Emerging Cotton Superpower

Brazil has leapt into cotton production in a big way within the last few years, and if many Brazilian producers had their way, the leap would be even bigger, according to the June 29 edition of The New York Times. The recent World Trade Organization ruling against U.S. cotton subsidies has only whetted their appetites. Case in point: A bet Ronaldo Sprilandelli de Oliveira, a big name for a man with big ambitions.

Oliveira started out raising only 250 acres of cotton but has steadily increased production ever since. He expects to finish out this year a wealthy man, earning a profit of $200,000 dollars --- big money in a poor society like Brazil.

He is not alone. Brazil is projected to harvest 1,38 million tons of cotton this year, more than twice what it produced 5 years ago. Observers credit smart crop management and advances in agricultural technology as key factors behind the great leap.

The recent WTO ruling only encourages this trend. Brazil contends that American cotton exports would fall 41 percent and production would drop 29 percent if Washington phased out its subsidies. Granted, that’s not likely to happen any time soon, considering that Washington is determined to appeal the ruling. Still, it’s estimated that world cotton prices would rise 12.6 percent if the ruling is sustained, and that has left many Brazilian producers looking toward an infinitely brigher future that may be just around the corner.

One thing is for sure: Brazilian enjoys many comparative advantages --- for starters, soil rich in nutrients and an almost ideal combination of sunshine and rainfall. But there are still disadvantages. Brazil, after all, remains a developing country with a rickety infrastructure and overworked ports. Also, it’s unlikely the Brazilian passion for high-grade pima cotton, grown primarily in the American Southwest, will end anytime soon.

Even so, in addition to rich soil and abundant sunshine, Brazil has plenty of land – roughly 200 million acres of land --- available for additional cotton planting if things ultimately work out to its benefit.

Wishful Thinking?

“Sometimes it is easier to agree on where we want to go than it is to agree on how to get there,” says the University of Tennessee’s Daryll Ray, reviewing the new book “For the Common Good,” by Herman E. Daly and John B. Cobb.

Daly and Cobb propose nothing short of a radical transformation of American farming --- one “redirecting the economy toward community, the environment and a sustainable future.”

Instead of an agriculture increasingly depended on fossil fuels, they propose more labor intensive agriculture with the family farm providing much of the labor.

A lofty and even laudable goal? By most accounts, yes. But that’s where things get tricky. Transforming agriculture, they argue, would involve:

1. Scrapping subsidies and other agricultural business supports;

2. Increasing the price of oil by selling extraction rights, imposing tariffs on imports and taxing pollution effects with the aim of rendering big-scale fossil fuel-dependent agriculture less advantageous than small family farming;

3. Taxing farmers on the “deterioration of their land as well as for the pollution of air and streams,” resulting in agribusiness becoming less competitive vis-à-vis farms “practicing careful husbandry.”

4. taxing unimproved land at much higher rates than current practices, “but taxes would not be raised because of the improved quality of the farm based on good agricultural practices.” Indeed, sustainable agricultural practices would be “credited against taxes.”

The authors contend that areas anchored primarily in small, family-oriented farms would develop into vibrant communities supporting an array of other products and services. Granted, self-sufficiency is a desirable goal, but is something this radical really within the realm of possibility? Ray apparently harbors serious doubts.

The ABCs of the Cotton Trade Dispute

While many developing countries point to U.S. cotton export subsidies as the sole culprit behind the current world trade dispute, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System economist says the issue is far more complicated than that.

A myriad of issues is driving the dispute over U.S. cotton subsidies, though much of it can be attributed to the fact that so much cotton is no longer spun where it’s grown, says Dr. Robert Goodman, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System agricultural economist and Auburn University associate professor of agricultural economics.

“American growers used to spin 12 million bales of cotton and export only about 5 million,” he syas. “There was a lot of trade in textiles but very little in terms of raw cotton.”

As long as U.S. cotton remained mostly on U.S. shores, the long-standing American practice of subsidizing cotton exports was largely a moot point. Things began to change, though, as more developing countries carved out a bigger share of the world textile market, largely at the expense of the United States.

“As it turns out, because of all this spinning going on now in the Pacific Rim and other parts of Asia --- China, in particular --- these countries have having to import a lot more cotton than they produce,” Goodman says.

As a result, more and more U.S. cotton that once would have been used in American cotton mills is being exported overseas where it’s needed most. But problems have arisen. Developing countries that produce cotton but don’t subsidize exports took note of all the American cotton being shipped to the far corners of the world and screamed “Foul!”

They’re demanding a bigger chunk of the export pie.

In what has turned out to be a landmark trade case, Brazil sued the United States through the World Trade Organization, claiming that U.S.-subsidized cotton distorted free trade by artificially lowering prices and preventing other cotton-producing countries from acquiring a larger share of the world export market.

Eliminating U.S. cotton subsidies is more easily said than done. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to a resolution of the issue involves the wide disparity in the cost structure of the United States versus developing countries, Goodman says. It just costs a lot more to produce cotton here than in developing countries, he says.

Besides, defenders of U.S. subsidies contend there is plenty of blame to go around. United States cotton producers aren’t the sole or even the principal culprit, they argue. They point to the many deft methods developing countries have employed to keep cotton and other U.S.-grown products out of their ports.

“In essence, they amount to de facto tariffs,” Goodman says.

Indeed, American trade negotiators have stated they will consider eliminating export subsidies only when other countries agree to set a time table for eliminating these types of barriers.

Barring a resolution of these trade negotiations, one solution, Goodman says, would be a return to a system that existed in this country only a few decades ago: a vibrant textile manufacturing sector that uses the bulk of domestically grown cotton.

“If foreign countries don’t want us to export, then I say let’s use it to revitalize our own textile industry,” he said. “Grow it here, spin it here, weave it here, sew it here and wear it here. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about all this.”

[Source: Dr. Robert Goodman, Alabama Cooperative Extension System Economist and Auburn University Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, (334) 844-5633.]

Democrats Claim USDA Eased Mad Cow Rules

Senate Democrats accused the U.S. Department of Agriculture with increasing the risk of so-called mad cow disease in the United States by allowing Canadian beef companies to bypass safeguards.

Quarantine Insurance?

Concerns about the unintentional introduction of invasive insect species --- an unwelcome byproduct of more open trade across national boundaries --- have prompted some California fruit and vegetable growers to explore the merits of quarantine insurance.

More on Community-Supported Agriculture

A few recent recent articles outlined the history of community-supported agriculture, a method by which people agree to share part of a farm’s operating expenses in return for deliveries of a crop, usually a freshly grown, organic crop.

The concept apparently originated decades ago in Japan among women concerned about pesticides in their food supply. The organizers referred to this arrangement as teikei --- loosely translated as partnership, though a more philosophical explanation would be “food without a farmer’s face on it,” says Press and Sun-Bulletin correspondent Bill Wingell.

According to Wingell, New York, with 86 CSA farms, appears to lead the rest of the nation, followed by California with 79 and Pennsylvania with 66. There are more than 1,000 such farms throughout the nation. Direct farming to customers in the form of community supported agriculture has increased 37 percent since 1997.

The average income from these farms in 2002 was $19,032, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Combined income accounted for $812.2 million in 2002.

Community-Supported Agriculture Growing in the South

Farming --- family farming --- is in Jean Mills’ blood.

For her, it’s also a passion, if not a calling.

Yes, she considered a different line of work --- for a while, at least. She got her master’s degree and worked for in the city, but the notion of leaving her “family farm just sitting there” while she was off working “just didn’t make any sense.”

(Right: Carol Eichelberger tends broccoli on the Tuscaloosa Community Supported Agriculture farm she operates with business partner Jean Mills.)

So, she decided to return to the farm and pick up where her mom and dad left off.

She derived this passion from her parents. Her dad’s dairy operation, started through the GI Bill shortly after the Korean War, is what first got the farm started. All his life, he tried running a real family farm until the onslaught of what Mills describes as corporate farming made this harder and harder.

“I had inherited part of the farm I grew up on,” Mills recalls, “and I wanted to work up some kind of farming venture to fit our needs.”

Somehow she wanted to keep her dad’s dream alive --- somehow.

At the time, she was growing a chemical-free vegetable garden. Whatever she ended up doing, she was determined it would stay that way, free of agricultural chemicals and other conventional farming methods.

Easier said than done --- or so it seemed at the time in 1989. Finally, she stumbled onto an idea while reading an article in Mother Earth News.

The article explored the growing phenomenon of community-supported agriculture --- in which farmers, usually producers of organic products like Mills, deal with customers who agree to become shareholders of the garden. Harvests from the garden are then divided equally among these shareholders.

The concept was pioneered decades ago by growers and consumers in Europe and Japan.

“We made copies of this article and handed it out to friends and neighbors with whom we had shared produce,” Mills recalled. “We even called a meeting to explain the concept.”

She found the whole idea captivating --- and, as it turned out, so did the friends and neighbors who already had developed an abiding passion for Mills’ freshly grown produce.

“We ended up getting five or six checks before we even had decided what we wanted to do --- a down payment,” she said with a chuckle.

They started out with about 45 families purchasing shares of the garden. Eventually they grew to around 100 shareholders --- a number they’ve maintained for the past 13 years, Mills said.

The enterprise, which Mills and her business partner, Carol Eichelberger, subsequently named Tuscaloosa Community Supported Agriculture, has developed into one of the oldest CSAs in the country --- and, with a nearly 80 percent retention rate of shareholders, one of the most successful.

“It’s a very appealing concept to an increasing number of people who want to know where their food is coming from and whether it’s been organically raised,” said Dr. James Novak, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System economist and Auburn University professor of agricultural economics.

It’s an approach that often turns out to be a win/win situation both for the growers and shareholders, Novak said --- the growers because they’re assured a stable market for their products, the shareholders because they’re guaranteed top-quality produce.

Like most CSA producers, Mills and Eichelberger operate vegetable crops typically not available in freshly grown form at other local farms or grocery stores. The wide range of cool-weather crops includes turnips, collards, kale, kohlrabi, broccoli, various types of Asian and American cabbage, carrots, beets, radishes and green onions. Different types of lettuce and salad mixes are also grown.

Mills and Eichelberger also concluded very early in the game that they didn’t like managing farm workers. So, the scale of their operation is strictly limited to two and a half acres --- a size that enables the two business partners to undertake all the physical labor.

The two quickly learned the importance of adaptability --- an essential skill in all types of specialty farming, community supported agriculture included.

“Specialty farmers have to experiment with a lot of different things and learn how to adjust,” Novak says. “And they can’t expect immediate results.”

Four years ago, in what would prove one of their most risky business decisions, Mills and Eichelberger decided that making the farm more profitable would involve phasing out low-value warm-season crops --- corn, tomatoes, squash and cucumbers --- and training their sights exclusively on spring and fall crops.

They were not disappointed. Their profitability increased and their subscribers stuck with them.

Mills, however, is the first to point out that community assisted agriculture isn’t just about making money. It’s about maintaining and preserving a way of life. That, she says, is part of what makes her line of work so satisfying.

