have taken food prices off the political agenda, this has come at a steep cost to public health. You cannot expect to reform the health care system, much less expand coverage, without confronting the public-health catastrophe that is the modern American diet.

The impact of the American food system on the rest of the world will have implications for your foreign and trade policies as well. In the past several months more than 30 nations have experienced food riots, and so far one government has fallen. Should high grain prices persist and shortages develop, you can expect to see the pendulum shift decisively away from free trade, at least in food. Nations that opened their markets to the global flood of cheap grain (under pressure from previous administrations as well as the World Bank and the I.M.F.) lost so many farmers that they now find their ability to feed their own populations hinges on decisions made in Washington (like your predecessor's precipitous embrace of biofuels) and on Wall Street. They will now rush to rebuild their own agricultural sectors and then seek to protect them by erecting trade barriers. Expect to hear the phrases "food sovereignty" and "food security" on the lips of every foreign leader you meet. Not only the Doha round, but the whole cause of free trade in agriculture is probably dead, the casualty of a cheap food policy that a scant two years ago seemed like a boon for everyone. It is one of the larger paradoxes of our time that the very same food policies that have contributed to overnutrition in the first world are now contributing to undernutrition in the third. But it turns out that too much food can be nearly as big a problem as too little - a lesson we should keep in mind as we set about designing a new approach to food policy.

Rich or poor, countries struggling with soaring food prices are being forcibly reminded that food is a national-security issue. When a nation loses the ability to substantially feed itself, it is not only at the mercy of global commodity markets but of other governments as well. At issue is not only the availability of food, which may be held hostage by a hostile state, but its safety: as recent scandals in China demonstrate, we have little control over the safety of imported foods. The deliberate contamination of our food presents another national-security threat. At his valedictory press conference in 2004, Tommy Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, offered a chilling warning, saying, "I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do."

This, in brief, is the bad news: the food and agriculture policies you've inherited - designed to maximize production at all costs and relying on cheap energy to do so - are in shambles, and the need to address the problems they have caused is acute. The good news is that the twinned crises in food and energy are creating a political environment in which real reform of the food system may actually be possible for the first time in a generation. The American people are paying more attention to food today than they have in decades, worrying not only about its price but about its safety, its provenance and its healthfulness. There is a gathering sense among the public that the industrial-food system is broken. Markets for alternative kinds of food - organic, local, pasture-based, humane - are thriving as never before. All this suggests that a political constituency for change is building and not only on the left: lately, conservative voices have also been raised in support of reform. Writing of the movement back to local food economies, traditional foods (and family meals) and more sustainable farming, The American Conservative magazine editorialized last summer that "this is a conservative cause if ever there was one."

There are many moving parts to the new food agenda I'm urging you to adopt, but the core idea could not be simpler: we need to wean the American food system off its heavy 20th-century diet of fossil fuel and put it back on a diet of contemporary sunshine. True, this is easier said than done - fossil fuel is deeply implicated in everything about the way we currently grow food and feed ourselves. To put the food system back on sunlight will require policies to change how things work at every link in the food chain: in the farm field, in the way food is processed and sold and even in the American kitchen and at the American dinner table. Yet the sun still shines down on our land every day, and photosynthesis can still work its wonders wherever it does. If any part of the modern economy can be freed from its dependence on oil and successfully resolarized, surely it is food.

How We Got Here

Before setting out an agenda for reforming the food system, it's important to understand how that system came to be - and also to appreciate what, for all its many problems, it has accomplished. What our food system does well is precisely what it was designed to do, which is to produce cheap calories in great abundance. It is no small thing for an American to be able to go into a fast-food restaurant and to buy a double cheeseburger, fries and a large Coke for a price equal to less than an hour of labor at the minimum wage - indeed, in the long sweep of history, this represents a remarkable achievement.

It must be recognized that the current food system - characterized by monocultures of corn and soy in the field and cheap calories of fat, sugar and feedlot meat on the table - is not simply the product of the free market. Rather, it is the product of a specific set of government policies that sponsored a shift from solar (and human) energy on the farm to fossil-fuel energy.

Did you notice when you flew over Iowa during the campaign how the land was completely bare - black - from October to April? What you were seeing is the agricultural landscape created by cheap oil. In years past, except in the dead of winter, you would have seen in those fields a checkerboard of different greens: pastures and hayfields for animals, cover crops, perhaps a block of fruit trees. Before the application of oil and natural gas to agriculture, farmers relied on crop diversity (and photosynthesis) both to replenish their soil and to combat pests, as well as to feed themselves and their neighbors. Cheap energy, however, enabled the creation of monocultures, and monocultures in turn vastly increased the productivity both of the American land and the American farmer; today the typical corn-belt farmer is single-handedly feeding 140 people.

