It all started pretty simply. Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, interested in food production in this country, cast their eyes on corn growing in Iowa. They head for Greene, Iowa, a town from which they both happen to descend. They lease an acre of land from a local farmer and plant their corn. They stay with their crop, all the while doing research into cattle feed lots, the production of high fructose corn syrup, the diabetes epidemic in this country and the ways in which agriculture reform in the seventies set us up for the farming situation that we currently face.

If you are interested in food production in America, King Corn is a film to see. It is honest and fairly free from schtick. It presents the issues clearly, gives the experts opportunities to talk and makes me want to steer clear of most commercial brands of foods (since everything seems to contain high fructose corn syrup these days).

The film opened in New York today and will be showing across the country throughout the fall. For all the dates and cities, click here. The YouTube trailer is inserted after the jump for those of you who'd like to give it a gander.

The "food miles" theory says that the further food has to travel to reach its destination - such as food imported to Europe from New Zealand - the worse it is for the environment because of the greater quantity of pollutants emitted during transport. Researchers in New Zealand, where farmers and ranchers had a good deal of revenue at stake due to their remote location, put the theory to the test and came up with some interesting results.

Their overall conclusion was that the number of miles a food had traveled was not a reliable indicator of its environmental impact. Many forms of produce, as well as dairy and sheep meat, were found to be more energy efficient even when travel to Europe was taken into account. A similar study in the UK produced the same results.

This does not mean that buying goods from far away is necessarily "better" than buying local goods. It simply means that the method of production is what counts, not overall distance traveled, if environmental factors are a primary consideration when purchasing food. Locally produced food may be better in some cases, but it might not be if it is not responsibly produced in the first place. Buying local is a great way of supporting the local economy and keeping revenue within the community and for consumers who make that a priority, local still might be a better choice.

If you read a lot of personal food blogs, you will occasionally here someone refer to CSA or a delivery from CSA. CSA stands for Community Supported Agriculture, a cooperative system in which goods from a farm are delivered directly to a consumer. The way it works is that people purchase the rights to part of a farmer's crop prior to the beginning of the season. Once the crops start coming in - and some farmers provide everything from vegetables and herbs to fresh eggs and meat, though most primarily provide produce - a portion of the harvest is delivered to each subscriber each week, either directly or to a central location where it can be picked up. The farmers benefit from having a direct sale, and the consumers benefit because they are getting ultra-fresh produce and supporting their community.

Because everything is so seasonal, consumers don't have a say in what they get each week. It is based strictly on the harvest, so it is possible that you will end up with some foods you don't care for in addition to ones you love.

The season lasts from April or May through October, although it may start a bit later depending on what area of the country you are from. Some farms offer year-round programs. Generally, the subscription is paid in advance, meaning that a subscriber will pay a few hundred dollars at the beginning of the season instead of paying weekly as they might at a grocery store or farmer's market. An average cost seems to be about $22 per week. Use the CSA Finder at Local Harvest to help locate a program in your area.

The last month saw a devastating heat wave in California, with sustained temperatures of well over 100F, and up to 120F in the deserts. The heat created lines in front of ice cream shops all over the state, but many other industries were heavily impacted. The dairy industry actually suffered losses of as many as 16,000 cows, just from the heat alone, as even overnight the temperatures did not drop down to give the animals relief. Other cows miscarried or couldn't conceive, and the milk that was gathered during the period had a lower butterfat content, making it unsuitable for some uses, like cheesemaking. The dairy industry alone could take 9 months to recover fully.

Other industries - and by extension, consumers - had losses as well. The California Poultry Federation estimated that 750,000 chickens and 180,000 turkeys also died as a direct result of the heat wave, though it is a very small percentage of the industry, so prices are unlikely to be affected. Strawberries over-ripened or rotted, stone fruits were sunburned and tomatoes "literally cooked in their skins," leading to an estimated loss of 10% of the total crop in some places. The effects on other foods, like nuts, will not be seen until their harvest comes around in fall, but California agriculture will need some time to recover fully.

As organic foods get more popular and end up everywhere from the farmer's market to Wal-Mart, critics are getting louder about whether consumers are getting their money's worth. Unfortunately, they seem to focus on the fact that it has not been proven that organic foods are definitely healthier - as in more nutritious - than their conventionally grown counterparts.

The foods are organically grown, not magically nutritionally enhanced.

Whether someone eventually proves that organic foods have more or less nutritional value than their conventionally grown counterparts, the point of buying organic is supporting the non-use of pesticides and other growth-enhancement techniques in food production. There is a lower risk of ingesting some residual chemical or hormone with organic food. Organics may taste the same as, better than or worse than more conventionally grown produce, since they are not protected from bad weather, etc. (or shielded from particularly good weather), so there is more risk - and more potential reward - for the consumer.