“”We’re not just selling produce but the whole farm --- the whole farm experience,” she said. “We also give them a piece of farming life. As hokey as this may sound, there are still people who want and need that.”

[Source: Dr. James Novak, Alabama Cooperative Extension System Economist and Auburn University Professor of Agricultural Economics, 334-844-3512.]

Federal Funds for High-Tech Farming Experiments

The Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center in Belle Mina may get federal funds to experiment with precision farming if Congress approves an appropriations bill, which includes $625,000 for research.

The bill has been approved by a House committee and now goes to the full House, which could change appropriations before sending the measure to the U.S. Senate.

"This is a good bill for north Alabama's farmers," U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Huntsville, said. "Our farmers make up a large part of our economy in north Alabama, and this bill goes a long way in supporting their needs."

Export Subsidies in Return for Market Access

The U.S. is willing to give up export subsidies for more market access in ongoing trade negotiations.

“We are prepared to eliminate export subsidies, and effect sharp reduction in non-trade-distorting domestic support. In return, we look for extensive market access in developing countries,” said Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Ashley Wills during meetings with senior Indian officials and other trade officials on “the latest developments in agricultural trade talks and other WTO issues.”

Summertime Ideal Time for Food-Borne Pathogens

Summertime is the ideal for food-borne pathogens --- the reason why we should heed the advice of food safety experts such as Maryland Cooperative Extension consumer science educator Lynn F. Little.

Embattled Farmers Seek Right-to-Farm Laws

Many farmers need only glance out their kitchen windows at the nearby strip mall or housing development to be reminded of the multitude of factors threatening their way of life.

Most, though, aren't giving up without a fight. Some are comparing notes with other farmers and seeking creative ways to address this challenge. Others are even lobbying their legislators to pass right to farm laws --- legislation designed protect them against people who move to the country expecting all the benefits of rural life, only to become disaffected with all of the inconveniences associated with farming.

"On one hand, you can sympathize with newcomers," says Dr. James Novak, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System economist and Auburn University professor of agricultural economics. "They move out of the city to enjoy all of this open space only to contend with the odor, flies and spraying often connected with farming life."

What they forget, Novak says, is that you often can’t have open space without farming.

"It really is a double-edged sword," he says. "Yes, farming by its nature is often a smelly, dusty and noisy business," but maintaining open space often involves preserving farming, too. One goes hand in hand with the other."

Problems arise, Novak says, when newcomers file nuisance suits often targeting the foul odors of a nearby livestock operation or the herbicide or pesticide spraying associated with row-crop production.

For some farmers, Novak says, it can boil down to a proverbial catch-22. On one hand, they can't continue farming "without making dust and noise." But they also lack the financial resources to defend themselves against these suits --- a factor that has driven more and more of them to their statehouses demanding passage of right-to-farm laws, he says.

In general right-to-farm laws are designed to protect specific agricultural activities on farms that were operating before the surrounding areas became commercially or residentially developed. They also typically protect farmers in the event of ownership changes, changes in types of farming practices or alterations of farm boundaries.

In most cases, though, these laws are not a carte blanche for the farmer to do whatever he pleases.

Farmers can still be held accountable in cases where they have deviated from a series of "acceptable farm management practices" or where they "violate water or air regulations."

Right-to-farm laws are not without controversy. Some critics allege these laws have been used as a Trojan horse for large corporate animal feeding operations to locate in rural areas.

There is also a question of whether right-to-farm laws are even legal. In a landmark case several years ago, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled portions of its state right-to-farm law unconstitutional on the grounds that protecting farm nuisances essentially amounts to taking a complainant’s property right for the benefit of a private individual --- farmers, in this case. The law was ruled unacceptable under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

Recently, Novak says, agriculture has found common cause with industry, which faces many of the same nuisance complaints as farmers. In the South Carolina Senate, for example, a bill that was originally drafted to protect agriculture against nuisance suits has been amended to extend similar protections to industry.

[Source: Dr. James Novak, Alabama Cooperative Extension System Economist and Auburn University Professor of Agricultural Economics, 334-844-3512.]

Low-Carb Diets A Rip-Off, Group Says

A group of health experts and consumer advocates claims the Atkins diet and other low-carb dieting approaches are unhealthy and a rip-off to boot.

The group, known as the Partnership for Essential Nutrition, wants to educate Americans about the need for healthy carbohydrates such as vegetables, fruits, beans and whole grains.

"Eating vegetables, fruits, whole grains and beans, which are all predominantly carbohydrate, is linked to a reduced risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and a range of other chronic diseases," says Jeffrey Prince of the American Institute for Cancer Research.

A Seismic Shift in World Trade?

“We are standing on the brink of what appears to be a major shift in the international trading system,” says New Zealand Trade Minister Jim Sutton.

What is most significant, Sutton says, is the willingness of developed nations to include agriculture as a vital part of trade talks and to allow an end-date for export subsidies.

“For more than 50 years, they have been defending the use of export subsidies --- their recognition that export subsidies will have to go in this negotiation is an enormous step, he said.

A Tepid Embrace of Biotech

Several West African leaders now say they are willing to consider the benefits of genetically modified foods, but only to a point.

The U.S. is sponsoring a 3-day summit for the 15-member Economic Community of West Africa to promote the adoption of biotech, including genetically modified crops in an effort to boost food production on the continent. Even so, many nations in the region still demand proof that the technology won’t put their environment or their citizens at risk.

The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization contends that biotechnology could help farmers in the developing world feed another 2 billion people within 30 years.

Until now, though, many African nations have feared becoming too dependent on the technology.

"Our obligation is to our people, to provide them not only with food security but also food safety," said Malian President Amadou Toumani Toure.

Burkina Faso became the first west African to allow biotech giant Monsanto to plant transgenic cotton seeds.

Fire Ants a Mixed Bag for Farmers

Red imported fire ants have been a bane for most southerners ever since the insects jumped ship in Mobile Bay and spread throughout the region.

Still, the operative word here is most. True, among most people, homeowners especially, the ants are loathed for their unsightly mounds and feared for their painful stings. Among farmers, though, opinions are mixed.

“The ants threaten the yields of some crops by feeding on newly sown seeds, seedlings and the crop itself --- okra pods, for example,” says John Styrsky, an Auburn University doctoral student in entomology.

Adding to the problem is the fact that fire ants prey on predators of aphids and mealybugs that spread plant viruses, Styrsky says. They also attack or deter other natural enemies of pests.

If this isn’t bad enough, fire ants also can chew through irrigation hoses. Their mounds can damage harvesting equipment, Styrsky says, and the ants are often a nuisance to field workers.

Even so, the issue gets more complicated when one factors in the benefits associated with the ants. Just as red imported fire ants pose many costs, they also offer many advantages in the form of natural pest control.

The ants are major predators of many common farm-related pests including bolls weevils, bollworms, sugarcane borers, velvetbean caterpillar pupae and tarnished plant bugs, Styrsky says. They also prey on stink bugs, horn flies, ticks and chiggers.

“Even if the ants can suppress pests enough to prevent just one application of pesticide, their presence in fields may offer substantial savings to growers,” he says.

A great deal of research has been carried out to determine the benefits of fire ants to cotton.

Scientists have learned, for example, that the ants have forged a mutually beneficial relationship with cotton aphids, another common cotton pest.

“The ants are attracted to the honeydew as a foods sourse and protect cotton aphids from their natural enemies by killing their natural enemies outright or harassing them to the point where they leave the plant,” Styrsky says.

This may actually have a beneficial effect on cotton plants, he says, by increasing fire ant predation of other more damaging pests such as bollworms, armyworms and tarnished plant bugs.”

Researchers have discovered fire ant populations tend to be higher on farmland that is under no-till cultivation, though ant populations often abound along margins of conventionally tilled fields.

The ants have proven to be a mixed blessing for cattle producers.

The ants are likely to be abundant in pastures and hayfields because established colonies are seldom interrupted, Styrsky says.

Newborn calves are extremely vulnerable to fire ant stings and may even be blinded or suffocated if they sustain enough stings to their eyes or mucous membranes. Mature animals are less susceptible, though they can sustain multiple stings from ants pouring out of disrupted mounds.

Fire ant mounds also can damage hayfield mowers. Hay producers are advised not to leave cut and baled hay on the ground for long periods of time because the ants many establish colonies within the bales.

On the other hand, the ants benefit livestock producers in many ways. They are predators of several cattle pests, including horn flies that breed in fresh cow dung as well as ticks and chiggers.

Seventy years have passed since the ants first gained a toehold on the Southern landscape, and they will never be eradicated completely. However, scientists have found ways to work with nature, introducing several parasitoids and natural enemies of the fire ant from their native habitat in South America.

“The ultimate goal of these approaches is to reduce fire ant numbers so they will have less dramatic impact on the environment and human activities,” Styrsky says. “Until then, they’ll remain a dominant insect predator, producing a mixed bag of blessings for farmers and cattle producers.”

[Sources: John Styrsky, Auburn University Entomology Doctoral Student, and Dr. Kathy Flanders, Alabama Cooperative Extension Entomologist, 334-844-6393.]

Almost Foolproof

Almost 3 years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the federal government has made significant changes in the way the U.S. food supply is safeguarded against terrorist attacks. The Food and Drug Administrations’s budget for food security jumped from $11 million in fiscal year 2000 to nearly $111 million for the current fiscal year.

Most of the increase went to add 650 field workers and inspectors, bringing the total to roughly 1,000, according to Dr. Robert Brackett, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

Despite these added safeguards, experts concede the food supply will never be 100 percent safe.

As Dallas Morning News writer Karen Robinson-Jacobs observes, “with an estimated 878,00 restaurants, 57,000 food processors and 34,000 supermarkets, the U.S. food chain is ill-suited to measures like bomb-sniffing dogs at airports" --- an opinion shared by Steven Grover, vice president of health and safety regulatory affairs for the National Restaurant Association.

“Nobody in this business thinks we're going to prevent 100 percent” of potential attacks, he said.

Obesity a Long-Term Problems, Surgeon General Stresses

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona offered sobering advice to New Hampshire health and business leaders meeting recently to determine ways to reverse the steep rise in obesity, especially among the state’s children.

“The good news is that we have science, we have the ability to change this epidemic,” Carmona said. “The bad new is that the change will be intergenerational.”

Attendees also learned that 22 percent of boys and 17 percent of girls living in New Hampshire already are overweight or obese, compared with an overall national rate of 15 percent.

U.S. Appeals, New Zealand Applauds

The United States vows to appeal a World Trade Organization ruling upholding a preliminary trade panel decision that U.S. cotton subsidies undermine global trade.

“We have serious concerns with aspects of the final panel report and after closely viewing the report, we will appeal,” said Richard Mills, chief spokesman for U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick.

Developing nations are calling on wealthy cotton-producing nations to end farm subsidies, which they contend artificially drive down prices and undermine their ability to compete in world markets.

