Natural Products And Foods

Organic Gardening: Winter Salads

2008-05-02T14:15:00.000-07:00

Far too many gardeners regard their season as starting in the spring and ending in the autumn. They will tell you that they put their garden to bed for the winter, and mainly occupy themselves with other activities.

This is a pity, as with a little planning and effort it is possible to provide a range of supplies for the kitchen. Salad crops are particularly useful as the ones available in the shops are likely to be even more heavily treated with chemicals during the winter months. Those produced in this country, for example, will have been grown in glass-houses or poly-tunnels where they are likely to have been sprayed several times with fungicides.

Indoors

Obviously without a heated greenhouse and considerable expense what we can do in our gardens is going to be limited, but we can make a worthwhile attempt to provide something for the table free from chemical contamination.

Take lettuces first of all. You may not have a heated greenhouse but you do have a house with warm rooms. Last winter l managed to maintain a constant supply of lettuces, albeit only a few leaves every day for lunch-time sandwiches, by growing them in pots on window-sills.

The lettuces l grew were called Kelly's and they are specially for glass-house cultivation. They were grown in 450g size yogurt pots, about 20 of them, and kept in trays on light window-sills. They are not lettuces that heart UP, but leaves can be picked from the bottom of the plants and new leaves are produced at the top until they run to seed in the spring, Their fresh green leaves look a treat on the window-sill on a sunny winter's day.

Another salad crop is chicory. These plants grew in the garden during the summer and autumn until cut back by the frost. The roots can then be dug up and kept in pots or boxes in a cool frost free place. They must be kept without light and will remain dormant until brought into a warmer environment. With light still excluded, the plants will soon produce the pale chicoons that can be used in salads

And outdoors

In the garden itself an exceedingly hardy plant can be sown in late summer for winter use. This is land cress, very withstand harsh winter conditions and continue growing during mild spells until it runs to seed in the spring. Its tangy leaves can be picked for salads throughout the winter.

Corn salad or lamb's lettuce is another winter crop that can be grown in the same way as land cress. Both these plants can be grown in the open, but they would be even more productive if protected by cloches or a cold frame.

Another green vegetable that can help out with salads is leaf beet or perpetual spinach. Although this is regarded as a vegetable for cooking, it is extremely hardy and will go on producing young leaves suitable for salads until the colder weather starts. As soon as the milder weather arrives in early spring, it starts again to produce a crop of young green leaves. Even in mid-winter, if you cover some of the plants with cloches, there will be some leaves for picking.

Root crops for salads can be sown in the summer and either left in the ground to be dug as required, or dug up and stored for winter use. Winter radish is such a crop. I leave mine in the ground and give them a covering of old grass cuttings or straw to keep out the frost and dig up the roots which are up to 6 inches long ; a tasty addition to the winter salad. Carrots and beetroot can be left in a similar way and, grated raw, add color to salads

A crop seldom grown but ideal for winter use is the Jerusalem artichoke. A neighbor gave me some tubers to sow over 20 years ago, and they have been providing winter food and tubers for planting ever since.

The tubers are planted around March and produce 8 foot high plants similar to sunflowers but without the flowers. The foliage is cut down and composted in the autumn and the tubers can be dug up as required. They are really good chopped up raw in salads as well as being useful for soups; they are also delicious roasted with the potatoes in the oven.

Jerusalem artichokes can be somewhat knobbly and difficult to prepare, but over the years I have selected the smoothest tubers for seed and now my crop consists in the main of good smooth roots. Some people swear by Jerusalem artichokes and some people swear at them, but l regard them as a first-class reliable winter vegetable.

Another good standby for winter are the squashes. I usually grow small pumpkins which store well in a cool place and are tasty chopped raw in salads. They are also useful for making soup.

With the growing prospect of global warming, we are likely to see changes in our climate. As well as an expected reduction in annual rainfall in our part of the country, we are also likely to find milder conditions during the winters. Despite the threat of more serious storms, this could make it easier to grow winter crops. Even without these changes, though, there is still much that can be done now.

Organic Gardening: Go Organic Essentials

2008-05-02T14:09:00.000-07:00

Now Spring is in the air why not take a major decision and plan to have a go at gardening organically? Perhaps you have already considered the possibility but don't really know how to set about it.

It's simple really. Organic gardening is essentially learning to work with nature rather than trying to impose yourself upon it. As a start I would recommend that you write off at
once for the Organic Gardening Catalogue.

This catalogue contains the titles of several books and leaflets explaining organic gardening in simple terms.

The Essentials

The three essentials of growing organically are:

The soil in which you grow your seeds and plants, and how it can be improved without the use of chemical fertilisers.
The choice of what to grow that will flourish best without the use of chemicals.
The range of techniques that can be used to reduce the effects of pests and diseases without using chemicals.

First, then the soil. The main thing is to put back what you take out. This necessitates composting nearly all garden waste and vegetable waste from the kitchen. Virtually all
can go for compost (also see page 1 0) except woody material, diseased plants and food waste that might attract rats. It's best to chop the waste as small as possible using shears or a shredder to speed up the process.

Making good compost is an art that comes with experience and organic gardeners can never get enough to put on their soil. The catalogue lists a 75p pamphlet called 'Composting - all you need to know the subject' if you require help in making good compost. Some local authorities, including Rother, have been supplying compost bins at cheap prices to their residents, to reduce the amount of organic 'rubbish' that has to be collected. that will benefit the soil. Animal manures, leaf mould, fertilisers made from comfrey or nettles and a whole series of proprietary manures and additives that are free of chemicals. Over time, the fertility and structure of the soil in
an organic garden will improve and it cannot be bettered. It will contain all the essential requirements for healthy plant growth, and it will be a living soil, rich in worms, bacteria
and other life required by plants.

Next there is the consideration of what to grow. This will, of course, depend on the individual gardener, but there are several factors that will influence the choice. It is wise to concentrate on those plants that are suited to your type of soil and to the local climate.

Unless you have a real desire for a particular plant, it is better to exclude those that are especially vulnerable to certain pests and diseases. The Organic Gardening Catalogue mentions that a certain calabrese is tolerant of club root, another resistant to black rot and downy mildew.
Some lettuces are less attractive to slugs, some roses are resistant to blackspot. By carefully choosing your plants you can reduce the problems of pests and diseases, and if you choose plants suited to your garden they will grow well and be less likely to succumb to attack.

The third consideration is the techniques that can be used to reduce the effects of pests and diseases without having to resort to chemical methods of control. This really demands a book on its own, but the organic gardener will build up a range of measures to suit the problems of his
particular garden.

The problem of slugs in my garden, for example, is largely overcome by sowing seeds of vulnerable crops like lettuces, brassicas and beans in modules or pots. These are grown on to healthy plants able to withstand a few slugs before they go into the ground. Even then I will
protect some plants with rings cut from plastic bottles. As for snails, song thrushes deal with most of them.

In addition, the organic gardener can when necessary use acceptable organic sprays and powders. Recently, too, a range of biological controls has become available. These
introduce predators that attack slugs, aphids or caterpillars without harming anything else. All these products can be found in the Organic Gardening Catalogue.

Slow but sure

Successful organic gardening is a cumulative process. As one year follows another, so the soil builds up a healthy structure and fertility. When pesticides are not used , a balance develop, between predators and pests so that crop damage is minimised. When weeds are comported and returned to the soil, or left in situ and smothered by mulching with grass cuttings or shreddings weed killers are unnecessary and the soil benefits.

Changing from chemical to organic gardening takes time and can sometimes be problematic, but persevere. When the balanced environment is achieved it is worth the effort.

The Henry Doubleday Research Association is a valuable source of information and a visit to their new grounds at Yalding in Kent is well worth while. The monthly magazine Organic Gardening is also a g reat help and is available from newsagents

If you have any consideration for the environment there is really no excuse for not turning over to organic gardening. Good luck if you decide to do so.

Organic Gardening: Balcony Gardens

2008-05-02T14:00:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine in a second-floor flat and he is an organic gardener although he hasn't got a garden or an allotment. if you walk up to the block of flats, you can tell where he lives. There is a
balcony that stands out from all the others as it is overflowing with flowers and vegetation.

He took up gardening several years ago because he became alarmed by reports of excessive residues found in such a wide range of fruit and vegetables in the shops. Herbicides, pesticides, fungicides were - and still are - found on most home-grown and imported produce. The effects of
cumulative small doses of many such chemicals over the years is unknown and untested. Many of the chemicals long-ago banned in this country as harmful, are still being manufactured here, exported to Third World countries, and return to us in the produce grown there for our consumption.

The Annual Report for 1995 of the Government Working Party on pesticide Residues has recently been published. This indicates that little progress has been made in reducing chemical residues in our fruit and vegetables. As in previous years, 75% of carrots sampled are affected, and government advice still applies that they should be peeled and the top inch removed
before eating. Celery, lettuces and fresh herbs are also reported to be badly affected. Two-thirds or more of apples, pears, oranges and grapes sampled all contained residues.

Home and away

Whether the produce was home-produced or imported, the story is much the same. Although only a minority of samples contained residues above the permitted maximum residue level, how confident can we be after BSE fiasco? The situation givesrise to considerable publice concern and recently there has been a substantial increase in demand for organically-grown produce. An example of this is the booming trade in vegetable boxes available from our local Scragoak Organic Farm at Brightling.

The other consideration that prompted my friend to grow some of his own food was the completely unnecessary trade in 'fresh' produce that could easily be produced locally. The knowledge that poor, under-developed countries, instead of producing much-needed food for themselves, were growing produce for us, was regarded as wrong and immoral. it has to be
trucked to an airport, flown perhaps thousands of miles to this country, and then distributed around our roads by heavy goods vehicles.

An enormous amount of environmental pollution is caused to bring us produce that is tainted with chemicals and possibly harmful to eat.

The second-floor balcony garden was developed over several years and now provides a significant supply of food throughout the year. Various containers were purchased but more were constructed to suit the space available. The soil used built up over time from gro-bags and bags of compost. In addition, a compost container by the dustbin receives the wastes from the garden and the kitchen - and from the kitchens of several neighbors as well. This helps to maintain the fertility of the soil.

It is quite remarkable how much can be produced in a small space. Seeds of a number of plants, such as lettuces, runner beans, courgettes, cucumbers and tomatoes, can be sown and potted up on indoor window-sills until they are ready for planting out. Dwarf varieties of most fruit and vegetable plants are available and so there is space for a range of different things.

Nor is there any need to sacrifice attractiveness. Flowers can be grown as well, interspersed with food crops, from bulbs in spring, to colorful annuals and climbing roses trainedup the wall with the runner beans. Many vegetables are attractive in their own right. The dark green foliage and
bright red stems of beetroot and ruby chard, the variegated leaves of lettuces like lollo rosso and red salad bowl, the cherry tomato plants. the blossom and fruit of strawberries, to name but a few.

