Happenings on the Ranch

Well, it’s official.  Just a few days after Whole Foods and several other companies announced they thought we should try to co-exist with GMO (genetically modified organism) planting, the USDA approved the unrestricted planting of GE (genetically engineered) alfalfa created and sold by Monsanto.

Despite comments and arguments from proponents of sustainable, organic agriculture, health organizations and the general public, Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack and the Obama administration have shown whose side they are really on – and it’s not ours.  No surprise, really, but still frustrating.

The GMO seeds that Monsanto sells are engineered to withstand multiple heavy applications of their herbicide, RoundUp.  The problem is that it’s been proven these applications create superweeds which are resistent to the herbicide.  This causes Monsanto to modify their RoundUp to be stronger to battle these new weeds.  It’s a vicious cycle.  And these seeds are truly genetic freaks … you can never grow your own seed for planting from these crops.  Farmers that use them have to go back each year to Monsanto to get fresh seed for their next crop.  They are Frankenseeds.

The biggest problem for organic growers is the proliferation of these GE seeds.  Reports are continually coming in from organic farmers whose fields have been contaminated with genetically modified organisms.  This happens naturally by the wind, bees and other pollen carrying insects that carry the pollen from one field to another, thereby contaminating the crop.  Sometimes the organic farmer can win a lawsuit against the producer using the GMOs; in most cases, there is no recourse.  And the farmer, in any instance, loses his USDA Organic certification since no GMOs are allowed in organic production.  Even worse, Monsanto has been known to sue wheat producers who have been found to have GMOs on their fields without purchasing them, claiming trade infringment, even though the farmer never wanted the darn things in his soil to begin with.  And Monsanto has won these suits every time.  No doubt the same will now happen with alfalfa farmers.

The biggest problem with GE alfalfa will be for organic dairy and meat producers.  Alfalfa is the largest source of hay for cattle in this country.  We at NV Ranch use ground alfalfa in our winter feed rations for our chickens and hogs as a good source of protein when there is no fresh grass available in the fields.  It is the fourth largest crop grown in the U.S., behind corn, soy and wheat.  Alfalfa is also notorious for it’s widespread proliferation habit.  It has been shown to spread at least up to five miles from it’s original source.  Funny, that was one of the things the USDA was considering in it’s decision about Monsanto’s alfalfa. 

The USDA had said the only options they were considering were to either completely deregulate GE alfalfa, require a five-mile distance between non-GMO and GMO planted fields, or not allow GMOs to be planted in areas where seeds were grown so as to avoid contamination.  The second two options would have been preferable (since the USDA was going to allow some form of planting no matter what) but the USDA went full-force in favor of Big Ag.  GE alfalfa can now be planted with NO restrictions.

This is a matter of life or death now for organic growers.  Organic farmers in general will have to worry even more now about contamination of their crops from neighboring farms.  Organic dairy and meat growers who use alfalfa to feed their animals will now have to carefully source their feed.  There can be no chance of contamination from GMO fields or they will lose their certification.  This is going to make the cost for organic alfalfa soar even higher than they already are (and, believe me, it’s high if you don’t grow it yourself).  In turn, consumers will have to pay much more to get healthy, organically raised dairy, eggs and meat.

Thanks, USDA, Vilsack and Obama.  You’ve officially begun the decline of the organic movement just when it had really taken a foothold with a larger percentage of consumers.  You will now be making it virtually impossible for even a middle-class family to afford to eat a large portion of their diet in a way that is natural, healthy and friendly to the environment.  It’s already been a struggle thus far to eat in a truly organic, natural way.  You’ve just sunk us.  Congratulations, I hope you’re happy.

It’s been a debate for a long time; what are the benefits of drinking raw milk versus the pasteurized version?  There is a small number of the population that seeks out and drinks raw milk, but their voices are loud and strong.  Proponents say raw milk contains more essential nutrients than its heated counterpart which kills those beneficial elements.  Opponents say it’s too risky to sell unpasteurized milk because of the risk of illness from bad bacteria.