Developing countries, however, aren’t the only ones applauding the WTO decision. New Zealand also celebrated the decision as a victory.

New Zealand, along with Australia, Argentina, India and several other nations, is a party to the anti-subsidy legal action. It is supported by four West African countries --- Chad, Mali, Burkina Faso and Benin, all of which are large-scale cotton producers.

“New Zealand farmers should cheer this ruling,” said Barry Coates, executive director of the relief agency Oxfam. “It not only implies that a large portion of U.S. subsidies to other agricultural products, such as dairy and beef are likely to be illegal under the WTO’s rules, but it also casts doubt over the legality of the EU’s subsidies.”

A Bright Future for Farming despite Setbacks, Says Economist

From the perspective of some U.S. farmers, the last couple of weeks have not been very heartening.

Just as trade negotiators drew ever closer toward a historic agreement to lower global farm trade barriers, the World Trade Organization upheld an earlier trade panel ruling that U.S. cotton subsidies were trade distorting and in violation of the principles of free trade.

For thousands of U.S. farmers, these are more than just routine ebbs and flows in the arcane practice of global trade negotiations. They are setbacks that very well could seal the doom of American farming.

Or will they?

Despite all the gloom and doom associated with farming in recent weeks, one Alabama Cooperative Extension System economist remains optimistic.

“I really don’t have any concerns about the future of agriculture,” says Dr. Robert Goodman, an Extension agricultural economist and Auburn University associate professor of agricultural economics. “Our farmers are well-educated, literate and highly adaptive.”

In addition, he says, they have a good grasp of technology and know how to use it to stay competitive.

Even so, Goodman, a former producer himself, is no stranger to the concerns expressed by many producers.

“If subsidies were wiped out,” we would see a shift in the cost of agricultural production,” Goodman says. “They would make less money and use less equipment, and, consequently, the price of that equipment would fall.”

Land prices also would plummet and so would rent prices. Sagging demand for farm equipment would not only affect equipment dealers but steel and equipment manufacturers as well as the labor market, he says.

“People pushing to remove subsidies have no idea what kind of impact this would have on the economies of the developed world,” Goodman said. “It wouldn’t exactly be a house of cards, but it would be similar in the way one factor would affect many others.”

Still, as Goodman stresses, this is only the worst-case scenario. A more likely scenario would be an evolutionary approach --- one in which the current price-support structure is gradually replaced by one that pays farmers for performance, such as following environmentally friendly farming practices.

One approach that has sparked a great deal of debate recently involves carbon sequestration. In essence, farmers would be paid to adopt limited tillage practices that trap more carbon in the soil, preventing its release into the atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gas emissions.

As its turns out, farmers in Alabama and much of the Deep South already are doing that, Goodman says.

“The kind of limited-tillage farming we’ve adopted in the South already is headed in that direction,” he says. “We’re farming in ways that improve the resource all the time, building up organic matter and enhancing soil fertility.”

Livestock producers already receive similar farm payments for adopting practices aimed at preserving water quality by reducing animal waste runoff.

The important thing to remember, Goodman says, is that farming remains one of the most adaptive segments of the U.S. economy. This adaptability, he believes, will sustain farmers as they navigate the turbulent waters of an increasingly global farming economy.

[Source: Dr. Robert Goodman, Alabama Cooperative Extension System Agricultural Economist and Auburn University Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, (334) 844-5633.]

Feds Too Timid?

A growing chorus of critics maintains the Bush administration is not taking aggressive measures to deal with the growing obesity epidemic.

Citing the billions of dollars spent each year to market high-caloric foods, some are demanding curbs on food advertising aimed at children. Others are calling for an end to agricultural subsidies that promote the sweetening of foods, such as the billions of dollars spent in annual support to U.S. corn growers.

Others point to the wide array of junk food available in schools and the paltry number of recreation facilities available to promote physical activity among young people.

"Everybody at the federal level emphasizes personal responsibility, and it really is important," said Robin Mockenhaupt, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation health specialist. "But if we don't give people access to healthy foods, or give people environments where they can walk and ride their bikes safely, it's really difficult to create change."

For its part, the government has awarded more than $44 million this year to two dozen communities with plans to promote healthier living. President Bush also has asked Congress to appropriate $125 million to expand the program in 2005. This is in addition to the $45 million program administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on behalf of state health departments to promote similar endeavors.

Striking at the Root of Invasive Species

A coalition of scientists, conservationists and representatives from federal and state agencies are striking at the root of what has become one of the state’s most pressing environmental issues: exotic invasive plants --- kudzu, cogongrass and Chinese vine and many others.

With a $13,000 grant from the Alabama Forestry Commission, the Alabama Invasive Plant Council hopes to provide utility and transportation agencies and Alabama citizens in general with cost-effective management strategies for controlling the plants.

A Tale of Two Mites

A sobering account of how two parasites have seriously threatened Arkansas bee populations …

Tracheal and varroa mites, which invaded Arkansas in the early 1980’s, virtually wiped out the state’s bee population --- roughly 99 percent of all wild bees. Some experts estimate as much as 60 percent of domestic bees were killed.

Predictably, local honey is hard to find, and crop pollination has become a serious problem.

Eco-Terrorism an Increasing Threat to U.S. Agriculture, Expert Warns

The groups that may pose the greatest terrorist threats to the United States within its own borders are not necessarily radical Islamicists but extremist animal rights and earth liberation groups inspired by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, says an Alabama Extension Cooperative Extension System bioterrorism expert.

Eco-terrorism --- acts of violence in protest of harm to animals or the environment --- already have occurred in alarming numbers in the United Kingdom and Europe, targeted primarily to biotech executives and scientists.

The United States has not been immune to such acts. In 1996, demonstrators burned a U.S. Forest Service truck in the Willamete National Forest in Oregon. In August 2003, two pipe bombs exploded at an Emeryville, Calif., pharmaceutical company, followed in September 2003, by an explosion at a health and beauty products company in Pleasanton, Calif.

The groups most commonly linked to these acts include Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front.

What especially worries experts is the growing sophistication shown by many of these groups.

“The eco-terrorism problem has been around for quite a while,” said Dr. Robert Norton, an Auburn University associate professor of poultry science and the Alabama Cooperative Extension System’s agricultural biosecurity expert. “They were small in number, but they’re growing now. They’re also becoming better organized and learning from other groups.”

Of special concern to Norton and other bioterrorism experts is the blurring of missions that has occurred in recent years among many of these groups. The Sept. 11 tragedy, he says, not only emboldened many of them but inspired them to borrow pages from Jihadist tactics.

“The 9/11 attacks really resulted in a more strident movement,” Norton said. “What a lot of these began to say is that the United States got what it deserved and that the attacks were justified.”

Borrowing a page from the Irish Republican Army, eco-terrorist groups not only are becoming better organized but are networking --- seeking financial support from other radical groups that share their anti-American, anti-corporate views.

Most of these groups remain very small, Norton said. Even so, from the standpoint of the FBI and other counterterrorism groups, this is an equally disturbing development.

More than 40 years ago, the federal government was able to defeat the Ku Klux Klan, a large, centralized group, by penetrating its ranks with FBI agents.

Eco-terrorist groups, on the other hand, present a special challenge. They have learned to operate in very small groups as a form of survival, and the government is finding these very small cells increasingly hard to infiltrate.

“I think we’re seeing some of the evolution in eco-terrorist groups that we see in Jihadist groups. They’re more and more disconnected --- small cells, few people.

“Compared with Europe, where groups have physically assaulted biotech corporate executives and employees, eco-terrorists acts in the United States have been limited. But that is likely to change,” Norton said.

Until now, for example, Earth Liberation Front, has stated it would not target people. However, a comparatively new group known as Arissa that broke away from ELF several years ago has vowed to target people.

“Today, there have not been any assassinations, but that’s not to say it’s not going to happen, because they appear to be moving in that direction.”

The potential for eco-terrorism is a special concern in Alabama, which is heavily dependent on agriculture, Norton said. He cites the state’s abundant forestland and large number of confined animal feeding operations as sectors of the Alabama farming economy that are especially vulnerable and that should remain closely monitored.

[Source: Dr. Robert Norton, Alabama Cooperative Extension System Agricultural Biosecurity Specialist and Auburn University Associate Professor of Poultry Science, (334) 844-2604.]

Childhood Obesity Debate Down Under

Childhood obesity problems are being debated in Australia the same way they are everywhere else: With a great deal of fervor, acrimony and doubt over what specific role government should serve.

Labour, Australia’s current opposition party, advocates a federal law banning food and drink advertising during children’s television time --- a measure hotly opposed by Australian Prime Minister John Howard as “a retreat by parents from their responsibilities in relation to their children.”

Other experts also have weighed into the issue. Following are a couple of salient comments from experts on both sides of the debate featured recently on The World Today, a news program of the Australian Broadcasting System:

“I didn't see any justification for exempting the junk food industry from being part of a multi-pronged approach,” says Boyd Swinburn, professor of population health at Deakin University, who's also written a report for the Australian Federal Health Department on the childhood obesity problem. “And in fact from the work that we've done and continue to do, it seems like this is really is a major influence on children's eating habits, and therefore should actually be rather central, rather than left out of any multi-pronged approach.”

“If the Government comes trampling in again and starts providing the same activities free, you're going to lose all that voluntary self activity, the quality of community life will suffer,” says Peter Saunders, a social policy expert at the Centre for Independent Studies. “That's what I mean by the unintended consequences of these things. We really have to be very, very careful. Government has a lot of power, but it can wreak a lot of damage as well as it tries to do good.”

Lee County Farmers Pin Hopes on Farm Legislation

One example among countless others of farmers battling a swelling tide of suburbanization…

At the Alabama Capitol, Lee County farm advocates are fighting to protect almost 350 farms landlocked by urban development.

They’re pinning their hopes on the Family Farm Preservation Act under consideration in the Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee. Opponents of the bill say it is a veiled attack on corporate agriculture. Other observers say it may contribute to the continuation of farming in this east Alabama county.

“Bills like this one have been used effectively in the northeast,” said Jim Novak, an agricultural economist for the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. “Not only can this help farmers, but it can also conserve the amount of green space in Lee County.”

Rising Agricultural Powerhouses Threaten U.S. Dominance

From the standpoint of trade, agriculture has always been the American ace in the hole --- one of the few sectors of the U.S. economy that almost invariably posts a trade surplus.

That may soon change. Our growing appetite for imported foods --- olives and avocados, for example --- ultimately may lead to agricultural trade deficits. The Bush Administration predicts the U.S. agricultural trade surplus will drop $10 billion this year, roughly a third of the record $27.3 billion surplus posted in 1996. If current trends continue, the U.S may even begin running a trade deficit, one farm economist predicts.

One other factor: stiffer competition from rising agricultural powerhouses –-- India, China and Russia.

Extra Calories, Not Sugar, Are the Problem, Expert Says

Sugar and other fast-acting carbohydrates are a relatively new addition to the human diet --- the reason why some scientists have expressed concerns that humans are genetically ill-equipped to handle them.

