Smithfield Threatens Documentary makers Over ‘Pig Business”

A documentary about Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations-CAFO’s due to be shown this coming Sunday at the Guardian Hay festival in London England is facing legal action by the company it criticizes, Smithfield Foods.

Smithfield denies its alleged responsibility for environmental pollution and health problems among residents near its factories.

The film was due to be broadcast on Channel 4 in February but was cancelled because of legal fears. A planned screening at the Frontline Club in London earlier this year was also called off.

Each cancellation emboldens Smithfield to keep fighting to keep it from the public. Residents near the factories could come forward and either validate or discredit the film.

Pig Business shows the cramped conditions in which pigs are reared, similar to those of battery hens, and claims that waste is inadequately disposed off, leaking into the surrounding environment.

Filmmaker Tracy Worcester, pictured here, interviewed people who live near Smithfield farms in the US, where the company started out, who complain of health problems including asthma and digestive illnesses, and fishermen who report that stocks have been destroyed.

The film documents the company's move to Poland, where locals claim to experience similar health problems.

Worcester, who spent four years making the film, said: "It's crucial that consumers are able to watch this so they know what is being done to their food."

Smithfield's poor environmental record was documented in Felicity Lawrence's book Eat Your Heart Out, where she notes that the company was fined $12.6m for illegally discharging pollutants into the Pagan river in Virginia. There is no reason to believe the company ‘cleaned up its ways’.

Since Smithfield is fighting this so arduously, there is probably some truth to what the documentary is trying to get out to us. The funny thing, those of us who have followed CAFO’s already now how damaging they are to our environment. So why is Smithfield fighting so hard to keep it from us? They think the general public is too easily swayed by whatever someone puts in front of them. They don’t give the public credit for thinking for themselves.

The thing Smithfield needs to learn is that the internet can spread the truth without any of their lawyers interfering.

Facts about CAFO’s:
Facts about CAFOs, Local Control, and Health Ordinances
Facts about CAFOs by Sierra Club, Michigan Chapter
CAFOs – Economics, emotion and passion

Photo credit: Guardian News and Media Limited

Hog Giant Smithfield Transforms Eastern Europe

clipped from www.nytimes.com Smithfield Foods. Almost unnoticed by the rest of the Continent, the agribusiness giant has moved into Eastern Europe with the force of a factory engine, assembling networks of farms, breeding pigs on the fast track, and slaughtering them for every bit of meat and muscle that can be squeezed into a sausage. The upheaval in the hog farm belts of Poland and Romania, the two largest E.U. members in Eastern Europe, ranks among the Continent’s biggest agricultural transformations. Smithfield’s global approach is clear Smithfield enlisted politicians in Poland and Romania, tapped into hefty European Union farm subsidies and fended off local opposition groups to create a conglomerate of feed mills, slaughterhouses and climate-controlled barns housing thousands of hogs It moved with such speed that sometimes it failed to secure environmental permits or inform the authorities about pig deaths

The Virginia-based pork giant has squashed small-scale hog farming in Romania and Poland, just as it did in the United States in the 1990s.

Smithfield says pork prices dropped by about one-fifth, saving consumers about $29 per year. While this is good news for us, farmers are run out of business forced to seek employment elsewhere and the new Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are creating vast open disease ridden cesspools. Unbearable stenches, and wrecked communities.

They used high-level cronyism to move through the maze of the Romanian political system.

This is a prime example of the poisonous downside of corporate globalization.

Food Safety Program Needs Restructuring, Not Another Agency

In the wake of the recent salmonella outbreak that killed 9 people and sickened over 600 others, food safety concerns have become a pressing issue.

The Food and Drug Administration takes the brunt of the responsibility and is the most pressured to find the cause and correct it.

However, at least 15 agencies are involved in making sure food is safe under at least 30 different laws, some of which date back to the early 1900s. it doesn’t matter how old a law is as long as it works. And if those 30 laws work then they should remain in place. However, it seems there needs to be some re-thinking as to how often food gets inspected and by whom.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., have been proposing an overhaul of the nation's food safety structure for more than a decade. Food safety advocates agree.

