Marine Stewardship Council Loses Its Luster

Happier times: the cover of the Marine Stewardship Council's current annual report

Happier times: the cover of the Marine Stewardship Council's current annual report

 

Long regarded as the gold-standard for eco-certification of sustainable fisheries around the world, the London-based Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has begun to lose some of its glitter, in the eyes of many of the scientists and environmentalists meeting in Paris this week at the Seafood Choice’s Alliance’s annual Seafood Summit.

The flashpoint is the council’s plans to grant certification to the British Columbia’s Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery. The final decision is expected to be announced next week.

“I almost choked when I heard that they were planning to certify Fraser River sockeye. The population is in freefall,” said Daniel Pauly in an interview. Pauly, who was the keynote speaker at the summit, is a renowned marine scientist and author and the principal investigator at the University of British Columbia’s Fisheries Centre. He was also one of the advisors called in to lend the MSC solid scientific credibility when the organization was founded back in the late 1990s.

Canadian environmental groups, at least three of which sent delegates to Paris specific to lobby against MSC certification of Fraser sockeye, say that the fishery—far from being sustainably harvested—may be collapsing.

They point out that in six of the last eleven years, the fishery has been closed due to poor returns of breeding salmon. Last year, despite the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Ocean’s prediction of a run of 10.7 million fish, only 1.7 million made the journey upriver to spawn. The International Union of Conservation for Nature recently declared that three of the Fraser’s genetically distinct salmon populations are endangered, and one other is critically endangered. Meanwhile, federal government has launched a judicial inquiry into how its own officials failed to predict this year’s absence of fish.

“We’re supportive of MSC certification generally, but we are trying to stop this one dead,” said Craig Orr, executive director of Watershed Watch Salmon Society an environmental group in B.C.

Exactly why the MSC is moving ahead with such vigor remains unclear. Activists speculate that the province’s salmon processors have come under pressure to get eco-certification from supermarket chains in Britain (where the MSC label carries more clout than it does in North America). Pauly points out that at this point the MSC would be in an awkward position to back out because the applicants have already invested huge amounts of money in the costly certification process.

Kerry Coughlin, MSC’s Seattle-based regional director for the America’s said that she can remember no fishery being refused certification this late in the process. But she asserted that the pending approval should have come as no surprise.

“The way the MSC process works is that stakeholders are invited and encouraged to have input all the way through,” she said. “The MSC program is based on three principles: Are the fish stocks healthy, is the fishery damaging the marine ecosystem, and—key here—is there an ongoing effective management of that fishery. Our decisions are based on peer-reviewed scientific research.”

The Fraser’s closure to all commercial fishing, she said, was a sign that the resource was being managed effectively. “It’s an appropriate management response to allow the stock to rebuild.”

Pauly expressed concern that the B. C. situation may be part of a trend. The MSC has been certifying new fisheries at an almost dizzying rate. Currently it gives its blessing to 59 of them, up from 38 in 2008. There are an additional 120 under assessment, most of which will get approved, if past trends continue.

MSC auditors have recommended that it recertify Alaska’s pollock fishery, even though the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s highly regarded Seafood Watch program downgraded the fishery in January, saying that the trawls it uses, which are supposed to operate in “mid-water” frequently scrape and damage the ocean floor.

Seafood Watch also cites by-catch of king salmon as a problem. The aquarium is particularly concerned about kings that return to the Yukon River, where they once supported a small seafood processing company that provided the sole source of income for local natives. For the past two years, that company has been closed due to a lack of fish. Because of that the United States Commerce Department has officially designated the area a “disaster.”

There are also concerns that the pollock catch is robbing stellar sea lions and northern fur seals of food. And, while still huge, the annual pollock catch has been dropping steadily for the last several years.

The sheer size of the pollock industry makes some observers wonder whether it has become too big to fail for the MSC. With a value of more than $1 billion, it is the United States most lucrative fishery (if you’ve ever eaten a fish stick, an institutional fish and chip dinner, or a fast-food fish burger you’ve had pollock without knowing it). This one species alone represented 60 percent of the volume of MSC-certified fish in 2008.

