Cahaba School                                                              Email: dhminor@bellsouth.net or cahabaschool@bellsouth.net   ES UNIT 3: Sustainability of Food Sources Table of Contents Introduction 1.       Animal Welfare 2.       Additives & Food Irradiation 3.       Antibiotics & Hormones 4.       Biodiversity 5.       Economics 6.       Environment 7.       Fossil Fuel & Energy Use 8.       Genetic Engineering 9.       Health 10.   Orgainic 11.   Pesticiles  INTRODUCTION:    Hormones in milk, food poisoning, mad cow disease, antibiotic resistant bacteria in meat – what’s happened to our food? And to make matters worse, the United States is now the fattest nation in the world. Sustainable agriculture is a way of raising food that is healthy for consumers and animals, does not harm the environment, is humane for workers and animals, provides a fair wage to the farmer, and supports and enhances rural communities. Characteristics of this type of agriculture include: Conservation and preservation. What is taken out of the environment is put back in, so land and resources such as water, soil and air can be replenished and are available to future generations. The waste from sustainable farming stays within the farm’s ecosystem and cannot cause buildup or pollution. In addition, sustainable agriculture seeks to minimize transportation costs and fossil fuel use, and is as locally-based as possible. Biodiversity. Farms raise different types of plants and animals, which are rotated around the fields to enrich the soil and help prevent disease and pest outbreaks. Chemical pesticides are used minimally and only when necessary; many sustainable farms do not use any form of chemicals. Animal welfare. Animals are treated humanely and with respect, and are well cared for. They are permitted to carry out their natural behaviors, such as grazing, rooting or pecking, and are fed a natural diet appropriate for their species. Economically viable. Farmers are paid a fair wage and are not dependent on subsidies from the government. Sustainable farmers help strengthen rural communities. Socially just. Workers are treated fairly and paid competitive wages and benefits. They work in a safe environment and are offered proper living conditions and food. In 1990, the US government defined sustainable agriculture in Public Law 101-624, Title XVI, Subtitle A, Section 1683, as “an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term, satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends; make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls; sustain the economic viability of farm operations; and enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.” The confusion with sustainable agriculture is that the definition is more a philosophy or way of life than a strict set of rules, and farmers can interpret the meaning differently. In addition, there is no legal obligation to follow any of the criteria for sustainability, so food can be labeled sustainable when in actuality it isn’t. Many terms that describe this type of food, such as natural or cage free, do not have a legal or clear definition (though the USDA is currently working on this). For example, cage-free chickens might not be raised in cages, but they could be raised in overcrowded conditions in indoor barns, which is still inhumane. See Understanding Terms section for an explanation of these confusing labels.  Factory Farming Meat production in the United States has changed dramatically over the past 20 years. Many of today's farms are actually large industrial facilities. These factory farms emphasize high volume and profit with little to no regard for human health, safe food, the environment, humane treatment of animals, and the rural economy. In other words, factory farms are not sustainable. What exactly is a factory farm? There is not yet a formal definition of a factory farm, but they tend to have certain characteristics, including: Hundreds to thousands of animals (cows, pigs, chickens or turkeys mainly) confined together, using as little space as possible, with little or no access to sunlight, fresh air or natural movement. In some facilities, the number of animals produced yearly is in the millions. The use of antibiotics, chemicals and/or hormones to promote faster growth and ward off disease that would otherwise run rampant in factory farm conditions. The unnecessary use of antibiotics is contributing to today's problems with antibiotic resistance. The use of "lagoons" to store massive amounts of raw manure. These lagoons can be as large as seven-and-a-half acres and hold up to 45 million gallons of waste.1 Metal buildings that confine animals indoors. Click here for a photo of a hog facility in Missouri. The use of cages to restrict the natural behavior of animals. Mutilation of animals such as the painful practice of cutting off the beaks of chickens and turkeys (debeaking), clipping pigs' tails and teeth, and amputating cows' tails (docking), which is considered "standard" procedure. The corporation that owns/controls the CAFO also owns the feed company, slaughterhouse, and final stages of production (also referred to as vertical integration). Separation of the ownership, management, and labor of the operation, meaning different people own, manage and work at the factory farm. Industrial agriculture is also moving toward contract growing, where family farmers sign away ownership of their animals through a contract with a major corporation. The corporation controls all aspects of raising the animals, and the farmer is left with the risk, overhead, waste and any dead animals. The owner receives price premiums and preferential access to markets or credits because of the size of the facility or the contract signed with one particular corporation. The facility has the capacity to negatively impact neighboring property values. Emphasizes high volume and profit with little or no regard for environmental quality, human health, safe food, humane treatment of animals, and the rural economy. The main impacts of industrial agriculture are on health, animal welfare, the environment, rural communities and workers. Visit the other pages in the Issues section for more information on how factory farming and industrial agriculture affects you, your family and the communities around you. Names they go by Factory farms are also known as: • Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) • Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)• Conventional Farming • Industrial Agricultural Operation • Industrial Livestock Operation (ILO) Factory Farming is also referred to as Industrial Agriculture Production. Did you know? The largest 2% of U.S. livestock farms now produce 40% of all animals in the U.S.2 3% of U.S. farms generate 62% of all agricultural production.3 Between 1982 and 1997, the number of chicken raised per poultry confinement units increased by 52 percent.4 In 2002, half of all hogs in the U.S. were raised on large-scale farms that managed more than 5,000 hogs.5 When asked which type of farm is more likely to care more about food safety and protecting the environment, 71% of Americans chose smaller scale family farms; only 15% chose large-scale industrial farms.6 Assignment: 1.     Define sustainable 2.     List & describe (in your own words) the 5 characteristics of sustainable agriculture. 3.     How does the US government define sustainable agriculture? 4.     Give 5 characteristics of a factory farm. Essay: Type one page minimum on each question. Give specifics, data, statistics, etc. 1.     What is happening to our food today?  2.     Which type of farm (family or factory) is more likely to care more about food safety and protecting the environment? Why? The following chapters contain the Issues surrounding sustainable meat and factory farming.  Chapter 1: Animal Welfare   Assignment: Read and take notes on chapter 1 & 2 (minimum 1 typed page). There will be a test on chapters 1 & 2 combined.    As farms have become more industrialized, animals have become more of a commodity. They are considered units of production, rather than living, breathing beings. But increasingly, more and more consumers are demanding better treatment of animals. On factory farms, hogs and chickens often spend their entire lives indoors, crammed together in unsanitary conditions. They live in wire cages or on slatted cement floors where their feet never touch the ground, and they never see sunlight until the day they are shipped off to slaughter. On sustainable farms, animals are free to carry out their natural behaviors, such as rooting, pecking and grazing. They are raised outdoors and are given adequate shelter when the weather is bad. On sustainable farms, the animals are part of the farming cycle. When they graze from pasture to pasture, their manure fertilizes the soil, thus putting nutrients back into the ground. They are fed leftover food scraps and remnants of crops, which lowers the amount of waste generated by the farm. And the animals provide food and income to the farmer. Animal welfare is about compassion and respect for animals, but there are also human health issues related to how animals are raised. Sustainable farmers know that treating animals humanely and offering them a quality of life makes them healthier, which makes the meat safer, more nutritious and even taste better. Stressed animals get sick faster, and conditions on factory farms are highly stressful. These animals run a much higher risk of being given large doses of antibiotics, and they have a much greater probability of being slaughtered while sick. More and more people are starting to believe that stress and illness affects the quality and nutritional content of meat, and that humans are affected by eating meat from sick or diseased animals. Scientists are now researching these possibilities. Did you know? Due to genetic manipulation, 90% of broiler chickens have trouble walking.1 Industry spokespeople estimate that as many as 20% of breeding sows die prematurely from exhaustion and stress due to impacts of restrictive confinement and accelerated breeding schedules on factory farms.2 Ammonia and other gases from manure irritate animals' lungs, to the point where over 80% of US pigs have pneumonia upon slaughter.3 Assignment: Compare the treatment of animals in factory vs family farms. (1 page)  Chapter 2  Additives &  Food Irradiation Much of the food we find at today's supermarkets is highly processed and contains numerous food additives. These substances are used to change the way food tastes (affecting the flavor, texture, consistency, and aroma), to change the way food looks (altering the color and texture), to improve the nutritional quality of foods (adding vitamins and minerals), and to increase the food's shelf life to prevent spoilage.     What is a Food Additive? According to the FDA, food additives are substances “the intended use of which results or may reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, either in their becoming a component of food or otherwise affecting the characteristics of food." 1 In other words, a food additive is anything present in food other than the basic foodstuff. Additives can be put into foods during production, during processing, or through food packaging.   More than 2,800 food additives have been approved for use in the U.S. by the FDA. 2 Currently, U.S. citizens consume approximately 140 to 150 pounds of food additives every year.3 Although all additives must be approved by the FDA before being included in foods, there is concern that many additives are unsafe, or have not been adequately tested for safety. Indeed, a number of food additives initially approved by the FDA were later proven to be harmful and had to be banned. Furthermore, while certain food additives may be safe for some people, they can cause others to experience harmful side effects. For instance, sulfites, a type of additive used to prevent discoloration in dried fruits, are known to cause sensitive individuals (particularly asthmatics) to experience severe reactions.4 Those who suffer from the rare disease phenylketonuria (PKU) are unable to metablolize the artificial sweetener aspartame; this food additive could cause such individuals to develop serious brain damage.5 MSG has also been shown to be harmful to certain people; studies indicate that this food additive can cause sensitive individuals to experience headache, nausea, weakness, and difficulty breathing. 6 Animal Feed Additives:        Most people recognize the importance of eating a healthy diet – but what about the food given to the animals we eat? At one time, most farm animals were raised on a natural diet; animals were able to obtain all necessary nutrients by grazing in fields. However, on today's factory farms, hundreds (sometimes thousands) of animals are raised in confinement without any access to the outdoors. Unfortunately, in order to boost growth rates, supply nutrients ordinarily obtained during grazing, and compensate for unsanitary conditions, factory farms include harmful additives in animal feed that can damage the health of the animals and the health of humans who eat their meat. Feed additives: Antibiotics: On factory farms, huge quantities of antibiotics are added to animal feed in order to promote rapid growth and to compensate for the unsanitary, crowded conditions in which animals are raised. In fact, the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70% of all antibiotics used in the U.S. are fed to farm animals.7  Unfortunately, this practice stimulates the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, which threatens human health by causing antibiotics to become less effective. Antibiotic resistant bacteria cause health care costs to increase by $4 billion every year!8 Heavy Metals: In order to promote rapid growth, factory farms often add heavy metals such as arsenic, copper, selenium, and zinc to animal feed.9 Since traces of these substances are excreted in animal manure, these heavy metals can accumulate in soils, groundwater, and surface water.10 The risk of accumulation is dramatically increased by factory farms, which store enormous quantities of manure in open-air lagoons, and apply untreated animal waste to surrounding land. In high concentrations, heavy metals are toxic to plants and can damage the health of humans and animals. Studies indicate that consumption of heavy metals causes a host of human health problems including cancer, liver dysfunction, and copper deficiency anemia.11 Heavy metal pollution is a particularly serious problem since these toxins remain in the environment for long periods of time. Meat/Animal Products: In order to reduce overhead costs, factory farms routinely include animal byproducts in their animals' feed. This practice dramatically increases the risk of spreading mad cow disease, which is contracted by cattle when they eat the blood or meat of infected cows. Although the 1997 Feed Ban was supposed to prohibit ruminant protein from being fed to other ruminants, it contained several significant loopholes. For instance, cattle feed can still contain “plate waste” from restaurants which can include beef. Cows can also be fed poultry, despite the fact that poultry feed can include cow remains. Furthermore, cows can be fed poultry litter, a mix of feces, feathers and uneaten poultry feed, which can include cow remains. Despite the discovery of a case of mad cow disease in the U.S. in December 2003, the FDA has yet to eliminate the loopholes in the Feed Ban. As a result, factory farms continue to jeopardize human health by including animal byproducts in cattle feed. Pesticides: Although pesticides aren't added directly to animal feed, since pesticides are used to produce the crops fed to factory farmed animals, pesticide residues are often found in animal feed. As a result, pesticide residues can accumulate in the fatty tissue of factory farmed animals; when consumed by humans, these pesticide residues can damage health.  