Electronics Recycling Day
Saturday ~ Apr 24, 2010
8am - 2pm
Open to the public, regardless of residency.
Most items will be accepted at no charge.
Monitors, TVs and large printers will be $10 - $25
###
RECYCLE ELECTRONICS - ONE DAY EVENT - MOST ITEMS FREE! April 24th ~ 8am-2pm
Open to the public, regardless of residency.
Most items will be accepted at no charge.
Support a Natural Agriculture System
Saturday, February 27, 2010
http://naturallylocal.blogspot.com/2010/02/organics-matter-of-ebb-flow-logistics.html
http://naturallylocal.blogspot.com/2010/02/organics-matter-of-ebb-flow-logistics.html
Organics - a matter of ebb, flow, & logistics.
In our world, as we know it, everything works in tandem. For every action there is a reaction, for every cause there is an effect, and every ebb has a flow.
The choosing of organics keeps these natural processes in harmony and balance. This is because organic agriculture at its core, seeks to work with the natural occurring elements of nature. It is not reliant on synthetics, created by man in a lab, which although they may increase per acre production of crops, they also have hazardous effects on microbiology of the soil, our water supply, our health, and wildlife.
As humans at the top of the food chain we have a responsibility to keep from damaging or depleting the bottom of the food chain. Otherwise, our cockiness with be our downfall.
By choosing organics we can stop running around fixing problems we, ourselves, created.
We can stop creating chemicals to kill things whose purpose we don't completely grasp only to turn around, after we have removed them from existence, and realize their use, to create a new chemical to take their place.
By choosing organics we can support an agriculture system that seeks to work in tandem with nature to keep our resources free from mutilation and our families fed.
In my opinion, our food supply issues in the world are not a matter of per acre production but rather a logistics issue. So instead of wasting such great intellectual talent on creating chemicals in a lab, let’s better utilize that talent by putting people to work on logistical issues such as:
- Putting unused acres into production
- Shortening the farm to table miles so we don't have food wasted in transport
- Creating markets for farmers who choose to produce food consumable in its natural state rather than government subsidized markets created for field corn which must be altered before we consume it
- Teaching farmers to farm organically
- Getting the surplus that, if we put all of our unused acres into production, we most definitely will have to those in need.
Cheers and Happy Eats!
Lucinda
THINGS WE WANT BACK...
from
This week I celebrated ten years of motherhood. While juggling conference calls, meetings, and birthday parties complete with allergen-free treats, I was struck by a trending topic on Twitter: #thingswewantback. Here's what I came up with:
#ThingsWeWantBack:
- Food ingredients that our grandmothers would recognize
- The time we've spent in doctors' offices
- Grocery shopping without "Allergen-free" constraints
- The 1990s reassurance of the 1 in 10,000 rate of autism
- Fake Food to find its way out of grocery stores and back into the aisles of Toys R Us
- The health of our children
Ten years ago, when I first ventured into motherhood, 1 in 3 American children did not have autism, allergies, ADHD or autism; 20% of children were not obese; and 85% of cancers were not environmentally triggered. And while we can't change the beginning of our stories, we can restore the health of our children and #ChangeTheEnd.
"Years may wrinkle the skin. But to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul." ~Samuel Ullman
We are the family farm. Stand with us.
We don't want government subsidies, but we do want an even playing field on which to compete, so please don't allow them to be given to corporate giants.
On average, if you added up our working hours, we make less than minimum wage, so please don't haggle us on price.
We are walking wikipedias on the topics of our trade, so please don't think us intellectually inferior.
If we cease to exist then you would be dependent on companies that are "too big to fail" for your food supply, and we all know that nothing is ever to big to fail so please oppose legislation that makes it harder for us to do what we do.
Who are we? We are the family farm, and as such we ask you to stand with us.
Stand with us as we fight to keep our land out of the hands of those who attempt to swindle us into less diversification in the name of efficiency, by purchasing products from farms produced in a bio-dynamic way.
Stand with us so we can have the freedom to plant non GMO crops and save our seeds without fear of retaliation from companies like Monsanto, by choosing organic and opposing laws that allow companies to patent life and then sue us in the name of copyright infringement.
