Honeybee Shortage– An Impending Economic Disaster

by
English: Placing honeybees for pumpkin pollina...

English: Placing honeybees for pumpkin pollination, Mohawk Valley, NY (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The steadily increasing disappearance of honeybees since 2006 has farmers, beekeepers, scientists and government officials all abuzz, largely because of the impending economic disaster that would occur without bee pollination.  This really is a major problem because “one-third of all food and beverages are made possible by pollination, mainly by honeybees.  The agricultural industry attributes more than $20 billion of its worth to pollination.[1]

Currently, the USDA, scientists, beekeepers and growers are working frantically to identify the cause of death of bees or “colony collapse disorder” (CCD).  It appears that there are several factors contributing to this problem, including the parasitic Varroa mite and pesticides.  Researchers are very familiar with the Varroa mites, noting that they attach themselves to bees and feed off of their fluids, thereby weakening them.  A potential solution posed for the mite problem is to breed bees that can withstand these mites.  Recent research also has pointed to the adverse effects of neonicotinoids, a pesticide that has few adverse effects on mammals, but are shown to damage the brains of bees.  Additional causes of CCD listed by the EPA and the USDA include “poor nutrition, reduced genetic diversity, the Nosema gut parasite, emerging viruses and a bacterial disease called European foulbrood“.[1]

It is interesting to examine the potential impact of the loss of honeybee pollination on our food supply.  It it important to note the special and unique role of some pollinators in seed production, but not in the growth of the germinated seeds.  The loss of these pollinators would trigger the disappearance of these seed, the very origin of these plant species.  Some examples include carrots,onions, celery, mustard, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussel sprouts, turnips, caraway, coriander, buckwheat, fennel, alfalfa, sesame and several variety of beans.  Many of the fruits and vegetables that we eat require honeybee pollination and would be adversely affected by the loss of pollinators, resulting in increase cost due to shortages or even total lack of available crops.  Imagine no strawberries, peppers (several varieties), apples, kiwifruit, watermelon, cantaloupes or squash, just to name a few. [2]

Now that we recognize the need to reduce our consumption of red meat and to increase the use of fresh fruits and vegetables in our diets for purposes of healthier lifestyles and environmental protection, it is a matter or urgency to address this threat to our food supply.  We all can do something to help.  For starters, we have to educate ourselves on the process of pollination.  An excellent resource on this subject is the Pollinator Partnership at www.pollinator.org/html.  This site has wonderful suggestions on planting fruits, vegetables and flowering plants that attract pollinators.  Also, you can find information to get involved in the celebration of Pollinator Week 2013 coming up in June. [3] Secondly, keep in mind will not try to sell products that we refuse to buy.  To that end, please make every effort to buy local and organic.  These fruits and vegetables do not contain harmful pesticides that harm the soil, the air, water or pollinators, such as honeybees.

The pollination problem is a complex one that has several causes and will take time to solve.  The relationship of honeybees to the earth is simple:  Bees equal food.  With that said, we have a duty to protect the honeybees.  Our lives depend on it.  To do so is to live green, be green.

_________________

Sources for this article:

[1]  http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/02/18021285-pesticides-arent-the-biggest-factor-in-honeybee-die-off-epa-and-usda-say?lite
[2]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees.
[3]  http://www.pollinator.org/

The Power Of Seeds– The Main Ingredient To Sustain Life

by
Seed-of-Life

Seed-of-Life (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Each year the arrival of spring brings with it an increased interest in gardening and “growing things”– whether it is flowers, vegetables or fruits,  and this presents a great opportunity to discuss seed conservation and its role in sustaining life.  A seed is defined in several ways, including (1)  the grains or ripened ovules of plants used for sowing; (2)a propagative animal structure (milt, semen), and (3) a source of development or growth. [1]  Any discussion of a seed generally acknowledges its connection to a germ, origin, root or creation.  The conclusion here is that life as we know it is not sustainable without seeds.

