Rated G(reen): the Best Environmental, Food and Health Movies

It is Oscar time and we are all trying to catch that last movie everyone has been talking about. Whether at the water-cooler at work, on twitter, Facebook or even across the dinner table, we all love to talk about movies. Of the dozens of nominees this year, it appears that only two have green/public health themes -- WALL.E and the documentary The Garden.  But over the past few years there have been plenty of films that are truly worth taking a look at.  The following are a list of films my husband and I have watched over the past year or so (love Netflix) that I think you should watch.  They are listed in no particular order, just put them in your queue and enjoy.  Movies are rated from 1-3 green thumbs (1 is a watch, 2 should watch, 3 MUST watch.)

Story of Stuff with Annie Leonord 

Throughout this 20-minute online film, activist Annie Leonard, the film’s narrator and an expert on the materials economy, examines the social, environmental and global costs of extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal. The “Story of Stuff” examines how economic policies of the post-World War II era ushered in notions of consumerism — and how those notions are still driving much of the U.S. and global economies today. It is definately worth watching and forwarding to all your friends.

Flow The Film

What happens when you mix water with big business? Nothing good.  Flow shows when you combine the public health and private interest you get "pollution, scarcity, human suffering and corporate profit." Water is a $400 billion dollar global industry; the third largest behind electricity and oil. There are estimates that from five hundred thousand to seven million people get sick per year from drinking tap water. So you want to be freaked out?  You want to have horrible dreams?  Well this is the movie for you. Moving from the US to India, from small farms to "industrial" spring water, Flow will get you to look at your tap at lot differently, and will hopefully get you to make more conscious decisions about how you use water.  This movie was one of the things that got me to have my water tested in my home.

 

Two Angry Moms 

Do you have kids in school? Do you pack a lunch for them every single day? If not, they probably are buying what the school is serving. If so, you want to know what your kids are eating in school, well so did Amy Kalafa and Susan Rubin. These moms were fed up that their children were eating highly-processed food filled with additives and preservatives at school. Two Angry Moms, the film and the movement, address an issue of great concern to parents across the country. What is happening to the health of our children and how does school food factor in? The movie not only shows what is wrong with school food, it offers strategies for overcoming roadblocks and getting real food into school cafeterias. Kalafa and Rubin provide solutions to the problem that include the connection between the cafeteria and the classroom. The movie explores the roles the Federal government, corporate interests, school administration and parents play in feeding our school kids.  For additional watching head over to TED.ORG and watch Anne Cooper's talk on School Food.

King Corn 

If you're anything like me, you consider Michael Pollan something of a food guru. I hold The Omnivores Dilemma as the bible of the sustainable food movement. A core theme of Pollan's book is the impact industrial corn plays across the entirety of US, and now global, society. For those of you are interested in an introductory course on the corn, you must see this documentary by two college friends, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis. A great visual into to corn industry and the American food system, "King Corn" should become required viewing for all schools across the country to teach children to eat better. For a more indept review of this movie read my post titled King Corn: We are what we eat.

Greening of Southie

Want to know what goes into making a building green and what can go wrong? Well so did the filmmakers of King Corn.  Set in South Boston, The Greening of Southie is about Boston’s first residential green building, and the skeptical workers who are asked to build it. From wheatboard cabinetry to recycled steel, bamboo flooring to dual-flush toilets, The Macallen Building is something different––a leader in the emerging field of environmentally friendly design. But Boston’s steel-toed union workers aren’t sure they like it. And when things on the building start to go wrong, the young developer has to keep the project from unraveling.  An interesting look on the contrast between the ever changing green movement and an insular community resistant to change. 

Killer At Large

Killer at Large examines the startling details of the American obesity epidemic and why this issue has crossed from a public health crisis to a national security issue. The film starts with a clip from a press conference with Surgeon General Richard Carmona who when asked what is the most pressing issue Americans face today he planing states, “Obesity. Because obesity is a terror within. It is destroying our society from within and unless we do something about it, the magnitude of the dilemma will dwarf 9/11 or any other terrorist event you can point out. Where will our soldiers, sailors, and airmen come from? Where will our police and firemen come from if the youngsters today are on a trajectory that says they will be obese?” The movie provides a perspective on one of the most pressing health issue of our time and serves as a call to arms to take a stand and reverse this deadly trend – which is poised to cripple our nation’s health care system and bankrupt our economy within the next 20 years. Killer at Large will be available on DVD on March 31st, 2009.