“I’m afraid that certification is a one direction movement—once a fishery gets certified it’s going to take large numbers of very well trained and powerful horses to pull it over to the other side,” said Paul Johnston, principal scientist at Greenpeace Research Laboratories. “The presumption is that once it is certified, it will stay certified. But is you look at what’s going on in the pollock fishery, it looks to me like its teetering along a knife edge.”

The MSC’s Coughlin defends her organization’s stance on the pollock fishery. “Their by-catch is quite low.” She said. “99.9 percent of the catch is target stock and that is an extremely high rate for any fishery. True, because it’s a large fishery, it does take a large total number of salmon. But is the pollock fishery contributing to the depletion of the salmon fishery? The certifier determined that it is not.”

Controversy also surrounded the MSC’s recertification of the South Georgia (a British island in the South Atlantic) Chilean sea bass fishery last fall, long after most conscientious seafood eaters and chefs had taken a pass on the embattled species.

True, the Georgian fishery is well-managed, but because the dismal levels of the general Chilean sea bass population, and rampant, illegal overfishing, many environmentalists questioned the wisdom of the decision. The South Georgian catch represents only a small fraction of the total Chilean sea bass take, but many experts fear that by granting that fishery its imprimatur, the MSC has opened the door to confusion on the part of consumers and provided a conduit for illicit Chilean sea bass to find its way onto restaurant menus and into the marketplace.

“As I look at these decisions, one seems more absurd than the other,” said Pauly. He said that a core principle in conservation is that, when in doubt, certifiers should err on the side of caution. “If not, what the hell is the MSC all about?”

“An International Disgrace” Tuna Commission is Mismanaging Atlantic Albacore into Extinction

The forgotten tuna

The forgotten tuna

Atlantic albacore tuna have long paddled in the shadow of their bigger, more expensive, and more endangered cousins, Atlantic bluefin tuna. Now, “the forgotten tuna” is finally getting some respect, but for all the wrong reasons.

Speaking at the Seafood Choices Alliance’s Seafood Summit in Paris last weekend, Phil Kline, Senior Oceans Campaigner at Greenpeace said, “Albacore is managed, or should I say mismanaged, by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT).” On ICCAT’s watch, according to Kline, bluefin populations have been driven to the brink of extinction. “ICCAT’s performance is an international disgrace. This does not bode well for albacore.”

Scientific research on Albacore is scant, but the facts that do exist paint a grim picture. According to ICCAT’s own researchers, catches have dropped from 60,000 tons to 20,000, since the 1980s, but ICCAT still sets an annual limit that, at 32,000 tons, is more than 50% higher than the annual take. In the Mediterranean, the situation is more worrisome. There, catches collapsed by more than half in a single year to 2,359 tons in 2008 from 6,545 tons in 2007.

“This should be a huge indication that Mediterranean albacore are in deep trouble,” said Kline. “When a fishery gives a warning sign like this it’s time to take action.”

          Unfortunately, taking action is not one of ICCAT’s strong points, even though its legal mandate is to maintain stocks at levels of maximum sustainable yield and to err on the side of precaution whenever there is doubt.

“Despite dramatic drops in catches across the board, they tell fishermen, ‘We don’t know for certain whether the population is in collapse, so go ahead and fish,’” said Gerald Leape, Senior Officer of the Pew  Environmental Group.“We say no data; no fishing. We have to take measures now to stop albacore from going down the same road as bluefin.”

This news does not bode well for any American who enjoys the occasional tuna melt. Albacore accounts for one-third of the canned-tuna market in this country. It is the only species that can legally be labeled as “white” tuna. And the United States is the largest importer of the species, according to Susan Jackson, president of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, an environmental group. Albacore are also caught in the Pacific Ocean, but because the labels on cans are required only to list the country where the product was processed, instead of where it was caught, it is impossible to tell where most canned albacore came from.