This did not occur by happenstance. After World War II, the government encouraged the conversion of the munitions industry to fertilizer - ammonium nitrate being the main ingredient of both bombs and chemical fertilizer - and the conversion of nerve-gas research to pesticides. The government also began subsidizing commodity crops, paying farmers by the bushel for all the corn, soybeans, wheat and rice they could produce. One secretary of agriculture after another implored them to plant "fence row to fence row" and to "get big or get out."

The chief result, especially after the Earl Butz years, was a flood of cheap grain that could be sold for substantially less than it cost farmers to grow because a government check helped make up the difference. As this artificially cheap grain worked its way up the food chain, it drove down the price of all the calories derived from that grain: the high-fructose corn syrup in the Coke, the soy oil in which the potatoes were fried, the meat and cheese in the burger.

Subsidized monocultures of grain also led directly to monocultures of animals: since factory farms could buy grain for less than it cost farmers to grow it, they could now fatten animals more cheaply than farmers could. So America's meat and dairy animals migrated from farm to feedlot, driving down the price of animal protein to the point where an American can enjoy eating, on average, 190 pounds of meat a year - a half pound every day.

But if taking the animals off farms made a certain kind of economic sense, it made no ecological sense whatever: their waste, formerly regarded as a precious source of fertility on the farm, became a pollutant - factory farms are now one of America's biggest sources of pollution. As Wendell Berry has tartly observed, to take animals off farms and put them on feedlots is to take an elegant solution - animals replenishing the fertility that crops deplete - and neatly divide it into two problems: a fertility problem on the farm and a pollution problem on the feedlot. The former problem is remedied with fossil-fuel fertilizer; the latter is remedied not at all.

What was once a regional food economy is now national and increasingly global in scope - thanks again to fossil fuel. Cheap energy - for trucking food as well as pumping water - is the reason New York City now gets its produce from California rather than from the "Garden State" next door, as it did before the advent of Interstate highways and national trucking networks. More recently, cheap energy has underwritten a globalized food economy in which it makes (or rather, made) economic sense to catch salmon in Alaska, ship it to China to be filleted and then ship the fillets back to California to be eaten; or one in which California and Mexico can profitably swap tomatoes back and forth across the border; or Denmark and the United States can trade sugar cookies across the Atlantic. About that particular swap the economist Herman Daly once quipped, "Exchanging recipes would surely be more efficient."

Whatever we may have liked about the era of cheap, oil-based food, it is drawing to a close. Even if we were willing to continue paying the environmental or public-health price, we're not going to have the cheap energy (or the water) needed to keep the system going, much less expand production. But as is so often the case, a crisis provides opportunity for reform, and the current food crisis presents opportunities that must be seized.

In drafting these proposals, I've adhered to a few simple principles of what a 21st-century food system needs to do. First, your administration's food policy must strive to provide a healthful diet for all our people; this means focusing on the quality and diversity (and not merely the quantity) of the calories that American agriculture produces and American eaters consume. Second, your policies should aim to improve the resilience, safety and security of our food supply. Among other things, this means promoting regional food economies both in America and around the world. And lastly, your policies need to reconceive agriculture as part of the solution to environmental problems like climate change.

These goals are admittedly ambitious, yet they will not be difficult to align or advance as long as we keep in mind this One Big Idea: most of the problems our food system faces today are because of its reliance on fossil fuels, and to the extent that our policies wring the oil out of the system and replace it with the energy of the sun, those policies will simultaneously improve the state of our health, our environment and our security.

I. Resolarizing the American Farm

What happens in the field influences every other link of the food chain on up to our meals - if we grow monocultures of corn and soy, we will find the products of processed corn and soy on our plates. Fortunately for your initiative, the federal government has enormous leverage in determining exactly what happens on the 830 million acres of American crop and pasture land.

Today most government farm and food programs are designed to prop up the old system of maximizing production from a handful of subsidized commodity crops grown in monocultures. Even food-assistance programs like WIC and school lunch focus on maximizing quantity rather than quality, typically specifying a minimum number of calories (rather than maximums) and seldom paying more than lip service to nutritional quality. This focus on quantity may have made sense in a time of food scarcity, but today it gives us a school-lunch program that feeds chicken nuggets and Tater Tots to overweight and diabetic children.

Your challenge is to take control of this vast federal machinery and use it to drive a transition to a new solar-food economy, starting on the farm. Right now, the government actively discourages the farmers it subsidizes from growing healthful, fresh food: farmers receiving crop subsidies are prohibited from growing "specialty crops" - farm-bill speak for fruits and vegetables. (This rule was the price exacted by California and Florida produce growers in exchange for going along with subsidies for commodity crops.) Commodity farmers should instead be encouraged to grow as many different crops - including animals - as possible. Why? Because the greater the diversity of crops on a farm, the less the need for both fertilizers and pesticides.