Self-sufficient?

If a flat-dweller can enjoy such a significant addition to food supply in such limited circumstances, how much more can most of us do who enjoy the benefits of a garden, large or small. It always makes me sad to when people tell me that, although they have a garden, they don't have anyspace or time to grow any food crops. What an enormous difference it would make

to food distribution if we all tried to be partly self-sufficent and started to grow some ofthe food we need to eat every day. Our health and the environment would both benefit.

For all gardeners, but especially for organic gardeners, the 1997 Organic Gardeners' Catalogue is now available for the UK. this is published jointly by Chase Organics and the Henry Doubleday Research Association, and contains a wide selection of seeds and plants - vegetables, flowers and herbs. It also has details of tools, equipment and organic fertilisers, together with a large selection of books and pamphlets on all aspects of organic gardening.

Organic Gardening: Slugs away

2008-05-02T13:56:00.000-07:00

The recent forecasts of what is likely to happen to our climate as a result of global warming in the 21st Century, set me thinking about garden pests. We have been told to expect an increase in cockroaches and fleas and even the possibility of malarial mosquito reaching our shores. However, I have been wondering about the prospects for one of the most troublesome garden
residents, slugs and snails.

From the complaints I hear, gardeners think these creatures probably cause more trouble than anything else. On more than one occasion I have been told that although a gardener has given up using chemicals for almost every use in the garden, the use of slug pellets has been retained because there seems to be no other way of reducing slug and snail damage to acceptable
levels.

The expected rise in temperatures with global warming will probably do little to help this problem. In fat if we experience milder winters we shall probably find that more slugs and snails have survived through to the following season. However, we in the South-East may be more favourably placed than elsewhere in the country. It is forecast that we shall experience less rain and more droughts, while the opposite will be the case in the north and west.

During prolonged drought or dry spells of weather, slugs and snails certainly become less of a problem, but as soon as the wet weather comes along so the pests return to make their unwelcome appearance in the garden.

Organic solutions

In the immediate future we can certainly expect regular or periodic visitations from these creatures and our problem is what to do about protecting our plants and crops right now. How do organic gardeners deal with the problem? For myself I do not resort to chemicals and, generally

speaking, I do not find slugs and snails particularly difficult to deal with provided I follow a number of precautions.

There is always the possibility of deciding not to grow those plants especially attractive to slugs and snails, for example, lettuces, runner beans hostas etc. However, if you want to grow them, you need to be more careful. Wherever possible I never sow the seeds of vulnerable plants directly into the ground. I would normally sow them in individual modules in propak trays. When the seedlings are large enough, I pot them on individually and plant them out later when well-established. However, I plant them out directly if it is good growing weather and they can grow away rapidly in the soil.

Invariably I give each young seedling planted out the protection of a collar from a plastic bottle. You can cut two collars from each bottle, and Gardening Which? magazine found in their trials that this method of protection vies as efficient as slug pellets. Other advantages of this
protection is that each seedling has an individual mini-climate, and when watering you can supply 2/3 inches of water directly to plant without waste.

Another important point to remember is never to plant out vulnerable plants anywhere near to foliage or vegetation that could provide cover for slugs and snails. If there are problems with these creatures, I provide my own cover for them. My beds are surrounded by 12 inch wide strip of carpet to keep the paths weed free. This carpet also provides a cover for any slug to retreat to during the day, so instead of going out at night with a torch to collect them as a number of my friends do, I go out the next day and collect them from under the carpet.

Does the death penalty work?

If there are unusually high infestations, I put bricks, or strips of wood, cardboard or carpet around the areas affected and lift these to collect the slugs the next day. I have been told that if you kill such collections, by pouring boiling water on them for example, and scatter the dead remains around vulnerable plants, it acts as a deterrent to other slugs.

It has been likened to hanging the highwayman and leaving him hanging as a deterrent to others!Personally I have not tried this method, nor the other deterrent that involves putting human hair around the plants to be protected; a number of gardeners have said this is highly effective. If anyone has any other suggestion for dealing with slugs that they have found effective, I should be very interested to hear from them. But not beer traps; I have tried these but they normally catch more useful beetles that slugs, and I find the smell of stale beer revolting. I would rather drink it than use it as a trap.

Since organic gardeners do not use chemicals, their gardens usually contain plenty of predators that feed on the pests. Beatles, frogs and toads, hedgehogs etc. and there is a double welcome to the song thrush that sings from the top of the oak tree and leaves little piles of snail shells on
paving stones around the garden. I should hate to feed it snails poisoned by pellets and lose its lovely song.

Finally a mention of a recent biological technique for dealing with slugs and snails. A packet of nematodes can be purchased. These are microscopic creatures that are added to a watering can and sprinkled over an affected area. They parasites and kill their prey and are said to be very effective. However, this is not cheap, but if anyone has used them I would be most
interested to hear how well they worked.

Organic Gardening: Earth Matters

2008-05-02T13:44:00.000-07:00

Earth Matters

When I came in from the garden as a small child, I remember being told to take off my muddy shoes and wash my dirty hands. The garden was muddy and dirty and it soiled your clothes.

However, much later in life, I learned that without the 'dirt' and 'mud' our life would be impossible. Organizations such as the Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association which regulates organic farming, have shown to us all the importance of a healthy living soil in the process of producing wholesome food.

One of the tragedies of the second half of the 20th century is the way in which agriculture has become dominated by the application of chemicals to production. This has mostly reduced the soil to a sterile, poisoned state which has disastrous effects upon its myriad inhabitants and upon the wildlife dependent upon it.

At last, however, this situation is becoming more widely recognized, not least because of the reaction of consumers like ourselves. We are waking up to the fact that the poisonous chemical residues in our food are highly undesirable, if not dangerous, for our health

Take steps

Almost all of us can take some steps to remedy this situation by growing some of our own food whether it be in gardens, on balconies, in window boxes or even on window sills. I provide us with lettuces - one of the most contaminated crops -all winter by growing them in pots on window sills. They both look and taste good. This leads to my main point, summed up in the title of the Friends of the Earth magazine, Earth Matters. The surest way to produce good healthy crops is to develop a good healthy soil. This means that it must be free from chemical fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and fungicides, so that the vast array of creatures from earth
worms to bacteria, are able to do their work.

Improvement of the soil is the first step. For those of you wanting to start gardening organically, it is easier to proceed in stages. l suggest that you take an area of soil about 8ft by 4ft and convert it into a raised bed.

To do this, surround the plot by 6 inch by 1 inch (approximately) boards; the best are treated gravel boards from a DIY store.Three boards, one cut in half, will enable
the bed to be surrounded. Any secondhand timber, such as floor boards, will also do the job, but they may not last as long.

The next step is to thoroughly dig the ground and remove any perennial weeds. If the sub-soil is compacted, it may need loosening, but don't bring the sub-soil to the surface.
This should be the last serious digging needed for years as you should always treat the earth with respect; never tread on it unless really necessary, nor create too much disturbance for the creatures in it.

Now comes the task of improving the soil. The aim should be to enhance its fertility and structure by adding garden compost, leaf mold, or well rotted manure. Other natural
products such as spent mushroom compost or peat-free soil conditioners from a garden centre can be used. Growing a green manure crop such as lucerne or fenugreek for a
couple of months and then digging them in can be a good start. Grazing rye or tares are particularly useful as they can grow over winter and be dug in in the Spring.

What you have now should be about 3 inches of material that can be lightly forked in to provide a soil containing plenty of humus - decayed vegetable matter - that provides nutrients and helps to retain moisture in the ground. It will also attract earthworms and the array of beneficial creatures essential for healthy plants.

Fertilizers

A word on fertilizers. The Consumers' Association magazine, Gardening Which? . reported on its trials of a large number of commercial fertilizers. They found that feeding flowering plants had very little effect and that soil structure and water retention were as important as nutrient content for vegetables.

Their Soil Analysis Service found that less than 1 % of samples sent in had any serious nutrient deficiency, and that about 50% were actually too nutrient-rich - often as a result of over-zealous feeding by vegetable growers. Greedy feeders such as tomatoes my benefit by the addition of a liquid feed such as comfrey, and of course plants grown in pots or containers will need regular but not excessive feeding. Your raised bed should now be ready for growing flowers or vegetables. The plants will benefit from regular mulching with grass clippings, decayed bark chippings or garden compost which will rot down to make more humus. An annual addition in spring of garden compost leaf mold, and small amounts of well-rotted animal manure should be lightly forked in ready for the next season's growth.

The aim should be to extend this type of cultivation to the whole garden to provide masses of flowers and healthy vegetables. Don't forget that the Henry Doubleday Research Association's Organic Gardening Catalog can provide you with advice and materials to be a complete organic gardener.

Organic Gardening Tip

Plant seeds such as lettuces, brassicas and beans in modules or small pots under cover in greenhouses, cold frames, conservatories or window sills in the . house. My
window sills are always full of seedlings in early spring. They can be planted out, after being hardened off, when the weather if right. ln this way they get a flying start to cope with outdoor hazards and attacks from garden pests such as slugs or snails.

What is Organic Agriculture?

2008-05-02T13:19:00.000-07:00

Organic agriculture is about more than just growing food and fibres without synthetic fertilizers and chemical biocides. Organic farmers use growing practices that include:

nourishing and improving the soil by adding organic matter and other natural fertilizers, so that it isn't depleted by repeated harvests

rotating crops so that insect and disease damage is reduced naturally, and so that the best crop for the existing fertility is grown; using intensive rotational grazing to ensure that livestock are well fed while spreading their organic nutrient wealth (manure) around, thus reducing water-polluting runoff from manure piles

using natural biocides, such as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), pheromone lures, hand-picking, and other techniques to reduce damage from disease and insects

using open-pollinated seed whenever feasible

avoiding genetically modified plants and animals

using cruelty-free livestock management methods.

These practices benefit the planet we live on by increasing the soil and ecosystem health and biodiversity. They also benefit us and our future generations by not adding to the toxic soup we call our bodies. Please note, however, that given the state of Earth today, there is no food grown anywhere that is chemical-free.

Organic farmers, particularly certified organic farmers, guarantee that they have not used toxic chemicals in the production of their foods or fibres. However, none can guarantee that you won't find chemicals in your organic food. Some chemicals have been found in soils in jungle areas, and they've been found in the Arctic, two places where they hadn't been used. Wind and water disperse these and other chemicals, and they make their way into our soils, where they're taken up by the roots of plants.