The Real Dirt on Farmer John

If you are still debating if you should join a CSA then you must watch the documentary about John Peterson, a.k.a Farmer John, a midwest farmer whose life parallels the history of American farming in the late 20th century.  Peterson came from a family of farmers who struggled, like most farmers, to make ends meet. Peterson's father died when he was teenager, which forced him to be in charge of the farm. By the 1980's, when most farmers were trouble, so was Peterson who had to sell off most of his farm to make ends meet. Destitute and depressed, Peterson took time away from farming and returned in the '90s. Deciding to change his farm from a mono-culture, chemical dependent farm, to an organic farm and connect himself to the land, Peterson turned his farm into the one of the largest CSAs in the country.  Peterson is a truly unique individual and is interesting to watch.  To be honest, the movie is a bit slow, but is worth the time and effort to get through. 

Who Killed the Electric Car (2006)

Ok, now for the movie that will OUTRAGE YOU. This is one movie that will get you pissed off and probably make you call your Congressperson, Senator or whoever you want to rant to. Remember way back (last summer) when gas was $4 a gallon and looked to keep going up? When we all heard about how "the Electric Car was coming". Ford, Toyota, and GM said that a production ready electric car was only 5 or 10 years away. Well guess what? We already had a true electric car. Twelve years ago GM - the company that just got tens of billions of bailout money, launched the EV1, the world's first true production plug-in electric car. This film looks at the birth and untimely death of the EV1. This wonderful car required no petrochemical-based fuel and could be plugged in for recharging at home and at a number of so-called battery parks. The car was loved by just about everyone who owned it, including a number of celebrities. Who killed it? Watch this a prepare to get insanely mad.

Super Size Me (2004)

This is far and away one of the most well known of the food/green movies out there. If you have not seen this 30-day eating journey of Morgan Spurlock it is a must. Spurlock's month long McDonald's food festival explores the fast food industry's influence on the American consumer and how public health is put aside for corporate wealth. It is just another look at the obesity epidemic and how our industrial food industry is killing Americans. Prepare to throw-up in your mouth a little watching this movie. But also prepare to never, ever look at fast food the same way again.

Other movies which I have not seen yet but are on my list are Sustainable Table What's on Your Plate? (2007) Food, Inc. (2008), Bad Seed: The Truth About Our Food (2006) The World According To Monsanto (2008) and The Future of Food (2004).

All the above mentioned movies can be rented on Netflix or purchase on the films website. Check them out and let me know what you think. Also, if you are interested purchasing Two Angry Moms to screen at your child's school, the library or for a large group, Amy Kalafa (one angry mom) has offered a $10 discount for orders over $50. Use coupon code DD010 at check out.

Follow me on Twitter @Green_Luvin 

Guest Blogger: Leslie Hatfield of the Green Fork blog on the FDA and Mercury in High Fructose Corn Syrup

There are so many good green bloggers out there I wanted to introduce you to another blogger that I really enjoy reading. Leslie Hatfield is the freelance editor of the Green Fork blog and serves as media consultant for Eat Well, a NYC-based nonprofit program which promotes the sustainable food movement and helps people find good food through their online directory of farms, restaurants and other outlets of locally-grown food. Leslie has also contributed to Edible Chesapeake and The Ethicurean.  

"Our Melamine: There’s Mercury in High Fructose Corn Syrup, and the FDA Has Known for Years"

Maybe Jeremy Piven didn’t get mercury poisoning from fish at all — according to the results of this new study released by the Institute for Agriculture and Trace Policy (IATP), the actor may well have been sickened by soda or candy or anything that contains high fructose corn syrup, which, if you eat processed food in this country means, well, just about anything.

Foodies and nutritionists alike have been griping about high fructose corn syrup for years, and the industry has responded with an “astroturf” campaign and a level of secrecy generally reserved for the military officials or secret societies (see Corn Refiners’ Association president Audrae Erickson’s stonewalling performance in King Corn).

Of course, I wouldn’t want to show my hand either, if the making of my product could be described as undertaking a small “Manhattan Project” (see eye-glazing production info here). But as it turns out, the HFCS industry has been hiding some major skeletons in its closet — according to the IATP study (pdf), over 30% of products containing the substance tested positive for mercury.

What makes this news truly shocking is not just that the manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup would put consumers’ health at risk, but that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knew about the mercury in the syrup and has been sitting on this information since 2005.

