Agriculture · Eco-Chick

Browsing all posts tagged with agriculture

Eco Chick’s Heroines for the Planet: Danielle Nierenberg

If it’s true that there are sayers and there are doers, Danielle Nierenberg falls firmly into the latter camp. Danielle is currently traveling through sub-saharan Africa to highlight stories of hope and success in sustainable agriculture and blogging about it at WorldWatch.org.

A Senior Researcher at the Worldwatch Institute and co-Project Director of State of World 2011: Nourishing the Planet, Danielle is a widely cited expert in sustainable agriculture issues and the spread of factory farming. She knows better than most of us how our eating habits affect the world, and the experiences she shares on her blog will blow you away.

So of course, Danielle fits right in as an Eco Chick Heroine for the Planet! I talked to her about women in agriculture, global food issues and what we can all do to help.

SR: We were surprised to learn through your blog, Nourishing the Planet, that 80% of sub-Saharan farmers in Africa are women and that women make up the majority of farmers worldwide. What are some of the unique problems that female farmers face?

DN: Although women produce most of the food and raise most of the livestock in Africa, they rarely have access to land tenure, credit, agricultural extension services, and are under-represented in farmers groups, associations, unions. But by increasing women’s participation and representation in these groups, women and men farmers alike can work together to improve gender awareness, as well as improve their access to loans and agricultural inputs and land tenure. As a result, women are able to earn a greater income, which translates into better nutrition for their families. But womens voices often go unheard, or even ignored, and that has to change.

Africa, agriculture, Food, interview

Soy's Eco Creds

1 Comment

by Courtney Tenz · 01/30/09

Last month, when Starre asked us all for our New Year’s resolutions, I didn’t have to think twice about them because I’ve been thinking so much about these goals over the last year. But I just put all my eco goals for the year out there for the world to see without elucidating and that raised this question:

Why is soy considered “not necessarily doing better for the environment”? I thought that tofu was a good nonmeat protein alternative.

Here’s my attempt at answering that question, but bear with me: there’s a big debate about soy so there’s a lot of nonsense out there and I don’t want to rumor-monger. And along those lines, I won’t get into the health issue regarding soy (I know one dietitian who says it’s good for you and another who says only in moderation and though I trust both of them, the truth seems to be a few years away yet).

So the closest thing I have for an answer is to say, as I said in that previous New Year’s post, that I try to lead a one-earth life as it is so the things that I’m working on are pretty specific to me and what I think I can handle doing. I mean, it would be silly for me to say I’ll cut back on driving when the only time I get in a car is when I visit my ‘rents in the US which doesn’t happen all that many days in the year. And so, for me, the next step my vegan lifestyle has to take is less processed food and that means removing soy from my diet and eating more veggies and beans. Of course, eating tofu is not as much of an eco-sin as eating meat. As Starre said in her recent post to the new Pres:

Meat production is the most energy- and water-intensive food you can eat. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Department reports that 18% of greenhouse gases come from meat and dairy production. Go veg at least half-time Mr. President, and you will save your heart, your colon, and the planet.

Going local while veg is the next best thing you can do for you and the planet. Soy, however, doesn’t grow here in Germany and it’s not always easy in the US, either, to get locally-grown and processed tofu (especially that made from soy that hasn’t been genetically engineered, which is a huge enviro no-no in my book, and which accounts for 85% of US grown soy). In some of the countries that export soy to the US, it has become such a viable crop due to biofuels and its use as a cattlefeed that eco havoc is being wreaked in some places, and I don’t want to get behind that anymore by buying beans from Brazil. Or from anywhere else. So if I can swap a mushroom burger for a tofu burger, I will. At least, that’s what I’m resolving to do. But for everyone else, well, that’s up to you.

agriculture, Amazon, book, Brazil, car, driving, eating, Eco-Chick, Energy, epa, fall, Food, gas, Germany, Greensolutions, health, local, meat, New Year, New Year's, Obama, processed food, rum, solutions, soy, style, vegan, water

Food Democracy Now! Petition Sustainable Choices for the USDA

3 Comments

by Kimberly Jordan Allen · 12/29/08

Food Democracy Now! is a grassroots campaign comprised of farmers, writers, activists, policy advocates and people who eat. A petition is circulating to bring our attention to the desperate need for sustainable practices regarding food. The Food Democracy Now! petition asks President-elect Barack Obama and newly appointed Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack to consider leaders for the Under Secretary level who understand organic and sustainable agriculture.

While some are more concerned with the appointment of Vilsack, Dave Murphy of FoodDemocracyNow! remains hopeful;

We understand that many in the sustainable agriculture community are disappointed with President-elect Obama’s selection of former Iowan Governor as our next Secretary of Agriculture. Concern over his record regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the proliferation of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) during his time in office have given many in this community pause over the type of change he may be willing to implement as the head of the USDA. The fact is that many in Iowa who have worked with Gov. Vilsack in the past have always appreciated his willingness to listen to the concerns of family farm and rural advocates and believe that he may be able to realize more progressive change at the USDA as he will not be hampered by a Republican House and Senate as he was as governor. We are also encouraged by the fact that President-elect Obama has committed to payment limitations, eliminating subsidies for factory farms and labeling GMOs in the human food chain.