Growing organic involves unusual risks

2008-05-02T12:48:00.000-07:00

Organic farming involves unusual risks and demands unusual initiative. So why have many Illinois growers chosen this row to hoe?

A farmer in northern Illinois grows high-quality tomatoes for upscale restaurants in Chicago. Another in southeastern Illinois markets a variety of produce to consumers in Evansville, Ind., on a subscription basis. A third in central Illinois sells soybeans at more than three times the normal market price for export to Japan.

The common factor in these diverse operations? All three farms are certified organic.

Conventional agriculture is a tough business. Organic agriculture, which involves giving up chemical defenses against pests and weeds and adopting other practices in their stead, is even tougher.

For goods to be labeled "organic" by food processors, or to be marketed as organic regionally or nationally, farms must meet extensive certification requirements and pass annual inspections. A few states have certification programs, but in most, including Illinois, growers must apply to one of various private agencies for certification. In 1994 a USDA survey found that just one-third of one percent of U.S. cropland in production was certified organic.

Given the risks and headaches, what motivates someone to grow organic, and what traits enable them to succeed?

These questions have intrigued Leslie Duram, an assistant professor of geography, since she was a doctoral student. They're especially relevant now, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture soon to announce the first uniform certification standards.

For her doctoral dissertation several years ago, Duram compared organic and conventional farms in Colorado. In 1996 and 1997, she followed up that research by surveying the 70-plus certified-organic farmers in Illinois. She got responses from half of them and did in-depth interviews with 20 growers around the state. It's time to retire the stereotype of organic farmers as radical environmentalists tending small vegetable plots, she says. The folks she got to know had motivations as diverse as their farms--and economic reasons predominated.

Certified-organic farms in Illinois are profitable across a spectrum of farm sizes and types, she found. About 40 percent produce vegetables and herbs; nearly all of these farms are 10 acres or less. Almost 50 percent produce grains and legumes, and another 10 percent produce both grains and vegetables. Farms in these two categories ranged from 30 to 1,800 acres, with an average of 260. The remaining farms focus on livestock.

Nearly 4 of every 10 certified-organic producers in Illinois entered farming from other occupations. Many of these growers have a business background, and they generally have gone into small-scale vegetable farming, often in the suburban Chicago area. With savvy marketing, says Duram, "You can make quite a lot of money on a couple of acres of organic vegetable production."

Ironically, most of the other producers saw organic farming as the last, best means of hanging onto their family farms in an era of mega-operations.

"A lot of these folks feel strongly that government policy has caused a decline in family farms," says Duram. "They feel that if a farmer isn't doing well economically with conventional methods, organic is an option. They see it as really viable."

Aside from economic motivations, health concerns were cited by the organic farmers in Illinois, almost all of whom worry about exposure to pesticides and herbicides in farm work. Environmental concerns also motivate this group, but are less frequently cited.

Duram's research in Colorado and Illinois shows that successful organic farmers are proactive risk-takers. "Organic farmers tend to be self-guided," Duram notes. "These farmers ask questions wherever they can get answers."

Because they have few ready sources of technical assistance, they must be good at gathering information on their own--from books to word of mouth. Because their yield will not match that of conventional farms, they must compensate by finding markets that will pay a premium for organic crops.

"Organic farmers are thinking of specific niches so they can make it, perhaps on fewer acres," says Duram.

Diversification is key to success. Organic farmers in Illinois raise everything from bok choy, buckwheat, beets, and basil to the more usual corn, soybeans, hogs, and cattle.

Small-scale growers sell directly to restaurants (mainly in the Chicago area); to farmers markets and natural food stores; and to community-supported agriculture groups, in which people "subscribe" to a farm and are supplied a certain amount of produce each week.

Large-scale growers raising grains, vegetables, and livestock initially had to seek out their own markets as well. Increasingly, however, wholesalers and organic grain elevators are seeking them out. Consumer demand has been growing: U.S. supermarket sales of organic products jumped from $98 million in 1993 to $210 million in 1995. The total value of organic products sold in the United States in 1996 was estimated at $3.5 billion. Europe is importing more organic grain, and organic farmers in Illinois, a top soybean-producing state, are benefiting from a booming demand for organic soybeans in Japan.

"Soybeans are the big money crop for the larger organic producers," says Duram. "They're very aware of international markets."

Independence and individualism are highly valued by organic farmers. The Colorado farmers in particular, whom Duram dubbed "rebels," seemed to seek the challenge of succeeding where other farmers had predicted they'd fail. "If somebody tells me that it can't be done, I will prove that it can be done," one told her. "I'll try all avenues before giving up."

Most of the Illinois organic producers Duram has interviewed were conducting on-farm experiments, testing various combinations of processes and technologies to improve their results. They've learned to shrug off gossip or criticism about their unusual methods and their weedier fields.

That can be a rough transition; conventional farmers making their first forays into organic territory often worry about appearances. Duram asked one farmer trying out five acres of certified-organic soybeans why he'd sited them where he had: did that field have richer soil? Better drainage? No, he replied: "It's farthest from the highway."

Organic farming is a complicated proposition. Most certification agencies stipulate that fields cannot have had any synthetic chemicals, including synthetic fertilizer, applied to them for at least three years prior to certification. Farmers must provide buffer zones between organic acreage and nonorganic acreage, including neighboring farms.

But organic farming goes far beyond simply not using chemicals on land or crops. The use of many substances in farming operations--such as chlorine, used to clean equipment--is prohibited or restricted. Farmers who have only some certified acreage must keep their organic and nonorganic operations separate, from planting to transportation of the harvested crop. Livestock cannot be given growth hormones or antibiotics.

Among other requirements, farmers also must to able to show evidence of soil-building on their land each year. For grain producers, a standard corn/soybean rotation isn't sufficient; certification requires at least one additional crop, such as wheat, rye, oats, or hay, in the rotation schedule. This diversity helps soil fertility and cuts down on insect pests. Livestock pasturing often is part of the rotation too: the manure enriches the soil.

When the USDA finalizes and implements uniform certification standards, consumers will benefit by knowing exactly what is meant by "organic." But organic farming is such a grassroots endeavor that many of its practitioners in Illinois worry about the intrusion of government bureaucracy, says Duram.

Virtually all of the certified-organic farmers in Illinois have their certification through the Organic Crop Improvement Association, whose requirements are among the strictest. If the new standards are more lenient, Duram explains, these farmers may not be allowed to advertise that they meet more-stringent requirements, depending on the final USDA rules. In addition, she says, "If we make the standards too loose, our exports are not going to be accepted internationally, and that would really hurt farmers." She hopes to study the effect of the forthcoming USDA rules on organic farming operations here.

Over and over, the Illinois farmers stressed to Duram that consumers must be willing to pay a fair price for food. As one pointed out, the price farmers get for a bushel of corn is lower now than it was over most of the past three decades, but the price of a tractor--like virtually everything else--has gone up several-fold. "That's why farmers have to be worried about yields--they have to get so many more bushels to break even," says Duram.

It's certainly a gamble for someone with no agricultural background to start a small organic operation. But Duram thinks it's a more radical move for a long-term farmer to switch from conventional methods.

"Their whole background is telling them 'high yield,' and you need chemical use to do that," she says. "Those first three years are scary--plus you have to learn all this new information."

She adds, "These are some really gutsy farmers."

Leslie Duram's study of organic farmers in Illinois was funded by SIUC's Special Research Program and conducted with the help of Kelli Larson, a master's student in geography.

Benefits of organic cotton and other fibers.

2008-05-02T09:29:00.000-07:00

We believe very strongly in the benefits of organic cotton and all natural fiber products. Below are some interesting facts about organic cotton:

ORGANIC COTTON
Is absorbent, comfortable, soft, cool to touch, static resistant, strong when dry and 25% stronger when wet. Color grown cotton refers to naturally pigmented cotton, or "native" cotton, which has a range of natural colors, including beige, brown, green and mauve.

ABOUT AGRICULTURE AND PROCESSING:
Conventional cotton growing includes the use of vast quantities of herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and defoliants. Although total cotton acreage constitutes less than 1% of the US's agricultural lands, for example, it consumes approximately 25% of the pesticides - the most of any production crop.

According to the Sustainable Cotton Project in California, about 1/3 pound of chemicals is used to make just one cotton T-shirt. These synthetic compounds are extremely poisonous to humans, even in minute quantities.

Approximately one yard of organically grown fabric saves about 1/2 pound of chemicals from polluting the earth.

During manufacturing, conventional cotton is subjected to chlorine bleach, heavy metal dyes and formaldehyde resins (for easy care treatment).

Currently there are no global uniform guidelines for the use of sizing agents, bleaches and dyes on organic cotton. For the American and European markets, there is progress being made towards use of hydrogen peroxide for bleaching, pure water and natural soap for washing and dyes from plants and insects for dyeing. Easy care treatment is not allowed.

In the USA green cotton refers to cotton that is neither bleached, dyed nor chemically treated during manufacturing. However, it is grown conventionally.

Reference: Organic Cotton edited by Dorothy Myers and Sue Stolton, All About Cotton by Julie Parker, Hemp Horizons by John W. Roulac

Why Buy Organic Cotton?

2008-05-02T09:21:00.000-07:00

Cotton is the second largest agricultural use of pesticides in the world (coffee is the first and tobacco the third). In some areas, including California, it is the largest.

Twenty-five percent of the world's insecticides and more then ten percent of the world's pesticides are used on cotton. The worst part is, not all of those pesticides stay on cotton fields. It is estimated that only twenty-five percent of pesticides sprayed from a crop duster actually hit the crop. The rest drifts for miles and land on other food crops and residential areas.

Make no mistake: these pesticides are harmful. Five of the top nine pesticides used on cotton (cyanide, dicofol, naled, propargite, are classified by the EPA as known cancer-causing chemicals. According to a 1997 study by the International Labor Organization, "14% of all occupational injuries in the agricultural sector and 10% of all fatal injuries can be attributed to pesticides."

Pesticides don't just hurt humans. In 1995 approximately 250,000 fish were killed in Lawrence, Alabama, when heavy rains washed lethal concentrations of methyl parathion and endosulfan from cotton fields into a 16-mile stretch of a creek that emptied into a nearby lake. (C. Cox, 1995, Cotton Spraying Kills Fish)

What seems worse is that the pesticides aren't helping grow better crops. Since 1945, total U.S. crop losses from insect damage have nearly doubled. During the same time insecticide use has increased tenfold. Today, seventy-one known carcinogenic pesticides are sprayed on food crops.

By buying organic cotton you will be supporting a movement to end the use of deadly pesticides. In 1997, large apparel companies purchased 2.15 million pounds of organic cotton, which eliminated an estimated 43,000 pounds of pesticides and 485,190 pounds of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer (Organic Fiber Council).