(As if your seafood buying decisions need to become more complicated, an important exception is canned tuna labeled American Albacore which is caught off the west coast with hooks and poles and is recognized as the only sustainable tuna fishery in the world , by the highly regarded Marine Stewardship Council.)

Pew says that at very least, ICCAT should immediately reduce catch limits to the levels of what is currently being taken as a first step.

With bluefin providing a textbook example of how not to manage a fishery, the question is whether ICCAT will reform its management in time, or whether it will live up to the acronym an increasingly skeptical environmental community has given it: the International Conspiracy to Catch All Tuna.

White House Whitewash: Can the Agribusiness Lobby Kill Small, Organic Dairy Farmers?

  
Who, us? Organic?

Who, us? Organic?

On some bureaucrat’s desk in President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), sits a document that has the power to either destroy the nation’s 1,800 family-operated organic dairy farms or come to their rescue.

In the early 2000s, virtually all of the nation’s organic dairy farmers—not to mention the millions of consumers willing to pay a premium for organic products—agreed that milk certified as organic by the United States Department of Agriculture had to come from cows that had access to pasture.

As government regulations go, it sounds pretty straightforward: room to roam, clean air to breathe, fresh grass to eat. And that was the general consensus on what the National Organic Standards required.

But beginning in the mid-2000s, at about the time when it became evident that the green “USDA Organic” label translated into bigger profits, huge Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) with herds of up to 10,000 cows located in western states got into the organic milk business.

          There was one obvious problem. How do you provide pasture for thousands of hungry cows in a semi-arid landscape that would, at best, produce enough feed for a few dozen animals?

          The answer, according to Mark Kastel, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute, an advocacy group for organic family farms based in Wisconsin, is that the corporations that owned the CAFO’s did everything they could to muddy the definition of “access to pasture.”

          In some cases, a narrow, grassless strip outside the vast barns in which the animals were kept was considered “pasture” because some hay had been spread there. National Organic Standard Board (NOSB) allowances for cows and their very young calves to be kept indoors for a short period after birth were twisted to include all milking cows being kept inside 24/7 for 310 days a year.

          Just take a quick glance at these photographs from Cornucopia and draw your own conclusions about whether this method of farming looks organic.

          Either through bureaucratic lassitude or willful neglect, the big producers were helped every step of the way by USDA officials. “Between 2000 and 2008, they basically sat back and did nothing,” said Kastel in an interview.

          Well, maybe not exactly nothing. After being prodded by complaints from Cornucopia, the USDA finally declared that the Aurora Dairy Corp. of Boulder Colo., which milked as many as 19,000 cows, was in “willful” violation of 14 tenets of the federal organic standards—the milk it was selling as organic was not.  Aurora was allowed to modify its methods and continue selling milk that passes for “organic.”

          Naturally, the handful of huge CAFOs milking in excess of 2,000 cows each, with their economies of scale, drove down the price of organic milk and increased their share of the market to at least 30 percent. Combined with a drop in demand, it was a disaster for the 1,800 family-operated organic dairies in the country (who typically tend between 60 and 100 milking cows and actually have pastures), many of whom had gone to the expense of converting to organic when the bottom fell out of the market for conventional milk products. “Today we have small organic farmers going out of business all the time,” said Kastel, who tells a tragic story of one desperate dairyman who went into his barn, shot all of his cows, and then committed suicide.

          After years of official haggling, the USDA has finally produced a new set of regulations for organic milk production. The exact terms remain undisclosed, but Miles McEvoy, the newly appointed Deputy Administrator of the USDA’s National Organic Program, has assured Kastel that the new rules will be in line with an understanding organic producers arrived at by consensus in the early 2000s: Milk cows will graze on pasture for the entire growing season, or for at least 120 days in areas of inclement weather, getting 30% of their food from pasture.