I don’t believe we need another bureaucratic agency to add to the convoluted maze, just shore up practices already in place. The system will work if given enough inspectors with the proper guidelines and abilities.

The Department of Agriculture should inspect anything grown or raised on a farm, domestic and imported. The FDA should cover everything else that enters the human body (drugs, etc), domestic and imported. They need to agree on a schedule of inspections and they both need the ability to shutdown operations if a threat is discovered.

Obviously, an alert system needs to be in place to notify the general public of a possible contamination of food, possible source(s), and where the product was shipped. And this alert needs to take place within days of the discovery not months as is currently the case.

It seems reasonable that if any manufacturer has to face the possibility of a shutdown (cutting into their profits) then it would be in their best interest to ensure their product is safe.

Raw food inspections covered by USDA, this covers growers. Processed foods covered by FDA, this covers processors.

An additional safety net would be provided by the health department to inspect facilities and ensure workers are following safe food-handling procedures.

This means that some foods will be inspected more than once. The bottom line is that all possible sources of contamination needs to be inspected, as the source of all tainted food has come from mis-handling of food and/or contamination of facilities.

Vilsack Laying Groundwork for USDA Reform

In his speech this week before National Association of Wheat Growers, Tom Vilsack, U.S. Department of Agriculture chief, told farmers to start developing other sources of income because the era of crop subsidies may be nearing an end.

Part of his plans for the new USDA Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets (USDA-OESM) is to promote a far more diversified income base for the farm sector while at the same time promoting more agriculturally-sustainable practices. This could mean that windmills and biofuels will eventually be a part of their income. Also, he alluded to organic agriculture playing an increasing role.

I am all for any plan that would promote food- and fiber-producing activities that are more climate-friendly. OESM Head Sally Collins says, "Where we go from here will alter the discussion of how the country thinks about natural resources."

As an indication that his plan is in the works, the USDA just announced a pilot project that will let wheat, corn and soy farmers who receive subsidies to plant vegetables on their so-called "base acreage," a practice that is currently illegal -- to set the stage for this kind of transition.

Tom Vilsack is a strong proponent of renewable energy and developing the nation’s alternative fuel industry, particularly ethanol and other bio-fuels as a way to reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil. He is also a staunch supporter of rural growth.

It seems this re-direction of the USDA just may be the answer we are looking for.

Monsanto, You Are Striping Away Our Roots

Monsanto is in the process of cleansing rural America of non-corporate farming. But they are not alone. Corporate livestock production is doing their share to purge rural families of their livelihoods and funnel any remaining pennies into their multi-national coffers. Through the leverage of big money, rural people are losing control of their local public institutions as corporations gain influence over local economies and local governments.

I would really like to believe that these over-zealous and blindly self-serving corporate interests do not realize the effect their corporate creep is having on rural America, but I suspect I would be wrong.

The imposition of corporate control over these precious irreplaceable rural resources, including rural people and rural culture, has but one purpose, and that is to feed the wealth of corporate investors. Investors, by reducing rural America to an accounting balance sheet, has created several irrefutable side-effects: we are losing our diversity and our independence.

This phenomena is not unique to America. It is taking place around the world. Outside investment, badly needed in many parts of the world, is the enticement that allows corporations to buy their way into a community promising to stimulate the local economy and expand the tax base. Then slowly, like a cancer, guts it out, sucking the local economy dry by sending all the profits back to a corporate headquarters.

Corporations like to boil things down to its lowest common denominator making their product more easily manageable. For Monsanto’s part in ‘bringing the rural farmer into the fold’ is to use genetic engineering of food crops to create seeds that will guarantee better results while making the seed immune to their own herbicidal formula. In order to buy this seed, farmers are required to sign a contract that states no seed from this years crop can be collected and used for next years crop. This ‘intellectual property rights’ contract ensures Monsanto will sell the farmer more seed next year.