So wear your organic clothing with pride – you're saving the world!

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Frequently Asked Questions

2005-11-19T18:32:00.000-08:00

Q. It doesn’t seem like all scientists agree that GMOs are safe. Why don’t we just wait until everyone agrees that there’s no risk to human health?

A. Actually, scientists have come to a consensus that there’s nothing inherently risky about splicing genes from one organism into another. For example, GMOs have been used for years to produce an enzyme required for processing cheese, and no one has called that dangerous. More recently, a genetically engineered rice that could eliminate vitamin A deficiencies in some populations has been met with widespread acclaim.

It’s true that there is some disagreement about some classes of GMOs and their specific uses: Will certain GMOs cause an allergic reaction in some people? Will a GMO crop designed to kill pests have a detrimental effect on beneficial insects? These issues have been studied, and, in fact, at least one GMO (Pioneer Hi-Bred soybeans with a Brazil-nut protein added) has been abandoned because of an allergic-reaction threat. But not all scientists everywhere agree that all GMOs have been studied enough.

Still, most new technologies are greeted in this manner. Either society as a whole or the scientific community weighs the risks against the benefits. Many technologies involve dangers to health (electricity, automobiles and airplanes, for example), but we’ve adopted them anyway because the benefits outweigh the risks. Perhaps the same disagreement was discussed in prehistoric times when fire came under human control: Surely someone said, “The children may burn their hands, so fire cannot be a good thing.”

Although some scientists have expressed concern about GMOs, an expert committee established by the Food and Drug Administration concluded that the safety of a food depends upon its properties, not the process used to produce it. With this definition, the safety of GMO foods must be—and is—considered on a case-by-case basis. But the goal should be decision by consensus, not by unanimity. Waiting until “everyone” agrees is tantamount to eliminating the possibility of marketing any GMO.

Q. Some food manufacturers have announced that they won’t accept GMO foods. Isn’t that proof that GMOs are unsafe?

A. Companies such as Nestle, and Unilever in the European Union, and Gerber, Heinz, Frito-Lay and Iams have dropped GM ingredients in their foods not because they think they are unsafe, but because they are reacting to consumer concern and the pressure of interest groups. As firms, they have invested in building up a brand name over a period of time, and they are concerned about losing that investment if consumers, rightly or wrongly, choose to boycott their products because they contain GMOs. Even a small segment of the market can make a difference in their bottom line.

Food companies have a history of reacting to food safety concerns for these reasons—Coca-Cola pulled a range of their products off the market in Belgium last summer, even though only Coke was contaminated.

These food manufacturers are acting according to their perception of consumer preference under the adage “the customer is always right.” That decision says nothing about the actual safety of the food.

Q. I’ve heard the argument that genetic engineering is just an extension of traditional breeding. But how can you breed a fish and a strawberry? You can’t. Why isn’t this type of “cross-breeding” seen as possibly dangerous to human health?

A. First, it is usually inaccurate to talk about a “fish gene” or a “strawberry gene.” Many genes, which are merely blueprints for producing specific proteins, are shared among many organisms.

So, while you cannot “breed” a fish with a strawberry, you could theoretically take a gene from a fish—or something else—and introduce it into a strawberry cell, which can subsequently be regenerated into a whole strawberry plant, which will contain an extra gene and an extra protein. (By the way, fish genes have not been introduced into strawberries.)

In traditional breeding, many genes are transferred between related species, without clear control over just which genes are being transferred and which are not. Genetic engineering is far more precise, which is, in fact, one of its greatest benefits. It allows, for example, a single gene from a cold-hardy plant to be introduced into a strawberry to help increase its tolerance to cold weather. Another example: Genetic engineering has allowed the gene responsible for making human insulin to be inserted into a certain type of bacteria. That bacteria now makes human insulin, a product that has been used by people with diabetes for years with no adverse effects. This type of “cross-breeding” between humans and bacteria obviously would be impossible without genetic engineering.

There is a natural precedent for this type of “cut and paste” operation: The bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens performs this type of gene transfer in nature, and is in fact one of the tools molecular breeders use to move genes around.

It’s true that genetic engineering could be used to produce dangerous products. But the same statement can be made about virtually any technology. Scientists generally agree that products from each type of genetic engineering should be reviewed carefully before they are implemented.

Q. Many people have allergies or sensitivities to certain foods, and their reactions to those foods can be severe. In many instances, scientists can’t explain the exact mechanisms about why this happens. Isn’t there a concern about mixing genes from foods known to be allergenic or at least to cause sensitivities, into other foods?

A. Actually, the fact that genetic engineering involves the transfer of a single or only a very few genes makes it even easier to test the allergenicity of the introduced new traits. Each gene encodes a single protein product, which can be readily tested for its allergenic effects. These are tests which should always be taken into consideration before a new GM food is introduced. The FDA is fully aware of the potential problem, so it carefully examines proposals for the transfer of genes coding for any proteins from foods known to contain allergens to other foods. If any such transfers occur in the future, the new product must be labeled to reflect the fact that it is potentially allergenic, unless the manufacturer can demonstrate that the new product will not cause an allergic reaction.

Luckily, 90 percent of food allergies occur in response to specific proteins in only eight foods: peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, soybeans, shell fish, fish and wheat. If there is any reason for the FDA to conclude that any product is unsafe, it can be banned.

Q. I don’t mind GMOs, but I wouldn’t mind labels on foods with GMOs. What’s the harm in telling people what they’re eating?

A. Much of the demand in the European Union and elsewhere regarding labeling of foods containing GMOs is based on the notion that consumers have a sovereign right to know what they are consuming. Given that information, they can exercise a choice between consuming GMOs or not.

However, the food industry's concern is that consumers will perceive a “GMO label” as a negative signal, even though scientists consider those foods to be safe. Plus, excessive labeling can be counterproductive. Consumers eventually ignore labels that provide no meaningful information about food safety and nutrition. Then, when important information comes along on a label, they are likely to miss it.

Most scientists would agree that a decision on labeling should be driven by the type of GMO and the specific nature of the gene introduced. For example, processed cheese is often made with a process using a purified enzyme derived from a GMO. However, there is no GMO in the cheese and no genetic modification involved in the cheese or the cows from which the milk for the cheese is derived. So, there's really no reason for a label. But, if the GM food has a potential allergen that could affect even a small percentage of individuals, most scientists strongly support labeling.

The mere act of separating GMO and non-GMO food and food ingredients could be reflected in higher food prices. If labels were broadly required, agricultural economists recommend that foods that do not contain any GMOs be labeled, rather than the other way around. This is the same model used for organic foods: “Organic” is put on foods, but “Not Organic” isn't. The equivalent would be, “This food product is GMO-free.” That way, consumers who want a more specialized product would be the ones who would pay more for it.

Q. I’m OK with GMOs produced by combining different foods, but I’m uncomfortable knowing that some are produced with bacteria. If we start consuming foods stemming from bacteria in large enough quantities, couldn’t there be adverse effects?

A. Our intestines (where food and metabolites are absorbed) are literally full of millions of bacteria of many types, which actually aid in the digestion of food. In turn, these bacteria die and many of their molecules are taken up as part of our natural nutrition. From many decades of extensive research there is no reason to believe that bacterial proteins are innately more allergenic than those from other organisms.

Q. As a farmer, I’m deciding whether to plant GMO or non-GMO seed this spring. What’s the market outlook?

A. There is general agreement that either crop can and will be marketed. The real question is whether the purchaser will continue to pay a premium for non-GMOs. In the near term it appears that there “may” be a growing market for non-GMOs. A secondary question is if you grow non-GMO crops, will the handling and testing infrastructure assure you that you can actually deliver and sell the crop as non-GMO. Unfortunately, there’s no answer to that question yet.

Q. I’ve heard a concern that “super weeds” or resistant insects may develop more quickly with genetically modified crops. Should I worry?

A. These are controversial issues. It is true that some types of crops can cross with weedy relatives (e.g., rice, sunflower, squash, carrot, sorghum, and others), so traits like resistance to an herbicide or resistance to a group of insect pests can potentially move from the crop to the weed (via the crop plant’s pollen). Ecologists don’t yet know whether these new traits could result in “super weeds.” In most cases, this seems unlikely and it is not even an issue for crops like corn, soybean, cotton, or potato. These crops do not have weedy relatives in the United States.

In any case, “super weeds,” in the sense of weeds that would be resistant to all control measures, are not a possibility. Widespread use of a single herbicide or insecticide puts pressure on the weed or pest population to adapt to that particular control measure. Extensive use of glyphosate (Roundup) might, in the worst case, result in glyphosate-resistant weeds, but if this happened farmers would switch to other control measures.

Insects have almost always become resistant when they are constantly exposed to a given pesticide. This could easily happen with Bt crops, especially since most Bt crops produce the pesticide all of the time in all parts of the plant. To avoid or at least slow down the evolution of resistant insects, growers are required to plant refuges of non-Bt plants within the crop. The non-Bt plants should help sustain populations of insects that remain susceptible to the Bt toxin.

Q. I’ve read conflicting news accounts regarding the monarch butterfly and Bt corn. What’s the story?

A. These conflicting accounts are caused by whether you are looking strictly at the toxicity of the Bt pollen or the chance that Monarch butterflies in the wild are at risk.

From a toxicity standpoint, a Cornell University study showed that if monarch caterpillars were fed Bt corn pollen, about half would die. That particular study made a lot of headlines. However, only one type of Bt corn pollen was tested. Not all Bt pollen are alike and there are many types of commercially available Bt corn. Recent studies indicate that a few types of Bt corn pollen may kill or slow the growth of monarch caterpillars, while other types of Bt pollen have no impact. In fact, monarch larvae that fed on one type of Bt corn pollen actually weighed more than those fed conventional corn pollen.

In addition, the Cornell laboratory study was a “no-choice” study, meaning that the caterpillars had no choice but to eat only the pollen-dusted milkweed leaves. Other studies have shown that monarch caterpillars may avoid leaves covered with pollen either by feeding on other leaves with little or no pollen or feeding on the bottom of leaves, which reduces their chance of exposure to the pollen.

Because monarch caterpillars feed only on milkweed plants and most farmers try and keep their corn fields free of weeds, there is little chance that milkweeds or monarch larvae are present in a corn field. In addition, corn pollen is relatively heavy and does not drift more than 30 feet from the edge of a corn field, so any milkweed plants outside of 30 feet of the field will essentially have no corn pollen on their leaves.

Given all of this evidence, the risk of Bt corn to monarch populations is probably low. Reducing the frequency of mowing right of ways and protecting the monarch butterfly over-wintering sites in California and Mexico will have a more impact on monarch population density than the planting of Bt corn.