As the organic movement spreads, more consumers will gradually learn more about what the label means and will be able to make informed choices on whether it is something they want to support. It seems short-sighted to say that because there is no clear nutritional difference, that organic food is a waste of time and money.

 

 

Last fall, Congress passed legislation  that ceased federal, tax-generated funding for the inspections of facilities used to slaughter horses for human consumption. Because all facilities must be inspected to operate, this effectively shut them down. They could not pay the inspection fees themselves. While not illegal in the US to eat horse meat, it is a disgusting idea to many diners, so the horse meat produced was typically exported to Japan or European countries, like France, Belgium and Italy.

This week, in response to aggressive lobbying efforts from pro-slaughter groups and the owners of the slaughtering plants, the Department of Agriculture amended its policy, which has essentially reversed the federal spending ban on equine slaughterhouse inspections by allowing the slaughterhouse inspection fees to be paid by the slaughterhouse or a third party. This means that they will once again be open for business. On of the congressional bill's sponsor's, said that the Department of Agriculture was "intent on going against what was very clearly the purpose of passing the amendment ... to end horse slaughter."

While there has been a great deal of controversy in the past over the treatment of horses destined for slaughter, the primary sticking point is whether horses should be considered to be companion animals, like cats and dogs, or livestock, like cows. The majority of people lean towards the former viewpoint, especially because almost all horses in the US are kept for pleasure and recreational purposes. This move on the part of the Department of Agriculture shows the pull of the slaughtering industry's money over both animal activists and popular opinion.

California is the only state to have a law completely banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption.

In China, many products are produced at prices much lower than they are in other countries, but until recently, agriculture was not subject to the same type of mass industrialization. Now, it appears that China is muscling in on the truffle market, something that the French are not too happy about. France has a 45% share of the truffle market and their fungi cost an average of more than $500 per pound. Two new Chinese varieties of truffles cost more than 90% less - $28 per pound. The director of Yunri foods, a Chinese company that sells the truffles, said that they sell over 20 tons of truffles and mushrooms a year, mostly to the United States, United Kingdom and France.

A representative from the French Federation of Truffle Growers said that there were marked differences in the quality of the truffles, despite the fact that they look almost identical to the pricier Perigord variety. "It's a problem of aroma and of quality consistency." Truffle aficionados, predictably, state that the French version is unquestionably superior, but the real question is whether the average consumer would find the French truffles to be 90% better than the much less expensive Chinese ones.

The Norwegians are building a "doomsday vault" for seeds. Buried deep inside a mountain, deep in the Arctic Circle, scientists say that the seeds will be preserved indefinately at temperatures well below freezing. And, to prevent theft, as well as for safety's sake, "the mountains are patrolled by polar bears," though humans will most likely monitor the facility.

The seed depository is being created to preserve the various species of plants that currently exist on the planet, many of which will disappear with each passing year as selective breeding reduces diversity in favor of commercially popular crops. In theory, these seeds can be used to resurrect species of plants that may disappear in the future. Intriguing as this idea is, one must wonder if there would be a demand for such reconstructed species, or whether they would only be regrown for scientific curiosity. Would it be easier to simply alter existing strains of apples - through selective breeding or gene modification - than to rebuild it from a seed or two? And if it were necessary to rebuild agriculture from the approximately 2 million seeds in the vault as the result of something wiping out global plant life, it seems likely that most of humanity would be wiped out as well. Maybe the Norwegians would still be able to get there, though.

The European Union has developed a proposal to allow foods that have up to 0.9% genetically modified material to be sold with labels that confirm them as organic. The EU says that this measure, which would go into effect by 2009, is being proposed to protect organic farmers against the "risk of GM contamination." The commissioner for agriculture and rural development claimed that this move would make it easier for consumers to identify organic products, presumably by making them more similar to non-organic items.

Current guidelines stipulate that organic products cannot contain genetically modified substances "in any quantity." Environmental and organic groups are protesting the action, saying that "organic" labeled products should contain no more than 0.1% GM material, the lowest amount that can be detected both reliably and consistently. The EU should support organic farming, but not by lowering the standards of the industry.

 

This month's Economist features an article entitled "Ears of Plenty: The Story of Wheat." While it would be impossible for a magazine-length article to cover all the nuances of such a ubiquitous staple crop, this piece does well to cover some of the major factors and figures in the development of wheat. It begins with a short discussion of the current decline of wheat production, which the author later attributes to the grain's distaste for genetic modification(wheat is apparently much more complex than other staple grains like corn and rice). What follows are short descriptions of how wheat spread across the globe; how its demand for fertilizer sparked revolts and plunged guano into the spotlight; and asides on some of the major players in the wheat world. Although the article ends with some loosely-related digression on world hunger and population changes, it's still worth a read.