Sustainable Solutions Fortunately, many sustainable farmers strive to protect the health of livestock and humans by raising animals using natural feed without harmful additives. Unlike factory farms, which fatten their animals on corn and grains, small-scale sustainable farmers often allow their animals to graze, enabling the animals to obtain all necessary nutrients without feed supplements. This is better for the animals' health and better for consumers as well – studies have shown that meat from pasture-raised animals is lower in calories and “bad” omega-6 fats, and higher in the “good” omega-3 and CLA fats that promote good health.13 USDA certified organic meats are also a good option since the feed give to certified organic animals must not contain antibiotics, or protein derived from poultry or mammals. Did you know? More than 2,800 food additives have been approved for use in the U.S. by the FDA.14 Sugar, corn sweeteners, salt, citric acid, pepper, vegetable colors, mustard, yeast, and baking soda account for 98% of the total amount of food additives consumed in the U.S. 15 In 2000, U.S. farmers purchased 119 million tons of animal feed.16  Food Irradiation Large food corporations want to raise their meat in countries with cheap labor and few environmental laws. In order to do that, they need to irradiate the meat. This increases the shelf life of the food, so it can travel longer distances and stay on store shelves longer. Irradiation has not been properly tested for safety, depletes vitamin content, increases the amount of toxic waste in the world, and reportedly doesn't taste good. Food irradiation is a process where food is exposed to very high doses of radiation or electronic particles. This kills off nearly all the bacteria, both good and bad, but does not kill mad cow disease, foot and mouth disease or viruses like hepatitis.1 The long-term health consequences of eating irradiated food are unknown. Irradiation creates a complex series of reactions that literally rip apart the molecular structure of the food. This process creates known carcinogens like benzene and formaldehyde, as well as new and unidentified chemicals that have not been tested for safety.2 Irradiated food is also depleted of its nutritional content.3 For example, vitamin B complex can be up to 96% lower than is typically found in the same non-treated foods.4 For consumers, the risks involved with food irradiation far outweigh any benefits. And even though the process might kill some harmful bacteria, the food can be re-infected between the time it is irradiated, shipped, sold and prepared by the consumer. For the agriculture industry, food irradiation has many benefits. Irradiation extends the shelf life of food, so food lasts longer and can be shipped longer distances. This means industry can raise food in other countries, where labor is cheap and environmental and regulatory laws are not strict. The food can then be shipped into the United States and sold for less money than American-raised food. This puts US farmers out of business. By transporting food long distances and becoming reliant on food from other countries, we could be creating opportunities for sabotage. In addition, the fuel used to transport food such long distances increases our reliance on foreign oil. The agriculture industry is trying to use food irradiation as a quick fix to a much larger problem. The overcrowded and unsanitary conditions on factory farms make animals more prone to disease and sickness, and can increase the levels of pathogens in their bodies. Slaughterhouses operate under filthy conditions where animals are killed at an extremely fast, unsafe pace. What foods are being irradiated?5 Foods approved for irradiation Foods currently being irradiated and sold (2004): Foods pending approval for irradiation: Beef (and beef byproducts) Eggs Enzymes (dry and hydrated) Fruit (domestic and imported) Fruit juice Garlic powder Herbs (dried) Horsemeat (and horsemeat byproducts) Lamb (and lamb byproducts) Onion powder Pork (and pork byproducts such as bacon) Potatoes Poultry Sprouting seeds Spices (dried) Vegetables (domestic and imported) Vegetable juice Vegetable seasoning (dried) Wheat flour   Apples Beef Chicken Eggs Garlic Grapefruit Herbs Mangoes Onions Oranges Papayas Potatoes Spices Strawberries Tomatoes   Beef (unrefrigerated) Clams Crabs Crustacean shellfish Deli meats Frozen foods Lamb (unrefrigerated) Lobster Oysters Molluskan shellfish Mussels Pork (unrefrigerated) Ready-to-eat foods Salads (packaged) Shrimp   Did you know? In a study conducted by Consumer Reports, professional taste testers noticed that most samples of cooked irradiated beef and chicken had “a slight but distinct off-taste and smell” similar to that of singed hair.6 Proper cooking destroys more bacteria than irradiation.7 Since irradiation fails to eliminate all bacteria from foods, and since foods can become contaminated after having been irradiated, the process does not prevent foodborne illness. The FDA recommends the same food-handling practices for irradiated foods as for any other foods.8 Look for the radura symbol on packages of food. This is the symbol for irradiation.                     Chapter 3:    Antibiotics &Hormones Assignment: Take notes on chapter. There will be a test on the chapter.   Because of the crowded and unsanitary conditions on factory farms, animals are often fed low doses of antibiotics. Antibiotics are also used to make the animals grow faster. This is contributing to the growing problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in humans. In humans, antibiotics treat many infections caused by bacteria, from ear and skin infections to food poisoning, pneumonia, meningitis and other serious illnesses. They are also crucial in treating infections that can complicate medical procedures such as surgery, cancer therapy and transplants. But, increasingly, traditional antibiotics are losing their effectiveness in the battle against infectious diseases. Some strains of tuberculosis, for example, are resistant to major antibiotics.1 How is this happening? When antibiotics are prescribed, the full dose must be taken to ensure that all the bacteria are killed off. If some bacteria survive, they can adapt and develop a resistance, so the antibiotic can no longer kill them. These bacteria then pass on the resistant trait so eventually all the bacteria can become resistant to that medicine. Resistant strains of bacteria have arisen largely because we, as a society, have overused antibiotics, both in treating human sickness and also in animal agriculture, particularly on factory farms. Over-prescribing antibiotics for conditions like the flu or common cold that can't be treated with these medicines contributes to antibiotic resistance. In 1995, the Office of Technology Assessment noted that by some estimates up to half of all antibiotics prescribed by doctors are unnecessary.2 What is less well known is that antibiotics are also fed unnecessarily to livestock, poultry and fish to promote slightly faster growth and to compensate for the unsanitary conditions found on factory farms. Modern factory farms, where tens of thousands of animals are crowded into small areas, are heavily dependent upon antibiotics. Living in stressed, unnatural conditions, animals are prone to disease and death. To help the animals survive, these industrial operations use antibiotics generously. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70 percent of all antibiotics used in the United States are given to farm animals.3  In addition, farmers have found that by feeding animals low doses of antibiotics on a daily basis, the animals will grower faster. Because of the industrial nature of factory farms, where the goal is to increase efficiency and make more money, the increase in growth means more money to agribusiness. But at what cost to consumers?     No antibiotics used vs. No routine use of antibiotics Almost, if not all, sustainable farmers will give their livestock antibiotics if the animals become sick. Most farmers who sell meat raised without any antibiotics (organic farmers, for example) will pull sick animals from the herd so they can be treated, and they will not sell the meat as organic or “raised without antibiotics”. Other sustainable producers will treat their sick animals and sell that meat to consumers. This type of meat is usually labeled “No routine use of antibiotics,” “therapeutic use of antibiotics only” or something similar. In these instances, the animals are only given medication when they are sick, and a suitable amount of time passes between when the animals are treated and when they are processed for food. Is one better than the other? Only you can answer that question. Some consumers want to know that antibiotics were never used on the animal; other consumers are comfortable knowing the animal was treated only if/when sick. The key is to avoid animals that were fed low doses of antibiotics on a regular basis either to promote growth or prevent disease. Not only does this greatly increase the probability of creating antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the animals raised this way are usually housed in crowded, unhealthy conditions where they are stressed and prone to sickness. Did you know? Resistant bacteria infections increase healthcare costs by an estimated $4 billion per year in the United States.4 One out of six cases of Campylobacter infection, the most common cause of bacterial food poisoning, is resistant to a particular class of antibiotic called fluoroquinolones, the drug most often used to treat severe food poisoning.5 Nearly all strains of Staphylococcal (Staph) infections in the US, such as abscesses and toxic shock syndrome, are resistant to penicillin, and many are resistant to newer drugs.6 Every year, approximately 25 million pounds of antibiotics and related drugs are administered to animals for non-therapeutic purposes (i.e. boosting growth rates and preventing disease) This is more than 8 times the amount used to treat disease in humans.7 According to a study by the National Academy of Sciences, if the U.S. were to ban the non-therapeutic administration of antibiotics to livestock, the average consumer's total food costs would increase by only $4.85 to $9.72 per year. The study suggested that this ban would not affect the profits of farmers who utilize good management practices. Furthermore, the ban would be expected to decrease health care costs.8 It is estimated that 25-75% of all antibiotics administered to animals could be passed unchanged directly into the environment through manure.9 Nontheraputic antibiotic use has increased by about 50% since 1985.10 Antibiotics cannot prevent or “heal” mad cow disease or foot and mouth disease.  Hormones Six hormones are implanted in beef cattle for no other reason than to make the cows grow faster so they can be sold sooner. The US government claims the hormones are safe, but the European Union has banned hormones in beef because their scientists have found a link between the hormones and cancer. Every year, approximately 36 million cattle are raised to provide beef for US consumers.1 Two-thirds of these cattle (about 24 million cows) are given hormones to help make them grow faster.2 Although the USDA and FDA claim that the hormones are safe, there is growing concern that hormone residues in meat and in cow manure might be harmful to human health and the environment. According to expert scientists appointed by the European Union, the use of growth hormones in food animals poses a potential risk to consumers' health.3 The scientists reported that hormone residues found in meat from these animals can disrupt the consumer's hormone balance, cause developmental problems, interfere with the reproductive system, and even lead to the development of cancer.4 Children and pregnant women are most susceptible to these negative health effects.5 Hormone residues in beef are also thought to cause the early onset of puberty in girls.6 This puts girls at greater risk of developing breast cancer and other forms of cancer.7   Hormones administered to beef cattle in the US: Natural hormones: estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone Synthetic hormones: melengestrol acetate (MGA), trenbolone acetate, and zeranol. Dairy Cows: recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) As a result of these health risks, the European Union has banned the use of growth hormones in cattle and has prohibited the import of hormone-treated beef since 1988. However, despite scientific concern, the United States and Canada continue to allow cattle to be given six hormones - three naturally occurring and three synthetic (man made).8 Scientists are also concerned about the environmental impacts of hormone residues that are found in cow manure. When manure is excreted, these hormones can contaminate surface and groundwater, thereby harming local ecosystems. Aquatic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the negative impacts of hormone residues; recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to hormones has a substantial effect on the reproductive capacity and egg production of fish.9 Poultry and Hogs By law, hormones cannot be given to poultry and hogs.  But animals can be fed growth enhancers and feed additives in order to make the poultry grow faster.  These additives are not considered hormones, but there is concern that they might affect human health.  It is best to find farmers who do not feed their animals any hormones, growth enhancers or any type of chemical feed additives.  You also might want to ask if animal protein was fed as an additive or as part of their diet.  What you are concerned about is if any of the animal protein fed to poultry or hogs contains hormones.   If a chicken, turkey or pig is fed beef or a beef byproduct, that beef could conceivably contain hormones – this is one way hormones are thought to be getting into the poultry supply.  