annual Growing Green Awards to recognize individuals that have
demonstrated original leadership in the field of sustainable food.
Through this national award, NRDC will recognize extraordinary
contributions that advance ecologically integrated farming practices,
climate stewardship, water stewardship, farmland preservation, and
social responsibility from farm to fork.
A Growing Green Award will be given to an outstanding individual in
each of three categories, including Food Producer, Business Leader,
and Thought Leader. A $10,000[i] cash prize will be awarded in the
Food Producer category and all
winners will be widely celebrated
through media outreach and to NRDC's networks. Award selections will
be made by an independent panel of sustainable food experts.
Information about award eligibility, selection criteria and process,
and the award selection panel are provided below.
Eligibility
Recipients may represent a variety of fields including food
production, food service, retail or restaurants, academia,
journalists, policy advocacy, and government. The panel will consider
candidates from across the country. Individuals in the following
three categories are eligible:
Food Producer: Farmers or other food producers, including aquaculture,
who employ innovative techniques to sustain agriculture, the natural
environment, workers and community;
Business Leader: Entrepreneurs who effectively use the marketplace to
promote sustainable food systems, develop
infrastructure that enables
producers to be more sustainable, or advance sustainable innovations
anywhere along the supply chain from farm to fork;
Thought Leader: Visionaries who advance sustainability as it relates
to food through creative research, public education, and outreach.
Growing Green Awards Criteria
In selecting from nominees, the awards selection panel will consider
the following criteria:
· Innovation in promoting ecologically-integrated food
systems. This may include minimizing inputs of energy, water, and
chemicals; reducing pollution and global warming gas emissions; use of
on-farm polyculture; increasing natural resilience; and stewardship of
biodiversity, pollinators, open space and land resources.
· Potential to achieve wide scale adoption, implementation or
behavioral change.
· Advancement of health, safety, and
economic viability for
farmers, farmworkers and rural communities.
Selection Panel and Process
The awards will be selected by an independent panel with staffing
assistance from NRDC. Winners will be celebrated on May 9, 2009 at an
event to benefit NRDC in San Francisco.
NRDC is grateful to the following sustainable food leaders who have
volunteered to join the Growing Green Awards selection panel:
Michael Pollan, Knight Professor of Science and Environmental
Journalism at UC Berkeley (Chair)
Larry Bain, Founder of Nextcourse and Food from the Parks; Co-Founder
of Let's Be Frank
Fred Kirschenmann, Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center, and President
of Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture
Karen Ross, President, California Association of Winegrape Growers
How to apply
Applications will be accepted until
close of business on February 6,
2009. The application must be submitted electronically using the
provided PDF form. In addition, the application may include up to 10
pages of text (12 point font please), photographs, articles or other
supporting materials. Please combine multiple files into a single
file attachment and e-mail submissions to Suzanne Vyborney at
svyborney@nrdc.org.
Jonathan Kaplan
Natural Resources Defense Council
111 Sutter Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-875-6100
Fax 415-875-6161
jkaplan@nrdc.org
USDA Proposes First-Ever Industrial GE Crop
USDA is poised to deregulate the world's first genetically engineered (GE) industrial crop. Similar to GE pharma crops that use corn for producing drugs, Syngenta's "Event 3272" is genetically engineered to use corn for energy (ethanol) production and not for food. This unprecedented, industrial application of a GE technology poses a variety of environmental, health, and economic risks that must be carefully evaluated to determine whether the widespread use of this GE industrial corn crop should be allowed on farms across our nation.
In a "business as usual" move, USDA has fast-tracked the commercialization of this GE industrial corn and has forgone conducting a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS), as required by law. Instead, USDA is basing its decision to approve the industrial GE corn upon a shorter assessment that falls woefully short of the thorough review the law requires before a new GE crop is approved. Moreover, USDA has failed to acknowledge that this GE technology requires even greater scrutiny since it transforms a ubiquitous food crop corn into an industrial crop ethanol making it no longer fit for human consumption. The Obama Administration's USDA must complete a full EIS to address these concerns. The agency is accepting public comments only until January 20, 2009.
Event 3272 corn contains an exotic enzyme derived from "thermophilic" (heat-loving) microorganisms living near deep sea hydrothermal vents. The enzyme alpha-amylase breaks down starches into complex sugars. Syngenta's alpha amylase is generated at extremely high levels in the corn kernels themselves for the purpose of eliminating one step in ethanol production and save a little money. The trouble is that this enzyme might be capable of causing food allergies in people who inadvertently consume this corn. Humans have never been exposed to this form of alpha amylase before. But, we know some versions of this enzyme (from fungi) cause respiratory allergies, which are closely related to food allergies. Syngenta's corn-embedded enzyme has two characteristic properties of food allergens: it's extremely resistant to breakdown by heat, and it tolerates somewhat acidic conditions. Thus it will likely survive food processing and may withstand gastric juices intact, which means a higher likelihood of triggering allergic reactions.
Despite the fact that this GE corn is meant strictly for industrial use, USDA admits that if Event 3272 corn is intentionally or accidentally diverted into the food supply, it could negatively impact food quality. And there's no doubt Event 3272 will enter the food supply. Corn cross-pollinates at great distances, and there are absolutely no requirements to plant this industrial corn away from food-grade corn. Instead of reviewing the foreseeable negative impacts of biological contamination on organic and conventional corn from Event 3272 corn, USDA has merely relied on Syngenta, the creator of the GE corn, to protect non-industrial corn from contamination.
