Organic food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods of organic farming -- that do not involve modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Organic foods are also not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives.[1] The organic farming movement arose in the 1940s in response to the industrialization of agriculture known as the Green Revolution.[2] Organic food production is a heavily regulated industry, distinct from private gardening. Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan and many other countries require producers to obtain special certification in order to market food as organic within their borders. In the context of these regulations, organic food is food produced in a way that complies with organic standards set by national governments and international organizations.

Evidence on substantial differences between organic food and conventional food is insufficient to make claims that organic food is safer or more healthy than conventional food.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] With respect to taste, the evidence is also insufficient to make scientific claims that organic food tastes better.[5][3] Many supporters of the organic foods movement believe that pesticides, herbicides and artificial additives found in non-organic food might be carcinogenic. The American Cancer Society (ACS) has said "whether organic foods carry a lower risk of cancer because they are less likely to be contaminated by compounds that might cause cancer is largely unknown" but "vegetables, fruits, and whole grains should form the central part of a person's diet, regardless of whether they are grown conventionally or organically".[10]

For the vast majority of its history, agriculture can be described as having been organic; only during the 20th century was a large supply of new chemicals introduced to the food supply.[11] The organic farming movement arose in the 1940s in response to the industrialization of agriculture known as the Green Revolution.[2]

In 1939, Lord Northbourne coined the term organic farming in his book Look to the Land (1940), out of his conception of "the farm as organism," to describe a holistic, ecologically balanced approach to farming—in contrast to what he called chemical farming, which relied on "imported fertility" and "cannot be self-sufficient nor an organic whole."[12] This is different from the scientific use of the term "organic," to refer to a class of molecules that contain carbon, especially those involved in the chemistry of life. This class of molecules includes everything likely to be considered edible, and include most pesticides and toxins too, therefore the term "organic" and, especially, the term "inorganic" (sometimes wrongly used as a contrast by the popular press) are both technically inaccurate and completely inappropriate when applied to farming, the production of food, and to foodstuffs themselves.

Early consumers interested in organic food would look for non-chemically treated, non-use of unapproved pesticides, fresh or minimally processed food. They mostly had to buy directly from growers: "Know your farmer, know your food" was the motto. Personal definitions of what constituted "organic" were developed through firsthand experience: by talking to farmers, seeing farm conditions, and farming activities. Small farms grew vegetables (and raised livestock) using organic farming practices, with or without certification, and the individual consumer monitored. As demand for organic foods continued to increase, high volume sales through mass outlets such as supermarkets rapidly replaced the direct farmer connection. Today there is no limit to organic farm sizes and many large corporate farms currently have an organic division. However, for supermarket consumers, food production is not easily observable, and product labeling, like "certified organic", is relied on. Government regulations and third-party inspectors are looked to for assurance.

Organic food production is a heavily regulated industry, distinct from private gardening. Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan and many other countries require producers to obtain special certification in order to market food as organic within their borders. In the context of these regulations, organic food is food produced in a way that complies with organic standards set by national governments and international organizations.

In the United States, organic production is a system that is managed in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 and regulations in Title 7, Part 205 of the Code of Federal Regulations to respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.[13] If livestock are involved, the livestock must be reared with regular access to pasture and without the routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones.[14]

Processed organic food usually contains only organic ingredients. If non-organic ingredients are present, at least a certain percentage of the food's total plant and animal ingredients must be organic (95% in the United States,[15] Canada, and Australia). Foods claiming to be organic must be free of artificial food additives, and are often processed with fewer artificial methods, materials and conditions, such as chemical ripening, food irradiation, and genetically modified ingredients. Pesticides are allowed as long as they are not synthetic.[16] However, under US federal organic standards, if pests and weeds are not controllable through management practices, nor via organic pesticides and herbicides, "a substance included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production may be applied to prevent, suppress, or control pests, weeds, or diseases."[17] Several groups have called for organic standards to prohibit nanotechnology on the basis of the precautionary principle[18] in light of unknown risks of nanotechnology.[19]:5-6 The use of nanotechnology-based products in the production of organic food is prohibited in some jurisdictions (Canada, the UK, and Australia) and is unregulated in others.[20][21]:2, section 1.4.1(l)

To be certified organic, products must be grown and manufactured in a manner that adheres to standards set by the country they are sold in:

The USDA carries out routine inspections of farms that produce USDA Organic labeled foods.[29] On April 20, 2010, the Department of Agriculture said that it would begin enforcing rules requiring the spot testing of organically grown foods for traces of pesticides, after an auditor exposed major gaps in federal oversight of the organic food industry.[30]

There is widespread public belief that organic food is safer, more nutritious, and tastes better than conventional food; these beliefs have fueled increased demand for organic food despite higher prices.[4][6][7][31]

Psychological effects such as the “halo” effect which are related to the choice and consumption of organic food and which may be akin to religious experiences in some people are in addition important motivating factors in the purchase of organic food.[3] An example of the halo effect was demonstrated by Schuldt and Schwarz.[32] Their results showed that university students inferred that organic cookies were lower in calories and could be eaten more often than conventional cookies. This effect was observed even when the nutrition label conveyed an identical calorie content. The effect was more pronounced among participants who were strong supporters of organic production and had strong feelings about environmental issues. The perception that organic food is low-calorie food or health food appears to be common.[3][32]

A 2009 literature review concluded that in the scientific literature examined, “there is broad agreement ...(that) most studies that have compared the taste and organoleptic quality of organic and conventional foods report no consistent or significant differences between organic and conventional produce. Therefore, claiming that all organic food tastes different from all conventional food would not be correct. However, among the well-designed studies with respect to fruits and vegetables that have found differences, the vast majority favour organic produce.”[5][31] There is evidence that some organic fruit is drier than conventionally grown fruit; a slightly drier fruit may also have a more intense flavor due to the higher concentration of flavoring substances.[3]

A 2000 FAO report noted an unpublished study in which Golden Delicious apples "were found to be firmer and received higher taste scores than conventionally grown apples"[33]

Some foods, such as bananas, are picked when unripe, then artificially induced to ripen using a chemical (such as propylene or ethylene) while in transit, possibly producing a different taste.[34] The issue of ethylene use in organic food production is contentious; opponents claiming that its use only benefits large companies, and opens the door to weaker organic standards.[35]

With respect to chemical differences in the composition of organically grown food compared with conventionally grown food, studies have examined differences in nutrients, antinutrients, and pesticide residues. These studies generally suffer from confounding variables, and are difficult to generalize due to differences in the tests that were done, and in the methods of testing, and also because the vagaries of agriculture affect the chemical composition of food; these variables include variations in weather (season to season as well as place to place); crop treatments (fertilizer, pesticide, etc.); soil composition; the cultivar used, and in the case of meat and dairy products, the parallel variables in animal production.[6] Treatment of the foodstuffs after initial gathering (whether milk is pasteurized or raw), the length of time between harvest and analysis, as well as conditions of transport and storage, also affect the chemical composition of a given item of food.[6] Additionally, there is evidence that organic produce is drier than conventionally grown produce; a higher content in any chemical category may be explained higher concentration rather than in absolute amounts.[3]

A 2012 survey of the scientific literature did not find significant differences in the vitamin content of organic and conventional plant or animal products, and found that results varied from study to study.[6] Produce studies reported on ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) (31 studies), beta-carotene (a precursor for Vitamin A) (12 studies), and alpha-tocopherol (a form of Vitamin E) (5 studies) content; milk studies reported on beta-carotene (4 studies) and alpha-tocopherol levels (4 studies). Few studies examined vitamin content in meats, but these found no difference in beta-carotene in beef, alpha-tocopherol in pork or beef, or vitamin A (retinol) in beef. The authors analyzed 11 other nutrients reported in studies of produce. Only 2 nutrients were significantly higher in organic than conventional produce: phosphorus (median difference, 0.15 mg/kg [minimum difference, -18 mg/kg; maximum difference, 530 mg/kg]) and total phenols (median difference, 31.6 mg/kg [minimum difference, -1700 mg/kg; maximum difference, 10,480 mg/kg]). The result for phosphorus was statistically homogenous, but removal of 1 study reduced the summary effect size and rendered the effect size statistically insignificant. The finding for total phenols was heterogeneous statistically and became statistically insignificant when two studies not reporting sample size were removed. Too few studies of animal products reported on other nutrients for effect sizes to be calculated. The few studies of milk that the authors found were all (but for one) of raw milk, and suggest that raw organic milk may contain significantly more beneficial omega-3 fatty acids (median difference, 0.5 g/100 g [minimum difference, 0.23 g/100 g; maximum difference, 4.5 g/100 g]) and vaccenic acid than raw conventional milk (median difference, 0.26 g/100 g [minimum difference, 0.11 g/100 g; maximum difference, 3.1 g/100 g]).