It is uncertain whether this type of hormone transmission is affecting human health, so you must decide whether or not this is important to you. rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) rBGH, also known as BGH and BST, is a genetically engineered horm one injected into dairy cows for no other reason than to make them produce more milk. The hormone has not been properly tested for human safety and makes the animals more prone to illness and disease. Despite opposition from scientists, farmers, and consumers, the US currently allows dairy cows to be injected with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), also known as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). Developed and manufactured by the Monsanto Corporation, this controversial, genetically engineered hormone forces cows to artificially increase milk production by 10 to 15 percent.1 Although the FDA approved the use of rBGH in 1993 and continues to assure consumers that the hormone is safe for humans and cows, these claims are not universally accepted. In fact, the European Union and Canada have banned the use of rBGH as a result of safety concerns revealed during product testing. Studies conducted by Health Canada (Canada's equivalent of the FDA) determined that administration of rBGH is harmful to cows' health; the drug increases the risk of mastitis (an infection that causes painful inflammation of the udders) by 25%, interferes with reproductive functions, and increases the risk of clinical lameness by 50%.2  Since the abnormally high rate of milk production induced by rBGH strains cows' immune systems, the animals are more susceptible to sickness– this leads producers to administer larger doses of antibiotics and other drugs, which increases the risk that trace residues of these drugs will appear in cows' milk.3 Use of rBGH is also linked to the growing threat of mad cow disease. Since cows injected with rBGH produce more milk, their bodies need additional protein and high-energy foods. This dietary requirement is often satisfied by supplementing feed with increased amounts of animal protein. Since mad cow disease can be spread to cattle through consumption of infected animal byproducts, increased consumption of animal protein puts dairy cows at a greater risk of contracting the disease. There is also concern that the FDA failed to conduct thorough testing of rBGH before approving the controversial drug. Critics argue that the hasty approval was the result of pressure placed on the FDA by the Monsanto Corporation and its powerful lobbyists. In fact, Dr. Richard Burroughs, a senior FDA scientist overseeing the rBGH safety studies, claims that he was fired from the FDA because his concerns about the safety of rBGH delayed the approval process.4 In 2003, approximately 33% of the 9 million U.S. dairy cows were in herds treated with rBGH.5 The U.S. does not require milk from these cows to bear any special label. While some dairies have pledged not to use the hormone and have created "rBGH-Free" labels for their milk, Monsanto has filed lawsuits against a number of these dairies in order to eliminate the labels and prevent consumers from obtaining complete information about their milk. Did you know? According to the Cattlemen's Beef Association, 90% of all U.S. feedlot cattle are hormone implanted.10 A study of cows treated with melengestrol acetate (one of the artificial growth hormones approved for use in the U.S.) revealed that 12% of the hormone passed directly through the cows into their manure.11 According to the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health (SCVPH) appointed by the European Commission, “The potential adverse effects on human health from residues in bovine meat and meat products include endocrine, developmental and neurobiological, immunological as well as carcinogenic, genotoxic and immunotoxicological effects…" 12     Chapter 4:     Biodiversity Assignment: Read the chapter and type the questions and answers. Define 1.      Biodiversity 2.      Interdependence 3.      Ecosystem 4.      Habitat 5.      Sustainable farming 6.      Non native species 7.      Global climate changs 8.      Industrial agriculture 9.      Why is biodiversity essential for existence? 10.  How can pollution upset the biological balance of nature? 11.  How has industrial agriculture decreased the world’s biodiversity? 12.  List 4 essential agricultural processes made possible by Earth's biodiversity 13.  What steps are sustainable farmers taking to protect biodiversity? 14.  What % of the ten most frequently prescribed drugs in the U.S are derived from plants, animals or fungus? 15.  What % of all prescription drugs contain active ingredients originally derived from nature? 16.  What % of the world’s fisheries are not overexploited or depleted? 17.  Over half of all food from plants is obtained from 4 plant species. What are they? 18.  Although 5,000 different species of plants have been used as food by humans, the majority of the world’s population is now fed by less than ______plant species. 19.  Discuss five threats to the biodiversity of a region and give specific examples of each threat. (250 page minimum) Short for biological diversity, biodiversity is the variety of all life in a given area – this area could be as small as your backyard, or as large as the entire planet.1 Biodiversity includes not only the variety of species of plants and animals (species diversity), but also the variety of genes contained in all individual organisms (genetic diversity), and the variety of habitats, biological communities, and ecological processes (ecosystem diversity). Biodiversity is essential for our existence; the earth's biological systems and processes provide us with food, materials for clothing and shelter, fuel, medicine, clean water, and clean air. Biodiversity also provides all other species with the resources required for their survival. In fact, given the interdependence of the Earth's living organisms, ecosystems, and biological processes, without biodiversity, life on Earth would become extinct. Threats to Biodiversity: Unfortunately, the Earth is currently experiencing rapid loss of biodiversity; human-induced environmental destruction has eliminated habitats, killed living organisms, reduced genetic diversity, and caused the rate of species extinction to increase dramatically. In fact, unsustainable human activity is now the greatest threat to biodiversity. Among the most damaging activities are: Habitat destruction - When humans destroy natural habitats to make room for buildings, roads, and other structures, they reduce biodiversity by killing living organisms and by destroying the resources that sustain other organisms. Pollution - Human-generated pollution reduces biodiversity by killing living organisms. Since many of Earth's biological communities and ecological processes are interdependent, when pollution kills members of one species, it can upset the ecological balance, causing many other organisms to die. Introduction of non-native species - When certain non-native (“exotic”) species are brought into a new ecosystem, they may be able to reproduce rapidly. Eventually, non-native species can crowd out native species, thereby reducing biodiversity in the ecosystem. Global climate change - This human-induced phenomenon disrupts the entire global ecosystem and can eradicate species and populations that are unable to adapt to the changing environmental conditions. Overexploitation of species - When an organism is continually hunted or gathered faster than it can reproduce, the organism will eventually become extinct. Over-hunting, over-fishing, and over-gathering can also upset the natural balance within the ecosystem, causing additional loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity and Agriculture       Humans are directly dependent upon a variety of plants and animals which provide a supply of food. Furthermore, the production of these foodstuffs involves a variety of ecological processes and the activities of many different living organisms. Without biodiversity, none of our food could be produced. Here are a few essential agricultural processes made possible by Earth's biodiversity: Pest Control - Natural predators such as wasps and birds help reduce populations of pests that destroy plants on farms. Pollination - 75% of the world's staple crops are pollinated by bees and other insects, birds, bats, and other mammals.2 Productive Soil - A variety of living organisms take part in the decomposition processes that create soils and make nutrients available for plants to use. Resistance to Disease and Pests - Genetic diversity helps to provide resistance to disease and pests – mass production of a single crop variety makes it easier for a disease or pest to wipe-out the entire crop. Unfortunately, industrial agriculture threatens and/or accelerates the loss of biodiversity by causing: •  Reduction of Genetic Diversity: Industrial agriculture has decreased the world's biodiversity by causing a dramatic reduction of genetic diversity within the animal and plant species used for food. In the past, farmers throughout the world raised thousands of different animal breeds and plant varieties. However, industrial farms now raise only a few specialized animal breeds and crop varieties. As a result, thousands of non-commercial animal breeds and crop varieties have disappeared, along with the valuable genetic diversity they possessed. •  Environmental Damage: Industrial agriculture also reduces biodiversity by damaging the natural environment through pollution from untreated animal waste, chemicals and soil erosion. Excessive amounts of manure created by the thousands of animals found on large industrial farms create air, groundwater and surface water pollution. In addition, industrial agriculture uses enormous amounts of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, which leach into the ground and water, polluting the surrounding environment. Industrial farms also plow the fields excessively, which leads to soil erosion. Read more about environmental damage and how it threatens biodiversity... Sustainable Farming and Biodiversity Preservation Sustainable farmers recognize that biodiversity is essential for the continued production of healthy food. These individuals counter the destructive impacts of industrial agriculture by actively protecting biodiversity through environmental preservation and conservation of genetic diversity. As responsible stewards of the land, sustainable farmers strive to produce food without damaging the natural environment. Unlike factory farms, which raise thousands of animals and pollute the environment with enormous quantities of manure, sustainable farmers raise only as many animals as the land is capable of handling. Sustainable farmers also avoid using harmful pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Furthermore, many of these farmers practice conservation tillage techniques in order to reduce erosion, thereby eliminating a significant source of water pollution. Heritage and Heirloom Varieties: A growing number of sustainable farmers are preserving agricultural variety and protecting biodiversity by raising “heritage” or “heirloom” animal breeds, fruits, and vegetables. Learn more about traditional heritage and heirloom livestock and produce. Did you know? The current rate of extinction for species found in only one locality is estimated to be 100 to 1,000 times higher than the “normal” past rate of extinction.4 Of the ten most frequently prescribed drugs in the U.S., eight are derived from plants, animals, or fungus; only 2 are entirely synthetic (manmade).5 In the U.S., about 40% of all prescription drugs contain active ingredients originally derived from nature.6 According to the Center for Biodiversity and Human Health, of the 250,000 species of higher plants, only 2-5% have actually been studied for medicinal use.7 However, we lose about one plant species every day.8 2/3 of the world's fisheries are now overexploited or depleted.9 According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), humans now rely upon just 14 species of mammals and birds to supply 90% of all animal-derived foods.10 Although 5,000 different species of plants have been used as food by humans, the majority of the world's population is now fed by less than 20 plant species.11 Over half of all food from plants is obtained from 4 plant species (wheat, maize, rice, and potatoes).12 Reliance upon modern varieties of rice caused more than 1,500 local rice varieties in Indonesia to become extinct.13 Almost 96% of the commercial vegetable varieties available in 1903 are now extinct.14 A few huge companies now produce much of the seed used by farmers; in 1999, the 10 largest seed companies controlled about 31% of the global seed market.15 These companies typically sell only the widely-used industrial varieties of plant seeds. This makes it increasingly difficult for farmers to buy non-industrial seed varieties and thus contributes to the disappearance of traditional plant varieties.    Chapter 5: Economics Assignment: Take notes on chapter. There will be a test on chapter 5. Industrial farming supporters often claim that sustainable agriculture is not an economically viable way to produce food. They believe large-scale factory farming is the most efficient way to produce huge quantities of cheap food. What these advocates fail to recognize is that the seemingly low price of industrial food does not include the true costs of production. These hidden costs include environmental degradation, use of fossil fuels, damage to human health, and the destruction of rural communities. These costs are not paid by the owners of factory farms; they are paid by residents of the communities in which these operations are located, by taxpayers, and by society as a whole. Environmental Costs Factory farms are directly responsible for a wide range of environmental problems. In addition to causing massive topsoil erosion, aquifer depletion, and the reduction of biodiversity, factory farming pollutes our air, water, and soil with hazardous gasses, toxic chemicals, and harmful pathogens. The price of industrial-farmed food does not include the cost of this damage. Instead, the burden is borne by the local community and by taxpayers who must finance cleanup efforts conducted by the government. Fossil Fuels As a result of industrial agriculture, food that was once produced locally must now be transported extraordinarily long distances. In the U.S. , the average meal travels 1,500 miles before reaching your plate.1 Transporting goods such long distances uses an enormous amount of oil. The effects of building and maintaining roads and infrastructure, as well as the environmental damage caused by the consumption of oil, constitute additional costs to society that aren't included in the price of cheap, industrial-farmed food. Human Health Costs Many industrial agriculture practices are harmful to the health of individuals living near the industrial operations and to the health consumers who eat the meat. Residents can suffer debilitating sickness; consumers can be subjected to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and outbreaks of food borne diseases are all too common. The costs of these health problems are passed directly to members of the general public, to those who consume contaminated foods, and to taxpayers who help finance the health care system     In 1996, the agriculture industry received $68.7 billion in subsidies from the U.S. government; this is the equivalent of $259 per consumer.4   Rural Communities Another hidden cost of industrial-farmed food is its impact on small family-owned farms and rural communities. As a result, there are now nearly 5 million fewer farms in the U.S. than there were in the 1930's. 2 While small family farms help improve rural economies by creating more jobs and by patronizing local businesses, factory farms operate with minimal labor and generally purchase building materials, equipment, supplies, and feed from outside of the region. 