Here’s the connection, according to the IATP press release (pdf) announcing the study: The IATP study comes on the heels of another study, conducted in 2005 but only recently published by the scientific journal, Environmental Health, which revealed that nearly 50 percent of commercial HFCS samples tested positive for the heavy metal. Renee Dufault, who was working for the FDA at the time, was among the 2005 study’s authors.

Here’s how the mercury gets in there, according to Janet at the Ethicurean:

How did the heavy metal get in there? In making HFCS — that “natural” sweetener, as the Corn Refiners Associaton likes to call it — caustic soda is one ingredient used to separate corn starch from the corn kernel. Apparently most caustic soda for years has been produced in industrial chlorine (chlor-alkali) plants, where it can be contaminated with mercury that it passes on to the HFCS, and then to consumers.

And here’s more from the press release:

“While the FDA had evidence that commercial HFCS was contaminated with mercury four years ago, the agency did not inform consumers, help change industry practice or conduct additional testing.”

And on why it matters:

“Mercury is toxic in all its forms,” said IATP’s David Wallinga, M.D., and a co-author in both studies. “Given how much high fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the FDA to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply.”

In China, heads might roll over a scandal like this one, at least if the country received global attention for its allowing corrupt health officials’ greasy palms come before, um, public health.

Of course, in this country, the FDA’s neck is safe. But what about the health of American consumers? Let’s see the Corn Refiner’s Association try to spin this one.

Originally posted on January 27th 2009 on the Green Fork blog.

Drum roll please:  The Corn Refiner's Association rebutal...as stated in a press release entitled HFCS Mercury Study Outdated; Based on Discontinued Technology, “This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance. Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two re-agents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years. These mercury-free re-agents perform important functions, including adjusting pH balances,” stated Audrae Erickson, President, Corn Refiners Association. “For more than 150 years, corn wet millers have been perfecting the process of refining corn to make safe ingredients for the American food supply.” The full press release can be read here.  

Not sure how that explains the results of the IATP study that found that nearly one in three of 55 brand-name foods bought off the shelves in 2008 contained mercury. The chemical was found most commonly in HFCS-containing dairy products, dressings and condiments.

I think the corn has just spun off the cob.  

An open letter to President-elect Obama.

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'

1908 Ford Model T vs. 2008 Ford Pick-Up

On October 1st, 2008, the Ford Model-T turned 100-years-old.  Back in 1908, the year my grandmother was born,  this "universal car" as Henry Ford called it, became the first mass-produced car and the symbol of low-cost reliable transportation. But more important than it's centenial, the Model T got 13-21 MPG (max speed 45 MPH), and it was the first flexible-fuel vehicle, running on gas, ethanol or both. According to Model T collector Stu Chaney of the Model T Ford Club of America who appeared on the The CBS Saturday Early Show, "It will run on moonshine, gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel-- about anything you can put a match to. And, whatever it runs on, it would pass today's very strict emission standards, because it burns the complete charge in the combustion."

Call me crazy but why are we no better off 100 years later? According the the US Department of Energy's website, FuelEconomy.gov, the 2008 Ford Ranger Pick-Up gets 15 MPG (highway, city combine).  I drive a Acura MDX and hardly ever go above 45 MPH and I am only getting about 15 MPH, and neither of these cars are Flex-Fuel vehicles.  

Are you kidding me?  So the 100 year-old Model-T does better on fuel efficiency than cars made today and its a flex-fuel automobile.

Henry Ford knew there was a future in alternative fuel.  In 1925 he told the New York Times that "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust -- almost anything. There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years."

In the late 1920's, Ford began to test crops for their industrial potential.  He actually used soybeans in gearshift knobs and horn buttons. This process of creating industrial products from agricultural raw materials is called Chemurgy.  Coined by the chemist William J. Hale, chemurgy in the 1930's during the Great Depression, many farmers and others were advocating the link between farm and industry. In 1935, the Farm Chemurgic Council (later renamed the National Farm Chemurgic Council) was formed to encourage greater use of renewable raw materials in industry. This sounds like a good idea to me.  If you've read some of my other blogs, you know that I feel strongly about the pervasive nature of petrochemicals in our everyday lives.  

So tell me what happened in the past 100 years.  Well, after Henry Ford began producing the Model-T oil-based gasoline emerged as the dominant fuel due to it availability, price, and of course lobbying from petroleum companies to maintain steep alcohol taxes. According to Hemp Car Transamerica (don't laugh this is both legit and important):  "Many bills proposing a National energy program that made use of Americas vast agricultural resources (for fuel production) were killed by smear campaigns launched by vested petroleum interests."  So big oil killed big agriculture's bid for our gas tanks?  We're dependent upon foreign oil due to American big oil efforts.

