|
Savvy Vegetarian NewsVol. 1, Issue 3, May , 2003 |
News: Farmers Backs Against The Wall Over GMO Products
Article: Congress Weakens Organic Standards
Ask The Savvy Vegetarian: How To Eat Beans Without Gas
Quick and Easy Recipe: Quinoa (keen-wah) Pilaf
Book Review: "The Food Revolution", by John Robbins
This month's article is a series on Fieldale Farms attempt to subvert the integrity of the Organic Standards Act, and subsequent events. Author Ken Roseboro is a journalist who has written extensively about genetically modified foods, GMO testing, non-GMO certification, and identity preservation. His articles have appeared in leading agricultural and food industry magazines. Ken is publisher and editor of The Non-GMO Source: http://www.non-gmosource.com
These articles stem from the attempt by one poultry producer to get around the organic feed requirement in the Organic Standards Act. If successful, it would have been the thin edge of the wedge for many similar incursions by the food industry. This would put the entire organic and non-GMO movement at risk by gutting the Organic Standards Act.
The issue is not poultry production. This event is a symptom of the strong anti-environmental, pro-GMO attitude prevalent in Washington. As an example, when the Organic Standards Act was being drafted, pro-GMO lobbyists tried hard to have GMO food admitted as organic. GE labelling is another example (there isn't any). The end result of all the lobbying is that the burden is on consumers to know what's GMO and what's not. For instance, packaged food with some organic ingredients has the organic ingredients listed, but doesn't list ingredients that are GMO. Big corporations have a lot of money at stake, and they won't just go away, especially now that they have a sympathetic administration. If we want the organic movement to continue growing strong, we need to be alert to anti-organic, pro-GMO efforts, and fight back. Fortunately, this story has a happy ending, but that wasn't luck; that was a lot of people yelling loud and long.
SV News is for vegetarians, would-be vegetarians, and those who just want a healthier diet. Please tell us what you think, and send contributions. We're looking for articles, news, recipes, book reviews, questions for our advice column, letters to the editor, etc.
The following information is taken from an article in the Farm Journal, Mar, 2003 Issue, "Iraq Stymies EU Case", by Jane Fullerton
The article is a discussion of a pending US decision whether to file suit with the World Trade Organization (WTO) over a European Union (EU) moratorium on approvals of genetically modified (GM) products. The decision has been postponed because of the war with Iraq, because White House officials don't want to further alienate EU allies.
According to the Farm Journal article, there are presently 18 GM products approved by the European Union, with the last approval issued in 1998. Approval of 13 other GM products is apparently being held up by the June, 1999 EU moratorium on GM products
The article quotes Clyde Preskowitz, a former Commerce Department official: "If we go ahead with this case, the consumer reaction in Europe...is going to be such that not only are you not going to sell $300 million of GM foods, but you're going to sell $400 million or $500 million less of things that we already sell. Because there's going to be a tremendous backlash against American goods, and it won't just be food."
U.S. ag groups, and members of congress who are in favor of the WTO suit, have expressed dismay at such nay-saying. The Farm Journal article quotes Ron Gaskill of the American Farm Bureau Federation. "We feel as if, from a farmer's perspective, our back is against the wall." Gaskell goes on to say, "U.S. farmers really don't have a lot of faith that a WTO decision would be complied with. Certainly if you look at the beef hormone case of a few years ago, [the Europeans] did not comply with that adverse ruling."
According to Ms. Fullerton's article, the beef strategy was supposed to isolate the beef hormone ban in Europe, but it didn't work. She reports that Philip Seng, president and CEO of the U.S. Meat Export Federation, estimates that European-style hormone rules have spread to countries with 40% of the world's beef-eating consumers.
In closing, Ms. Fullerton again quotes Gaskell. He expresses the hope that a biotech case would allow for retaliatory tariffs on imports from the EU. "If we don't take the case, we don't have any remedy," he says. "We sit here...losing more than $1 billion in sales, to markets that we really, absolutely need."
Editorial Comments:
I doubt that retaliatory tariffs against the EU would do anything positive. In the past, that kind of effort has only increased hatred of the U.S.
Those in favor of filing suit with the WTO over the EU moratorium are ignoring a cardinal rule of marketing: You Can't Corral Your Customers. If they think for a moment that Europeans can be forced to eat GMO products if they don't want to, they're a few bushels short of a load!