          That ruling now awaits OMB approval. And guess who has been lobbying hard to “sway the Obama administration,” according to the Organic Consumers Association? None other than Aurora Dairy (whose chairman Mark Retzloff and his wife, Theresa, contributed $4,600 to the 2008 presidential campaign of Thomas Vilsack, the current head of the USDA, according to Campaignmoney.com) “That level of donor historically buys access,” said Kastel.

          He added, “Our biggest fear is that they will water this thing down. We’ve spent 10 years battling about this point. Now it’s all up to the stroke of a pen by someone in the Obama administration who is probably not an expert on this.”

          Both the Cornucopia Institute and the Organic Consumers Association have initiated write-in campaigns to persuade the administration to make sure organic dairy cows in this country continue to do what cows do best: convert fresh grass into wholesome milk.

          Should you feel inclined to let the folks in the White House  know your feelings on the matter, here are the links:

Cornucopia

Organic Consumers Association

Parsley, Sage Rosemary, and Swine: A Life-Saving Recipe

 

iStock_000010822372XSmall

 

To minimize my chances of getting cancer, I quit smoking as a young man back in the Pleistocene era. Because of similar concerns, I’m that lump in the hammock in the deep shade while everyone else is sunning themselves on the beach. My sense of self-preservation completely breaks down, however, when it comes to meat cooked on a grill.

As we’ve long been told, charring not only makes meat taste really good, it also creates carcinogenic compounds called heterocyclic amines. Scary.

Much to my relief, Kanithaporn Puangsombat and Scott Smith, two researchers at the Food Science Institute at Kansas State University, report in the Journal of Food Science that, because of the herb’s antioxidant qualities, adding rosemary extract to beef patties reduced the cancer-causing chemicals in the seared meat by up to 92 percent.

Whew! Rosemary just happens to be the key ingredient in one of my favorite grilled dishes, which appears in Complete Meat Cookbook by Bruce Aidells and Denis Kelly. In the interest of assuring the longevity of readers of this blog, I pass the recipe on with the warning that it has converted at least one vegetarian (a friend’s 11-year-old son) into an omnivore.

Full disclosure: Aidells is an old pal of mine. Fuller disclosure: I set up permanent housekeeping with his book editor many years ago.

 

Grilled Pork Tenderloin with Rosemary and Fennel Seed Crust

You can also use this savory herb rub with grilled pork chops, lamb chops, or veal chops.

 2   pork tenderloins trimmed of silverskin and butterflied by cutting lengthwise down the center, and pounded to a ½-inch thickness.

 For the Rub:

1   tablespoon olive oil

1   tablespoon  fennel seed bruised with the flat side of a knife or with a mortar and pestle

1   tablespoon chopped fresh rosemary or 2 teaspoons dried

1   tablespoon minced garlic

2   teaspoons kosher salt

2   teaspoons coarsely ground black pepper

 

Spread the meat on a plate and rub the olive oil on both sides. Combine the remaining ingredients and rub the mixture all over the pork, pressing it into the meat and crevices. Let the tenderloins rest for 30 minutes at room temperature.

Grill the tenderloins over medium-high coals for 3 to 4 minutes per side, or until the internal temperature registers 145 degrees to 150 degrees. Let them rest, covered lightly with foil for 5 minutes. Serve ½ tenderloin per person.

USDA Red Tape Stands in the Way of Humane Slaughter Techniques and Local, Sustainable Meat Production

Split Cow 015

I stood behind Monte Winship on a frigid morning last December as he raised his .25-caliber Winchester rifle and aimed at Léo, a two-and-a-half-year-old Holstein steer.

In an era when Food and Water Watch, an environmental group, reports that four giant corporations—Tyson, Cargill, Swift, and National Beef Packing—process 84 percent of this country’s cattle, the scene in that snow-covered field in Vermont is increasingly rare: an animal was about to be humanely slaughtered on the very farm where it had been raised.

