See GROWING HABITAT on page 16

The Center for Food Safety celebrat-ed the United States Supreme Court’sdecision in Monsanto v. GeertsonFarms [on June 21], the first geneticallymodified crop case ever brought beforethe SupremeCourt. Although theHighCourt decision reverses parts of thelower courts’ rulings, the judgmentholds that a vacatur bars the planting ofMonsanto’s Roundup Ready Alfalfauntil and unless future deregulationoccurs. It is a victory for the Center forFood Safety and the Farmers and Con-sumers it represents.

“The Justices’ decision today meansthat the selling and planting ofRoundup Ready Alfalfa is illegal. Theban on the crop will remain in placeuntil a full and adequate EIS is pre-pared by USDA and they officiallyderegulate the crop. This is a year or

IINNSSIIDDEE TTHHIISS IISSSSUUEE

Standing Our Ground ...................2

Is Monsanto’s Alfalfa Monoculture Good For Maine Farmers? ......................3

Welcome To Our 10TH Issue Of Saving Seeds..........................3

Food Sovereignty 101..................4

Via Campesina’s Seven Principles of Food Sovereignty .............................5

FDA Says . . . .Food For Maine’s Future Says . . . ......................5

Responsibly Destroying the World’s Peasantry .............6

2010 Jim Cook Memorial Award Goes To Carly Delsignore ......................7

The Local Food From Our Waters..............................8

10,000 Peasants March Against Monsanto in Haiti..................10

Stop Land Grabbing...................10

La Via Campesina Participates in Post -Cochabamba Delegation to U.N..................11

Ask CR . . .................................12

Biodynamic Preparations ...........13

Preserving Our Harvest..............14

THEN AS NOW . . .Why Farmers Are Poor ...........15

Issue #10 - Summer/Fall 2010

PO Box 51Sedgwick, ME 04676

more away according to the agency,and even then, a deregulation movemay be subject to further litiga-tion if the agency’s analysisis not adequate,” saidAndrew Kimbrell,Executive Director ofthe Center for FoodSafety. “In sum, it’sa significant victoryin our ongoing fightto protect farmerand consumerchoice, the environ-ment and the organicindustry.”

In the majority opinion written byJustice Samuel Alito, the Court held:“In sum…the vacatur of APHIS’sderegulation decision means that virtu-ally no RRA (Roundup Ready Alfalfa)

FREE

Growing Habitat, Embracing Biodiversity Part IIby CR Lawn

can be grown or sold until such time asa new deregulation decision is in place,

and we also know that any partyaggrieved by a hypotheticalfuture deregulation deci-sion will have ampleopportunity to chal-lenge it, and to seekappropriate prelimi-nary relief, if andwhen such a decisionis made.” (Opinion atp. 22). The Court also held

that: Any further attemptto commercialize RRA even

SUPREME COURT RULING IN MONSANTO GMOALFALFA CASE A VICTORY FOR FARMERS

High Court Delivers Ruling that Leaves Ban on Planting of Roundup Ready Alfalfa in Place in First-Ever Case on a Genetically-Engineered Crop

Center for Food Safety

COVERING THE POLITICS OF FOOD

“Building a just, secure, sustainable and

democratic food system.”

Pho

to by Richa

rd G

reen

field

See GMO ALFALFA CASE on page 3

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:• Is Monsanto's Alfalfa Monoculture Good

for Maine Farmers? page 3

• The Local Food from Our Waters, page 8

• Do It Yourself – Ask CR: Growing Grain, page 12; Biodynamic Preparations, page 13

• New Column! Eat & Drink with Merry, page 14

WWW.FOODFORMAINESFUTURE.ORG PO BOX 51, SEDGWICK, MAINE 04676 207-244-0908

Preparing potatoes for planting at FMF’s seed farm in Sedgwick

Thirty years ago Wendell Berry, in his famous essay Solvingfor Pattern recognized that incurable cures are charac-teristic of our time. We have a health system that incu-

bates iatrogenic illness, a health insurance system thatenriches insurance companies instead of promoting thehealth and welfare of our citizens, school systems that grad-uate illiterate students, correctional systems that releasehardened criminals, agricultural systems that produce foodlaced with harmful chemicals and food distribution systemsthat adulterate foods with empty calories that make usobese. Berry warned against solutions that spiral problemsout of control or that address one immediate problem with-out regard to their potential ramifications that create orworsen other problems. Manufacturing larger tractors tosolve soil compaction or genetically engineering to solveworld hunger are good examples.

As Berry realized, “A bad solution solves for a single pur-pose such as increased production, either in ignorance or indeliberate disregard of the larger patterns in which it is con-tained. It therefore purchases its immediate objective only atexorbitant biological or social costs. The real problem of foodproduction occurs within a complex mutually influentialrelationship of soil, plants, animals and people. A real solu-tion to the problem will therefore be ecologically, agricultur-ally and culturally healthful.” Since yield or total productionis only one factor in a complex equation in the causation ofpoverty and hunger, a single-factor solution cannot solve theproblem.

Our first challenge is to search for a ramifying series ofsolutions. Since the farm is a complex system of living beings

in mutual dependence, successful solutions will be biologicaland not industrial and will require a concern for pattern thataddresses the complex interrelationships of fertility, soil andanimal husbandry, sanitation, economics, a concern for thehealth, not only of soil, plants, animals, farm, farmer, farmfamily, but also of farm community, or rural communityóapattern of patterns.

Our second challenge is to reverse society’s preoccupationwith enforcement at the expense of education. In reaction tothe obstreperous ‘60s, we adopted a collective attitude of“lock ‘em up and throw away the key.” We threw our rejects

Welcome to the 10TH issue of

ABOUT

Food for Maine’s Future is pleasedto present our tenth issue of SavingSeeds. Named after the age old prac-tice threatened by a rapidly consoli-dating seed industry and U.S. andinternational laws that restrictfarmer’s rights, to the benefit ofpowerful multinational corpora-tions, this bi-annual newspaperprovides readers with the latestnews and views from the growinginternational movement for foodsovereignty. Please share it with afriend.

Ninth Issue: Summer/Fall 2010Circulation: 5,000 print run

SAVING SEEDSA Publication of Food for Maine’s Futurewww.foodformainesfuture.orgFood for Maine’s FuturePO Box 51Sedgwick, ME 04676

PublisherFood for Maine’s Future

EditorBob St.Peter

Layout/Design/ProductionLynn Pussic

Food for Maine’s Future GraphicEric G

Saving Seeds Logo DesignBeehive Collective

Board of Directors:

Rachel Katz

CR Lawn

Merry Hall

Betsy Garrold

Jim Amaral

Ryan Parker

Food forMaine’s FutureMission Statement

Food for Maine’s Future seeks to

build a just, secure, sustainable and

democratic food system to the bene-

fit of all Maine farmers, communi-

ties, and the environment. U

Editorial

The articles in this publication do notnecessarily reflect the views or posi-tions of Food for Maine’s Future.

When the Wisconsin Department ofAgriculture, Trade, and Consumer Pro-tection executed a search warrant forVernon Hershberger’s dairy farm inLoganville, Wisconsin, he was servednotice to stop selling all raw dairy prod-ucts produced on his farm. The DATCPentered the farmstore where Mr. Hersh-berger sells milk, butter, cream, yogurt,and ice cream to about 100 familiesthrough a member-only buying club andtaped the coolers shut. After the agentsleft, Mr. Hershberger proceeded to dowhat he believed was the fair and rightthing to do – he ignored the DATCP,removed the tape, and opened for busi-ness. Soon after, the DATCP showed upto his farm and again told Mr. Hersh-berger he was not permitted to sell rawmilk to anyone, including those withwhom he had a private contract. AgainMr. Hersberger refused to shut down hisfarm and buying club. According to theblog The Complete Patient, “DATCPagents have since been back to his farmtwice more with search warrants, the lasttime taking Hershberger’s computer,checkbook, and other records, [though]there has been no sign of any criminal orother charges being filed against thefarmer.”

When officers of the Los AngelesCounty District Attorney raided Rawe-some Foods warehouse in Venice, Cali-fornia, with guns drawn, the Los AngelesTimes reported the “investigatorsentered an organic grocery with a searchwarrant and ordered the hemp-cladworkers to put down their buckets ofmashed coconut cream and to step awayfrom the nuts.” The officers seized rawmilk, cheese, and other unadulteratedfoods. Rawesome Foods, another privatebuying club, has also chosen to ignoretheir orders to shut down and are contin-uing to provide their members withnutrient-dense food of their choosing.

That, unbelievably, is not all. Back in2008, in what seems to be the kick-off tothe recent wave of escalation of tacticsdirected towards raw dairies and privatefood clubs, Manna Storehouse inLaGrange, Ohio, was raided and theoperators, John and Jacqueline Stowers,along with their children, were detainedfor six hours. This all took place in theirhome where the family operated thebuying club as a way to “help the com-munity to have good, healthy, organicfood” that is affordable. Computers andfood were seized, including a year’sworth of the Stowers’ personal food thatincluded beef, chicken, and lamb theyhad raised themselves. Jacqueline Stow-ers described the event as “violent” and“belligerent” and noted that the officersdidn’t identify themselves when theyburst into her home. The whole affairwas very traumatic for the Stowers. Theyand their children have had troublesleeping and have since sought counsel-ing.

The list goes on. A food club in Minnesota that offered

locally produced foods was raided by agentsand shut down.

Agents searched a home and took comput-ers because a family allowed a raw dairyfarmer to park in their driveway while dis-tributing raw milk to residents who hadordered it.

Agents raided Sharon Palmer’s farm inSanta Paula, CA, three times in 18 monthsover issues with her labeling of goat cheese.Her twelve-year old daughter’s computerwas seized as was milk used to feed chickens

and pigs. Julie Murphy, age 7, had her lemonade

stand shut down in Multonomah County,Oregon, for lacking the proper license.(County officials later apologized to hermother.)

According to the authorities in eachof these cases there were either food safe-ty or licensing issues that warranted theactions taken. In the case of raw milkdairies, states like Wisconsin do notallow the sale of raw milk, therefore theyclaim any sales are illegal, including pri-vate contracts like those between Mr.Hershberger and his membership. (TheWI legislature recently passed a billallowing the sale of raw milk on a trialbasis but it was vetoed by the governor.As for the federal government, they havea stated goal of eliminating raw milkaltogether by 2020.)

State and federal regulators are claim-ing that member-only buying clubs, cowshares, or other private contractualarrangements between parties, whetherfor raw dairy, bulk, or local foods, mustfollow the same licensing and inspectionrequirements as retail food stores.

I don’t buy it, and here’s why. As I’m writing this an email comes

through with the headline “E.coli con-cerns prompts 1 million-lb. ground beefrecall.” It contains a story by the on-linetrade publication Meatingplace abouthow Valley Meat Co., a meatpackingplant in Modesto, California, issued thisrecall after the California Department ofPublic Health identified a cluster of E.coli0157:H7-related illnesses that sickenedsix people, and later a seventh. While thestory does not say the illnesses were con-clusively linked to Valley Meat, the com-pany was clearly concerned enough toissue the recall. The story (and this isimportant) makes no mention of armedofficers, plant shut-downs, or arrests.

A year or so ago I read in an articleabout Nestlé’s recall of Toll House Cook-ie Dough after at least 69 people from 30states reportedly suffered from E. colifood poisoning. Nine of those casesresulted in a severe form of food poison-ing associated with kidney failure. Onewoman from Las Vegas fell into a comafor two weeks. She eventually came outof it, but only after part of her colon wasremoved, she endured multiple seizures,and had her kidneys and liver stopworking. Again, no cops, no arrests, andNestlé is still in business selling thisproduct.

Stories like this are a dime a dozen.Stories of people becoming severely orfatally ill after eating farm fresh food arenot. Why the unequal treatment?

To understand the lengths to whichstate and federal authorities have gone toin raw dairy and buying club cases wemust look at the context within whichthe raids, harassment, and intimidationare taking place. First off, we’re winning.By “we” I mean all the people who areactively working to build a more just,equitable, and ecological way of feedingourselves and our communities. By“winning” I mean that the jig is up – BigFood and their government enablers areon the ropes. Films like Food, Inc., Fresh,and The World According to Monsantoare pulling the curtain back on corporateagribusiness and the policies that propthem up at the expense of our health, ourenvironment, and our rights. Betweenthe slew of films and a global communi-cation network Big Food is beingexposed for what they truly are – corpo-

rations whose primary obligation is toturn a profit, not feed people healthy,nourishing food.

Secondly, a review of history in thiscountry reveals that social movements(and let us not forget we are a socialmovement) are typically ignored untilthey begin to be effective. Ghandi said itbest; “First they ignore you, then theyridicule you, then they fight you, thenyou win.” For a while I thought we wereearly in the fighting stage, with the 70’sback-to-the-land/organic farm ing gener-ation being first ignored then ridiculed.But I’m now convinced that we are infact winning and this has the powers thatbe very concerned. And rightfully so.

For much the last sixty years peoplein the U.S. have had the luxury of cheapfood. Until recently those questioningthe value and true cost of that cheap foodwere relatively few and their voice effec-tively marginalized. But over time thatvoice has grown louder and louder. Peo-ple are willfully paying more for betterquality food, and as a result standardsare being raised. Parents are advocatingfor better food in schools, threatening theUSDA school lunch program’s policy ofbuying up corporate agribusinesses’ sur-plus and cast-offs (including a lot ofground beef) and passing it off to ourkids. Poor people are demanding betterfood, as are people of color, particularlyin inner cities. Small farmers and theirpatrons are effectively telling the govern-ment “we can do a better job” and “wedon’t need you”.

At Food for Maine’s Future’s 5thAnnual Local and Sustainable Food Con-ference Mark Silber, cultural anthro-pologist at USM, spoke about his experi-ences in the former Soviet Union. Hismost salient comments were about thefailure of the State to ensure the popu-lous a steady supply of cheap food, andthat being the impetus for the collapse ofthe government. Cheap food, then,becomes a form social control. Is it a coin-cidence that following the unrest of the1960’s the U.S. food and agricultural pol-icy under Secretary of Agriculture EarlButz was “get big or get out”? More thananything else, that policy drove downthe prices of commodities and madefood cheap. It would be simplistic to saythat alone has rendered social move-ments in this country since then ineffec-tive, but it has certainly played a role. Inpart because the cheap food policy hasdriven millions of farmers from the land,depriving them of them of their econom-ic power and squashing their politicalvoice. But also because of the point Markmade – history has shown that peopleare more likely to rise up against tyrannyand injustice when they’re hungry.

Well, people are hungry and we’rerising up. We’re hungry for justice. We’rehungry for vibrant rural communitiesand real food. We’re hungry for food pro-duction and distribution methods thatdon’t degrade soil and pollute air andwater. We’re hungry for accountabilitywithin Corporate America. We’re hungryfor a USDA and FDA that doesn’t pusharound small farmers who produce safe,delicious food with no need to paythrough the nose to the agrochemicalcartels. We’re hungry for healthy bodies,healthy minds, and healthy children.And we’re going to stand our groundagainst the lies, the intimidation, thethreats, and creeping Food Police State.