Hemp Car Transamerica continues, "One noteworthy claim put forth by petrol companies was that the U.S. government's plans 'robbed taxpayers to make farmers rich'. Gasoline had many disadvantages as an automotive resource. The 'new' fuel had a lower octane rating than ethanol, was much more toxic (particularly when blended with tetra-ethyl lead and other compounds to enhance octane), generally more dangerous, and contained threatening air pollutants. Petroleum was more likely to explode and burn accidentally, gum would form on storage surfaces and carbon deposits would form in combustion chambers of engines."  So this fuel is less efficient, dirtier, and more dangerous.  Great choice America.

Finally, Hemp Car Transamerica concludes,  "Pipelines were needed for distribution from 'area found' to "area needed". Petroleum was much more physically and chemically diverse than ethanol, necessitating complex refining procedures to ensure the manufacture of a consistent "gasoline" product. However, despite these environmental flaws, fuels made from petroleum have dominated automobile transportation for the past three-quarters of a century. There are two key reasons: First, cost per kilometer of travel has been virtually the sole selection criteria. Second, the large investments made by the oil and auto industries in physical capital, human skills and technology make the entry of a new cost-competitive industry difficult."

Back in 1974, the EPA began the Miles Per Gallon rating system.  In a 1999 press release announcing the 25th Anniversary of the rating system, the EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner stated, "Choosing the most fuel-efficient vehicle within a class can save drivers at least $1500 [in 1999] in fuel costs and avoid more than 15 tons of greenhouse gas pollution [in 1999] over the life of the vehicle as well as help reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil."

Well only now in 2008, 100 years after the first Model T rolled off the manufacturing line, are Americans and our government, seeing the health, economic and environmental effects of not listening to Henry Ford's original vision.  Well I'm not sure about this?  Are we leading the world, or or we lagging behind?  Can you guess?

Currently one country in Asia has fuel efficiency standards of 43 MPG.  Another has mandated 35.5 miles per gallon by 2010. Those crazy Europeans have mandated 47 MPG by 2012, and Australia is 34.4 by 2010.  But the US is waiting until 2020 to require cars to go 35 MPG. 

Guess who is at 43 MPG?  THE CHINESE.  Yes China, the land of coal fired power plants popping up like weeds is WAY ahead of us in this area.

Time to go vote.  Let your Senator or Congressperson know how you feel about this.  Now is the time.  Think Green on November 2. 

Guest Blogger: Farmer Shannon Hayes on Methane Production in Grassfed Livestock

Once again Shannon Hayes, a sustainable farmer in Upstate New York, has written an interesting article on Methane Production, Beef and Global Warming.

Methane Production in Grassfed Livestock: By Shannon Hayes

As debates about how to save the planet rage on, grass farmers are suddenly faced with an onslaught of questions about…believe it or not, cow burps and farts. Any of us who’ve sat quietly and milked our family cow can attest to the simple fact that, yes, grassfed cattle do belch quite a bit.

Enteric fermentation, the fermentation of forage in the rumen, is a natural part of the digestion process for ruminant animals such as cows, sheep, goats or buffalo. As Matthew Rales pointout in his excellent article in the Spring 2008 journal, Wise Traditions, rumen fermentation “is the process that gives us fats like conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), and bone building nutrients like vitamin K.”(1) Grassfed livestock belch more than factory-farmed animals because they have a higher amount of roughage in their diet, which comes from grasses, and less starch. Grainfed livestock have a higher percentage of starch, since much of their feed comes from corn (the production of which, as we know, is also responsible for a fair amount of greenhouse gas). The natural fermentation process is unnaturally suppressed in factory farmed livestock…but grainfed animals still burp and fart quite a bit. In addition, factory farming results in considerable carbon emissions owing to the fuel intensive production practices. Concentrated animal production can also cause very serious pollution problems.

Unfortunately, this natural process of emitting methane is causing a lot of folks to raise their arms in alarm, to forego their local grass-fed burgers, and to opt instead for a bowl of rice and veggies. 

Whoa! Stop right there….rice field methane emissions are a major source of atmospheric methane. Further, research is starting to indicate that vegetation is also a source of methane. Trees, too. On another note, those blessed wetlands that we regard as bastions of environmental health and wealth comprise 80% of all natural methane emissions (2). Still, human-made sources of methane exceed natural sources, and in the United States, the culprits are oil, coal and gas extraction, landfills, rice cultivation, biomass burning and, yes, ruminant livestock and waste treatment.