In the 1940′s , states began to require milk to be pasteurized and, according to health officials and advocates, the number of milk-borne illnesses dropped.  Pasteurization is now the industry standard.

But, raw milk advocates say the process has taken vital enzymes and beneficial bacteria from our diets and that’s what is causing a rise in digestive disorders.  Many people are convinced pasteurization of our dairy products is behind the increase in everything from autism to allergies to ADD.

Sally Fallon Morrell leads the Washington-based Campaign for Real Milk.  ”Raw milk is superior for growth, development, bone density, protection against cavities and infections, protections against allergies and building the immune system,” she says.  But public health officials say the dangers of raw milk far outweigh the potential of any benefits and say studies supporting the raw milk debate are flawed.

According to federal figures, from 1998 to 2008 there were 1,614 illnesses, 187 hospitalizations and two deaths linked to raw milk.  Raw milk advocates contend that many of these illnesses, and the two deaths, are actually from raw cheese, often produced in peoples’ homes out of raw milk bought at conventional dairies.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that any milk sold between states be pasteurized and says unpasteurized milk and milk products put too many people at risk of potentially deadly poisoning.  But as more people become raw milk drinkers, dairies that produce raw milk have seen their demand skyrocket.

Some form of nonretail sales of raw milk is allowed in 33 states. Only 10 states allow milk sales at the retail level, while nine states and Washington, D.C., ban it. Missouri bans retail sales at stores, but allows sales direct from the farm and by prearranged delivery to individuals.  But it’s difficult to find raw milk producers because they’re not allowed to advertise.  Most consumers find the dairies by word of mouth.

I’ve been able to find some sources of raw milk but have to travel pretty far to get it.  There is a producer here locally that sells direct from the farm but, since I’ve never actually met the owner, I don’t know if it’s been pasteurized.  I only know it’s not homogenized and I get it straight from the tank.

Do you prefer raw milk over pasteurized?  Have you found any local sources for raw milk?  Personally, I think it should be up to the consumer whether they drink pasteurized or unpasteurized milk.  I’m tired of the government telling me what I can and cannot eat or drink.  I think the information from both sides should be out there so consumers can make their own informed decision.

What do you think?

~Karin

Being a proponent of locally, sustainably grown foods I refuse to by tomatoes from Mexico or apples from China.  If there is something I want that is hardly grown in the U.S., like plantains, I will purchase it on occasion.  That purchase does go to support the local economy in that country and I view it as a luxury purchase.  Having labels on these products makes my decision in the grocery store much easier when I can’t buy things at farmer’s market or grow it myself.  Even so, I will rarely buy produce in the winter.  I can’t justify the shipping cost and impact on the environment through the use of fossil fuels just so I can have a head of lettuce in February, even if it is grown in the U.S.

So I, personally, was very happy when legislation came out requiring Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) on all nuts, fruits, vegetables, meats and seafood.  But there are quite a few items that this legislation doesn’t cover, like dairy products.  Unless I am able to buy from a local producer or the company specifically puts where the item comes from on their label, how am I to know that the milk or butter I’m buying isn’t using milk coming from New Zealand or, worse yet, China?

Now, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is pushing for legislation to require country of origin labelling on all dairy products including yogurt, cheese and ice cream.  I know I can’t be the only one saying, “hooray” for this one.  Many of today’s consumers are much more conscious about where their food comes from and how it is produced.  Producers that are just as conscious about these issues proudly display where their milk is produced and how it is handled.  But large manufacturers very infrequently put any labeling at all about where their milk is coming from and how it is produced, including whether the cows are treated with bovine growth hormones.

Where do you stand?  Does where your food is coming from affect your purchases more now than before the COOL legislation was passed?  Would this new legislation make a difference in the dairy products you buy?  Sound off, please.  I want to know where you stand.