3 As a result, rural areas are left with high rates of unemployment and very limited opportunity for future economic growth. Visit our Communities and Workers page for more information. Economic Efficiency Even if the hidden costs of factory farming are ignored, it's still not clear that industrial agriculture operations are more efficient than smaller, sustainable farms. A substantial body of work within the agricultural economics literature suggests that smaller operations are in fact more productive.5  Large-scale, single crop, industrial farms can produce a large amount of output per unit of labor, but diverse, sustainable crop systems are actually more productive in terms of output per unit of land.6 In other words, a worker on a factory farm can produce more food than a worker on a sustainable farm, but sustainable farms produce more food per acre of land than industrial farms. Subsidies Industrial agriculture operations receive huge subsidies that are funded by your tax dollars! These government handouts enable Big Ag to sell foods at artificially low prices. Between 1995 and 2002, the U.S. government awarded $114 billion in agricultural subsidies.7 71 % of these subsidies were granted to just 10% of U.S. farms, which means big industrial farms received far more money than the smaller operations.8 Industrial agriculture is also indirectly subsidized through research grants awarded to agriculture programs at U.S. universities. Since the research funded by such grants typically focuses on industrial agriculture techniques and technology, it does little to benefit small, sustainable farms. Production of factory-farmed food is further encouraged by subsidies provided to large-scale food processors and exporters who purchase these foods and market them abroad. In 2000, $500 million was granted to food exporters, including $90 million given to companies that advertise food products abroad.9 These subsidies have the effect of artificially lowering the price of U.S. industrial-farmed food, thus enabling U.S. agribusiness to expand into the global market. Supply and Demand A basic economic principle states that an increase in consumer demand for a product will encourage more firms to supply that product, eventually causing its price to fall. This is good news for the growing community of consumers interested in purchasing sustainable foods. As more consumers consider the environmental and social effects of food production, the market for sustainable foods has expanded dramatically. According to the USDA, the demand for organic agricultural products increased by 20 percent or more each year throughout the 1990's.10 It has also become increasingly common to find foods at the store bearing eco-labels like "raised without antibiotics" and "Cage Free." The trend towards sustainable food production is the result of concerned consumers making responsible choices.  Loss of Family Farms      Family farmers are being forced out of business at an alarming rate.  According to Farm Aid, 330 farmers leave their land every week. The dramatic expansion of industrial agriculture (or factory farming) has made it increasingly difficult for small family farmers in the U.S. The food industry is now dominated by a handful of giant corporations which benefit from huge government subsidies and from trade policies that favor large-scale production. Family farmers are being forced out of business at an alarming rate. According to Farm Aid, 330 farmers leave their land every week 1 . As a result, there are now nearly five million fewer farms in the U.S. than there were in the 1930's 2. Of the two million remaining farms, only 565,000 are family operations 3. Furthermore, very few young people are becoming farmers. Half of all U.S. farmers are now between the ages of 45 and 65, and only 6% of all farmers are under the age of 35 4. Given these trends, it's essential to support family farmers before they are replaced by large-scale, corporate-owned, industrial agriculture operations. In addition to producing fresh, nutritious, high-quality foods, small family farms provide a wealth of benefits for their local communities and regions. Perhaps most importantly, family farmers serve as responsible stewards of the land. Unlike industrial agriculture operations, which contaminate communities with chemical pesticides, noxious fumes, and excess manure, small family farmers strive to preserve the surrounding environment for future generations. Since these farmers have a vested interest in their communities, they are more likely to use sustainable farming techniques to protect natural resources and human health.The existence of family farms also guarantees the preservation of greenspace within the community. Unfortunately, once a family farm is forced out of business, the farmland becomes available for development. Independent family farms also play a vital role in rural economies. In addition to providing jobs to members of their communities, family farmers help support local businesses by purchasing goods and services within their communities. On the other hand, industrial agriculture operations employ as few workers as possible and typically purchase supplies, equipment, and building materials from outside the local community 5. This leaves rural areas with high rates of unemployment and very little opportunity for economic growth. Finally, family farmers benefit society by boosting democratic values in their communities through active civic participation 6, and by helping to preserve the connection between consumers, their food, and the land upon which this food is produced. Clearly, family farms are a valuable resource worth preserving. The loss of family farms has caused a reduction in the supply of safe, fresh, sustainably-grown foods, has contributed to the economic and social disintegration of rural communities, and is eliminating an important aspect of our national heritage. If we lose our family farmers, we'll lose the diversity in our food supply, and what we eat will be dictated to us by a few large corporations. In 2002, only one-third of the U.S.'s 2,128,982 farms received government subsidies; two-thirds of all U.S. farmers received no payments.12 Between 1995 and 2003, the top 4% of agriculture subsidy recipients received a total of about $65 billion; on average, each recipient received $529,000, or almost $59,000 per year 13 – this is $7,000 more than the 1999 median U.S. household income.14 Between 1995 and 2003, the bottom 80 % of agriculture subsidy recipients received only 13% of all agriculture subsidies.15 According to a study performed by researchers from the Department of Economics at the University of Essex, the annual cost of environmental damage caused by industrial farming in the U.S. is $34.7 billion.16   Chapter 6: Environment Assignment: Read the chapter and write a two page paper discussing the negative effects of factory farming on the air, soil and water. Use the information in this chapter. If you use additional information, cite the source with parenthetical documentation and a works cited page. (MLA format)  Agriculture has an enormous impact on the environment, but whether the impact is good or bad depends on the type of agriculture used. Sustainable agriculture puts back what it takes out and does not harm the ecosystem. The waste from animals is used to fertilize crops, while rotating crops from field to field helps replace nutrients in the soil. Conversely, factory farming pollutes the air, water and soil because there are too many animals concentrated on small pieces of land. One hog alone can excrete up to 17.5 pounds of manure and urine each day.1 On a factory farm with 35,000 hogs, over 4 million pounds of feces and urine are produced each week. That amounts to over 200 million pounds of waste each year – on one farm! Even a smaller farm with 1,000 hogs will produce over 6 million pounds of waste each year. In order to flush the waste out of the buildings and spray it onto the fields, the manure is mixed with water and held in holes in the ground called "lagoons" until it's spread or sprayed on the land. Because there's too much manure for the land to handle, it's often over-applied, or the lagoons leak or spill. A study done at North Carolina State University estimated that as many as half of the existing lagoons are leaking badly enough to contaminate groundwater.2  To compound the problems with so much manure and urine, the waste does not have to be treated, like human sewage. It can sit for indeterminate amounts of time in open air lagoons and then be sprayed untreated onto the surrounding fields. This affects the air, water and soil. 1. Air Pollution As manure decomposes in lagoons, it emits over 400 volatile organic compounds, including nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide and methane.3 As nitrogen from lagoons changes to gas and escapes into the air, it changes into ammonia. North Carolina alone emits at least 186 tons of ammonia into the air each day.4 About half of the ammonia created rises as a gas and generally falls as rain or fog to the forests, fields or open water within 50 miles.5 The rest is transformed into small dry particles which can travel over 250 miles away.6 Traces of pure urine have actually been found in rainwater.7 Hydrogen sulfide smells like rotten eggs in low concentrations and can cause irreversible neurological damage, even at low levels.8 In high concentrations, it paralyzes one's ability to smell so is odorless; at that level, it can kill a person. 2. Water Pollution: The excessive amount of manure on factory farms causes water pollution, kills fish, degrades aquatic habitats and threatens drinking water supplies. In June of 1995, 25 million gallons of waste spilled from an 8-acre lagoon in North Carolina, killing 10 million fish in the New River and closing 364,000 thousands acres of coastal wetlands to shell fishing. The main water pollutants from manure are nutrients like nitrogen9 and phosphorus, pathogens, and heavy metals. Phosphorus and nitrogen are major water pollutants. Too much phosphorus is extremely toxic to fish; at lower levels, both will over-enrich water and create an excess of algae (called eutrophication). These algae can kill fish and marine life. Too much manure in water also leads to oxygen depletion. This can suffocate fish, or suffocate the food fish eat, thus starving the fish. Too many nutrients have also led to the emergence of Pfiesteria piscicida, a microorganism which has killed millions of fish by attaching to their bodies and eating away their flesh. Fish from North Carolina up through the Delaware Bay have been caught or found with huge, gaping holes and sores on their body. Human exposure to Pfiesteria can cause memory loss, confusion, headache, skin rash, burning, eye irritation, upper respiratory irritation, muscle cramps and gastrointestinal symptoms.10 Anyone can become infected with Pfiesteria by coming in contact with infected water or fish. 3. Overuse of Water: Factory farms, especially hog factories, use enormous amounts of water – up to millions of gallons a day. Some large factory farms have a constant stream of water flowing through the buildings so the manure will be moist enough to flush out easily. Pigs can spend their entire lives standing in water on concrete floors. Other farms have begun to conserve water usage by reusing the urine and feces-loaded water from the manure lagoons and sending it back into the confinement buildings. This excessive use of water is lowering the levels in aquifers -- the Ogallala aquifer, which is the largest aquifer in the nation and supplies water from Texas up to South Dakota, is not recharging itself as fast as water is being extracted. It's been estimated that the over 174,000 square miles of water will be used up in the next 50 years due to unsustainable practices, including those from factory farms.11 4. Heavy Metals in Soil: Heavy metals are added to livestock feed. For example, zinc and copper are added to hog and poultry feed to prevent disease and aid digestion. Cadmium and selenium are also used and have been found to promote growth in low doses. Animals can only absorb 5-15% of the metals they ingest so the majority is excreted in manure, which absorbs into the soil but also runs off into the water.12 Plants can absorb some of the metals, but a significant quantity builds up in the soil. This can stunt plant growth and can also poison grazing animals, which tend to ingest soil when grazing.13 Heavy metal pollution is almost irreversible. 5. Soil      “A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1     What is Soil? It's not just dirt! Soil is a mixture of minerals, air, water, and organic materials, such as roots, decaying plant parts, fungi, earthworms, bacteria, and microorganisms. An acre of healthy topsoil can contain 900 pounds of earthworms, 2,400 pounds of fungi, 1,500 pounds of bacteria, 133 pounds of protozoa, 890 pounds of arthropods and algae, and in some cases, small mammals. 2   Healthy soils are essential for the production of crops used to feed humans and livestock. In addition to providing a stable base to support plant roots, soils store water and nutrients required for plant growth. Unfortunately, industrial agriculture practices continue to damage and deplete this valuable natural resource. While intensive plowing and monocrop agriculture systems have caused nutrient depletion and wide-scale soil erosion, over-application of fertilizers and pesticides have contaminated our soils and polluted our waterways. Fortunately, many farmers are choosing to use sustainable agricultural techniques such as conservation tillage, crop rotation, and organic fertilization in order to protect our valuable soil resources. 6. Soil Erosion Erosion is the movement of soil by water, wind, or gravity. Although this process occurs naturally throughout the world, industrial farming practices have dramatically increased the speed at which agricultural soils are eroded. Currently, the average rate of soil erosion on U.S. cropland is 7 tons per acre per year.3   Know Your Soil Lingo Organic matter : any part of a plant or animal, either living or dead – leaves, roots, sticks, fruit, seeds, worms, insects, manure, and food scraps are all examples of organic matter. The decomposition of organic matter provides soils with the nutrients required by plants to grow. Organic matter also improves soil structure, and helps the soil to retain more water. 4     The rate of erosion is highest when soil is not covered by a protective layer of plants or decaying organic matter. Industrial farmland is particularly susceptible to erosion due to intensive tillage (plowing), which eliminates protective ground cover from the soil surface and destroys root systems that help hold soil together. Since soil formation is an extraordinarily slow process, erosion poses a serious problem; soil erosion can quickly cause fertile farmland to become unsuitable for agriculture. In extreme cases, erosion can lead to desertification, a process which causes arid soil to become barren and incapable of sustaining plant growth for many years. However, even low rates of soil erosion can severely damage agricultural land; not only does erosion reduce the water holding capacity of a given soil, it also strips away nutrients and organic matter. In fact, soil removed by erosion contains about 3 times more nutrients and 1.5 to 5 times more organic matter than the soil that remains behind.5 The National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service notes that erosion is the single greatest threat to soil productivity.6 According to a 1995 study published in Science, the loss of soil and water from U.S. cropland decreases productivity by about $27 billion per year.7 Pollution & Damage Caused by Erosion In addition to removing valuable soil from farmland, erosion pollutes waterways with sediment. Runoff containing sediment degrades aquatic ecosystems by reducing stream depth and increasing turbidity (making water cloudier), causing the population of fish and other aquatic organisms to decline. According to the EPA, sediment is the most significant non-point source (NPS) pollutant in the U.S.8       What is Non-point Source Pollution? NPS pollution is any form of pollution that doesn't enter the environment through a single, distinct source such as an industrial waste pipe, a smokestack, or a sewage treatment plant. Instead, NPS pollution is generated by numerous sources and carried over and through the ground by snowmelt or rain water. NPS pollutants include eroded sediment, pesticides, fertilizers, and toxins from urban runoff.   