Q. What about other insects? Some are beneficial—could they be harmed by Bt crops?

A. There is a concern that Bt crops could harm insects that are natural enemies of pests that we want to get rid of. Several side-by-side field studies have been conducted, comparing pests’ natural enemy populations in Bt crops (cotton, potatoes, corn) to their populations in conventional crops. Most of these studies have shown that natural enemy populations are either the same or larger in the transgenic crops than conventional crops.

However, two studies did demonstrate that if the pests (in this case, caterpillars and aphids) were reared on Bt crops and are eaten by their natural enemies—lacewings or ladybird beetles—the natural enemies did not grow as fast or reproduce as well as those that fed on pests who ate conventional crops. However, it’s unclear if this lack of fitness was due to the natural enemies eating sick, weak prey, or if the Bt toxin actually affected the natural enemies. The latter is more of a concern.

Right now, however, it looks like the impact of these transgenic crops on natural enemy populations will be minimal and much less than the spraying of broad-spectrum insecticides, which is currently practiced.

Q. Do bioengineered crops cross-fertilize crops destined to be organic foods and hence supposed to be free of GMOs?

A. Yes. There have already been complaints about this. Transgenes in corn are transmitted through pollen to neighboring fields. The seed industry has a long history of dealing with the problem of pollen contamination in corn, and they have worked out recommended isolation distances to reduce the amount of contamination. Adoption of isolation practices would solve this problem.

Q. What GMO crops are grown in the Corn Belt ?

A. Although the percentage of acres in GMO soybeans is quite high, the number of GMO field crops that have been grown commercially is actually quite small. Corn hybrids have been released that contain a Bt gene (a gene from a bacterium that produces an insecticidal protein), the Roundup Ready gene (first found in a microorganism and makes plants resistant to the herbicide Roundup) or another gene for resistance to Roundup, and the Liberty Link gene, which confers resistance to Liberty herbicide. In soybeans, the Roundup Ready gene is the only one in widespread use, but Liberty resistance has also been developed. Canola (an oilseed grown mostly in Canada and Europe) cultivars with Roundup resistance and potatoes with Bt have been released as well. Most other crops grown in the Corn Belt—wheat, grain sorghum, oats, alfalfa, and others—have no GMO versions released at this point, though a number of these crops have such developments under way. (Note: This answer was adapted from an article by E. Nafziger, University of Illinois.)

Q. Will GMO plants that produce plastics substitute in most applications for synthetic plastics? Will this displace the plastics industry in Ohio? If so, how long will it take?

A. It seems as if this won’t happen until petroleum depletion looms and maybe not even then. Currently, vegetable oils are much more expensive than petroleum, and current production of vegetable oil is a tiny fraction of petroleum production.

Q. Does bioengineering increase or decrease biodiversity?

A. This is difficult to answer. It very well could tend to decrease the diversity in crop genetic bases, because breeders and molecular geneticists will be inclined to stick with the germplasm they’re already using (and have already invested a lot in). This is not the only factor operating, however, and one can argue that bringing in genes from other species enhances diversity.

Q. Who regulates GMOs in the United States?

A. Several agencies:

The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates the field testing of genetically engineered plants and certain microorganisms.
The Department of Health and Human Service’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) governs the safety and labeling of drugs and the nation’s food and feed supply, excluding meat and poultry.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ensures the safety and safe use of pesticidal and herbicidal substances in the environment and for certain industrial uses of microbes in the environment.
The Department of Health and Human Service’s National Institutes of Health oversees guidelines for the laboratory use of genetically engineered organisms. They are generally voluntary, but are mandatory for any research conducted under federal grants. These are widely followed by academic and industrial scientists around the world.

Q. Which of the “new seed technologies” have not been developed using GMOs?

A. Conventional breeding has given us STS soybeans, IMI corn, TopCross High Oil corn, NutriDense and Supercede Corn, and Low Phytate (highly available phosphorus) corn. On the other hand, Bt corn, Roundup Ready soybeans and corn, Liberty Link soybeans and corn have all been genetically modified.

Q. Where can farmers find markets for GMO grains that have not been approved by the European Union (EU)?

A. The American Seed Trade Association maintains a Web database (http://asta.farmprogress.com) to help “locate grain handling facilities that have indicated a willingness to purchase, receive, and handle genetically enhanced corn that has not yet been approved for shipment to the European Union.”

Editors note: In January, the College of Food, Agri-cultural, and Environmental Sciences formed a committee to address concerns raised by GMOs (genetically modified organisms). One of the committee’s first goals was to put together a Q&A—this is a portion of that effort. As with any public policy issue, the university itself has not and will not adopt a formal position. However, faculty members are in a position to share scientific information to help consumers and farmers make up their own minds on the issue.

Committee members include Steve Baertsche, director, agriculture and natural resources; Allan Lines, Ian Sheldon, Tom Sporleder and Luther Tweeten, Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics; John Allred, Food Science and Technology; Steve St. Martin, Mark Loux, Patty Sweeney and Peter Thomison, Horticulture and Crop Science; John Finer, Horticulture and Crop Science and Plant Biotechnology; Terry Graham, Plant Pathology; Joe Kovach, Integrated Pest Management; Martha Filipic and Suzanne Steel, Communications and Technology; James Kinder, Animal Sciences; Mac McCaslin, Human and Community Resource Development; Allison Snow, Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology; and Tammy Bray, Human Nutrition and Food Management.

Questions & Answers About Genetic Modification

2005-11-19T18:31:00.001-08:00

Our thanks to UK campaigner and lecturer Luke Anderson, geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou, and Prof Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario, for helping us through the maze.

Q: What are genes?

A: Genes are the inherited blueprints for the thousands of proteins that form the building blocks of all life, from bacteria to humans. Proteins make enzymes, which carry out all the bodily processes, like digestion of food, that keep us alive.

Q: What is genetic engineering or genetic modification (GE or GM)?

A: Genetic engineering involves taking genes from one species and inserting them into another. For example, genes from an arctic flounder which has "antifreeze" properties may be spliced into a tomato to prevent frost damage.

Q: Is genetic engineering precise?

A: No. It is impossible to guide the insertion of the new gene. This can lead to unpredictable effects. Also, genes do not work in isolation but in highly complex relationships which are not understood. Any change to the DNA at any point will affect it throughout its length in ways scientists cannot predict. The claim by some that they can is both arrogant and untrue.

Q: Isn't GM just an extension of traditional breeding practices?

A: No GM bears no resemblance to traditional breeding techniques. The British government's own Genetic Modification (Contained Use) Regulations admit this when it defines GM as "the altering of the genetic material in that organism in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination or both".

Traditional breeding techniques operate within established natural boundaries which allow reproduction to take place only between closely related forms. Thus tomatoes can cross-pollinate with other tomatoes but not soya beans; cows can mate only with cows and not sheep. These genes in their natural groupings have been finely tuned to work harmoniously together by millions of years of evolution. Genetic engineering crosses genes between unrelated species which would never cross-breed in nature.

Q: Could this be dangerous?

A: Potentially, yes. In one case, soya bean engineered with a gene from a brazil nut gave rise to allergic reactions in people sensitive to the nuts. Most genes being introduced into GM plants have never been part of the food supply so we can't know if they are likely to be allergenic.

More seriously, in 1989 there was an outbreak of a new disease in the US, contracted by over 5,000 people and traced back to a batch of l-tryptophan food supplement produced with GM bacteria. Even though it contained less than 0.1 per cent of a highly toxic compound, 37 people died and 1,500 were left with permanent disabilities. More may have died, but the American Centre for Disease Control stopped counting in 1991.

The US government declared that it was not GM that was at fault but a failure in the purification process. However, the company concerned, Showa Denko, admitted that the low-level purification process had been used without ill effect in non-GM batches. Scientists at Showa Denko blame the GM process for producing a potent new toxin. This new toxin had never been found at such high levels in non-GM versions of the product.

Q: Former UK government Cabinet Enforcer Jack Cunningham said, "Those GM foods on the market are as safe as the equivalent non-GM-foods." Is he right?

A: Dr Cunningham is talking about the concept of "substantial equivalence". Substantial equivalence is not a scientific term but a legal concept invented by biotech industry lawyers. The industry claims that a GM food or food supplement is "substantially equivalent" to, or the same as, the non-GM version and therefore does not require labels or extensive testing.

Regulators have blindly accepted the substantial equivalence doctrine without backing up their belief with independent scientific research. Independent scientists have on several occasions challenged the validity of substantial equivalence.

Showa Denko was not required to test the GM version of l-tryptophan because of the assumption that it would be the same as the non-GM version.

The acceptance of the doctrine of substantial equivalence by government regulators means that there is nothing to prevent another tragedy like the l-tryptophan case from happening again with new GM foods.

Naturally, when it comes to patenting, the rules change. The "substantially equivalent" GM food magically becomes completely different from its non-GM equivalent. It transforms into a unique product which remains the sole property of the patent holder, and woe betide anyone who infringes the patent.

You may like to visit the Alliance for Biointegrity website at www.biointegrity.org to see memos written by US FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) scientists casting doubt on the substantial equivalence doctrine and warning that GM organisms can give rise to new toxicological and allergenic risks which are far less likely to be posed by their non-GM equivalents.

These memos have been forced into the public domain by the pending lawsuit brought against the FDA by the Alliance for Biointegrity.

The lawsuit accuses the FDA of approving untested and potentially dangerous GM organisms onto the market. The US has a law which says that before you add anything to food (such as the novel genetic constructs used in genetic engineering) you have to have proven that it is safe.

Note that the onus in the US is not on citizens to prove that a substance is harmful before it can be banned; it is on the manufacturer to prove that it is safe before it can be released for consumption. The Alliance for Biointegrity believes that US FDA has flouted this law.

Q: Are GE foods more dangerous to allergy-prone people?

A: The problem with GM foods is their unpredictability. A person may prove unexpectedly allergic to a food he has previously eaten safely. For this reason, people who are allergy-prone or environmentally sensitive may want to avoid GM foods. See also "GM and Allergies" section on this site.

Q: UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "There is no GM food that can be sold in this country without going through a very long regulatory process." Does that mean there's nothing to worry about?

A: Health-risk assessment of GM foods compares only a few known components (e.g., certain nutrients, known toxins and allergens) between GM and non-GM equivalent varieties. If things match up then all is assumed to be well. Short-term animal feeding trials are conducted in some cases. All the research is done by the biotech companies themselves. Then government approval committees judge whether they believe that the evidence of safety is convincing.