Stand with us against those that would have us raise animals in concentration camps for the sake of a dollar, by refusing to buy meat from feedlots or confinement buildings.
You are our customers, our neighbors, our countrymen, and above all else you are our fellow humans. All of us, together, can create a foundation that the next generation is proud to stand on. Together we can be keep our food system pure, and together we can leave this land better than we found it.
Cheers and Happy Eats!
Lucinda
UPDATE - BADSEED Farm 2010 - soon, a new beginning...
![[LoveYourFarmers.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtrP75fqq-fJg94Kxw7KnWbH5L6Ktv563BXud6xKCy5wSDUL8jMHAJekKkZoRrSeMZQR-qMBjHG_uKhtIaBoGDKAIvGYOGPLG6nvRuDFe4rPi0W1_PIKSgb0ydWiU1JYeeNO2iZMj0SxL6/s1600/LoveYourFarmers.jpg)
Hi Guys,
I just wanted to let you know that Dan and I (very recently) received confirmation that our land proposal/purchase will go through after all!!! The City and HUD have reconsidered our offer due to pressure from a federal judge.....(gotta love politics).
This has come as a complete surprise to us. We had begun the process of dismantling the farm/business and were even prepared to take a job on a horse-powered sheep dairy in New York. Life can change pretty quickly to say the least.
That means BADSEED (and the market) is here to stay.......and for the long haul as it will only take us 40 years to pay off the loan!
Until the papers are signed and we get through the re-zoning process, it is not a done deal. However, we must proceed in good faith. In a few months (if everything goes as planned) we should be able to call ourselves the proud owners of 13 glorious acres in Kansas City, MO.
Since we will not be able to access the land soon enough to grow on it this season, we will farm our current site under the restrictions put forth by the City, and transition over accordingly. The land is completely raw with no infrastructure, water, or adequate fencing......and currently about 20 deer bed down on it each night. You can only imagine the amount of leg-work that will need to go into this site before we even think about planting out the orchard and vegetable production.
Thank you all so much for your support. This has been one hell of a ride for Dan and I - and we certainly could not have made it out alive without your friendship and guidance.
With Love,
Brooke & Dan
Community of Reason . NET at UMKC - Guest Speaker: Julie Urbanik - "Gnaw on This: Examining Livestock's Environmental Impact”
1:00pm-3:00 pm, Haag Hall, Room 301
COR Sunday program:
COR Sunday program:
- "Gnaw on This:
Examining Livestock's Environmental Impact”
Julie Urbanik, Assistant Professor of Geosciences at UMKC
As a cultural geographer, Dr. Urbanik studies the relationship of humans to other animals. She will explore one of the most fundamental relationships we have - that of eating other species.
LOCATION: Haag Hall (northwest corner of 52nd & Rockhill Road), University of Missouri at Kansas City (Park on level 4 of the parking structure south, across the street; 3rd floor of Haag is accessed directly through overhead walkway.)
All are welcome!
##
Community of Reason --
Our goal is to educate the public about the wide-ranging concerns of the freethinkers who make up the Community of Reason, while keeping a line of communication open to various communities of faith.
SPEAKERS ON-TARGET at 19th ANNUAL PASA CONFERENCE - Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture
Redefining Sustainable Agriculture at PASA
February 19th, 2010 By Rich Kerstetter
http://civileats.com/2010/02/19/redefining-sustainable-agriculture-at-pasa/
One almost expected to see a Monsanto executive among the honored guests and presenters at the 19th annual Farming for the Future Conference held Feb. 4 – 6 in State College, Pa. After all, the St. Louis-based agri-giant was recently named “Company of the Year” by Forbes magazine. And in its well-funded advertising campaign that strategically targets such media outlets as National Public Radio, Monsanto proclaims itself to be the very champion of sustainability.
While many of the more than 2,200 attendees of the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture’s yearly gathering would have gladly entertained a dialogue with a Monsanto representative, it’s safe to say they view the conference’s central concept in a quite different light.