They are serious enough to take farmers to court. One farmer in Covington, Tennessee is believed to be the first farmer to have gone to jail for saving and replanting Monsanto's Roundup Ready soy seed in 1998. Ralph spent four months behind bars and must also pay the company 1.8 million dollars in penalties.

In total, U.S. courts have awarded Monsanto more than 15 million dollars, according to a new report by the Washington-based Centre for Food Safety (CFS) called "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers".

According to the report, court awards are just a fraction of the money the company has extracted from farmers. Hundreds of farmers are believed to have been coerced into secret settlements over the past eight years to avoid going to court.

In 2004, nearly 85 percent of all soy and canola were GE varieties. Three-quarters of U.S. cotton and nearly half of corn is also GE. Monsanto controls roughly 90 percent of GE soy, cotton and canola seed markets and has a large piece of the corn seed market.

So why don't farmers just buy non-GE seed? North Dakota farmer Rodney Nelson says there is actually very little conventional seed left to buy anymore because seed dealers don't make nearly as much money from them.

Monsanto sued Nelson and his family in 1999 for patent infringement, charging they had saved Roundup Ready soybean seeds on their 8,000-acre farm. Two years of legal hell ensued, Nelson said. The matter ended with an out of court settlement that he is forbidden to talk about. "We won, but we feel forever tainted."

The report contains a number of similar individual stories that often end in bankruptcy for the farmer. Even if a farmer decides to stop using Monsanto seeds, the GE plants self-seed and some will spring up of their own accord the following year. These unwanted "volunteers" can keep popping up for five or more years after a farmer stops using the patented seeds. Under U.S. patent law, a farmer commits an offense even if they unknowingly plant Monsanto's seeds without purchasing them from the company. Other countries have similar laws.

In the well-known case of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, pollen from a neighbor's GE canola fields and seeds that blew off trucks on their way to a processing plant ended up contaminating his fields with Monsanto's genetics. The trial court ruled that no matter how the GE plants got there, Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto's legal rights when he harvested and sold his crop. After a six-year legal battle, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that while Schmeiser had technically infringed on Monsanto's patent, he did not have to pay any penalties. Schmeiser, who spoke at last year's World Social Forum in India, says it cost 400,000 dollars to defend himself.

Another North Dakota farmer, Tom Wiley, explains the situation this way: "Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell."

"It's a corporation out of control," says Andrew Kimbrell, the executive director of CFS. Unfortunately, he adds, there will be no help for farmers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration as key positions are occupied by former Monsanto employees and the company has a powerful lobby in Washington.

In a 2007 report, the Center for Food Safety, in Washington, D.C., documented 112 such lawsuits, in 27 states. Even more significant, in the Center's opinion, are the numbers of farmers who settle because they don't have the money or the time to fight Monsanto.

In the latest phase in Monsanto’s grand plan to control the use of seed, police officers in Illinois, on January 9, 2009, served notices to several farmers on behalf of Monsanto citing that they were illegally saving seeds that belonged to Monsanto. One of those cited is Steve Hixon. Mr. Hixon provides a seed cleaning service to surrounding farmers. His equipment takes plant material and separates the seed to save for the next years crop.

Monsanto got its start making saccharin. In 1948, the company started making a powerful herbicide; a by-product of the process was the creation of a chemical that would later be known as dioxin. On March 8, 1949, a massive explosion rocked a Monsanto herbicide plant. Court records indicate that 226 plant workers fell ill. In the 1960s, the factory manufactured Agent Orange, which later became the focus of lawsuits by Vietnam veterans contending that they had been harmed by exposure.

During the 1990s, Monsanto alone spent nearly $8 billion acquiring leading commercial seed suppliers in the United States and internationally; DuPont and others quickly followed suit, leading to today's widespread proliferation of genetically engineered food crops."