Won’t you stand with us?—R.A.S. U

Standing Our Ground

Tenth Issue: Summer/Fall 2010Page 2 www.foodformainesfuture.org

flagship herbicide Roundup, and theUSDA’s plan to commercialize it, wasat the heart of this dispute since 2006,when CFS filed a lawsuit against theUSDA on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wanted toretain the choice to grow non-GE alfal-fa. Central to the issue is unwantedtransgenetic drift: GE alfalfa can spreaduncontrollably by way of bees that cancross-pollinate plants many milesaway, contaminating both convention-al and organic alfalfa with foreignDNA, patented by Monsanto.

“We brought this case to courtbecause I and other conventional farm-ers will no doubt suffer irreversibleeconomic harm if the planting of GEalfalfa is allowed,” said plaintiff PhilGeerston. “It was simply a question ofour survival, and though we did notwin on all points of the law, we aregrateful that the practical result oftoday’s ruling is that Monsanto cannot

take away our rights and RoundupReady alfalfa cannot threaten our liveli-hoods.”

Alfalfa is the fourth most widelygrown crop in the U.S., and a keysource of dairy forage. Organic and

conventional farmers faced theloss of their businesses due to

widespread contaminationfrom Monsanto’s patent-ed GE alfalfa, and theforeseeable contamina-tion of feral or wild

alfalfa would ensure anongoing and permanentsource of transgenic pollu-tion in wild places akin tothat of invasive species. Roundup Ready alfalfa

would also increase Roundupuse and thereby exacerbate the

serious, ongoing epidemicof gly phosate-resistantsuperweeds. As recentlydiscussed in the New

York Times and Wall Street Jour-nal, superweeds lead to increased useof toxic herbicides, more soil-erodingtillage and higher production costs forfarmers. If allowed to spread, theycould reduce food production and leadto higher food prices. USDA has failedto take superweeds seriously or pro-pose any means to address them.

Further background information onthe history of this case and scientificstudies are available at http://truefoodnow.org/publications/supreme-court-briefs/. The SupremeCourt decision can be viewed here:http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-475.pdf

The Center for Food Safety is a national,non-profit, membership organization,founded in 1997, that works to protecthuman health and the environment bycurbing the use of harmful food productiontechnologies and by promoting organic andother forms of sustainable agriculture. Onthe web at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org U

in part may require an EIS subject tolegal challenge.

The Court further recognized thatthe threat of transgenic contaminationis harmful and onerous to organic andconventional farmers and that theinjury allows them to challenge futurebiotech crop commercializations incourt.

USDA indicated at the SupremeCourt argument that full deregulationis about a year away and that they willnot pursue a partial deregulation in theinterim. Any new attempt at deregula-tion in full or part will be subject tolegal challenge.

“The bottom line is that theSupreme Court set aside the injunctionbecause the vacating of the commer-cialization decision already gave us allthe relief we needed, by forbidding

RRA planting until a new decision ismade by the agency. And at such time,farmers and consumers still have theright to challenge the adequacy of thatprocess.” said George Kimbrell, seniorstaff attorney for CFS. “The Court’sdecision affirmed that the threat ofgenetic contamination of naturalplants posed by biotechcrops is an issue of signifi-cant environmental concernnow and in the future.”

In this case, CFS faced offagainst powerful opposingentities, including the Depart-ment of Agriculture andthe agricultural biotechgiant, Monsanto Cor-poration. The Centerand the other respon-dents were supported by abroad array of diverse inter-ests, marshalling no less thanseven amicus briefs in support.The amici included three states’attorneys general, leading scientificexperts, legal scholars, formergovernment officials, farmers, ex -porters, environmental groups, foodcompanies and organic industry tradegroups. The Organic Trade associationand companies like Stonyfield Farms,Cliff Bar and Eden Foods voiced unitedconcern over the threat a ruling forMonsanto would pose to the organicfood businesses, the fastest growingsector in the American food industry.Attorneys general from California,Oregon and Massachusetts filed a briefon behalf of their citizens emphasizing“the States’ interests in protecting theenvironment, their natural resourcesand their citizens’ rights to be informedabout the environmental impacts offederal actions.” A full list of the morethan sixty organizations, companiesand individuals who filed briefs in sup-port of CFS and opposed to Monsantocan be viewed at http://truefoodnow.org/publications/supreme-court-briefs/.

Monsanto was supported by a blocof powerful corporate interests andindustry groups, including the Ameri-can Farm Bureau, the BiotechnologyIndustry Organization, the AmericanPetroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamberof Commerce, and CropLife America.

The environmental, health, cultural,and economic impacts of the genetical-ly-engineered alfalfa seed, which isdesigned to be immune to Monsanto’s

Welcome To Our 10TH Issue

Of Saving SeedsThanks for picking up Food for Maine’s Future’s special Food

Sovereignty issue of Saving Seeds. Food sovereignty is a subject ofincreasing interest and importance and in this issue you’ll find FoodSovereignty 101, Food Sovereignty Principles, and reports and articlescovering this global movement. Not just a rallying cry for the peas-ants of the Global South, the food sovereignty principles apply herein Maine, too, and anywhere else people care about human rights,rural life, and good food. Thanks again, and dig in! U

www.foodformainesfuture.org Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 Page 3

Is Monsanto’s Alfalfa MonocultureGood For Maine Farmers?

Monsanto claims that Round-Up Ready alfalfa would benefitfarmers by allowing them to produce a weed-free stand of alfalfa,thereby increasing yield and profit to the farmer. Due to the geneticengineering that makes alfalfa resistant to Monsanto’s flagship herbi-cide, Round-Up, the crop would survive applications of Round-Upwhile eliminating competitive plants. But will alfalfa monoculturesimprove farmers’ yields and income, or merely increase Monsanto’sRound-Up sales and profits? The University of Maine CooperativeExtension advises farmers growing alfalfa in Maine to avoid plantingalfalfa alone, citing benefits from planting the legume with grasses.This would not be possible in a Round-Up Ready alfalfa system.

“Alfalfa-grass mixtures for hay or silage are the most com-mon use of alfalfa in Maine and throughout New England.There are several reasons for this.

1) The yield of alfalfa and grass together is usually greaterthan either planted alone.

2) As the alfalfa stands thins out or dies, the grass can fill inthe stand. This may mean fertilizing the grass with nitro-gen, but at least there is still a forage crop available forharvest.

3) The alfalfa-grass mixture can be grazed with less poten-tial for bloat to occur.

In Maine the two grasses best adapted for use with alfalfa ina mixture are timothy and orchardgrass. Timothy should beseeded at 6 to 8 lb/acre, while the more aggressive orchard-grass should be seeded at less than 4 lb/acre.” Growing ForageLegumes in Maine, University of Maine Cooperative ExtensionBulletin #2261

Saving Seeds Welcomes Your Letters to the Editor

E-mail them tobob@foodformainesfuture.org

or mail to: PO Box 51, Sedgwick, ME 04676

GE ALFALFA continued from 1

“The Justices’ decision today means that the sellingand planting of Roundup Ready Alfalfa is illegal.”

offi ce: 207-469-6600 - email: info@weru.org WERU - PO Box 170 - East Orland, Maine 04431

89.9 FM Downeast & Midcoast Maine

102.9 FM Bangor, Maine& live on the Web at

www.weru.org!

Diverse MusicAlternative News & Public Affairs

A Voice of Many Voices...

Community Radio

Democracy Now!airs 5:00-6:00 PMMonday - Friday

Free Speech Radio Newsairs 4:30-5:00 PMMonday - Friday

Page 4 Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 www.foodformainesfuture.org

What is Food Sovereignty?Food sovereignty is the right of peo-

ples to healthy and culturally appropri-ate food produced through ecologicallysound and sustainable methods, andtheir right to define their own food andagriculture systems. It puts those whoproduce, distribute and consume foodat the heart of food systems and poli-cies rather than the demands of mar-kets and corporations. It defends theinterests and inclusion of the next gen-eration. It offers a strategy to resist anddismantle the current corporate tradeand food regime, and directions forfood, farming, pastoral and fisheriessystems determined by local produc-ers. Food sovereignty prioritizes localand national economies and marketsand empowers peasant and familyfarmer-driven agriculture, artisanalfishing, pastoralist-led grazing, andfood production, distribution and con-sumption based on environmental,social and economic sustainability.Food sovereignty promotes transpar-ent trade that guarantees just income toall peoples and the rights of consumersto control their food and nutrition. Itensures that the rights to use and man-age our lands, territories, waters, seeds,livestock and biodiversity are in thehands of those of us who produce food.Food sovereignty implies new socialrelations free of oppression andinequality between men and women,peoples, racial groups, social classesand generations.

Where does the concept ofFood Sovereignty come from?

The concept of food sovereigntywas developped by Via Campesina andbrought to the public debate during theWorld Food Summit in 1996 and repre-sents an alternative to neoliberal poli-cies. Since then, that concept hasbecome a major issue of the interna-tional agricultural debate, evenwithin the United Nations bodies.Via Campesina has played amajor role in the development ofinternational networks gather-ing social, environmental move-ments, development NGOs, con-sumers...From Seattle to Genoaand Porto Alegre, those networksdevelop proposals and strategieswhich are essential to putting an end toneo-liberal policies and to develop soli-darity policies.

How are neo-liberal policieswrecking food sovereignty?

Neo-liberal policies prioritize inter-national trade, and not food for thepeople. They haven’t contributed at allto hunger eradication in the world. Onthe contrary, they have increased thepeoples’ dependence on agriculturalimports, and have strengthened theindustrialization of agriculture, thusjeopardizing the genetic, cultural andenvironmental heritage of our planet,as well as our health. They have forcedhundreds of millions of farmers to giveup their traditional agricultural prac-tices, creating and a rural exodus andforcing migration in search of food andwork. International institutions such asIMF (International Monetary Fund),the World Bank, and WTO (WorldTrade Organization) have implement-ed policies dictated by the interests oflarge transnational companies andsuperpowers. International (WTO),regional (North American Free TradeAgreement – NAFTA), or bilateral “

free” trade agreements of agriculturalproducts actually allow those compa-nies to control the globalized food mar-ket. WTO is a completely inadequateinstitution to deal with food and agri-culture-related issues. Therefore ViaCampesina wants WTO out of agricul-ture.

What is dumping?Dumping is a term used when

imported food costs less than food pro-duced locally or domestically. Mostoften the foods being dumped are com-modities like corn, soy, wheat, and ricethat are subsidized by wealthy nations.They are produced in surplus of whatis needed in those countries andthrough trade liberalization thesebelow-cost commodities are sold intothe international market where theyend up replacing locally or regionallyproduced food. Take for instance Euro-pean milk imported in India, Americanpork in the Caribbean, European Unionmeat and cereals in Africa, animal foodin Europe, etc. Those products areexported at low prices thanks to dump-ing practices. This process has dis-placed millions of people throughoutthe world and is the primary cause ofmigration from rural to urban areas. Toachieve food sovereignty, dumpingmust be stopped!

Does Food Sovereignty includefair trade?

Food sovereignty is not contrary totrade but to the priority given toexports. Under the responsibility ofUnited Nations (UN) trade must begranted a new framework, which:

• prioritizes local and regional pro-duction before export;

• allows the Countries/Unions toprotect themselves from too lowpriced imports;

• permits public aid to farmers,provided these are not intendeddirectly or indirectly to export atlow prices;

• guarantees stable agriculturalprices at an international levelthrough international agree-ments of supply management.

What about access to international markets as a solution for farmers?

The first problem for farmers is alack of access to their own local marketbecause the prices they receive are toolow for their products due to the

import dumping they are confrontedwith. Access to international marketsaffects only 10% of the world produc-tion, which is being controlled bytransnational companies and thebiggest agro-industrial companies. Theexample of tropical products (coffee,bananas,....) illustrates this clearly.

Wealthier countries have nearly freeaccess of these foods while familyfarmers in the South are still not able toimprove their situation.

Agricultural policies have to sup-port sustainable family farming andfishing in the North and the South. Inorder to be able to make their food sov-ereignty work, countries in the Northand in the South have to be able to sup-port their agriculture and fishing toguarantee the right to food of their pop-ulations, to preserve their environment,to develop sustainable agriculture andto protect themselves against dumping.They should also be able to supporttheir agriculture and fishing to fulfillother public interests that can differaccording to countries and their cultur-al traditions. But at present the UnitedStates and the European Union in par-ticular abuse public support to reducetheir internal market prices and todump their surpluses on the interna-tional markets, destroying family farmbased agriculture and fishing in theNorth and the South.

What can be done concretely? Get in touch with Via Campesina

member organizations in order to sup-port local and national initiatives andactions such as land occupation, sus-tainable farm production initiatives,defense of local seeds, actions againstGMOs and dumping, etc... It is alsoimportant to bring this debate intoyour organizations and into your gov-ernments and parliaments. On theinternational level, you can take part inthe Day of Peasant Struggles on April17 and the International Day of ActionAgainst Transnational Corporations onOctober 16.

Food for Maine’s Future is a member ofthe National Family Farm Coalition whichin turn is a member of Via CampesinaNorth America Region. U

Food Sovereignty 1011,000 BIRD EXEMPTIONSIGNED INTO LAW, OUT-LAWS OUTDOOR PROCESS-ING IN MAINE

On June 10, Governor JohnBaldacci signed a law allowingMaine farmers to raise, slaughter,and sell 1,000 or fewer poultrywithout continual inspection bystate or federal officials. Underthis exemption poultry may soldfrom the farm, through aCommunity Supported Agricultureprogram, or at farmers marketsprovided the product has properlabeling and safe handling instruc-tions. The farm must also have astate licensed and approved facili-ty, which effectively bans time-tested outdoor processing of poul-try for sale in Maine. Food forMaine’s Future opposed the pas-sage of the new law on thegrounds that the MaineDepartment of Agriculture failed tomake a compelling argument thatpoultry produced on a small-scaleand processed outdoors wasunsafe or a threat to publichealth. The Department ofAgriculture cited the risk of poten-tially losing $200,000 the statereceives annually in USDA fundingfor its meat inspection programwere Maine to allow outdoor pro-cessing.

MICHIGAN PASSES LAWSALLOWING HOME-MADEFOOD FOR SALE

Do you get raving reviews fromteachers and other parents aboutthat homemade cake you providedfor the school bake sale? Are fam-ily and friends who have tastedyour raspberry jam always askingwhen you are going to make somemore? You might want to considerselling your homemade goods forprofit.

[In July], Gov. JenniferGranholm sign[ed] into law twocottage food operation bills thatwill allow individuals to make orpackage certain foods in theirkitchens instead of having to usea commercial food operation asthey do now.

Baked goods, jam and jellies,candy, vinegar, dried fruit, herbsand mixes made in your kitchencould all be sold publicly providedthey are properly labeled to reflectthat they are homemade and iden-tify all ingredients under guide-lines provided by the state.

The new measures will allowpeople to sell their goods publiclyat farmers markets, roadsidestands, county fairs, flea marketsand festivals without a stateDepartment of Agriculture license.An individual residence couldmake up to $15,000 gross annu-ally from such sales, which couldhelp some families with good bak-ers and cooks make ends meet orspur the creation of entrepre-neurs.