Despite the reality that seeds are the root of life, statistics by the USDA indicate that over the past 30 years, industrial agriculture practices have resulted in a huge loss of biodiversity and the extinction of over 80,000 plant varieties.[2]  The reason for this is that industrial agriculture relies on large homogenous crop production, with the primary crops being corn, soy, wheat or potatoes.  Under this scenario, mass production of single crops affords farmers easier cultivation and harvest, and is deemed to culminate in a guaranteed food source for a greater percentage of the world population.

The truth is that industrial agriculture takes a heavy toll on the world’s plant supply.  First of all, the industrial agriculture movement has resulted in the creation of seed monopolies, with a few companies owning patents to the majority of seeds available to farmers, including GMOs and hybrids.  The farmers are prohibited from reusing new seeds from the previous year’s crop production because of patent violations.  Secondly, from a botanical standpoint, crop homogenization strips the ability of plants to adapt to climate change, pests and diseases.  Thirdly, the presumption that large homogenous crops will provide an adequate food supply for the world is erroneous because food availability does not necessarily translate to access to food.  Finally, we must not ignore the potential danger of the reliance on a single or a few large crops to feed a population.  We only need to look to the well documented devastating famine to the Irish population during the potato blight in the mid-1800s to observe the results of such misconceptions.[3]

The good news on seed conservation is that many individuals and businesses globally are dedicated to the protection of the world’s seed supply from extinction and from the control of corporate monopolies.  Many of these efforts stem from smallholder farms and peasant bred food growers.  Interestingly, the majority of these farmers are women, who understand that the story of seeds is “the story of  us”.[2]  Their work involves not only the cataloguing and use of a variety of seeds, but also records of recipes for delicious meals from their bounty.

It is important that proponents of the green movement recognize the urgent need to support seed conservation and biodiversity.  To that end, we urge you to support independent seed companies when you make your seed purchases.  Also, consider donating to programs that support smallholder farms.  Educate yourself on the large corporate monopolies, who are buying up many of the seed companies and inhibiting biodiversity.  The fact is that “farmers will stop growing food that we refuse to eat”. [4]

In conclusion, seeds are the major thread in the fabric of our lives.  They are a food source, as well as key players in the manufacturing industry and environmental protection.  To fight for seeds is to fight for sustainability.  To do this is to live green, be green.

———————–

Sources for this Article:

1.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/seed.
2.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ28IC63hlI.
3.  http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/famine/blight.html
4.  http://www.emergencyhomesteader.com/a-complete-list-of-seed-companies-owned-by-monsanto-and-a-complete-list-of-seed-companies-not-owned-by-monsanto/.
5.  http://www.slowfoodfoundation.com/pagine/eng/arca/cerca.lasso?-id_pg=36.
6.  http://www.fsg.org/tabid/191/ArticleId/181/Default.aspx?srpush=true.

 

Trickery, Cruelty and Greed: The Untold Story About Horsemeat

by
Seal of the United States Department of Agricu...

Seal of the United States Department of Agriculture (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Over the past few weeks, we have witnessed a media frenzy with repeated disclosures on the commingling of horsemeat with beef in frozen food products distributed in Europe and possibly here in the United States; (3) however, the real discussions on the problems of horsemeat production with the details of trickery, cruelty and greed—  have been noticeably absent.  We have been given the names of some of the perpetrators in these violations of public trust, namely Nestle, Sodexho, Ikea, Burger King and Tesco, but there are many more out there yet to be identified.  It is important to note that to date, U.S. officials state that they doubt that horsemeat has been sold in any beef products in the United States. 