Winship and his old, lever-action rifle represent the polar opposite of the huge, 5,000-animal-per-day meatpacking plants that were so graphically brought to the country’s attention in Eric Scholsser’s Fast Food Nation. “There aren’t many of us left,” said Winship, who is in his fifties. “When I was a kid, every town had someone doing this job.”

In the jargon of the meat business, Winship’s work is considered “custom slaughter.” He is a freelancer, traveling from farm to farm, killing cattle and hogs and transporting their gutted carcasses to a nearby facility to be cut into parts, wrapped, and frozen. As a means for converting a living steer into meat, the practice has a lot going for it. For one thing, it is as humane as killing an animal can be. “It’s the best way to slaughter them because you don’t have to transport them,” Temple Grandin, the renowned author, livestock-handling expert, and associate professor at Colorado State University, told me. Being trucked long distances and then herded shoulder-to-shoulder into confined areas with strange sights and noises is a huge stress on animals, she said. A cow killed on its home turf doesn’t know what hits it. “If on-farm slaughter is done properly, it’s very, very humane,” Grandin said.

It is also a way for a skeptical consumer to make sure that the animal had access to pasture and did not spend its final months in a feedlot pumped full of hormones and eating an unnatural diet of corn fortified with of antibiotics.

A humane death for Léo; healthy meat for the consumer. What’s not to like? Plenty, according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)—the same folks whose rigorous standards all but guarantee that yet another E. coli outbreak hits the news every week. Because the USDA refuses to give on-farm slaughter its little purple stamp of blessing, it is illegal to sell that meat butchered that way. Léo’s meat would be consumed only by the family of the farmer who had raised him.

On-farm slaughter is one solution to a problem plaguing anyone who wants to raise or consume local sustainable meat—getting it properly killed and butchered. Legal questions aside, on-farm slaughter has a major drawback for anyone wanting to process more than an animal or two at a time. “Once you get into more than a few animals,” said Grandin, who is never one to mince words, “you’d have a dirty mess.”

An alternative is to take animals to small, local slaughterhouses for killing and processing. But even as consumer demand has soared, the number of local processing facilities nationwide has plummeted. More than 1,500 have closed in the last two decades, according to the American Association of Meat Processors, which represents small- and medium-sized processors.

“The lack of slaughterhouses is the biggest bottleneck in the food business,” Patrick Martins, of Heritage Foods USA, the sales and marketing arm of Slow Food USA, told Food and Water Watch.

Such back-ups create huge problems. In one case, a dozen Vermont farmers pooled their resources to purchase a truck to serve the lucrative New York and Boston markets, where their products sell for three times the going rate in rural Vermont. But the scarcity of slaughterhouses means that the animals must be trucked alive out of state to be processed—both inconvenient and expensive. The situation is even more dire in New York State, where only 41 slaughterhouses remained in business in 2008, down from more than 120 in the 1980s. Pam McSweeny, a New York farmer who raises organic meat, has to truck her animals ten hours to Pennsylvania and back to have them processed, a huge expense.

To get around such backlogs, some small, sustainable producers have opened (or purchased) their own facilities. These include Will Harris of  White Oak Pastures, Georgia’s largest grass-fed beef producer; Sallie Calhoun, owner of Paicines Ranch, a grass-fed cattle operation in Benito County, California; and Joel Salatin of Polyface Farm in Virginia, made famous in Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma.

Many of the problems forcing small operations out of business (and preventing would-be investors from building new plants) can be traced back to red tape imposed by the USDA. According to the Food and Water Watch report, the USDA’s regulations favor huge facilities that can spread the costs over hundreds of thousands of animals. Complying with policies is too onerous for many small operators. Extensive record-keeping and ever-fluctuating safety criteria add additional burdens. And Food and Water Watch reports that there have even been accusations of USDA inspectors singling out small facilities for harsh treatment because they make easier targets than national corporations with their staff scientists, legal experts, and well-paid government lobbyists.