So what’s a hungry person to do? 

Well, first of all, get recycling, and buy fresh local food that doesn’t come in a lot of packaging. Can the tomatoes from your garden or farm stand so you don’t have to buy any from the store in the winter. Start riding your bike more and using your car less. In the United States, landfills and natural gas and petroleum systems are responsible for more methane emissions than ruminants. When you hop on your bicycle, make sure you strap a little cooler on the rack and pedal over to your local grass farmer to pick up some lamb chops and some burger for your grill tonight (and, while you’re at it, go ahead and pick up a copy of my cookbooks there too, -- they’re printed on recycled paper!). 

On her website EatWild.com, Jo Robinson reports on research that was conducted by Dr. Rita Schenck at the Institute for Environmental Research and Education which shows that, when we account for the carbon sequestration resulting from grazing animals (where well-managed pastures help to pull excess carbon out of the atmosphere), even with the increased enteric fermentation, the net result is still a reduction in greenhouse gases. Jo Robinson also reports on a study demonstrating that keeping ruminants on high quality pastures (using the management intensive grazing practices that most of our nation’s grassfarmers employ) can reduce ruminant methane emissions by as much as 20% (3). 

To learn more about how your consumption of local grassfed meats can help save the planet, check out the article titled Moving the World Toward Sustainability in the Green Money Journal, where grazing advocate and environmentalist Allan Savory shows us how we could stop global warming within 15 years using Holistic Management and management intensive grazing practices (4). 

Yes, despite their burps and farts, those grazing cattle, sheep and goats are still going to play a major role in saving the planet…so enjoy tonight’s cookout.

1. Rales, Matthew. “An Inconvenient Cow: The Truth Behind the U.N.
Assault on Ruminant Livestock.” Wise Traditions, Vol. 9, no. 1, Spring
2008: 16-23.
2. www.eoearth.org/article/Methane
3. DeRamus, H. A., T. C. Clement, D. D. Giampola, and P. C.
Dickison. "Methane Emissions of Beef Cattle on Forages: Efficiency of
Grazing Management Systems." J Environ Qual 32, no. 1 (2003): 269-77.
4. Savory, Allan and Christopher Peck, “Moving Our World Towards
Sustainability,” Green Money Journal, Spring 2008.

About Shannon Hayes
Shannon is the host of grassfedcooking.com, and the author of The Farmer and the Grill and The Grassfed Gourmet. She holds a Ph.D. in sustainable agriculture and community development from Cornell University. Her family farm is Sap Bush Hollow, it is located in Upstate New York.

Corn: How can one food lead to both obesity and starvation?

Corn: it makes us fat, makes our cows sick, degrades our land and now it is causing a food crisis. How can one crop cause both obesity and starvation? Can a plant be evil?

Well, as we all know, and as I wrote about in my "King Corn" post, corn is the basic building block of most of our food. But with mountains of corn, all that processed food and high fructose corn syrup, how can there be global a food crisis? Think about this, there are people RIOTING in the streets because there is not enough food to eat!

Due to the poorly conceived energy policies of the United States and European Union a tremendous amount of corn is being converted to biofuels (think ethanol). The acreage being used to grow fuel corn is contributing to the explosive rise in global food prices.  Many farmers are growing corn for your gas tank and not your belly.

Yesterday the United Nations said that fuel policies pursued by the U.S. and the EU were one of the main causes of the current worldwide food crisis. So now, not only are we fighting for oil in Iraq, but Iowa isn't feeding us anymore, its feeding Ford's, Chevy's and Toyota's.

Jean Ziegler of Switzerland, UN special rapporteur on the right to food and a professor of sociology at the University of Geneva and at the Sorbonne in Paris, said "that last year the United States used a third of its corn crop to create biofuels, while the European Union is planning to have 10 percent of its petrol supplied by biofuels."  To me, that's both pretty amazing and scary.  Thirty-three percent of all the corn grown in the US is going to run our cars.

When speaking with Voice of America, Greg Barrow of the UN's World Food Program stated, "There is a perfect storm that has emerged over this issue [due to] a combination of factors - high fuel prices, high food commodity prices driven by the growth of economies in China and India. Then this phenomenon of biofuels production, where fields that were once used to produce grain for human consumption are now producing grain for fuel."