Monsanto's pledge is "We want to make the world a better place for future generations. As an agricultural company, Monsanto can do this best by providing value through the products and systems we offer to farmers. With the growth of modern agricultural practices and crops that generate ever-increasing yields, we are helping farmers around the world to create a better future for human beings, the environment, and local economies."

I doubt that many farmers would agree.

Do they know the effect they are having on our farming heritage? I think they know and I also think they don’t have any regrets.


Further reading:
Monsanto’s Seed Police Keep Harassing U.S. Farmers

Building a World Free of Monsanto

Genetically Modified crops reach 9% of global crop production

Global Warming is Real, Mr. Klaus

The annual world economic forum of global leaders was held in Davos, Switzerland this past week, and Czech President Vaclav Klaus used this forum to verbally attack Al Gore over his stance on global warming.

"I don't think that there is any global warming," said the 67-year-old liberal, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. "I don't see the statistical data for that."

Referring to the former US vice president, who attended Davos this year, he added: "I'm very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.

"Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. Al Gore is an important person in this movement."

Speaking on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum, he said that he was more worried about the reaction to the perceived dangers than the consequences.

"I'm afraid that the current crisis will be misused for radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy all around the world," he said.

"I'm more afraid of the consequences of the crisis than the crisis itself."

I agree that people tend to become alarmed over perceived dangers, that is after all what warnings are meant to do, if they are taken seriously. This climate threat has been perceived by climatologists for many years and those early predictions are beginning to take shape. The non-scientific community needs only observe the changes in weather patterns and the resulting destruction of wildlife habitat to see this is true.

You cannot dismiss the fact that polar ice sheets are melting at a record pace. You cannot ignore the fact that navigable routes have opened through the arctic, about 30 years ahead of predictions.

Nor can you ignore the fact that the planets surface is warming up.

The greatest debate over causal factors is whether these changes are the result of a natural cycle or are they man-made.

The burning of fossil fuels has certainly taken its toll, not only on human health but also on the health of the atmosphere as a result of excavating earths resources, burning those resources and releasing the resulting gases into the atmosphere. The resultant greenhouse gases increase the planets temperature. Not alarmist theory, scientific fact.

Earth’s climate is a closed system. Everything that exists in this system stays in this system. The melting of polar ice caps produces evaporation and the increased atmospheric moisture results in increased rainfall which then leads to increased severity of hurricanes. A side effect of this increased hurricane intensity is the associated low pressure sucks more moisture away from the drier climates of the world creating more severe droughts. As a result, agricultural patterns worldwide are being affected.

Polar ice cap melt also increases sea levels which could result in future category 2 and 3 storms causing much more severe flooding than anticipated otherwise, in low-lying coastal areas.

As the planet grows ever warmer, and former cold zones give way to rising temperatures, plant and animal species are loosing their habitat and dying off thereby decreasing biodiversity. This does not bode well for planets inhabitants, for man and beast.

Are these the ramblings of ‘alarmists’ for the purpose of “radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy”? It seems Mr. Klaus, and by association, all other naysayers, is more concerned with the health of the market system than with the health of our planet. And this perfectly illustrates the very reason why we are in this mess today.

We dismiss scientific findings at our own peril. This has proven itself many times throughout history. Taking heed of this lesson is of the utmost importance to prevent a predicted global calamity.

It is a widespread fact that species and their habitats are on the decrease while chances for ecosystems to adapt naturally are diminishing. This cannot be merely brushed aside as ‘alarmist’.


Sources:
Science Daily, Sep 22, 2005

Global Issues, Jan 1, 2009

Climate Change Weather Patterns

Sustainable Agriculture Can Feed the World

After reading a fascinating post by Kate of Hills and Plains Seedsavers, my curiosity began me on a quest to learn as much as I could about sustainable agriculture. We both, as well as many others, have written our thoughts on one form or another of organic agriculture for some time now and I was wondering if we could actually produce enough food to feed the world without using pesticides or other synthetic, non-natural fertilizers that purport to boost food crop output.