“The legislation will promotethe production and sale ofMichigan-made food products and

continued on page 5

NNEEWWSS && NNOOTTEESS

www.foodformainesfuture.org Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 Page 5

promote Michigan agriculture,”[Gov. Granholm] said. “It will be aboost to small- and medium-sizefarms, farmers markets and entre-preneurs throughout the state.”Christina Hall, Detroit Free Press,July 12, 2010

GENETICALLY MODIFIEDCANOLA FOUND TO BEEVOLVING IN THE WILD

Scientists currently performingfield research in North Dakotahave discovered the first evidenceof established populations ofgenetically modified plants in thewild. Meredith Schafer from theUniversity of Arkansas and col-leagues from North Dakota StateUniversity, California StateUniversity, Fresno and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agencyestablished transects of landalong 3,355 miles of interstate,state and county roads in NorthDakota from which they collected,photographed and tested 406canola plants. The results, whichwere recorded in early July andare set to be presented at ESA’sAnnual Meeting in Pittsburgh, Pa.,provide strong evidence that trans-genic plants have established pop-ulations outside of agriculturalfields in the United States.

Of the 406 plants collected,347 (86 percent) tested positivefor CP4 EPSPS protein (conferstolerance to glyphosate herbicide)or PAT protein (confers toleranceto glufosinate herbicide). “Therewere also two instances of multi-ple transgenes in single individu-als,” said Cynthia Sagers of theUniversity of Arkansas, and one ofthe study’s co-authors. “Varietieswith multiple transgenic traitshave not yet been released com-mercially, so this finding suggeststhat feral populations are repro-ducing and have become estab-lished outside of cultivation.These observations have impor-tant implications for the ecologyand management of native andweedy species, as well as for themanagement of biotech productsin the U.S.” Sustainable FoodNews, August 6, 2010

SUPERWEED PROBLEMYIELDS CALL FOR NEWTAX, RULES

Critics of agricultural biotech-nology used the increasing prob-lem with herbicide-resistant weedsto call for tighter regulation ofbiotech crops.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, whochaired a House hearingWednesday on the spread ofRoundup-resistant weeds, said theAgriculture Department has beentoo quick to approve new varietiesof herbicide-tolerant crops andother biotech products.“Now, more than ever, farmersneed to have a Department ofAgriculture that takes care to pre-serve and protect the farmingenvironment for generations tocome,” Kucinich said.

continued on page 6

NNEEWWSS && NNOOTTEESS

1 Food: A Basic Human Right. Everyone musthave access to safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate foodin sufficient quantity and quality to sustain a healthy life with

full human dignity. Each nation should declare that access to food is aconstitutional right and guarantee the development of the primarysector to ensure the concrete realization of this fundamental right.

2 Agrarian Reform. A genuine agrarian reform isnecessary which gives landless and farming people – espe-cially women – ownership and control of the land they work

and returns territories to indigenous peoples. The right to land mustbe free of discrimination the basis of gender, religion, race, social classor ideology; the land belongs to those who work it.

3 Protecting Natural Resources. Food Sover-eignty entails the sustainable care and use of naturalresources, especially land, water, and seeds and livestock

breeds. The people who work the land must have the right to practicesustainable management of natural resources and to conserve biodi-versity free of restrictive intellectual property rights. This can only bedone from a sound economic basis with security of tenure, healthysoils and reduced use of agro-chemicals.

4 Reorganizing Food Trade. Food is first andforemost a source of nutrition and only secondarily an item oftrade. National agricultural policies must prioritize produc-

tion for domestic consumption and food self-sufficiency. Foodimports must not displace local production nor depress prices.

5 Ending the Globalization of Hung er.Food Sovereignty is undermined by multilateral institutionsand by speculative capital. The growing control of multina-

tional corporations over agricultural policies has been facilitated bythe economic policies of multilateral organizations such as the WTO,World Bank and the IMF. Regulation and taxation of speculative cap-ital and a strictly enforced Code of Conduct for TNCs is thereforeneeded.

6 Social Peace. Everyone has the right to be free fromviolence. Food must not be used as a weapon. Increasing lev-els of poverty and marginalization in the countryside, along

with the growing oppression of ethnic minorities and indigenouspopulations, aggravate situations of injustice and hopelessness. Theongoing displacement, forced urbanization, repression and increas-ing incidence of racism of smallholder farmers cannot be tolerated.

7 Democratic control. Smallholder farmers musthave direct input into formulating agricultural policies at alllevels. The United Nations and related organizations will

have to undergo a process of democratization to enable this tobecome a reality. Everyone has the right to honest, accurate informa-tion and open and democratic decision-making. These rights form thebasis of good governance, accountability and equal participation ineconomic, political and social life, free from all forms of discrimina-tion. Rural women, in particular, must be granted direct and activedecision-making on food and rural issues. U

Via Campesina’sSeven Principles of

FF oo oo dd SS oo vv ee rr ee ii gg nn tt yy

Saving Seeds Ad Policy We will accept paid ads from all non-

profit organizations, educational institu-tions and locally-owned commercialbusinesses who support sustainable agri-culture. Submissions may be made inPDF, TIF or scanable hard copy, grayscale only. Digital images, includingthose embedded in PDFs, should be at180 dpi. Payment must be received beforethe ad can go to print unless priorarrangements are made. Ads submittedwithout payment or prior arrangementare held until the next issue or until pay-ment is sent. Food for Maine’s Futurepublications are not “ad rags”, so space is

limited. Ads will be run on a first-come,first-served basis. We reserve the right torefuse any ad.

Note: Discounts are available formultiple ads or multiple runs. Contact usfor more information.Ad Sizes AvailableA) Size: 2 3/8" x 2 3/8" – ($20.00 per

issue/program)B) Size 3 3/16" x 2" – standard businesscard ($35.00 per issue/program)

C) Size: 2 3/8" x 4 7/8" ($50.00 perissue/program)

D) Size: 4 7/8" x 2 3/8" ($50.00 per issue)E) Size: 4 7/8" x 4 7/8" ($100.00 perissue) U

THE FDASAYS...

The Federal Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is responsiblefor ensuring the safety of the foodswe eat. But over the past ten years,the number of incidents of food-borne illnesses has more than dou-bled. In response, the FDA has takena one-size-fits all approach to foodregulation and has focused onimproving safety by encouraging andsterilizing the mass production of ourfoods. Their system isn’t working.The Center for Disease Control esti-mates 76 million Americans get sick,more than 300,000 are hospitalizedand 5,000 people die from foodborneillnesses each year!

In a recent case over the federalraw milk regulations, the FDA madethese arguments:

“There is no absolute right to con-sume or feed children any particularfood.”

“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ his-torical tradition of unfettered accessto foods of all kinds.”

“[The] assertion of a fundamentalright to their own bodily and physi-cal health, which includes what foodsthey do and do not choose to con-sume for themselves and their fami-lies’ is unavailing because [con-sumers] do not have a fundamentalright to obtain any food they wish.”

(Farmer to Consumer Legal DefenseFund v. USDA Health and Human Serv-ices, April 2010)

FOOD FORMAINE’S

FUTURE SAYS...We have right to choose REAL

FOOD. Real foods nourish citizensand the community, support thefarmers who grow it, and sustain theenvironment.

Individuals have an inherent free-dom to grow, buy and consume foodsthat promote self-reliance, the preser-vation of local food traditions andfamily farming.

Federal regulation of our localfood supply is UNNECESSARY.Small-scale farms insure a level ofquality and safety without special-ized facilities.

Direct farm to patron sales insureACCOUNTABILITY and INTEGRI-TY. Farmers who depend on word ofmouth must rely on their reputationwhen they sell in the communitieswhere they live. This helps ensuresthe quality and safety of their prod-ucts.

We don’t need the federal govern-ment to “fix” farming by enforcingmore stringent regulations. Small-scale, traditional farming methodshave existed and worked for hun-dreds of years. The system is not bro-ken!

Government inspection DOESNOT EQUAL food safety. NewUSDA and FDA regulations focusedon increasing traceability fail toaddress the real problem: factoryfarming and the corporate control ofour food supply.

LOCAL FOOD LOCAL GOVERNANCE U

BRUSSELS – The World Bank, theUnited Nations Food and AgriculturalOrganization (FAO), the InternationalFund for Agricultural Development(IFAD), and the UN Conference onTrade and Development (UNCTAD)Secretariat recently presented seven“Principles for Responsible Agricultur-al Investment.” The principles seek toensure that large-scale land invest-ments result in “win-win” situations,benefiting investors and directly affect-ed communities alike. But, thoughwell-intended, the principles are woe-fully inadequate.

It has been several years since pri-vate investors and states began buyingand leasing millions of hectares offarmland worldwide in order to securetheir domestic supply of food, rawcommodities, and biofuels, or to getsubsidies for carbon storage throughplantations. Western investors, includ-ing Wall Street banks and hedge funds,now view direct investments in land asa safe haven in an otherwise turbulentfinancial climate.

The scope of the phenomenon isenormous. Since 2006, between 15 and20 million hectares of farmland, theequivalent of the total arable surface ofFrance, have been the subject of negoti-ations by foreign investors.

The risks are considerable. All toooften, notions such as “reserve agricul-tural land,” or “idle land,” are manipu-lated out of existence, sometimes beingused to designate land on which manylivelihoods depend, and that is subjectto long-standing customary rights. Therequirement that evictions take placeonly for a valid “public purpose,” withfair compensation, and following con-sultation of those affected, is honoredmore in the breach than in the obser-vance.

In Africa, rural land is generallyconsidered to be state-owned, and istreated by governments as if it weretheir own. In Latin America, the gapbetween large landowners and smallpeasants is widening. In South Asia,many populations are currently beingdriven off their ancestral land to makeroom for large palm-oil plantations,special economic zones, or re-foresta-tion projects.

The set of principles that have beenproposed to discipline the phenome-non remain purely voluntary. But whatis required is to insist that governmentscomply fully with their human rightsobligations, including the right to food,the right of all peoples to freely disposeof their natural wealth and resources,and the right not to be deprived of the means of subsistence. Because theprinciples ignore human rights, they

supply has been lagging because of alack of investment in agriculture.Hence, if investment can be attracted toagriculture, it should be welcomed,and whichever rules are imposedshould encourage it, not deter it.

But both the diagnosis and the rem-edy are incorrect. Hunger and malnu-trition are not primarily the result ofinsufficient food production; they arethe result of poverty and inequality,particularly in rural areas, where 75%of the world’s poor still reside.

In the past, agricultural develop-ment has prioritized large-scale, capi-talized forms of agriculture, neglectingsmallholders who feed local communi-ties. And governments have failed to

protect agricultural workers fromexploitation in an increasingly compet-itive environment. It should come as nowonder that smallholders and agricul-tural laborers represent a combined70% of those who are unable to feedthemselves today.

Accelerating the shift towards large-scale, highly mechanized forms of agri-culture will not solve the problem.Indeed, it will make it worse. Thelargest and best-equipped farms arehighly competitive, in the sense thatthey can produce for markets at a lowercost. But they also create a number ofsocial costs that are not accounted for inthe market price of their output.

Smallholders, by contrast, produceat a higher cost. They are often veryproductive by hectare, since they maxi-mize the use of the soil, and achieve thebest complementary use of plants andanimals. But the form of agriculturethat they practice, which relies less onexternal inputs and mechanization, ishighly labor-intensive.

If smallholders compete in the samemarkets as the large farms, they lose.Yet they render invaluable services, interms of preservation of agro- and bio-diversity, local communities’ resilienceto price shocks or weather-relatedevents, and environmental conserva-tion.

The arrival of large-scale investmentin agriculture will alter the relationshipbetween these worlds of farming. Itwill exacerbate highly unequal compe-tition. And it could cause massivesocial disruptions in the world’s ruralareas.

Certainly, agricultural investmentshould develop responsibly. But, whilemany have seen the scares provoked byspiking food prices in recent years as an

neglect the essential dimension ofaccountability.

There is also a clear tension betweenceding land to investors for the creation

of large plantations, and the objectiveof redistributing land and ensuringmore equitable access to it. Govern-ments have repeatedly committedthemselves to these goals, most recent-ly at the 2006 International Conferenceon Agrarian Reform and Rural Devel-opment.

The underlying problem runs deep-er than how the principles have beenformulated. The promotion of large-scale land investment is based on thebelief that combating hunger requiresboosting food production, and that

Page 6 Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 www.foodformainesfuture.org

One weed scientist, DavidMortensen at Penn StateUniversity, said the governmentshould restrict the use of herbid-cide-resistant crops and impose atax on biotech seeds to fundresearch and education programs.The resistant weeds can’t bekilled by the sole use ofglyphosate, the active ingredientin Roundup herbicide, which hasbecome broadly popular with farm-ers with the advent more than adecade ago of soybeans, cotton,corn and other crops that areimmune to the chemical.

The weed problem is mostprevalent in cotton and soybeanfields in the South, but is spread-ing to other regions and will getworse if farmers don’t take meas-ures to control for them, includingspraying additional herbicides, sci-entists told a subcommittee of theHouse Oversight andInvestigations Committee. PhilipBrasher, DesMoinesRegister.com,July 28, 2010

LAWMAKERS PROPOSELABELING IN RESPONSE TOSUPREME COURT’S MON-SANTO DECISION

Ever since the Supreme Courthanded down its mixed 7-1 deci-sion, ruling that the lower courtoverstepped its boundary by issu-ing an injunction on the planting ofgenetically modified alfalfa, somelawmakers were spurred to action.Reuters, for example, reportedthat more than 50 U.S. lawmakerscalled on the U.S. AgricultureDepartment to keep Monsanto’sbiotech alfalfa out of farm fields.U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, aDemocrat from Vermont, and Rep.Peter DeFazio, a Democrat fromOregon, were joined by 49 otherrepresentatives and five othersenators in asking Tom Vilsack,the Agricultural Secretary, toensure that Monsanto’s genetical-ly engineered alfalfa is notapproved for commercial use.

Additionally, RepresentativeDennis Kucinich (D-OH) introducedthree bills in the House related tothe labeling of food containinggenetically engineered material,the cultivation and handling ofgenetically engineered crops, andthe establishment of a set offarmer rights regarding geneticallyengineered animals, plants, andseeds. In his press release,Kucinich stated that:

To ensure we can maximizebenefits and minimize hazards,Congress must provide a compre-hensive regulatory framework forall Genetically Engineered prod-ucts. Structured as a common-sense precaution to ensure GEfoods do no harm, these bills willensure that consumers are pro-tected, food safety measures arestrengthened, farmers’ rights arebetter protected and biotech com-panies are responsible for theirproducts.

The bills introduced by Kucinichare: (1) H.R. 5577, The

NNEEWWSS && NNOOTTEESS ccoonnttiinnuueedd

continued on page 7

Responsibly Destroying the World’s Peasantryby Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food

Raising land prices in Maine, particularly in coastal areas, is putting farmland out of reachfor resource-strapped farmers.

Women and children bear the brunt of land grabbing and displacement .

La Via Cam

pesina

pho

to

“The promotion oflarge-scale land

investment is based onthe belief that

combating hungerrequires boosting food production.”

“Smallholders andagricultural laborers represent a combined70% of those who are unable to feedthemselves today.”

Food

For M

aine

’s Future ph

oto

www.foodformainesfuture.org Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 Page 7

Food for Maine’s Future wishes to con-gratulate Carly DelSignore and Tide MillFarm for winning the 2010 Jim Cook Me -morial Award. Your effort and dedicationare inspiring and your food is really good.Keep up the great work!