No evidence from human trials for either toxicity or allergy testing is required. No independent checks of the company's claims are required. The fact that the L-tryptophan tragedy would repeat itself by these criteria highlights the inadequacy of the system.

Geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou says, "At the very least, long-term animal feeding trials followed by tests with human volunteers of the type required for GM drugs should be mandatory."

Dr Arpad Pusztai, former research scientist at the Rowett Institute, Aberdeen, says that in 1998, when his own feeding experiments with GM potatoes were terminated after he went public with his findings that they appeared to have damanged the health of rats, there was only one peer reviewed and published feeding study on a GM food. According to Dr Pusztai, this study, by a Monsanto scientist, was severely flawed. See "Dr Pusztai articles" section on this website.

We are not aware of any peer reviewed and published feeding studies on GM food since Dr Pusztai's terminated experiments, in spite of the fact that a competition has been held among UK activists to find some.

Prof Joe Cummins, professor emeritus of genetics at the University of Western Ontario, believes there is a cynical agenda behind the lack of proper testing: "The failure to test may provide some protection in the courts against lawsuits by those maimed or crippled by the foods. Most ill effects from food and allergies are not easily quantified until after the disaster. At best, there may be a small but marked increase in autoimmune disease and allergy associated with the foods. At worst, major outbreaks of illness could be observed and will be difficult to trace to the unlabelled foods."

Q: What will the impact of GM crops be on the environment?

A: In 1998, 71 percent of all GM crops grown were genetically engineered to be herbicide resistant. A field can now be sprayed with chemicals and everything will die except for the resistant crop. The sales of one of the herbicides being used are predicted to rise by $200 million as a result.

Graham Wynne, Chief Executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, says: "The ability to clear fields of all weeds using powerful herbicides which can be sprayed onto GM herbicide-resistant crops will result in farmlands devoid of wildlife and will spell disaster for millions of already declining birds and plants."

There are also GM virus-resistant crops. Prof Joe Cummins says: "Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops genetic recombination will create virulent new viruses from such constructions. The widely used cauliflower mosaic virus (present in most GM foods currently marketed) is a potentially dangerous gene. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and related to HIV. Modified viruses could cause famine by destroying crops or cause human and animal diseases of tremendous power."

Q: What is genetic pollution?

A: Genes engineered into plants and animals can be transferred to other species. For example, genes from GM oilseed rape, salmon or micro-organisms may move into the gene pools of wild relatives. The introduction of GM organisms into complex ecosystems may bring knock-on effects that we are unable to control.

Q: Which foods are not GM?

A: Presently certified organic foods are the best bet for the anti-GM consumer. However, even with the best intentions, companies attempting to exclude GM ingredients from their products have found contamination from GM crops.

Organic food company De Rit recently had to recall a batch of organic tortilla chips after tests showed that they contained GM maize. The company believes that cross-pollination of crops was to blame. Iceland, a supermarket chain which bans GM ingredients from its own-brand products, wrote to its suppliers acknowledging that some GM contamination is unavoidable, because of cross-pollination of crops.

Meanwhile, organic farming is under threat from the biotech companies. In the U.S., lawyers from the biotech companies are trying to force the government to require that GM crops can be declared organic.

In addition, some U.S. states have succumbed to Monsanto's pressure and banned GM-free labels on food. Monsanto has successfully sued dairy farmers who labelled dairy products as derived from cows not treted with Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

Due to so-called free trade agreements established by the World Trade Organisation, it may become illegal for individual countries to maintain higher organic standards than the U.S. So what happens in the U.S. has a direct knock-on effect on Europe.

Q: Why are genes being patented?

A: Patents give a huge incentive to the biotechnology industry to create new GM organisms. Once you patent a gene or gene sequence, you own the rights to that the plant or animal created through the new gene sequence and make money every time the plant or animal is sold.

Since most patents last for 17-20 years, the companies are keen to recoup any investment quickly, often at the expense of safety and ethics.

There are currently patents approved or pending for over 190 GM animals, including fish, cows, mice and pigs. There are also patents on varieties of seeds and plants, as well as unusual genes and cell lines from indigenous peoples.

Scouts are sent around the world to discover existing genes that may have commercial applications. Over half the world's plant and animal species live in the rainforests of the South and the industry has been quick to draw upon these resources.

The Neem tree, for instance, has been used for thousands of years in India for its antiseptic and insecticidal properties. Western corporations (mostly located in the North) have filed a number of patents on these attributes. This restricts the ability of the Southern nation concerned to use and market its native plants.

Western patent laws allow them to do this even though the peoples of the South often protest that in their own culture for thousands of years, this strain of rice or that medicinal tree has been used for the purposes named in the patent. Peoples of the South are thus forced to pay Western corporations for the privilege of using their own traditional plants.

This transference of traditional knowledge from South to North has been termed "biopiracy" by its opponents.

Q: Are GM crops grown in the UK?

A: There are several hundred deliberate release sites in the UK where GM crops are being grown experimentally. A number of large-scale GM crop trials have been planted in order to assess their effect on wildlife. The first commercial crops could be planted within a year.

If commercial planting goes ahead, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for organic farming to stay free from contamination due to cross-pollination from GM crops. Honey samples collected in the UK by Friends of the Earth have already found to be contaminated with GM pollen from crops developed by GM giant Aventis.

Q: Are we eating GM food?

A: GM soya is in about 60 percent of all processed food as vegetable oil, soya flour, lecithin and soya protein. GM maize is in about 50 percent of processed foods as corn, corn starch, cornflour and corn syrup. GM tomato puree is sold in some supermarkets and GM enzymes are used throughout the food processing industry. Government regulations on labelling exclude 95-98 percent of the products containing GM ingredients because they ignore derivatives.

How to Avoid Genetically Modified (GM) Foods

2005-11-19T18:31:00.000-08:00

Read the product labels and avoid soya-based ingredients such as soya flour, soya oil, vegetable oil, lecithin and hydrolysed vegetable protein. And avoid maize-based ingredients such as modified starch, cornflour, corn starch, corn oil and polenta. Note: These ingredients are to be avoided simply because there is no way of knowing if they contain GM-soya or GM-maize derivatives.

Shop with care in addition to the likelihood that almost all commercial yeast is now produced using some form of genetic modification (beer drinkers beware!), many yeasts have been altered by mutagenesis (exposure to radiation) or other such techniques. So avoid all products with added yeast ingredients.

Buy your food from a reliable source: Shop organic. Certified organic bread, milk, butter, fruit & vegetables, baby foods, flour, vegetable oils, chocolate, ice-cream and fruit juices, etc. are popular and prices have fallen. They are available from organic suppliers, wholefood shops, and some supermarkets. Look for the Soil Association symbol, or a label with a UKROFS registration number. Favour organic wholefoods where possible.

Cut down on processed foods because they may contain GM-soya, GM-maize, GM-rapeseed oil or GM-cottonseed oil etc. In addition, many brands of dairy products, cereals, jam, fruit juice, cooking oil, sweeteners, slimming foods, beverages, wine and beer etc. are now produced with GM-enzymes. If you have any doubts about a particular product, contact the manufacturer. Or shop organic.

Home-made meals, bread, cakes and cheese etc. are obviously healthier and more nutritious than factory-made equivalents.

Avoid "fast food" restaurants and "low budget" products because GM-foods are being introduced into cheaper brands initially. For example: Kwik-Save's No Frills bread and cheese products are affected by GM; Asda's Farm Stores products - such as Farm Stores Baked Beans, Crisps, Chicken Curry, Vegetable Curry, Chilli Con Carne, Mayonnaise, etc., are also affected.

Soya and Maize Given the high risk of cross pollination from GM crops, avoid products that contain soya, soya oil, vegetable oil, lecithin, or maize (corn) ingredients. Even if these ingredients are present in organic food products, you may wish to avoid them, because in most cases they are not guaranteed 100% free from GM contamination. Why take the risk?

When buying bread, avoid "flour improver" and "flour treatment agent", which may be a mixture of GM-enzymes and additives. (According to the Consumers' Association, GM-Baker's Yeast is currently not present in any bakery products within the UK.)

Avoid margarine. Favour organic butter and ghee. For dairy-free diets favour GM-free sunflower spreads etc., which are available from some wholefood shops (See also Wholefood Product Information).

Milk products and meat from animals fed GM soya and maize will not be labelled as such - in spite of evidence that modified DNA can cross the gut wall and enter spleen, liver and white blood cells. Favour organic wherever possible.

Chocolate can contain GM-soya lecithin vegetable fats affected by GM, and whey. Favour organic chocolate. Green & Black's have a policy of using GM-free lecithin and avoiding all GM ingredients. Note: All lecithin is soya lecithin. Its E number is E322.

Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) produced from GM-organisms is approved for use in the UK. Riboflavin is used in baby foods, breakfast cereals, soft drinks and slimming foods etc.

Health food supplements, vitamins and medicines: check with the manufacturer, as some ingredients may have been produced by genetic biotechnology.

Note: When contacting a manufacturer to enquire if a particular product is GM-free, ask them to confirm that the product "contains no genetically modified ingredients, or ingredients derived from GM-organisms". Ask for written confirmation rather than relying on a verbal assurance.

According to Greenpeace Germany, traces of GM-oilseed rape DNA have been detected in several brands of Canadian honey. Friends of the Earth has also found GM pollen contamination in UK honey samples. The contamination has been identified as coming from Aventis' GM "trial" plantings. Favour organic honey as attempts are made to preserve wide margins between hives and GM or agrochemical-sprayed crops.

Most dried fruit, including raisins, sultanas, currants, dates, and dried fruit in breakfast cereals, are coated with oil derived from GM soya. Favour organic brands of dried fruit, or brands that don't list vegetable oil on the label (available from wholefood stores).

Avoid imported foods from America and Canada because these countries are much further down the biotech road than we are. These products include fruit and vegetables, ice-cream, milk, milk powder, butter, soy sauce, chocolate, popcorn, chewing gum, health foods, vitamins, and cotton and denim clothing. All Canadian honey is now suspect.

Holidaying in America or Canada will almost certainly involve consuming GM food on a regular basis (including GM fresh fruit and vegetables). Most hotels, restaurants and theme parks are affected - including Disney theme parks. Favour alternative destinations; go self-catering, and avoid processed and packet foods wherever possible. Many in-flight meals, snacks. sweets and fizzy drinks may be affected by GM. Write to the directors of airline companies, and the large hotel chains; demand food that is free from GM ingredients and derivatives. British Airways seem to need some persuasion to go GM-free. Write to: The Chief Executive, British Airways, Waterside, West Drayton, UB7 OGB. Fax: 0208-759-9597.

Genetically Engineered Foods: Friend or Foe?