In his opening remarks, PASA President Kim Seeley borrowed a phrase from architect and designer William McDonough, a previous year’s keynote speaker, and asked: “Does the end result love all the children? We will condone all forms of farming that will love the children.”
It’s hard to associate the maker and marketer of Roundup pesticide and poison-withstanding genetically modified seeds with “loving all the children.” Yet, that is what Monsanto–newly crowned by Forbes “for persevering in the face of vicious criticism to feed the world”–would have us believe through what writer Ken Edelstein has called a “greenwash marketing” campaign that is “positively Rovian on the chutzpah meter.” Equally credibility-straining is Elanco, Ely Lilly and Company’s animal-health division, which in 2008 purchased the Posilac brand of synthetic bovine-growth hormone from Monsanto. Elanco’s president has been on a speaking tour promoting a technology-dependent program of “Sustainability and Feeding the World.”
Obviously, a different take on technology from that of most who attended the conference.
And in a recent call-to-arms speech delivered in Seattle, American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman railed against those he called “extremists who want to drag agriculture back to the days of 40 acres and a mule” and against “misguided, activist-driven regulation on labor and environment being proposed in Washington.” Further, Stallman called sustainability “the most overused and ill-defined word in the policy arena today.”
Finally, a patch, however small, of common ground.
“I completely agree that the term ‘sustainability’ is overused and often confused for something it’s not by those who try to use it,” PASA Executive Director Brian Snyder said in his stage-setting conference speech. “So, I have an idea–how about if you, Mr. Stallman, and your counterparts at Monsanto and Elanco stop using it! We can handle this one, and have been doing so quite ably for several decades now.”
Snyder said it is impossible to overlook the deliberate attempt by sustainable agriculture’s detractors to dilute the dream and goals PASA and its members aspire to in order that their objective of putting profitability above all else does not fail.
Not that profitability was ignored during the Farming for the Future conference. Quite the contrary. Neither was the concept of “small” farming, currently a pejorative term in Washington and elsewhere, where those who use that word, according to Snyder, “get immediately pigeonholed and tossed aside as a probable relic of the past.”
Here, the common-ground borderline was crossed.
“There is nothing ‘small’ about what any member of PASA is doing with respect to our food system, whether as a producer, processor or consumer, regardless of any volume specifications,” Snyder said.
“People like to hear about lots of acres or large numbers of animals and bushels of corn per acre measured in the hundreds,” he continued. “But models of farming that can gross $50,000 to $100,000 on a single acre, or Community Supported Agriculture programs that, in some cases and on relatively small acreage, are able to count their customers in the thousands and bank $1 million or more in the spring before even planting a seed, are anything but small!”
A non-genetically-modified seed, he might have added.
Snyder said that a second misconception held as incontrovertible truth in the halls of power is the notion that “we cannot feed the world this way,” that only industrial food systems can do so.
“We must encourage everyone, wherever they are and as a priority, to eat food produced as near to their own homes as possible,” Snyder said. “Secondly, feed thy neighbor as thyself. From this perspective, local food not only can feed the world, it may be the only way to ever feed the world in a healthy and just manner.”
Few involved with farming, even of the sustainable variety, relish increased government regulation. But Snyder likened what he called the “Stallman Doctrine”–a “Don’t Cap Our Future”-sloganed, war-like resistance to a cap-and-trade system or any proposal to limit farming’s environmental impact–to a modern re-emergence of Manifest Destiny, “wherein we take and use what we believe was divinely ordained for us to have, regardless of the consequences for others.”
By contrast, Snyder said a truly sustainable farmer wakes every morning with two thoughts in mind. The first is one of gratitude that the land we are privileged to own, rent or be paid to cultivate has been given to us, and we must give it back in better shape than we found it.
“Second,” Snyder said, “we as individual farmers are limited and essentially dependent on each other to figure out what’s best to do with this land in order to honor it, improve it and make a living from it and one day to deliver it back to the source from whence it came.”
“It’s all about maintaining a ‘right relationship’ with the land, which,” he said, “is analogous to the good relationships we hope for in other aspects of our lives as well.”
Or, at the end of the day, does it truly love all the children, and will it give them a good Earth to love, as well?