The power of cleverly designed polycultures to produce large amounts of food from little more than soil, water and sunlight has been proved, not only by small-scale "alternative" farmers in the United States but also by large rice-and-fish farmers in China and giant-scale operations (up to 15,000 acres) in places like Argentina. There, in a geography roughly comparable to that of the American farm belt, farmers have traditionally employed an ingenious eight-year rotation of perennial pasture and annual crops: after five years grazing cattle on pasture (and producing the world's best beef), farmers can then grow three years of grain without applying any fossil-fuel fertilizer. Or, for that matter, many pesticides: the weeds that afflict pasture can't survive the years of tillage, and the weeds of row crops don't survive the years of grazing, making herbicides all but unnecessary. There is no reason - save current policy and custom - that American farmers couldn't grow both high-quality grain and grass-fed beef under such a regime through much of the Midwest. (It should be noted that today's sky-high grain prices are causing many Argentine farmers to abandon their rotation to grow grain and soybeans exclusively, an environmental disaster in the making.)

Federal policies could do much to encourage this sort of diversified sun farming. Begin with the subsidies: payment levels should reflect the number of different crops farmers grow or the number of days of the year their fields are green - that is, taking advantage of photosynthesis, whether to grow food, replenish the soil or control erosion. If Midwestern farmers simply planted a cover crop after the fall harvest, they would significantly reduce their need for fertilizer, while cutting down on soil erosion. Why don't farmers do this routinely? Because in recent years fossil-fuel-based fertility has been so much cheaper and easier to use than sun-based fertility.

In addition to rewarding farmers for planting cover crops, we should make it easier for them to apply compost to their fields - a practice that improves not only the fertility of the soil but also its ability to hold water and therefore withstand drought. (There is mounting evidence that it also boosts the nutritional quality of the food grown in it.) The U.S.D.A. estimates that Americans throw out 14 percent of the food they buy; much more is wasted by retailers, wholesalers and institutions. A program to make municipal composting of food and yard waste mandatory and then distributing the compost free to area farmers would shrink America's garbage heap, cut the need for irrigation and fossil-fuel fertilizers in agriculture and improve the nutritional quality of the American diet.

Right now, most of the conservation programs run by the U.S.D.A. are designed on the zero-sum principle: land is either locked up in "conservation" or it is farmed intensively. This either-or approach reflects an outdated belief that modern farming and ranching are inherently destructive, so that the best thing for the environment is to leave land untouched. But we now know how to grow crops and graze animals in systems that will support biodiversity, soil health, clean water and carbon sequestration. The Conservation Stewardship Program, championed by Senator Tom Harkin and included in the 2008 Farm Bill, takes an important step toward rewarding these kinds of practices, but we need to move this approach from the periphery of our farm policy to the very center. Longer term, the government should back ambitious research now under way (at the Land Institute in Kansas and a handful of other places) to "perennialize" commodity agriculture: to breed varieties of wheat, rice and other staple grains that can be grown like prairie grasses - without having to till the soil every year. These perennial grains hold the promise of slashing the fossil fuel now needed to fertilize and till the soil, while protecting farmland from erosion and sequestering significant amounts of carbon.

But that is probably a 50-year project. For today's agriculture to wean itself from fossil fuel and make optimal use of sunlight, crop plants and animals must once again be married on the farm - as in Wendell Berry's elegant "solution." Sunlight nourishes the grasses and grains, the plants nourish the animals, the animals then nourish the soil, which in turn nourishes the next season's grasses and grains. Animals on pasture can also harvest their own feed and dispose of their own waste - all without our help or fossil fuel.

If this system is so sensible, you might ask, why did it succumb to Confined Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs? In fact there is nothing inherently efficient or economical about raising vast cities of animals in confinement. Three struts, each put into place by federal policy, support the modern CAFO, and the most important of these - the ability to buy grain for less than it costs to grow it - has just been kicked away. The second strut is F.D.A. approval for the routine use of antibiotics in feed, without which the animals in these places could not survive their crowded, filthy and miserable existence. And the third is that the government does not require CAFOs to treat their wastes as it would require human cities of comparable size to do. The F.D.A. should ban the routine use of antibiotics in livestock feed on public-health grounds, now that we have evidence that the practice is leading to the evolution of drug-resistant bacterial diseases and to outbreaks of E. coli and salmonella poisoning. CAFOs should also be regulated like the factories they are, required to clean up their waste like any other industry or municipality.

It will be argued that moving animals off feedlots and back onto farms will raise the price of meat. It probably will - as it should. You will need to make the case that paying the real cost of meat, and therefore eating less of it, is a good thing for our health, for the environment, for our dwindling reserves of fresh water and for the welfare of the animals. Meat and milk production represent the food industry's greatest burden on the environment; a recent U.N. study estimated that the world's livestock alone account for 18 percent of all greenhouse gases, more than all forms of transportation combined. (According to one study, a pound of feedlot beef also takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce.) And while animals living on farms will still emit their share of greenhouse gases, grazing them on grass and returning their waste to the soil will substantially offset their carbon hoof prints, as will getting ruminant animals off grain. A bushel of grain takes approximately a half gallon of oil to produce; grass can be grown with little more than sunshine.