Carly DelSignore,Standard Bearer

By Merry Hall

Maine’s agricultural roots are deepand nourishing. At Tide Mill OrganicFarm, Downeast in Dennysville, theygo back many generations. WhenCarly DelSignore married Aaron Bell,she joined a family that has run thisfarm for eight generations. She is partof raising the ninth generation to carryon the legacy, begun in 1765, when amember of the Passamaquoddy tribeguided Robert Bell, an immigrant fromScotland, to the site where he built atide-powered grist mill. She lovesbeing part of something bigger thanherself, earning her living and raisingher family in the heart of a tradition,sadly lost to many, that holds thepromise of a healthier family, commu-nity, and culture for the future.

Carly tells us, “For the future of agri-culture, it is important for the wisdom, fer-tile soil, farm infrastructure, and respectfor the land to be passed on, generation togeneration. The world cannot continue itscurrent agricultural, economic, or resourceguzzling model, because it’s going to col-lapse.”

At Tide Mill, Carly and Aaronbypass the chemical “green revolu-tion” of the second half of the 20th Cen-tury, to raise good, old fashioned food.Carly explains:

“As organic farmers, we recognize theconnection between the health of the earthand the health of our selves. For the last 60years, agriculture has taken a very danger-ous path. We believe we have only begun tosee the tragic results of these practices andthe unhealthy “American” diet. Cheap foodbecomes very expensive when we considerthe effects of cancers, birth defects, immunesystem failures, antibiotic resistance, earlyadolescent puberty, and many other healthissues; as well as the polluted soil, air, andwater and the disappearance of local farm-ers and producers.”

Carly and Aaron’s commitment totraditional practices is clear in the waythey treat their livestock. Carly is pas-sionate on the topic:

“These animals are performing a greatservice for us, providing food and livelihoodin return for our human care. We mustallow them the full range of their speciesspecific activities, food, and habitat inreturn for their sacrifices for us. Chickens

give up their babies for us, cows their moth-er’s milk. There is nothing more beautifulthan an animal carrying out its naturalfunction. When we honor their sacrifice,even as we harvest them, we gain, not onlyin nourishment but also in our dignity ashuman beings. I was horrified by the atroc-ities carried out in factory farming. If I raisean animal with care, allow it to run around,not stressing it out, providing it fresh foodthat is natural for it to eat, then the foodthat they give us in return will be richer,more whole.”

Carly is working toward the daywhen a creamery and bottler returns toWashington County, facilitating a localmarket for raw or lightly pasteurizedmilk. She knows that they are doingtheir part to hasten that day by bring-ing dairying back to Tide Mill Organic

Farm. She is active and adamant inresisting the government imposedover-pasteurization of all milk in thename of false “food security.” She feelspart of retrieving something valuableto the community that was almost lostto big agribusiness and is again threat-ened by the fear and profit driven pres-sures on our legislators.

Carly also casts a very strong votewith her pocketbook, buying mindful-ly to support the local economy. Again,she bypasses the late 20th Centurywith its big-box stores in favor of oldfashioned, locally owned stores. Sheexplains:

“It is more expensive to buy from localoffice supply and hardware stores thanfrom the corporate chains. We have majorwork to do with our financials, because wehave been so values driven. It matters to us,however, that the chains are cheaperbecause some people and some resources arebeing exploited somewhere. We refuse tosupport that, even though it pinches per-sonally.”

Carly DelSignore and the Bell Fami-ly are standard bearers for true econo-my, food security, and family values.

Merry Hall is the author of BRINGINGFOOD HOME: THE MAINE EXAM-PLE, from which this interview is excerpt-ed. Her book introduces readers to over 100people involved in Maine’s local food com-munity, revealing how true homeland andfood security are developing in Maine. U

2010 Jim Cook Memorial AwardGoes To Carly DelSignore Genetically Engineered Food Right

to Know Act, as well as support-ing legislation that will provide acomprehensive regulatory frame-work for all Genetically Engineered(GE) plants, animals, bacteria, andother organisms; (2) theGenetically Engineered Safety Act,HR 5578, which prohibits theopen-air cultivation of GE pharma-ceutical and industrial crops andestablishes a tracking system toregulate and ensure the safety ofGE pharmaceutical and industrialcrops; and (3) the GeneticallyEngineered Technology FarmerProtection Act, HR 5579 whichwould protect farmers and ranch-ers that may be harmed economi-cally by genetically engineeredseeds, plants, or animals, toensure fairness for farmers andranchers in their dealings withbiotech companies that sell GEproducts.

This is the fifth attempt byKucinich to push through GMOlabeling and regulation bills,attempts that date back to 1999.Deniza Gertsberg, GMO Journal,July 14, 2010

FEDERAL COURT VICTORY:ALMOND FARMERS CANCHALLENGE USDA PAS-TEURIZATION RULE

A federal appeals court ruled[August 3], overturning a lowercourt decision, that a group ofCalifornia almond farmers havethe right to challenge a USDA reg-ulation requiring the treatment oftheir raw almonds with a toxicfumigant or steam heat prior tosale to consumers. For the pastthree years, the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture has deniedAmerican consumers the right tobuy raw almonds, grown in theUSA, when they shop in groceryand natural food stores.

A group of almond growerssued the government to challengeUSDA’s rule, but the federal dis-trict court ruled that courtroomdoors were closed to the growers’claims. The controversial rule hascost individual farmers millions ofdollars in lost sales since it wasenacted in September 2007.

“We are delighted by thecourt’s decision,” said Will Fantle,Cornucopia’s Research Director.Cornucopia has been coordinatingthe legal strategy for the farmers’lawsuit. “At long last the farmerswho have been injured by this rulewill have the opportunity to standin court and state why this poorlythought out regulation should bethrown out,” Fantle added.

The USDA and the AlmondBoard of California imposed thetreatment scheme to minimize therisk of salmonella contaminationoutbreaks like those that hadoccurred with almonds in 2001and 2004. USDA investigatorswere never able to determine howsalmonella bacteria somehow con-taminated the raw almonds thatcaused the food illnesses but they

continued on page 8

NNEEWWSS && NNOOTTEESS

Carly DelSignore and family, Aaron Bell, Paige, Hailey, and Henry.

www.tidem

illorga

nicfarm.com

opportunity for investment, opportu-nities should not be mistaken for solu-tions.

To re-launch agriculture in thedeveloping world would require anestimated $30 billion per year, repre-senting 0.05% of global GDP. But howmuch is invested in agriculture mattersless than the type of agriculture thatwe support. By supporting furtherconsolidation of large-scale monocul-tures in the hands of the most power-

ful economic actors, we risk wideningfurther the gap with small-scale, fami-ly farming, while pushing a model ofindustrial farming that is alreadyresponsible for one-third of man-madegreenhouse-gas emissions today.

It is regrettable that, instead of ris-ing to the challenge of developing agri-culture in a way that is more sociallyand environmentally sustainable, weact as if accelerating the destruction ofthe global peasantry could be accom-plished responsibly. U

RESPONSIBLY DESTROYING THEWORLD’S PEASANTRY continued

Page 8 Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 www.foodformainesfuture.org

were able to trace back one of theoutbreaks, in part, to the coun-try’s largest “factory farm,” grow-ing almonds and pistachios onover 9000 acres.

Family-scale growers haveargued that the onerous andexpensive mandated treatmentregime is only needed by the giantindustrial producers, who haveless control over the quality oftheir nuts, and has hurt their mar-ket because it consumer resist-ance. Cornucopia News, TheCornucopia Institute, August 3,2010

JUNK FOOD-ADDICTEDRATS CHOSE TO STARVETHEMSELVES RATHERTHAN EAT HEALTHY FOOD

A diet including unlimitedamounts of junk food can causerats to become so addicted to theunhealthy diet that they will starvethemselves rather than go back toeating healthy food, researchershave discovered.

In a series of studies conduct-ed over the course of three yearsand published in the journalNature Neuroscience, ScrippsFlorida scientists Paul Johnsonand Paul Kenny have shown thatrats’ response to unlimited junkfood closely parallels well-knownpatterns of drug addiction — evendown to the changes in brainchemistry.

“What we have are these corefeatures of addiction, and theseanimals are hitting each one ofthese features,” Kenny said.

In their first study, theresearchers fed rats on either abalanced diet or on the same dietplus unlimited access to junkfoods purchased at a local super-market, including processedmeats and cakes. Within a shorttime period, the rats on the junkfood diet began to eat compulsive-ly and quickly became overweight.David Gutierez, Natural News,August 5, 2010

THE ULTIMATE FOODBETRAYAL: HOW BIGBIOTECH RIGGED THERESEARCH ON GM FOODS

In 2004, the peer-reviewedBritish Food Journal published astudy claiming that when shop-pers in a Canadian farm storewere given an informed, unbiasedchoice between genetically modi-fied (GM) corn and non-GM corn,most purchased the GM variety. The research, which was fundedby the biotech industry and con-ducted by four staunch propo-nents of GM foods, other findingsaround the world that show howpeople avoid genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs) when given achoice.

The controversial article wasnonetheless given the Journal’sprestigious Award for Excellencefor the Most Outstanding Paper of2004. It is often cited by biotechadvocates as proof that peopleare embracing GM foods.

When one drives by many homesalong the coast these days, neat stacksof four feet long lobster traps are piledhigh, with someone sitting and bend-ing over one, preparing it for the com-ing season. This postcard picture masksthe hard work that begins in each lob-ster season. Each vinyl-coated wiremesh trap must be inspected, mended,and tagged every year to make sure it isfunctional and legal. The line from thetrap to the buoy must be repaired, andeach buoy scrapped and painted withthe boat’s unique color code. Eighthundred traps are allowed per licenseoff most of the state’s waters. So thework on the traps is repeated 800 timesbefore the traps are dropped in thewater.

Commercial groundfishing (had-dock, pollock, sole, cod, hake, etc.)boats, do not leave the harbor withoutknowing first which fish are runningwhere, how much can they bring inand keep in compliance with legal lim-its, how long can they stay out, andwhat the short and long term marineforecast indicates. They have to get theright amount of bait and ice to keep thefish healthy all through the manyhands it passes until a retailer sells it toa consumer.

These occupations are quintessen-tial Maine. The nutrient rich seafoodcaught along the coast has kept genera-tions of Mainer’s healthy, fed,employed, and feeling like they wereliving the good life. For those of us whoare not fishers, it may be seductive tostay with the post card myth. If we justopen our eyes a bit, we can see that thisprecious tradition needs our supportand advocacy. If we don’t help our fam-ily fishing community, they will bepushed out by the big operations thathave the fleets and resources to trawlthe oceans. We have seen it with familyand small farms, restaurants, and hard-ware stores. Lobstering and fishing isnext and very close.

First, some information on ground-fishing and lobstering:

• 83% of seafood consumed inthe US is imported. We importtwice as much as we export.

• Fish and lobsters are a $1 bil-lion industry in Maine, with28,000 jobs connected to it.

• Maine has 5300 miles of coast-line and only 20 miles is usedas commercial working water-fronts.

• Today there is no fishing fleetcatching groundfish from eastof Port Clyde to Canada.Downeast fishers are 90%dependent on lobsters.

• Most fish and shrimp caughtwest of Port Clyde isprocessed and auctioned in

continued on page 9

NNEEWWSS && NNOOTTEESS ccoonnttiinnuueedd

Portland, then shipped bywholesalers. Lobsters and fishcan change hands 4 to 6 timesbefore reaching the consumer,with each level taking a cut inthe action.

• Lobster boats were paid, dur-ing the 2009 season, $2.50-3.00per pound compared to $4.50two years ago. Costs of fuel,bait and overhead absorb upto 60% of their catch, upsharply from 12% in the latenineties.

• Catches, especially for lob-sters, are increasing, but priceshave plummeted with less-ened demand. In 2009, 76 mil-lion pounds of lobsters werecaught, a $224 million value,down $22 million from 2008,and down $100 million inmoney paid for close to thesame amount of lobsters in2005.

• When a commercial boat goesout to fish, it has no certaintyhow much the catch will beworth until it is bought by adealer.

• Commercial fishers are payingthe price for over fishing in thepast. Twenty years ago mostfish were found out 15 miles.Today boats must go out 100miles to get the same catch.Community fleets are experi-

menting with different nettingsizes and fishing techniquesthat would preserve juvenilefish and other species caughtup in nets.

• Large factory boats competeagainst Maine’s family com-mercial boats with their hugedragging capabilities andgreater economic leverage.

• Maine has 100 aquaculturefarms, raising salmon, oystersand mussels using, what theyconsider, leading edge sus-tainability practices.Traditional fishers do not

broadly support fish farms,and most fish farms are run byex-commercial fishers.

• The federal government andstate government have over-lapping regulation of fishing.This year new limits are inplace to manage the amount ofdifferent fish species caughtacross sectors dividing up thewaters. This has been a contro-versial and complicatedprocess with the small andlocal fleets demanding equityin the development of theselimits. Though geared to keepthe waters alive with fish, therules need to also protect thefishing heritage of Maine fromthe giants in the national andinternational fishing world.

While these facts paint a challengingpicture, the truth is many good thingsare starting to happen. Commercialfishers in Port Clyde made history in2007 when they created the state’s firstCommunity Supported Fishery, basedon the successful Community Support-ed Agriculture Model, and formed analliance with their lobster fishing coun-terparts. All the groundfishing boatsout of Port Clyde formed and joined acooperative that has strict gear andquality standards, and conservation

based marketing strategy. Many are using the Cushman

net, named after the local lobster-man who designed it. It signifi-cantly reduces the number ofundersized and immature fishcaught in nets, allowing the stockto stay healthy while catchingonly larger fish. The net hasrecently been tested in New-foundland and is gaining widerinterest as it also helps the boatsmeet the new weight based fish-ing limits. Without these nets,millions of small fish die, as theyare caught and unable to be sold. Working together to pool

The Local Food From Our Watersby Maura Melley

“Commercial fishersin Port Clyde made

history in 2007 whenthey created the

state’s first Community Supported

Fishery.”

Lynn

Pus

sic ph

oto

Lynn

Pus

sic ph

oto

www.foodformainesfuture.org Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 Page 9

Fortunately Stuart Laidlaw, areporter from Canada’s TorontoStar, had visited the farm storeseveral times during the study anddescribed the scenario in his bookSecret Ingredients. Far from offer-ing unbiased choices, huge signsplaced over the non-GM corn binread, “Would you eat wormy sweetcorn?” It further listed the chemi-cals that were sprayed during theseason.

By contrast, the sign above theGM corn stated, “Here’s WhatWent into Producing Quality SweetCorn.” No wonder 60 percent ofshoppers avoided the “wormycorn.” In fact, it’s a testament topeople’s distrust of geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs) that40 percent still went for the“wormy” option.

In addition to the signs, the“consumer education fact sheets”in the store were nothing morethan pro-GM propaganda. And thelead researcher, Doug Powell, waseven seen trying to convince acustomer who purchased non-GMcorn to switch to the GM variety.Jeffrey Smith, Mercola.com,August 10, 2010

LONG WAIT COULD ENDSOON FOR BLACK FARM-ERS IN DISCRIMINATIONCASE

Willie Adams has been waitingfor more than 10 years. But hiswait could be almost over.Adams is one of more than70,000 black farmers who stillhaven’t received their share ofmoney from the 1999 UnitedStates Department of Agriculturediscrimination-lawsuit settlement,in which a federal judge ruled thatthe USDA was guilty of decades ofloan and subsidy practices thatfavored white farmers over blacks.