Similarly, organic chicken contained higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids than conventional chicken (median difference, 1.99 g/100 g [minimum difference, 0.94 g/100 g; maximum difference, 17.9 g/100 g]). The authors found no difference in the protein or fat content of organic and conventional raw milk. Minor differences in ascorbic acid, protein concentration and several micronutrients have been identified between organic and conventional foods.[36][37]

A 2003 study found that the total phenolic content was significantly higher in organically grown marionberries, strawberries, and corn compared to their conventionally grown counterparts.[38]

The amount of nitrogen content in certain vegetables, especially green leafy vegetables and tubers, has been found to be lower when grown organically as compared to conventionally.[4] When evaluating environmental toxins such as heavy metals, the USDA has noted that organically raised chicken may have lower arsenic levels,[39] while literature reviews found no significant evidence that levels of arsenic, cadmium or other heavy metals differed significantly between organic and conventional food products.[4][3]

The 2012 meta-analysis determined that detectable pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples and 38% of conventional produce samples. Organic produce had 30% lower risk for contamination with any detectable pesticide residue than conventional produce. This result was statistically heterogeneous, potentially because of the variable level of detection used among these studies. Only 3 studies reported the prevalence of contamination exceeding maximum allowed limits; all were from the European Union.[6]

The 2012 meta-analysis determined that prevalence of E. coli contamination was not statistically significant (7% in organic produce and 6% in conventional produce). Four of the 5 studies found higher risk for contamination among organic produce. When the authors removed the 1 study (of lettuce) that found higher contamination among conventional produce, organic produce had a 5% greater risk for contamination than conventional alternatives. While bacterial contamination is common among both organic and conventional animal products, differences in the prevalence of bacterial contamination between organic and conventional animal products were statistically insignificant.[6]

With respect to scientific knowledge of health benefits from a diet of organic food, several factors limit our ability to say that there is any health benefit, or detriment, from such a diet. The 2012 meta-analysis noted that "there have been no long-term studies of health outcomes of populations consuming predominantly organic versus conventionally produced food controlling for socioeconomic factors; such studies would be expensive to conduct."[6] The 2009 meta-analysis noted that "Most of the included articles did not study direct human health outcomes. In 10 of the included studies (83%), a primary outcome was the change in antioxidant activity. Antioxidant status and activity are useful biomarkers but do not directly equate to a health outcome. Of the remaining 2 articles, 1 article recorded proxy-reported measures of atopic manifestations as its primary health outcome, whereas the other article examined the fatty acid composition of breast milk and implied possible health benefits for infants from the consumption of different amounts of conjugated linoleic acids from breast milk."[7] In addition, as discussed above, difficulties in accurately and meaningfully measuring chemical differences between organic and conventional food make it difficult to extrapolate health recommendations based solely on chemical analysis.

As of 2012, the scientific consensus is that while "consumers may choose to buy organic fruit, vegetables and meat because they believe them to be more nutritious than other food.... the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view."[40] A 12-month systematic review commissioned by the FSA in 2009 and conducted at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine based on 50 years' worth of collected evidence concluded that "there is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content."[41] There is no support in the scientific literature that the lower levels of nitrogen in certain organic vegetables translates to improved health risk.[4]

Claims of improved safety of organic food has largely focused on pesticide residues.[4] These concerns are driven by the facts that "(1) acute, massive exposure to pesticides can cause significant adverse health effects; (2) food products have occasionally been contaminated with pesticides, which can result in acute toxicity; and (3) most, if not all, commercially purchased food contains trace amounts of agricultural pesticides."[4] However, as is frequently noted in the scientific literature: "What does not follow from this, however, is that chronic exposure to the trace amounts of pesticides found in food results in demonstrable toxicity. This possibility is practically impossible to study and quantify;" therefore firm conclusions about the relative safety of organic foods have been hampered by the difficulty in proper study design and relatively small number of studies directly comparing organic food to conventional food.[4][5][3][31][42]

Additionally, the Carcinogenic Potency Project,[43] which is a part of the US EPA's Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) Database Network,[44] has been systemically testing the carcinogenicity of chemicals, both natural and synthetic, and building a publicly available database of the results[45] for the past ~30 years. Their work attempts to fill in the gaps in our scientific knowledge of the carcinogenicity of all chemicals, both natural and synthetic, as the scientists conducting the Project described in the journal, Science, in 1992:

Toxicological examination of synthetic chemicals, without similar examination of chemicals that occur naturally, has resulted in an imbalance in both the data on and the perception of chemical carcinogens. Three points that we have discussed indicate that comparisons should be made with natural as well as synthetic chemicals.
1) The vast proportion of chemicals that humans are exposed to occur naturally. Nevertheless, the public tends to view chemicals as only synthetic and to think of synthetic chemicals as toxic despite the fact that every natural chemical is also toxic at some dose. The daily average exposure of Americans to burnt material in the diet is ~2000 mg, and exposure to natural pesticides (the chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves) is ~1500 mg. In comparison, the total daily exposure to all synthetic pesticide residues combined is ~0.09 mg. Thus, we estimate that 99.99% of the pesticides humans ingest are natural. Despite this enormously greater exposure to natural chemicals, 79% (378 out of 479) of the chemicals tested for carcinogenicity in both rats and mice are synthetic (that is, do not occur naturally).
2) It has often been wrongly assumed that humans have evolved defenses against the natural chemicals in our diet but not against the synthetic chemicals. However, defenses that animals have evolved are mostly general rather than specific for particular chemicals; moreover, defenses are generally inducible and therefore protect well from low doses of both synthetic and natural chemicals.
3) Because the toxicology of natural and synthetic chemicals is similar, one expects (and finds) a similar positivity rate for carcinogenicity among synthetic and natural chemicals. The positivity rate among chemicals tested in rats and mice is ~50%. Therefore, because humans are exposed to so many more natural than synthetic chemicals (by weight and by number), humans are exposed to an enormous background of rodent carcinogens, as defined by high-dose tests on rodents. We have shown that even though only a tiny proportion of natural pesticides in plant foods have been tested, the 29 that are rodent carcinogens among the 57 tested, occur in more than 50 common plant foods. It is probable that almost every fruit and vegetable in the supermarket contains natural pesticides that are rodent carcinogens.[46]

While studies have shown via chemical analysis, as discussed above, that organically grown fruits and vegetables have significantly lower pesticide residue levels, the significance of this finding on actual health risk reduction is debatable as both conventional foods and organic foods generally have pesticide levels well below government established guidelines for what is considered safe.[4][3][6] This view has been echoed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture[39] and the UK Food Standards Agency.[8]

A study published by the National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet.[47] A study published in 2006 by Lu et al measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 school children before and after replacing their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet.[48] The conclusions of Lu et al were hotly contested in the literature.[49][50]

More specifically, claims related to pesticide residue of increased risk of infertility or lower sperm counts have not been supported by the evidence in the medical literature.[4] Likewise the American Cancer Society (ACS) has stated their official position that "whether organic foods carry a lower risk of cancer because they are less likely to be contaminated by compounds that might cause cancer is largely unknown."[10] Reviews have noted that the risks from microbiological sources or natural toxins are likely to be much more significant than short term or chronic risks from pesticide residues.[4][3]

In looking at possible increased risk to safety from organic food consumption, reviews have found that although there may be increased risk from microbiological contamination due to increased manure use as fertilizer from organisms like E. coli O157:H7 during organic produce production, there is little evidence of actual incidence of outbreaks which can be positively blamed on organic food production.[4][5][3] One outbreak of E. coli in Germany was blamed on organic farming of bean sprouts.[51][52]

Demand for organic foods is primarily concern for personal health and concern for the environment.[53] Organic products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar conventionally produced products.[54] According to the USDA, Americans, on average, spent $1,347 on groceries in 2004;[55] thus switching entirely to organics would raise their cost of groceries by about $135 to $539 per year ($11 to $45 per month) assuming that prices remained stable with increased demand. Processed organic foods vary in price when compared to their conventional counterparts.

While organic food accounts for 1–2% of total food sales worldwide, the organic food market is growing rapidly, far ahead of the rest of the food industry, in both developed and developing nations.