“Eating high-glycemic foods dumps large amounts of glucose suddenly into the bloodstream,” argues Harvard Review editor Craig Lambert in a recent issue, echoing the concerns of David Ludwig and other prominent scientists who have investigated the link between sugar and chronic disease such as diabetes and hypertension. This spike in glucose, Lambert says, causes the pancreas to overreact by secreting “lots of insulin” --- far more than what our hunter-gatherer ancestors likely encountered.

The physiological shocks to our bodies caused by this heavy consumption of sugars and other carbohydrates, he says, not only have contributed to spikes in obesity but even to a doubling of the risk of heart disease.

However, one nutritionist and fitness expert thinks the problem isn’t so simple. Sugar and other fast-acting carbohydrates by themselves are not the major cause of the skyrocketing rates of diabetes and hypertension --- excess calories are. True, sugar and obesity are linked, but sugar isn’t the main culprit.

“People need to stop looking at single food items as the cause of obesity and start getting the bigger picture,” says Dr. Robert Keith, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System nutritionist and Auburn University professor of nutrition and foods. “As far as metabolizing sugar, our bodies do that fairly easily.”

In fact, of all the calorie-containing nutrients, proteins, fats and carbohydrates --- carbohydrate, including sugar is probably the easiest thing for our bodies to metabolize, he says.

The problem, Keith says, is that millions of Americans are consuming too many nutritionally empty, calorically dense foods, including sugars, and not exercising enough.

Case in point: Athletes --- marathon runners, in particular --- have no problem with sugar or, for that matter, dietary fat, he says. They typically consume large amounts of sugar and other carbohydrates so they’ll be guaranteed enough energy to meet peak performance.

“I can take a highly trained marathon runner and feed him a 5,000-calorie-a-day diet heavy with lots of sugar to fill his energy needs and he’ll almost never become overweight or develop diabetes or hypertension because he’s burning these calories running 20 miles a day,” Keith said. “So, again, it’s not the sugar or carbohydrates per se that are bad.”

What is bad, Keith says, is that sedentary people consume too may of these concentrated sources of calories, whether sugar or fat. A good example, he says, would be a woman who drinks two or three non-diet colas a day and doesn’t exercise.

“Two or three sodas a day amounts to about 500 calories,” he said. “In effect, she’s consumed about 25 percent of her daily caloric needs with a substance with no vitamin or mineral value.”

An average-size, physically inactive woman needs only between 1,800 and 2,000 calories a day to maintain her body weight.

“With 500 calories of this already used up with nutritionally empty soft drinks, she will have to obtain all her nutrients from only 1,500 remaining calories – an especially difficult task,” Keith says.

“Chances are, she’ll eat her regular 2,000 calories in addition to the extra 500 from the sodas and become obese,” he said. “But, it is the extra 500 calories that are the problem, not necessarily the sugar.”

The more people deviate from whole, nutrient-rich foods, but calorically less dense foods, the more likely they will become obese, setting themselves up for obesity-related disorders such as diabetes and hypertension.

“The important thing to remember is that isn’t the sugar by itself that causes diabetes and hypertension but excessive calories coupled with lack of exercise,” Keith says.

[Source: Dr. Robert Keith, Alabama Cooperative Extension System Nutritionist and Auburn Univeristy Professor of Nutrition and Foods, (334) 844-3273.]

A Paradox for Beef Producers

Speakers at the World Meat Congress, held in Winnipeg, Manitoba, this week underscored the paradox facing U.S. and Canadian beef producers.

On one hand, they stressed, testing for mad cow disease could help North American producers recover the trade lost after the detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, so-called mad cow disease, in Canada and the United States. But it will also drive up costs.

Some meat packers, notably Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, are willing to go ahead with testing in spite of the costs to meet Japanese buyers’ rigorous testing standards.

However, critics of the Creekstone Farms strategy said this opens up an entirely different set of challenges.

“The danger with that is…how are you going to tell the public why you’re doing it,” asked Alex Thierman, president of the Office International Epizooties, the world animal health body.

“If we have double standards, then we’re likely to lose the whole thing, and then the American consumer is going to demand all their animals are tested as well,” he said.

Still, some nations, because of differences in culture and philosophy, inevitably will demand more safeguards.

“Trying to trump consumer preferences, whether they’re scientifically based or not, is not completely advocated as a good marketing policy,” said Peter Greenberg, managing director of Rabobank’s Canadian operations.

The Best Antioxidant Sources

If you looking for the best antioxidants, your best sources are beans, fruits, potatoes and pecans, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which claims to have conducted the largest and most comprehensive evaluating antioxidant levels in more than 100 commonly consumed foods.

Cranberries and blueberries, chock-full of these disease-fighting compounds, are high on the list. The same goes for Russet potatoes, pecans and spices, including cinnamon and ground cloves.

EU Commissioner: Life after Mad Cow

Offering consoling words to frustrated Canadian beef producers, European Union Agricultural Commissioner Franz Fischler assured them that the Canadian beef industry can rebound from the mad cow crisis.

Europe, he pointed out, rebounded after enduring a mad cow crisis even worse than Canada’s. He credits extensive legislative action and consumer education with helping Europe’s industry recover lost ground.

“It was, in short, an expensive education for us all and one which we will be paying off for some time,” Fischler told delegates at the World Meat Conference in Winnipeg.

“The belief in our beef market has been restored, so much so that beef consumption actually has fully recovered to pre-crisis levels and, in 2003, was actually higher than production for the first time in 20 years.”

Serious But Not Calamitous

In an age of increased travel and international trade, some experts fear that an onslaught of several invasive insects released into the United States at roughly the same time through the nation’s ports or air terminals could overwhelm the nation’s economy.

(Left: The emerald ash borer, one countless invasive insect species that have gained a toehold in the United States.)

It is conceivable but not likely, says Dr. Wayne Brewer, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System entomologist and Auburn University professor of entomology. For one thing, he says, there are many variables to consider besides the invasive insects. Other factors also come into play --- native insect species that compete with the invaders for the same food sources, predators that aren’t found in the invasive species’ original habitat, and, of course humans.

Hindsight really is 20/20, Brewer says, especially when insects are involved --- a fact underscored by the history of imported fire ants unintentionally introduced into the Port of Mobile roughly 70 years ago. In the 1930s as the ants gained a foothold in pasturelands and landscapes throughout the Deep South, few could have imagined that scientists would eventually develop natural methods for holding fire ant populations to manageable levels. Yet, they have, most notably through the introduction of tiny insects, known as phorid flies, imported from the ant’s native South American habitat --- predators that kill the ants by eating out the insides of their skulls.

For that matter, few would have imagined how fire ants eventually would eke out their own vital function within the South’s ecosystem. Entomologists, in fact, have developed a grudging appreciation for the beneficial roles these ants have begun to serve throughout the South, such as keeping destructive cotton insects at bay.

“Pity the poor bollworm or boll weevil that drops to the ground off of a cotton plant,” Brewer said.

Brewer predicts the ants will also prove highly useful by keeping down populations of gypsy moths, a highly destructive forest pest, if they ever become established in the South.

“When the moths lay eggs on the sides of trees, you can bet those fire ants will be out there scrambling for them,” Brewer said.

Gypsy moths, Brewer says, are a good example of how a pest invasion, once considered a calamity, eventually loses steam over time.

“They first came on like gangbusters when they were first introduced into the Northeast,” he says. “But people have learned to live with them. Though their composition may be a little different, the forests are still there.”

Much of the credit, Brewer says, belongs to the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Department of Agriculture, which began introducing some of the moth’s natural enemies into infested forests.

“Some died, some didn’t do much, but others have had a major impact,” Brewer says.

In fact, many of these predators will continue following these moths along their trek to other parts of the continent --- another example of how the effects of insect invasions decrease over time.

“What you see is a sort of edge effect --- meaning that the devastation at the front of the movement is worse because the pest’s natural enemies haven’t had time to catch up,” Brewer says.

History abounds with other examples of invasive insects that turned out to be ciphers over time.

“Entomologists, for example, feared that the cereal leaf beetle introduced from France into the U.S. breadbasket in the 1960s would devastate cereal crops,” Brewer said. “And for a while, it did.”

Nevertheless, researchers were able to find natural predators of the beetle and develop plant varieties resistant to the beetles, he said.

“Who worries about cereal leaf beetles now?” he asks. “Do you see anything in newspapers? No, you never hear anything about them, though they are a gorgeous little insect.”

[Source: Dr. Wayne Brewer, Alabama Cooperative Extension System Entomologist and Auburn University Professor of Entomology and Plant Pathology, (334) 844-2935.]

Room for Improvement

By most standards, the American food industry has made great strides reducing levels of food-borne illness within the past decade.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that cases of E.coli O157:H7 declined 36 percent. Campylobacter, associated with raw or undercooked poultry, dropped 28 percent. Even the most common for of food-borne illness, salmonella, associated with contaminated meat, poultry, eggs or produce, declined 17 percent.

Even so, federal officials and food industry watchdogs argue there is still room for improvement. This may even involve removing food inspectors from sectors of the food industry where risks are comparatively low and reassigning them to industries of potentially higher risks.

Case in point: meat plants. The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act dictates that government inspectors must be present at all times in factories where animals are slaughtered and their meat is processed. However, Elsa Murano, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s undersecretary for food safety, argues this constitutes a needless waste of resources in some cases.

She says food inspectors should be moved from plants specializing in highly processed, shelf stable products, such as beef jerky and canned stew --- widely considered areas of low risk --- to plants where products are more likely to contain food pathogens, such as raw hamburger.

States Finding Creative Obesity Solutions

Many states are learning that legislative statutes are not the most effective to address the obesity epidemic. Officials in some states are trying to tackle the problem more creatively. Some argue they’re turning up impressive results.

In Texas, for example, state Agriculture Commission Susan Combs, was dubbed the “Food Czarina” after securing a waiver to transfer the state’s school breakfast and lunch program from the state education department to her department.

She then introduced school nutrition policies against fried and fatty foods in March and developed a media campaign to encourage healthier eating and physical activity. Some large food companies have vowed to follow her lead.

“I did this by fiat” rather than by a hotly contested effort,” Combs said.

At least one expert agrees.

“She was able to do more than she ever would have been able to do with a statute,” Richards said. “Passing a bad law now can cause inadvertent mischief.”

Primed for Leadership

China could become a major player in agricultural biotech in only a few more years, argues one expert.

Speaking at the 16th National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Dr. Neal Van Alfen, dean of the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at the University of California, Davis, said China’s uses of ag-biotech has been substantial.

The meeting, considered one of the world's most influential agricultural biotechnology conferences, was held recently at the University of Guelph, Canada.

In the past decade, China has posted a double-digit increase in the rate of adoption of bio-technologies --- the fastest in Asia and one of the highest among developing countries, Alfen said.