2005-11-19T18:29:00.000-08:00

If you live in the United States, approximately two thirds of your groceries could contain the products of genetic engineering (GE), also called genetically modified organisms (GMO). This may surprise you, but whether it should concern you is a topic of hot debate.
People have engineered foods for centuries through traditional plant breeding, when two plants are crossbred to create hybrid strains containing favorable traits from both of the original plants. The end result may be a prettier, more flavorful or hardier plant. The crossbred plants traditionally had to be similar, apples and pears, for example.

Genetic engineering is quite a different science. Genes from all biological things (bacteria, virus, plants, insects, animals) can be injected into other species. The hope being new, more desirable traits are obtained from that plant or animal gene. At this time, there are no plants approved for market with animal genes inserted. Currently, most GE crops have been bred with bacteria or virus for insect tolerance and herbicide tolerance.

Some crops approved for GE include canola (rapeseed), radicchio, corn, cotton, flax, papaya, potatoes, soybeans, squash, sugar beet and tomatoes. The most widely grown GE crops in North America, are soybeans, corn, cotton and canola (rapeseed).

Proponents of genetic engineered foods say it's a way to:

Boost the food supply
Reduce pesticide/herbicide use
Possibly breed super-foods with exceptional nutritional profiles. World hunger can be remedied by producing crops that are more stable and possibly more nutritious.

Opponents say no one really knows the long-term effects of complex genetic manipulation and the potential dangers to humans and the environment could be substantial. Some concerns include:

Hidden allergens
Unintentional breeding of "superweeds"
Unintentional contamination of non-GMO crops
Once these foods enter the ecological system, there's no taking them back and their effects will be life long.

Currently there are no labeling laws required on GE foods. The FDA feels labels are unnecessary until there's proof GE foods are less safe or of different nutritional value than traditional foods. Surveys report substantially different findings on whether people want to know if GE ingredients are in their food. Opponents feel at the very least labeling should be required so people can make an informed choice if they want to consume these foods.

The debate over genetically engineered foods is an intense one and will undoubtedly go on for some time to come. With many issues to consider, its important dietitians learn the facts and also help educate their clients.

Organic Wine: Sulfites And Organic Grapes

2005-08-20T13:16:00.000-07:00

Most of us have heard a little about sulfites and organic grapes but what is at the core of an organic wine? I asked our contributing expert Paul and Veronique who provide wine reviews, and Kenneth, head winemaker of The Organic Wine, to comment on this issue, and we have included their comments within this article.

In Paul's opinion, "Wine from organic grapes is one of the most interesting yet least understood products within the current boom in organic and natural foods. Imported organic wines are even less understood than US domestic products, due to labeling and terminology differences. Customers are nonetheless very curious about these wines. "So what makes a wine 'Organic'?" he asks, as do I. "The great majority of wines are NOT made from organically grown grapes. The basis for any organic wine is that 100% of grapes used are from certified organic vineyards. This reduces or tries to eliminate the use of dangerous agricultural chemicals and results in healthier grapes and tastier wine.

Regardless of whether the wine is domestic or imported, it really all starts with the ground the grapes are planted in, and then the ways and means used to grow and maintain those grapes until harvest, the same as any other certified organic crop (for more information on organic growing standards and sulfites, see our sidebar article).

"Properly nurtured organic grapes are clearly the beginning of potentially great wine" states Paul. "Integral to a well managed organic system, use of more local farm inputs to strengthen a healthy eco-system, regular farmer vigilance, attention in the vineyard and a greater diversity of soil and surrounding life are all beneficial while enhancing the uniqueness of each wine."

"These are also the kinds of ideas that wine lovers have identified with well made wines for many years, even though the majority of conventional vineyards left these practices behind years ago. Winemaking techniques, including possible use of sulfur, will always greatly affect the final product and must be taken into consideration by customers, but the vineyard culture is at least as strong an indicator of quality as other factors."

This brings me to the word 'Terroir', coined by the French, which summarizes all the unique characteristics that influence the grapes on any given vineyard. These can be the unique soil of the area, the organic growing practices, the amount of sun, wind, cool or hot air, lack of air movement and airborne yeasts that attach themselves to the grapes which all influence the flavor of the grapes.

This 'wild yeast' concept is an intriguing but little addressed element in the making of wines, so I asked Kenny of 'The Organic Wine Works' to provide some insight on these wild yeasts and the little known concept of adding yeasts, whether wild or commercial to a fermenting wine. "There is usually a dominant strain of yeast that prevails in any wine making operation. Over time, the yeasts that come into the winery with each season of grapes (wild yeast), adapt themselves to the surroundings and eventually one will be most prevalent. These yeasts impart flavor to the wine that we work with when drawing out the uniqueness of each wine, known as 'Native Fermentation'. Conventional wineries (non-organic) usually inoculate their wines by destroying [or overwhelming—Editor] the native yeasts and adding Sulfur Dioxide, which raises Sulfite levels and then adding what yeasts they choose. For us at Organic Wine Works, if we want to add different yeast, we do so by growing yeast on an organic juice and then adding it at the appropriate time to develop the flavor of the wine in a desired way."

In conversation with Veronique of the Organic Wine Company, Veronique commented that "100% organic grapes are the starting point for any organic wine, then the wine maker must choose to add or not add sulfur dioxide to control aging in the bottle because of oxidation. A little added sulfur dioxide improves the stability of the wine and allows for a better bottle over time than without."

"In the past, wines made without added sulfites have created a negative response in the consumer's eyes. This will not help the organic wine industry. The long term vision is to create the best wines possible so public demand for these organic wines increases and thus encourages conventional producers to convert their land to organic practices."

Paul proposes that, "Wine lovers are realizing that these important hand-crafted and natural-sounding vineyard techniques are much more likely to be practiced by organic vineyards. This will become more of a potential guarantee or at least an indicator of grape and wine quality. Wines made from organic grapes are much more likely to represent their origins more than conventional wines. That is what consumers seek in a world filled with similar tasting wines."

Relying on the expertise of others, I asked Paul what to look for when buying organic wines. He suggested that one "simply look for the types of wine you prefer within the organic spectrum. The choice is becoming wider every day so that most wine styles are now represented in the organic world. Shelf life is every bit as long for a wine from organic grapes, but when choosing one with the added restriction of no added sulfites, one must be aware that shelf life and some inconsistency of flavors are issues."

He also added that "Whites without added sulfites are particularly fragile since they do not have any of the internal protection that is present in the more complex red wine. A well made white without added sulfites should be good for 1-2 years after harvest, and may start to slowly loose aromas and flavors after that time. Red wines without added sulfites may have the same shorter life or may last years, but one has to try the wine to be sure. So much depends on the skill of the winemaker and storage conditions from the time the wine was bottled. Once you own the wine, all wines are best stored in dark or shady areas with constant temperature, ideally in the 55-65F degree range. Store the bottles on their side of possible, and try one occasionally to see how it is evolving."

The Natural Order of Things- Organic Beef

2004-08-06T11:42:00.000-07:00

It is not surprising that Mad Cow has struck the US. When ranchers and factory farms continue to use animal by-products in their feeds to other animals, the natural order of things will go wrong.

So what is Mad Cow and what should you be wary of? Its technical name is Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in the US, Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) in Europe. Specifically, it is a "family of progressive, incurable, fatal diseases caused by prions. Characterized by dementia, and holes in the brain on autopsy. Can be transmitted between mammals when one mammal eats parts of the nervous system (e.g., brain, spinal cord) of another mammal." according to the OCA's glossary (Organic Consumers Association).

The human form of this, yes there is such a thing, is Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD). This is a human version of the TSE. Most forms of CJD appear to arise spontaneously, but the so-called "new variant" of CJD (nvCJD) is now known to be the human equivalent of mad cow disease thought to be contracted by eating contaminated beef.

The exact definition of organic livestock by the USDA can be found here.

To quote what the USDA states, "Animals for slaughter must be raised under organic management from the last third of gestation, or no later than the second day of life for poultry. Producers are required to feed livestock agricultural feed products that are 100 percent organic, but may also provide allowed vitamin and mineral supplements.

Producers may convert an entire, distinct dairy herd to organic production by providing 80 percent organically produced feed for 9 months, followed by 3 months of 100 percent organically produced feed.

Organically raised animals may not be given hormones to promote growth, or antibiotics for any reason. Preventive management practices, including the use of vaccines, will be used to keep animals healthy. Producers are prohibited from withholding treatment from a sick or injured animal; however, animals treated with a prohibited medication may not be sold as organic.

All organically raised animals must have access to the outdoors, including access to pasture for ruminants. They may be temporarily confined only for reasons of health, safety, the animal's stage of production, or to protect soil or water quality."

The key statement in this quote is the requirement to feed "agricultural feed products that are 100% organic".

So, what should you be wary of? Animal by-products. This is the underlying issue in the mad cow disease problem. Animal by-products have been used to supplement feeds for livestock, which is illogical and unnatural in our opinion. Prior to 1997, Canada and the US allowed brain and spinal cord tissue for by-products. Thankfully, this was banned in '97 but current regulations are poorly policed. There still exists, the compulsion by the livestock industry to make the most of what they have and utilize these animal by-products rather than disposing of them.

These by-products usually end up being rendered down to a "bone meal" and fed back to similar animals or other species. Another concern is the use of blood plasma from these sick animals to wean dairy calves off their mothers milk to maximize milk available for sale.
In the pursuit of profits, animals have been inhumanely treated leading to increased confinement and unsanitary living conditions. With lack of exercise, adequate fresh air, diets that include antibiotics, hormones, blood and some slaughterhouse by-products, the probability of increased sickness in these animals rises dramatically. These sick animals are called "Downers" in industry speak and are animals too sick to move by their own means and usually die where they rest. They end up in the by-products because they can't be sold for human consumption.

The problem worsens because these animals are shipped off to other rendering plants for use in making beef tallow, oils and other animal based protein products and it is a belief in the scientific community that boiling and high heats do not or render harmless these infected proteins called prions. It does not take a genius to see that these actions can create negative consequences with far reaching effect. Cosmetics and other industry product use animal renderings such as these to some degree. These actions on the part of the industry are just plain wrong and outside the order of the natural world. It just doesn't make sense.

With this article we just started to look at the issues related to this Mad Cow Disease, but we recommend that you explore the issue more thoroughly yourself and a good summary of the issues can be found here at the OCA website.

Obviously this practice has to stop. When we step back and take time to consider the bigger picture. We see that these practices by the beef & dairy industry are contributing to a build up things that can go wrong, and probably will.

If you live in the US, sign the OCA's online petition demanding a ban on animal by-products in livestock feed. Then, explore the issue further by reading some insightful articles by contributors to the Organic Consumers Association regarding Mad Cow, organic beef and all the relevant issues.

