Want a Locavore Thanksgiving? Here's How

So you've decided you want stay as local as possible this holiday, but you're not quite sure where to get the goods. A host of online resources will tell you more than you ever wanted to know.

The Local Harvest and Sustainable Table Websites provide quality directories of farms, farmers markets, organic groceries, community gardens, co-ops and other resources in every region. And since no holiday meal is the best it can be without some quality beverages, check these site for local wineries, breweries, distilleries and apple orchards, where freshly pressed apple cider is sure to be available.

Another thing to take into consideration is the types of foods you buy. By choosing lesser-known but often more flavorful heritage species, you can help various plants and animals avoid extinction. Slow Food USA’s Ark of Taste program presents a catalog of over 200 species that might not survive on this Earth if you don't buy them and eat them.

You can apply this heritage principle to your turkey as well. The majority of conventionally raised turkeys are the broad-breasted white breed, but the variety of other types of turkey are usually tastier and more interesting. Check out the the "sources of righteous foods" on the Heritage Foods USA Website to find the source for heritage birds in your neighborhood.

Interested in learning more about heritage foods? Give a listen to the Heritage Radio Network, where you can find such programming as the Heritage Farm Report or The Mr. Cutlets Show. The newly launched Edible Radio channel even has a program about heritage turkeys.

Photo courtesy of stock.xchng

Use of Food Stamps in Farmers Markets Doubles

Sales of farmers markets produce paid for using food stamps doubled this year in New York City. Though it still only comprises 0.1 per cent of total food stamp purchases the increase indicates an eagerness for fresh food and good produce. City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn explained to the Times that “I would like the goal over my next term to get it to $1 million per year.”

The program only runs at 23 markets, and only for part of the year, but two markets alone accounted for one third of the sales. Farmers markets are not an elitist indulgence, but a desired and often affordable source of food. The two markets did so well because they were located in communities that have a severe lack of supermarkets and grocery stores. This a problem we've encountered and discussed before: the shameful "Food Deserts": a situation often found in poor neighborhoods that lack access to reasonably priced healthy food.

The United States Department of Agriculture is so pleased with the food stamp and markets scheme that it will be expanding the scheme nationwide. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene meanwhile will give a bonus of $2 for every $5 spent at some markets to encourage more people to eat fruit and veg. Food deserts may yet become oases of fresh and healthy produce.

Photo: Ed Yourdon

Get Local with the 100-Mile Thanksgiving

If you eat the average Thanksgiving meal, your food will have traveled an average of 1,500 miles to make it to your groaning board.

Is that really the kind of carbon-emitting karma you want around the holiday table? If you'd rather something a little kinder and softer to the Earth, not to mention the local farmers in your area, maybe you should think about keeping it local this year.

100-Mile Diet, an organization dedicated to encouraging local eating, is promoting its 4th annual 100-Mile Thanksgiving. The challenge? Keep your holiday chowing focused on your home turf. The Website points out the truly American nature of such a meal: "We’re taking the harvest celebration back to its roots: fresh, local, seasonal food."

Visit the site to input your own story of local eating this year and find what others have to report. The list of stories includes traditional New England recipes and a report that in "Northampton, New Hampshire, Even Found Flour." Download posters, brochures, t-shirt designs and Web banners to spread the word far and wide, and check out the page of local food resources to find out where to look for your area's local agricultural treasures.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Image courtesy of 100-Mile Thanksgiving

Program Cuts to Hurt Farmers, Environment

In response to the American farm crisis of the 1980s -- caused by cascading commodity and land prices after the farm boom of the 1970s -- the USDA created the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in 1985 to encourage farmers to take marginal, and highly erodible, farmland out of production.

For leaving their land fallow, farmers that chose to enroll in the CRP were eligible to receive annual rental payments from the USDA for the length of their contract period (either 10 or 15 years).  The idea is that taking marginal farmland out of production would help increase land and commodity prices while also helping to reduce erosion and increase wildlife habitat.

