Humane touch: Which of these sows is being treated “humane”-ly? According to the National Pork Board, which permits use of the gestation crates in the lefthand photo, they both are.Photos: Humane Society (left), Clark Summit Farm (right)

Americans face a dizzying array of food labels. There’s organic, all-natural, sustainable, cage-free, whole grain, and heart-healthy, to name a few.

Pop quiz: Which of these is backed by legally enforceable guidelines? Answer: Only organic. (And even that one has loopholes, such as the practice of giving chickens access to outdoor spaces but not requiring that the birds actually spend any time outside.)

The rest of these labels can be interpreted by food producers in many different ways. That’s also true for “humane,” which you may have noticed is cropping up more and more.

Whole Foods recently rolled out a humane labeling system and both Safeway and Supervalu have made animal welfare pledges. Meanwhile, even Big Meat is getting in on the act — and we do mean acting. The Humane Society has filed a class-action lawsuit against Perdue for the company’s “alleged false advertising of factory farmed chicken products as ‘humane.’”

So, how do you avoid “humane-washing”? First, understand that there are both independent and industry-produced quality assurance programs in circulation under the label of “humane.” The latter were put in place with very little public input and use experts of animal production, rather than welfare, according to a report put out by Farm Sanctuary. And each trade organization for producers, representing different farm animals, has its own set of regulations. For example:

• The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has guidelines for the care of beef cattle that does not include any sort of audit. According to these guidelines, access to pasture is not required and castration without anesthesia is allowed, among other practices.

• Guidelines put out by the American Sheep Industry Association have no scoring tools for compliance or internal or external auditing. Under these guidelines, sheep farmers don’t need to provide access to grazing pasture and early weaning is acceptable.
• The National Pork Board’s Quality Assurance Plus (PQA Plus) program does not include a third-party audit. Practices allowed include confining sows to gestation crates, no access to the outdoors, and castration without anesthetics.

The closest any of the industry groups has to a third-party audit is the United Egg Producers’ program UEP Certified. Following UEP Certified, audits need to be conducted on each company’s facilities, but this may go down to 50 percent on subsequent audits. What’s more unsettling is that even within these guidelines, practices like debeaking (in which the sharp tip of a chicken’s beak is clipped by machine) and confinement in small cages is allowed. (To learn more about standard practices in factory animal farms, Sustainable Table has a helpful overview by species.)

Alternatively, various third-party auditing systems have sprung up in recent years for farms that welcome higher standards:

• Global Animal Partnership is an independent international foundation that grew out of Whole Foods’ Animal Compassion Foundation. Based on a five-step rating system, the program was designed by animal welfare advocates, animal welfare scientists, and farmers. The ratings range from Step One, “no crates, no cages and no crowding” to Step Five, “animal centered — animals spend their entire life on the same farm.”

• Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) is another independent label managed by the Animal Welfare Institute, and includes some of the highest standards in weaning, outdoor access, pasture, and physical alterations. What is unique about AWA is that the Institute doesn’t charge producers for certification, which evens out the playing field for small family farms. Unfortunately, this program is currently overseeing less than .001 percent of all U.S. animals raised for slaughter.
• Certified Humane has developed a number of standards that exceed those put out by the industry, such as banning the use of gestation crates for pregnant sows. However, the program allows feedlot confinement of beef cattle, among other practices that many would not deem humane.
• American Humane Certified is a program managed by the American Humane Society, and is similar to Certified Humane.

Confused? Me too. This is just too damn complicated. This chart for just eggs gives a glimpse into how widely industry-led and third-party standards vary:

I egg your pardon? Welfare standards for egg-laying hens, as set by seven different certification systems.Chart: Sentient Cincinnati, modified by author

So what’s to be done? For now, as conscientious consumers we must take it upon ourselves to research standards and decide which practices we think can not possibly be considered humane. Or bypass those pesky labels entirely and speak directly to the farmer at your local farmers market.

Of course, one conscientious consumer does not a changed food system make. Yet something is happening. The sheer number of labels developing around the concept of animal welfare is indicative of consumer pressure. Hopefully this pressure will be able to translate into policy changes like California and Michigan’s ban on battery cages.

Until that time, I’ll just have to keep asking for sustainable-natural-organic-humane-cage-free eggs.