It seems that American farmers are truly between a rock and a hard place when it comes to GMO. On one hand, they are almost bound hand and foot by the manufacturers of GMO seed. If they try to follow an alternative route, they are attacked on all sides. Take for example, Monsanto's large, successful monetary suits against farmers whose non-GMO seed is polluted by GMO crops. On the other hand, Europe doesn't want GMO products, and American farmers caught in the GMO machine are helpless. Farming has ever been a hard life, but never more than right now for conventional farmers.
Please contact your elected representatives often and ask them to oppose the WTO suit against the European GMO moratorium, and/or to act on behalf of any particular issue you support or oppose. Here's where to find your congressional reps and senators:
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov
And vote with your feet - buy organic, non-GMO products!
U.S. Congress recently passed a $397 billion spending bill that contains a buried provision, which jeopardizes the new U.S. organic standards. The provision, which was slipped into the bill at the last minute without debate, would permit livestock producers to certify meat and dairy products as organic even if the animals had been fed non-organic or genetically engineered grain. The provision would override the National Organic Program's requirement that 100 percent organic feed be used to produce organic meat products.
In a classic example of backroom political maneuvering, Georgia Republican Congressman Nathan Deal slipped a provision into a 3,000-page congressional spending bill that would override the requirement for organic feed. The last-minute, one-sentence provision attempted to gut twelve years of work to develop standards that were supported by the entire organic industry. Deal acted on behalf of his campaign supporter Fieldale Farms, Corp., a Georgia poultry producer that has lobbied to get the exemption for non-organic feed, claiming that not enough organic feed is available. However, if Tyson Foods, which is one of the world s largest poultry producers, can source organic feed, why can t Fieldale Farms?
The organic industry was furious The Organic Trade Association is outraged to see such underhanded methods used by those unwilling to play by the rules. This is an example of someone doing an end-run to manipulate the government, with disregard for the public s wishes, said Katherine DiMatteo, OTA executive director.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, who sponsored legislation in 1990 that established the National Organic Program, also called the provision an outrage and said he would introduce legislation to repeal it.
Fieldale Farms reprehensible action along with its government support demonstrates how corporate interests threaten the integrity of organic foods. Please contact your elected representatives and ask them to repeal Section 771 of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill that focuses on organic feed (Editor: Or any other legislative initiative you don't like): http://www.senate.gov http://www.house.gov
Iowa Senators Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley joined a bipartisan group of 51 Senators co-sponsoring legislation to repeal a controversial provision in a spending bill that would allow livestock producers to label meat and dairy products as organic if the animals had been raised on non-organic feed. The Organic Restoration Act (S. 457), introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), would repeal Section 771 of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, which undermines the national organic standards.
Momentum is building to repeal the so-called Fieldale Loophole, named after Fieldale Farms, the Georgia poultry producer that lobbied for an exemption to the organic feed rule. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman expressed concerns about weakening the organic standards. It is important to maintain a strong organic program that ensures the integrity of the organic label placed on consumer products, she said.
Veneman expressed support for bipartisan efforts to repeal Section 771. The Leahy-Snow bill has attracted strong support in the Senate with 16 Republicans, including Grassley, saying they will back the legislation. Major food companies such as Tyson Foods and JM Smucker Company also support the Leahy-Snow bill. Congressman Sam Farr (D-CA) introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives and has attracted 33 co-sponsors so far.
Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal s clandestine attempt to gut the organic feed requirement created a furor. Newspaper editorials nationwide denounced Deal s action along with Fieldale Farms s self-serving attempt to rewrite the national organic rules. The St. Petersburg Times described Deal s action as a sleazy political favor. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette described it as a chicken end run. The Atlanta Journal Constitution said, Deal's exemption is a bad idea that ought to be repealed. Such bait-and-switch tactics don't belong in America's supermarkets or, for that matter, in the halls of Congress./p>
Ask your Congressman to co-sponsor Sam Farr's legislation in the House of Representatives. (Editor: Or any other legislative initiative you like): http://www.senate.gov http://www.house.gov
Organic industry aims to repeal controversial organic feed rule: USDA surveys show organic feed is available in sufficient quantities The U.S. organic industry has launched a concerted effort to repeal a controversial rider in a congressional spending bill that would allow livestock producers to label meat and dairy products as organic if the animals had been raised on non-organic feed.