In my research I discovered a web site entitled Food First. They published results of a study that was done by the University of Michigan Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology that shows that not only can we feed the current world’s population without the help of chemical-based fertilizers and pesticides, we can by converting to a sustainable organic food production system support a population of up to 10-11 billion by the year 2100! Which will be the world’s expected population by that time.

The original Green Revolution of the 1940’s (Victory Gardens) was credited with averting widespread hunger by drastically increasing agricultural production during World War II. When our soldiers came home after the war, it was felt that the need for these gardens was over and so they fell out of favor. The post-war economic boom saw many people leave the farms and home gardens to experience the conveniences that our new found prosperity brought to us. Farm yields were increased through the science of plant genetics and chemical fertilizers. Food production was improved by the ability to mass produce canned and frozen foods that greatly cut down on food preparation time. This allowed people to enjoy more of the new leisure time that everyone craved.

Years later, after seeing the damage caused by chemical fertilizers and pesticides and the fact that hunger is still a major problem, sustainable organic alternatives are once again receiving the attention they deserve.

The study was published in the June 2007 issue of the journal Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. I won’t go into great detail of the trials, but they compared alternative and conventional agriculture from 91 studies and were able to demonstrate that current scientific knowledge implies that organic agriculture could actually increase global food production by as much as 50% (to 4,381 kilocalories/person/day).

The problems of hunger and food security in the world are not presently associated with not enough food, but with poverty and the lack of ability to acquire food. Whether sufficient food is produced organically or conventionally, the problems of fair distribution and acknowledgment of the right to food will still need to be resolved, and no amount of food production alone will change the political system that leaves those without money to live without sufficient food.

Currently, the world produces enough food to feed everyone, if we would stop artificially fattening up cattle with grain that could go to feed humans. Cows stomachs are not designed to process grain, their natural food is grass, but ranchers receive more profit by feeding their cattle grain. This mis-direction of human food leaves over 800 million people who cannot acquire enough food for their basic needs, according to Food First. They go on to say that if we are to address world hunger, we cannot avoid food sovereignty: people's right to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, no matter how much is produced. This implies the democratization of our food systems—not their further industrialization.

Biofuel Update: ALGAE

One of the latest attempts at creating a biofuel source has been with algae. Algae are among the fastest growing plants in the world, and about 50 percent of their weight is oil. That lipid oil can be used to make biodiesel for cars, trucks, and airplanes.

A company in Texas, Valcent Products, has created an algae greenhouse to harvest this green fuel that many believe will help ease our dependence on fossil fuel.

Instead of growing algae in ponds, Vlacent uses a closed loop bioreactor system that can produce algae over an extended period. Using long rows of moving plastics bags exposes a larger surface area to the suns rays thereby growing more algae in less space. The system is expected to produce about 100,000 gallons of algae oil a year per acre, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons from soybeans.

More than one type of algae

There are currently 65,000 known algae species, with perhaps hundreds of thousands more still to be identified and researchers are convinced they will be able to target the exact species of algae most perfectly suited to whatever end product is desired. One species may be best suited for jet fuel, while the oil content of another may be more efficient for truck diesel.

Algae as a food source

Seaweeds, e.g., the kelps (kombu) and the red algae Porphyra (nori), have long been used as a source of food, especially in Asia. Both cultivated and naturally growing seaweeds have been harvested in the Pacific Basin for hundreds of years. Kelp are also much used as fertilizer, and kelp ash is used industrially for its potassium and sodium salts. Other useful algae products are agar and carrageen, which is used as a stabilizer in foods, cosmetics, and paints.

Another commercial use is as a health food drink, usually sold as "Spirulina" which claims to increase natural cancer fighting substances in the body.

Algae as a filtering agent

Locating algae facilities next to carbon producing power plants, or manufacturing plants could sequester the C02 they create and use those emissions to help grow the algae, which need the C02 for photosynthesis. An bioreactor built in just the right way can have the added benefit of preventing carbon dioxide emissions, nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide, from entering the atmosphere.