World organic food sales jumped from US $23 billion in 2002[56] to $52 billion in 2008.[57]The world organic market has been growing by 20% a year since the early 1990s, with future growth estimates ranging from 10%–50% annually depending on the country.United States Organic food sales have grown by 17 to 20 percent a year in the early 2000s[59] while sales of conventional food have grew only about 2 to 3 percent a year.[60] The US organic market grew 9.5% in 2011, breaking the $30bn barrier for the first time, and continued to outpace sales of non-organic food.[58]In 2003 organic products were available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores and 73% of conventional grocery stores.[61]Organic products accounted for 3.7% of total food and beverage sales, and 11.4% of all fruit and vegetable sales in the year 2009.[62]As of 2012[update], most independent organic food processors in the USA had been acquired by multinational firms.[64]Canada Organic food sales surpassed $1 billion in 2006, accounting for 0.9% of food sales in Canada.[65]Organic food sales by grocery stores were 28% higher in 2006 than in 2005.[65]British Columbians account for 13% of the Canadian population, but purchased 26% of the organic food sold in Canada in 2006.[66]Austria In 2011, 7.4% of all food products sold in Austrian supermarkets (including discount stores) were organic.[67] In 2007, 8,000 different organic products were available.[68]Italy Since 2000, the use of some organic food is compulsory in Italian schools and hospitals. A 2002 law of the Emilia Romagna region implemented in 2005, explicitly requires that the food in nursery and primary schools (from 3 months to 10 years) must be 100% organic, and the food in meals at schools, universities and hospitals must be at least 35% organic.[69]Poland In 2005 7 percent of Polish consumers buy food that was produced according to the EU-Eco-regulation. The value of the organic market is estimated at 50 million Euros (2006).[70]Romania 70%-80% of the local organic production, amounting to 100 million Euros in 2010, is exported. The organic products market grew to 50 million Euros in 2010.[71]UK Organic food sales increased from just over £100 million in 1993/94 to £1.21 billion in 2004 (an 11% increase on 2003).[72][where?] In 2010, the UK sales of organic products fell 5.9% to £1.73 billion. 86% of households buy organic products, the most popular categories being dairies (30.5% of sales) and fresh fruits and vegetables (23.2% of sales). 4.2% of UK farmland is organically managed.[73]Cuba After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, agricultural inputs that had previously been purchased from Eastern bloc countries were no longer available in Cuba, and many Cuban farms converted to organic methods out of necessity.[74] Consequently, organic agriculture is a mainstream practice in Cuba, while it remains an alternative practice in most other countries. Although some products called organic in Cuba would not satisfy certification requirements in other countries (crops may be genetically modified, for example[75][76]), Cuba exports organic citrus and citrus juices to EU markets that meet EU organic standards. Cuba's forced conversion to organic methods may position the country to be a global supplier of organic products

View the original article here

World's Largest Food Companies Shun Poor People Growing Their Ingredients - Business Insider

The world's largest food companies are failing to meet ethical standards, a report from Oxfam has warned. None of the leading global brands such as Nestlé, Mars and Coca-Cola were given good overall ratings on their commitments to protect farmers, local communities and the environment, while British food giant Associated British Foods (ABF), owner of brands including Kingsmill, Ovaltine and Silverspoon, received the lowest rating.

The charity's Behind the Brands report compiled a scorecard, rating the "big 10" food companies in seven categories: the transparency of their supply chains and operations, how they ensure the rights of workers, how they protect women's rights, the management of water and land use, their policies to reduce the impacts of climate change and how they ensure the rights of the farmers who grow their ingredients.

The company with the lowest score – just 13 out of 70 – was ABF. It scored just one mark out of 10 in its treatment of land, women and climate change, while the highest scores it managed to achieve was three out of 10, in relation to workers and transparency.

In joint second-lowest place were Kellogg's and General Mills, which owns Old El Paso, Häagen-Dazs and Nature Valley, with both scoring 16 out of 70.

Oxfam said neither ABF nor Kellogg's had addressed land rights concerns, or the poverty and lack of opportunity for women working in the supply chain, while the latter company and General Mills showed a lack of transparency in where they sourced their ingredients, only providing information on where they get their palm oil. The company which achieved the highest score was Nestlé, with 38 marks.

Oxfam said that while all 10 companies have acknowledged the need for a more just food system and have made commitments to that end, they are still failing to take adequate steps.

"It is time the veil of secrecy shrouding this multi-billion dollar industry was lifted," said Oxfam chief executive Barbara Stocking. "Consumers have the right to know how their food has been produced and the impact this has on the world's poorest people who are growing the ingredients. The hundreds of brands lining supermarket shelves are predominantly owned by just 10 huge companies, which have combined revenues of more than $1bn a day while one-in-eight people go to bed hungry every night."

The charity said ABF's lack of transparency in its supply chain operations was a major factor in its poor overall performance as few of its brands were able to demonstrate how they do business with suppliers or enforce ethical standards. While some ABF brands, such as Twinings tea, were noted to have good policies in some areas, these were not widespread, the charity claimed. ABF's Patak and Amoy have no public policies requiring suppliers to pay a living wage or support smallholder farmers and they fail to require their suppliers to prevent pollution or safeguard water quality, Oxfam said.

An ABF spokesman rejected Oxfam's criticism: "The idea that ABF would use a "veil of secrecy" in order to hide the "human cost" of its supply chain is simply ridiculous. We treat local producers, communities and the environment with the utmost respect. As for transparency ... our next CR report in autumn 2013 will confirm significant improvement in disclosure."

Oxfam said none of the companies had adequate policies to protect local communities from land- and water-grabs despite all of them sourcing commodities plagued by land rights violations, such as palm oil, soy and sugar.

It also found that while all of the companies have taken steps to reduce direct greenhouse gas emissions, only five - Mondelez, Danone, Unilever, Coca-Cola and Mars – publicly report on agricultural emissions associated with their products.

Oxfam wants the public to use social media to put pressure on the food giants to improve their policies, and on Tuesday launches its Behind the Brands campaign in more than 12 countries including China, Mexico and Brazil.

The report was discussed with and made available to the companies covered ahead of its publication.

This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk

View the original article here

USDA Releases Report on the Growing Importance of Food Hubs in Rural America - USDA.gov (press release)

NEW ORLEANS, La., February 26, 2013 – Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan today announced the release of a report which provides a comprehensive look at the economic role, challenges and opportunities for food hubs in the nation's growing local food movement. The announcement was made during a visit to Hollygrove Market and Farm, a produce market, local distributor and farm in downtown New Orleans. In operation since 2009, Hollygrove Farm and Market sources from twenty local growers across southern Louisiana and Mississippi. Hollygrove's mission includes increasing access to fresh produce for underserved New Orleans neighborhoods. The organization first began operations as part of the city's post-Hurricane Katrina rebuilding efforts.

"At USDA we are committed to food hubs because we believe that they offer strong and sound infrastructure support to producers across the country which will also help build stronger regional food systems," said Merrigan. "This report is an important addition to the ongoing research in this field and Hollygrove is an example of how it is done."

The new report is titled The Role of Food Hubs in Local Food Marketing. With an increasing demand for fresh, local, foods, the report finds that the success of food hubs is rapidly expanding, with well over 200 food hubs now operating in the United States. They are a part of a distribution system designed to move locally produced food into mainstream markets by supplying chains for goods to go from farms to the table efficiently. To view the full report click here.

USDA's working definition of a regional food hub is "a business or organization that actively manages the aggregation, distribution, and marketing of source-identified food products primarily from local and regional producers to strengthen their ability to satisfy wholesale, retail, and institutional demand". More information about USDA's work on food hubs is available at www.ams.usda.gov/foodhubs.

The dramatic increase in the number of food hubs since President Obama took office has been supported by state and federal efforts including USDA programs like Rural Business Enterprise Grant, Rural Business Opportunity Grant, Value-Added Producer Grant, and the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program.

For example, as noted in the report, USDA Rural Development's Cooperative grants can be used to support building local food systems infrastructure. The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund in Alabama received a grant to establish a vegetable processing and marketing cooperative and a regional goat processing and marketing cooperative. The Federation also trains and supports members involved in direct marketing activities, such as selling at urban farmers markets, redeeming nutrition assistance coupons and selling directly to schools. Part of the grant focused on business planning and training for community development credit unions.

Many such USDA supported projects, as well as others which support local and regional food systems, are part of the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Initiative (KYF). This Initiative coordinates Department wide efforts and work on local and regional food systems. Many food hubs, and similar projects are described in the Know Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Compass, a narrative about USDA's work in local and regional food systems and are on the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Compass Map which maps investments in local and regional food.

President Obama's plan for rural America has brought about historic investment and resulted in stronger rural communities. Under the President's leadership, these investments in housing, community facilities, businesses and infrastructure have empowered rural America to continue leading the way – strengthening America's economy, small towns and rural communities. USDA's investments in rural communities support the rural way of life that stands as the backbone of our American values. President Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack are committed to a smarter use of Federal resources to foster sustainable economic prosperity and ensure the government is a strong partner for businesses, entrepreneurs and working families in rural communities.

USDA, through its Rural Development mission area, has an active portfolio of more than $176 billion in loans and loan guarantees. These programs are designed to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers and improve the quality of life in rural America.

View the original article here

New ways of growing food with TechnoServe SA R40m backing - The New Age Online

TNA Reporter

TechnoServe SA has been granted more than R40m from the jobs fund, based on the continuing success of its agricultural projects across several provinces.