It will be argued that sun-food agriculture will generally yield less food than fossil-fuel agriculture. This is debatable. The key question you must be prepared to answer is simply this: Can the sort of sustainable agriculture you're proposing feed the world?

There are a couple of ways to answer this question. The simplest and most honest answer is that we don't know, because we haven't tried. But in the same way we now need to learn how to run an industrial economy without cheap fossil fuel, we have no choice but to find out whether sustainable agriculture can produce enough food. The fact is, during the past century, our agricultural research has been directed toward the goal of maximizing production with the help of fossil fuel. There is no reason to think that bringing the same sort of resources to the development of more complex, sun-based agricultural systems wouldn't produce comparable yields. Today's organic farmers, operating for the most part without benefit of public investment in research, routinely achieve 80 to 100 percent of conventional yields in grain and, in drought years, frequently exceed conventional yields. (This is because organic soils better retain moisture.) Assuming no further improvement, could the world - with a population expected to peak at 10 billion - survive on these yields?

First, bear in mind that the average yield of world agriculture today is substantially lower than that of modern sustainable farming. According to a recent University of Michigan study, merely bringing international yields up to today's organic levels could increase the world's food supply by 50 percent.

The second point to bear in mind is that yield isn't everything - and growing high-yield commodities is not quite the same thing as growing food. Much of what we're growing today is not directly eaten as food but processed into low-quality calories of fat and sugar. As the world epidemic of diet-related chronic disease has demonstrated, the sheer quantity of calories that a food system produces improves health only up to a point, but after that, quality and diversity are probably more important. We can expect that a food system that produces somewhat less food but of a higher quality will produce healthier populations.

The final point to consider is that 40 percent of the world's grain output today is fed to animals; 11 percent of the world's corn and soybean crop is fed to cars and trucks, in the form of biofuels. Provided the developed world can cut its consumption of grain-based animal protein and ethanol, there should be plenty of food for everyone - however we choose to grow it.

In fact, well-designed polyculture systems, incorporating not just grains but vegetables and animals, can produce more food per acre than conventional monocultures, and food of a much higher nutritional value. But this kind of farming is complicated and needs many more hands on the land to make it work. Farming without fossil fuels - performing complex rotations of plants and animals and managing pests without petrochemicals - is labor intensive and takes more skill than merely "driving and spraying," which is how corn-belt farmers describe what they do for a living.

To grow sufficient amounts of food using sunlight will require more people growing food - millions more. This suggests that sustainable agriculture will be easier to implement in the developing world, where large rural populations remain, than in the West, where they don't. But what about here in America, where we have only about two million farmers left to feed a population of 300 million? And where farmland is being lost to development at the rate of 2,880 acres a day? Post-oil agriculture will need a lot more people engaged in food production - as farmers and probably also as gardeners.

The sun-food agenda must include programs to train a new generation of farmers and then help put them on the land. The average American farmer today is 55 years old; we shouldn't expect these farmers to embrace the sort of complex ecological approach to agriculture that is called for. Our focus should be on teaching ecological farming systems to students entering land-grant colleges today. For decades now, it has been federal policy to shrink the number of farmers in America by promoting capital-intensive monoculture and consolidation. As a society, we devalued farming as an occupation and encouraged the best students to leave the farm for "better" jobs in the city. We emptied America's rural counties in order to supply workers to urban factories. To put it bluntly, we now need to reverse course. We need more highly skilled small farmers in more places all across America - not as a matter of nostalgia for the agrarian past but as a matter of national security. For nations that lose the ability to substantially feed themselves will find themselves as gravely compromised in their international dealings as nations that depend on foreign sources of oil presently do. But while there are alternatives to oil, there are no alternatives to food.

National security also argues for preserving every acre of farmland we can and then making it available to new farmers. We simply will not be able to depend on distant sources of food, and therefore need to preserve every acre of good farmland within a day's drive of our cities. In the same way that when we came to recognize the supreme ecological value of wetlands we erected high bars to their development, we need to recognize the value of farmland to our national security and require real-estate developers to do "food-system impact statements" before development begins. We should also create tax and zoning incentives for developers to incorporate farmland (as they now do "open space") in their subdivision plans; all those subdivisions now ringing golf courses could someday have diversified farms at their center.

The revival of farming in America, which of course draws on the abiding cultural power of our agrarian heritage, will pay many political and economic dividends. It will lead to robust economic renewal in the countryside. And it will generate tens of millions of new "green jobs," which is precisely how we need to begin thinking of skilled solar farming: as a vital sector of the 21st-century post-fossil-fuel economy.

II. Reregionalizing the Food System

For your sun-food agenda to succeed, it will have to do a lot more than alter what happens on the farm. The government could help seed a thousand new polyculture farmers in every county in Iowa, but they would promptly fail if the grain elevator remained the only buyer in town and corn and beans were the only crops it would take. Resolarizing the food system means building the infrastructure for a regional food economy - one that can support diversified farming and, by shortening the food chain, reduce the amount of fossil fuel in the American diet.