The $1.15 billion in funding –the second part of what’s knownas the Pigford settlement – wasapproved by the House this year,but has been repeatedly strippedfrom larger spending bills in theSenate. The measure could bebrought up this week as part of astand-alone unanimous consentbill. Under the unanimous consentrule, a bill is considered passed ifno senator objects.

John Boyd, the president of theBlack Farmers Association, saidthe action represents “long-over-due justice for nearly 80,000black farmers who, spiritually andmentally, have really given up onthe federal government ever treat-ing them right.”

In previous votes against billsthat included the Pigford settle-ment funding, Republican sena-tors expressed concerns aboutthe settlement money adding tothe deficit. Alissa Irei, PoliticsDaily, August 5, 2010

FAMILY FARM DEFENDERSWINS SECOND ANNUALFOOD SOVEREIGNTY PRIZE

The Community Food SecurityCoalition has selected Family

the coast are trying to get theattention of Maine residents tobuy Maine caught fish. Manyrestaurants and grocery storessell local fish, and residents couldhelp out our coastal neighbors bybuying only local fish. Joining aCSF or buying fish at their boothsin the farmers markets helps outmore and often costs less. On the international arena, the

World Wildlife Fund andUnilever Corp have started aMarine Stewardship Certification(MSC) process. They havedesigned a minimum sustainabil-ity standard that fishing boatsmust follow in order to marketunder their label. The bad news isthat this certification doesn’t takeinto account what happens afterthe fish is caught. Much of thefish caught by big operationsthrough sustainable practices arethen air lifted to China for fillet-ing and then flown back to the USto be then trucked to local stores.Much Alaskan Salmon followsthis global route. McDonalds FishSandwiches contain MSC fishflown in from New Zealandwaters. Unless the fish is labeledas local, you can bet the fish youeat has been on planes and trucksfor thousands of miles.

For the local lobster industry, theeconomics are hitting hard: low prices,high catch numbers, lessened demand,and increased fuel and bait costs. Manyfamilies are being crushed by the turnof the market and the weight of theirdebt. Some of the lessened demand isfrom the decline in the cruise vacationindustry. Cruise ships were big buyersof lobsters.

The other factor is the perceptionthat lobsters are a luxury meal, or justtoo much work to cook. We know theprices the boats get are nowhere nearluxury level. We also know that peopletoday eat differently than before-manymeals are quickly made and eaten dueto work and family schedules. Findingsimpler ways to prepare lobster, likethe Cobscook effort, will help.

Eating local fish should be the sameas eating locally grown food. It’s foodsovereignty from our waters. U

ago most fishers were diversified andcaught fish, lobsters, shrimp etcdepending on the time of year andresource available. Specialized boatshelped move them away from thatdiversity, making them more vulnera-ble when markets shrink. They have aCommunity Supported Fishery like

Port Clyde, and a very vibrant localcommunity supporting the efforts.

At Cobscook Bay Company, theyare working on a project to make frozenlobster and seafood pies, which couldthen be marketed, across the country.This could be a great start to makingMaine lobster and fish accessible andaffordable to a wider public.

These and other cooperatives along

resources and catches, Port Clyde boatssell high quality “Port Clyde FreshCatch” fish at farmers markets inMaine and New York City, to restau-rants here and in Boston, and on line toany interested customer. They only fishwhat they can sell and are leaders in theeffort to strengthen the ecological and

financial sustainability of Maine’sgroundfishing industry.

Downeast in Stonington, the Penob-scot East Resource Center (PERC), isdoing great creative and advocacywork to ensure the long-term sustain-ability of small scale fishing operations.They have their own CFA and are help-ing a half dozen boats this summer torestart groundfishing in the area. Years

NNEEWWSS && NNOOTTEESS ccoonnttiinnuueedd

continued on page 10

“Many families are being crushed by the turn ofthe market and the weight of their debt.”

benefit from land’s productive value.This vision does not take into accountthe desire of people to produce foodfor themselves, their families, and theircommunities, but rather forces peopleinto production of commodities forexport. It does not take into accounttraditions and cultures that havedeveloped from our relationship to theland, nor does it offer a fair and equi-table solution to hunger and poverty.

There is another vision, anotherway forward, away from the failure torespect the right of all people to ahealthy, dignified, and peaceful life.We call this vision food sovereignty.Food sovereignty is the right of peopleto maintain and develop their owncapacity for producing their basicfoods, respecting cultural and produc-tive diversity. It is the right of people toproduce food in our own territories,and to determine our agricultural andfood policy. The vision of food sover-eignty offers solutions to hunger andpoverty because it places the decisionsabout who will eat in the hands ofmany small producers rather thanextractive agribusiness corporationswhose primary goal is profit.

We, the peasants and small farmersof the world, do not need agribusinessand international investment schemesto eat. We can feed ourselves, our fam-ilies, and our communities. And wecan do so more healthfully and moresustainably, without rural displace-ment and the degradation of indige-nous cultures. But to do so we need fairand equitable access to productiveland and waterfront, not low-payingjobs on corporate farms and interna-tional food aid.

During the Irish potato famine mil-lions of people starved or migrated in

Hinche, Haiti (June 9 2010)– An esti-mated 10,000 peasants gathered for amassive march in Central Haiti on June4, 2010, to protest what has beendescribed as “the next earthquake forHaiti” – a donation of 475 tons ofhybrid corn seeds and vegetable seedsby the US-based agribusiness giantMonsanto, in partnership with USAID.While this move comes at a time of direneed in Haiti, many feel it will under-mine rather than bolster the country’sfood security.

According to Chavannes Jean-Bap-tiste, leader of the Peasant Movementof Papaye (MPP) and spokesperson forthe National Peasant Movement of theCongress of Papaye (MPNKP), theentry of Monsanto seeds into Haiti is “avery strong attack on small agriculture,on farmers, on biodiversity, on Creoleseeds... and on what is left our environ-ment in Haiti.”

While Monsanto is known for beingamong the world’s largest purveyors ofgenetically modified seeds, the corpo-ration’s spokespeople have empha-sized that this particular donation is ofconventional hybrid seeds as opposedto GMO seeds. Yet for many of Haiti’speasants, this distinction is of littlecomfort.

“The foundation for Haiti’s foodsovereignty is the ability of peasants tosave seeds from one growing season to

Page 10 Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 www.foodformainesfuture.org

Note: The following statement was issuedon the first day of the World Bank’s 2010Land Policy Conference held last April inWashington DC.

Humanity presently faces greatchallenges and today we too oftenspeak in terms of crises: Food Crisis;Financial Crisis; Climate Crisis.Transnational corporations, govern-ments, private investors, and interna-tional financial institutions such as theWorld Bank would have us believe theanswer is expansion of failed agricul-

tural models and more developmentprojects that primarily benefit wealthynations and investors at the expense ofthe poor and marginalized. The recentwave of land grabbing offers us onevision for the future. It is a vision whereland is a commodity to be bought andsold, rather than a sacred gift for us toshare and steward. It is a vision wherethe people who depend on access toland for their livelihood, and often sur-vival, are simply not as important asthe nations or investors who seek to

10,000 Peasants March Against Monsanto in Haiti

Farm Defenders to receive theSecond Annual Food SovereigntyPrize. According to the pressrelease, Family Farm Defenderswas chosen to receive the prizebecause their organization hasexcelled in promoting food sover-eignty by raising public aware-ness, on-the-ground action, anddeveloping and implementing pro-grams and policies; recognizingthe importance of collective actionin bringing about social change;recognizing global linkages in foodsovereignty work; and demonstrat-ing clear recognition of the impor-tance of women in agriculture andfood issues.

The Food Sovereignty Prize willbe awarded to Family FarmDefenders at the 14th AnnualCFSC conference “Food, Culture &Justice: The Gumbo That UnitesUs All” in New Orleans, Louisianato be held October 16 – 19,2010. The award ceremony willtake place at the Plenary onMonday, October 18 from 9:30 –10:30 am. For more info, visit:http://www.foodsecurity.org/FoodSovPrize.htm.

LA VIA CAMPESINA ISSUESCALL TO STOP RETURN OF‘TERMINATOR’

Four years after the moratori-um on Terminator technology wasreaffirmed by the United NationsConvention on Biological Diversity(CBD), proposals to develop andcommercialize ‘genetic-use restric-tion technologies’ (GURTs) areback on the agenda for policymak-ers and the biotechnology indus-try. Terminator is a threat to foodsovereignty and agrobiodiversity:ending the moratorium onTerminator will increase control ofseed by transnational corporations(TNCs) and restrictions on farm-ers’ rights to save and plant har-vested seed. Additionally, pollenfrom genetically-modified (GM)crops with Terminator will contami-nate non-GM and organic crops,and native plant species.

GURTs (herein referred to as‘Terminator’) are genetic engineer-ing technologies that seek to con-trol plant fertility. First-generationTerminator (also called ‘suicideseed’) was developed jointly bythe US Department of Agricultureand Delta and Pine Land Companyin the 1990s to protect the intel-lectual property of US agriculturalbiotechnology TNCs. GM cropsproduce sterile seeds to preventfarmers from replanting harvestedseed with patented DNA. Due tointernational public outcry fromfarmers and civil society world-wide, Terminator has never beencommercialized anywhere, andBrazil and India have nationalmoratoriums prohibiting it. In2000, the CBD recommended ade facto moratorium on field-test-ing and commercial sale ofTerminator seeds. In 2006, pres-sure from La Via Campesina andits allies helped to strengthen thismoratorium in Curitiba, Brazil.

NNEEWWSS && NNOOTTEESS ccoonnttiinnuueedd

continued on page 11

FFRROONNTT--LLIINNEESS:: DDiissppaattcchheess ffrroomm tthhee IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall MMoovveemmeenntt ffoorr FFoooodd SSoovveerreeiiggnnttyy

Representatives of the National Family Farm Coalition, GRAIN, and Food for Maine’sFuture protest the World Bank’s support of farmland grabbing outside a high-level brief-ing in Washington.

Stop Land Grabbingby Bob St.Peter

the next. The hybrid crops that Mon-santo is introducing do not produceseeds that can be saved for the nextseason, therefore peasants who usethem would be forced to somehowbuy more seeds each season,” explainsBazelais Jean-Baptiste, an agronomistfrom the MPP who is currently direct-ing the “Seeds for Haiti” project inNew York City.

“Furthermore, these seeds requireexpensive inputs of synthetic fertiliz-

ers and pesticides that Haiti’s farmerssimply cannot afford. This creates adevastating level of dependency and isa complete departure from the realityof Haiti’s peasants. Haitian peasantsalready have locally adapted seedsthat have been developed over genera-tions. What we need is support forpeasants to access the traditional seedsthat are already available.” U

10,000 peasants march to protest Monsanto’s “gift” of hybrid corn and tomato seed

Isab

ella Ken

field, La

Via Cam

pesina

Mad

eleine

Fairbairn

New York, May 10, 2010 – On May 6and 7, La Via Campesina participatedin a delegation of civil society groupsconvened by the government of Boliviato accompany President Evo Moralesto present the People’s Accord ofCochabamba to the United NationsSecretary General Ban Ki-moon, theG77 and China. The event was an his-toric opportunity for members of civilsociety to gain political space in the UNdialogue on climate change ahead ofthe next round of official negotiationsunder the UN Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Can-cun, Mexico in December.

“As a delegate for La Via Cam -pesina, I can say to my colleagues inBrazil in the social movements that,thanks to the intuition and action ofEvo Morales, a new path was openedto raise the demands of the socialmovements to the UN through theGeneral Secretary, and possibly in Can-

cun at the next official international cli-mate talks,” said Father Tomás Bal-duíno of the Pastoral Land Commis-sion in Brazil, one of two ViaCampesina representatives in theeleven-person delegation.

The Cochabamba People’s Accord isthe product of the collaborative effortsof over 35,000 participants at the WorldPeople’s Conference on ClimateChange and the Rights of MotherEarth, held from April 20th to 22nd inBolivia. La Via Campesina sent 300international delegates and 3000 Boli-vian delegates to the Conference,which was called for by PresidentMorales after the UNFCCC talks inCopenhagen last December.

The Cochabamba People’s Accord is

www.foodformainesfuture.org Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 Page 11

an alternative to the CopenhagenAccord, which, some say as a result ofpolitical pressure by the U.S., has nowbeen signed by 120 of 192 UN coun-tries. According to Pablo Solón,Bolivia’s Ambassador to the UnitedNations, the Accord seeks to under-mine the Kyoto Protocol, has no differ-ential treatment between rich and poorcountries, and calls for reduced assis-tance to help poor countries combat theeffects of climate change, with no spec-ification as to the source of the funding.Additionally, the Copenhagen Accordwould make commitments to reducegreenhouse gas emissions voluntaryand no longer consensual.

Another major point of contention isthat the Copenhagen Accorddoes not address how emis-sions from industrial agricul-ture, which causes about one-third of global emissions, willbe reduced. According toAmbassador Solón, “Agricul-ture is not being discussed inthe UNFCCC negotiations asit should be, while at the Peo-ple’s Conference it was dis-cussed a lot, as a large part ofgreenhouse gas emissions isfrom agriculture. Agriculturaldevelopment should not bebased on the development of businessand profits, but rather on sustainable,peasant agriculture that is in harmonywith nature. Food sovereignty needs tobe put on the table.”

In fact, present and future UNFCCClegislation for agriculture will likelyfacilitate the expansion of industrialagriculture, thereby increasing the ver-tical integration and market consolida-tion of agribusiness, especially the U.S.biotechnology and chemical corpora-tions Monsanto, DuPont, and Arborgen.

For example, the UNFCCC Secre-tariat is presently considering whetherplantation monocultures of genetically-modified (GM) eucalyptus and pinetrees will count as ‘forests’ for carbonsequestration and emissions offsetsunder the program for Reducing Emis-sions from Deforestation and Degrada-tion (REDD). Monsanto is lobbying tohave plantation monocultures of GMRoundup Ready soybeans be eligiblefor carbon credits through so-called“no-till agriculture,” which willincrease the use of the herbicide gly -phosate, sold by Monsanto as Round -

up, which is in a class of highly-toxicchemicals called endocrine disruptors.

In his briefing to the G77 and China,President Morales said: “There are twoways forward: Either save capitalism,or save Mother Earth. If Cancun is thesame as Copenhagen, then unfortu-nately the UN will lose its authorityamong the people in the world.”

Bolivia is leading calls for a newround of the Kyoto Protocol that in -cludes legal mandates for emissionsreduction at the source, as opposed tocarbon credit trading and finance. TheCochabamba People’s Accord calls for$300 billion a year for financing emis-sions reductions and adaptation to climate change, emissions reductions

of 50% by rich countries by 2020, aswell as an international climate justicetribunal.