Match-funding will come from long- term partners Standard Bank and the funds have been earmarked to expand and accelerate existing job creation programmes in Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and KwaZulu-Natal.

TechnoServe talks directly to enterprise development in South Africa, helping entrepreneurial men and women build businesses that create income, opportunity and economic growth for their families, their communities and their countries.

TechnoServe operates in 30 countries across Africa, Latin America and Asia and promotes the growth of the SMME business sector through programmes that provide expert advice, technical and business capacity building and that open up markets for entrepreneurs’ goods and services and link them to finance.

South Africa country director Earl Sampson says: “We partner with businesses and industry leaders who have the insight to see the value of people and their communities. We work directly with entrepreneurs and other industry stakeholders in the field, to ensure enterprises thrive on their own and generate continued income for rural communities across South Africa.

“We work alongside small-scale farmers and farming cooperatives, together with all other actors in the agriculture value chain to ensure these farming enterprises are linked to secure markets. We ensure they are given access to the resources needed to produce and supply to these markets and to thereby, over time, become a viable and sustainable part of the broader agriculture value chain.”

Sampson says TechnoServe South Africa brings a unique combination of personal and institutional in-depth experience and relationships in the private sector together with solid technical skills and in-the-field experience: “We are deeply rooted in local communities and our predominantly local staff understands how to foster innovation and change in entrepreneurial skills and mind sets and how to develop the local institutions needed to support a vibrant private sector.”

Partnering with Massmart in their Direct Farm launch last year, TechnoServe put locally produced small-scale farmers’ produce on the shelves of Massmart. The first harvest of 15 tons of beans was delivered in September and classed grade 1. Post the launch, several hundred tons of produce has been delivered and sold, with substantial growth predicted. – View the original article here

Hungry in America: Documentary Exposes the Growing Problem of Starvation ... - TIME

Magnolia Pictures

The film, A Place At The Table, sheds light on an issue many Americans are too ashamed to admit: they’re hungry.

Produced by Top Chef judge Tom Colicchio and directed by his wife and filmmaker Lori Silverbush, the documentary, which is in theaters and available on iTunes on March 1, focuses on the 50 million Americans, including one in four children, who can’t get enough to eat every day.

The film explores some of the factors contributing to the high prevalence of hunger in the U.S., including poverty, inadequate food assistance programs, and the high cost of healthy food. The film follows several characters, including a single mom trying to feed her kids more than canned spaghetti at every meal, and a fifth-grader who can’t concentrate in school because of hunger pangs.

(MORE: Salt Sugar Fat: Q&A With Author Michael Moss)

About 44 million Americans rely on the government’s food assistance plan, or Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides less than $5 per person, per day on average. That’s hardly enough, especially for growing children.

“I think if you ask people, ‘Who’s on food stamps?’ they’d say, ‘People who are out of work and lazy.’ It’s people who work. That’s why I think it’s really important that we increase the minimum wage, because hunger is an issue of poverty,” Colicchio told TakePart.

And if families that are surviving below the poverty line are able to eat, they often aren’t eating well. It’s hard, if not impossible, to buy healthy foods, which often cost more than processed foods, which is one of the many factors New York Times journalist Michael Moss blames for Americans’ addiction to processed food in his new book Salt Sugar Fat. In an interview with TIME, Moss says:

One of the key things for moving forward is that the playing field needs to be leveled in terms of pricing. We all know we should be eating more fresh vegetables and fresh fruits. When you hit that part of the store and you see that blueberries cost $5 for a little basket and you can wheel over to the center of the store and see all these power bars and seemingly healthy things that are in fact loaded with salt, sugar and fat and they are half the price or a third the price, and there are all these other things that can fill up your cart for much less money. That’s a really difficult thing for families to deal with. Everyone is convinced that the government subsidies that support processed food need to be shifted over in some way to fresh fruits and vegetables or it’s going to continue to be hard for even people who want to eat better to do so financially.

That’s a point that Colicchio and Silverbush also make in the documentary. If parents are feeding their children unhealthy foods, it’s because these are the foods that they can afford. Prices, not food scarcity, are a driving factor in what’s purchased at check-out. “It’s easy to demonize parents for making bad choices and feeding their kids fast food with empty calories and lots of fat and no nutrition and sugary drinks,” Colicchio told TakePart. “But if that stuff is cheap and you have no money, the difference between being hungry and crying all night long or putting soda in them—what choice do you have?”

(MORE: Can “Pop-Up” Grocery Stores Solve the Problem of Food Deserts?)

Lack of access also deters healthy eating; with so little to spend on groceries, many families are forced to buy the unhealthy options that fill the shelves at the corner store instead of spending the time and money to seek out fresh foods at grocery stores, which are harder to find in many low-income communities. Such “food deserts” are common in both rural and urban communities where business owners have decided it’s too costly to carry and re-stock nutritious fare. Ree Harris, a mother of four boys in Mississippi who is featured in the documentary, says in the film: “Chips and ice cream and cakes, they have that here. They have lots and lots of stuff like that here. And so that’s why I go to Clarksdale sometime for grocery shopping, or Batesville, about a 45-minute drive. Those that doesn’t have transportation, it’s hard.”

Greater awareness of the prevalence of food deserts, however, spurred grassroots campaigns to bring healthier foods to low-income areas. Some groups have even adopted a “pop-up” or mobile model to provide food to these areas. In July, TIME wrote:

In 2009, the USDA mapped out the nation’s food deserts, tracts that are home to some 23 million Americans. About 10% of the 65,000 census tracts in the U.S. are considered food deserts. Data show that people living in these neighborhoods have limited access to a healthy diet, which can therefore lead to higher levels of obesity and other weight-related illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease. So, can pop-up markets solve the food desert problem? Maybe.

The movement first got going in 2003, when a Bay Area group introduced organic food to West Oakland neighborhoods in a roaming solar-powered, biodiesel-burning food truck. Over the years, the mobile market idea gained steam. In June 2011, Fresh Moves, a Chicago non-profit launched its one-aisle grocery store on board a donated Chicago Transit Authority bus, and currently serves Chicago’s West Side neighborhoods. This August, the Seattle-based group Stockbox Grocers will launch its first store in the city’s South Park neighborhood, serving healthy food and to-go meals out of reclaimed shipping containers and storefronts. Residents of Portland, Ore., Kansas City and Baton Rouge are also seeing groceries-on-the-go rolling through this summer.

In the film, Colicchio and Silverbush also focus on ways to address hunger in America. Leveling prices and redistributing subsidies to help make healthier foods more affordable is one strategy they explore. “Our tax dollars are really going toward prop[ping] up fast food, and if some of that money was siphoned off of corn, wheat and soy subsidies and moved over to fresh fruits and vegetables, it could make a major difference,” Colicchio tells TakePart.

Such advocacy for the hungry may be leading to some solutions. Recently, Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan visited South Dakota State University to announce over $75 million in grants for research, education and projects to promote increased food security in the U.S. and globally. The grants were given to groups at 21 U.S. universities to identify ways to increase the availability of food and reduce the number of Americans who worry every day about where their next meal will come from.

The documentary is also a rallying cry for more action in addressing hunger in America. The filmmakers urge viewers to contact their House and Senate representatives, and provide more resources on their site.

Watch the A Place At The Table trailer here:

Alexandra Sifferlin is a writer and producer for TIME Healthland. She is a graduate from the Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism.

View the original article here

Locally grown food, delivered to your - The Chronicle

Published Mar 1, 2013 at 9:34 am (Updated Mar 1, 2013) var fontSize = 16; $(document).ready(function(){ $('.decreaseFont').click(function() { if(fontSize > 8){ fontSize = fontSize - 1; $('.article-text').css('font-size',fontSize); $('.caption').css('font-size',fontSize); } }); $('.increaseFont').click(function() { if(fontSize Make text smaller Make text larger

A basket of fresh produce from J. Glebocki Farms. This may, or may not, be representatiave of an actual share, depending on what's in season. A share will contain six to eight seasonal vegetables weighing about a pound or a pound and a half each. Potatoes will be in 8 to 12 pound bags. (Photo courtesy of J. Glebocki Farms)

J. Glebocki Farms' market stall in the growing season. (Photo courtesy J. Glebock Farms)

By Ginny Privitar
GOSHEN — Come this June, savvy shoppers can have seasonal, locally grown and freshly picked produce delivered right to their workplace.

J. Glebocki Farms of Goshen is initiating a new Community Supported Agriculture program they’re calling Workplace CSA.

They already have a farm-based CSA program, where shareholders can come to the farm on Maloney Lane on Thursdays to pick up their weekly share during the growing season. But as owner and fifth-generation farmer John Glebocki noted, many people do not live near the farm, so they’ve started this workplace delivery program to make their produce available to everyone.