Aside from the deception by not revealing the contents of these food products, the more heinous act here is the introduction of a product into the food system that is not intended to be consumed by humans and, in fact, is deemed unsafe for human consumption.  Horses, after all, are “raised to be companions, competitors or work partners.” (1)  They routinely are administered medications that are toxic to people, including wormers, fly treatments and pain-killers.  All of these products contain chemicals that are prohibited for food ingestion by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA).  Additionally, many of the drugs routinely given to humans have never been tested.  It appears that this problem of commingling horsemeat with beef is not merely a sleight of hand and harmless trickery of consumers.  Rather, it is a criminal violation to knowingly taint the food supply, and it is done simply for the purpose of financial gain, constituting pure greed with no regard for the health and safety of the consumer.  Simply stated, in the United States, commercially marketed meat is monitored and inspected by the federal government (USDA) and horsemeat is not approved for human consumption.

Another issue here is that of horse slaughter.  Ed Sayres, President of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) notes that there is little demand for horse slaughter in the United States, and horses are trucked to Canada and Mexico for such purposes.  He states, “These trips involve slipping, trampling injuries and death for many horses.  Those who survive then must suffer at the hands of the butcher.”  In other words, this is a very cruel industry.  Inasmuch as many of the horses that go to slaughter are not “aging, unwanted or sickly”, this abhorrent industry is simply making money while ignoring the suffering it causes to the horses and now it presents a threat to the health of humans.

It has been disclosed that the USDA intends to move forward to process pending applications on file for horse slaughter operations in the United States.  We here at LGBG say that this is not who we are as Americans.  We totally oppose this effort and support the ASPCA in its fight to spread the word about this effort which is gaining momentum and which must be stopped.  All eyes should be on Roswell, New Mexico, which is expected to be “ground zero” for this industry.  We urge all of our readers and supporters to unite to fight to ban the horse slaughter industry in America.  Also, please be particularly mindful of the meat products you buy and do not give your money to companies which participate in this practice.  Let’s advocate for a ban on horse slaughter.  To do this is to live green, be green.

Sources for this Article:

1.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-sayres/moving-in-wrong-direction_b_2790418.html
2.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-01/usda-says-horse-slaughter-plants-may-open-after-ban-lifted-1-.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/business/horse-meat-passes-through-texas-advocacy-groups-say.html?_r=0

A Green Movement Requires A Green Body

by
High-fructose corn syrup for sale

High-fructose corn syrup for sale (Photo credit: Steven Vance)

 

The fact that America has an obesity epidemic is no secret. Apologists argue that this is a product of the world in which we live.  Americans, today, live a more sedentary lifestyle than in the past, and as a consequence, we have become fatter. Of all of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), America has the largest population percentage (30.6%) that is obese.  Coming in at 23%, the United Kingdom is the second most obese nation, and interestingly, of all the other OECD countries, it is comparably most similar to America in terms of cultural aspects.  Following the sedentary lifestyle argument, it would only follow that the world’s most developed nations would have comparable obesity rates. However, in reality, this is not the case. The G8 countries are the most affluent in the world, yet none have an obesity rate close to that of America.  Having already listed the obesity rate of two G8 Nations, now allow me to name the rest: France: 9.4%, Russia:  Anywhere between 16.2% and 20 %; Russia does not actively report on obesity)[1], Italy: 8.5%, Germany: 12.9%, Canada:14.3%, and finally Japan: 3.2%.[2]

 

Despite having very similar levels of living, America’s obesity rate is staggeringly higher. However, it would be factious of me not to say that there is not a correlation between income levels and obesity rates.  The OECD has taken note and has released some staggering facts such as, “until 1980, fewer than one in ten people were obese. Since then, rates doubled or tripled and in 19 of 34 OECD countries, the majority of the population is now overweight or obese. OECD projections suggest that more than two out of three people will be overweight or obese in some OECD countries by 2020”1. Nonetheless, the question must be asked: despite obesity being on the rise, why does America appear to have such a huge head start? While a sedentary lifestyle does undoubtedly play a role, there is another dominant factor as well. Your good old Uncle Sam is determining what you are and aren’t eating through laws and taxes.