At a press conference Friday after-noon, Morales was questioned aboutthe decision by the Obama administra-tion to deny climate aid to countriesthat refused to sign the CopenhagenAccord. Just last month, the U.S. StateDepartment canceled $3 million in cli-mate aid to Bolivia and $2.5 million toEcuador. The funds were to come fromthe Millennium Challenge Corpora-tion, a public-private corporation creat-ed by the Bush administration. Moralesreferred to the decision by the U.S. as‘blackmail.’

According to Yoon Guem Soon, aSouth Korean farmer and member ofInternational Coordinating Committeeof La Via Campesina, “The Boliviangovernment and President Evo Moralesshowed the social movements what isthe next step after Cochabamba.Through Cochabamba and at this meet-ing in New York, I am pretty sure we canhave a victory in Cancun. In the mean-time, Via Campesina has a lot to do.” U

La Via Campesina Participates in Post -Cochabamba Delegation to U.N.

That year, US-based TNCMonsanto Company, the largestseed company in the world,acquired Delta and Pine Land,along with the intellectual propertyrights to Terminator. Since thenindustry, the US and Europeangovernments and ultra-rich philan-thro-capitalists have ramped uprhetoric on the need forTerminator and other biotechnolo-gies to adapt to the climate, ener-gy and food crises. Various falsesolutions are being proposed tosell the lie that techno-fixes allowrich countries to continue consum-ing resources and emitting carbondioxide, unabated: GM crops forcellulosic and second-generationagrofuels; geoengineering ‘climateready’ GM crops and trees withincreased albedo (reflectivity) andresistance to drought, heat andsalt; monoculture plantationforests of GM trees to industriallyproduce biochar for carbonsequestration; and GM algae andmarine microbes for carbon diox-ide sequestration. Monsanto isproposing that monoculture plan-tations of its Roundup Ready soy-beans qualify for carbon creditsunder so-called “no-till” agricul-ture. All of these false solutionscreate new markets for agricultur-al biotechnology and ‘extremegenetic engineering’.www.viacampesina.org.

FOOD FOR MAINE’SFUTURE RECEIVES GRANTFROM HAYMARKET PEO-PLE’S FUND IN SUPPORTOF FOOD SOVEREIGNTY

Food for Maine’s Future hasreceived a $3,000 grant from theHaymarket People’s Fund in sup-port of its food sovereignty move-ment building efforts. HaymarketPeople’s Fund is an anti-racist andmulti-cultural foundation that iscommitted to strengthening themovement for social justice inNew England. They give money tograssroots groups of local peoplewho believe that change is possi-ble. Haymarket believes “thatcommunities that come togetherwith a vision of justice can get thejob done, provided they have theresources.” A portion of the grantwill be used to help organize a2011 youth leadership campsponsored by Food for Maine’sFuture in collaboration with theNational Family Farm Coalition andLa Via Campesina North AmericaRegion. For more informationabout Haymarket People’s Fundvisit www.haymarket.org.

SUPER SALMON ORFRANKENFISH?

WASHINGTON — After 14years of work, unceasing attacksfrom critics, and a $50 millioninvestment without a penny ofprofit, a small New Englandbiotech company stands on thedoorstep of history – seeminglypoised to join agriculture’s “greenrevolution” as a game-changer infeeding the world.

NNEEWWSS && NNOOTTEESS ccoonnttiinnuueedd

continued on page 12

Small farmers and peasants of La Via Campesina gathered from around the world to par-ticipate in the People's Climate Summit in Cochabamba, Bolivia last April.

Mrs. Yoon Guem Soon from Vía Campesina in thebackground.

UN Pho

to/M

ark Garten

kk+

search of food, even while corn andoats were exported to Britain. Thisinjustice continues today throughoutthe world. By making it easier for for-eign governments, agribusiness corpo-rations, and private investors to buyfarmland and export food for profitand their domestic needs, the WorldBank is creating the conditions for star-vation, displacement, and severe inter-nal conflicts.

So I ask the world leaders gatheredhere, what should the people in Sudanor Ethiopia do as they watch their fam-ilies starve while cargo ships full offood leave their harbors and airplanestake off full of food? What would youdo?

Globalize the struggle!Globalize hope!

Food sovereignty now! U

STOP LANDGRABBINGcontinued

“The CochabambaPeople’s Accord is the product of the

collaborative efforts ofover 35,000 participantsat the World People’sConference on ClimateChange and the Rights of Mother Earth, heldfrom April 20th to 22nd

in Bolivia.”

Page 12 Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 www.foodformainesfuture.org

Or not.With global population pressing

against food supplies and vastareas of the ocean already sweptclean of fish, tiny AquaBountyTechnologies of Waltham, Mass.,has developed a variety of salmonthat reaches market weight in halfthe time of other salmon.

What’s more, AquaBounty notonly promises to slash the ready-for-market time – and productioncosts — on a hugely popular,nutritious fish that currently com-mands near-record prices, it plansto avoid the pollution, disease andother problems associated withtoday’s salt-water fish farms byhaving its salmon raised inland.

But there’s a catch:AquaBounty’s salmon is genetical-ly engineered. Indeed, it aspiresto be the nation’s first genetically-modified food animal of any kind.

That means the Food and DrugAdministration must approve it. Italso means the company and itssalmon must withstand vociferousopposition from environmentaland other advocacy groups, winover skeptical producers and —possibly most difficult of all –overcome potential consumerresistance to genetic tinkeringwith food.

It is this combination of seem-ingly great promise and largeobstacles that makes the compa-ny’s long, costly, and still-unful-filled effort the stuff of history.

“This is the threshold case. Ifit’s approved, there will be oth-ers,” said Eric Hallerman, head ofthe Department of Fisheries andWildlife Sciences at Virginia TechUniversity. “If it’s not, it’ll have achilling effect for years.”

The FDA has completed itsreview of key portions ofAquaBounty’s application, accord-ing to CEO Ronald Stotish.Sometime in the weeks ahead,company officials expect theagency to convene an advisorycommittee of outside experts toweigh the evidence, collect publictestimony and issue a recommen-dation about the fish’s fitness forhuman consumption. AndrewZajac, Los Angeles Times, August9, 2010

JURY AWARDS $940,000 INARKANSAS RICE LAWSUIT

The German conglomerateBayer CropScience has beenordered to pay six Arkansas ricefarmers $940,000 for allowinggenetically altered rice into thecommercial market. A jury inDesha County, [Arkansas] onWednesday found the farmers suf-fered losses when exports andrice prices fell after the contami-nation was announced in 2006.

Bayer issued a prepared state-ment saying it will consider itslegal options and that the compa-ny “maintains it acted responsiblyand appropriately at all times” inhandling the rice.

The U.S. Department ofAgriculture has said the rice

NNEEWWSS && NNOOTTEESS ccoonnttiinnuueedd

continued on page 13

Do ItAsk CR . . .

Dear CR, I’d like to grow wheat on a backyard scale. Can you give mebasics of what I need to know for preparing the soil, plant-ing, harvesting, and selecting seed for next year?

So you want to grow wheat in your backyard? Congratu-lations, you have already moved past the two most preva-lent myths about this most important staple: first, that it istoo difficult to grow on a small scale and requires a lot ofland and second that it is too difficult to thresh. Neither istrue. Now you can be on your way to true food self suffi-ciency and no longer dependent on agribiz to provide ourculture’s most essential food crop.

First it is important to understand that wheat is a cerealgrain, and like others of that genre, demands high fertility todo well. If you are familiar with growing crops, think sweetcorn. Wheat has many of the same fertility needs, requiringplenty of nitrogen for a high degree of tillering, and amplepotassium to grow strong stalks that won’t lodge (keel over)in high winds or other extreme weather. (Don’t use raw orhot manure; too much nitrogen can cause nutrient imbal-ances and lodging).

There are two basic kinds of wheat, spring wheat andwinter wheat. Except in very cold climates such as in Zone 3or possibly Zone 4A, my partner Eli Rogosa and I greatlyprefer winter over spring wheat because the plants are morevigorous with stronger root systems, compete much betterwith weeds and yield much more. If you must plant springwheat, sow it in April as soon as the ground can be workedand it will be ready for harvest in August. But the remainingrecommendations here assume that you will be growingwinter wheat.

Optimal time for sowing winter wheat is the first twoweeks of September. That gives the plants time to becomeestablished, set down root systems, go into dormancy andwinter over. Vigorous growth will resume in April, followedby flowering, and culminating in harvest sometime in July.

Ideally, begin preparation a full year before sowing. Fallis the best time to incorporate manure, compost and miner-als into the soil. Then you will be ready to plant a springcover crop that you will till in in late summer before plant-ing wheat in the fall. Cover crops provide slow release nutri-ents for winter wheat. If yours is a new field, buckwheat isan excellent cover crop because it will smother weeds, butyou must wait till after frost to sow it. Mustard is anothergood cover crop choice because it is said to deter fusarium, afungal disease that is especially prevalent in rainy seasonsand is the biggest risk to your crop. Clover is another goodchoice and can also be undersown with the wheat, but willrequire equipment to turn. Allow 2-3 weeks after turningunder your cover crop before sowing wheat.

Eli and I recommend that you sow each seed 6-8 inchesapart to a depth of 1-2 inches or broadcast very thinly. Con-ventional wheat growers space much closer. However,wider spacing allows for stronger plants with many moretillers. Good varieties under fertile conditions may set asmany as 20-30 tillers per plant, with each tiller producing ahead averaging 30-50 seeds or more. Thus, it is possible toattain a multiplication of up to 1,000 seeds from one, anextraordinary example of nature’s bounty. However, 200-250 would be more common.

Do not harvest the heads when green. Harvest ripe seedwhen the plants have dried completely brown. Birds can bea real threat so if they start coming around, get bird netting.You can quite easily improve your seed stock by selection. Ifyou wish to save your own seed, select the seeds of thebiggest heads from the healthiest plants. It is a good idea toperform this selection before your general harvest, usingscissors. Then, when you have sufficient seed stock, performyour general harvest using a sickle, scythe or equipment,depending on your scale. We tie our harvest in shocks andget it inside under cover.

Eli devised a simple system that effectively threshedmany pounds of seed without endless hours of work. Shecut off the seed heads and put them on an upside-down carmat on a tarp. Performing a foot twist or shuffle over theseed heads removed most of the chaff from the kernels. Shehas since found an apple masher in an antique store that ful-fills the same function a little more efficiently. Then sheblows off the remaining chaff with a hair dryer. The result-ing seed, while not quite cleaned to seed company stan-dards, is plenty clean enough for grinding into flour.

Varieties vary as to the weight of the seed, but a roughapproximation is 10,000 seeds to the pound. In our trial ofmore than 30 mostly heirloom winter wheats, the best plantsproduced nearly one tenth of a pound of seed and a goodaverage was 20 plants per pound. This means that in a back-yard plot as small as 200 square feet (10x20’ for example)with plants spaced a square foot apart, you could easily pro-duce 10 lb. or more of wheat, and in a 1,000 square foot plot,enough to bake at least one loaf of homemade bread everyweek for the entire year. In high fertility, you could do betterthan that, as yields in good fields as much as quintuple thosein indifferent plots. That’s why the advance preparation isworth the trouble. Happy growing!

—cr lawn U

“My partner Eli Rogosa and I greatly prefer winter over spring

wheat because the plants are morevigorous with stronger root systems,compete much better with weeds

and yield much more.”

What is extraordinary is that the dunghas transformed into the sweetestsmelling, rich, dark humus like materi-al that is teaming with vitality. There isno rank odor whatsoever, no sign thatthis was once dung.

There was one time that I experi-enced a horn full of material that had

not changed one whit; it was asmanure-like as the day we put it in.This was very odd because all the other700 horns had transformed beautifully.This was strange until I looked overand saw that Katherine Castelliz waslaughing. This told me that there was a

joke afoot and I had better look again atthe horn. Careful observation revealedthat the horn did not have any of thecharacteristic calving rings that showup in a cow horn: it was a bull horn.Steiner said specifically “cow horn”,not a bullhorn. This was Katherine’sway of teaching. She ran TablehurstFarm, a 450 acre Bio-Dynamic farm,that was connected to Emerson Collegein Sussex, England where we weredoing our agriculture studies. She hadbeen farming bio-dynamically for 50years.

To what end is 500, a humus prepa-ration, used? Approximately fourounces is stirred in 2 ½ gallons of rain-water for an hour and then is sprayedon the soil, in the late afternoon and orearly evening, as the earth is taking itsnightly in-breath. (This is the propor-tion; larger quantities for farm landareas can also be stirred.) 500 aidshumus formation, root formation,increases the volume of root hairs andanchors the plant in the activities of thesoil. It is used when turning landunder. It is used in the spring to pre-pare the soil for planting a new crop, ortransplanting and, in autumn whenputting the garden and fields to bed. It

We live in a world of interdepen-dencies. Our understanding of the con-nections between all things, require aschooled sense of observation and athinking that is both holistic anddynamic. The great American philoso-pher Ralph Waldo Emerson said in hiscentral essay “Nature”, that “Nature isthe incarnation of thought… The worldis mind precipitated.”

To garden and farm with Natureand not against her, requires muchattention to both the seen and unseendynamics of the earth, the plant, andthe animal. We as human beings needto guide our work with the landtoward health and balance of all theseinterdependencies.

To this end Rudolf Steiner wasasked in 1924 to give a course of lec-tures1 to experienced farmers and gar-deners. In these Koberwitz lectures, thefundamental tenants of what hasbecome known as Bio-Dynamic agri-culture, he gave indications how thelife of the soil, and hence the health ofplant and animal, could be improved.While, in specific ways,linking the cosmos withthe earth, he describeshow the properties ofsilica, limestone andclay work in soil fertili-ty and how these can beenhanced throughhomeopathic amountsof carefully preparedand fermented plantsubstances andmanure. A cursorydescription follows.

There are 8 Bio-Dynamic preparationsthat Steiner gave in1924. Over the 90 yearssince the course wasgiven, farmers, througha thorough knowledgeof the dynamics in thesoil, plant and animalhave added further preparations toenhance soil fertility.

In what Steiner indicated, there are 5compost preparations prepared in veryspecific ways: yarrow (502), (Achillamilfolium); camomile (503), (Camomil-la officinalis); stinging nettle (504),(Urtica dioica); oak bark (505), (Quer-cus robur); dandelion (506), (Taraxicumofficinale); valerian (507), (Valerianaofficinalis). There is a general prepara-tion that is very effective, when pre-pared in specific ways for special needsand is a good prophylactic against fun-gus: Equisetum arvense, (508), thecommon horsetail. Two basic prepara-tions, the horn manure (500) and hornsilica (501), round out what Steinergave. I will concentrate on the hornmanure preparation because that iswhat was applied by Food for Maine’sFuture at Mockingbird Farm for theplanting of the potatoes, shown in thepicture above.

To prepare the horn manure prepa-ration, manure from a lactating cow isstuffed into a cow horn and thenburied, in a hole dug in humus-richsoil. The horns— it is advantageous tobury a good number of dung filledhorns — are dug up in late spring.

is very beneficial used twice a weekwhen there is a drought, to balance anextreme in climate. I remember onedroughty summer on a BD farm withvery sandy soils, we sprayed 500 inten-sively, saved our vegetable crops andgrew ample hay for the animals. Whenwe came to harvest cabbages for theBoston organic markets, we pulled upsoil for a yard around the plants andsaw the extensive and deep rootgrowth. The cabbages were not woodybut, rather, were succulent and sweetand large. We can say that 500 is an“earth” preparation.