For each workplace that signs up at least 10 people, Glebocki Farms will deliver, per person, a weekly box of 6-8 seasonal vegetables, for each of the 26 weeks of the growing season, from June 6 through Nov. 27. That works out to about $15 per week, or a total share cost of $400 for the season. Payment plan options are available.

They will be at each workplace location for an hour weekly and will also have a small market set up with additional items that can be purchased. If the shareholder is out that day, a designee can pick up the items for them. Otherwise the share will be donated to a family in need.

A typical early July share might include red Russian kale, red leaf lettuce, purple potatoes, golden beets, baby carrots, yellow zucchini, artichokes and watermelon.

An August share might include garlic, tomatoes, basil, leeks, turnips, potatoes (8-12 pound bag) and spinach. Each delivery comes with a weekly newsletter featuring tasty new recipes to try and news about the farm and workshop programs.

If an individual arranges to manage the program at their workplace, they will receive a free share.

The season kicks off in June. So far they have signed up Crystal Run Healthcare facilities, the Rockland County Department of Health and SUNY Orange.

But the program is not just for workplaces. Church groups, homeowners associations and other groups are encouraged to become members and receive the same benefits.

Shareholders will not only benefit themselves, but their communities. As Glebocki said, “Our commitment is also to our community members. For each 2013 CSA share sold, we will donate one box of produce each week (that's 26 total) to local food pantries.”

SIDEBAR: About J. Glebocki Farms:

J. Glebocki Farms, owned and operated by John Glebocki, grows a wide variety of vegetables and specialty crops for farmer's markets and specialty wholesalers in the tri-state area. They’ve been in business since 1894. Currently they provide produce to 21 farmers markets in the five boroughs of New York City.

On his website, Glebocki says, “We pride ourselves in offering responsibly grown farm fresh produce that is safe and healthy to eat. Since safe growing practices and product handling are priorities at our farm, our shoppers can be confident in the quality of the produce they purchase from J. Glebocki Farms. We are USDA GAP Food Safety Certified (Good Agricultural Practices).

Make text smaller Make text larger

View the original article here

Local food movement growing ranks of younger farmers - Chicago Tribune

Prairie Crossing has various micro farmers that grow vegetables and raise goats, chickens and pigs. (Stacey Wescott, Chicago Tribune)

Nick Batchelder and his wife moved to Chicago at the start of the economic recession, hoping their years of experience in ecology and construction would land them jobs.

After months of scouring the Internet for openings and pumping their contacts for leads, it was only when the couple responded to a Craigslist ad for two farmhands on an organic vegetable farm that they found steady employment.

"All the other stuff we knew how to do weren't really hiring," Batchelder said. "We were like (we) might as well. ... It wasn't any spinning moment of clarity."

Now Batchelder and his wife, Becky Stark, both 32, are hoping the demand for local food will help them expand their own organic farming business.

For decades, the average age of farm operators has been rising, but experts say the growth of the local food movement is giving a new generation of farmers a foothold in the market.

Nonprofits, meanwhile, have offered a slew of new programs to not only support new farmers but also give Illinoisans more opportunities to buy locally grown food.

"There is growing consumer interest in local foods. People are willing to pay a premium on that," said Chuck Hassebrook, executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs. "Young people are learning how to develop and pursue those new markets."

In high school, Curt Elmore never thought he would take over his father's corn and soybean farm in Allerton. But after his father got sick and had to retire in 2006, Elmore felt the lure of a farmer's lifestyle was calling him home.

"That thrusted me into the position of, 'You are on your own,'" Elmore said. "I had to grow up."

Elmore, 34, was the only one of his friends from college and graduate school to pursue farming as a career, he said.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's most recent statistics, the average age of farmers in the United States is 57. In 1982, 16 percent of head farmers were younger than 35, but by 2007 that number had declined to 5 percent.

But behind the aging industry an even larger force is at work: the consolidation of U.S. farmland, experts say.

As universities and extension centers introduced new technology in the 20th century, farm operators were able grow more crops on larger amounts of land with fewer people. Farms had to grow in size to remain competitive in the commodity market.

"We've had fewer and fewer farms but we haven't decreased farmland," said Conner Bailey, a professor of rural sociology at Auburn University in Alabama.

Some farmers sold their land to larger operations, which decreased the number of young people who could inherit a farm. Meanwhile, a farming industry with fewer players but larger territories became even more difficult to break into, experts say.

"We hear from people every day who want to get into farming or ranching," said Virginia Meyer, a rural policy organizer for the Center for Rural Affairs. "I don't think the industry is lacking interest from young people. I think it comes from the lack of opportunity to get into the industry."

Traditional obstacles to getting into farming, such as the price of land and the cost of equipment and materials, have only worsened over the years, experts say.

From 2011 to 2012, cropland values in Illinois grew 17.2 percent, from $5,800 an acre to $6,800, according to a USDA report.

And as farms have consolidated, fewer younger people have been trained in the trade. For those who don't inherit a farm from a family member, the barriers to conventional farming can be insurmountable, experts say.

"I think it would be very tough. The land prices and the initial startup equipment," Elmore said. "You would have to have quite the bankroll. ... There is a lot of money to shovel out."

View the original article here

Olive Garden Promises Smaller, Cheaper Plates

Fret not, Olive Garden lovers: The "endless" breadsticks aren't going away.

An Olive Garden in Hialeah, Fla. (AP Photo/Alan Diaz)But new management has big changes in store for the casual dining chain, which touts family-style Italian food and has struggled with declining sales.

The chain's president, Dave George, told investors on Tuesday the changes include creating a new logo and toning down its the "Old World Style," the Tuscan-style stonework and wooden archways that have been a signature part of Olive Garden restaurants since 2000.

"You're not going to see stainless steel showing up tomorrow in a Tuscan Farmhouse," George said, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

George, who became Olive Garden's president in January, said the look would be "more relevant." Olive Garden is part of the Orlando, Fla.-based Darden Restaurants (DRI) chain that includes Red Lobster and LongHorn Steakhouse.

(Read More: Regulations Mean Subway 'Wouldn't Exist' If Started Now, Founder Claims)

The chain also plans to make its menus more varied and affordable. Darden Restaurants CEO Clarence Otis said that the changes are being made to be "more responsive to the financial realities of our guests," according to the Tampa Bay Times.

Among Olive Garden's changes: smaller plates, cheaper items, and lower-calorie meals. New offerings, placed on the menu in October, include a 420-calorie lasagna primavera with chicken, and a lunch calzone and sandwich combo that costs $6.95. Two weeks ago, all new uniforms were issued - a more contemporary black button-down shirt and black slacks, a shift from the wide ties and white shirts.

The overhaul comes after same-restaurant sales fell 1.2 percent in the 2012 fiscal year that ended in May. For Darden, same-restaurant sales are a year-over-year comparison of sale volumes for restaurants open the last 16 months.

"We became overly confident," read a line in George's presentation. "Our historical competitive advantage has narrowed."

"We were slow to react to changing guest needs," another slide said. "The experience takes too long."

RJ Hottovy, a senior restaurant analyst at Morningstar, said Olive Garden isn't alone. The casual dining market has become tougher in recent years, he said.

(Read More: 10 High-End, Fantasy-Themed Hotel Suites)

"The core casual dining patron finds itself in a much more difficult position than a decade ago -- that's put pressure on traffic trends," Hottovy said.

He said the rise of fast casual restaurants like Chipotle (CMG) and Panera (PNRA) has also encroached on Olive Garden's market.

Dining experience aside, Darden Restaurants said it also was hurt by reports in November that the company planned to cut employee hours to avoid paying for health insurance as mandated for large companies by the Affordable Care Act. The company has since said it would not reduce the hours of full-time workers.

"That's a theme we're seeing across the restaurant industry, not Olive Garden specifically," Hottovy said. "I think that may have been a little bit overblown ... but I think it will be something that ends up pressuring margins for a lot of restaurants next year."

(Read More: Darden Sees Lower Traffic as Consumers Pinched by Economy)

Olive Garden menus are largely the same at its 818 restaurants, although prices vary. At a restaurant outside of Seattle, a grilled chicken Caesar salad costs $11.95. At the same restaurant, a bowl of minestrone soup costs $5.95, and a plate of spaghetti with meat sauce costs $12.95. (Those previously mentioned doughy breadsticks come with every entre and are so popular that they have a Facebook page with 1.5 million "likes.")

More From CNBC
Also Read

View the original article here

'Endless' Love? Smaller, Cheaper Plates at Olive Garden

Fret not, Olive Garden lovers: The "endless" breadsticks aren't going away.

But new management has big changes in store for the casual dining chain, which touts family-style Italian food and has struggled with declining sales.