Eroded sediment also affects humans by disrupting drainage systems, increasing the cost of water treatment, filling up reservoirs, and obstructing waterways. Furthermore, wind erosion damages buildings and covers roads, railways, and other structures with soil. The resulting damages and increased maintenance costs amount to approximately $8 billion per year.9 Erosion Control Erosion can be significantly reduced through sustainable agricultural practices. The most effective way to prevent erosion is to protect soil from the direct impact of rain and wind by keeping it covered with plants and/or decaying organic matter. While industrial farms lose tons of soil as a result of intensive tillage (plowing), sustainable farmers have successfully reduced erosion by adopting conservation tillage techniques such as no-till, mulch-till, and ridge-till systems. These systems minimize soil disturbance and leave ‘crop residue' (plant parts that remain after harvest) covering the soil. No-till systems are most effective; in no-till fields, all plant residue is left on the soil surface, and less than 10% of the soil is disturbed during planting.10 In addition to reducing erosion, conservation tillage enables soil to retain more moisture, reduces soil crusting (the formation of a rigid crust atop soil), and allows organic materials such as leaves and plant parts to accumulate over time, helping to restore nutrients to the soil. This technique also requires less labor, equipment, and fossil fuel.11 According to the Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC), conservation tillage enables U.S. farmers to save 306 million gallons of fuel each year – this reduces annual greenhouse gas emissions by over 1 billion pounds of carbon dioxide!12 Sustainable farmers also reduce erosion by creating buffer strips within fields. For instance, wind erosion can be prevented by planting strips of trees or vegetation at the edges of fields. Farmers can also create buffer strips consisting of grasses or shrubs alongside drainage ditches and streams in order to help prevent water erosion. Soil Nutrients and Fertilizer   Essential Nutrients: Scientists have determined that the following 16 elements are essential for crop growth:13 Boron (B) Calcium (Ca) Carbon (C) Chlorine (Cl) Copper (Cu) Hydrogen (H) Iron (Fe) Magnesium (Mg) Manganese (Mn) Molybdenum (Mo) Nitrogen (N) Oxygen (O) Phosphorus (P) Potassium (K) Sulfur (S) Zinc (Zn)     Plants need more than just sunlight and water! In order to grow, plants require a variety of different nutrients (see sidebar). In natural environments such as prairies and forests, plants obtain most necessary nutrients from minerals found within the soil. When these plants die, they fall to the ground, decompose, and release nutrients back into the soil, making them available for new plants. In this way, nutrients are “recycled” with each generation of plants. On farms, the nutrient cycle is somewhat different. Since crops are continually harvested or eaten by grazing livestock, there is no steady supply of decaying plant material to replenish nutrient levels within the soil. Instead, nutrients must be restored by adding fertilizers to the soil. Traditionally, agricultural soils were fertilized using livestock manure, which is rich in nutrients and organic matter. Farmers also practiced crop rotation, regularly alternating the types of crop grown in various fields and periodically allowing fields to remain unplanted. This process enables organic matter to accumulate and decompose, thus restoring nutrients to the soil. Industrial agriculture has dramatically altered the nutrient management practices used on farms. Modern industrial farms no longer raise animals and crops together; instead, livestock are raised on enormous CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations), and crops are mass-produced on separate farms. Although CAFOs generate tremendous amounts of manure, it is too costly to transport this manure to other cropland for use as fertilizer.     Know your Soil Lingo Natural fertilizer: fertilizer composed entirely of organic matter such as manure and compost. USDA “Certified Organic” produce can only be grown using natural fertilizers (no synthetic fertilizers may be used.) Synthetic/Chemical fertilizer: manmade fertilizer manufactured by the chemical industry. They are composed primarily of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, but lack the organic matter contained in natural fertilizers. Compost: A nutrient-rich mixture of decaying organic matter (typically leaves and other plant parts) used as fertilizer for plants.   Instead, today's large-scale industrial farms depend on synthetic (manmade) chemical fertilizers to support high-intensity monocrop systems. Unfortunately, synthetic fertilizers are often over-applied to cropland. In fact, it is estimated that only about half of all fertilizers are actually absorbed by plants; the remaining chemicals pollute the atmosphere, soils, and waterways.14 In 1998, the U.S. used about 20 million tons of chemical fertilizers.15 The enormous amount of manure generated by CAFOs also causes significant pollution problems. In order to avoid the expense of treating or transporting this animal manure, CAFO's typically store the waste in huge open-air pits, or “lagoons,” and eventually spray the untreated liquid manure onto surrounding land. The over-application of synthetic fertilizers and manure both contribute to the growing problem of nutrient pollution.  Plants need nutrients to grow – but there's a limit to the amount of nutrients they can actually use. Although plants are able to absorb some of the nutrients provided by synthetic fertilizers or manure, when too much chemical fertilizer or manure is applied, excess nutrients remain in the soil. These nutrients are eventually washed out of the soil and into ground and surface waters. The two major nutrient pollutants released by chemical fertilizers and manure are nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). Nutrient Pollution       Nutrient pollution damages aquatic ecosystems by stimulating the rapid growth of algae. This reduces the aesthetic and recreational values of waterways, and harms many other living organisms. When the algae die, the process of decomposition uses oxygen dissolved within the water – this oxygen depletion eventually kills fish and other aquatic organisms.According to the 1998 National Water Quality Inventory conducted by the EPA, 30 percent of surveyed rivers, 44 percent of surveyed lakes, and 23 percent of surveyed estuaries were contaminated with unsafe levels of nutrient pollution.16  Nutrient pollutants washed from agricultural soils also degrade coastal environments – in fact, more than 60% of U.S. coastal rivers and bays are moderately or severely damaged by nutrient pollution.17 Excess nutrients degrade coral reefs and seagrass beds, reduce aquatic biodiversity, induce algal blooms, and cause tremendous fish kills.18 Nutrient pollution is also thought to induce outbreaks of Pfiesteria.19 This toxic dinoflagelate (type of algae) emits a toxin that breaks down the skin tissue of fish, causing bleeding sores or legions.20 Pfiesteria outbreaks have caused major fish kills and are thought to cause memory loss, confusion, respiratory problems, and skin problems in humans.21 Nitrogen Pollution and Human Health: Nutrient pollution also affects human health by contaminating local water supplies. Nitrogen-contaminated groundwater is harmful to humans, particularly to vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and people who have suppressed immune systems.22 Infants who drink water contaminated with nitrates can suffer from methemoglobinemia, or blue baby syndrome, a condition that can cause brain damage or death. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has also linked high levels of nitrates in drinking water to spontaneous abortions in women.23 Additional Soil Damage Caused by Synthetic Fertilizers and CAFO Manure Although synthetic fertilizers add necessary nutrients to cropland, unlike manure, they fail to restore organic matter to the soil and have been shown to adversely affect soil productivity. Regular use of synthetic fertilizers causes long-term depletion of organic matter, soil compaction, and degradation of overall soil quality.24 Over-fertilization also causes important minerals such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium to gradually leach out of the soil.25 Manure from CAFOs can also degrade soil quality. For instance, since heavy metals are added to animal feed in order to promote growth, manure can contain trace amounts of metals such as arsenic, copper, selenium, and zinc.26 The high concentration of manure in CAFO lagoons enable heavy metals to accumulate in the surrounding environment, contaminating soil, poisoning wildlife, and polluting groundwater.27 CAFO manure also contains disease-causing pathogens and residues of hormones and antibiotics. When untreated manure is applied to fields, these substances can be washed over and through soil, contaminating groundwater and surface water. Did you know? Wind erosion can transport soil particles thousands of miles; soil particles from Africa have been found as far as Brazil and Florida.34 Since wind erosion releases fine dust particles into the air, it poses a potential threat to human health.35 Every year, the U.S. spends more than $520 million to dredge waterways clogged with soil sediment.36 In 2002, no-till planting systems were used on more than 55 million acres of land in the U.S. - almost 20 % of total planted land.37, 38 Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in the U.S.39 Nutrient pollution has created an oxygen-depleted “dead-zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. This 7,700 square mile section of water (an area approximately the size of New Jersey), is now devoid of aquatic life.40 In the U.S., approximately 40% of all chemical fertilizers applied to fields eventually changes into ammonia and is released into the atmosphere.41 The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that in 1995, 37% of all nitrogen and 65% of all phosphorus inputs to watersheds in the central U.S. were derived from manure.42 What can you do? Ask your local farmer about the erosion prevention techniques and nutrient management methods used on his or her farm – does the farmer minimize erosion by avoiding excessive tillage (plowing), or by using no-till techniques? Does he or she use organic fertilizers instead of synthetic fertilizers? Purchase USDA Certified Organic products; these foods must be produced without the use of synthetic fertilizers. Or find a sustainable farmer who does not use chemical fertilizers. Plant your own garden. Try making your own organic fertilizer using a compost bin. Find out how to compost at How To Compost.org Avoid using fertilizers on your lawn. If you must use fertilizers, chose low-phosphorus varieties. For more information: Conservation Technology Information Center CTIC is a national, nonprofit public-private partnership that works to promote soil and water quality. Their site includes technical documents, as well as educational activities for teachers. DiscoverySchool.com – The Dirt on Soil Created by the Discovery Channel, this website provides a useful introduction to soil; a great resource for kids and teachers. Chapter 7  Fossil Fuel and Energy Use   Assignment: take notes on chapter 7 & 8. There will be a test on chapter 7 & 8 combined. The U.S. burns an enormous amount of fossil fuel in order to maintain its incredible rate of energy consumption. Fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas) are used to generate approximately 85% of the total U.S. energy consumption.2 This excessive rate of fossil fuel consumption causes significant damage to the environment.     According to the Department of Energy, in 1999, the U.S. consumed approximately 993 million tons of coal, 21,694 billion cubic feet of natural gas, and 7.125 billion barrels of oil. 1     Perhaps most significantly, the combustion of fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gases that cause global climate change. In fact, over the past 150 years, the use of fossil fuels has caused the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase by more than 25%. 3 Combustion of fossil fuels also creates air pollution, acid rain, and smog, thus damaging the natural environment, reducing visibility levels, and threatening human health. Furthermore, the enormous rate of U.S. energy consumption has forced the country to become increasingly dependent upon oil. This is extremely undesirable since oil is a scarce natural resource which will eventually be exhausted, and since the majority of oil is currently supplied by other countries. Fossil Fuel and Agriculture Few people realize that an enormous amount of energy is required to produce our food. In fact, 17% of all fossil fuel used in the U.S. is consumed by the food production system.4 As a result of the industrialization of agriculture, most food is now produced at large-scale, centrally-located facilities which use energy-intensive farming practices. Large amounts of fossil fuel are required to power heavy farming machinery, to process foods, to refrigerate foods during transportation, to produce packaging materials, and to manufacture and transport chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides. Fertilizers containing nitrogen are particularly fossil-fuel-intensive; production and transport of 1 lb of nitrogen releases an average of 3.7 lbs of CO 2 into the atmosphere.5  It is estimated that the average U.S. farm uses a total of 3 calories of fossil energy to produce each calorie of food energy.6   Transportation A tremendous amount of energy is also used to transport our food. As a result of the development of centralized industrial agricultural operations and the corresponding disappearance of local family farms, food is now shipped extraordinarily long distances before it reaches your dinner plate. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, food and agricultural products (not including imported or exported foods) are transported 566 billion ton-miles within U.S. borders each year, constituting more than 20% of total U.S. commodity transport.7 In 1969, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated that, on average, food traveled 1,346 miles.8 Another study conducted in 1980 determined that fresh produce traveled 1,500 miles!9  Furthermore, an increasing quantity of food is now being transported internationally; in 1998, a total of 172 million tons of food were shipped into and out of the U.S.10 In 2001, the U.S. imported 39% of all fruits, 12% of vegetables, 40% of lamb, and 78% of fish and shellfish.11 This excessive and unnecessary food transportation requires the consumption of large quantities of fossil fuel, thus polluting the environment and damaging human health. Lengthy food transport also generates additional energy expenditures by creating the need for increased food packaging, processing, and refrigeration. It also forces the government to spend more of our tax dollars repairing, constructing, and maintaining an extensive system of roads and railways. Energy Conservation in the Agriculture Sector Given the damage to human health and the environment caused by the use of fossil fuels, it is clearly in our best interest to reduce our consumption of this source of energy whenever possible. Fortunately, a number of agricultural techniques can be used to decrease our dependence upon fossil fuel. One effective method is to reduce or eliminate tillage (plowing the soil); a Canadian study determined that implementation of a modified no-till system reduced the use of diesel fuel from 7.9 gallons to 1.1 gallons per hectare.12 Another study indicated that total CO 2 emissions generated by a no-till system were 92% lower than emissions from conventional tillage.13 Fossil fuel consumption could also be decreased by reducing fertilizer use, by using manure more efficiently, and by practicing certain types of crop rotation (for example, including legumes in crop rotation).14  Although these techniques are usually difficult to implement on huge mono-crop industrial farms, many sustainable farms already practice these energy-saving production methods. In fact, small-scale, less mechanized, more biodiverse organic farming operations have been shown to use 60% less fossil fuel per unit of food than conventional industrial farms.15 The U.S. emits almost twice as much fossil fuel-generated CO 2 as any other country in the world.16 Frozen peas require 150% more energy than fresh peas due to packaging and refrigeration.17 In the U.S. , the average prepared meal includes ingredients produced in at least 5 other countries.18 Transporting 1 lb of asparagus from Chile to New York uses 73 lbs of fuel energy and releases 4.7 lbs of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 19 According to a 1969 study conducted by the Department of Defense, the production of one calorie of processed food consumes 1,000 calories of energy. 