Having witnessed the process firsthand, I would have had no qualms about eating beef from Léo. The steer dropped and lay motionless in the snow, dead before Winship’s shot had finished echoing. After the carcass was hoisted by the hind hooves with a front-end loader, Winship skinned and gutted it, retaining the heart, tongue, liver, and kidneys. He used a saw to cut the carcass in half length ways, and after that severed each of the halves in two. The four quarters—over 800 pound of beef—were loaded into Winship’s pickup truck. In all, 90 minutes had passed.

I followed Winship for about 30 miles to a building not much bigger than a two-car garage off to the side of a winding gravel road. The unimposing structure was headquarters for the company that had hired Winship, Rup’s Custom Cutting, a mom-and-pop business, run by Rupert LaRock and his wife, Jeanne. The spotlessly clean facility is regularly inspected by health officials, so apart from the manner in which he had died, Léo would have complied with all state and federal policies regarding the sale of meat. LaRock, who has been a butcher for 41 of his 55 years, hoisted Léo’s quarters onto meat hooks connected to an overhead rail. He immediately started spraying them with a high-pressure hose, commenting on the size and high-quality of the carcass, but nonetheless grumbling, “Cows get so dirty this time of year.” I could detect no traces of filth.

Because of the shortage of slaughterhouses, the LaRocks are run off their feet. They process only one cow per day. “And it gets busier all the time,” he says. If you want Rup’s to butcher, wrap, and freeze one of your steers, you have to book an appointment three to four months in advance.

For those of us who want to eat local, sustainably raised, natural meat, LaRock has some words of encouragement. “Every time there’s an E. coli scare, my phone starts ringing. There’s so much demand out there that they are going to have to open on-farm slaughter to commercial sale soon.”

Florida Farm Workers Left Out in the Cold

scottrobertson-17[2]
Photograph by Scott Robertson courtesey of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers

 

Following this week’s prolonged cold snap in Florida, news reports bemoaned the prospect of higher prices for orange juice and crops such as strawberries, citrus, and tomatoes. The state’s governor (and United States Senate hopeful) Charlie Christ promptly issued an executive order to get state assistance to growers.

But what about the workers who pick the produce?

At the best of times, a tomato harvester (to pick an example with which I am sadly familiar) might make $50 on a good day. It’s all piece work—you get about 45 cents for every bushel-basket sized container you pick. There is no overtime, and benefits do not exist. When you can’t pick tomatoes, for whatever reason, you earn precisely nothing.

That, according to Gerardo Reyes, a farm worker from the state of  Zacatecas, Mexico, and a member of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, a labor rights group, is exactly what is happening in southern Florida right now. It is the peak of harvest season there, and some 17,000 migrant workers have crowded into the town of Immokalee in the heart of the citrus and tomato region and Florida’s largest migrant labor community. “Only a few people are working, almost no one,” Reyes told me through an interpreter. “It’s a matter of luck if you find a little planting to do or something.”

Although the extent of damage is not yet clear, Reyes guessed that it would be at least three weeks before there is any work, and then at best it will come back as a trickle.

“The situation is going to be hopeless for people. Before, they were living in abject poverty. They weren’t making enough when there was work to put anything away for a disaster like this,” said Reyes. Meanwhile, the workers will have to rely on strained social service agencies and church soup kitchens for something as basic as food. How they will be able to afford rent is a question for which Reyes had no answer. And with widespread cold damage, there is no place they can move to where they might find work. “Basically, every crop is effected,” said Reyes.

When weather forecasters warned of approaching arctic air masses, the large corporate growers who control the vast majority of the state’s tomato industry put the produce industry’s answer to a full-court press, doing everything they could to salvage as much of the crop as possible. For the workers, that meant long hours in the fields, often late into the night. Without warm, protective clothing, the laborers toiled in freezing rain as temperatures dipped into the thirties and even twenties, said Reyes.