A decentralized food system offers a great many other benefits as well. Food eaten closer to where it is grown will be fresher and require less processing, making it more nutritious. Whatever may be lost in efficiency by localizing food production is gained in resilience: regional food systems can better withstand all kinds of shocks. When a single factory is grinding 20 million hamburger patties in a week or washing 25 million servings of salad, a single terrorist armed with a canister of toxins can, at a stroke, poison millions. Such a system is equally susceptible to accidental contamination: the bigger and more global the trade in food, the more vulnerable the system is to catastrophe. The best way to protect our food system against such threats is obvious: decentralize it.

Today in America there is soaring demand for local and regional food; farmers' markets, of which the U.S.D.A. estimates there are now 4,700, have become one of the fastest-growing segments of the food market. Community-supported agriculture is booming as well: there are now nearly 1,500 community-supported farms, to which consumers pay an annual fee in exchange for a weekly box of produce through the season. The local-food movement will continue to grow with no help from the government, especially as high fuel prices make distant and out-of-season food, as well as feedlot meat, more expensive. Yet there are several steps the government can take to nurture this market and make local foods more affordable. Here are a few:

Four-Season Farmers' Markets. Provide grants to towns and cities to build year-round indoor farmers' markets, on the model of Pike Place in Seattle or the Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia. To supply these markets, the U.S.D.A. should make grants to rebuild local distribution networks in order to minimize the amount of energy used to move produce within local food sheds.

Agricultural Enterprise Zones. Today the revival of local food economies is being hobbled by a tangle of regulations originally designed to check abuses by the very largest food producers. Farmers should be able to smoke a ham and sell it to their neighbors without making a huge investment in federally approved facilities. Food-safety regulations must be made sensitive to scale and marketplace, so that a small producer selling direct off the farm or at a farmers' market is not regulated as onerously as a multinational food manufacturer. This is not because local food won't ever have food-safety problems - it will - only that its problems will be less catastrophic and easier to manage because local food is inherently more traceable and accountable.

Local Meat-Inspection Corps. Perhaps the single greatest impediment to the return of livestock to the land and the revival of local, grass-based meat production is the disappearance of regional slaughter facilities. The big meat processors have been buying up local abattoirs only to close them down as they consolidate, and the U.S.D.A. does little to support the ones that remain. From the department's perspective, it is a better use of shrinking resources to dispatch its inspectors to a plant slaughtering 400 head an hour than to a regional abattoir slaughtering a dozen. The U.S.D.A. should establish a Local Meat-Inspectors Corps to serve these processors. Expanding on its successful pilot program on Lopez Island in Puget Sound, the U.S.D.A. should also introduce a fleet of mobile abattoirs that would go from farm to farm, processing animals humanely and inexpensively. Nothing would do more to make regional, grass-fed meat fully competitive in the market with feedlot meat.

Establish a Strategic Grain Reserve. In the same way the shift to alternative energy depends on keeping oil prices relatively stable, the sun-food agenda - as well as the food security of billions of people around the world - will benefit from government action to prevent huge swings in commodity prices. A strategic grain reserve, modeled on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, would help achieve this objective and at the same time provide some cushion for world food stocks, which today stand at perilously low levels. Governments should buy and store grain when it is cheap and sell when it is dear, thereby moderating price swings in both directions and discouraging speculation.

Regionalize Federal Food Procurement. In the same way that federal procurement is often used to advance important social goals (like promoting minority-owned businesses), we should require that some minimum percentage of government food purchases - whether for school-lunch programs, military bases or federal prisons - go to producers located within 100 miles of institutions buying the food. We should create incentives for hospitals and universities receiving federal funds to buy fresh local produce. To channel even a small portion of institutional food purchasing to local food would vastly expand regional agriculture and improve the diet of the millions of people these institutions feed.

Create a Federal Definition of "Food." It makes no sense for government food-assistance dollars, intended to improve the nutritional health of at-risk Americans, to support the consumption of products we know to be unhealthful. Yes, some people will object that for the government to specify what food stamps can and cannot buy smacks of paternalism. Yet we already prohibit the purchase of tobacco and alcohol with food stamps. So why not prohibit something like soda, which is arguably less nutritious than red wine? Because it is, nominally, a food, albeit a "junk food." We need to stop flattering nutritionally worthless foodlike substances by calling them "junk food" - and instead make clear that such products are not in fact food of any kind. Defining what constitutes real food worthy of federal support will no doubt be controversial (you'll recall President Reagan's ketchup imbroglio), but defining food upward may be more politically palatable than defining it down, as Reagan sought to do. One approach would be to rule that, in order to be regarded as a food by the government, an edible substance must contain a certain minimum ratio of micronutrients per calorie of energy. At a stroke, such a definition would improve the quality of school lunch and discourage sales of unhealthful products, since typically only "food" is exempt from local sales tax.