Now, even though many view the CRP as the most effective conservation program in the United States, millions of acres across the country are going to be taken out of the program, and many will be put back into production.

In between September and October of 2009 alone, contracts on more than 2.7 million acres of American farmland enrolled in the CRP expired.  Many of these contracts were not renewed in order to meet the new cap, authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill, of 32 million acres allowed in the program at any one time.

Environmentalists argue that the CRP has been a boon for wildlife populations, especially in the Mid-Western states where many CRP contracts are held.  According to one staff member from The Nature Conservancy, "What CRP clearly does is take out highly erodible land, often near streams and ponds, and give it more value by providing tremendous habitat, for example, for grassland birds."

Unfortunately now that these contracts are expiring, and rental payments are drying up, farmers may have no choice but the start working the land again -- even with the potential negative impacts on animal habitat and the environment.

One positive thing about changes to the CRP is that a new provision, also authorized in the most recent Farm Bill, allows farmers with land coming out of the CRP to lease or sell their land to beginning or disadvantaged farmers who use sustainable or organic land management practices.

Anyone need some land to farm?

(Photo credit: Robb North on Flickr)

Yoko Ono, 50 Cent, Hard Rock Cafe Join to 'Imagine There's No Hunger'

Yoko Ono and 50 Cent have teamed up to fight hunger asking us to Imagine There's No Hunger. Yoko Ono explains "By imagining there’s no hunger, like what John sang in his song, we express our strong desire to bring a world in which children will never again suffer from hunger or poverty." Through a campaign being run with Hard Rock Cafe, the Hungerthon is hoping to raise money for WHY Hunger, which will help benefit people across the world from China to Haiti, Lesotho to Nicaragua. 50 Cent is doing his part by wearing the bracelet the reads "Imagine There's No Hunger."

WHY was founded to attack the root causes of hunger. We often forget in this fight for a complete and international sustainable food system that we must engender social change, not just grow crops better, and solely advocate sustainable farming methods — we must share expertise, educate, and create efficient and fair markets. WHY work to create self-reliance and provide economic justice. WHY also works to help America's poor and hungry, reminding us that we needn't look as far as Uganda to find people effected by food insecurity.

Photo: Seattle Mad Dog

How Many Football Stadiums Can America's Hungry People Fill?

The New York Times reported last week that 49 million Americans lived last year in households lacking regular access to adequate food. That's 13 million more people than the year before and the highest number since the government began tracking the issue 14 years ago.

Can you even imagine 49 million people?

Miami's Land Shark Stadium, which will host Super Bowl XLIV on February 7, seats 75,000 fans. This country's hungry people would fill up 653 such stadiums. That many 350,000-square-foot stadiums would cover around eight square miles, which is the approximate area of downtown Chicago.

How in the world does a country that is overrun with food have that many hungry people?

The US has become a nation of hyper-capitalists, pursuing the almighty dollar to the exclusion of a fair and kind society and cultivating public approbation of the idea that its pursuit is the worthiest goal of any rational citizen.

While there is nothing wrong with pursuing opportunity, there is, I would venture to say, something wrong with putting financial gain at the center of our world to such an extent that income inequality leads to poverty that forces eight square miles of people to go to bed hungry every night.

Is this due to a fundamental lack of compassion in the system we've created? And if so, does it reflect a lack of compassion in ourselves?

I imagine that none of us would say we want people to be hungry, but the ethos that the majority of us seem to subscribe to — that we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it at the lowest price, as long as we don't have to witness the cost to others or the environment — contributes directly to a society that values profit, convenience and materialism over fairness, patience and kindness.

We won't solve our hunger problem until we decide it is unacceptable to maintain a culture that views hungry people — not to mention despoiled nature — as the collateral damage of the unquestioned need — or should I say duty? — to strive for financial gain.

Photo courtesy of ian ransley via flickr

Want to Beef Up Your Local Chops? Try Meat-Sharing

Does the locally raised, grass-fed meat you find at the farmers market trump your budget? The cost of sustainable meat is high, which is good since it means we might view it as a little more precious and occasional than many Americans do. But is there some way to directly support local farmers and get meat a little cheaper?