20 Did you know? According to the EPA, almost 2% of our population (1.5 million people) is exposed to elevated nitrate levels from drinking water wells.14 The EPA reports that the waste generated by hogs, chicken, and cattle has polluted over 35,000 miles of river and has contaminated groundwater in 17 states (out of the 22 states reporting animal waste figures).15 The EPA estimate that agriculture pollution "degrade[d] aquatic life or interfere[d] with public use of 173,629 river miles (i.e. 25% of all river miles surveyed) and contribute[d] to 70% of all water quality problems identified in rivers and streams."16 According to a study performed by researchers from the Department of Economics at the University of Essex, the annual cost of environmental damage caused by industrial farming in the U.S. is $34.7 billion.17 What can you do?  Join a local environmental group and test the soil, air and water in your area to see if it contains any contaminants   Chapter 8: Genetic Engineering Genetic Engineering (GE) is the process of transferring genes from one plant or animal to another. The technology has not been properly tested, so no one knows if GE food is safe to eat. Currently, crops are genetically engineered; animals are next. What is genetic engineering? Genetic engineering (GE) is the process of transferring specific traits, or genes, from one organism into a different plant or animal. The resulting organism is called transgenic or a GMO (genetically modified organism). 70% of processed foods in American supermarkets now contain genetically modified ingredients.1 This process is different from traditional cross breeding, where genes can only be exchanged between closely-related species. With genetic engineering, genes from completely different species can be inserted into each other. For example, in the 1990's scientists attempted to insert a fish gene into a tomato to make the tomato resistant to frost. The majority of genetically modified crops grown today are engineered to be resistant to pesticides and/or herbicides. These modified crops can withstand being sprayed with weed killer while all the other plants in the field die. This concerns many people because the weeds can grow resistant to pesticides, leading farmers to spray even more on their crops.2 What are genes? All life is made up of millions of cells. Each cell contains a nucleus, and inside each nucleus are strings of molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Each strand of DNA is divided into small sections called genes. These genes contain a unique set of instructions that determine how the organism grows, develops, looks, and lives. Genetic engineering is the process of removing specific genes from an organism and inserting them into another plant or animal, thus transferring specific traits.   GE proponents claim genetically modified crops use less pesticides than non-GE crops, when in reality they can use even more chemicals.3 This causes more environmental pollution, exposes the food to even more toxins, and causes more safety issues for the farmer. Some GE crops are actually classified as a pesticide. The New Leaf potato is genetically engineered to produce the Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) toxin in order to kill any pests that attempt to eat it.4 The actual potato has been deemed a pesticide and is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), not the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) which regulates food. Because of this, safety testing for the product is not as strict as with food, even though consumers eat these potatoes. Scientists are currently working on ways to genetically engineer farm animals. In an effort to speed up slaughter lines and increase profits, research is underway to genetically engineer hogs that are all the same size and shape.5 Work is also being done to try to create animals that have odorless manure or hogs that don't have any waste at all!6 Adequate research has not been done on any effects from eating animals that were fed genetically-engineered grain, nor have adequate studies been done on the effects of directly consuming genetically-engineered crops like corn and soy. There is concern that we, and our families, are being experimented on by the companies who created GMO's. What are the concerns over GE Food? Much concern has been raised over the inadequate testing of the effects of genetic engineering on humans and the environment. Genetic engineering is still an emerging field, and scientists do not know exactly what can happen from putting the DNA of one species into another. The introduction of foreign DNA into an organism could trigger other DNA in the plant or animal to mutate and change.7 And once released into the environment, these genetically engineered organisms cannot be cleaned up or recalled.8 In addition, researchers do not know if there are any long-term or unintended side effects from eating GE foods.9 Opponents to genetic engineering state that GE foods must be proven safe before they are sold to the public because safety has not yet been shown. Specific concerns over genetic engineering include: Allergic reactions. There are two concerns regarding allergic reactions. The first is with known allergens. A gene from a Brazil nut was inserted into soybeans, which led to severe reactions in some people with nut allergies.10 So, there is concern that people with known allergies might not be aware that the food they are eating contain substances they are allergic to. The second concern is over the possibility of new allergies. The new combinations of genes and traits have the potential to create new allergic reactions. Gene mutation. Scientists do not know if the forced insertion of one gene into another gene can destabilize the entire organism, which would encourage mutations and abnormalities.11 No one knows if or how eating mutated food could affect us. Antibiotic resistance. GE food could make disease-causing bacteria resistant to antibiotics, which could increase the spread of disease and illness throughout the world.12 Almost all GE food contains antibiotic resistance marker genes that help producers know whether the new genetic material was transferred to the host plant or animal.13 Loss of nutrition. Genetic engineering can change the nutritional value of food.14 Genes being turned on and off. Genes are turned on or off under certain circumstances. Researchers do not know if genetic modification could sometimes turn a gene on or off in an inappropriate circumstance.15 Damage to the environment. Insects, birds and wind can carry genetically altered pollen to other fields and forests, pollinating plants and creating new species that will carry on the genetic modification. Gene pollution can not be cleaned up. Once released into the environment, genetically modified organisms cannot be removed. So, unlike chemical and nuclear contamination which can at least be contained, genetic pollution can not be isolated and separated from the environment in which it is spreading. Increased chemical use. Many GE plants are bred to be resistant to herbicides, or weed killer, so a farmer can spray an entire field and kill only the weeds. In time, the weeds develop resistance to the herbicide, thus forcing the farmer to spray even more chemicals onto the fields. A study of over 8,200 university field trials showed that farmers growing GE soybeans use 2 to 5 times more weed killer than farmers growing natural varieties.16 Superweeds. GE crops can cross-pollinate with weeds, potentially creating superweeds that could become difficult to control.17 Terminator seeds. GE seeds have been created that will only grow once. In many parts of the world, saving seeds from season to season is how farmers are able to survive and continue growing food. With this technology, seeds are sterile, forcing farmers to buy seed each year from a major corporation. What foods are genetically engineered?18     Main GE crops:    - Soybeans (63%)    - Corn (19%)    - Transgenic cotton (13%)    - Canola (5%) 22   Beet Chicory (Cichorium intybus) Corn Cotton Flax Papaya Potato Rapeseed (Canola) Rice Soybean Squash Tomato Tobacco Pending approval (as of 12/31/03): Alfalfa Creeping Brentgrass Wheat Did you know? In 2002, more than 100 million acres of bioengineered crops were planted in the world.19 4 countries have 99% of GE acreage:21 US (68%) Argentina (22%) Canada (6%) China (3%) More than 75% of soybeans grown in the US in 2003 were bioengineered.22 Approximately 70 percent of processed foods in U.S. grocery stores contain bioengineered ingredients.23 Herbicide tolerant crops have created weed shifts and weed resistance, causing pesticide use to increase by 70 million pounds between 1996 and 2003.24 (Proponents of genetic engineering claim that this technology would protect the environment by enabling By law, animals raised organically cannot be given any GE feed. The only other way to know what the animal was fed is to know the farmer, and to ask him or her. Many sustainable farmers do not use GE feed, but you will need to ask to make sure. For more information: Agricultural Biotechnology: Will it Help? Web site devoted to biotechnology, both pros and cons. From the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.      Chapter 9: Health Assignment: Read chapter 1.      Notes on chapter 2.      Essay (250 words) Take a position on whether sustainable foods are healthier and more nutritious.  The food we eat significantly impacts our health and well-being. Because of growing concerns about nutrition and food safety, an increasing number of consumers are choosing to buy sustainable foods. Not only are sustainable foods more nutritious than heavily processed industrial foods; they're also produced without creating the health hazards associated with factory farming. Health Benefits of Sustainable Foods A growing body of scientific research is showing that sustainable, pasture-raised, and organic foods provide significant health benefits for consumers. In addition to being raised without synthetic hormones, antibiotics, pesticides and chemical fertilizers, sustainable food is more nutritious than food produced by industrial agriculture.1 1. Animals The sustainable technique of pasturing enables animals to eat the grasses and greens that their bodies are naturally adapted to eat, resulting in healthier animals and leaner cuts of meat.2 On factory farms, animals are fed corn, grains and other unsavory additives and byproducts to make them gain weight as quickly as possible. As a result, factory farmed meat has a high fat content.3 Furthermore, since cattle are meant to eat grasses, the acidity levels in their stomachs are altered when they eat grains.4 This makes them more susceptible to E. Coli and other bacterial infections.5 Feeding grazing animals large amounts of grain will reduce the health benefits of the meat.According to New York Times bestselling author Jo Robinson, meat from pasture-raised animals is lower in calories and "bad" omega-6 fats and contains more of the "good" omega-3 and CLA fats that help fight disease and promote good health.6 Free-range chickens have 21% less total fat, 30% less saturated fat and 28% fewer calories than their factory-farmed counterparts.7 Eggs from poultry raised sustainably on pasture have 10% less fat, 40% more vitamin A and 400% more omega-3's.8 Sustainably-raised animals are not subjected to the high levels of stress found on factory farms. The energy required for animals to use their muscles comes from sugars called glycogen, which are found in muscle tissue. When animals are raised sustainably and treated well, their glycogen levels are high.9 When processed sustainably, the glycogen, turns to lactic acid, and helps make the meat tender and tasty, and gives it a good color.10 Alternatively, animals raised in the factory farm system are highly stressed from the overcrowded and unhealthy conditions, and from stress caused by the slaughtering process. Their muscle glycogen is used up during the handling, transportation and pre-slaughter process, which leads to a decrease in the production of lactic acid.11 In cattle and sheep, and sometimes pigs and turkeys, this can lead to DFD meat (Dark Firm and Dry). DFD meat has poor taste, a darker color, and has a shorter shelf life because of the abnormally high pH-value of the meat.12 This type of meat is from an animal that was stressed, injured, or diseased before slaughter.   