China planted 700,000 hectares of transgenic cotton three years ago. That figure has now jumped to 2.8 million hectares, ranking 5th in the world. Only the United States, Argentina, Canada and Brazil, at 42.8 million, 13.9 million, 4.4 million and 3.0 million hectares were ahead by the end of 2003.

"China will take the lead in the next five years," said Robert Wager, professor with Malaspina University.

Extension-Sponsored Precision Agriculture and Field Day, July 20

The Alabama Cooperative Extension System will sponsor a North Alabama Precision Agriculture and Field Crops Day July 20 to highlight how precision farming techniques are being adopted throughout the Tennessee Valley.

Registration for the tour will begin at 7:30 a.m. at Servico Gin in Courtland. Tour buses will depart at 8:15 a.m. Stops will include C&C Farm in Courtland, the Yeager Farm in Moulton and Glenn Acres Farm in Hillsboro.

For many Alabama producers, precision farming has become a matter of economic survival. It has enabled many of them not only to cut costs but to safeguard the environment by applying farm chemicals only where they’re needed. Labor is also an issue. Turning out a crop is hard enough without the added challenge of finding and keeping labor. Precision farming methods have enabled some farmers to substitute technology for labor by becoming more efficient in every facet of their operations.

Tour stops will focus on variable-rate nitrogen application, variety trials, twin-row corn and related precision agricultural applications.

Following lunch, area producers will discuss the use of precision agriculture on their farms. Vendors will also be on hand to demonstrate precision agriculture technology.

Extension agent Shannon Huber Norwood, who specializes in precision agriculture, hopes producers will finish the day with an appreciation of the advantages of this new technique and an understanding of how it can be implemented on their own farms.

For more information about the tour, contact Norwood at 256-353-8702, ext. 26.

A Window of Opportunity?

Is a breakthrough on trade negotiations just around the corner? Not quite, though some of the major players in the ongoing global trade saga remain hopeful.

What we do know is that an informal coalition of five nations --- the so-called P5 or “Five Interested Parties” --- has achieved a “convergence” in trade negotiations. The group, comprised of Australia, Brazil, the European Union, India and the United States, agreed last Sunday evening that “export subsidies need to be removed gradually, domestic farm aid needs to be reduced substantially, and market access needs to be increased substantially.”

High-sounding words, but to they mean anything? This much is sure: The so-called convergence has set a lot of activity into motion --- a green light for trade experts to begin studying figures, deadlines, tariffs and other concrete matters. While conceding that it is a very promising development, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorin cautions that “there is a great deal of work ahead.”

One other important thing to remember: the P5 represents an influential, but nonetheless small percentage of the 147 member states of the World Trade Organization.

Consensus among the 5 nations could pave the way for an agreement down the road, but there are still major obstacles along the way. Among the 25 members of the European Unions, for example, several still are opposed to reducing farm subsidies and opening their markets.

Furthermore, these negotiations involve an all or nothing deal. As long as there is no agreement on all 20 chapters associated with the Doha Round of trade negotiations, the problem remains unresolved.

Much is at stake. Progress within the Doha development round of free trade negotiations could increase the world economy by as much as $500 billion. All of this could be lost if a trade deal isn’t worked out by July, when the U.S. begins focusing on its presidential election and the European Union prepares for executive changes. Experts fear months or even years could pass before these talks are resumed.

More than 80 percent of all world exports are produced by only 10 nations, according to the United Nations Conference on trade and Development. On the other hand, six of the world’s poorest nations are worse off today than they were 20 years ago, according to Oxfam International.

USDA Test Reporting Policy Sparks Outcry

In a decision that already has sparked outcries from critics, the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to notify industry officials of positive mad cow test results at least an hour before informing the public.

The story, reported by United Press International, comes as government officials also are being investigated for possibly leaking information about the first positive U.S. detection of mad cow disease to commodity traders before informing the public.

Meanwhile, the USDA reports no positive results have been detected in the second week of its expanded testing for mad cow disease.

A total of 1,710 samples were performed on tissue samples from cattle between June 7 and June 13. All of these tests were negative, according to the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Biotech: Shorn of Its Idealism?

Is there anything biotech can’t do? Proponents of the technology say no. Many critics, on the other hand, would argue the technology has not lived up to the idealism once associated with it.

They point to the biotech industry’s greater emphasis on using transgenic products to enhance health and beauty --- one, they argue, has occurred at the expense of the earlier, loftier goal of sparking a second green revolution and ending global hunger.

“For many in the scientific community,” writes Asia Times reporter Alan Boyd, “the smorgasbord of marketing claims merely adds to the credibility problems that are piling up against genetic engineering, especially at its base claims of boosting food output that have not been realized.”

One major point of contention involves the subsistence crops considered crucial in the war on hunger, such as cow pea, millet, sorghum and teff. None of these are being improved, critics contend, largely because they offer no financial incentive for major biotech industries.

Biotech’s defenders, on the other hand, argue there is plenty of blame to go around. They say one of the biggest obstacles to the widespread adoption of biotech in developing countries has been stiff opposition from Third World govenment leaders. A prime example: the the 2002 famine in which leaders in Zambia and Zimbabwe spurned U.N.-donated corn because it contained bioengineered seeds.

They also stress that biotech firms have shared proprietary data with researchers throughout the world and tested many crops in developing nations where profit potential is restricted.

Sludge Wars

An article in the June 14 edition of the Fresno Bee underscores the sharply divergent views on the application of sewage sludge on marginal land.

Cecil Howe wants to apply sewage sludge on a 40,000-acre corner of his Kings County, CA, ranch on a clay-hardened, lizard- and weed-infested lake bed once used to grow cotton. The sludge, he hopes, will rejuvenate his land, allowing him to grow non-edible crops such as alfalfa and cotton.

Predictably, his effort has ignited a firestorm of criticism among some local residents. As Fresno Bee reporter Mark Grossi bluntly describes it, sludge is “whatever flushes down toilets and drains into sewage plants, where a treatment process removes most liquids, bacteria and many other pollutants.” Small wonder why so many people are repelled by it and why the question of what to do with it is so complicated.

After reviewing numerous sludge-related studies for years, EPA is convinced that the waste material is not dangerous when applied and monitored carefully. Composting, for example, removes many of the remaining impurities, resulting in the same type of compost product widely available at home and gardening stores. EPA now estimates about 5.6 million tons of dry sewage sludge are used or disposed of each year. About 60 percent of this is applied to land.

Some experts still have their doubts, including Cornell University Professor Ellen Harrison, whose research has revealed that bacteria and viruses can survive in lightly treated waste classified as Class B sludge. More careful treatment is required to remove them, although it can be done.

Still, there is the added problem of trace metals, such as mercury and lead. No amount of treatment, Harrison says, will remove these materials --- substances linked with kidney disease, hypertension, liver damage, neural damage and other conditions.

Critics of sludge application also cite a 2002 National Academy of Sciences report that that claims that EPA’s sludge standards are grounded in outdated science.

Federal officials nevertheless claim sludge not only can be applied safely but the trace elements can be monitored and managed effectively.

At Auburn University, Dr. James Hairston, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System water quality scientist and Auburn University professor of agronomy and soils, said EPA increasingly has found itself trapped between the “proverbial rock and hard place” on the sludge issue.

“Aside from land application, the only remaining options are to dump it in the ocean incinerate it, or store it in landfills,” Hairston said. “But all of these raise their own set of problems.”

Dumping in the oceans causes imbalances in the underwater ecosystem, while incinerating it releases more CO2 into the atmosphere – a problem associated with global warming, he said. On the other hand, if it’s stored in landfills, there is the risk some of the sludge leeching into groundwater.

“There’s only a handful of ways to solve the matter, and all of them carry their own set of problems,” Hairston said.

(Source: Dr. James Hairston, Alabama Cooperative Extension System Water Quality Scientist, 334-844-3973.)

The Roots of Black Belt Obesity

Two Alabama Cooperative Extension System experts offer a poignant appraisal of the childhood obesity epidemic in Alabama’s impoverished Black Belt in an opinion-editorial featured in the June 13 Commentary section of the Birmingham News.

One of the ironies associated with the obesity epidemic is that it has masked what remains one of the biggest health problems in the region: malnutrition.

Fifty years ago, “outsiders were often shocked by the appalling numbers of visibly malnourished children,” in the region, write Dr. Robert Keith, an Extension System nutritionist and Auburn University professor of nutrition and foods, and Dr. Jean Weese, an Extension food scientist and Auburn University associate professor of nutrition and foods. “Things aren’t that different today. Thousands of overweight children in the region are just as badly malnourished, though their size often belies this fact.”

While the link between obesity and malnourishment can be attributed to a “dense web of causes," the two experts cite the abundance of “cheap, high calorie but nutritionally empty food” as one of the causes.

An Extra Dollop Won’t Do

Shelby County school food planners believe they’ve devised a simple, but effective way to cut the childhood obesity problem down to size.

They reason it’s not so much the school cafeteria food that’s causing children to gain weight but how much of it they eat. So, they’re entrusting cafeteria workers with allotting portion sizes rather than allowing school children to do it themselves.

Currently, only a handful of Shelby County school serving lines are set up that way. However, school officials eventually plan to do away with all-you-can-eat-style lunch lines. New schools will be equipped with lunchrooms designed to allow cafeteria workers to serve students in line, said Linda Godfrey, child nutrition program coordinator for the school system.

Off the Beaten Track

More and more, consumers are venturing off the beaten retail track and opting for organic foods.

Price remains one of the biggest hurdles. In a trip to a local organic store, one reporter noticed organic broccoli selling for a dollar more than conventional broccoli and organic carrots costing almost a third more. Organic ribeye steaks cost two dollars more a pound.

Not do be outdone, a growing number of determined organic consumers are finding innovative ways to overcome these challenges. One option is to form food-buying clubs by which a group of people pool their resources and buy directly from wholesalers. Another option is community-supported agriculture, in which people agree to pay a share of an organic farm’s operating expenses.

The good news, say organic food supporters, is that it’s getting easier and easier to find organic bargains. Currently, organic foods, produced without pesticides, growth hormones or other additives, represent less than 2 percent of U.S. food sales.

Setting the Benchmark

Ronald Reagan was not the only U.S. president who set a standard for physical activity. Virtually every modern American president has maintained some form of regular activity.

Following is a summary of the exercise habits of the last 10 presidents.

Harry S. Truman

The 33rd president was famous for his brisk two-mile walk every morning, maintaining a rapid pace of 128 steps a minute --- a daily ritual he described fondly as his “morning constitutionals.” Newspaper reporters often had a difficult time keeping up with him. Truman, who stood at 5 feet, 10 inches tall, weighed about 185 pounds when he entered the presidency, about 175 pounds at the close of his second term. He never smoked but drank moderately.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Ike, as the 34th president is fondly remembered, was an avid golfer who even installed a putting green on the White House lawn. He was also a heavy smoker throughout most of his adult life. At West Point, he began rolling his own cigarettes, eventually building up to a four-pack-a-day habit. He finally quit in 1949 at the urging of his physician. After suffering a heart attack as president, Eisenhower was prescribed a regimen of walking and physical activity to regain his strength. Golf became a form of cardiac rehabilitation. Like his predecessor, Ike drank moderately.