When the potatoes have emerged,then 501, (the horn silica) preparation,will be stirred and applied in the earlymorning, before the sun is far over thehorizon. This preparation helps withthe photosynthesis processes, intensi-fying the light activity and the leaf’sinteraction between light and sub-stance. When there has been a pro-longed cloudy spell this preparation isvery beneficial. Once when I had amanganese deficiency in corn here inMaine, I sprayed seaweed one morningand on the next morning stirred (alsofor an hour) 501 and sprayed it over theplants. The deficiency disappeared, thecorn greened out and grew 8 inches in acouple of days. 501 also helps withripening and adds to the flavor build-ing activity in vegetables and fruits.Yields are increased.

At Mockingbird Farm, Food forMaine’s Future dunked the seed pota-

toes in a stirred solutionof 500 prior to planting.This will aid tubergrowth. The Farm isworking with BD prin-ciples and the next stepin preparation for nextyear is compost mak-ing, along with greenmanure cropping.This is a quick indica-

tion as to how the BDpreparations 500 and501 work. When famil-iar with the processeswhich each of thepreparations enhances,then one, with trainedobservation, can usethese preparations invaried ways. Muchresearch has been donein Europe and some in

the US on the use, and efficacy of BDpreparations.

Jennifer Greene Grew up on a Vermonthill-country farm with cattle, chickens, pigsand a very large commercial maple sugar-ing operation. She did her agriculturetraining in England and has run farms,milked cows and has run a large scaleorganic vegetable farm, selling organic pro-duce in Boston, New York and at a roadsidefarm stand, Temple Mountain Produce, insouthern New Hampshire. She presentlyworks in water research at Water ResearchInstitute in Blue Hill, Maine. Email Jen-nifer at jgreene@waterresearch.org1. Agriculture Course, R. Steiner, a series of eightlectures given Koberwitz, in June, 1924, trans.George Adams

Further reading:1) Life to the Land: Guide Lines to Bio-DynamicHusbandry, Katherine Castelliz, TheLandthorn Press, 1991

2) Earth, Plant and Compost, William Brinton,Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association, 2002

3) Gardening for Life: The Bio-Dynamic Way,Maria Thun, Hawthorne Press, 1999

4) Bio-Dynamic Gardening and Farming, Vol. 1,2and 3, Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, Mercury Press,Spring Valley, N.Y.

5) BD Farm: Agriculture in Service to the Earth andHumanity, Dr. Herbert Koepf U

www.foodformainesfuture.org Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 Page 13

Yourself

Stirring biodynamic preparation 500.

Biodynamic Preparationsby Jennifer Greene

poses no health risk — but it hadnot been approved for human con-sumption at the time. Three feder-al juries and three juries inArkansas have now awarded morethan $53 million to farmers fordamages in the case. AssociatedPress, July 30, 2010

U.S. UNSURE IF CLONEDMEAT HAS BEEN SOLD INNORTH AMERICA

The U.S. Secretary ofAgriculture on Tuesday [August10] said he doesn’t know whethercloned cows or their offspringhave made it into the NorthAmerican food supply.

But Tom Vilsack, in Ottawa totalk trade with food exporters andAgriculture Minister Gerry Ritz,emphasized that if they have, theanimals are safe to eat.

“I can’t say today that I cananswer your question in an affir-mative or negative way. I don’tknow. What I do know is that weknow all the research, all of thereview of this is suggested thatthis is safe,” Vilsack toldreporters, pointing to an assess-ment of the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration.

Vislack said that because sci-ence is often “ahead of the regu-latory process and ahead of theethics discussion,” the U.S. willcontinue their “moratorium” onnot allowing the sale of meat fromcloned animals until the productsare widely accepted as safe.

Vilsack’s comments come aweek after the U.K. FoodStandards Agency told consumersin that country that descendantsof a clone made their way into thelocal food supply. The cattle werethe offspring of a cloned cow inthe U.S. and were shipped to theU.K. as embryos. Sarah Schmidt,Postmedia News, August 10,2010

CATCH DOWN, REVENUESUP FOR NORTHEAST FISHERMEN

BOSTON—The catch for fisher-men in the Northeast during thefirst three months following drasticrule changes fell 10 percent com-pared to last year but revenuesrose 17 percent, according to fed-eral statistics released this week.The rules were enacted May 1amid reports of broad confusionabout the change and that numer-ous fishermen were keeping theirboats docked due to the uncer-tainty.

It’s too soon to draw broadconclusions, but the relatively stable first-quarter numbers arecause for cautious optimismabout the switch, said PatriciaKurkul, the National MarineFisheries Service’s Northeastregional administrator.

“It’s sort of on track with whatwe saw last year, so there’s noth-ing catastrophic going on here,”Kurkul said. The catch got a boostbecause the new rules allowed

continued on page 14

NNEEWWSS && NNOOTTEESS

“What is extraordinaryis that the dung hastransformed into

the sweetest smelling,rich, dark humus

like material that isteaming with vitality.”

consumption of oil in growing, pro-cessing, packaging, refrigerating, trans -porting, and selling proc essed food. Inthe “how to” sources you’ll go to, espe-cially Sharon’s book, you’ll learn whatare the least fuel consumptive ways topreserve and store food. However youchoose to do it, you will be lesseningyour carbon footprint for sure.

You will be participating in the cul-tural transformation that humanityneeds to undergo if we are going tocontinue as a species, save the planet,feed our people, create peace, and endthe tyranny of the multinational corpo-rations. What many may write off as apurely nostalgic pastime is actuallyone of the most forward-thinking newundertakings we can engage in.

Personal empowerment is a crucialaspect of food sovereignty. You get toknow the provenance of your food,select only the best and the ripest, con-trol the added ingredients, and partici-pate actively in your family’s healthand welfare. You will take pride inimportant work well done, knowingthat you have accrued all these benefitsof preserving the harvest.

Last, and perhaps most important,you will be increasing your capacityfor hospitality. Your opportunity toinvite extended family, friends, andneighbors to your very welcomingdown-home dinner table will expandexponentially. You will have ready-made and much appreciated hostessgifts and covered-dishes at the drop ofan invitation. Your pantry, kitchen, anddinner table will be a nourishingsource of family pride and together-ness. Whether we ever experience foodinsecurity or not, this is enough reasonto start expanding our knowledge ofcanning, freezing, drying, root cellar-ing, season extending, and stocking apantry.

Merry Hall is the author of BRING-ING FOOD HOME: THE MAINEEXAMPLE which introduces readers toover 100 people involved in Maine’s localfood community, revealing how true home-land and food security are developing inMaine. She is a local food activist andmember of the Board of Directors of Foodfor Maine’s Future. U

Page 14 Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 www.foodformainesfuture.org

sustain us through the long winters. Interestingly, we can monitor the

nutritional value of our food far betterby paying attention to our own bodies’signals about flavor, satisfaction, ener-gy, and health than by any labelingsystem or dietary dictates the govern-ment and industry can come up with.Our tastes co-evolved with our foodsand our health. For the most part, wecan trust taste as our most accurateindicator of nutrition. Of course that

gauge has been highly perverted, as inour cravings for salt and sugar thatwere in far scarcer supply when ourtastes were evolving. Still, as we over-come our commercially inducedaddictions in these areas and clear ourpalettes, we can trust our bodies to tellus what we need.

We have economic reasons to stockour “homemade” pantry too. Becausewe can preserve food in bulk at thetime of peak abundance and ripeness,we are likely to be getting the best pro-duce relatively cheaply. While the ini-tial outlay for equipment can stretchour resources temporarily (especially ifwe are investing in a freezer chest!) theturn around on our investment israpid. The upfront time investmentalso repays itself in trips we don’t haveto take to the supermarket.

Energy conservation is a major out-come of preparing and storing ourown food, especially when we sourceour ingredients from our own or otherlocal gardens and farms. We canbypass commercial agriculture’s huge

After growing our own and buyinglocal food, our best way to secure ourfood supply is to preserve it at home.Then we don’t have to be so dependenton the policies and practices of indus-trial agriculture. Especially in climateslike Maine’s, we limit our food sover-eignty if we don’t learn to overwinterour harvest.

I am currently avidly rereadingINDEPENDENCE DAYS: A Guide forSustainable Food Storage and Preservationby Sharon Astyk, which shows whyevery day you can eat from your ownpantry is an “Independence Day” fromhunger, malnutrition, contamination,oil dependency, violation of your val-ues, and economic slavery. Sharon tellsus not only how but also why to pre-serve foods. She speaks persuasivelyfor seven reasons to preserve our ownthat I will explore in this article: foodsecurity, flavor, nutrition, economy,energy conservation, cultural transfor-mation, personal empowerment, andhospitality. (For information on “howto” preserve food, go to Sharon’s bookor to So Easy to Preserve. Kathy Savoiealso offers excellent instruction in herUMaine Cooperative Extension MasterFood Preserver Program.)

Chapter 1 of INDEPENDENCEDAYS is entitled “Nine Meals fromAnarchy.” Frightening isn’t it?! We justdon’t think of America as a placewhere food riots or starvation are apossibility…but they are. Our super-markets only carry a three day supplyof food. Beyond that, unless we have awell-stocked pantry, we are vulnerableto erratic weather, oil availability, con-tamination, food shortages, power out-ages, and terrorism. Astyk suggests westore three months worth of food incase we are faced with one of thesecrises.

Fear can raise a red flag and moti-vate us powerfully. Unfortunately, itcan also paralyze us. Or it can send thecorporate “us,” represented by Con-gress, down the false pathways to“food security” explored elsewhere inthis issue. Fortunately, disaster pre-paredness, as crucial as it is, should notbe our primary reason.

Consider flavor! Let’s be honest: inthe absence of starvation, flavor is ourprime motivator when it comes tofood. Fresh, local food tastes best.Unadulterated food tastes better thancommercial food. Love expressed inthe preserving and cooking of foodprovides excellent seasoning. A tomatosavored in March from a jar that ishome-canned from fresh ingredientsreminds of the joys of summer and offamily. Somehow, the flavor of com-mercially tinned tomatoes just can’tmeasure up. Food picked at the peak ofripeness and preserved with loverather than artificial additives simplytastes better.

The nutritional superiority of local,sustainably produced, unadulteratedfood is being verified scientifical-ly…just in case common sense andobservation didn’t teach us this lessonalready. The closer we can keep ourfood to tasting like its fresh ingredi-ents, the more likely it is to maintainmost of its nutritional value. Foodpreservation almost always loses somenutritional value, but keeps enough to

fishermen into areas previouslyclosed in May, and unusually highprices helped fishermen at thestart of this fishing season, saidJackie Odell of the NortheastSeafood Coalition, a fishing indus-try group.

But the early numbers are like-ly masking that a broad section ofthe fleet hasn’t started fishing yetbecause fishermen are limited tocatching so few fish this year, shesaid. “I know a lot of fishermenright now that are very, very con-cerned about their allocation forthe whole year and don’t thinkthere’s anything positive out ofwhat’s taken place over the lastthree months,” Odell said Friday.

The old system tried to stopoverfishing by making fishermenless efficient through such meth-ods as limiting their number ofannual fishing days. In the newsystem, fishermen work in groupsto manage an allotted catch ofgroundfish, such as haddock, codand flounder. If fishermen catchtheir limit on one stock, they muststop fishing on all stocks.

Environmentalists say thetough limits are needed to stopoverfishing, but some fishermensay the limits on many specieswere set so low, they can’t makea living. The new system’s earlynumbers, posted Thursday, indi-cated the total catch from Maineto New Jersey fell about 10 per-cent (8,590 metric tons to7,702), compared to the firstquarter last year. But revenuesrose 17 percent this year duringthe same May 1 to July 31 period,increasing from about $18.3 mil-lion to $21.4 million. Jay Lindsay, Associated PressWriter, August 13, 2010

FEDERAL COURTRESCINDS USDAAPPROVAL OF GENETICALY ENGINEEREDSUGAR BEETSOrder Bans Planting or Sale ofControversial Crop. Court DeniesMonsanto Request to AllowContinued Planting.[August 13, 2010] Judge JeffreyWhite, federal district judge for theNorthern District of California,issued a ruling granting therequest of plaintiffs Center forFood Safety, Organic SeedAlliance, High Mowing OrganicSeeds, and the Sierra Club torescind the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture’s(USDA’s) approval of geneticallyengineered “Roundup Ready”sugar beets. In September 2009,the Court had found that theUSDA had violated the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) byapproving the Monsanto-engi-neered biotech crop without firstpreparing an EnvironmentalImpact Statement. The crop wasengineered to resist the effects ofMonsanto’s Roundup herbicide,which it sells to farmers togetherwith the patented seed. SimilarRoundup Ready crops have led toincreased use of herbicides, prolif-eration of herbicide resistant

continued on page 15

NNEEWWSS && NNOOTTEESS

Preserving Our Harvest

Canning, drying, and pickling are just some of the ways of preserving food.

“What many

may write off as

a purely nostalgic

pastime is actually

one of the most

forward-thinking new

undertakings we can

engage in.”

EEaatt aanndd DDrriinnkk .. .. .. EEaatt aanndd DDrriinnkk .. .. .. wwiitthh MMeerrrryy

www.foodformainesfuture.org Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 Page 15

“Prices operatingagainst the farmers

increased the inherent diffi-culties faced by small pro-ducers who try to expandtheir scale of operation. Lowprices for farm productsintensified the pressuredriving each farmer to try toreduce his costs. High pricesfor labour-saving farmmachinery and equipmentbrought new costs for bor-rowing. Farmers had to usemany different means ofobtaining funds and credit.Mortgages were one impor-tant source of funds andmortgages increased thefarmers’ instability. Manydropped into tenancy andthe debt on mortgagedfarms grew heavier.” page15

“Obviously the greatnon-farm popula-

tion could not live withoutthe food produced on farms.Most of this food reaches theconsumer only after it haspassed through the hands ofprocessors who use it as raw material intheir accumulation of capital.” page 19

“Taking the entire population inboth great sections of society, the

per capita wealth of farmers and farmworkers in considerably less than two-thirds of the per capita wealth of the non-farm population.” page 22

“The masses whose labour built themines and factories of the great

fortunes of American capitalists weredrawn chiefly from European peasantfarms where poverty had been mademore desperate by the competition ofwheat and meat animals sent into theEuropean market from farms in the Unit-ed States and Canada. The greater pro-ductivity of labour on these westernfarms could underbid the backward tech-nique of the peasants. So the very processof expansion in American agriculturewhich tended to limit the supply of Amer-ican-born wage labour helped to swell themasses who could be drawn into Ameri-can industry from the rural population inEurope.” page 22

“Throughout the North more andmore farm owners were reporting

mortgage indebtedness. Farm buyersfound it increasingly difficult to achievefull equity. Owners having clear titlemortgaged their farms to improve theirequipment. And other owners expandedoperations by hiring additional land.”page 45

“Race prejudice increases the diffi-culties of travel and limits the

number of jobs open to Negro farmwage workers. Vagrancy laws in theSouth and Southwest are often inter-preted in such a way as to force Negroworkers to take jobs in the fields, atlowest wages, or go to jail for having nojob. In the Old South, ‘where the Negrois most numerous, he provides a readysupply of cheap labour for agricultur-al...operations that otherwise wouldrequire a mobile labour reserve for sea-sonal and intermittent peaks of activity.