Why not try meat-sharing? The concept isn't new — it's basically a community-supported agriculture program for meat — but its popularity is picking up steam as interest in local food soars. The Oakland Local introduces readers to the Bay Area Meat CSA, which advertises itself with the straightforward tagline "buy good, healthy meat directly from local ranchers."

Mark Markovich, a satisfied customer who had bought 70 pounds of meat with some friends from Morris Grassfed Beef, ticked off a list of benefits: keeping money local, helping ranchers support themselves, reducing your carbon footprint. "You’re helping support the entire ecosystem," he told Oakland Local. "People talk about eating within a 100-mile radius of their homes. We can do that here. From field to fork, I know exactly what is going on with the food I’m eating.”

The Website Local Harvest lists CSAs by zip code, including many that provide meat.

Photo courtesy of tvol via flickr

More GE Crops, More Pesticides

A new report by Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center, says that genetically engineered crops are forcing use of pesticides rapidly upwards.

The report, titled "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years" and principally informed by data from the USDA, finds that GE crops have caused an increase in the use of herbicide in the US of 383 million pounds over the 13 years GE crops have been used commercially.

But what about all that talk of GE corn and cotton driving the use of insecticides to celebrated lows? According to the report, the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds is responsible for the dramatic herbicide upswing, a phenomenon that will not be news to farmers.

"Weed control is now widely acknowledged as a serious management problem within GE cropping systems," the report's preface states. "But skyrocketing herbicide use is news to the public at large, which still harbors the illusion, fed by misleading industry claims and advertising, that biotechnology crops are reducing pesticide use."

Today's GE crops, then, have a "decidedly negative" chemical footprint. While much of the debate about the health and safety of GE crops has focused around the potential danger of the organisms to humans and the unpredictable disturbances of ecological systems, this study brings a new angle on their safety into the debate, both for human and ecological health.

These concerns are very important, considering, as the report concludes, farmers have largely lost control of their seed supplies, so there is nothing they can do about the need to use more pesticides. Benbrook writes in the report's conclusion that:

Until public plant breeding programs and seed companies re-emerge that are dedicated to producing conventional seeds, farmers will have to accept and plant what the seed industry chooses to offer, and the public will have to live with considerable uncertainty over the novel food safety and environmental risks posed by these new crops.

Before all the GM-boosters out there brush off this study as another piece of hippie drivel, let me point out that the study's author was previously Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences, and before that Executive Director of the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture, which has jurisdiction over pesticide regulation, research, trade and foreign agricultural concerns. Further, the mission of the Organic Center is "to generate credible, peer reviewed scientific information and communicate the verifiable benefits of organic farming and products to society."

Without such objective and rigorous assessments of such issues, the report's preface states, "American agriculture is likely to continue down the road preferred by the biotechnology industry." All I can say is genetically engineering our food is looking like a worse and worse idea.

Photo courtesy of andypowe11 via flickr

WTF Obama! Get Big Ag Players Out of Government

The fact that there's a revolving door between government and industry will come as news to no one. What is surprising (though hardly, says the cynical devil on my shoulder) is that President Obama continues to spin it around.

What ever happened to "No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years" (as stated in Obama's ethics rules)?

Whatever happened to "We'll tell ConAgra that it's not the Department of Agribusiness. It's the Department of Agriculture. We're going to put the people's interests ahead of the special interests" (speech to the Iowa Farmers Union, November 2007)?

Well, he's whistling a different tune now. The administration has recently nominated two big-ag insiders to do things "directly and substantially related to their former employers":

• Islam Siddiqui — Now: VP of science and regulatory affairs at CropLife, an industry group for crop science and pesticides. Nominated for: U.S. Chief Agricultural Negotiator, a critical position that puts him in place to push chemical pesticides and biotechnology on other nations.
• Roger Beachy — Then: founding President of the Danforth Plant Science Center, a nonprofit research center heavily funded by Monsanto and with the CEO of Monsanto on its Board of Trustees. Now: director of the USDA’s newly created National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), an office with a $500 million budget to shape U.S. agricultural research.