Food prices have risen dramatically in the last year and we are already seeing a food crisis in Haiti, Cameroon, Egypt, Ivory Coast, South Korea, Bangladesh and the Philippines. And American's are not immune to the crisis.  Both Costco and Sam's Club have begun rationing sales of rice allowing a maximum of two to four institutional-size bags per customer, depending on supply. 

When speaking with the Washington Post, Bruce Babcock, a professor of economics and the director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University said "If you didn't have ethanol, you would not have the prices we have today. It doesn't mean it's the sole driver. Prices would be higher than we saw earlier in this decade because world grain supplies are tighter now than earlier in the decade. But we've introduced a new demand into the market."  And the astounding thing is, ethanol is not an efficient source of fuel and might be exacerbating global warming. 

According to the Associated Press, even President Bush-- that well knowing environmentalist--said biofuel is responsible for about 15 percent of the rise of food prices. However the U.S. Department of Agriculture believes it to be more around 20 percent. And the International Food Policy Research Institute and Ziegler says it is 30 percent. Leave it to Bush to underestimate a crisis.

Then of course there is the biofuel industry that says that biofuels have only brought food prices up 4 percent. But who are they kidding. It is in their best interest to keep the corn flowing to their chemical vats, and the fuels flowing to our cars.

Check out the Associated Press photo above of a pump at an Ohio Department of Agriculture fuel station in 2006 that is 85% ethanol and 15% petroleum. Currently gasoline contains up to 10% ethanol. If the biofuel industry had it their way all our pumps would look like the one in the photo.

Ziegler and other international scientist have called for a moratorium on the production of biofuels. But of course Bush believes the opposite. Good thing he is a lame duck!

What do you think?

(pump image by Kiichiro Sato, AP)

King Corn: We are what we eat.

Corn, it is hot news these days. With crops at record prices and grocery bills rising everyone is looking at the corn industry. 

Corn is in almost everything we eat. Livestock is fed corn, farmed fish are fed corn, processed food are made of corn and the mighty sweeter, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), is made of corn. Corn is even used to fuel our cars in the form of ethanol thanks to a poorly thought out government policy.

Well for those of you are interested in an introductory course on the corn, two college friends, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, filmed a documentary on the industry called "King Corn." This pretty amazing film will air on PBS on April 15th. 

What's the story here? Well, Ian and Curt decided to move to Iowa in 2003 for a year to plant one acre of corn to follow it from seed to table. What they find out raises scary questions not only about what Americans eat but also how our agriculture is farmed. 

Their journey takes them first to have their hair carbon tested at the University of Virginia to discover that their bodies are made out of more than 50% corn! From Virginia, they venture to fields of Iowa where acres and acres of farmland are planted with corn and the grain elevators are overflowing with corn. Then to the grasslands of Colorado where cattle use to graze.  The fields are now cornfields that feed the cows in feed-lots.  Ian and Curt look at every part of the corn production cycle. They even speak to a high fructose corn syrup producer who thinks the liquid sweetener is the best invention since sliced bread.  

Corn is a commodity and Ian and Curt learn this very quickly when they taste their industrial corn for the first time.  It was inedible! They discover for their corn to become any type of food it must be processed.  

The film is in large part a homage to Michael Pollen, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma. In "King Corn," Pollan states, "If you take a McDonald's meal, you don't realize it when you eat it but you're eating corn. Beef has been corn-fed. Soda is corn. Even the French fries -- half the calories in the French fries come from the fat they're fried in, which is liable to be either corn oil or soy oil. So when you're at McDonald's, you are eating Iowa food. Everything on the plate is corn." 

The agriculture system today is a result of America's government subsidized farm program.  In 1973, Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz declared, "What we want out of agriculture is plenty of food."

 

Well, we have plenty of food but our nutritional supply has degraded. When Ian and Curt speak with one of the Iowa farmers about their crops, the farmer admits that they do not eat their corn.  As he states in the movie, "We aren't growing quality, we are growing crap."

Ian and Curt's acre harvested 10,000-pounds of corn which could yield 57,348 cans of soda or 3,894 corn-fed hamburgers.  Sixty-three percent of their harvest went into feed for livestock, 32% into ethanol and 5% into sweeteners like HFCS.

A great visual into to corn industry and the American food system, "King Corn" should become required viewing for all schools across the country to teach children to eat better.  

"King Corn" will air on PBS on April 15th at 10:00 PM.  You can also purchase the DVD on their website.