John F. Kennedy

Despite a bad back and other chronic health problems, Kennedy enjoyed sailing, swimming, golf and an occasional touch football game. During his presidency, he swam in the White House pool between 20 and 30 minutes before lunch and early in evening. JFK requested that the water be heated to 90 degrees to soothe his ailing back. He also undertook a daily regimen to strengthen his back muscles. Considered a natural athlete by family and friends, Kennedy was a superb golfer, shooting in the high 70s or low 80s. He was an inveterate cigar smoker.

Lyndon B. Johnson

Once a three-pack-a-day smoker, LBJ suffered a heart attack in 1955 while serving in the Senate. His main modes of exercise were golfing and swimming in the White House pool. He drank moderately.

Richard M. Nixon

The 37th president bowled, golfed and swam occasionally. When confined for long periods of time, he often ran in place to maintain his fitness. He drank moderately and occasionally smoked a pipe.

Gerald R. Ford

The 38th president arguably was the most gifted athlete of all the 42 chief executives. His outstanding performance as a University of Michigan Wolverine center attracted the attention of the Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers, both of which offered him contracts. Ford was an avid swimmer, skier, golfer and tennis player. He also used an exercise bike and lifted weights in the presidential study.

He was a regular pipe smoker, consuming about 8 bowls of tobacco each day.

Jimmy Carter

Carter’s manic passion for self-improvement often was reflected in his exercise regimen. In a much publicized incident during his presidency, Carter collapsed while running a long race.

In addition to jogging, Carter enjoyed hiking, bicycling, playing tennis, cross-country skiing and bowling.

He drank moderately and smoked an occasional cigar.

Ronald Reagan

(See Below)

George H. W. Bush

A tennis player since the age of five, the 41st president also jogged voraciously. He also liked playing horseshoes and racquetball. Fishing was another favorite pastime --- one Bush often used during his presidency to think or clear his mind. In more recent years, Bush has also acquired an interest in skydiving.

Bill Clinton

Despite his poor eating habits, Clinton remained a consistent jogger throughout his presidency. At 6 feet, 2 inches tall, Clinton maintained a weight of around 220 pounds during his presidency.

George W. Bush

The 43rd president maintains a strict physical and dietary regimen. At 6 feet, he maintains his weight at approximately 190 pounds.

Bush has been a vociferous spokesman for physical fitness, unveiling a U.S. Health Initiative in 2003 that encouraged Americans to be physically active, to eat a healthy well-balanced diet and to get regular health screenings.

Billion-Dollar Potential in Cuba

U.S. companies have billions of dollars worth of economic opportunities in Cuba, experts say. However, the country's crumbling infrastructure will first have to be modernized.

The biggest opportunities for growth include agriculture, tourism and telecommunications, said speakers at a conference organized recently at Florida International University.

Beef, pork and poultry producers would especially profit from trade liberalization with the communist country, they say. The typical Cuban eats much less meat today than in the 1980’s, when the Soviet Union was its principal trading partner, said James Ross, a food and agriculture professor at the University of Florida.

An Alabama advocate of closer Cuban trade relations couldn't agree more.

Writing in a Birmingham News op-ed earlier this year, Dr. Diego Gimenez, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System animal scientist and a Cuban-American veteran of the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion, said farmers in Alabama and throughout the South could profit immensely from trade liberalization with Cuba.

Aside from beef, pork and poultry, Gimenez said, Cuba is in critical need of timber, another abundant Alabama commodity --- one reason, he believes, “why the Port of Mobile has the potential of becoming a major hub of Cuban--American trade once relations resume.”

“It will be a long time, perhaps decades, before Cuba develops a market-driven agricultural sector,” Gimenez wrote. “For now, it must focus on restoring as much self-sufficiency as possible. This will require an infusion of new technology and new ways of thinking both at personal and institutional levels --- a role we in the Alabama Cooperative Extension System and other land-grant institutions throughout the Southeast are ideally suited to provide.”

“In strictly economic terms,” Gimenez believes the “technological transfer is likely to be a one-way street for the foreseeable future.” In the meantime, he says Alabama and other Southern states will have a great deal to learn from Cuba, “a highly literate, multiracial society that enjoyed a large degree of tolerance long before the Revolution."

Currently, most U.S. trade to Cuba is prohibited under the embargo imposed in the 1960’s with the aim of toppling Cuban President Fidel Castro. However, in a law passed in 2000, U.S. farmers and companies can sell food and agricultural products to Cuba on a cash-only basis.”

Cuba, on the other hand, is not permitted to sell anything to the United States. The U.S. Cuba Trade and Economic Council estimates the value of American agricultural products purchased by Cuba at roughly $430 million, excluding other costs.

Room For Improvement

Wealthy countries have made headway rendering their farm subsidies less trade distorting, but they have a long way to go, says the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

An annual OECD survey of member states’ agricultural policies found that farmers continued to receive roughly a third of their gross receipts from subsidies and other similar financial transfers. Farmers in wealthy countries received more than $257 billion in financial support from taxpayers and consumers last year --- about 32 percent of their gross receipts.

OECD said the “still large share of output and input-linked support encourages domestic production, distorts trade and contributes to depressing world prices.”

Ironically, while the United States is often pinned with much of the blame, its farm subsidies aren’t the most trade distorting. The biggest malefactors include Switzerland, Norway, Korea and Japan, whose farmers receive between 58 and 74 percent of their gross receipts through government support. Subsidies and transfers account for only about 18 percent of U.S. farmers gross receipts.

Reflecting on a Physically Active Life

Ronald Reagan had his share of critics as president, but, as historians are discovering, he was an unusually disciplined individual who never let the demands of the office prevent him from maintaining a rigorous schedule of physical fitness.

At least one nutrition expert speculates that this disciplined lifestyle not only kept Reagan looking fit but also may have staved off the effects of Alzheimer’s disease until much later in life.

Reagan’s passion for physical activity was acquired early in life, first as a YMCA-trained teenage lifeguard in his hometown of Dixon, Ill. Later, as a sports announcer in Des Moine, Iowa, he developed a passion for horseback riding --- a pastime he found especially stimulating, both mentally and physically.

He also undertook many of the heavy chores around his beloved 700-acre Rancho Del Cielo, pruning trees, clearing brush and digging postholes for fences.

Following his near death from an assassination attempt in 1981, Reagan was advised by his doctors to follow a weight-lifting regimen to speed his recovery --- a routine he maintained consistently for the rest of his two presidential terms.

Reagan carefully maintained an ideal weight for his height. During long, often grueling flights on Air Force One, Reagan sometimes deviated from his usually Spartan eating regimen when his wife wasn’t onboard, opting for typically Midwestern fare such as meatloaf and macaroni with lemon meringue or chocolate chip pie for dessert. For snacking between meals, however, Reagan maintained his usual ironclad discipline, opting for grapes, apples and plumbs. Never much of an alcohol drinker, he usually stuck with water and decaffeinated coffee.

Reagan also maintained an active reading schedule in his free time, preferring biographies and Western novels.

Was this enough to stave off the effects of Alzheimer’s disease until comparatively late in life?

Experts will never be certain. What they do know is that Reagan’s physically active lifestyle may have prevented the onslaught of Alzheimer’s disease earlier in life, possibly while he was president, said Dr. Robert Keith, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System nutritionist and Auburn University professor of nutrition and foods.

“In terms of dealing with Alzheimer’s disease, he was ahead of his time in some respects,” Keith said. “He ate the sorts of high-antoxidant foods that research has shown to delay the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, and he also kept his mind very active until very late in life.”

The fact that he was very old before he suffered significant impairment from his disease is further evidence that lifestyle choices may have played a role, Keith added.

Reagan’s disciplined weight-lifting regimen begun in his 70s also put him far ahead of the curve, Keith said.

“There’s now a huge push to get more senior citizens to lift weights,” he said. “It helps elderly people build stronger bones and keep their muscles conditioned so they can remain mobile.”

While there is no 100 percent effective method for preventing Alzheimer’s disease, experts believe people may reduce their susceptibility to the disease through regular physical exercise and through antioxidant-rich diets high in fruits and vegetables.

People who keep their minds active throughout life working puzzles or taking classes also appear to face a lower risk of developing the disease, Keith said.

[Source: Dr. Robert Keith, Alabama Cooperative Extension System Nutritionist and Auburn University Professor of Nutrition and Foods, (334) 844-3273.]

A Final Appeal for Global Trade

Leaders of the G8 trading bloc, tired of stalemate, have put together a package they hope developing countries can’t refuse.

With a goal of jumpstarting stalled trade talks, their blueprint calls for global cuts in agricultural tariffs and farm subsidies. The statement said its members were even willing to discuss issues of special interest to poor countries and to allow developing countries to open trade barriers at their own pace.

The G8 also is calling for “comprehensive negotiations on all forms of competition, domestic support and market access. All three pillars of the agricultural regulations must be treated with equal ambition.”

But the question remains: Will developing countries buy into it?

Despite the new concessions, trade experts continue to express doubts. Some trade observers even fear the stalemate could last for years.

The G8 trading bloc represents 8 nations, $24 trillion or roughly two-thirds of the world’s gross national product.

Beefing Up U.S. Food Security

Are U.S. departments and agencies charged with safeguarding the food supply integrated enough to respond effectively to food-related calamities?

That’s a question many policymakers began asking last December following the first detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, so-called mad cow disease, in the United States. Since then, a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on realignment and realization of government departments and agencies has concluded that the U.S. food safety regulatory system is a patchwork system too complex to deal with future food safety risks.

Change may be coming soon. A recent U.S. General Accounting Office report proposes an integration of related departments and bureaus. Barring that, it recommends the establishment of an independent organization. In addition to simplifying and rationalizing administrative procedures, the report reasons, an independent organization can respond to emergencies quickly in the event of an emergency.

Why Our Grandparents Weren’t as Heavy

The question is asked time and again: Why has the obesity epidemic occurred only within the last few decades. Didn’t our parents and grandparents have access to many of the same high-calorie foods we did --- marbled meats, white bread and, of course, sugar?

To some extent, they did, says Dr. Robert Keith, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System nutritionist and Auburn University professor of nutrition and foods. But there have been several big changes since then, virtually all of which can be attributed to stunning technological advances.

Transportation has been a big factor. Fifty years ago, most families, even the most affluent ones, had access to only one automobile. That meant a lot of family members either walked or used a bicycle throughout the day.

True, there were fast food restaurants as far back as the 1950’s, but they remained for off the beaten track --- not to mention, novelties --- for most Americans, especially rural dwellers. Keith, for example, remembers only one McDonald’s restaurant within 100 miles of where he lived as a middle school student --- one he visited infrequently and strictly as a treat.