Oh, Obama, some of us had such faith in you, but it looks like it's politics as usual. (Except, of course, for the fact that the US Congress might well actually confirm someone named "Islam" for something, which is the delicious, delicious irony of this whole sordid affair.)

Around and around the revolving door goes, where it stops, no one knows.

On the bright side, he has brought the other side along some too with the appointment of organic ag advocate Kathleen Merrigan as deputy secretary of the USDA. Unfortunately she has to work under another big-ag acolyte, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, who was named "governor of the year" by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Grist food editor Tom Philpott writes that pairing the likes of Siddiqui and Beachy with Merrigan in the administration has left him with "a kind of policy whiplash." The reason, he conjectures, is that

"Obama likes cutting-edge ideas. You look at the ag landscape, and you see two distinct areas with great innovation, energy, and movement: biotech and organic/sustainable. So he’s coming out strong behind both camps, and plans to sit back and see which one develops the best ideas."

But how, exactly, is pitting one organic booster against three (and likely more) big-ag champions "coming out strong behind both camps"? Philpott does go on to say that the big-ag side of things has massive advantages — more money, dominant roles in university research, government-industry cronyism, intellectual property rights, the list goes on — so that "if Obama is setting up a kind of contest between the two camps, the game is rigged in advance."

Indeed, in this wildly uneven atmosphere, Obama's support of Merrigan seems less like "coming out strong" and more like throwing a bone to the organic crowd. Too bad Michelle isn't making policy.

ACT NOW: Siddiqui has yet to be confirmed, though his nomination hearings occurred earlier this month (here's a PDF of his statement). Sign the petition sponsored by the Pesticide Action Network North America and call your Senators to let our leaders know this is not the man for the job.

Photo courtesy of Dan4th via flickr

Ag in Africa: Foreign 'Feudal Lords' and 'Diabolical' Seed Companies

In looking at the world leaders gathered at this week's World Summit on Food Security in Rome, one does not except to see the eccentric Muammar Gaddafi as a beacon of logic in the storm. The unusual ruler, after all, spent part of his weekend in Italy's capital trying to convert 500 women he hired from an escort service to Islam — after, that is, he arrived in a white limo to speak to them, reports the UK's Mail Online.

He might not have persuaded very many of his female quarry to convert — "I thought we were going to a party - we didn't even get a glass of water or some salty snack," one woman reportedly said — but on the issue of global agriculture he was entirely convincing. He warned the other assembled leaders that foreign companies that are procuring massive tracts of farmland in Africa are becoming the continent's “new feudal lords," reports Reuters.

“In Africa, foreign investors buy farmland, transforming themselves into new feudal lords against whom we must fight,” Gaddafi said at the summit. Indeed many are calling the ominous development a massive "land grab," and the UK's Times Online went so far as to dub it "modern imperialism."

Investors from rich countries have snapped up some 50 million acres of land across Africa in the past year and a half, according to the UK's Independent. Just last week, Ethiopia decided to lease 7.4 million acres of farmland to investors over the next three years, Bloomberg reports. The United Nations is creating a “code of conduct” for such leasing activities, and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has called for a global watchdog "with teeth."

Not only did Gaddafi crack some skulls with his "feudal lord" comments, but he also said that his continent's other terrorizing problem is the “monopolisation of seeds by companies that I would describe as diabolical.” He called on the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation to "dismantle this monopoly in all countries."

It's just too bad most of the heads of state from rich countries weren't there to be cracked. Among the approximately 60 heads of state and government present at the summit, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was the only one from a G-8 nation.

Photo courtesy of BlatantNews.com via flickr

Kellogg Foundation Funds Local Food

When you think of local food, Kellogg is not the first name that springs to mind. No, instead it's sugary cereals (okay, and some non-sugary ones), which are some of the most iconic products of our industrial, processed food system.