That–regardless of what corporate farmers and the companies they serve will tell you–is what sustainable agriculture is really all about.
__
In contrast to the Stallman Doctrine – an unwillingness to work as hard as possible to save our beautiful planet – PASA Executive Director Brian Snyder offered the Promise of Sustainability.
“We understand that this world is not really ours to do with as we please and that we must work together to make it better,” Snyder said. From this perspective, here are some things sustainable farmers choose for themselves, rather than depend on government regulations or ballot initiatives to force upon them:
- We would do everything possible to protect the Earth, its water, air and climate systems, and to cherish and protect our great watersheds, including especially here in the Mid-Atlantic region, that which feeds the Chesapeake Bay.
- We would never lock up livestock of any kind for prolonged periods in restrictive cages or crates where they can’t even turn around or care for their young in a natural manner.
- We would not treat cows with artificial growth hormones, either for profit or the pride to be gained from seeing how much milk we can force them to give. We would also never feed antibiotics to animals for the sake of speeding their growth, especially in the absence of medical need.
- We would take whatever pre-emptive steps may be necessary – even if less than 100 percent certain – to protect our bees and other pollinators, and also to promote the diversity and integrity of seeds we depend on to produce food, avoiding advanced technological strategies that might otherwise undermine or diminish them.
- In dealing with our neighbors around the world, we would reject the political philosophy of Free Trade in favor of Fair Trade.
- We would treat with dignity immigrant and migrant laborers who are needed to work our fields, care for our animals and generally keep our food system moving, and welcome them as full members of our communities as they choose and are able to settle here.
- We would teach and assist the citizens, communities and countries of a hungry world to feed themselves as we would wish to be fed.
- We would build our entire food system on the concept that fair prices for farmers will keep wholesome, nutritious and safe food on our tables without fail.
Corporate entities such as Monsanto and Elanco–Ely Lilly Company’s animal-health division, which owns the Posilac brand of synthetic bovine growth hormone–lay claim to “sustainability,” thereby distorting its meaning and diluting its promise.
The president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, no ally of sustainable agriculture, recently called “sustainability” the most overused and ill-defined word in the policy arena.
Perhaps we can help.
The Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture has recently partnered with Food Alliance, based in Portland, Oregon, to deliver a trusted, third-party certification to our region’s farms, processors, food buyers and consumers. The Food Alliance Certified seal ensures safe and fair working conditions, humane treatment of animals and careful stewardship of ecosystems. Here is how Food Alliance answers the question, “What is sustainable agriculture?”
Sustainable agriculture:
- Provides safe and fair working conditions. It creates a work environment with open communication about workplace safety and job satisfaction, with incentives and opportunities for development of employee skills; it considers quality-of-life issues for farm workers and their communities.
- Ensures the health and humane treatment of animals. It raises livestock with respect for their physical needs and comforts; it provides livestock with access to sunlight, fresh air and an environment where they can socialize and express normal behaviors; it handles livestock with care to minimize fear and stress.
- Does not use hormone or antibiotic supplements. It raises animals without using hormones or antibiotics to stimulate growth or productivity; it uses antibiotics only to treat a sick animal and return it to health, not as a substitute for healthy living conditions.
- Does not raise genetically modified crops or livestock. It raises crops or livestock that are not derived from transgenic or genetically modified organisms in order to respect public concern over potential impacts on human or environmental health.
- Reduces pesticide use and toxicity. It practices integrated pest management by using field scouting and cultural and biological controls to avoid pest problems; it minimizes risks to human health and the environment by selecting least toxic pest treatments and using best practices for application.
- Protects water resources. It protects water quality and riparian habitat by providing buffer zones along streams; it manages tillage to maximize the ability of soils to absorb rainfall; it manages animal wastes to prevent ground and surface water contamination.
- Protects and enhances soil resources. It protect soils by maximizing plant cover, rotating crops and using cover crops to enrich soil and increase productivity; it uses management-intensive grazing; it uses tillage methods that protect soil quality and promote soil conservation.