Some resources for consumers:

• Animal Welfare Approved’s list of what labels really mean — and what they should mean
• The Cornucopia Institute’s Organic Egg Scorecard
• A list of animal welfare labels for eggs compiled by the Humane Society
• Farm Sanctuary’s list of policy recommendations
• Find a farmers market near you
• The World Society for the Protection of Animals has food label guidelines and ]]> sows_humane.jpg Gestation crates and free-range pigs Chart of what egg labels mean http://grist.org/article/seven-cents-to-a-healthier-lunch-portland-schools-serve-up-local-fare/ http://grist.org/article/seven-cents-to-a-healthier-lunch-portland-schools-serve-up-local-fare/#comments Michelle Venetucci Harvey Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:42:32 +0000 http://www.grist.org/article/seven-cents-to-a-healthier-lunch-portland-schools-serve-up-local-fare/ ]]> No more lunches like these for Portland kids.Photo courtesy Ben + Sam via FlickrIt all started with a simple idea: to see if school children will actually eat fresh foods, rather than the institutional fare that school kitchens typically serve. To test the idea, the “Farm to School” project of the non-profit Ecotrust partnered up with Portland’s Abernethy Elementary in 2005, embarking on a semester-long trial run of sustainable lunches — beginning with a kitchen renovation and new chef.

  This was a place where school lunches mattered: 43 percent of students in Portland are eligible for subsidized meals, so school lunches can have a big impact on a student’s daily nutrition.

  With Ecotrust’s help, Abernathy Elementary dished up a comprehensive food program, including a school garden, classroom lesson plans around a vegetable of the month, and lunches made with predominately local foods. The food was all cooked on-site, from scratch, with no trans fats allowed. Not only were kids eating significantly higher amounts of produce than their counterparts in other area schools, but the average lunch actually cost $.05 less than the frozen fare typically offered.

  But while the food cost less, the labor cost more: the kitchen needed two chefs instead one. That’s one of the first lessons of healthy school lunches: it can be the cost of labor, not of food itself, that squeezes local farmers out of the school lunchroom. Seeing this problem, Ecotrust applied for a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Community Fund, which secured a subsidy of just 7 cents per lunch for schools in the Portland and Gervais school districts in 2009. The subsidy worked, allowing food service directors to buy locally produced food. Not only did students love what they ate, but each dollar spent in Oregon created 84 cents in state economic activity. Not too shabby in a recession.

  Since 2007, Oregon has secured farm-to-school coordinators in both the Education and Agriculture departments, an unprecedented action in the United States. In 2009, there was a push to pass House Bill 2800, dubbed “Oregon Farmers Feeding Oregon Kids,” which was endorsed by 80 Oregon organizations. While this bill failed at the last minute, ostensibly due to pressures of the recession, the support it garnered was still promising. Portland food service workers are now challenged with finding ways to cut costs and still buy local, but most are pushing forward with locally sourced menus.

  So what’s on the menu? Meals of couscous, burritos from scratch, fresh lasagna and garbanzo/tomato salad make up the mostly vegetarian bill of fare. With less meat on offer, the district can buy higher quality meat when needed. And against common assumptions, kids seem to be giving the new food a thumbs up (but seriously, in a city where a majority of students “already knew what couscous was,” these results might not transfer to a city where kids are less food-conscious).

  School districts that want to create the biggest impact on students’ diets can support comprehensive food programs that teach kids about food while dishing up quality meals for lunch. Who can blame a child for turning down a parsnip dish when they have no idea what a parsnip is? Effective school food programs, like Alice Waters’ edible schoolyard program in Berkeley, CA and Auburn, WA’s Farm-to-School program, include garden education along with healthy meals. It’s all in the name of creating a personal connection to what’s on your plate. Washington’s Vashon High School found that students were much more likely to eat mixed veggie dishes if they participated in the school horticulture program. Groups like Growing Gardens in Portland are partnering with schools to make this a reality, a promising start that needs some financial support.

  Who knows? The most delicious food in Portland might be in its school cafeterias.

  Editor’s note: Excited about Portland’s school lunch program and live in the Northwest? Sightline can hook up you up with a free trip to the City of Roses if you sign up for our emails or recommend us to your friends!

  This post originally appeared at Sightline’s Daily Score blog.

  
  Filed under: Food ]]> cc_chicken-nuggets-bbq-sauce-002_180.jpg School lunch http://grist.org/article/new-study-weighs-in-on-organicconventional-debate/ http://grist.org/article/new-study-weighs-in-on-organicconventional-debate/#comments Michelle Venetucci Harvey Fri, 03 Sep 2010 04:35:50 +0000 http://www.grist.org/article/new-study-weighs-in-on-organicconventional-debate/ ]]> (Photo courtesy *clairity* via Flickr)Does growing food organically really matter? Supporters of conventional agriculture say that organic farming is little more than a fad — and that organic produce lightens consumers’ wallets for no tangible benefits. And unfortunately, since agro-ecosystems are so complex, scientists have had a hard time cutting through the haze of claims and counter-claims.