 

America was founded as a democracy, but that has not stopped the establishment of kings in this country. The first and most famous king was, of course, King Cotton. The economic power of this cash crop helped propel the economic success of America in a pre-industrialized world. While it is uncomfortable to think that the forging of cotton and slavery together helped establish America on the world stage, it is a reality, and it is our duty as Americans not to shy away from our past. However, our King today started out in a more humble fashion and ascended to the throne over the course of American history. I am, of course, talking about King Corn, present in America at the first landing of settlers and saturating American culture today, quite literally might I add. Agriculture in America is a business that is heavily supported and subsidized by the federal government. While we will be primarily discussing its negative consequences, we must recognize that it was started to help farmers in the Great Depression, and many programs, such as crop insurance, are beneficial. However, this government support has morphed over the years and skewed the market in favor of corn and corn-based products. So how does this all work? It works through the rather bluntly titled Farm Bill:

 

“The 2008 Farm Bill approved $300 billion in mandatory spending (this figure does not include discretionary spending measures that are approved separately). About two-thirds (67%) of the spending measures were allocated toward nutrition, followed by agricultural subsidies (15%), conservation (9%), and crop insurance (8%). The remaining three percent included credit, rural development, research, forestry, energy, livestock, and horticulture/organic agriculture.”[3]

 

The Farm Bill is typically renewed every five years, but has yet to be renewed in whole. At the moment, it is a victim of Congressional gridlock, a reexamining of its benefits, and the pull of the corn lobby.

 

farm-bill-allocation1

 

This pie chart details the percentages of the bill from 2008. As you see a majority went towards the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps. We, however, are to focus on the 14% that went to crop subsidies. With regards to the 2008 Bill:

 

“The [2008] bill [gave] some $4.9 billion a year in automatic payments to growers of [corn and soy] such commodity crops, thus driving down prices for corn, corn-based products and corn-fed meats. Cows that are raised on corn, rather than grass, make meat that is higher in calories and contains more omega-6 fatty acids and fewer omega-3 fatty acids—a dangerous ratio that has been linked to heart disease.

 

Cheap corn has also become a staple in highly processed foods, from sweetened breakfast cereals to soft drinks, that have been linked to an increase in the rate of type 2 diabetes, a condition that currently affects more than one in 12 American adults. Between 1985 and 2010, the price of beverages sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup dropped 24 percent, and by 2006 American children consumed an extra 130 calories a day from these beverages. Over the same period, the price of fresh fruits and vegetables rose 39 percent. For families on a budget, the price difference can be decisive in their food choices.”[4]

 

Here are some more numbers to put the effect of corn syrup into perspective:

 

  • Percentage of high fructose corn syrup in Americans’ daily caloric intake: 7
  • Percentage of U.S. caloric sweeteners made from high-fructose corn syrup: ~40
  • The year that high fructose corn syrup became available in the U.S. food supply: 1967
  • Percentage U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup rose between 1970 and 1990: 1,000%
  • Percentage of obese Americans in 1960-1962: 13.4
  • Percentage of obese Americans in 2005-2006: 35.1
  • Approximate ratio of obese Americans in 2007-2008: 1 in 3

 

One could argue that America itself has been the test subject since 1967 concerning the effects of high fructose corn syrup. Actual clinical studies are starting to point in the same direction as well. As stated in a recent study published in the journal, Global Health:

 

“Researchers compared the average availability of high-fructose corn syrup to rates of diabetes in 43 countries. About half the countries in the study had little or no high-fructose corn syrup in their food supply. In the other 20 countries, high-fructose corn syrup in foods ranged from about a pound a year per person in Germany to about 55 pounds each year per person in the United States. The researchers found that countries using high-fructose corn syrup had rates of diabetes that were about 20% higher than countries that didn’t mix the sweetener into foods. Those differences remained even after researchers took into account data for differences in body size, population, and wealth.”[5]

 

