Wall Street Banksters Don't Farm-- But They Can Make You Very Sick With Their Agricultural And Trade Policies

I love Mondays-- at least in part because I fast on Sundays and it's so nice to eat again on Monday. Tonight we celebrated Roland's birthday with a wonderful dinner at The Bazaar by José Andrés, one of our favorite molecular gastronomy (or deconstructivist) restaurants. It's not an everyday joint for us-- just for birthdays and other celebrations or excuses for celebrations. Usually we eat raw, vegan food. That's a health thing.

Yesterday I was reading about the rise in food intolerance that has been plaguing more and more people lately. Cyndi O'Meara, an expert nutritionist and author of Changing Habits, Changing Lives Cookbook, says it's increased 10-fold in the U.K. in the last 25 years.

O’Meara, along with scientific researchers, points to the large quantities of chemicals and processed foods and major changes in food preparation. Ingredients like artificial sweeteners and modified milk can lead to a hyper-vigilant immune system that reacts painfully to more and more foods. As otherwise healthy people have delved into why they often feel unwell, “food intolerance” has emerged as a 21st-century health concern. The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network and the National Institutes for Health find that as many as 30 million people in the United States suffer from food intolerance--  four to five times the number with food allergies. Skin rashes, abdominal pains and even headaches can be symptoms of the body's struggle with certain ingredients.

Food intolerances can be extremely complicated. I went through years of embarrassing situations and extreme pain before I was finally able to realize that the source of my discomfort was the food I was eating. It has taken me another three years to figure out which foods are my friends and which are my enemies.

Aside from eliminating the really deadly stuff-- processed food and sugar first and foremost-- one of the first places to start on a healthier diet is to eat as many organic foods as you can. There's an informative one question Q-and-A with nutritionist Mike Roussell in the new issue of Shape. "The question: Should I really try to eat organic foods? How much better are they for you than non-organic foods?" A "yes" would be the correct answer but Dr. Mike goes on and on-- and it's all valuable information.

A: The question of eating food that is organic vs. regular is very common. The piece that confuses people the most is that there is no clear-cut answer. This is compounded by the fact that "organic" is now becoming big business, making it harder to determine scientific fact from sales pitch.

Does Organic = More Nutritious?

One of the major draws for people to eat organic food is that they feel like it is more nutritious than conventional foods, but that's not necessarily true. A 2009 research paper published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found no real difference between the vitamin and mineral content of organic vs. non-organic foods. But, more recently researchers from the University of Sidney found that organic vegetables did in fact have more vitamins and minerals than their conventional counterpart. Another study found that organic strawberries contained more vitamin C than conventional strawberries (a personal observation is that organic strawberries also consistently taste much better than conventional strawberries). Lastly, a 2-year study looking at tomato quality and nutrition found no difference between organic and conventional tomatoes.
 
From a nutrient standpoint, organic isn't yet the clear-cut winner. Soil fertility and crop nutrient management are areas that are examined as part of the organic certification, but you have to wonder if regulations in this area will become gray with big business moving into the organic space, thus resulting in "certified organic" foods that don’t contain the nutrients you’d expect.

Organic vs. Local

This past summer I had a lengthy lunch with John Marsh, the chef and co-owner of the Green Square Tavern in New York City. We spoke about food, food quality, and preparation. The Green Square Tavern prides itself on bringing food from the "farm to the table," and the food there is amazing.

You might be surprised to know that being labeled "organic" isn't the litmus test for John when he's picking out foods for his restaurant. He instead told me that several of the farmers he deals with run small mom and pop operations, and that paying the fees and jumping through all the hoops required to be certified by the USDA as Organic is prohibitively expensive (from a financial and time standpoint). So while these farmers may not produce "certified organic" food, they are producing food of an extremely high quality. This further validated something that I have been telling clients for years-- go local over organic.

Pesky Pesticides

A major distinguishing factor between organic and non-organic foods is the use of pesticides, the former being grown without them. A non-profit organization called The Environmental Working Group (EWG) collects data on pesticide testing in foods. They have looked at and compiled data on 51,000 pesticide tests for 52 different fruits and vegetables. Two lists from the EWG are below: The first contains 12 foods with the highest levels of pesticides (the Dirty Dozen), and the second contains the 15 foods that tests revealed had the lowest levels of pesticides (Clean 15).

Dirty Dozen

1. Apples
2. Celery
3. Strawberries
4. Peaches
5. Spinach
6. Imported Nectarines
7. Imported Grapes
8. Sweet Bell Peppers
9. Potatoes
10. Blueberries
11. Lettuce
12. Kale & Collard Greens

Clean 15

1. Onions
2. Sweet corn
3. Pineapples
4. Avocado
5. Asparagus
6. Sweet Peas
7. Mangos
8. Eggplant
9. Cantaloupe
10. Kiwi
11. Cabbage
12. Watermelon
13. Sweet Potatoes
14. Grapefruit
15. Mushrooms

Four Key Points to Remember

1. The limiting factor for most people eating organic is cost; organic fruits and vegetables are significantly more expensive. Don’t limit your intake of fruits and vegetables because you can’t afford organic. Start by purchasing organic versions of the Dirty Dozen and don’t concern yourself with purchasing organic versions of the foods found on the Clean 15.

2. The evidence for the universal consumption of organic food by all means necessary is still greatly lacking. Organic foods will have fewer pesticides, but there are conventional vegetables that also have extremely low levels of pesticides. Just because a food is organic doesn’t mean it will contain more nutrients.

3. An organic label on a food doesn't automatically mean it's good for you. You don’t get bonus nutrition points for eating organic cookies over regular cookies. Cookies are cookies.