Twelve sustainable choices are listed at the end of the petition. FoodDemocracyNow! is working hard to get 100,000 signatures by January 1st, 2009. To join the likes of Bill McKibben, Michael Pollan, Wendell Berry and Eric Schlosser, just to name a few, SIGN IT!

agriculture, community, farm, farms, Food, mckibben, Michael Pollan, NYTimes, Obama, Organic, Outdoors, sustainable, USDA

President Obama, Your Secretary of Agriculture Choice is The Most Important of All: Here's Why

25 Comments

by Melissa Goldberg · 11/07/08

Dear President-elect Obama,

After a long, hard and contentious campaign you’ve won the Presidency of the United States. Congratulations. Take a moment to enjoy your success. Ok, that was long enough. Now let’s down to business.

You well know that you have a long hard road ahead of you, but your first order of business is to choose a cabinet that is strong, thoughtful and will move this country in the right direction. In my opinion, and in the opinions of many people like me, administration environmental jobs should a top order of business. Our crumbling economy will not matter if we cannot breath our air, drink our water, or eat our food. Relieving the credit crunch won’t make a difference if rates of obesity, cancer, diabetes, heart disease continue to rise. Keeping people in their homes, empowering people to buy new cars will become meaningless unless we fix the food system, the water system, and limit the spread of untested genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

That is why I am calling out to you to take a good look at who you appoint as Secretary of Energy, Head Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture and possibly the new position, Climate Change Czar — or make this a function of the Department of Homeland Defense.

Of all the cabinet level posts you will fill, there is one that is usually a second thought, but in my opinion is as important as State, Treasury and Defense — the Secretary of Agriculture. Our food system is in dire need of a change and the right person might be able to help begin the overhaul necessary.

The Secretary of Agriculture oversees food safety and sets farm policy. He/she makes recommendations to Congress on which crops should be subsidized, how agricultural laws are enforced, crop-land conservation, and setting the nations nutritional standards and even organic labeling. They also oversee our food stamp program, food distribution during disaster relief efforts, the US Forest Service and the food that is fed to our children in school. That’s a big job.

I have read that former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack is on the short list for this position. From the corn state, Vilsack strongly supports ethanol subsidies. He believes that he has changed the corn fields of Iowa into energy fields. To me that sounds like a shift in use, not better agriculture or energy policy. As he stated in an op-ed in the Argus Leader, “If you drive across Iowa today, you will see a changing landscape marked by new ethanol and biofuel production plants and wind farms. As a state, we became more economically, environmentally and energy secure.”

Today, Iowa farmers are still hurting the soil and water by using petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers. Furthermore, these farmers have shifted corn from feeding the world to ethanol production, which, as we all know, is not helping increase our independence from foreign oil. But with all his good intentions, former Governor Vilsak is too much of an insider to create really change.

I have also read that your short list includes Tom Buis, the President of the National Farms Union and the Congresswoman for South Dakota Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. These two are also agriculture “insiders” who are in the pocket of industrial agriculture who might working in the best interest of the farmers they represent, mostly corporate farming, but neither are strong enough or creative enough to achieve real change we need in the system.

Then there is former Congressman Charles Stenholm (D-TX). Charlie is a conservative Democrat that joined the Republicans to kill a bill that would have prevented sick cattle that are unable to walk from entering the US food supply. (Remember the video released by the Humane Society of downer cows?) While part of the House Agriculture Committee he received more than $800,000 in PAC contributions and took numerous trips sponsored by agriculture lobbyist groups. After leaving Congress he became a lobbyist for the agriculture and food industry. Again, not someone who is going to change our system for the better.

So by now President-elect Obama you must say, well then who?

There is one man out there who is not already in politics, who has examined our foods system from farm to table, and who understands the impact it plays on our environment, our economy and our health. He has intimate knowledge of not only farmers, but also diaries, feed-lots, and food processors. He is not a Washington insider and to top it off he has already laid out a plan for tackling the issues we face. His plan takes into account the impact agriculture has on our climate, energy dependence, the healthcare system, foreign and trade policies and national security.

As states in his own words:

We need to wean the American food system off its heavy 20th-century diet of fossil fuel and put it back on a diet of contemporary sunshine. True, this is easier said than done — fossil fuel is deeply implicated in everything about the way we currently grow food and feed ourselves. To put the food system back on sunlight will require policies to change how things work at every link in the food chain: in the farm field, in the way food is processed and sold and even in the American kitchen and at the American dinner table. Yet the sun still shines down on our land every day, and photosynthesis can still work its wonders wherever it does. If any part of the modern economy can be freed from its dependence on oil and successfully resolarized, surely it is food.