“Here in Florida, warm coats are expensive and hard to come by,” said Reyes. “We had people coming to the coalition and asking where they could find a winter coat for less than thirty dollars.”

Many of the migrants live in dilapidated trailers, ten or a dozen crammed into structures that Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) said would be condemned in other jurisdictions when he toured Immokalee in 2008. They lack any form of heating and the windows leak cold air. Reyes said that it is not uncommon to see groups of workers huddled outside because it is warmer there than inside.

“Whenever there’s a natural disaster here—hurricane, heavy rain, freeze—it’s the workers who suffer,” Reyes said.

In addition to state assistance, the growers, who will see higher prices for the crops that survive, have access to crop insurance and other safety nets. 

The people who harvest our food will have to rely on charity.

From Sam Fromartz’s Chewswise Blog: “Atlantic Writer Blames Arugula for California’s Failing Schools”

 

The dirt on school gardens

                                                   The real dirt on school gardens

Sam Fromartz, a friend of mine, author of Organic, Inc., and the maestro of the Chewswise blog takes his scapel to the Atlantic’s (I contribute to the magazine’s website.) hatchett job on Alice Waters and her school lunch program. Here’s a sample, but Sam is just getting warmed up.

 In the media world, the hatchet job has long been a profitable one. It involves finding a major figure, uncovering a supposed flaw and then showing the world how it is a symptom of everything that’s wrong with — fill in the blank — politics, business, schools, etc.

 
Caitlin Flanagan’s rant about Alice Waters qualifies as a glowing example of the genre. In the piece, she argues that Water’s school gardens are doing everything to disenfranchise poor, undereducated kids by making them work outdoors rather than hitting the books. She leads off with a supposed child of a former migrant worker who goes to school — only to do migrant-like work at the Berkeley middle school garden that Waters organized.
The child is a figment of Flanagan’s hyperactive imagination. Keep reading . . .

A Newport, R. I., Estate Strives to Save Rare Livestock Breeds by Freezing Them

The SVF foundation has preserved thousands of heritage farm animals by freezing their semen and embryos in liquid nitrogen. Should a disease epidemic or other disaster hit the handful of common, highly inbred breeds we now rely upon for food, this “frozen ark” containg such agricultural misfits as Tennessee Fainting Goats, Oreo Cattle, California Variagated Mutant Sheep and 15 other endangered varieties might save modern animal husbandry. Here’s a link to my article in the January 5 New York Times Dining Section:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/dining/06frozen.html?8dpc

Death on a Dairy Farm: The Human Cost of Cheap Milk

iStock_000000156992Small

Here in Vermont, there has been no shortage of heart-wrenching evidence that this country’s dairy farmers face a financial crisis of epic proportions. Last August, I attended an auction where a farm that had been in the same family for 144 years—six generations—was sold off during the course of a single day, tractor by tractor and cow by cow due to low milk prices.

My neighbor, Henry, a small operator who works 365 days a year to tend about 55 Holsteins, stopped beside the road to chat the other day. In order to make it through the winter, he told me he needed to sell some of his animals. But even though he is asking only $500 a cow, about a third of the usual price, he’s found no buyers. “Everybody’s as broke as I am,” he said. “I don’t know what I am going to do.”

Then, at about 4:00 in the afternoon of December 22, José Obeth Santiz Cruz, a 20-year-old youth from Las Margaritas in the state of Chiapas in southern Mexico, died after becoming caught in a manure removal conveyer inside the barn of the Vermont farm where he worked. Because he lacked documentation, it took more than a week for officials to determine who he really was, how old he was, and where he came from.

Vermont likes to market itself as a verdant, wholesome state with picturesque black and white Holstein’s grazing on hillside pastures. But the postcard image hides an ugly truth. Santiz Cruz was one of 1,500 to 2,000 immigrant workers, most lacking legal papers, who toil invisibly behind the scenes in the Vermont’s beleaguered dairy industry, working 80-hour weeks and living in total isolation, often sleeping in the very barns with the cows they tend. “Vermont’s dairy farms depend on migrant workers,” said Brendan O’Neill, coordinator of the Vermont Migrant Farmworker Solidarity Project. “But there is no dignity in performing important work for that amount of time and having to hide yourself, never seeing the light of day. These people live and work in the shadows.”