So it may come as somewhat of a surprise to hear that the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, a foundation started by cereal maven Will Keith Kellogg in 1930 and still funded by an endowment formed by his money in 1934, has announced $32.5 million in grants to support local food systems, according to the Washington Post.

This news points to the fact that the conversation on local and sustainable foods is starting to make headway. If a foundation that enjoys a close relationship with a mainstream industry player is putting its money on local food -- urban agriculture and local-produce-heavy school lunches no less -- then we know the ground is shifting.

While we may have come to see Kellogg's products as unhealthful options for children -- to the point that we protest when some of them are labeled smart eating choices -- back in 1930, Kellogg prided himself on creating "better-for-you breakfast food," according to the company Website (the company apparently still does -- the question remains, however: "which products?" and "better than what?"). In line with Kellogg's vision of bringing healthful foods to families, the foundation's mission is to support children, families and communities. What is notable is that they now see supporting local food systems as a good way to do that.

The Kellogg grants will support nine projects with a range of goals, including bringing more fresh, local produce to schools, introducing mobile fruit venders to low-income food deserts and developing an unused-land inventory to help the urban farming movement in Boston. These projects bring the Kellogg Foundation's support of food and farming to almost $80 million in a bit over a decade.

Photo courtesy of ItzaFineDay via flickr

World Summit on Food Security Set to Disappoint

Today begins the World Summit on Food Security, organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and scheduled to run through Wednesday in Rome, Italy.

The FAO estimates that 1.02 billion people are undernourished in 2009, and with a world population set to reach 9 billion by 2050, the ranks of the hungry are sure to balloon unless aggressive action is taken on an international level.

Reuters reports, however, that the summit's progress will be no more than a token; there will be no deadlines or commitments to action despite the FAO's hope of gaining pledges of $44 billion a year from world leaders to help poor countries grow enough food. A draft of the declaration, Reuters says, includes a vague promise to fund more agricultural development with no specific commitments toward ending hunger.

Admittedly the problems are large and complex. The summit sets out to address key questions, specifically how to:

• make sure the 9 billion will have food;
• bolster governance around food security;
• give developing counties a fair shake at competing in international trade;
• safeguard farmers' livelihoods;
• get public and private sectors to invest in agriculture;
• find ways to solve food crises before they're out of control; and
• ensure that food systems can adapt to climate change.

So while tackling all of this could be biting off more than they can chew, world leaders could at least make some concrete commitments to addressing aspects of this problem.

Humanitarian groups ActionAid and Oxfam accuse the global community of being complacent in the wake of committing $20 billion to the issue at the G-8 Summit in July. The two NGOs said in a joint statement that the "the $20 billion is a mirage" because "less than a quarter of this money is new." They also said the summit "could be a waste of time and money unless world leaders intervene now to salvage it."

Let's hope the US takes some bold move to spur more aggressive action this week, considering that President Obama, as the New York Times writes, "has made improving the productivity of farmers in the developing world a top priority since taking office." He was the one, after all, who drummed up international support for the multibillion-dollar initiative that now has everyone resting on their laurels.

Photo courtesy of stock.xchng

Meals on Wheels: the Future of Sustainable, Ethical Meat

Coming soon to a highway near you: the mobile slaughterhouse.

Here's the scoop: alert reader Kristen Ridley tells me that when she went to research humane slaughterhouse options, she couldn't find any. She said that there is "the occasional (very occasional) small processor out there that doesn't exploit their workers and abuse the animals," but they are few and far between. Most slaughterhouses are big, industrial, churn-em-out operations, and if you've seen "Food, Inc.," you'll know what those are like.

Welcome to the scene the Mobile Slaughter Unit! In 2002, farmers in San Juan County, Washington, set out to find a way for small farmers to work with the USDA regulations and still slaughter their own meat. The result: "the first mobile USDA Inspected field slaughter unit." The truck can slaughter 10 cows, 24 hogs or 40 sheep per day and contains a cooler that can hold up to 6,000 pounds of hanging carcasses to allow it to operate for a couple days continuously.