The chain's president, Dave George, told investors on Tuesday the changes include creating a new logo and toning down its the "Old World Style," the Tuscan-style stonework and wooden archways that have been a signature part of Olive Garden restaurants since 2000.

"You're not going to see stainless steel showing up tomorrow in a Tuscan Farmhouse," George said, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

George, who became Olive Garden's president in January, said the look would be "more relevant." Olive Garden is part of the Orlando, Fla.-based Darden Restaurantschain that includes Red Lobster and LongHorn Steakhouse.

(Read More: Darden Sees Lower Traffic as Consumers Pinched by Economy)

The chain also plans to make its menus more varied and affordable. Darden Restaurants CEO Clarence Otis said that the changes are being made to be "more responsive to the financial realities of our guests," according to the Tampa Bay Times.

Among Olive Garden's changes: smaller plates, cheaper items, and lower-calorie meals. New offerings, placed on the menu in October, include a 420-calorie lasagna primavera with chicken, and a lunch calzone and sandwich combo that costs $6.95. Two weeks ago, all new uniforms were issued — a more contemporary black button-down shirt and black slacks, a shift from the wide ties and white shirts.

The overhaul comes after same-restaurant sales fell 1.2 percent in the 2012 fiscal year that ended in May. For Darden, same-restaurant sales are a year-over-year comparison of sale volumes for restaurants open the last 16 months.

"We became overly confident," read a line in George's presentation. "Our historical competitive advantage has narrowed."

"We were slow to react to changing guest needs," another slide said. "The experience takes too long."

RJ Hottovy, a senior restaurant analyst at Morningstar, said Olive Garden isn't alone. The casual dining market has become tougher in recent years, he said.

(Read More: Subway 'Wouldn't Exist' If Started Today Due to Regulations — Founder Deluca)

"The core casual dining patron finds itself in a much more difficult position than a decade ago -- that's put pressure on traffic trends," Hottovy said.

He said the rise of fast casual restaurants like Chipotle and Panera has also encroached on Olive Garden's market.

Dining experience aside, Darden Restaurants said it also was hurt by reports in November that the company planned to cut employee hours to avoid paying for health insurance as mandated for large companies by the Affordable Care Act. The company has since said it would not reduce the hours of full-time workers.

"That's a theme we're seeing across the restaurant industry, not Olive Garden specifically," Hottovy said. "I think that may have been a little bit overblown ... but I think it will be something that ends up pressuring margins for a lot of restaurants next year."

Olive Garden menus are largely the same at its 818 restaurants, although prices vary. At a restaurant outside of Seattle, a grilled chicken Caesar salad costs $11.95. At the same restaurant, a bowl of minestrone soup costs $5.95, and a plate of spaghetti with meat sauce costs $12.95. (Those previously mentioned doughy breadsticks come with every entre and are so popular that they have a Facebook page with 1.5 million "likes.")

View the original article here

Nature's gift to the garden

Want to know the secret to lush plants and fertile soil without forking out money on garden improvers?

The answer is worms, according to The Worm Shed's Kevin Smith, who has been in the worm business for nearly 30 years.

Mr Smith said worm farms were a great way to recycle food, garden and pet waste while creating nutrient-packed fertiliser gardens loved. He said worms could be housed in anything from a foam or plastic box to an old fridge turned on its side or in the many commercial worm farms on the market.

"A worm farm basically means keeping worms in a controlled environment in the shade and with good drainage," he said.

"Some people use sheep poo or cow poo on their garden but worm poo - also called castings - really is the best there is as it is the most natural fertiliser or soil conditioner you can get."

Mr Smith said that while it could take six to eight weeks from setting up a worm farm to reach the castings stage, it was the liquid a properly set up farm produced daily which was the real boon for the garden.

He said liquid castings, which he bottled and sold as Worm Wiz, was basically the leachate or concentrated form of plant nutrients drawn out of the bottom of the worm farm.

"So instead of using Seasol or fish emulsion, you use Worm Wiz in your garden," he said. "It has no smell and we actually soak our seedlings in it for three-to-four days and then plant them out - it really is a good plant tonic."

Stephen Williamson, managing director of Worm Affair, said it was vital to keep worm farms in a cool, shady spot where they were not exposed to the sun.

"That's the difference between worm composting and worm farming - a worm farm is cool and moist and kept in a shady spot, while a compost bin is kept in the sun to get it as hot as you can while keeping it moist and aerated and then it cooks," he said.

Mr Williamson said liquid fertiliser and castings were pH neutral, so they would not burn plants, and as little as a teaspoon of the liquid would have an effect on a plant. He said it was best to add the liquid to a plant after it had been planted and watered in, while castings could be scattered around the base of the plant.

"It's best to dilute it down by at least half and then you can put it on to your pot plants, your rose bushes, your vegetables, whatever you want," he said.

Mr Williamson said the best worms for farms were red worms, tiger worms and Indian blue worms, and that if food was decaying faster than the worms could eat, they were being overfed and the worm farm would start to smell and attract vinegar flies.

TIP: It is better to buy worms by weight rather than number as it is easier to work out how much to feed them.

View the original article here

Major makeover for Olive Garden

Remember when you were "family" as soon as you walked into an Olive Garden? Remember when the restaurants' exterior and interior were laden with every bit of faux-Italian kitsch under the Tuscan sun? Yeah, that's over.

Welcome to The O.G. In an attempt to turn around the flagging performance of its Olive Garden chain, parent company Darden International (DRI) is tearing down the stone-and-wood archways that have been in place since 2000 and sprucing up the logo.

After installing new Olive Garden President Dave George in January, cutting quarterly expectations for both its Olive Garden and Red Lobster chains and suggesting to The Associated Press that fewer Olive Gardens will open in the next year, a struggling Darden is getting ready to gut its Italian dining cornerstone down to the bottlomless breadsticks. The chain is promising to vary its menu, lower its prices and make it healthier and more "relevant." Unfortunately, it has done all this before with limited effects.

Back in October, Olive Garden introduced 600-calorie menu items and swapped its "When You're Here, Your Family Slogan" for the peppier "Go Olive Garden." The result? Olive Garden sales fell 1.2% for all of 2012. Now the chain is swapping the staff's white shirts and wide ties for the same black button-down shirt and black slacks customers see at just about every other casual-dining chain.

Extracting what remains of Olive Garden's personality may not solve the chain's personality crisis. Since Olive Garden's heyday in the early 2000s, fast-casual chains like Chipotle (CMG) and Panera (PNRA) have been chipping away at its customer base. NPD Group says casual-dining sales in general have been dropping steadily since early 2010 as diners 18 to 47 years old flee in droves. Unsustainable price specials like 2-for-$20 meal deals have eroded casual-dining's value.

While diners are spending 5.5% more at casual-dining chains that offer healthier options, they're spending a lot less at places like Olive Garden overall. Darden has repeatedly placed the blame for woes at Olive Garden and its other chains on Obamacare, payroll taxes and just about everything besides its food and prices. It's just dressing its old problems in some new clothing.

So, farewell fake Tuscan farmhouse and funny waiter ties. The American dining public that's slowly ditching Olive Garden for fast-casual and specialty chains like Buffalo Wild Wings (BWLD) eagerly awaits the staid, stainless steel specials factory that's coming next.

More on moneyNOW

View the original article here

Epcot set to bloom for Flower & Garden Festival

2012 Epcot Flower Fest
One of the fan-favorite topiaries, on display for the 2012 Epcot International Flower & Garden Festival, Friday, March 3, 2012, at the park at Walt Disney World. (JOE BURBANK/ORLANDO SENTINEL)

The Epcot International Flower & Garden Festival returns for its 20th run on Wednesday. Some elements, including several topiaries and the floating gardens, already are in place at the theme park. There are new twists this year, including 12 marketplaces serving distinctive food and drink plus, for the first time, most of the gardens will be illuminated for night viewing.

We'll have loads of details in next Friday's Calendar section, but in the meantime here are a few of the Flower & Garden attractions in place and a heads-up on future sights.

•When you see the Captain Hook topiary in the United Kingdom pavilion, look up for a new perspective on Peter Pan.

•A garden tied to Disney film "Oz the Great and Powerful," opening March 8, includes a few carnival games, pansies (and colored turf) that form the yellow-brick road, a slew of playground equipment and a shade-providing tent made from a downed hot-air balloon. Nearby: glass poppies.

•It's easy to spot topiaries of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in Germany, dancing princesses near France, a troll in Norway, and Lady and the Tramp in Italy. Coming soon: a Sully (touting "Monsters University" movie, which premieres June 21) that's more than 11 feet tall and weighs about 2 tons.

•The front flower bed is installed in the wee hours before the festival begins. Expect a backyard-cookout theme with Mickey Mouse grilling up hot dogs, Donald and Daisy in a badminton match and Goofy perilously balancing a giant cake marking the fest's 20th year.