A comparison of the nutritional content between organic and factory farmed, conventional vegetables showed organic produce to have higher nutritional value. Organic lettuce had 29% more magnesium; organic spinach had 52% more vitamin C; organic carrots had 69% more magnesium; and organic cabbage had 43% more vitamin C, 41% more iron and 40% more magnesium.14 Sustainably-raised animals are treated well and permitted to carry out their natural behaviors. This leads to a reduction in sickness and almost no stress for the animal. Animals on factory farms are raised under hugely stressful conditions. Besides affecting the levels of glycogen found in muscle tissue, stressed animals produce more E. coli in their stomachs, which increases the chances of food poisoning in humans.13 Slaughterhouses and Processing In the U.S., the meatpacking industry is dominated by a handful of corporations which handle massive quantities of meat at huge processing facilities. As a result of inadequate food safety standards and lax inspection practices by the USDA, these corporations are able to operate unsanitary facilities which produce meat contaminated with the pathogens that cause foodborne illness. The drastic expansion of industrial meat production in the U.S. has been accompanied by the rapid growth of the meat processing industry. This industry is now dominated by a handful of huge corporations which handle massive quantities of meat at enormous processing facilities. Unfortunately, while attempting to cut costs and increase profits, these corporations have neglected to maintain adequate food safety standards, thereby jeopardizing the health of American consumers. The failure to provide safe meat has serious consequences; according to the USDA, contaminated meat causes approximately 70% of all foodborne illnesses.1 In the U.S., foodborne illness sickens 76 million people, causes 325,000 hospitalizations, and kills 5,000 people every year.2  A number of studies have confirmed the presence of harmful pathogens in U.S. meat. After collecting ground beef samples from meat processing plants around the U.S. in 1996, the USDA determined that 7.5% of the beef samples were contaminated with Salmonella, 11.7% were contaminated with Listeria monocytogens, 30% were contaminated with Staphylococcus Aureus, and 53.3% were contaminated with Clostridium perfringens.3 Another study conducted by Consumer Reports in 1998 revealed that 71% of store-bought chicken were contaminated with Campylobacter and/or Salmonella, two bacterial contaminants responsible for thousands of deaths and millions of sicknesses in the U.S. each year.4 These unacceptable levels of contamination are closely related to the high speed at which meat is currently processed. In order to maximize profits, meat processors have continually increased the speed of production. Twenty years ago, meatpacking plants slaughtered about 175 cattle an hour; today, plants can slaughter as many as 400 cattle per hour.5 These accelerated production line speeds threaten the safety of the food supply and endanger slaughterhouse workers. Most significantly, rapid production increases the risk that meat will be exposed to feces during the slaughtering process – this causes meat to become contaminated with the pathogens that cause foodborne illness. Fast line speeds also put workers at greater risk of injury and make it more difficult for inspectors to detect and remove tainted meat. As a result of the meat processing industry's disregard for the safety of its product, the U.S. continues to experience periodic outbreaks of foodborne-illness and large-scale meat recalls. In fact, the third largest meat recall in U.S. history (27.4 million pounds of poultry) occurred in 2002 after meat from a Wampler Foods poultry plant caused eight deaths, three miscarriages, and at least 54 illnesses.6 In the same year, ConAgra was forced to recall 19 million pounds of beef produced at its Greeley processing facility after meat contaminated with E. coli killed a woman and sickened 35 others.7 Meat Safety Standards Despite the demonstrated threat to public safety, the meat industry has been able to use its enormous political influence to weaken food safety standards and prevent the creation of a more rigorous meat inspection process. In 1998, the USDA attempted to improve meat safety by creating the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system. However, this system actually reduced the involvement of USDA inspectors in the meat safety inspection process, allowing meat processing companies to conduct many of the safety assessment procedures themselves. The agency has also conceded to the interests of the meat processing industry by discouraging its inspectors from stopping production lines in cases of suspected meat contamination. In fact, one USDA memo stated that inspectors would be held responsible for halting production unless there was evidence of direct product contamination.8 The USDA's efforts to protect the U.S. meat supply are also undermined by the agency's inability to force meat processors to take corrective action when food safety standards are violated. Shockingly, the USDA lacks the authority to order meat recalls, to issue civil fines, or to close unsanitary plants. As a result, there are often lengthy delays between the discovery of unsanitary conditions and the implementation of any corrective measures. Public Citizen and the Government Accountability Project discovered that even after repeatedly failing the government's tests for salmonella contamination, several ground beef processing plants were allowed to continue operations for months before the government required the companies to clean up their facilities.9 This lack of government intervention enabled meat processors to sell tons of potentially contaminated meat to U.S. consumers. Worker Safety      Meat processing facilities are also known to pose significant threats to worker safety. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, meat processing is the most dangerous job in the nation; in fact, the rate of injury and illness among slaughterhouse workers is approximately three times higher than the injury rate in the average U.S. factory. Every year, 29 out of every 100 meat processing workers sustains a work-related injury or illness that requires treatment beyond first aid.10 Given the pressure placed on slaughterhouse supervisors to report low injury-rates and the numerous past scandals involving injury-log falsification at slaughterhouses, it is likely that many additional injuries are never recorded.11  As a result of breakneck production line speeds and the strain caused by repetitive cutting, slaughterhouse workers often suffer from lacerations, tendonitis, back problems, shoulder problems, carpal tunnel syndrome, and other cumulative trauma disorders.12 Although meat processing is a difficult and dangerous occupation, precautions can be taken to minimize the threats to worker safety. Among the most important safeguards is to maintain production line speeds so that workers are able to process meat without putting themselves or their coworkers at unreasonable risk of injury. However, in order to maximize profits, meat processing companies continue to maintain unreasonably fast line speeds, thereby jeopardizing the safety of workers and the food supply. Unfortunately, workers at meat processing facilities have very little power to address the dangerous working conditions to which they are routinely subjected. Slaughterhouses typically recruit unskilled, recent immigrants many of whom are unfamiliar with U.S. labor laws, and/or unable to speak English and who are unlikely to file complaints about company policies or attempt to organize labor unions.13 The creation of effective labor unions is also impeded by high rates of worker turnover; for instance, at ConAgra's Greely slaughterhouse, the nation's biggest meatpacking complex, the labor turnover rate is approximately 80% per year.14 Given the high incidence of worker injury, the recurrence of sanitary violations at meat processing facilities, and continual outbreaks of food-borne illnesses caused by contaminated meat, it is clear that the U.S. meat processing industry is in dire need of reform. Production line speeds should be slowed to a pace at which workers can perform their duties safely and food safety standards can be guaranteed. Government oversight of food safety standards must also be improved; in order to protect public health, the USDA should conduct more rigorous inspections at meat processing facilities and should have the authority to order recalls of contaminated meat and the power to shut down processing plants that fail to meet food safety standards. Fortunately, many people are now working to reform the meat processing industry by advocating the development of stronger food safety standards and more rigorous inspection practices. Research is also being conducted on mobile meat processing facilities that can move from farm to farm, slaughtering small numbers of cattle while maintaining safe, sanitary operating conditions. According to a report published by the USDA Economic Research Service, 4 firms slaughter nearly 80 percent of all U.S. steers and heifers.15 Between 1974 and 1997, the number of federally inspected cattle slaughtering plants decreased by nearly 40% (from 1,350 in 1974 to 812 in 1997).16 In 1997, 14 plants slaughtered 63 percent of all steers and heifers.17 In 2004, 32.7 million cattle, 103 million hogs, and 2.84 million sheep and lambs were slaughtered. 18 2. Crops Scientists have also discovered health benefits of sustainably-raised fruits and vegetables. Recent studies indicate that certain sustainable crops contain higher levels of nutrients, minerals, and antioxidants, including vitamin C, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, and polyphenols.15, 16 Organic crops also have lower levels of certain toxic heavy metals. The benefits of sustainable and organic produce come partly from minimal or no pesticide use, which leaves crops free of pesticide residues. This is beneficial for both the humans and animals who eat the vegetables and grains. In addition, better soil management such as crop rotation, cover crops and composting used in organic and sustainable farming helps enrich the soil and increase the concentration of vitamins and minerals in the plants. Chemical fertilizers, used on conventional, factory farmed crops, lower the nutrient content of the soil, increase the level of potentially harmful nitrates, and can contain certain toxic heavy metals which can be absorbed by the plants. Faster and Fresher   Health and Fast Food Today, America is struggling with an obesity epidemic, fueled in part by our fast food diets; 1 in 4 Americans visits a fast food restaurant every day.17 In 2000, poor diet and physical inactivity caused 400,000 deaths in the United States, second only to tobacco as the leading preventable cause of death.18 In Super Size Me, a documentary film released in May 2004, director Morgan Spurlock ate McDonald's three times a day for 30 days. In that short time, he gained nearly 25 pounds; his cholesterol shot through the roof; his liver began to fail; and he became depressed and lethargic. The fast food industry is one of the driving forces behind the factory farm system of industrial agriculture. In an effort to sell meat as cheaply as possible, many short cuts are taken. For example, animals are fattened on the wrong types of feed, are injected with hormones and fed heavy metals to make them grow faster, are pumped full of antibiotics, and eat food grown with massive amounts of pesticides. More and more concern is being raised over both safety and health effects of this type of meat. Food from local, sustainable farms is fresher and consumed quicker. The time from harvest to your dinner plate is much shorter with sustainable food because produce is not shipped hundreds to thousands of miles from centralized, industrial farms. The longer food sits after harvest, the more vitamins and nutrients it loses.19 Another benefit of these fresh, sustainable foods is that they don't need to be processed to increase shelf-life; therefore, they don't contain preservatives and aren't subjected to irradiation. Sustainable crops are also harvested when they're ripe, unlike conventional crops which are often picked before they are ready. In addition to their nutritional benefits, sustainable foods have the advantage of being produced without jeopardizing public health. On the other hand, factory farms threaten human health by promoting the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria, inducing the spread of food-borne pathogens, releasing toxic pesticides into the environment, and contaminating our air, soil, and waterways with harmful pollutants. For information on the human health threats posed by factory farms and the food produced at these industrial facilities, click here.               Did you know? When animals are raised on factory farms, they are subjected to high levels of stress. According to the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, stress can make animals more likely to catch and spread diseases, and may reduce the quality of their meat.20 70% of Americans believe that the chemicals used in food production pose a moderate or high risk to human health.21 According to the EPA, pesticide residues may remain on fresh crops and in processed foods like applesauce and ketchup.22 Minimize your exposure to these toxic chemicals by purchasing produce raised sustainably without pesticides. Reports Comparison of Muscle Fatty Acid Profiles and Cholesterol Concentrations of Bison, Beef Cattle, Elk, and Chicken Feedlot beef and bison meat contains significantly higher levels of fat and cholesterol and lower levels of omega-3 fatty acids than range-fed beef or bison. This study highlights the differences in nutritional content of the differently raised meats. (Journal of Animal Science, May 2002) Comparison of the Total Phenolic and Ascorbic Acid Content of Freeze-Dried and Air-Dried Marionberry, Strawberry, and Corn Grown Using Conventional, Organic, and Sustainable Agriculture Practices This UC-Davis study shows that organically grown berries and corn contain higher levels of secondary phenolic metabolites than "conventionally grown" crops. Plant-based phenolic metabolites, or phenolics, are potent antioxidants, and have been shown to be important to human health. Download PDF version. (Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, February 2003) Is Agribusiness Making Food Less Nutritious? Growing evidence indicates that today's fruits, vegetables, meat and dairy products have less vitamins and nutrients than in the past. (Cheryl Long, Lynn Keiley, Mother Earth News, June/July 2004) Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains Virginia Worthington. (The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2001) Salicylic Acid in Soups Prepared from Organically and Non-Organically Grown Vegetables Salicylic acid, the active ingredient in aspirin, has been shown to reduce the risk for heart disease and colorectal cancer. Scottish doctors have found that soup made from organic vegetables contains more salicylic acid than soup from non-organic vegetables, so consuming organic vegetables may bring the same health benefits as aspirin therapy. (European Journal of Nutrition, Feb 2002)     Chapter 10:  Organic ASSIGNMENTS: 1.  What is organic food? 2.  What is the difference between organic & sustainable? Be specific & detailed. 3.  Why is it important to look for the USDA Certified Organic label on food? 4.  Why is it important to know where your food comes from? 5.  According to a study mentioned in the chapter, organic farming uses what % less energy than conventional farming? How are energy costs saved? 6. What is the National Organic Program? 