Those who have read Omnivore's Dilemma might recognize the topic of the trouble with slaughterhouses in this day of industrial ag. Michael Pollan discusses the problem of trying to apply "one-size-fits-all rules" created for big operations to small farmers. The result is the shuttering of small slaughter operations. Pollan gives the example of federal regulations that require each slaughterhouse to have a bathroom for the USDA inspector. "Such regulations favor the biggest industrial meatpackers, who can spread the costs of compliance over the millions of animals they process every year, at the expense of artisanal enterprises," Pollan writes.

This is not to say that "artisanal enterprises" will never mistreat animals or their workers and will always keep things pristine and sterile, but I would venture to say it's more likely. Especially if the farmers themselves are slaughtering their own animals. And besides, shouldn't farmers have the right to slaughter the animals they raised if they can do it safely and effectively? Because of USDA rules, however, they generally aren't allowed to do so.

These mobile butchery trucks present great options to small farmers. Co-ops can own them collectively, or an entrepreneurial butcher can make rounds to small farms on a regular schedule offering the truck's services, to name just two ideas. In Kristen Ridley's opinion, "this is the future of sustainable, ethical meat." Do you agree?

Photo courtesy of stock.xchng

My $80 Thanksgiving Turkey

The argument can be made that paying $80 for a turkey this Thanksgiving is just a typical example of elitism in the sustainable food movement.  And that might be somewhat true.

However, I say that it is an example of paying for what's important to you, and for me, that's knowing not only who raised the bird on my table but how it was raised as well.

This Thanksgiving, I'll be serving a 10-12 pound heritage breed turkey from EcoFriendly Foods, a cooperative that sources sustainably produced meat from small farms throughout the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia; and here's why.

Somewhere around 99% of the turkeys consumed in America every year are the genetically engineered "Broadbreasted White" variety.  These turkeys, the ones you find in the grocery store, are raised in (I omit "on" for a reason) factory farms, and have been manipulated to the point that they cannot even stand on their own most of time.

While significantly cheaper (right now, Wal-Mart is marketing 12-pound Thanksgiving turkeys for under $5.00) than their heritage counterparts, traditional turkey's do not have the same flavor and do not come with an assurance of sustainability.

For those that aren't familiar with the term "heritage," it's basically what heirloom means in the produce world -- a species that has been saved and passed down through generations.

Although I'm sure this will seem ironic to some readers, the best way to save rare breeds and preserve broad genetic diversity is to return these animals to our dinner table (pdf). This won't be a popular view in some circles, I know, but it's the truth.

There are many reasons why genetic diversity in livestock production is important, and even the United Nations sees the extinction of animal species as "alarming" and has warned the international community that diversity will be a key resource in dealing with climate change.

For these reasons, and many more, I feel as though the $80 turkey I'll be picking up next week is worth every single penny.

Feel free to leave a comment and tell the Change.org community about what food choices are important to you this Thanksgiving season.

(Photo credit: tuchodi on Flickr)

Two GMO Questions, One Big Muddle

We've been discussing genetically modified foods like it's going out of style here on change.org's sustainable food blog.

There is, indeed, much to discuss; there are many threads to the conversation, which, when not teased apart, can lead to a muddled confusion about what we are all actually discussing.

Critics of GM foods tend to focus on two important concerns: the uncertain safety of the crops and the intellectual property (IP) rights of the companies creating them. So these are the big questions: (1) are GM foods safe? And (2) will companies maintain a financial stranglehold over the users and would-be researchers of GM seeds?

These questions are closely related, as the safety of these organisms generally cannot be properly studied because IP restrictions allow companies to restrict scientists' ability to publish independent research on these crops, according to the Scientific American. (Hmm, do you think we might be getting a hint on the answer to question 2?)