The scribe of this plan called the Sun-Food Agenda is Michael Pollan, the Knight Professor of Journalism at the Graduate School of Journalism at UC-Berkeley, director of the Knight Program in Science and Environmental Journalism and author.

President-elect Obama, I urge you to read Professor Pollan’s plan as laid out in an article in the New York Times Magazine entitled “Farmer In Chief” and stick with what you have been saying throughout your campaign; that America needs real change.

I urge you to consider Michael Pollan for the Secretary of Agriculture. (Or at least consult with him to mine his knowledge on the issues to make the best choice possible for the position.)

Pollan’s plans are not liberal. They are not conservative. They are what is best for America. And most importantly they are achievable.

As Pollan states:

[The] sun-food agenda promises to win support across the aisle. It builds on America’s agrarian past, but turns it toward a more sustainable, sophisticated future. It honors the work of American farmers and enlists them in three of the 21st century’s most urgent errands: to move into the post-oil era, to improve the health of the American people and to mitigate climate change. Indeed, it enlists all of us in this great cause by turning food consumers into part-time producers, reconnecting the American people with the American land and demonstrating that we need not choose between the welfare of our families and the health of the environment — that eating less oil and more sunlight will redound to the benefit of both.

This is a new era for America and Michael Pollan may just be The Change We Need.

Yes We Can!

Best,

Green Luvin’

agriculture, goverment, USDA

The War on Bugs

3 Comments

by Brianne Goodspeed · 03/12/08

For anyone else who digs on books that examine how PR shapes public perception, Will Allen’s new book, The War on Bugs is the latest in a genre that includes The Best War Ever and Toxic Sludge is Good for You. Instead of the now-tired observation that much of our food supply harms our bodies and destroys the land, Allen looks at the historical connection between advertising and agriculture and how toxins were marketed and sold to farmers to create The War on Bugs. (Fans of The Lorax might be surprised to see how else Dr. Suess put his talents to work — shilling for DDT and Standard Oil — before he spoke for the trees.)

Here’s an excerpt from a Q&A with Will Allen that I did for Chelsea Green.

BG: You’re an organic farmer, but you’re also an ex-Marine – and you were arrested and sentenced to a year in jail during the early 70s for civil rights and antiwar activism. That’s not a one-track life. Were there noticeable turning points for you?

WA: A turning point for me came during my time in the Marine Corps when I was dispossessed of the belief that as Marines we were protecting democracy, liberty, and freedom. I learned we were mostly protecting corporations. Some of our military actions while I was a Marine were in Lebanon, Cuba, and Vietnam. In Lebanon, we protected American corporations in the mid-East and mid-East allies, no matter how corrupt. In Cuba, we protected American businesses, a dictator, the ruling class that fled to Miami after the Revolution, and the Mafia drug cartels. In Vietnam we protected business interests, rice interests, illegal drug interests – the opium trade – and religious interests. We installed a Catholic president in a nation where 95% of the population was Buddhist and were shocked when he was assassinated. By 1963, I was protesting the Vietnam War in Chicago rallies and campus teach-ins.

…

BG: Do you see any similarities in the way that wars are spun and sold to the American public and the ways that toxic chemicals are spun and sold to American farmers?

WA: Advertising agencies made a quantum leap during the First World War. They did contract work for the government to sell the war and recruitment work for the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. The country was isolationist at the time and not interested in getting into another of Europe’s seemingly endless string of wars. Advertisers were able to get enlistments up and the public to buy war bonds. The themes were: a “can do attitude”, (such as, if America enters the war we will win it), a patriotic obligation, and protecting the civil rights of occupied countries.

When the same advertising agencies sold chemicals to farmers and householders, their pitches were similar. We are at war, be patriotic, and “a can do attitude.” That attitude encouraged such boasts as “. . .We can grow more than any other farmers in the world”, which led to the common belief that American farmers are feeding the world.

BG: On the flip side, do you see similarities in your resistance – resistance to war and resistance to toxic chemicals?

WA: I think that when someone becomes as anti-war as I am, then whatever one does – whether it is organic farming or something else – the irrationality and injustice of war is never far from their consciousness. While farm wars and military wars are of a different scale, many of the chemical and mining corporations that make fertilizer and pesticides are also manufacturers of bombs, and other military hardware and software. I think the sooner we can stop the chemical and genetic war on the farms, and the mindset that we are at war with nature, the better we will be as a species. In a sense, it is hard to not think of the war every time I fire up a tractor or pump or generator or heater that runs on gas or diesel from war zones around the world, especially Iraq. For that reason, we are looking at all the alternatives to fossil fuels for moving vehicles and for stationary heaters and generators.

War is not what is going on at Cedar Circle Organic Farm (in East Thetford, Vermont). We have struggles with pests, including woodchucks, voles, birds, worms, fungi, insects and weeds. We develop and copy strategies that are softer, non poisonous, and often very effective, and sometimes those adopted strategies are not effective. It is a process. We don’t have all the answers, but we have a lot more now than when we started in the 1960s.