7. Read the following report:      “Organic Foods in Relation to Nutrition and Health: Key Facts”   Summarize 8. Visit the Eat Well Guide to find sources of sustainably produced foods in your area. List places within 20 miles of 35244 Organic food is now regulated by the USDA, and organic farmers must follow specific guidelines. For example, animals cannot be given antibiotics or hormones, chemical pesticides cannot be used, and meat cannot be irradiated. Studies are starting to come out proving the health benefits of organic food. Organic farming has legally defined criteria that a farmer must follow, and the farm must be certified by an independent certifier on a regular basis. Organic is a system of farming that has certain characteristics, including: The product was grown or raised by a producer who uses practices in balance with nature, using methods and materials that do not harm or destroy the environment. The farmer is committed to maintaining and replenishing soil fertility with the belief that the highest quality foods are grown on healthy land. Land on which organic food or fibers are grown has been free of known and perceived toxic and persistent chemical pesticides and fertilizers for three years prior to certification. Food has been minimally processed, with no artificial ingredients, preservatives, or irradiation and was not produced using genetically modified organisms. Crops are rotated from field to field, rather than growing the same crop year after year. Cover crops such as clover are planted to add nutrients to the soil and prevent weeds. Organic meat, poultry and egg products come from farms that have been inspected and where rigorous standards have been met, such as using organic feed, not using antibiotics or hormones, and giving animals access to outdoors, fresh air and sunlight. Market animals are raised without the use of toxic, persistent pesticides, antibiotics and parasiticides. Production methods meet all federal, state and local health regulations; work in harmony with the environment; build biological diversity; and foster healthy soil and growing conditions. Detailed records of methods and materials used in growing or processing organic products have been maintained and audited. All methods and materials have been annually inspected by a third party certifier approved by the US Department of Agriculture. All farmers and handlers have maintained and regularly updated written organic plans detailing their management practices. In October 2002, organic food became covered under the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Organic Program. The National Organic Standards Board, a federal advisory panel created to advise the USDA on developing organic legislation, defines organic agriculture as "an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony."1 In order to bear the USDA "Certified Organic" seal, a product must contain 95 to 100 percent organic ingredients.2 Products that contain 100 percent organic ingredients can be labeled "100 percent organic."3 Products that contain more than 70 percent, but less than 94 percent organic ingredients can be labeled "Made with Organic Ingredients," but cannot use the USDA "Certified-Organic" seal.4 Violators of the organic standards can be fined as much as $10,000 for each offense.5 Buyer Beware: only USDA certified-organic foods can use the word "organic" in the actual product name. However, organic ingredients can be listed on the packaging of products that are not entirely organic (for instance, "made with organic flour"). In addition, if a company is certified as an organic producer, it can use the word "organic" in its company name. This name can appear on all of its products - even those that aren't certified organic. Therefore, it is important to look for the USDA "Certified Organic" seal when purchasing organic products. Are organic and sustainable the same? Organic agriculture is becoming more popular because consumers are demanding healthful and environmentally friendly food. In theory, organic agriculture strives to preserve the land for generations to come, but increased demand has interested large agribusiness corporations who intend to profit from the trend. The issue can be very confusing -- for example, even though organic is certified by the USDA, large corporations have found ways to raise dairy cows in confinement, use massively large acreages to plant crops (monoculture), and ship food thousands of miles to sell. These practices are not considered sustainable. This means that organic and sustainable agriculture are similar in some respects but different in others. The following table is a comparison of the two farming techniques. Organic   Sustainable -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Must be independently certified every year and approved by the USDA   1) No certification necessary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Can confine animals. Only need to give animals "access" to outdoors; don't actually have to let them go out.   2) Animals must be permitted to carry out their natural behaviors, e.g., rooting, pecking or grazing. A sustainable farmer might keep his animals indoors in bad weather, but the health and well-being of the animal comes first. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) No antibiotics allowed   3) No legal restrictions, though sustainable farmers either will not give any antibiotics at all or only when the animals are sick and need to be treated. Antibiotics are never routinely put in feed or water to promote growth or to ward off potential disease. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) No hormones allowed.   4) No hormones used. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Large corporations can raise food organically.   5) Sustainable food production is carried out by families who live and work on the land. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) There is no limitation on how many acres can be used to grow crops.   6) Sustainable farmers use various placements of crops and plants as a form of pest control and to build soil fertility. Crops are not raised on massive amounts of acreage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Food can travel thousands of miles before reaching your dinner plats. Organic food does not consider the use of fossil fuels or extended amounts of time that can result between harvesting/ processing and eating.   7) Food is raised and sold as close to the farm as possible. Buying locally and eating as seasonally as possible are sustainable practices. Please note that many organic farmers are also sustainable. The confusion has come about because the USDA organic rules alone are not necessarily sustainable. And many small farmers chose to give up their organic certification when the USDA put their rules into effect in 2002 because the paperwork was overwhelming. But these farmers are still raising animals and crops using organic or what some are now calling "Beyond Organic" methods. In addition, large food companies have started to buy organic companies, which hurts competition and can eventually drive down the price farmers are paid while increasing the profits of the corporation. These large corporations are more likely to have monoculture, where one type of food is raised on large tracts of land, as well as confined animals. They also will ship food very long distances. Even though this can be potentially confusing, don't be discouraged! As a consumer, it's important to know where your food comes from. Purchasing products from local, independent family farmers – whether organic or sustainable – is your best option. Knowing where your food comes from is essential to eating sustainably. Did You Know? According to the USDA, consumer demand for organic agricultural products has increased steadily in the US , rising 20 percent or more annually throughout the 90's.6 A 15-year study conducted by the Rodale Institute determined that organic farming operations use 50% less energy than conventional farms.7 Between 1997 and 2001, farmers and ranchers added one million acres of certified organic farmland for crops and livestock.8 In 2001, 2.3 million acres of U.S. farmland were used to produce certified organic crops and livestock.9 For more information: The USDA National Organic Program - This is the USDA's official National Organic Program website. The site contains information for consumers, producers, organic certifying agents, food processors, and food distributors about organic standards and the organic certification process. Reports and Articles: New research proves organic milk is higher in vitamins and antioxidants than non-organic milk According to new research released today at the Soil Association's annual conference, organically reared cows, which eat high levels of fresh grass, clover pasture and grass clover silage, produced milk which is on average 50% higher in Vitamin E (alpha tocopherol), 75% higher in beta carotene (which our bodies convert to Vitamin A) and two to three times higher in the antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthine than non-organic milk. (The UK Soil Association, January, 2005) “Organic Foods in Relation to Nutrition and Health: Key Facts” Summary of an article published in “Coronary and Diabetic Care in the UK 2004” by the Association of Primary Care Groups and Trusts. It was written by James Cleeton, Policy Projects Co-ordinator at the Soil Association. (The UK Soil Association, 2004) Studies Show How and Why Organic Farming Must Become the Norm in the USA. This article from the Organic Consumers Association discusses a 22-year long study conducted at Cornell University and published in the July issue of Bioscience. The results of the study showed that organic farming of corn and soybeans produced the same yields as conventional, yet with 30% less energy, as well as less soil erosion and no pesticides.                                   Chapter 11:  Pesticides ASSIGNMENT: 1. Why are pesticides harmful?  2. How do pesticides enter the food chain? 3. What is Integrated Pest Management?  4. According to the EPA, how much pesticide is used in the US yearly? 5. How many children suffered from pesticide related poisoning in 2002? 6. What is the Pesticide Data Program ? Click on Progress Report 2006, find data and report on percent of residues of pesticides found in fresh fruits and vegetables, soybeans, wheat and milk. 7.  Go to Trouble on the Farm: Growing Up With Pesticides in Agricultural Communities; click on chapter 7 and list recommendations for All Parents. 8.  Summarize alternative method for specific pest on the following link: Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP). 9.  Go to Smart Produce Guide.  Read article. Which fruits & vegetables have the lowest pesticide residues? 10. After reading all of the information below, what can you do?   There will be a test on this chapter.     Pesticides are sprayed on crops fed to farm animals. Residues are stored in the animals' fat and tissue, and enter our bodies when we eat the meat. Pesticides are one of the most common toxic substances found in food. They can impair the immune system and cause diseases. The primary public health concern surrounding pesticides was once the possibility of severe, immediate (acute) poisoning and the long-term potential for cancer. Today we know that pesticides can also affect the nervous, endocrine (glands and hormones), immune and reproductive systems. They also pose increased threats to infants, young children, the unborn, and other individuals especially susceptible to health problems caused by toxic pollutants. Pesticides have been linked to Parkinson's disease, learning disabilities, hyperactivity, emotional disorders, weakened immune systems, birth defects and low sperm counts. The vast majority of crops grown in the U.S. feed farm animals, not humans. The crops grown for farm animals contain far higher levels of pesticides than crops grown for human consumption.   Food News from the Environmental Working Group contains a list of 12 popular fresh fruits and vegetables that are consistently the most contaminated with pesticides and 12 fruits and vegetables that consistently have low levels of pesticides.     Pesticide residues accumulate in the fat and tissue of animals. By eating the meat, the residues are passed on to the consumer, where they accumulate in our fat over our lifetime. Over 90% of the pesticides Americans consume are found in the fat and tissue of meat and dairy products. Long after their use, pesticides remain in the soil and water. Despite being banned in 1972, DDT has been found in the breast milk of over 99% of all mothers in America. As the food supply becomes more consolidated and global, so does the risk of exposure to toxic pesticides that were banned the US but remain legal and are used in some countries that export food to us. Many sustainable farms rely upon Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as an alternative to the heavy use of pesticides. IPM incorporates a variety of techniques to eliminate pests while minimizing damage to the environment. For instance, an IPM farm might grow pest-resistant crop varieties, use predatory insects to kill plant-eating pests, use mechanical pest traps, and might eliminate nesting areas by plowing under harvested crops. Chemical pesticides are used only as a last resort. Did you know? According to the EPA, over 1 billion tons of pesticides are used in the U.S. every year.1 The American Association of Poison Control Centers estimates that in 2002, 69,000 children suffered from pesticide related poisoning or exposure to poisonous pesticides.2 In 1992, economists estimated that health problems caused by pesticides led U.S. health care costs to increase by $786 million each year.3 According to Cornell entomologist David Pimentel, “It has been estimated that only 0.1% of applied pesticides reach the target pests, leaving the bulk of the pesticides (99.9%) to impact the environment.”4 In 2002, fat (adipose) tissues from beef were analyzed by the United States Department of Agriculture. Over 47% were reported to have pesticide residues.5 What can you do? Consumers can reduce their pesticide intake by purchasing certified-organic foods. Organic produce must be grown without pesticides, and organic meat must come from animals that were only fed pesticide-free organic food. If you eat meat that comes from a family farm, call and ask if pesticides are used on either the produce or feed for the animals. Sustainable farmers use pesticides sparingly, if at all. Visit the Eat Well Guide to find sources of sustainably produced foods in your area. Grass-fed meat is another alternative; a report from the 1975 World Conference on Animal Production revealed that factory farmed animals have as much as 30 times more saturated fat -- where toxins accumulate -- than pasture-raised animals. The key is to try to buy local and to know how your meat was raised. If you shop at a farmer's market or buy directly from a farmer, ask about the amount of pesticides put on crops to feed the animals. For more information: Beyond Pesticides This organization works to promote alternative pest management methods in order to reduce the overuse of harmful chemical pesticides. The website provides information about the risks associated with pesticides and describes alternatives to their use. EPA Pesticides Website Contains a wealth of information about pesticides, the environmental and health effects of pesticides, and the process through which pesticides are approved for use in the U.S. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) This organization educates members of the public about the harmful effects of pesticides, publishes the Journal of Pesticide Reform, and works to promote the reduction of pesticide use through a variety of projects. Pesticide Action Network International A network of over 600 participating organizations, institutions and individuals in over 60 countries working to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound alternatives. Includes the PAN Pesticides Database which provides comprehensive information about 351,731 current and historic pesticide products registered in the U.S. Pesticide Data Program Manages the collection, analysis, data entry, and reporting of pesticide residues on agricultural commodities, with an emphasis on those commodities highly consumed by infants and children.  (US Department of Agriculture) Reports and Articles: Pesticide Exposure of Urban and Suburban Preschool Children with Organic and Conventional Diets This study assessed organophosphorus (OP) pesticide exposure from diet of preschool children. The results suggest that consumption of organic produce appears to be a relatively simple way for parents to reduce their children's exposure to OP pesticides and can reduce children's exposure levels from above to below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's current guidelines. (Department of Environmental Health, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington . March 2003) Smart Produce Guide Fact sheet on pesticides and how to reduce exposure to them on food. From Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, November 2004. Trouble on the Farm: Growing Up With Pesticides in Agricultural Communities This 1998 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) provides an in-depth analysis of the effects of pesticides on the health of farm workers and their families. In addition to proposing public policy solutions to address the problems caused by pesticide use, the report describes techniques that can help farmers to minimize the negative effects of these chemicals.  Source:  http://www.sustainabletable.org Eat Well Guide: http://www.eatwellguide.org/index.cfm