Though these questions are closely related, however, an honest debate on the topic requires that we distinguish between the issues raised by each. People with an objection based on one of these two arguments are in danger of developing a general, free-floating distaste for the subject, effectively closing off discussion about the other point. For example:

• Jim: What do you think about GM crops, Martha?
• Martha: They're the devil's spawn!
• Jim: Why do you think so?
• Martha: Because Monsanto is going to own the world eventually. Let's just hope they're benevolent overlords.
• Jim: But what if we had GM crops that were in the public domain so that anyone could use them freely?
• Martha: When pigs fly, Jim. This is corporate America we're talking about.
• Jim: Come on, humor me. If we took Monsanto out of the equation, don't you think GM crops would be a good idea to think about?
• Martha: GMOs just suck.
• Jim: Do you think they're unsafe?
• Martha: What's wrong with Mother Nature, anyway?

Martha has dug in her heels and can't free her feet in time to do the nimble side-step needed to enter a new portion of the conversation.

For an example of some good nimble stepping, check out the video below of Michael Pollan discussing GMOs with The Long Now Foundation, in which he says "if we had open-source genetic engineering, if we had genetic engineering that was really being applied to making the system more sustainable rather than more brittle -- which is essentially what it's doing -- I'm open to learning about it" (quote starts at 3:28).

This is not to say we all must share this opinion, but distinguishing between the various questions involved in this discussion will help us figure out what our opinions really are.

Photo courtesy of Orin Zebest via flickr

Harvest Boon: Satellites Help Farmers Boost Yield

Farmers have long looked to the sky to predict the weather, the chance of a good harvest, and the likelihood of rain. Now, the skies are looking back, and talking back, with satellites helping farmers boost crop yields. Satellites are able to give quick and relatively cheap analysis of what the optimal amount of seed, fertilizer, pesticide and water is. Even those opposed to use of industrial pesticide must agree that using a little as possible is a good thing. It's the same with water: this advance will reduce the need of water, or increase it where water is necessary to guarantee a good harvest, and avoid wasting a crop.

The satellite provides an analysis of the spectrum of radiation which can help reveal properties of the soil, levels of minerals and moisture, and by adding weather patterns, indicate "how, where and when crops should be grown." The cost is as low as $15 a hectare, and by improving yields by up to 10% it's just another way that science can help farming without destroying the environment or using genetic modification to increase yields. France leads the way in the use of this technology, and governments in Canada are even getting in on the act, using the information to see where farmers are creating too much nitrate fertilizer. It'll soon help developing countries too, with African soil samples being taken to build and initial digital map that will be given free to farmers and supplemented with satellite imagery.

Photo credit: Brykmantra

How You Can Help Women Get Land Rights

Earlier this week I wrote about how women grow the majority of the world's food but own a tiny fraction of the world's land. This major imbalance makes women — and thus families — more insecure and effectively leaves a major segment of daily natural resource users out of our global conversations on issues such as global warming, sustainable agriculture and food crises.

Alert reader David Mastroianni asked what we can all do to help fix this situation. Here are some ideas.

• Advocate for Congress to pass the Global Food Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 3077)
, introduced by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) in the House of Representatives, which calls for a food security strategy that will “prioritize and support the central role of women in agricultural production” around the world. This will be a step in the right direction of recognizing women's monumental contribution to our world's food systems. Senators Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) have introduced a companion bill (S. 384) in the Senate.
• Learn more about the issue. Start with the short "Fact Sheet on Women and Land" (PDF) from Rural Development Institute (RDI) for a down-and-dirty overview. The Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook from the World Bank is an excellent starter-kit for those looking to learn a little more. The 16 modules will give you a comprehensive understanding, complete with extensive bibliography and suggestions for further reading.
• Once you've learned all there is to know, tweet, blog, chat or otherwise spread the word about the importance of this issue. To take your involvement further, attend or help plan an event for International Women's Day on March 8.
• Support organizations that are fighting this fight, including the one I mentioned in my previous post, RDI's new Global Center for Women's Land Rights, and the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW), which is currently spotlighting the issue of women in agriculture. Your help can take the form of a donation check, an offer to volunteer or a simple commitment to spread the word to other would-be donors and helpers.