A few other ideas: Food-stamp debit cards should double in value whenever swiped at a farmers' markets - all of which, by the way, need to be equipped with the Electronic Benefit Transfer card readers that supermarkets already have. We should expand the WIC program that gives farmers'-market vouchers to low-income women with children; such programs help attract farmers' markets to urban neighborhoods where access to fresh produce is often nonexistent. (We should also offer tax incentives to grocery chains willing to build supermarkets in underserved neighborhoods.) Federal food assistance for the elderly should build on a successful program pioneered by the state of Maine that buys low-income seniors a membership in a community-supported farm. All these initiatives have the virtue of advancing two objectives at once: supporting the health of at-risk Americans and the revival of local food economies.

III. Rebuilding America's Food Culture

In the end, shifting the American diet from a foundation of imported fossil fuel to local sunshine will require changes in our daily lives, which by now are deeply implicated in the economy and culture of fast, cheap and easy food. Making available more healthful and more sustainable food does not guarantee it will be eaten, much less appreciated or enjoyed. We need to use all the tools at our disposal - not just federal policy and public education but the president's bully pulpit and the example of the first family's own dinner table - to promote a new culture of food that can undergird your sun-food agenda.

Changing the food culture must begin with our children, and it must begin in the schools. Nearly a half-century ago, President Kennedy announced a national initiative to improve the physical fitness of American children. He did it by elevating the importance of physical education, pressing states to make it a requirement in public schools. We need to bring the same commitment to "edible education" - in Alice Waters's phrase - by making lunch, in all its dimensions, a mandatory part of the curriculum. On the premise that eating well is a critically important life skill, we need to teach all primary-school students the basics of growing and cooking food and then enjoying it at shared meals.

To change our children's food culture, we'll need to plant gardens in every primary school, build fully equipped kitchens, train a new generation of lunchroom ladies (and gentlemen) who can once again cook and teach cooking to children. We should introduce a School Lunch Corps program that forgives federal student loans to culinary-school graduates in exchange for two years of service in the public-school lunch program. And we should immediately increase school-lunch spending per pupil by $1 a day - the minimum amount food-service experts believe it will take to underwrite a shift from fast food in the cafeteria to real food freshly prepared.

But it is not only our children who stand to benefit from public education about food. Today most federal messages about food, from nutrition labeling to the food pyramid, are negotiated with the food industry. The surgeon general should take over from the Department of Agriculture the job of communicating with Americans about their diet. That way we might begin to construct a less equivocal and more effective public-health message about nutrition. Indeed, there is no reason that public-health campaigns about the dangers of obesity and Type 2 diabetes shouldn't be as tough and as effective as public-health campaigns about the dangers of smoking. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that one in three American children born in 2000 will develop Type 2 diabetes. The public needs to know and see precisely what that sentence means: blindness; amputation; early death. All of which can be avoided by a change in diet and lifestyle. A public-health crisis of this magnitude calls for a blunt public-health message, even at the expense of offending the food industry. Judging by the success of recent antismoking campaigns, the savings to the health care system could be substantial.

There are other kinds of information about food that the government can supply or demand. In general we should push for as much transparency in the food system as possible - the other sense in which "sunlight" should be the watchword of our agenda. The F.D.A. should require that every packaged-food product include a second calorie count, indicating how many calories of fossil fuel went into its production. Oil is one of the most important ingredients in our food, and people ought to know just how much of it they're eating. The government should also throw its support behind putting a second bar code on all food products that, when scanned either in the store or at home (or with a cellphone), brings up on a screen the whole story and pictures of how that product was produced: in the case of crops, images of the farm and lists of agrochemicals used in its production; in the case of meat and dairy, descriptions of the animals' diet and drug regimen, as well as live video feeds of the CAFO where they live and, yes, the slaughterhouse where they die. The very length and complexity of the modern food chain breeds a culture of ignorance and indifference among eaters. Shortening the food chain is one way to create more conscious consumers, but deploying technology to pierce the veil is another.

Finally, there is the power of the example you set in the White House. If what's needed is a change of culture in America's thinking about food, then how America's first household organizes its eating will set the national tone, focusing the light of public attention on the issue and communicating a simple set of values that can guide Americans toward sun-based foods and away from eating oil.

The choice of White House chef is always closely watched, and you would be wise to appoint a figure who is identified with the food movement and committed to cooking simply from fresh local ingredients. Besides feeding you and your family exceptionally well, such a chef would demonstrate how it is possible even in Washington to eat locally for much of the year, and that good food needn't be fussy or complicated but does depend on good farming. You should make a point of the fact that every night you're in town, you join your family for dinner in the Executive Residence - at a table. (Surely you remember the Reagans' TV trays.) And you should also let it be known that the White House observes one meatless day a week - a step that, if all Americans followed suit, would be the equivalent, in carbon saved, of taking 20 million midsize sedans off the road for a year. Let the White House chef post daily menus on the Web, listing the farmers who supplied the food, as well as recipes.