- Provides wildlife habitat. It encourages vegetative cover, food and water resources necessary for habitat; it establishes biological corridors; it manages mowing and grazing cycles to minimize impact on wildlife; it protects and restores wetland, prairie and woodland habitats.
- Continually improves practices. It sets annual goals for improving performance in areas addressed under Food Alliance certification; it evaluates and reports progress on goals annually.
For more information, go to www.foodalliance.org.
WE ARE ONLY AS HEALTHY AS OUR FOOD SUPPLY
Contact: Carly Jansen, Goodman Media, 212-576-2700
FOOD SAFETY AND HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS CRITICIZE ELANCO FOR INACCURACIES IN rbGH WHITE PAPER
Washington, DC, February 24, 2010 – Food safety, consumer and health advocacy organizations blasted Eli Lilly subsidiary Elanco for claiming that prominent health organizations had endorsed use of the controversial artificial growth hormone rbGH,(rbST) on dairy cows when, in fact, they have not. Elanco’s report, from eight experts and academics in medicine and dairy science, said that groups such as the American Cancer Society, American Association of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association affirmed the safety of rbGH. In fact, none of these three groups have endorsed it.
An article in the Feb. 22 issue of the online Bioscience Resource Project cited one of the co-authors as admitting several of the endorsements were “technically untrue” and that “we counted endorsement as a failure to oppose rbGH.”
“The notion that failure to oppose something constitutes an endorsement makes no scientific sense,” said Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union. “By this logic, the American Automobile Association and the Federal Reserve Board have endorsed the safety of rbGH.”
Bioscience Resource Project received written confirmation from the American Cancer Society that it had “no formal position regarding rBGH.” A spokesperson from the American Association of Pediatrics wrote, “I can confirm that AAP does not endorse the safety of rBGH.” The American Medical Association also has no formal position on rBGH and its past president recommended to AMA members in 2008 that hospitals serve only rBGH-free milk.
“Elanco’s numerous false statements and misrepresentations on endorsing organizations are only the tip of the iceberg,” said Rick North of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, which has facilitated a nationwide campaign opposing the hormone for over five years. “The entire report is riddled with similar inaccurate, misleading claims about rbGH itself.” A formal response to Elanco’s report endorsed by 19 health, agriculture, consumer protection and animal protection agencies documents the numerous incorrect and misleading statements of the report and is available at http://www.psr.org/chapters/oregon/safe-food/rebuttal-to-elanco-rbst.pdf.
“Although the FDA approved rbGH as safe in 1993, the hormone has been dogged by controversy, said Dr. Hansen. “It increases disease rates in cows, including mastitis, which is treated by antibiotics. Use of.rbGH also increases levels in milk of another hormone (IGF-1) that has been linked to breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, although whether the increased levels of IGF-1 in milk due to rbGH use would affect health has not been established.”
Although approximately three fourths of the milk and yogurt produced in the U.S. is rbGH-free, most ice cream is not. A coalition of health and consumer groups coordinated by Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility launched a nationwide campaign last fall aimed at persuading the two largest ice cream producers, Breyers (including Good Humor, Klondike Bars and Popsicle) and Dreyer’s (including Haagen Dazs and Edy’s) to go rBGH-free.
So far, 57 of the nation’s 100 largest dairies have completely or partially discontinued the use of rBGH, including Dean Foods, Kroger, Foremost Farms, Darigold and Prairie Farms Dairy. Starbucks company-owned stores and Chipotle Restaurants have gone completely rBGH-free and Walmart has eliminated its use from its store brand milk.
Last year, the two largest yogurt producers in the country, Dannon and Yoplait-Colombo, both discontinued the hormone in response to consumer demand. A 2008 Consumer Reports survey found that 70% of respondents were concerned about cows given artificial growth hormones and 57% would pay more for dairy products produced without it.
Heather Whitehead, director of the True Food Network, said, “The entire country is moving toward more healthy and sustainably-produced foods, and rBGH-free dairy products are helping to lead the way. It is amazing that Elanco would try to hoodwink consumers with a report and endorsements that are clearly misleading.”