Today, it’s estimated 30 percent of American children between the ages of four and 19 eat fast food. Older and wealthier Americans consume even more. Roughly 7 percent of the U.S. population visits McDonald’s every day. Twenty to 25 percent eat in some kind of fast-food restaurant. And don’t forget convenience stores, chock-full of everything from candy to soft drinks.

Today, Americans eat 200 more calories each day than they did 10 years ago --- an increase that without adequate exercise would add up to a weight gain of 20 pounds a year. Small wonder why almost 65 percent of Americans are overweight today, compared with 46 percent in 1980.

Even so, Keith believes the advances in food technology aren’t entirely to blame.

“They’re partly responsible for part of this, but the problem is also driven by consumers,” he said. “No food processor would be foolish enough to stock grocery shelves with whole-wheat bread if few are going to buy it.”

This is where Keith perceives a role for government.

“Governments can set the tone,” he said. “They can’t tell you what to eat, but they can set parameters and encourage consumers to follow them.”

When consumer patterns change, manufacturers and other key industries will follow, he said.

Fruit Consumption Declines Among Low-Carb Dieters

Stop ordering sandwiches without bread, advises a Purdue University nutrition expert. He contends the low-carb diet mania sweeping the country simply doesn’t work. Nor do any fad diets, for that matter.

Bill Evers is a seasoned veteran of diet fats, having run across numerous “revolutionary” diet programs through the years working as a Purdue University professor of foods and nutrition and Cooperative Extension educator --- small wonder why he takes such a jaundiced view of these approaches. He says the current trends are no different than their predecessors.

He's especially worried about the effects the passion for low-carb dieting have had on fruit and dairy consumption.

Thanks to bad publicity associated with these products, millions of Americans have succeeded in wiping out the “whole bottom of the food guide pyramid,” which stresses healthy eating, Evers said.

There is a big role for fruits and dairy in the diet --- a very big role --- Evers said.

Meanwhile research confirms Evers concerns. Millions of Americans, caught up in the low-carb mindset, are shunning fruits, even though it’s been consistently shown that fruits play a crucial role in healthy eating.

AC Nielson pollsters discovered from a nationally representative sample of 1,000 adults that 12 percent are following a low-carb diet. Among those on low-carb diets, 30 percent said they had reduced their fruit consumption and 14 percent had stopped eating fruits altogether. That means that 44 percent of low-carb dieters --- roughly 11 million Americans --- may have dropped from their diets some essential nutrients commonly associated with fruit.

Wandering Genes

No one is known to have gotten sick from eating transgenic foods. Nor have these crops caused any sort of environmental catastrophe, despite repeated warnings from conservation groups.

Even so, transgenic crops are showing up in places where they’re not invited --- or wanted --- “from rural gardens in Mexico to organic farms in Canada, even on barges of corn that are “GM-free,” write Tom Knudson, Edie Lau and Mike Lee, three journalists investigating the potential threats of transgenically modified crops.

Gene migration, they contend, may pose a bigger obstacle to the wholesale adoption of transgenic foods than any other factor.

It’s also proven to be a bonanza for biotech critics whose earlier dire predictions never panned out. They pin the blame not only on biotech manufacturers but the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Last year, the USDA spent almost $180 million on biotechnology research, but many critics say this isn’t enough. Less than two percent of this --- $3.4 million --- was routed to the agency’s Biotechnology Risk Assessment Grants Programs, charged with studying environmental and food safety impact.

AEA Concerned about Junk Food in Schools

When a politically powerful organization like the Alabama Education Association raises questions about the prevalence of junk foods in schools, one begins to wonder how much longer these products will be around.

An article featured on the front page, June 7 edition of the AEA Journal stressed the growing sentiment throughout the nation to ban soft drinks, candy and snacks from public schools. In 2002, for example, California established standards for fat and sugar content and limited carbonated drinks. Other states, notably Arkansas, also have enacted stricter standards.

Alabama, however, is caught in a proverbial catch-22, the article stresses, because “school administrators are dependent on revenues produced from vending machines.”

For example, Jim Payne, Fort Payne city school superintendent, uses about $50,000 from soft drink and snack sales to support general school operations.

“If we lose this revenue, the state would have to replace the funds,” Cunningham said, “We couldn’t operate without it. On the state report card for local funding, we received an F.”

While conceding that junk foods play a role in childhood obesity, two Alabama Cooperative Extension System obesity experts believe they are not the major culprit.

Part of the solution certainly will involve state policymakers and school administrators finding ways to limit their use in schools, but this should comprise a much wider effort to address the growing epidemic of childhood obesity, they say.

Nutrition education should also be targeted to children very early in life through programs such as Head Start to discourage poor eating habits that are enforced through primary and middle school, said Dr. Jean Weese, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System food scientist who recently conducted a study of the childhood obesity epidemic in Alabama’s Black Belt.

One of the sad realities associated with childhood obesity is that many children by age 9 or 10 have developed lifestyle habits that are almost impossible to change.

It’s also time to reintroduce mandatory physical education in the schools, said Dr. Robert Keith, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System nutritionist, pointing out that many children can go an entire day without any physical exercise.

Both agree that more nutrition training should also be aimed at food providers --- school lunchroom directors and lunchroom workers who face the challenge of preparing meals on tight food budgets.

Safeguarding the U.S. Food Supply

A very good article on how veterinarians, food suppliers and others are becoming more vigilant in their efforts to safeguard the U.S. food supply…

Critics, however, say that there is considerable room for improvement. The RAND Corp., the federal General Accounting Office and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, among several groups, point to shortfalls in several efforts to safeguard the nation’s food supply and distribution network.

They cite the paltry numbers of inspectors and inconsistent inspection standards --- a problem compounded by the flood of imports occurring in recent years.

Veterinarians and government agents, they contend, also have not been adequately trained to detect suspicious outbreaks. The way diseases are reported also has not been completely systematized.

There apparently is some basis for their concern: An advisory committee to the U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded last fall that the U.S. “is not adequately prepared at this time to respond effectively to the potential introduction of a highly infectious foreign and animal disease or any other type of biological agent that might disrupt the food supply chain.”

Even so, federal officials contend that safeguarding the U.S. food supply remains a top priority and that headway is being made.

Ephedra Still Available Despite Ban

Just when we thought we were safe, ephedra still is showing up in grocery and convenience stores and gas stations --- at least in Florida.

State food inspectors turned up about 6,700 packages containing the illegal stimulant at 182 locations.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned the sale of ephedra products effective April 12, after concluding the dietary supplement used in diet pills and energy products was linked with 155 deaths.

Borrowing from the Stone Age

It’s no coincidence that the proposed new federal dietary guidelines scheduled for release in January, 2005, appear to be borrowing a page out of the Stone Age.

The new guidelines, for example, likely will recommend eating more fish and fiber and fewer refined grains such as white bread. The 13-member panel charged with drafting the new recommendations will likely suggest that Americans increase their intake of salmon and other fish containing heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids to two servings a week of six-to-eight ounces each.

This closely reflects what researchers have discovered about the sorts of diets associated with Stone Age humans.

Paleolithic humans consumed lots of meat, albeit game meat that was very different from the beef and pork associated with modern western diets. Much like fish, this game meat was a very good source of omega-3 fatty acids.

Among the meats most accessible to modern humans, skinless chicken, in terms of leanness, most closely resembles the type of meat our primitive ancestors consumed. For this reason, it is also expected to get top billing in the new guidelines.

“It doesn’t surprise me that the guidelines are being changed to reflect foods similar to what we evolved with,” said Dr. Robert Keith, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System nutritionist and Auburn University professor of nutrition and foods.

While conceding it’s impossible to recreate the Caveman diet completely, he said the new dietary guidelines are an obvious attempt to create the next best thing.

Keith expects the new guidelines will also place even greater emphasis on fruits and vegetables – “not so much canned fruits and vegetables but fresh and frozen produce.”

The guidelines are also expected to emphasize high-fiber whole grains over more refined products such as white bread, even though grains are a comparatively recent addition to the human diet. Fiber was a major component of Paleolithic diets, scientists believe. Primitive humans consumed roughly 100 grams of fiber each day, compared with the average westerner’s puny consumption of about 20 grams a day.

“We do know that people who eat these types of foods contend with far less chronic disease --- cancers and coronary artery diseases,” Keith said. “With more fruits and vegetables and whole grains, they’re less likely to be overweight and develop chronic diseases.”

A New Book about Farming

Dominique Browning, editor in chief of House and Garden offers a very penetrating review of a new book on the future of family farming in the Sunday June 6 edition of the New York Times…

I’ve often wondered what the Founding Fathers would think of modern America if they somehow could be transported across time. Technological changes, no doubt would be stunning enough --- perhaps even mind numbing. But perhaps the biggest surprise of all would be the dearth of family farmers. The Founding Fathers, after all, looked with dread to an era, fast approaching in Europe, when the majority of Americans would be merchants and laborers rather than farmers. Farmers, they believed, were essential to the stability of the American experiment. Without them, they feared, America society would succumb to many of the same social pathologies that gripped Europe.

It’s a legitimate concern even today, argues author and former Yale University philosophy Professor Ronald Jager, in spite of the fact that farming in America has long been supplanted by those very people Jefferson and others feared.

Jager, a product of a family farm and the author of The Fate of Family Farming: Variations of an American Idea, gleans from the works of modern agrarians such as Wendell Barry and Victor Hanson and earlier writers from Cicero to Thoreau to make a compelling case for the essential role of family farming in American life.

One thing is certain: Family farms have become exceedingly small. As Jager observes, 90 percent of all farmers earn less than $20,000 --- the reason why dual farming has become the rule rather than the exception throughout Alabama and most of the rest of the United States. Much of this, of course, is increasingly reflected in niche farming --- everything from angora goats to zinnias, as Browning observes.

Jager also explores the unique and imaginative ways many farm families are adapting to stay afloat in an increasingly global economic sea. Women, for example, are increasingly dominating family farming --- nowhere more evident than in New Hampshire, which leads the nation with17 percent of its farms headed by women.

Still, in spite of their valiant efforts, farmers face the very same challenges as other entrepreneurs, namely staying competitive. As Browning rightly observes, “the paradox of the family farm is that its survival is linked, one way or another, to global markets…” Add to that factors such as the “government subsides, national retail chains, high-tech breeding, corporate-scale distribution and complex transportation systems” and you get a clearer idea of the daunting obstacles faced by thousands of family farms.

Jager predictably serves up an indictment of factory farms. Nevertheless, there are formidable arguments why so-called factory farming not only is here to stay but fills a critical void. As Browning observes, “no one has to be a farmer anymore; historically, whenever people have had a choice, they’ve streamed not from cities to farms but in the opposite direction.” One could make the strong case that agribusiness is what developed over time to address this huge demographic change.

Arkansas’ Obesity Lesson

Just when we thought childhood obesity couldn’t get any worse, experts have concluded that it is.

A report released yesterday reveals that 40 percent --- yes, 40 percent --- of Arkansas school students are overweight or at risk of becoming so. Nationwide, the U.S. government estimates that 30 percent of the nation’s kids have or will face weight problems.