This all begs the question of what we as the public can do about this. There are a wide variety of answers. Some argue for getting rid of the subsidies altogether or extending them to fruits and vegetables. Both arguments rest on the notion of the even playing field upon which capitalism is built. Let the consumer vote with his/her wallet, and the invisible hand will choose the one that is more beneficial. However, we must recognize that corn has a huge head start in this affair, and as such the two hardly can be deemed to be on even footing. This should be taken into consideration during the debate itself, the debate which is still ongoing. This is still a debate which the public can affect, whether you support the status quo or seek change of any kind. Your voice  still can be heard by your Representative and your Senator. Of course this is America, home of the ‘do it myself’ attitude. If you’ve lost faith in the political process in this country, and I think there may be several of you out there, why not break the chain, if only a little, by planting your own garden? Democracy is and should never be a top-down process. If a bill is to become law or if something is to be given preference, it should be initiated at the behest of the people. This helps to ensure that we live green, be green.

 

 

 

By Sean P. Maguire

 

[1] http://www.oecd.org/health/49716427.pdf

 

[2] http://www.aneki.com/countries2.php?t=Countries_with_the_Highest_Obesity_Rates&table=table_obesity&places=2=*=*=*=*=*&order=desc&orderby=table_obesity.name&decimals=–1&dependency=independent&number=all&cntdn=asc&r=-373-404&c=&measures=Country–obese%20population%20aged%2015%20and%20over%20(OECD%20Countries)&units=–&file=obesity

[3] http://www.snaptohealth.org/farm-bill-usda/u-s-farm-bill-faq/

[4] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fresh-fruit-hold-the-insulin

[5] http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20121127/high-fructose-corn-syrup-diabetes

 

Green is not always Green

by

Green is definitely not always green! Summer has arrived with its bounty of fresh vegetables and fruits readily available in grocery stores, farmers markets and roadside stands.  It is important to be a savvy consumer and understand that not all vegetables and fruits are produced in an eco-friendly manner and can be harmful to you and your family.  Many growers use harmful pesticides to destroy insects that attack crops and despite washing, residual amounts of these residuals still may be significant.  The Environmental Working Group has composed a shopper’s guide for produce which lists the 2012 “dirty dozen”, as well as the “clean fifteen”.  This guide lists the products which should be purchased organically, as well as the products which largely are domestic or imported.  This year’s “dirty dozen” list includes apples, bell peppers, blueberries (domestic), celery, cucumbers, grapes, lettuce, nectarines (imported), peaches, potatoes, spinach and strawberries.  Green beans and kale made the list because the pesticide residues found on these vegetables are or great concern.

The “clean fifteen” products that have the lowest pesticide residue includes asparagus, avocado, cabbage, cantaloupe (domestic), corn, eggplant, grapefruit, kiwi, mangoes, mushrooms, onions, pineapples, sweet peas, sweet potatoes and watermelon.

Of note, particular concern should be paid to pesticide residuals in vegetables and fruits used for baby food.   For the first time since starting the pesticide testing program of food, the USDA paid particular attention to the presence of pesticides in pears, green beans and sweet potatoes used in baby food.  The results showed that green beans were positive for five pesticides including organophosphates, which have been connected with neurodevelopment problems.  The test results on pears have shown large degrees of contamination.  Sweet potatoes have fared very well in these tests, showing no signs of pesticides.  There is a major concern associated with the pesticide iprodione.  It has been labeled by the Environment Protection Agency as a probable human carcinogen and its use in pears prepared as baby food is a clear violation, however, it has shown up in several samples.

It is very important that consumers educate themselves on safe and unsafe vegetables and fruits.  It may be difficult to eat organically all the time because the cost can be prohibitive, but with a little bit of research, it is possible to identify fruits and vegetables that have the lowest pesticide residues.  A good place to start is the Environmental Working Group’s 2012 Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce.

Remember:  Not all green is green.  So study green, live green, be green.