  Until now: “Fruit and Soil Quality of Organic and Conventional Strawberry Agroecosystems,” a study led by Washington State University Regents professor of soil science John Reganold, is one of the most comprehensive, persuasive studies yet to show the nutritional and environmental benefits of organic farming. Its findings only apply to strawberries — but they do point the way to the kind of research that can, and should, be done with other crops as well.

  The study design was both careful and comprehensive in scope. The strawberries were grown on 13 conventional and 13 organic fields, with organic/conventional field pairs located adjacently in order to control for soil type and weather patterns. The data was drawn from repeated harvests over a two-year period, and the strawberries were picked, transported, and stored under identical conditions to replicate retail practices. And just as farming is a complex business, scientists contributing to the study range from soil and food scientists to genetics experts and statistics specialists, who analyzed 31 soil properties, soil DNA, and the relative taste and nutritional quality of three strawberry varieties in California.

  The results are pretty convincing: organic strawberries are healthier, tastier, and better for the soil than conventional strawberries.

  First, let’s take a look at strawberry quality. Consumers buying organic products consistently cite the health benefits of organic foods as a main purchasing motivation. Yet there is a general lack of conclusive data to back this up. However, the WSU study found that organic strawberries ultimately beat conventional strawberries in quality, based on a number of factors: Organic methods resulted in strawberries with increased antioxidants, vitamin C, and total phenolics. While phosphorus and potassium levels were higher in conventional crops, the study emphasized the importance of vitamin C and antioxidants in relation to human health; vitamin C from strawberries has been shown to have a direct, negative effect on cancer cell growth.

  The plants themselves are also healthier: Organic strawberry plants showed fewer instances of post-harvest fungal rots than conventional strawberries, despite the fact that no fungicides were used on the organic fields. The study notes this finding may prove that organic systems help defend plants against infection through systemic-acquired resistance rather than chemical inputs.

  And for those who value flavor more than health, organic also outdoes conventional in taste tests. Consumer-sensory panels found little difference between two of the organic and conventional strawberry varieties, but preferred the organic “Diamante” variety for its appearance and sweetness over its conventional counterpart.

  Then there’s the issue of soil quality. While consumers may be solely interested in the end result, farming leaders such as Will Allen and Wendell Berry have stressed that high-quality soil is the basis for healthy agro-ecosystems. California farmers have relied on methyl bromide (an ozone-depleting toxic fumigant) to sterilize their soil for decades, and as a result have reduced soil from a habitat for microorganisms into a growing medium devoid of nutrients. Despite the conventional practice of spraying soils with synthetic fertilizers, the study found that organic fields contained significantly higher amounts of nutrients. Organic and conventional soils contained similar levels of most extractable nutrients, but organic soil had higher levels of zinc, boron, sodium, and iron. Organic soils also performed better through a number of biological properties, such as enzyme activities, micronutrient levels, and carbon sequestration.

  But what’s perhaps most interesting in the study is the use of DNA analysis, which helped scientists establish that organic soils contain a significantly higher amount of unique genes and overall genetic diversity. In a time when global warming is creating increasingly unpredictable weather conditions, biodiversity is one of our greatest defenses against climate change (for more on this idea, look no further than activist and physicist Vandana Shiva, a compelling advocate of the social, economic, and health-related benefits of biodiversity).

  Strawberry fumigants are a hot-button issue in California right now, making this study especially timely. While the negative effects of methyl bromide have been established, and it was technically banned under an international treaty back in the 1980s, the fumigant is still being used until a substitute can be found. However, the proposed methyl iodide, approved under the Bush administration in 2008, is possibly even more toxic than methyl bromide, as Tom Laskawy has covered for Grist. In light of the study, this controversy is bordering on the absurd — why even look for a new fumigant when organic production clearly produces better soil quality, increased nutrient density, and doesn’t rely on chemicals that make farm workers sick?

  For any naysayers out there who are clinging to the Monsanto line that conventional agriculture is the only way to feed the world, while this study doesn’t delve into crop yields itself, a 2009 report put out by the Union of Concerned Scientists may put that claim to rest. Despite the fact that in some instances conventional methods may marginally raise the yield of food crops (while genetically modified crops were shown to produce no increase in yield), this study notes it comes at a high cost to the environment and our health. The chemical inputs used in conventional farming are directly contributing to unpredictable climate changes, which will affect our long-term ability to consistently grow food.

  It’s hard to argue against Reganold’s findings. Even while some categories of analysis produced similar results between conventional and organic strawberries, the fact that organic methods did not rely on toxic chemical inputs is a big, juicy point in its favor. Promoting organic agro-ecosystems means fewer people will be exposed to to
  xic chemicals, all in the name of producing a healthier, tastier piece of fruit.

  A version of this post first appeared on Sightline Institute’s Daily Score Blog.

  
  Filed under: Food ]]> strawberries_flickr_clairity.jpg Strawberries