4. Buy locally grown fruits and vegetables when possible, even if they aren’t certified organic. Locally grown and in-season foods are often your best bet at getting the most nutritious foods.

And as long as we're talking about organic food being too expensive, there was a good post at The Daily Meal on that last week. Even without all the chemicals, synthetic pesticides, and antibiotics, organic food can cost as much as twice as much as conventionally grown food. Here their top 10 factors contributing to the high price of organic food:

1. No chemicals = more labor

Conventional farmers use all of those chemicals and synthetic pesticides because they end up reducing the cost of production by getting the job done faster and more efficiently. Without them, organic farmers have to hire more workers for tasks like hand-weeding, cleanup of polluted water, and the remediation of pesticide contamination.
The Organic Farming Research Foundation explained it well: "The organic price tag more closely reflects the true cost of growing the food: substituting labor and intensive management for chemicals, the health and environmental costs of which are borne by society."

2. Demand overwhelms supply

Retail sales of organic food rose from $3.6 billion in 1997 to $21.1 billion in 2008, according to the USDA, and 58 percent of Americans claim they prefer to eat organic over non-organic food. However, organic farmland only accounts for 0.9 percent of total worldwide farmland, and organic farms tend to produce less than conventional farms. Conventional farms have the farmland and the supply to keep costs down since manufacturers are able to reduce costs when producing a product in larger quantities.

3. Higher cost of fertilizer for organic crops

Sewage sludge and chemical fertilizers might not be something you want in your food, but conventional farmers use them because they don’t cost much and are cheap to transport. Organic farmers eschew these inexpensive solutions in order to keep their crops natural and instead use compost and animal manure, which is more expensive to ship.

4. Crop rotation

Instead of using chemical weed-killers, organic farmers conduct sophisticated crop rotations to keep their soil healthy and prevent weed growth. After harvesting a crop, an organic farmer may use that area to grow "cover crops," which add nitrogen to the soil to benefit succeeding crops.

Conventional farmers, on the other hand, can use every acre to grow the most profitable crops. Because crop rotation reduces the frequency in which organic farmers can grow profitable crops, they’re unable to produce the larger quantities that are most cost-effective for conventional farmers.

5. Post-harvest handling cost

In order to avoid cross-contamination, organic produce must be separated from conventional produce after being harvested. Conventional crops are shipped in larger quantities since conventional farms are able to produce more. Organic crops, however, are handled and shipped in smaller quantities since organic farms tend to produce less, and this results in higher costs. Additionally, organic farms are usually located farther from major cities, increasing the shipping cost.

6. Organic certification

Acquiring USDA organic certification is no easy-- or cheap-- task. In addition to the usual farming operations, farm facilities and production methods must comply with certain standards, which may require the modification of facilities. Employees must be hired to maintain strict daily record-keeping that must be available for inspection at any time. And organic farms must pay an annual inspection/certification fee, which starts at $400 to $2,000 a year, depending on the agency and the size of the operation.

7. Cost of covering higher loss

Conventional farmers use certain chemicals to reduce their loss of crops. For example, synthetic pesticides repel insects and antibiotics maintain the health of the livestock. Since organic farmers don’t use these, their losses are higher, which costs the farmer more and increases the cost to the consumer. Additionally, without all the chemical preservatives added to conventional foods, organic foods face a shorter storage time and shelf life.

8. Better living conditions for livestock

Higher standards for animal welfare also means more costs for organic farms. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, organic feed for cattle and other livestock can cost twice as much as conventional feed.

9. Organic food grows more slowly

Time is money. Not only are organic farms typically smaller than conventional ones, but they also, on average, take more time to produce crops because they refrain from using the chemicals and growth hormones used by conventional farmers.

10. Subsidies

Production-oriented government subsidies reduce the overall cost of crops. In 2008, mandatory spending on farm subsidies was $7.5 billion while programs for organic and local foods only received $15 million, according to the House Appropriations Committee.

And that brings us to the overtly progressive politics you may have been waiting for-- which takes us to David Korten's book, Agenda For A New Economy, and a sub-chapter, "Why Wall Street Globalized The Economy."

The elimination of national borders as barriers to the expansion of corporate control of world markets and resources didn't happen as a result of some inexorable law of nature. It came about over a period of some thirty years through the relentless effort of Wall Street interests using every political tool at their disposal to remove legal barriers to their expansion.

Wall Street did not expend all this effort to improve the health of people and the biosphere. It figured out that its ability to generate profits would be best served by a system that maximized each locality's dependence on distant resources and markets.

Take the system by which we produce, process, transport, and market our food. A farmers' market where local producers and consumers gather to engage in direct exchange offers many benefits from a community perspective. The food is fresh, the energy costs of transport are minimal, the personal exchanges enhance community ties, farmers can adapt rapidly to changing local preferences and conditions, and the local economy is cushioned from food shocks elsewhere in the world.

Wall Street has a different perspective. It observes this scene and says in effect:

What's the profit here? We need a global food system in which producers in Chile depend on customers in New York and vice versa. Then both are dependent on us to serve as middlemen. We can monopolize global markets, set prices for both producers and consumers, and force producers either to buy our seeds, fertilizers, and insecticides at whatever price we choose or to lose their market access. The greater our success in convincing local producers that they will have greater selection at lower prices when everything is traded globally, the more they will depend on us as intermediaries, the greater will be our hold on people's lives everywhere, and the more profit we can extract.

When the world's agricultural land is organized on the model of industrialized monocropping, both producers and consumers depend on the global agricultural conglomerates for their survival. Until a crisis strikes, few notice that the resulting increase in global food interdependence increases the real costs of food production and reduces food security for everyone. This in turn creates lucrative opportunities for Wall Street speculators who profit from volatile commodity prices as a weather disruption on one side of the world creates food shortages on the other.