Since enhancing the prestige of farming as an occupation is critical to developing the sun-based regional agriculture we need, the White House should appoint, in addition to a White House chef, a White House farmer. This new post would be charged with implementing what could turn out to be your most symbolically resonant step in building a new American food culture. And that is this: tear out five prime south-facing acres of the White House lawn and plant in their place an organic fruit and vegetable garden.

When Eleanor Roosevelt did something similar in 1943, she helped start a Victory Garden movement that ended up making a substantial contribution to feeding the nation in wartime. (Less well known is the fact that Roosevelt planted this garden over the objections of the U.S.D.A., which feared home gardening would hurt the American food industry.) By the end of the war, more than 20 million home gardens were supplying 40 percent of the produce consumed in America. The president should throw his support behind a new Victory Garden movement, this one seeking "victory" over three critical challenges we face today: high food prices, poor diets and a sedentary population. Eating from this, the shortest food chain of all, offers anyone with a patch of land a way to reduce their fossil-fuel consumption and help fight climate change. (We should offer grants to cities to build allotment gardens for people without access to land.) Just as important, Victory Gardens offer a way to enlist Americans, in body as well as mind, in the work of feeding themselves and changing the food system - something more ennobling, surely, than merely asking them to shop a little differently.

I don't need to tell you that ripping out even a section of the White House lawn will be controversial: Americans love their lawns, and the South Lawn is one of the most beautiful in the country. But imagine all the energy, water and petrochemicals it takes to make it that way. (Even for the purposes of this memo, the White House would not disclose its lawn-care regimen.) Yet as deeply as Americans feel about their lawns, the agrarian ideal runs deeper still, and making this particular plot of American land productive, especially if the First Family gets out there and pulls weeds now and again, will provide an image even more stirring than that of a pretty lawn: the image of stewardship of the land, of self-reliance and of making the most of local sunlight to feed one's family and community. The fact that surplus produce from the South Lawn Victory Garden (and there will be literally tons of it) will be offered to regional food banks will make its own eloquent statement.

You're probably thinking that growing and eating organic food in the White House carries a certain political risk. It is true you might want to plant iceberg lettuce rather than arugula, at least to start. (Or simply call arugula by its proper American name, as generations of Midwesterners have done: "rocket.") But it should not be difficult to deflect the charge of elitism sometimes leveled at the sustainable-food movement. Reforming the food system is not inherently a right-or-left issue: for every Whole Foods shopper with roots in the counterculture you can find a family of evangelicals intent on taking control of its family dinner and diet back from the fast-food industry - the culinary equivalent of home schooling. You should support hunting as a particularly sustainable way to eat meat - meat grown without any fossil fuels whatsoever. There is also a strong libertarian component to the sun-food agenda, which seeks to free small producers from the burden of government regulation in order to stoke rural innovation. And what is a higher "family value," after all, than making time to sit down every night to a shared meal?

Our agenda puts the interests of America's farmers, families and communities ahead of the fast-food industry's. For that industry and its apologists to imply that it is somehow more "populist" or egalitarian to hand our food dollars to Burger King or General Mills than to support a struggling local farmer is absurd. Yes, sun food costs more, but the reasons why it does only undercut the charge of elitism: cheap food is only cheap because of government handouts and regulatory indulgence (both of which we will end), not to mention the exploitation of workers, animals and the environment on which its putative "economies" depend. Cheap food is food dishonestly priced - it is in fact unconscionably expensive.

Your sun-food agenda promises to win support across the aisle. It builds on America's agrarian past, but turns it toward a more sustainable, sophisticated future. It honors the work of American farmers and enlists them in three of the 21st century's most urgent errands: to move into the post-oil era, to improve the health of the American people and to mitigate climate change. Indeed, it enlists all of us in this great cause by turning food consumers into part-time producers, reconnecting the American people with the American land and demonstrating that we need not choose between the welfare of our families and the health of the environment - that eating less oil and more sunlight will redound to the benefit of both.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company Michael Pollan, a contributing writer for the magazine, is the Knight Professor of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author, most recently, of "In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto."

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

USDA's New Biotechnology Regulations Could Allow Drugs in Food

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today denounced newly proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules governing genetically engineered crops, including food crops engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial products. The proposed rules, UCS charged, would not protect the U.S. food supply from potential contamination by drugs from "pharma" crops, and could allow drugs that it deems "safe" to enter the food supply. This contamination could occur through cross-pollination or seed mixing between pharma food crops and crops intended for consumption.

The USDA ignored recommendations for a ban on the outdoor production of pharma food crops from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, major food companies, UCS, and more than 100 environmental, agricultural, health, and consumer organizations.