The Center for Food Safety is national, non-profit, membership organization, founded in 1997, that works to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. On the web at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/
SAFE or NOT? rBGH (rBST)
2/22/2010
Keep an Eye on your DAIRY SUPPLY...
Earlier today, the Bioscience Resource Project released its online article... http://www.bioscienceresource.org/news/a
www.bioscienceresource.org
Elanco's campaign to promote rbGH takes a wrong turn.
Excerpt:
22nd February 2010
The fight over rbGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) continues, even under new ownership. After acquiring rbGH from Monsanto, Elanco (part of Eli Lilly) has stepped up efforts to convince milk processors and the wider food industry that milk from rbGH-injected cows is safe. Central to their new campaign is a paper, commissioned through PR company Porter-Novelli, from eight prominent experts and academics in medicine and dairy science (Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST): a safety assessment). The authors are Richard Raymond, former undersecretary for Food Safety at USDA, Connie Bales of Duke University Medical Centre, Dale Bauman of Cornell University, David Clemmons of the University of North Carolina, Ronald Kleinman of Harvard Medical school, Dante Lanna of the University of Sao Paolo, Stephen Nickerson of the University of Georgia, and Kristen Sejrsen of Aarhus University, Denmark. The new paper was not peer-reviewed but it was presented at the July 2009 joint annual meeting of the American Dairy Science Association, the Canadian Society of Animal Science and the American Society of Animal Science in Montreal, Canada. It argues strongly for the benefits and safety of rbGH milk and has been widely distributed by Elanco. According to a rebuttal circulated by a number of consumer advocacy organisations, however, the paper misrepresents the position of various medical bodies (1).
The paper claims, for instance, that the safety of rbGH is endorsed by the American Medical Association (AMA). Through their Campaign for Safe Food, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, has pointed out that the AMA has no policy on rbGH and offers no such endorsement. Instead, they note the April 2008 AMA newsletter cites past president Ron Davis saying “Hospitals should......use milk produced without recombinant bovine growth hormone”.
The new paper also claims the same endorsement from the American Cancer Society (ACS). This claim, Oregon PSR points out, is contradicted on the ACS’s own website and and this was confirmed by the ACS in an email to the Bioscience Resource Project: “The American Cancer Society (ACS) has no formal position regarding rBGH.” stated the email. Another endorsement claimed by the paper is from the American Association of Pediatrics, a claim also disputed by the coalition. “I can confirm that AAP does not endorse the safety of rbGH” wrote an AAP spokesperson to the the Bioscience Resource Project, also in an email.
The Bioscience Resource Project contacted various of the authors for clarification. One, Professor of Lactation Physiology Stephen Nickerson was unaware of any errors. Second author and Dietitian Connie Bales declined to answer questions via email or on the telephone. David Clemmons, however, accepted that the AMA, the AAP and the ACS endorsements were “technically untrue”. “We counted endorsement as failure to oppose rbGH”, he said. Lead author Richard Raymond, however, in a written statement to the Bioscience Resource Project said the authors stood by all the endorsements excepting that of the AAP. In the same statement he also clarified the papers’ assertion that 17 other “leading health organisations in the United States” also endorse “Its safety for human consumption”. Asked to identify the organisations, his list included the American Council on Science and Health, the International Food Information Council and the “White House”.
According to Rick North of Oregon PSR "Elanco’s numerous false statements and misrepresentations on endorsing organizations are only the tip of the iceberg. The entire report is riddled with similar inaccurate, misleading claims about rBGH itself.”
Dr Raymond declined to say whether the authors planned to issue a public clarification. Author Kristen Sejrsen, on the other hand remained unconcerned. “Its only a scientific paper”, he said.
(1) The groups are: The Cancer Prevention Coalition, Consumers Union, Oregon PSR and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
###
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
###
NOTE: In August of 2008, Elanco (Eli Lilly & Co.) bought Posilac (rBGH) from Monsanto... http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/foodlaw
###
We'd like to take a brief moment, on behalf of all the conscientious eaters (Kansas City's organic and free-range locavores) we support, to express our appreciation for the diligent and dedication of those professionals out there who keep a careful eye on our food supply. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)