Photo courtesy of IRRI Images via flickr

Vote for Your Local Food Heroes

Edible Communities Publications, which publishes a range of free magazines on local and sustainable food and eating in communities across the nation, is calling all food enthusiasts to vote on their own favorite local heroes.

You have until December 11 to have your say in the fourth annual Local Hero Awards. Visit the Edible Communities Website to cast your ballot for your favorites in the following categories:

• Farm/Farmer
• Chef/Restaurant
• Food Artisan
• Beverage Artisan
• Non-profit Organization

I particularly like the term "beverage artisan." I wonder if my top-notch gin-and-tonic mixing skills might qualify me for that particular title. Hey, I'm local. To my house.

The winners of this year's contest will be announced in January at the annual Edible Communities publishers' dinner in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Then each community publication will announce its own local heroes in its spring 2010 issue.

Celebrating our local food heroes and activists is a great way to support the future of sustainable, community-oriented food production. Cast your vote today to let them know you care.

Photo courtesy of L-plate big cheese via flickr

Winners of Ashoka's 'GMO Risk or Rescue?' Competition Announced

The Ashoka Changemakers Website, which describes itself as a "community of action where we all collaborate on solutions," runs a range of specific competitions on a wide variety of subject matter. Potential changemakers enter their solutions to the issue at hand, and readers vote on which twenty entries deserve accolades.

A contest of interest to us here, titled "GMO Risk or Rescue? Helping Consumers Decide," just announced its winners after over 14,000 readers helped decide on the worthiest entries.

The grand prize goes to a blog called biofortified, for its entry titled "stronger plants, stronger science, and stronger communication!" A group blog addressing issues of genetic engineering in agriculture and plant biology, Biofortified claims itself to be the most "dedicated effort to discuss genetic engineering on the web." The organizers aim to expand their blogger network to bring the conversation on genetic engineering to wider audiences. These savvy bloggers will receive a grant of $1,500 and a get to participate in a conversation with food journalist Michael Pollan.

The competition's two runners-up are Campaign for Healthier Eating in America and Non-GMO Project. The top three winners have all won an enhanced social media training session with Ashoka and will be mentioned in a one-page ad in the Stanford Social Innovation Review magazine. The 17 honorable mentions will receive a social media training session with Ashoka.

Photo courtesy of stock.xchng

Why Women's Rights Matter to Our Food

"Consider the daily life of the world’s typical small farmer," said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the closing session of the 2009 Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in September. "She lives in a rural village in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, or Latin America."

That's right: women grow more than half of the world's food and the lion's share (as much as 80 percent) of the food in developing countries, reports the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Despite their majority contribution, however, women only own 2 percent of the world's land, according to UN WomenWatch. Around the world, women are deprived of legal rights to the land they toil over day after day.

Zainab Salbi, founder and CEO of Women for Women International, pointed out to me that this is a bigger problem than simple unfairness. "We cannot address environmental issues, sustainable farming issues, industrial agriculture issues, food crisis, if we are going to ignore [the fact that women are over 80 percent of the world's farmers and they own about 2 percent of land in the world]," she said. "How can you have a policy that ignores the people that are doing the work on a daily basis?"

That's why Rural Development Institute (RDI), an NGO that focuses on helping farmers in developing countries procure legal land rights, is launching a new Global Center for Women's Land Rights, according to a press release. The center will research and advocate for policies that will help women gain legal access to their land.

“Women feed the world. Providing women with secure land and property rights is essential to addressing poverty, food security and violence against women," said Renée Giovarelli, founding director of the Center.

In her remarks at CGI, Clinton mentioned that women would be at the heart of the international agricultural priorities of the Obama administration. At the G-8 Summit in July, Obama pledged a minimum of $3.5 billion over the next three year as a contribution to the $20 billion pledged by all the G-8 nations toward strengthening global agricultural systems.

"We have seen again and again . . . that women are entrepreneurial, accountable, and practical," said Clinton. "So women are a wise investment. And since the majority of the world’s farmers are women, it’s critical that our investments in agriculture leverage their ambition and perseverance."

Photo courtesy of Foxtongue on flickr