View the original article here

Grass-roots efforts in downtown Concord to transform vacant lot to productive garden

CONCORD -- In a literal expression of "grass roots," Oakland Avenue neighbors are pulling up weeds and improving first impressions of Concord. They joined together to transform an unsightly vacant lot facing the Concord BART station into a fresh food garden.

August Wagele and his neighbors started clearing debris and building fences for the Harvest Lot garden last Saturday, but the project officially kicks off at 10 a.m. Saturday, March 2.

The Harvest Lot mission is to produce healthy food for the hungry in this area, demonstrate sustainability and beautify their neighborhood.

"It is hard work, but it is great being out there in the fresh air," Wagele says. "It will be even better when there is produce to load up and hand out to people who will eat it."

Weeds, vagrants, trash, campfires and even "occupiers" with signs have littered the lot for years. Real estate agent for the investor-owned 50x150-foot lot tried to secure the property while police kept an eye on it, according to Realtor Chad Elkin of Chad Mitchell Associates.

Still, neighbors watched and worried about security.

"I was passing by on my way home last summer when I realized that the whole neighborhood was dragged down by blight and nuisances. I decided to do something about it," Wagele recalls. "I had been thinking about sustainability and the idea for transforming the eyesore property into a productive resource."

Wagele turned that thought into the

nonprofit Harvest Lot and started recruiting neighbors and negotiating for permission to clean up the lot and plant food.

"I think the garden is a good idea because it will improve the neighborhood, and it could improve property values," Elkin says.

When volunteers Sheila Hill and Brent Nelson joined the Harvest Lot garden board of directors and a two-year lease on the property was signed, Wagele's enthusiasm soared. He went to work on a garden plan and Meet Up connection for communicating with volunteers and posting planting schedules.

"Sheila has extensive experience with the garden at Eagle Peak School in Walnut Creek and we have a Master Gardener coming in," he says.

Nelson says he is glad to be a part of the project.

"It's a great concept ... through education and providing free food, we can help educate people on the benefits and importance of making more health-conscious eating decisions."

Volunteers call it an agricultural restoration.

"Cathy Munneke, at the Concord Department of Economic and Community Development, told me about Concord's agricultural history. This undeveloped lot is a remnant of that history," Wagele says.

"If we can make this work, it can become a model for other neighborhoods," he says. "Vacant lots that are part of the neighborhood, it is a way to bond with the community. Neighbors will watch over it and be able to help others in our community."

The group plans to produce a manual to guide others who can use the Harvest Lot as a template for improving a vacant lot in their own neighborhood.

Harvest Lot produce is destined for the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano County, the Monument Crisis Center, SHARE on Willow Pass Road, and other local food pantries.

"Hopefully, we will create a more healthy community, to benefit the community as a whole," Nelson says.

Wagele believes their project reflects a larger contemporary movement.

"I think our society has drifted so far away from our history that people want to connect with the earth. So many people have their own chickens, are growing their own food."

The growth of the organic food industry and the popularity of farmers markets, Trader Joe's and Whole Foods are evidence of the trend, according to Wagele.

Other signs include efforts such as the Mt. Diablo Unified School District's Iron Chef competition emphasizing nutrition and flavor, Vicente Martinez High School's New Leaf program, Sustainable Danville's garden, and the recent Earth Island Institute application to lease Central Contra Costa Sanitary District land for a sustainable farm.

"Then there is the economy," Wagele says. "People may be thinking that life got a little too easy. Technology, fast food, microwave and dehydrated food; what about the link to rising rates of childhood obesity and diabetes?"

Some have already stepped up to help the garden project. A horse owner brought a load of manure for composting, Ashby Lumber donated some of the wood for fences, and Home Depot gave Harvest Lot a 25 percent discount on other materials.

"We will be reaching out to local individuals, businesses and foundations for financial support and we will have a sponsor plaque at the front of the garden recognizing those in the community who help or contribute to the garden," Wagele says.

View the original article here

Pesticides deserve a closer look - Pocono Record

What we already know about the dangers of pesticides should give us pause about introducing another one.

This week the American Bird Conservancy published a study that found acutely toxic pesticides — not habitat loss — primarily to blame for widespread declines in grassland bird populations. The study looked at data from 1980 to 2003 and examined five other potential causes of the bird declines, from changes in cropped pasture to herbicide use. The study found a link between states with high use of toxic insecticides lethal to birds and states with the greatest number of bird declines, including the Horned Lark in 25 states and the Ring-necked Pheasant in 19 states. Continuing use of pesticides "may drive bird populations to local extinction," study author Dr. Pierre Mineau, a Canadian toxicologist, said.

Meanwhile scientists are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to stop the approval process for yet a new insecticide, Sulfoxaflor, which the EPA has proposed for "conditional registration." Solfoxaflor is proposed for use on soybeans, turf grass, wheat, vegetables and fruit crops.

But the Center for Food Safety, the Pesticide Action Network, American Bird Conservancy and Friends of the Earth are arguing that Sulfoxaflor is "articularly concerning" because it's water soluble, persistent and highly toxic to bees and other pollinators. Honey bee colonies have been in sharp decline over the past decade. Also, the chemical's potential toxicity to humans and other mammals hasn't been explored enough yet, the groups said in a letter to EPA.

Few of us keep bees or count grassland bird populations. But it's important for everyone to recognize that every species plays a role in the natural environment. Shrinking honey bee populations can reduce the availability of certain foods, driving up prices. Their disappearance can also be a sign of a larger, not fully recognized environmental problem. Likewise, losing vast numbers of birds that were once common to whole regions could, ultimately, have significant and not yet known spinoff effects.

The EPA should take a harder look at Sulfoxaflor especially against the backdrop of the new study from Canada. Agronomists should be exploring new ways of managing insect pests, especially in food crops, without the collateral damage of poisoning birds and other creatures.

We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Rules. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or fill out this form. New comments are only accepted for two weeks from the date of publication.

View the original article here

Pesticide report confirms safety of US food - Western Farm Press

The newest data from the PDP program confirm that pesticide residues in food do not pose a safety concern for Americans.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has posted data from the 2011 Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary. This information, along with an explanatory guide for consumers, can be found at www.ams.usda.gov/pdp. The 2011 PDP report confirms that overall pesticide chemical residues found on the foods tested are at levels below the tolerances established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and do not pose a safety concern.

In May of 1991, USDA initiated the PDP to test commodities in the U.S. food supply for pesticide residues. Since passage of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), one of PDP’s focuses has been on testing foods that are most likely consumed by infants and children.

AMS partners with cooperating state agencies to collect and analyze pesticide chemical residue levels on selected foods. In implementing the FQPA, the EPA uses data from PDP to enhance its programs for food safety and help evaluate dietary exposure to pesticides.

Each year, USDA and EPA work together to identify foods to be tested on a rotating basis. In 2011, surveys were conducted on a variety of foods including fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, soybeans, eggs, dairy products, and water. Similar to previous years, the 2011 report shows that overall pesticide chemical residues found on foods tested are at levels well below the tolerances set by the EPA. The report does show that residues exceeding the tolerance were detected in 0.27 percent of the samples tested. Some residues were found with no established tolerance levels or tolerance exemptions, but EPA has determined the extremely low levels of those residues are not a food safety risk, and the presence of such residues does not pose a safety concern.

Statement from USDA:

“Consistent with guidance from health and nutrition experts – and as affirmed federal nutrition guidance that urges people to make half their plate fruits and vegetables – we encourage everyone to continue to eat more fruits and vegetables in every meal and wash them before you do so.”

Statement from FDA:

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is responsible for assessing whether pesticide chemical residues found on food make the food unlawful under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

FDA reviews possible violations revealed by the USDA’s PDP testing and conducts follow-up sampling if necessary, under its own pesticide residue monitoring program to ensure compliance and to protect the public health.

Statement from EPA:

“The newest data from the PDP program confirm that pesticide residues in food do not pose a safety concern for Americans. EPA remains committed to a rigorous, science-based, and transparent regulatory program for pesticides that continues to protect people’s health and the environment.”

Since its inception, the program has tested 109 commodities including fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, meat and poultry, grains, catfish, rice, specialty products, and water. This year, the program expanded to include samples of canned beets, papayas, snap peas, and tangerines.

The data is a valuable tool for consumers, food producers and processors, chemical manufacturers, environmental interest groups, and food safety organizations.

The findings of the Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2011 can be downloaded at www.ams.usda.gov/pdp. Printed copies of it will be available later this year and can be obtained by writing to the Monitoring Programs Division, Science and Technology, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 8609 Sudley Rd., Suite 206, Manassas, Va., 20110; by faxing (703) 369-0678; by calling (703) 330-2300, Ext. 110; or by submitting an e-mail request to amspo.data@ams.usda.gov.