Foreign-born workers form a large partof all farm wage labour than do Negroworkers and also a larger part of themigratory labour force. Historically, theforeign-born have been more signifi-cant than they are to-day among therural wage workers. In 1930, the censuscounted 371,443 foreign-born hiredfarm workers, or 13.5% of all farmwage labour, divided equally betweenforeign white and other nationalities, inwhich are included Mexican, Chinese,and Japanese. Among all migratoryworkers, Mexicans are now about 9%,according to recent estimates.

Many of the migratory workers arefarmers who have left their farmsbecause they could not make a livingand now exist by selling their labourpower in the fields and orchards.” page147

“Small farmers are crowded outfrom commercial agriculture. And

even when they are able to compete incommercial production they do this atthe cost of tremendous physical exertionwhich brings them at best a totally inad-equate income. To the farmer which amedium-sized farm, whom we shall calla ‘middle’ farmer, economic crisis meanshe has produced – or is equipped to pro-duce – a fair volume of commoditieswhich he cannot sell for prices coveringhis cash costs of operation. And his costsinclude a heavy burden of business debtpiled up through his dependence on bor-

rowed capital and rentedland. Such dependence,with the resulting tollexacted from the farmers,has been one importantmeans of direct exploita-tion of middle farmers byfinance capitalists.” page183

“For farmers raisingmeat animals or ship-

ping milk as their chiefproduct, the question ofprice is bound up moreobviously and directly withthe practices of a few greatcorporations which standbetween them and the non-farm public.” page 224

“So the Shays’ Rebellionin 1786 was the culmi-

nation of several years ofacute distress among farmdebtors in Massachusetts.They resented the contrastbetween their extremepoverty and insecurity andthe luxury of merchants,lawyers, and judges. Foreven then the farmers bore

an undue share of the taxation. Intereston their mortgages added to the wealthof city nabobs. Lawyers and judges werekept busy with foreclosure proceedingsand debtor cases that sent hard-workingfarmers to jail.” page 254

“In the long farm crisis after the firstWorld War, the federal land banksfollowed a strict policy of foreclosure,intended to protect the tax-exemptbondholders at the expense of the farm-ers. When President Roosevelt came intooffice in 1933, the farmers, by ‘pennysales’ and other aggressive action, wereresisting the loss of their farms. ‘Ourwives and children hold first mortgageon this farm.’ This principle of humanrights above property rights penetrateddeeply into the consciousness of thefarmers when the wave of foreclosureswas sweeping tens of thousands of own-ers off their land every year.” page 259 U

THEN AS NOW...Why Farmers Are PoorThe Agricultural Crisis in the United States

Anna Rochester, 1940

Cou

rtes

y of A See

d Europ

e

RESISTANCE IS FERTILE

weeds, and contamination of con-ventional and organic crops.

In today’s ruling the Court offi-cially “vacated” the USDA “dereg-ulation” of Monsanto’s biotechsugar beets and prohibited anyfuture planting and sale pendingthe agency’s compliance withNEPA and all other relevant laws.USDA has estimated that an EISmay be ready by 2012.

Andrew Kimbrell, ExecutiveDirector of plaintiff and co-counselthe Center for Food Safety, stated,“This is a major victory for farm-ers, consumers and the rule oflaw. USDA has once again actedillegally and had its approval of abiotech crop rescinded. Hopefullythe agency will learn that theirmandate is to protect farmers,consumers and the environmentand not the bottom line of corpo-rations such as Monsanto.”

Paul Achitoff of Earthjustice,lead counsel for the plaintiffs,commented: “Time and again,USDA has ignored the law andabdicated its duty to protect theenvironment and American agricul-ture from genetically engineeredcrops designed to sell toxic chemi-cals. Time and again, citizensspeaking truth to power havetaken USDA to court and won.”In his order, Judge White notedthat USDA’s “errors are not minoror insignificant, and his “concernthat Defendants are not takingthis process seriously.” He alsopointed out that “despite the factthat the statutes at issue aredesigned to protect the environ-ment,” USDA and the sugar beetindustry focused on the economicconsequences to themselves, yet“failed to demonstrate that seri-ous economic harm would beincurred pending a full economicreview.”

The Court held in part:…the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’request to vacate APHIS’s deci-sion to deregulate genetically engi-neered sugar beets and remandsthis matter to APHIS. Based onthis vacatur, genetically engineeredsugar beets are once again regu-lated articles pursuant to thePlant Protection Act. This vacaturapplies to all future plantings…

This is the second time aCourt has rescinded USDA’sapproval of a biotech crop. Thefirst such crop, Roundup Readyalfalfa, is also illegal to plant,based on the vacating of itsderegulation in 2007 pendingpreparation of an EIS. AlthoughMonsanto took that case all theway to the Supreme Court and theHigh Court set aside part of therelief granted, the full prohibitionon its planting – based on thesame remedy granted here, thevacatur – remains in place. In thepast several years federal courtshave also held illegal USDA’sapproval of biotech crop field tri-als, including the testing ofbiotech grasses in Oregon and the testing of engineered, pharma-ceutical-producing crops inHawai’i. Center for Food Safety,August 13, 2010 U

NNEEWWSS && NNOOTTEESS

“Migrant Mother” by Dorothea Lange, 1936

Library of Con

gres

s ph

oto

GraphicLayout Design&

Lynn Pussicpagelayout2@gmail.com

~ Publications a Specialty ~

BECOME A MEMBER! SUPPORT FOOD FOR MAINE’S FUTUREFood for Maine‘s Future is now a membership organization! Being amember gets you two issues of Saving Seeds mailed to you, and onefree classified ad per year. You also receive free admission to our annu-al Local and Sustainable Food Conference and the good feeling thatcomes with supporting grassroots activism in Maine. Membershipsstart at $25.

____ Yes! I support Food for Maine’s Future and would like to become a member.

Name______________________________________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________________________

Phone _______________________________E-mail ________________________________

Enclosed please find my tax-deductible contribution of:

___$25 Membership level ___$35 ___$50 ___$100 ___$250 ___$500+

___ Monthly donor (see below) ___other $____

___ Yes! I want to support Food for Maine’s Future on a monthly basis. My credit

card pledge

per month is: ____$10 ____$25 ____$35 ____$50 ____$100+ ____$ other______

Credit card information: Visa or Mastercard (circle one)

Credit Card #________________________________Exp. Date ______________________

Please make checks for $100 or more to Food for Maine’s Future/SHI (our fiscal sponsor).Checks less than $100 can be made directly to Food for Maine’s Future.Mail to: Food for Maine’s Future, PO Box 51, Sedgwick, Maine 04676

To join Food for Maine’s Future visit our websitewww.foodformainesfuture.org or call our office at 207-244-0908.

into the correctional system where theywere bored, sensorally deprived andgiven endless time to percolate andmaturate their resentment against thesociety treating them thus, in the com-pany of the very persons who couldteach them the skills to wreak moreeffective revenge when they came out!In twenty years our prison populationtripled and our expenditures quadru-pled, a 121% increase in inflation-adjusted $ during a time period whenreal expenditures on higher educationincreased by only 21%.

We in the organic movement are notimmune from societal trends. Despitehaving well-attended thriving educa-tional programs that take on much ofthe role of the declining federal agricul-tural extension, MOFGA and its certifi-cation LLC combined still spend moreon policing than on education. That’sbecause the National Organic Programmandates a strict separation betweeneducation and inspection, viewing cer-tification as process-based, not prod-uct-based, as a compliance tool, not aneducational opportunity.

Imagine what MOFGA couldaccomplish if it could spend half itsenforcement budget on education!

The enforcement model is every-where a threat. We face federal foodsafety initiatives that could curtail oreven halt the growth of our movementby entwining our farms and modestvalue-added initiatives in a complexand costly web of food safety pro-grams, audits, paperwork require-ments, certifications and regulations.Happily, the USDA has shelved fornow the NAIS program, but onlybecause we felled it with our grassrootsuprising. If we scrutinize through aclose patterning lens the USDA’s GAPprogram, and the FDA’s proposed foodsafety regulations on tomatoes, melonsand leafy greens, it is clear what badsolutions they are for the problem offood safety. GAP features high annualcertification fees of up to $1,000 perfarm, a pass-fail scoring system admin-istered by inspection service workerswho are experienced in grading vegeta-bles for color and size but lack anyexpertise in whole farm systems, and aseries of metrics that penalize farmersfor wildlife activity near crops, usingmanure and compost, being near anylivestock operations, or God forbid,integrating livestock into the on-farmoperation, without acknowledgingwhatsoever that pesticide use mightpose any risk to food safety. The modelis one size fits all with no recognition ofthe benefits of compost and natural fer-tilizers, of conservation practices suchas buffer strips or of organic or integrat-ed pest control in slowing the move-ment of pathogenic organisms. Theideal is one of monocultures and steril-ity, biased toward large concentratedoperations and discriminatory againstsmall diversified ones. The USDA’sgoal is that all farmers supplying majormarkets be GAP-certified. Ironically,GAP will likely make our food lesssafe, driving out small and medium-sized diversified farms by making market entry prohibitive, and concen-trating our food system even more into the hands of the few. Consider also HR 2749 and S510 the proposed FoodSafety Modernization Act that wouldrequire facilities to register with theFDA, pay an annual fee of $500, andhave bio-terrorism and food safety pro-tocols in place. The definition of facility

is so broad and so vague that it couldinclude anyone who cuts, peels, trims,washes, waxes, eviscerates, renders,cooks, bakes, freezes, cools, pasteur-izes, homogenizes, mixes, formulates,bottles, mills, grinds, extracts, distills,labels or packages, the enforcement leftto an FDA that has never been friendlyto small farms or processors. Hereagain is a 1-size fits all solution, one feefor all size operations, lacking a risk-based analysis of specific activities asthey relate to specific foods, withoutacknowledgment that centralized pro-cessing and co-mingling present thegreatest risks and should therefore bemore closely regulated, without anyrecognition that a complex problem re -quires complex sophisticated solutions.

Let’s not be naïve. With the writingsof Schlosser, Pollan and Kingsolver thecat came out of the bag. Now millionsknow enough to question our food sys-tem, and their purchases have thepotential to move us toward one that isless concentrated and more bio-diverse. Representatives of the largetrade organizations and the big foodprocessing corporations are concernedthat our local sustainable food move-ment is steadily gaining market share.They would love to slow, then reverseour momentum, all in the name of foodsafety, and they are not afraid to scarepeople far removed from farm lifeabout the dangers of animals andmanure, even though the integration ofanimals and crops has been at the foun-dation of good husbandry for milennia.These corporations and trade organiza-tions, with their phalanx of lawyers,have the resources to dominate our leg-islatures while we stay close to the farmstruggling to make ends meet. Anyrulemaking process within the federalgovernment and the FDA places us at aserious structural disadvantage.

One might as well oppose apple pie,motherhood and the Fourth of July asoppose food safety. Our daunting taskis to reconfigure the discussion. We canstart by proposing that food safetyaddress concerns way broader thanmicrobial contamination. Many propo-nents of food safety legislation are sin-cere in their motives, just as were manyproponents of health care reform. Nodoubt our highly concentrated, central-ized food industry needs appropriateregulation, but, much like with thehealth care reform debacle, any regula-tion we get is more likely to seriouslyinconvenience us than to address theroot causes of the problems.

Which leads us to the fourth andmost important challenge. As a remark-able example of solving for pattern,CSA deserves its meteoric rise. Look atthe problems it solves: 1) It providesfarmers with up-front capital at thetime they most need it; 2) It gives thema guaranteed ready market for theirproducts; 3) Within limits it providesflexibility for unexpected surges anddecreases in production; 4) It providessome buffer from the vicissitudes ofmarket pricing; 5) For consumers it is adependable source of fresh produceeach week; 6) It offers them a connec-tion to their farmer; 7) Best of all, itnecessitates a diversified model of pro-duction that is good for the soil, goodfor the farm and good for the commu-

nity as well as offering the farmer achance to cooperate with other farms tofurther expand the possible range ofdiversity of products offered.

CSA is not a perfect model for everyfarmer and every consumer. It requiresa high level of farmer skills , a willing-ness to embrace the whole community,and requires a greater degree of con-sumer involvement with the wholefood process, whether it has a workrequirement or not. Characteristic ofgood solutions, it is a complex systemthat solves many potential problemsand has a good ripple effect on thewhole community ecology.

But it is not for everyone and wemust find other solutions for peoplewho can’t be reached by CSA. And this,

with a bow to Al Gore, is OUR incon-venient truth: That the present systemmakes it inconvenient for us to vote forbiodiversity. It is so easy and conven-ient to shop at our Hannaford’s or Wal-Mart. But every time we do, we are vot-ing for monoculture and centraliza-tionómonoculture in our farms andmonoculture in our markets, monocul-ture all the way up and down the line.And so, for now, embracing biodiversi-ty means tolerating some inconven-ience, and yet, we must work towardthe day when finding real food grownsustainably close by is no longer diffi-cult or inconvenient, when we cansource that good bread, that local beefand chicken and those apples andrutabagas without going far out of ourway and we must do so from the sourcemarketplace: seed, all the way to theend marketplace: the point of food pur-chase, and all along the line.

I celebrate the best thing that has

GROWING HABITATcontinued from page 1

happened in Waterville in at least 20years. Our new Barrel’s Market, offersnot just local food but also local craftsand an emerging community center.For the first time in so very long, I canpurchase real food downtown. It is con-venient. It is community minded. Wewill know we are winning when thereis a Barrel’s in every downtown, eventhe small towns, and when those cor-ner Ma& Pa stores carry local sweetcorn and farm-raised chicken instead ofthe generic brands of processed foodand junk prepared by huge corpora-tions. The most important work we cando is to continue what we have begun,redoubling our efforts with innerstrength and inner discipline, andabove all, with love. Recall that like theGrange, our organic movement wasborn, not with a desire for riches, butwith an inner conviction that we couldfind a better way to farm, a way with-out chemicals, a way with respect forthe living organisms in the soil andaround us. There were no organicpolice to oversee us, only our own con-sciences and our own desires that wecould find a path with heart.

The more we are successful, themore we will be opposed. We must bedetermined. We must show the waywith our own hearts and our ownstrength and the truth of our convic-tions, and we must ask of our leadersthe same. We must not settle when onthe one hand Michele and BarackObama offer us rhetoric and symbolicgestures like the White House garden,while on the other hand advocatingonerous food safety laws that couldenervate our strength. We must ask forsubstance not symbols, complexity andsubtlety, not one size fits all, fair andopen process, not backroom politicswith bribes for the powerful, butinstead solutions forged skillfully withthe conviction of righteousness.

CR Lawn is founder of Fedco Seeds andboard member for Food for Maine’s Future.Part 1 of this essay can be found in SavingSeeds Issue #9 Spring 2010. U

Page 16 Saving Seeds — Summer/Fall 2010 www.foodformainesfuture.org

“We face federal food safety initiatives that could curtail or even halt the growth of our movement by entwining ourfarms and modest value-added initiatives in a complex and

costly web of food safety programs, audits, paperwork requirements, certifications and regulations.” —CR Lawn