Legislation to repeal rider: Sixty-five U.S. Senators and 64 members of the House of Representatives have co-sponsored legislation that would repeal Section 771 of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, which undermines the national organic standard on feed. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced The Organic Restoration Act (S. 457) in the Senate, while Congressmen Sam Farr (D-CA) and Ron Kind (D-WI) introduced similar legislation (HR. 955) in the House of Representatives.
Momentum is building to repeal the rider, which was introduced by Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal on behalf of Fieldale Farms, a Georgia poultry producer that has lobbied for an exemption to the organic feed rule. Deal slipped the rider into the spending bill without debate, causing a furor among organic proponents who claim the action guts 12 years of work to develop the standards. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman expressed concerns about weakening the organic standards and support for bipartisan efforts to repeal Section 771. Organic farmers and manufacturers as well as major food companies such as Tyson Foods and JM Smucker Company also support efforts to uphold the organic standards.
Support in House more difficult: Organic Trade Association executive director Katherine DiMatteo says building support in the House of Representatives to repeal the rider has been challenging. In the House, there is a sense that the rider is only temporary, or they want to wait until the USDA report (on feed availability) comes out, she says. It s been much harder to get movement there, but we are keeping up the pressure. Both Senate and House bills must be approved to repeal the rider. It is not yet clear when the two congressional bodies will vote on the bills because legislation must be attached to another spending bill, which may not be introduced for several months.
Organic feed still required: While repealing the rider is challenging, implementing it is not easy either. First there is a time limit. Because the rider is attached to a spending bill, it only applies to the time period associated with the bill, which is until September 30, 2003 when the next appropriations bill is scheduled. According to Jim Riddle, an organic consultant and member of the National Organic Standards Board, a key point is that the rider does not allow livestock producers to use non-organic feed. It does not amend OFPA (Organic Foods Production Act) or change the National Organic Standards. One hundred percent organic feed is still required, says Riddle. The rider simply prohibits the U.S. Department of Agriculture from spending funds to enforce the organic feed requirement.
Surveys find organic feed is available: The rider takes effect only if a USDA study finds that organic feed is not available in sufficient quantities and costs twice as much as conventional feed. Commercial availability was Fieldale Farms main bone of contention. According to Terry Hollifield, executive director of the Georgia Crop Improvement Association, Fieldale could not source adequate quantities. I know for a fact that Fieldale signed contracts with the largest supplier of organic feed and the supplier couldn t deliver, says Hollifield. I don t believe there is an adequate supply of organic feed.
Mary-Howell Martens, who along with her husband Klaas produces organic grains in New York state, disputes Fieldale s claims. We know of several suppliers who offered to supply Fieldale with all the grain they needed, but Fieldale wanted to get it for conventional prices, she says.
Organic agriculture experts conducting the USDA studies also dispute the lack of availability. There s a lot of feed out there and it s not double the price of conventional feed, says Joanna Green, senior extension associate at Cornell University, who was contracted by the USDA to determine the availability of organic feed in the Northeast region. Green s survey found that 75 farms produced 6,453 acres or 392,451 bushels of organic feed crops, specifically corn, soybeans, oats, wheat, and other feed crops. The survey also showed that three out of four organic feed grains suppliers report that they have not experienced any significant problems in meeting the demand for organic grains for livestock feed in the past two years. Three out of four also do not anticipate any problems in meeting the demand for 2003-2004. Green also found that organic feed acreage will increase 44 percent in 2004 to 9,309 acres.
Kathleen Delate, organic crop specialist at Iowa State University, surveyed farmers and grain buyers in the Midwest, which produces the most organic grains in the U.S. The survey found that acreage contracted for organic corn and soybeans in 2001 ranged between 79,550 and 135,750. From these acres, there was between 2.0 and 3.5 million bushels of corn and 1.58 and 2.7 million bushels of soybeans available from grain buyers in 2002. In addition, buyers also could supply 1.45 million bushels of wheat, 1.42 million bushels of organic amaranth, and one-half million bushels of organic barley.
Larry Rayhons, president, Integrity Certified International, an Iowa-based organic certifier, says location is important. If you are a giant consumer of organic feed located hundreds of miles from the corn and soybean belt, you may make an argument that supply is short, he says. However, if you are in the middle of the corn and soybean belt it would be hard to convince anyone that there is insufficient supplies.