If we have learned anything from the StarLink episode, it is that voluntary, industry-led agreements to curtail contamination do not work in the real world. StarLink was a GE corn variety only approved for animal feed, not the human food supply, because leading allergists said it might cause food allergies. Despite grower agreements and voluntary stewardship measures, it massively contaminated the food supply, costing farmers, food companies, and taxpayers millions of dollars in recalls and lost sales. This experience, along with other contamination episodes, showed us that weather, pollen flow, and basic human error are simply unavoidable once GE crops are released in the open environment. To approve another non-food corn crop based solely on Syngenta's word that they will police themselves is irresponsible and ignores the realities of farming, food production, human error, and basic ecology. Thus far, none of our major corn export markets have cleared Event 3272 for import and, therefore, any corn shipments contaminated with Event 3272 are likely to be rejected by Japan, Korea and other GE-sensitive markets.
So why is USDA even considering going down this road again? In the draft approval document APHIS claims that Event 3272 corn is needed "to help the U.S. meet its goals for ethanol production." Yet Congress's targets for ethanol production in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 have already surpassed the 2012 target (7.5 billion gallons) in 2007 (8.2 billion gallons)! And with 10 billion gallons of ethanol produced in 2008, we're well on the way to achieving the mandate for 2022 without the introduction of Event 3272 corn.
The dramatic worldwide surge in food prices last year which unfortunately has already pushed 100 million more of the world's poor into hunger and poverty has caused a radical and necessary rethinking of biofuels. Food experts from academia to the World Bank have decried the massive diversion of corn from food to fuel, blaming it for at least part of the steep price increases in food staples like corn, wheat and rice., Unbelievable as it may seem, U.S. farmers devoted a full 23% of the 13 billion bushel corn harvest to ethanol production in 2007 and in 2008, that percentage rose to 30%.
Event 3272 poses unacceptable risks to human health, the environment, and the economic well-being of farmers, and is not needed to meet U.S. biofuels production targets. And even if it were, the food crisis makes painfully clear what should have been obvious all along: that diverting stupendous quantities of staple food crops (i.e. 30% of U.S. corn) to feed automobiles has dramatically increased the price not only of corn, but also of all primary staple crops driving hunger throughout the world.
Tell USDA to halt this approval until a full EIS has been completed that addresses the human health, environmental, and economic impacts this industrial corn presents. USDA is accepting public comments until January 20thSend your comment today!
TAKE ACTION ONLINE AT: http://ga3.org/campaign/EthanolCorn
Blog post http://www.livablefutureblog.com/:ideas will be presented to the Obama
The Washington Post reports that efforts by Eat the View and TheWhoFarm to get
food grown again on the White House lawn have made it into the top 30 ideas
submitted to the change.org contest. The idea is one of over 7000 proposals
submitted.
Ideas for Change in America is a nationwide competition to identify the best
ideas for change in America. The top 10
administration just before inauguration day and form the basis of a nationwide
advocacy campaign to turn each idea into actual policy.
In the entry, Victory Gardens 2.0, "thousands of Americans and people from
the around the world are asking the Obamas to lead by example on climate
change, health policy, economic self-reliance, food security, and energy
independence by replanting an organic food garden at the White House with the
produce going to the First Kitchen and to local food pantries.
The many successes of the first Victory Garden movement were the result of
effective public policy, bold leadership at a time of national crisis, and the
commitment of millions of citizens who were ready to roll up their sleeves for
the greater good.
There's no better, more symbolic place for launching a new National Victory
Garden Program than at the White House, "America's House".
There's no
better, more urgent time than now. And there's NOTHING that can beat the
fresh taste of locally-grown, home-cooked foods."
Cast your vote at Victory Gardens 2.0.
By Erika Villani, Plenty magazine
Many people have been concerned about the health effects of genetically tweaked fruits and veggies, but a recent advancement in genetic modification involving household pets has raised hackles for its ethical implications.
The San Diegobased Allerca, Inc. has created "hypoallergenic" catsthat is, cats that don't produce the glycoprotein responsible for inducing itchy eyes, sneezing, and hives. One of these kittens will set you back $3,950, a few hundred times more than picking up a stray at the local shelter. Like modified produce, Allerca's cats have their undesirable genes silencedin this case, by altering the recipe for glycoprotein normally found in fur and saliva. These cats have cells that destroy the chemical, rather than produce it. Unlike genetically modified foods, the modified cats don't affect human healthbeyond the absence of sniffles and sneezes, that is.
The effect on the cats is a different story, however. "Developing a hypoallergenic cat is far from a perfect science," says Tracie Letterman, executive director of the American Anti-Vivisection Society, which opposes animal testing. "There is no guarantee that these animals will live average, healthy life spans."
In addition, she says, gene silencing is typically a trial-and-error processsome of the altered animals are likely born unhealthy or deformed, or don't exhibit the allergy-free traits scientists seek. Each time this happens, researchers go back to the lab to tweak another part of the genetic profile, and while each failure brings them closer to success, the outlook isn't so bright for the animals that don't live up to spec. Allerca's lab practices aren't public, but in a typical laboratory, says Letterman, "animals who do not have the 'right' profile are likely to be considered nothing more than by-products." And byproducts, by and large, are destroyed.
So what about the animals who turn out "right"? Allerca cats will, in theory, lead normal kitten lives: Romping with yarn balls, scratching up couches, and getting checkups at the neighborhood vet. This poses another problemas Letterman points out, "general veterinarians have no specialized training in the care of genetically altered animals, and they may not be prepared to treat ailing hypoallergenic cats." Their owners will be similarly challenged. Maybe genetically modified pets will have some effect on humans, after all.
____________________________________________



0 comments:
Post a Comment