Even when mourning the death of one of thier own, the workers stayed in the shadows. Santiz Cruz had 80 extended family members and friends working on nearby Vermont farms, but according to O’Neill, they feared gathering to hold a memorial service for the youth because of the possibility of prosecution and deportation. It was left to a handful of workers’ rights advocates to hold a quiet candlelight vigil in his honor.

As a further grim reminder of how dispensable laborers are to modern agribusiness, there is some question about how the young man’s remains will be returned home for burial—an effort that could cost as much as $10,000. The Vermont Workers’ Center has started a memorial fund and is working with the Mexican consulate in Boston and the office of Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to get the body back to Las Margaritas.

The story of  Santiz Cruz is worth thinking about the next time you stand in front of the dairy case at your local market. Despite their colorful labels depicting happy cows and bucolic red barns, those inexpensive bottles and cartons come to us with an incalculably high human price tag.

Is Seafood Watch Going to Give its Blessing to Farmed Shrimp?

iStock_000004279032Small

 

I stopped eating farmed shrimp (which is to say nearly 90 percent of the shrimp sold in this country) several years ago for three reasons. 1) They taste like ammonia or mud. 2) Too often, they are contaminated with drugs and chemicals banned by the United States government. And (3) Shrimp aquaculture is one of the most environmentally harmful ways humans have devised to raise food, contributing to the destruction of mangroves, pollution of coastal waters, and decimation of wild species.

I may soon have to reassess my blanket condemnation of farmed shrimp. On January 14, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch program, which publishes a series of useful pocket guides to sustainable seafood, will issue updated guidelines. “New research has become available on farmed shrimp,” Alison Barratt, a spokeswoman for the aquarium, told me. “Some aspects have improved.”

Although Barratt refused to give specifics in advance of the release, environmentalists agree that things appear to have gotten better in a couple of key management practices, particularly in Asian countries, source for most of the farmed shrimp we eat. Aquaculture operations in that area once relied on native tiger shrimp and had to populate their ponds with juvenile “seed stock” caught from depleted wild populations. Over the last several years, they have switched to Pacific white shrimp, an American species, which is bred in captivity.

In another positive trend, Asian shrimp farms have begun moving away from coastal areas, replacing open systems that flushed dirty water and pollutants directly back into the sea. In so doing, they are reducing water pollution and destruction of mangroves. White shrimp do not require as high a level of salinity as tiger shrimp, facilitating the move away from the seacoast.

“The industry has changed dramatically,” said Peter Bridson, Monterey’s aquaculture research manager. But Bridson added that all shrimp-producing countries are not equal. “We are recognizing that practices are different in various countries, so we are breaking our research down on a country-by-country basis.”

Currently, Seafood Watch tars all farmed imported shrimp with the same bright red “Avoid” recommendation.

Although packages of unprocessed shrimp sold to American consumers are required by law to label their countries of origin, processed shrimp and shrimp sold by restaurants come with no such identification. Even if Seafood Watch does give different ratings to different shrimp-producing countries, consumers may still have no way of knowing where their shrimp were farmed.

Moreover, the new sustainable practices do not necessarily address the problem of chemical contaminants, and the Food and Drug Administration, inspects less than 2 percent of shrimp imports.

It’s great if the aquaculture industry is really cleaning up its act. But I’m still tempted to stick with tiny northern shrimp from the Northeast or pink shrimp from the Northwest if I want something small, mild and sweet. If I’m looking to bite into something larger with bolder flavor, it’s hard to beat wild-caught shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico and the Southeast. They all taste great, are naturally chemical-free, and earn either “Best Choice” or “Good Alternative” ratings from Seafood Watch.