Below is a statement by Jane Rissler, UCS's Food and Environment Program deputy director: "Under the proposed rules, USDA's new motto is 'Only safe levels of drugs in U.S. food.' If these proposals are enacted into law, American consumers must accept the possibility of drugs in their breakfast cereal or other common foods. Moreover, these rules likely will lead to contamination scares, which will hurt the food industry.

"The USDA proposal, unlike the ban we recommended, offers no incentives to drug companies to pursue already existing, safer methods for producing drugs.

"In its rush to enact the proposed rules into law before the end of the Bush administration, the USDA has given short shrift to public participation. The department is allowing only 45 days for the public to analyze and comment on this major proposal, which will determine the government's approach to regulating genetically engineered organisms for years to come.

"The proposed rules also overhaul the existing regulatory system for genetically engineered crops other than pharma crops. Some of the proposed changes represent steps in the right direction such as making the regulatory program more coherent and comprehensive, expanding the scope of genetically engineered organisms subject to government oversight, and allowing the department to consider impacts on public health."

For UCS's Web feature profiling innovative biotechnology companies that are developing drugs more safely, go to

For the location of pharma crops that have been grown outdoors across the country, go to

Sunday, October 5, 2008

USDA Withholding Documents on Outrageous Rule to Pasteurize Raw Almond

  • Farm Policy Group Says Almond Board Withholding Key Research
    The Cornucopia Institute, October 2, 2008
    Straight to the Source

Cornucopia, WI - The Cornucopia Institute has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the United States Department of Agriculture and the Almond Board of California seeking public documents justifying the merits of the almond pasteurization rule and the science supporting it.

Since the passage, in spring 2007, of the controversial rule mandating pasteurization of raw almonds grown in California, policy analysts at The Cornucopia Institute have made numerous requests for public information from the Almond Board of California (ABC). Repeatedly, the Almond Board has failed to turn over documents they allege prove the effectiveness of pasteurization and the comparative nutrition, quality, and safety of pasteurized almonds and raw untreated almonds.

Some in the industry - family-scale growers, organic farmers and handlers, retailers and consumers - have vigorously protested the USDA-imposed pasteurization mandate of raw almonds and questioned whether it is based on sound research.

"We have taken this step because we have been frustrated by the Almond Board and the USDA's unwillingness to share the science behind the rule, the science that purports to show that treatment with either a toxic fumigant or steam heat is safe and does not affect the almond's taste and nutritional qualities," said Will Fantle, research director for The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy group.

The Almond Board claims that the EPA, the FDA, and the ABC's own "Technical Expert Review Panel" have undertaken "extensive research" to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of propylene oxide (PPO), the toxic chemical approved for use with almond pasteurization. Furthermore, they claim that these tests have demonstrated that PPO effectively kills Salmonella and other harmful bacteria, and that almonds treated with PPO are safe for consumption. However, they have refused to reveal the results of these or any other tests, including the results of a $1 million study commissioned by the ABC to assess quality degradation.

"If they have completed these studies, why won't they share this research?" asks Eli Penberthy, a policy analyst with Cornucopia. She notes that she has made multiple requests to the Almond Board asking for a number of their studies and research documents.

One explanation may be that the studies are incomplete or unfinished. Cornucopia has learned that at least some of the studies were still being conducted nearly a year after the raw almond treatment mandate was implemented on September 1, 2007. Additional research results assessing the shelf life, oil stability, flavor, texture, and appearance of treated almonds are also supposed to be available.

"We find it very troubling that the proponents of the almond treatment rule, who portray this as a food safety measure, still cannot produce the science and studies upon which the rule is supposedly based," said Penberthy. "The lack of data proves that the rule was passed prematurely and without sufficient review."

The Cornucopia Institute helped 15 California almond farmers and raw almond wholesale handlers file a lawsuit on September 9 challenging the pasteurization rule. The lawsuit contends that the USDA lacked regulatory authority and acted illegally in implementing the almond pasteurization rule.

A Washington, D.C., federal court will be ruling on the lawsuit, perhaps later this year. If successful, the raw almond treatment mandate would be overturned.

"Many family-scale farmers producing almonds and fresh fruits and vegetables are now having their livelihoods put at risk by a number of onerous 'technological fixes' that corporate agribusiness is looking to for solving food contamination problems," added Cornucopia's Fantle. "These draconian regulations might very well push out of business the highest-quality and safest farm operations in the nation and, in doing so, will shut out growing legions of consumers who are seeking out a higher quality and more nutritious food supply."

Propylene Oxide is so toxic that it is not even registered for use as a food processing agent in many parts of the world, including most of Europe, Africa, Asia, and Canada. The Environmental Protection Agency recognizes it as a carcinogen and cause of disease, and as a suspected toxicant of the liver and the gastrointestinal, immune, developmental, and respiratory systems.

Almonds imported into the U.S. are exempt from the pasteurization rule. This exemption has caused severe economic hardship for many domestic family farmer and organic almond producers.

More information on the federal lawsuit and the almond pasteurization controversy can be found on Cornucopia's web page under the Authentic Almond Project.