A Sonoma State University biology professor and his graduate student have teamed up with the City of Santa Rosa to investigate the potential use of algae to remove excess nutrients and other contaminants from municipal wastewater effluent.

Algae is considered a better alternative to using corn and soybeans as a biofuel due to three factors, one: algae generates more fuel using less acreage, two: the diversion of corn and soybean from food to biofuel use increases the cost of food products, and three: the high agricultural use of nitrogen based fertilizers for corn and soybeans contaminates the water table and eventually runs off into the oceans adding to the already huge Dead Zone.

A decade ago, the U.S. Department of Energy said that after 18 years of study algae oil could never compete economically with fossil fuels. But that was when the price of oil was about $20. With the cost of a barrel of oil over $100 I think its high time we use plants like algae and switchgrass for biofuel sources and keep food crops out of the gas tank.

EcoCity Farm, a new direction for agriculture

(Photo courtesy of Rivendell Organics)
Here's an interesting hybrid setup of aquaponics and vermiculture to grow vegetables.

The idea is to use live fish and crustaceans, raised in large tanks, to produce fertilizer for the vegetables.

According to Andrew Bodlovich and Hogan Gleeson, creators of the ecoCity Farm, a farm the size of a city block can feed up to 300 people with no waste, little water and minimal effort.

The wastewater generated from the population is filtered through a patented “bio-converter” which mineralizes any compound that could be dangerous to plant or fish health (e.g. bacteria, feces). The bio-converter works with vermiculture – colonies of waste-eating worms that turn undesirable compounds into plant-ready nutrients. Water, filtered through the worm treatment nourishes the vegetables. The veggies use up the minerals and nutrients from the fish water, effectively filtering it to its original, clean state. This newly plant-filtered water is sent back to the fish tanks.

See Eat. Drink. Better. blog for more details.

Global climate concerns to be addressed in Bali

Creating a new global climate pact will be the subject of a massive UN-backed meeting in Bali, Indonesia, Dec 3 to Dec 14, 2007. 15,000 government officials and environmentalists from 190 nations will meet to discuss the next generation environmental protocol to replace the current 1997 Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.

The Kyoto Protocol, a world-wide measure to combat the rising global warming threat, was weakened due to several developing nations, including China and India, being exempted from the measure. It was further weakened because the U.S. never signed on. The U.S. is expected to once again balk at proposed key provisions under the expected treaty such as mandatory emissions cuts and targets for limiting the rise in global temperatures. It seems economics will continue to overshadow environmental concerns.

Discussions will range from deforestation and the wiping out of species to the economic destruction caused by natural disasters. A major concern is that poorer countries are replacing their forests with crops such as soy and sugar to take advantage of the emerging agrifuel industry, which is only worsening the climate threat.

Forests are necessary to help combat rising levels of carbon dioxide and if they are replaced by a product that has been shown to be an impractical solution, then it is no solution at all. We are only trading one problem for a host of others, one being that we will need to generate more synthetic fertilizer to increase production of crops that will not meet half of the U.S. fuel requirements by 2025, let alone an entire planet. The current method of composting farm waste back into feeding the soil to produce more crop would be interrupted by using that compost for ethanol production and this depletion of soil fertility would have a devastating effect on future farming. Converting food crop into fuel for automobiles is morally wrong in the face of more than 16,000 children dieing from hunger every day.

This round of talks may have more of a world consensus and more of a sense of urgency to meet the problem head on than the 1997 talks did but since one of the biggest generators of greenhouse gases isn’t willing to heed constructive solutions then other countries will feel little pressure to show their support. These smaller countries will feel more inclined to pursue a short term profit through agrifuel production which will destroy future abilities to produce more biofuels.

World leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and new Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd have all made climate change a top priority.

President Bush has recently signaled willingness by the U.S. in favor of mandatory limits on global warming pollution by citing a final Energy Department report showing U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide declined by 1.5% last year.

This is a very small move in the right but it shows signs of hope that the world can come up with a more meaningful and immediate solution to our shared, looming climate threat.