Dick Krengel, a consultant with Petaluma Poultry Processors, a California-based producer of organic poultry also says availability is not a problem. We don t have a problem (sourcing organic feed), he says. When you calculate the acreage and yields it s available.
Main point: According to DiMatteo discussions about availability and price of organic feed are secondary to a bigger problem. These issues are beside the point, she says. The fact of the matter is that after 12 years of public comment and process, the organic rules shouldn t be rewritten through the legislative process. DiMatteo says a repeal of the rider is necessary to avoid future attempts to weaken the organic standards. A repeal would be the strongest message we could send, she says. Otherwise, says DiMatteo, the credibility of the organic industry is shot to hell.
US Congress repealed a controversial rider passed in February that would have severely weakened the organic standard requiring that animals raised to produce organic meat, poultry, and dairy products be raised on organic feed. The Supplemental Appropriations Bill approved in April by both the House of Representatives and Senate included an amendment repealing the rider. The quick action to repeal the rider came as a result of a major push by key senators and representatives supportive of organic agriculture and practices, as well as the Organic Trade Association, its members, associated groups, and consumers.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), backed by 51 Senate co-sponsors, introduced the repeal amendment. The swift and strong groundswell of opposition to that rider has been an eye-opener for many in Washington, says Leahy. This fight to keep the standards strong is another watershed moment for organic agriculture. Congress has done the right thing to repeal Section 771. The organic industry and consumers can breathe a sigh of relief and rejoice that this issue has been put to bed in a timely fashion, said Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association, the business association for the North American organic industry.
In February, Representative Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) added the rider to Section 771 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003 that would have allowed livestock producers to use non-organic feed if the US Department of Agriculture determined that insufficient supplies of organic feed were available. Deal acted on behalf of Fieldale Farms, a Georgia poultry producer that has lobbied for an exemption to the organic feed rule.
Serves four.
Preparation time approximately 30 minutes.
Low-fat version: Omit 1 Tblsp of oil, and substitute chickpeas for the cashews.
This recipe is our family's favorite way to eat quinoa.
Although classed as a grain, quinoa (keen-wah) is technically an herb, originating with the Incas, in Peru. It is perishable because of its oil content, and should be stored in the fridge up to a month, or in the freezer for 2 months. Quinoa is light, delicious, high in protein, and easy to cook. It can be used in place of rice, bulgar, or couscous. This dish is nice with green leafy veggies, salad or soup.
1 c quinoa
1 c. celery, chopped small
1/2 c. red pepper, chopped small
1/2 c. raw cashews
2 Tbls olive oil
tiny pinch asoefetida or crushed garlic clove
1 bay leaf
1/2 tsp thyme leaf
1/4 tsp turmeric
1/2 tsp gr. coriander
1/2 tsp cumin
1/4 tsp dried ginger
1/2 tsp salt
1 3/4 cup water
1/4 c. minced parsley or cilantro
fresh ground pepper
1. Soak quinoa 5 minutes, rinse twice, leave to drain
2. Heat olive oil on medium in a 3 qt saucepan or saute pan
3. Chop celery and red pepper
4. Add asoefetida, celery, red pepper and cashews. Stir fry until cashews are golden
5.Add the rest of the spices except for the parsley. Add the quinoa and stir until dry.
6. Add 1 3/4 c. water, bring to a boil, cover, and simmer 15 - 20 minutes, or until all the water is absorbed.
7. Stir in the chopped parsley or cilantro, fresh ground pepper, and serve.
Dear Savvy Vegetarian,
I became a vegetarian about six months ago, and I've been eating beans for protein. There's only one problem. They give me terrible gas, which is really embarrassing. I don't want to stop eating them, because I think I need the protein, but how can I reduce the gas?
Embarrassed In Chicago
Dear Embarrassed,
I remember this problem! There are four factors operating in your gastric distress:
Your digestive system
What kind of beans and how much
How the beans are cooked
Foods combined with the beans
Your digestive system: You haven't been a vegetarian very long, and I don't know your previous eating habits and state of digestion. but, when you make any kind of major dietary change, your digestion takes years to adapt. When it's used to meat, then all of a suuden you're throwing beans down the hatch, it's "Ack! Alien food. Does not compute." Also, when you become vegetarian, you're usually eating a lot more fiber, and fiber cleans out the years of accumulated garbage from your former carnivorous diet, making you a public nuisance.