If you live in the UK or Canada, review the websites of the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs UK, the Food Standards Agency UK, in Canada the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for action you can take.

Weaving Organic Style

2004-03-11T12:59:00.000-08:00

Recently I had the opportunity to attend the Organic Trade Association's All Things Organic trade show. While there, I took in their Wear Organic! fashion show and was encouraged to see that the organic textile industry is moving beyond the hippy aesthetic as being the only expression of the organic clothing style. While there was still too much cotton yoga wear on the runway for my taste, a number of companies are addressing the demand by the style conscious consumer for tailored workday clothing made with a variety of organic fibers (see Resources below).

It makes sense that the organic textile industry emphasizes cotton products. With cotton providing approximately half of the world's fiber requirements ⁱ, and one-third of a pound of synthetic chemicals required to grow enough cotton for one conventionally-produced T-shirt ⁱⁱ, organically grown cotton looks like a good place to start to reduce the globe's chemical load. And depending on the variety of cotton (unlike other fibers), it can also have the added advantage of being color-grown ⁱⁱⁱ, thereby eliminating the amount of dyes and fixing agents used in processing. ^iv

This reduction in chemicals is welcome given the alarming statistics. Each year, 20,000 deaths (adult and child) occur in developing countries alone from pesticides used on agricultural crops. ^v In industrialized countries like the US, pesticide illnesses caused by spraying Californian cotton crops ranked third in number of farm workers affected. An estimated 67 million birds in the US each year are killed by pesticides. The nearly $2.6 billion worth of pesticides used each year around the world is increasing as insects develop resistance to the chemicals and more poisons are applied to keep their populations in check. In Uzbekistan, one of the world's top five cotton producing countries, the government decided to divert water from the Aral Sea to irrigate cotton fields. That diversion has reduced the sea to 60% of its original surface area, affecting villages dependant on fishing for survival. The water that's left is too salty and polluted from pesticide runoff to support fish populations. ^vi

And that's just from growing cotton using conventional agriculture. By the time the plant is processed into a textile and then into a finished product, an eight- to ten-week series of stages, a variety of chemicals are brought into play. ^vii These chemicals, such as anti-wrinkle agents, fluorescent whitening agents, and color fixatives, can find their way into the local waste water systems, resulting in highly contaminated effluent that kills aquatic wildlife and endangers human health. ^viii

A variety of companies, however, are addressing the need for organically grown and processed textiles. Some might surprise you, like Armani Jeans. In 1995, Armani worked with a production process certified by the European Oeko-Tex Standard 100 (an organic certification agency) to recycle old jeans into new ones. In 1996/97, they added wool and cross-dyed cotton to their list of recycled textiles. Also that year they added a line of men's and women's clothing made from hemp—a herbaceous plant that grows quickly and takes to dye easier than cotton, reducing the amount of dye needed. ^ix

Some companies, like Patagonia, realized that "pure" and "natural" didn't necessarily apply to cotton, despite the hype. In 1996, they converted their entire cotton sportswear collection to organic cotton and "…decided never to go back to conventional cotton, regardless of the outcome." ^x

Under the Canopy, an online retail and catalog company, offers more than organic cotton clothes. Addressing the need for tailored styles appropriate for the office, they carry clothes made from hemp and cottagora—Angora rabbit hair and 45% organic cotton.

Another company offering alternatives to the baggy granny dress is Cool Not Cruel. Their selection is limited but creative, utilizing certified organic cotton, undyed alpaca wool, hemp, certified organic and recycled wool, recycled silk and recycled fleece.

After looking at the emerging organic textile trend, I am tempted to toss out my chemically-intensive clothing and bedding, and rush out to purchase certified organic fashions and textiles. But part of treading lightly on the earth is about consuming less. Only when those conventional fabrics wear out (and when they do, think about how they could be recycled) does buying organic fabrics make sense. Especially since certified organic textiles wear longer (one source says two generations), keep their color longer, and feel better over time, than conventional fabrics.

i Organic Cotton Directory

ii Sustainable Cotton Project

iii Some types of cotton have the ability to grow "colored" bolls, thereby not requiring additional dying and treating. And while the color range is limited to mostly subtle greens and browns, the soft hues are flattering and timeless.

iv "The textile industry is one of the most polluting, using chemicals that are dangerous to human health and wildlife. Around a quarter of the world's insecticides are used to grow cotton (Allen Woodburn Associates Ltd) and at least 8,000 chemicals are used to turn raw materials into clothes, towels, bedding, and other items that we buy (William McDonough and Dr. Michael Braungart)." Soil Association

v Soil Association

vi For more terrifying statistics, refer to PANNA's (Pesticide Action Network North America) article "Problems With Conventional Cotton Production."

vii Josh Dinar's article "Organic Fiber Industry Weaving Standards Into Reality."

viii Soil Association Also refer to the Sustainable Cotton Project for a list of the major chemicals used in the US, their brand names, and their toxicity levels.

ix However, hemp isn't always grown organically, despite its lack of pests and need for fertilizer. Always look for an organic certification label to be on the safe side.

x Patagonia

The True Face of "Organic" Skincare

2003-12-09T12:41:00.000-08:00

So after twelve years of lobbying for a standardized labeling system on organic food, the mindful American consumer can now breathe a sigh of relief whenever he or she sees a product that uses the term "organic". Right? After all, we now have entities like the National Organic Program (NOP) to oversee companies and manufacturers, and determine whether they qualify for the coveted "organic" label. Right? But the truth of the matter is that so far, the rules that determine whether a product is organic or not, applies only to food and food products, not to other products that we also introduce into our bodies, e.g., through the skin.i And this is alarming.

It's alarming because the skin is a porous membrane that can be a more effective way for a substance to enter into your body than to ingest it through your mouth.ii That means that whatever is in the bottle or tube that comes in contact with your skin is being taken into your body. Substances and chemicals such as ureas (toxic preservatives) that you would never allow on or in your organic food, can be present in personal care products labeled "organic" and "natural" that you apply to your all too absorbing skin.

It's alarming because with $30 billion a year being made by the body care industry, and $6.25 billion of that being spent on cosmetics alone, we cannot expect the industry to regulate itself—not when Americans pulled $190 million out of their pockets for products labeled natural and organic that may not have been either.iii

And it's alarming because after the twelve year fight to get the label "organic" to stand for something (no toxic pesticides or chemical additives, an attitude of living lightly and sustainably, of making mindful choices), it is continually being weakened by an industry that sees nothing wrong with mixing synthetic chemicals with organically grown plants and calling the toxic stew "natural" and "organic" (and demanding a premium price for it).

What's a mindful consumer to do? Read the ingredients. Decide for yourself what you are willing to apply to your skin. You may have little control over what toxins you inhale but you have some choice over other methods of absorption. To get you started is a brief list compiled from a variety of sources:

Diethanolamine (DEA), Monoethanolamine (MEA) and Triethanolamine (TEA)
DEA is a hormone-disrupting chemical known to be carcinogenic. TEA causes allergic reactions and can be toxic if used over an extended period of time.
Imidazolinyl Urea and Diazolidinyl Urea
Commonly used preservatives, they are products of protein metabolism excreted from human urine. Also have the ability to release formaldehyde which can cause joint pain, skin reactions, allergies and depression. Toxic.
Isopropyl Alcohol
Prepared from Propylene, this petroleum by-product is an irritating solvent used in skin and hair products. Can cause headaches, nausea, depression, and vomiting.
Methyl, Propyl, Butyl and Ethyl Paraben
Most commonly used preservatives. So effective at halting all enzyme activity and so stable, that even when absorbed by the skin and taken up by the bloodstream, they continue to work inside the body, causing problems on a cellular level. Can also cause allergic reactions and skin rashes. Highly toxic.
Mineral Oil (also look for derivatives Petrolatum, Glyceryl Stearate, Cetyl Alcohol)
Derived from petroleum. Ironically, petrolatum actually promotes dry skin and chapping. Both petrolatum and mineral oil promote sun damage, and mineral oil can contribute to premature aging of the skin.
Polyethylene Glycol (PEG)
Derived from petroleum gas or dehydration of alcohol, and used in hand lotions. In addition to causing aging of the skin, it is carcinogenic and known to cause kidney and liver damage.
Propylene Glycol (PG)
This ingredient could be vegetable glycerin mixed with grain alcohol. More commonly it is a synthetic petroleum plastic used as a humectant. So toxic the FDA proposed a ban but this ingredient is still allowed to be present in concentrations up to 50% with no warning label.
PVP/VA Copolymer
Petroleum derived chemical. Toxic.
Quaternary Ammonium Compounds, Stearalkonium Chloride (Fabric Softeners)
Widely used in hair conditioners and creams but are toxic, especially if ingested. When used in hair conditioners they can encourage dirt and oil to cling to hair.
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate and Sodium Laureth Sulfate
Synthetics used in shampoos and toothpastes as foaming agents. Although the manufacturer may claim it "comes from coconut", prolonged use can weaken the immune system and cause eye irritations, skin rashes, hair loss, "dandruff", and other allergic reactions.
Synthetic Colors (FD&C Color Pigments)
Made from coal tar and found to contain heavy metal salts. Carcinogenic.
Synthetic Fragrances
Chemical fragrances can be composed of up to 200 ingredients—one of them could be Dibutyl Phalate (part of a family of chemicals used to make plastic soft and known to be toxic). The interaction of the chemical ingredients can cause a long list of reactions including headaches, dizziness, rash, hyperpigmentation, violent coughing, vomiting, and skin irritation. They can also affect the central nervous system, causing depression, hyperactivity, and irritability.

For further information on the topic go to the Organic Consumers Association (http://www.organicconsumers.org/) and click on their Coming Clean Campaign for a list of articles on organic body care issues. For Canadian readers, the Toronto Globe and Mail ran an eye-opening article by Deirdre Kelly that can be found at http://www.goodnessyou-goodnessme.org/Press_globe.htm.

* The exception is California who, in January 2003, enacted state rules stipulating that a beauty product must contain 70% certified organic ingredients before it can label itself as "organic". (Los Angeles Times article Debate Rages on Organic Labeling of Body Care Products by Melinda Fuller, April 22, 2003)

** "Scientists at Stanford University reported in 1999 that they found that they could deliver an effective dose of a vaccine in a shower with one shampooing?The vaccine in the study was absorbed into the body through hair follicles on unshaven, unbroken skin." (TerrEssentials' newsletter Exposure, Nov. 24, 2002)

*** Statistics taken from In Good Tilth article Organic Labels on Body Care Products Are Defrauding Consumers by Lacey Phillabaum.