View the original article here

EU move 'could threaten development of pesticides' - Scotsman

Mike Bushell is the principal scientific advisor with Syngenta, the Swiss-based chemical company currently embroiled in a battle to retain the use of one of its major pesticides used in the treatment of oilseed rape seed. He was adamant that no-one would invest in any future programme of insecticide approval if new regulations came in.

“Any new product with even moderate toxicity to bees would require an incredibly expensive field programme using thousands of beef hives. It would be impossible and impractical to run such a programme and nobody would invest in it,” he said.

He believed that much of the current furore over the future use of neonicotinoids was ideologically driven by those who wished to remove all crop protection products from the market.

Neonicotinoids are the most important family of insecticides and their removal from the market could have wide-ranging economic consequences for European farmers, he claimed.

Farmers would be left with very few options to protect their crops and even those chemicals that remained would soon lose their effectiveness, he argued.

Although the big political concern over the continued use of the neonicotinoids relates to potential danger to the bee population, Bushell said that it was noticeable that many bee keepers did not agree as they accepted there were many other possible reasons for the collapse of their hives.

The whole issue was triggered by a report by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) expressing concern over a linkage between neonicotinoid use and upsets in the bee population.

Bushell disputed their results, saying he was seriously concerned over how the EFSA ?assessment had been carried out, claiming that it did not reflect field conditions

Following that report, the EU Food and Health commissioner, Toni Berg, indicated that a ban on certain neonicotinoids could be in the offing. However, with maize – another crop that uses the seed treatment – and oilseed rape crops being grown extensively across Europe, there is a resistance to a complete ban and a compromise paper is being prepared by the commissioner which will be considered in the middle of next month.

View the original article here

Organic Food Or Genetically Engineered Food Anyone?

Organic food is increasingly in demand as discriminate consumers become more aware of just how much common food items are the product of genetic engineering. Did you know that over half of processed foods that the average shopper drops in a grocery cart has some engineered ingredients in the products such as corn that contains a small amount of pesticide in every cell? Or did you know that over 80% of all soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered to withstand heavy chemical exposure from agricultural weedkiller without dying itself? Even foods that claim to be "organic" are not always totally organic in nature. Usually the product may only have a portion of organic ingredients. Only food items that are labeled "certified organic" are truly organic.

Just about everywhere you turn, there are genetically modified foods in favorite drinks, fast foods, packaged frozen foods and even in some of the "organic" versions of the same. So what are health conscious consumers who want to avoid genetically engineered foods as much as possible to do? Other than grow your own organic food supply in your back yard, here are a few suggestions that will help you find safe replacements to the commonly produced food supply.

Choose Certified Organic Foods

When you shop at a grocery store or whole food store, be sure to look for food that carries a label reading "Certified Organic." This is the best assurance that you are purchasing organically grown foods. Don't be fooled by simply the word "organic" listed somewhere in a title or on a food label. Only a "Certified Organic" label is the real deal.

Check the Produce Codes

A handy bit of information to help you double check your produce as to whether or not it is organic is to simply check the PLU code that is printed on the small sticker attached to all produce. If the code begins with a 9, then it's really organic produce. If the code starts with a 4, it is conventionally produced and if the code starts with an 8, it is genetically engineered. While there are only a few varieties of engineered produce sold, this knowledge is helpful in distinguishing between organic produce and the rest.

Patronize Local Farms in Your Area

One of the best places to find good produce is to pick it up from your local farmer's market or produce stand on the corner. Some local farms also will allow you to pick your own fruits or vegetables straight from the plants. This type of produce generally has a better flavor, usually has less or no pesticide residue than its big store counterpart and is fresher because it has not traveled thousands of miles to end up on your dinner table.

You also get an added bonus of meeting some very fine, local farmers who may divulge some of their farming knowledge to you for free! You may also find unpasturized milk and cheese from area farmers that is delicious and healthy. Even though some of the local foods may not be "certified organic," you can bet that they are healthier than just about anything you will find in a large grocery store chain.

While it may take a little time investigating your best food sources that are truly organic, it is well worth the effort given the huge rewards to gain in better health and better tasting foods for you and your family.

P.S. Orr has been writing articles for 6 years on a variety of topics of interest. Come visit the latest website at http://www.cheapjewelryarmoire.net/ which helps people find the best deals on quality jewelry armoire furniture and more information about beautiful jewelry armoires of every kind.

Frequently Asked Questions About Organic Foods

Q: What Are Organic Foods?

A:Organic foods are foods that are grown naturally without the use of any pesticides, chemicals or fertilizers. Organic farming in its strictest sense is bigger than backyard gardening using natural methods. However, there has been a growing trend to grow fruits and vegetables organically in the private garden too. Some of these private garden supplies make their way onto the local farmer's market were they are purchased by individuals looking for organic produce. Regulated organic foods must receive certain certification in some countries in order to be sold on the open market in huge volumes.

Q: Why Are Organic Foods Becoming Popular?

A: The actual organic foods movement is recorded to have started in the 1940s. Today more and more people who are seeking to eat healthy and are turning to organically grown produce. Studies show that naturally farmed fruits and vegetables are healthier than genetically modified produce which in some cases has been linked to chronic disease. The popularity of organic foods is being fueled by the growing awareness of the potential dangers of GMO produce and the benefits of eating foods without chemicals, pesticides and other harmful elements.

Q: What Are The Environmental Benefits Of Organic Farming?

A: Environmental benefits are the other reason why this type of farming and its produce are becoming more popular. To begin with, farming organically does not release harmful pesticides and chemicals into the environment. Studies show that chemicals soak into the environment ending up in rivers and streams where they affect marine life amongst other dangers. In a nutshell unlike organic farming, fertilizer aided farming disturbs the ecosystem and overtime may cause irreparable damage.

Organic farming clearly affords an opportunity to the environment regenerate itself without the effects of chemicals and pesticides.

Q: Will Organic Farming Become The Leading Method Of Food Production?

A: This appears highly unlikely in the immediate future. Due to climate change it is becoming increasingly difficult to attain food security in many parts of the world. As a result there is instead a growing use of GMO foods that are drought resistant and can feed more people.

At a commercial level it is clear that organic farming is growing year after year. Private gardens will become the new frontiers for micro organic farming primarily for immediate healthy eating reasons. More people are becoming aware of the dangers of weight gain and obesity in relation to hypertension and heart disease. These concerns will likely be drivers for private organic farming.

Organic Foods - Better Or Not? What the Research is Showing

Organic foods are the ones which are grown without any use of artificial fertilizers. It refrains from using pesticides, fertilizers, growth hormones, genetic engineering or antibiotics. Organic food is the culmination for organic farming, which employs traditional techniques and crop rotation to maintain fertility in soil and pests free crop.

There are great health benefits that one can get by simply including organic food in our diets. Organic food is not only good for our health but is also beneficial to our environmental health due to the methods used to produce them.

Given below are some points which highlights "why organic foods are better"

Consumption of organic foods boosts energy levels as it contains less toxins and chemicals which are harmful to human body.

They contain higher levels of nutrients which are essential to fight infections thus making your body resistant to diseases.

They are also proved to be beneficial in fighting chronic health disorders which are on a constant rise in society today.

Non-organic fruit contains 30 various pesticides even after washing which may prove fatal to you health unlike organic fruit which is pesticide free.

Organic food producers are inspected more often as compared to other food producers. So in order to meet the requirements they have to follow strict guidelines and standards.

In organic dairy animals are not fed drugs, chemicals and growth hormones unlike non-organic dairy where these artificial things are used, the effects of which are finally passed on to the people when they consume it.

As production of organic food does not contain use of artificial pesticides or drugs which are harmful to soil, they are considered environmental friendly.

Studies have also revealed that organic foods are not genetically modified. Genetically modified products pose a serious threat to animals as well as human beings.

They are safe and natural to eat as they are not filled with harmful additives and chemicals which are harmful for human body.

In spite of immense popularity of organic food in recent times, organic farmers are still facing some challenges. Firstly in comparison to conventional food items, organic food is more fast perishable by nature as it does not use any preservatives or pesticides. This calls for a burden on producers to sell the goods as soon as possible in markets. On the other hand for customers it becomes a thumb rule to purchase organic food in small quantities and fill the stocks on a regular basis. Secondly the market for organic foods is still not developed much.

The need of the hour is to create awareness about organic foods and to build marketing and technical infrastructure to meet the demand of consumers as well as producers. Thirdly organic foods are more costly to grow as compared to conventional food items available in market. This high cost of producing organic food is finally borne by customer in the form of increased prices of these goods in the market.

If you decide to go for organic foods, at least make sure make sure the USDA stamp is printed on the package.

To Your Health!

Abortion Clinic Dr. James S. Pendergraft opened the Orlando Women's Center in March 1996. Free HIV Testing, physical examinations, family planning and counseling.