What kind of beans and how much: Beans aren't that easy to digest, actually, but some are easier than others. Kidney beans, pinto beans, black-eyed peas, black beans and chick peas are relatively benign. Indian pulses, such as split mung beans, or red lentils (I forget the Indian name) are easy to digest. Navy beans, adzuki beans, green or yellow split peas, brown lentils, are all harder to digest, and therefore more gaseous. As to how much beans to eat, they are nutrition powerhouses, and you don't need to eat a lot of them at a time. 1/4 to 1/2 cup cooked is the average serving size.
How the beans are cooked:In my experience, beans should always be cleaned, rinsed, then soaked, whether or not they are pressure cooked. Soaking loosens the skins, and releases the gas causing chemical (please don't ask me to name it). How long depends on the bean, but they should double in size, and be smooth. Chick peas should be soaked overnight. It speeds things up to start soaking with hot water, and change the water once or twice. Add nothing but water to the beans during soaking.
When cooking, discard the soaking water, and use fresh. Bring to a boil, skim the foam, and boil ten minutes uncovered. Again, this loosens the skins, and releases gaseous chemicals. Don't add salt or baking soda to beans when cooking, but you can add a few fennel seeds, a slice of ginger, or a bay leaf. Those make beans more digestible. Cover and simmer until very tender. Beans should always be cooked until soft.
A note about canned beans. Always drain and rinse them before eating. These are more likely to cause gas than those you cook yourself, because they're not cooked the same, and they're not fresh. Use only in emergencies
Foods combined with beans: Beans on their own aren't complete protein. They need to be combined with whole grains and sometimes dairy to be well-digested. An example is burritos with whole wheat tortillas, refried beans, shredded cheese and sour cream. Rice and wheat with beans is a good trio.
Spicing makes beans much easier to digest. That's because herbs and spices are packed with vitamins, trace minerals, and natural pharmaceuticals which alter the chemistry of food. Good ones are fennel, coriander, cumin, ginger, turmeric (for chick peas, and Indian dhals), paprika, asoefetida, cayenne, black pepper, and salt. Herbs such as thyme, bay leaf, basil, rosemary, marjoram, oregano, cinnamon stick are also good. Consult recipes for proportions - there's a list of good vegetarian cookbooks in the Savvy Vegetarian Resource Guide. Or experiment - go easy until you hit on agreeable combinations and amounts.
A few other hints:
That's all I have to say about beans. (What! You don't think that was enough?)
Please let me know how things work out for you.
Judy Kingsbury,
The Savvy Vegetarian
P.S.The Savvy Vegetarian offers a 12 lesson course for beginning vegetarians, and also life coaching. If you're interested, click on these links for more information: School For Savvy Vegetarians, or Life Coaching
I already was aware of everything in "The Food Revolution", but John Robbins puts all that knowledge in a holistic context, "How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life And Our World". That crystallized my focus, as nothing else has. This is a 'must read', for anybody.
The book is well-researched and thoroughly documented, the message is profound, plus it's a page turner. John Robbins is a clear, personal, and entertaining writer. I liked the "Is That So?" boxes with quotes from opposite realities, and the "What We Know" topic summaries. They break up and lighten the relentless content, as do the catchy chapter headings, and many personal anecdotes. He speaks with insight, wit, compassion and hope about rather depressing subjects.
What's "The Food Revolution about? Well, food, obviously. What we eat, how it gets to our plates, and what that's doing to us and Planet Earth. It exposes the lies that the American public accepts without question. It's a persuasive argument for veganism. Personally, I would be very happy if Americans cut their meat consumption by 75%, and treated animals humanely on the way to killing and eating them. That would be a great start to saving the world. I don't think most of them are ready to go vegan, or anywhere near it. But John Robbins seems to be an all or nothing kind of guy. He lives his ideals, and hopes that we all will share them and do the same. That's why this book is so inspiring.
Among those who should read and heed "The Food Revolution" are the majority of Americans, whose lifestyle supports factory farming. Until they wake up, see what's going on, and care enough to change, conditions described in this book will continue. If you're reading this, don't wait for the movie. Run out and buy the book, and read the whole thing. Then tell ten other people about it. Let's see if word-of-mouth can bring about a revolution.
Judy Kingsbury
The Savvy Vegetarian