Compared with other states, Arkansas has more low-income families --- a factor associated with higher obesity rates ---- though the report stresses that the problem is turning up in both low- and high-income groups.

Arkansas, as it turns out, is one state that has taken a proactive approach to combating obesity. It’s the only state in the nation to require its 450,000 students from kindergarten to 12th grade to have their height and weight measured to determine their body mass index. And they’re not just weighed, they’re graded. All public school students receive two report cards: one that assesses academic achievement and another that grades them according to their weight.

Experts also are urging parents to do their part. In addition to encouraging exercise, they say, parents should also put more thought into meal planning. Putting a list together of all the fruits, vegetables, proteins and lean meats required for the entire week would go a long way toward cutting down on fast-food restaurant stops, they stress.

They also recommend parents exercise between 5 and 10 minutes with their children each day.

The determination of Arkansas public officials to get obesity under control was reflected in a pointed exchange recently between Governor Mike Huckabee and a caller to Huckabee’s “Ask the Governor” radio program who complained about government intrusion into citizen’s private food choices.

“People have a right to do dumb things, and I agree with that, but when I’m going to have to pay the additional cost of their hospitalization and rehab, then there are some issues that the public has a right to be concerned about,” Huckabee said.

Groundless Crusade?

In the most recent issue of Beef Magazine, Dr. Jean Weese, Alabama Cooperative Extension System nutritionist and Auburn University associate professor of nutrition and foods, refutes Janet Skarbek’s argument that a cluster of CJD cases linked to so-called mad cow disease can be linked to New Jersey racetrack.

One big problem with Skarbek’s argument, Weese said, is that none of the cases she cites as proof of a CJD cluster has been associated with the variant form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease linked with mad cow disease.

Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has linked these diseases with the comparatively more common sporadic form of the disease.

“While the two diseases are similar in some respects, the damage they cause to the brain is quite different, which means the likelihood of misdiagnosis in all cases is remote,” Weese said.

Profiles of Farming

A flurry of news articles on the challenges facing U.S. agriculture…

First, news that isn’t news to many Cooperative Extension personnel on the front lines of farming: Farms are getting bigger. Just 3 percent of the nation’s farms --- those with sales of more than a half-million dollars a year --- are producing more than 60 of America’s farm products.

In the meantime, smaller farms are no longer the sole sources of income for many American farm families --- a trend that has intensified during the last few decades. In Kansas, for example, just 10 percent of farmers earned all of their household income from farming. Growing numbers of rural families are working off the farm to support themselves.

Much of the success associated with U.S. farm productivity within the past century can be attributed to research carried out on behalf of farmers through the nation’s land-grant university system. Irrigation is a prime example of how farming has become more productive in recent years largely through the assistance of agricultural research. Farmers who irrigate have posted an average 10 percent gain in the market value of their products.

Yet, even agricultural research is being threatened by budget cuts.

While these cuts will not affect ongoing federal efforts to prevent the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, so-called mad cow disease, and food-and-mouth disease, many producers throughout America’s heartland already are feeling the bite.

In the past couple of years, for example, the University of Nebraska’s Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources has downgraded one of its five research centers into a meagerly staffed lab. In neighboring Iowa, the farm research staff at Iowa State University’s College of Agriculture has been cut by a third during the past four years.

The Ohio Farm Bureau’s Joe Cornely puts the matter into stark perspective.

“Inexpensive food just doesn’t happen,” he said. “The farmer needs the right kind of production inputs, the right kind of expertise relayed to him.”

Despite all of the doom and gloom associated with farming, there’s one factor often overlooked. Hundreds of thousands of farmers are determined to stay in the business not necessarily for the income but for the sort of lifestyle it provides --- a fact underscored recently at a agricultural event in Vermont.

"We need to do something to help farmers, something beyond finding a fair price for their milk," said Robert Wellington, senior vice-president and economist for Agri-Mark, one of the largest farmer-owned dairy cooperatives in New England. "If every dairy farm in the state went out of business, we would still have milk. But the secondary benefits of having farms on the land are equally important as the products the farmers produce."

Renewed Interest in Caveman Diets

Quite a bit of interest has surfaced again regarding the Paleolithic diet, popularly known as the “caveman diet.”

All things considered, what we know about Paleolithic eating patterns paints a searing indictment of modern western lifestyles. One thing is for sure: Paleolithic diets were a far cry from what we moderns typically eat today.

From the very beginning, fruits and vegetables were a staple of the early human’s diet. Our distant forebears, known as Australopithecus, ate more than a hundred different kids of fruits and vegetables every year, compared with only scant handful associated with the modern western diet. They also obtained between one and 5 times more vitamins and minerals than we do today. Their fiber intake --- about 100 grams each day --- dwarfed our comparatively puny consumption of 20 grams a day.

Early humans, however, were not vegans. In fact, the formation of savanna in many parts of Africa following drastic climatic changes forced humans to adapt to meat consumption. Meat consumption was especially common in colder climates where fruits and vegetables were not available the entire year. However, the type of meat these primitives consumed was very different from the beef and pork associated with modern western diets. It was game meat ---high in iron, low in fat, though a good source of heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids. About the closest thing modern humans have in accessible amounts is skinless chicken, though even this isn’t as lean as game meat.

Fish was also another major food source for ancient humans --- a source that insured high amounts of DHA, an omega 3 fatty acid associated retinal and brain health. Anthropologists estimate our brains grew three times their original size during the first 2.5 million years, though they have decreased 11 percent since the end of the Old Stone Age ---- a factor some experts attribute to the comparative lack of DHA in our diet.

Modern Americans, by contrast, consume far more saturated fats in the form of fatty meats, cheese and full-fat dairy products. Indeed, about one out of every 8 calories in the modern American diet is derived from one of these sources.

With the exception of breast milk, dairy products were virtually nonexistent in Paleolithic times. Nevertheless, humans got plenty of calcium from green-leafy plants.

Sugar was in exceedingly short supply during the Stone Age. Sugar cane plantations, after all, were developed within only the last few centuries. Honey, about the only game in town as far as sweeteners ago, was available only a couple of months a year. It is estimated modern Americans eat more refined sugar in a single day than Paleolithic humans ate in their entire lives.

Sodium, a major contributor to hypertension, was also strictly limited. Experts believe ancient humans consumed less than 1,000 milligrams of sodium eat day compared to the 4,000 to 6,000 milligrams common in most American diets. They also speculate that early humans also suffered from far fewer strokes due to the low sodium consumption but also because their diets were with plenty of fiber, protein, folic acid, vitamin B6, B12, potassium, magnesium and vitamin C.

The comparatively high potassium intake of ancient humans also accounts their extremely low incidence of strokes. Paleolithic humans are believed to have consumed roughly 7,000 milligrams of potassium each day, compared with only 2,500 among moderns.

Humans also rely on far more cereals compared to their ancient forebears. Cereals comprise between 40 and 90 percent of our total daily caloric intake, while fruits and vegetables make up the bulk --- approximately 65 percent --- of the daily calories of Paleolithic humans. Adding to that problem are the advances in milling technology following the industrial revolution. This has resulted in wheat fiber that is less effective in absorbing cholesterol and slowing down the absorption of sugar in the intestines.

While conceding that Paleolithic diets shed a substantial amount of insight into how we should be eating, Dr. Robert Keith, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System nutritionist and Auburn University professor of nutrition and food scientist, said it’s impossible for humanity to recover these dietary habits completely.

Besides, he said, not every facet of the modern diet is worth abandoning. Processed foods, after all, are a fact of life. The planet’s 6 billion people couldn’t survive without them.

On the other hand, there are lessons to be learned. One of them would involve incorporating a high-fiber diet rich in fruits and vegetables --- especially calcium-rich green, leafy vegetables. Another would be replacing highly processed white bread with unrefined products such as stone-ground and whole wheat bread.

Another good place to start would be substituting meat and pork with more baked and broiled poultry and marine products.

Junk Diet

In what many would consider a stunning indictment of the American diet, a University of California Berkeley researcher has discovered that nearly a third of calories Americans derive on a daily basis comes from junk food.

Sweets and desserts, soft drinks and alcoholic beverages represented about a quarter of all calories consumed by American adults. Salty snacks and sugar-rich, fruit-flavored drinks made up another 5 percent of all calories consumed.

The 10 most consumed foods according to the study: hamburgers, pizza and potato chips.

“We know people are eating a lot of junk food, but to have almost one-third of American’s calories coming from those categories is a shocker,” said Gladys Block, professor of epidemiology and public health nutrition at UC Berkeley, and lead author o the study.

Ultimate Cholesterol Busters?

Avenanthramides --- a big word, but one worth remembering.

USDA researchers believe we’ll be hearing more about them in the future. They think they play a big role reducing blood cholesterol levels by suppressing the adhesive molecules that make blood cells stick to arterial walls.

Avenanthramides, antioxidants found it oats, provide more evidence of the cholesterol-busting value of soluble fibre.

The findings were based on a study conducted by nutritionist Mohsen Meydani and other researchers at the USDA’s Human Research Center on Aging at Tufts University.

FDA Issues Final Ruling on Bioterrorism Act

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced its final rule establishing procedures for detaining food that presents serious risks to humans and animals.

The rules were issued under the authority of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Act of 2002, which empowers the FDA to detain suspect food. The final regulation, which was printed in the Federal Register Thursday, May 27, clarifies the agency's detention procedures and how detention can be appealed.

Under the final rule, FDA may detain an article of food on the basis of credible evidence or information gleaned from inspection, examination or investigation.

"These regulations lend an additional layer of protection to our defenses against bioterrorism," said Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson. "The rule strengthens the security of our food supply by enabling us to act more quickly and effectively to prevent potentially contaminated food from reaching consumers."

USDA Will Divulge More About Biopharming

In response to critics who contend the production of biopharmaceutical crops is “shrouded in secrecy,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture has vowed to release more information about how these crops are genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals.

Supporters argue that biopharming, which uses transgenically engineered plants to produce proteins or compounds to treat illnesses, is a comparatively inexpensive way to develop a new generation of safe, highly effective drugs.

Critics, on the other hand, fear that biopharming practices may result in drugs turning up in food.

“It is impossible to know whether these biopharmed crops present any food-safety or environmental risk, since the whole process is shrouded in secrecy,” said Greg Jaffe, a director of biotech products at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which lobbied USDA to release more details.

They point to a 2002 incident when corn containing a pig vaccine intermingled with food crops, though authorities contend the problem was detected before any of the food was consumed.

Blame It on the Burbs?

If you live in the suburbs, chances are you’re heavier than someone who lives elsewhere.

However, suburbanite eating habits aren’t the sole culprit, says University of British Columbia researcher Larry Frank. The reason for the extra burb girth, he contends, stems from poor community planning. The poor layout of many suburban communities, Frank says, results in people having to drive virtually everywhere they go.

“Every additional 30 minutes spent in a car each day translates into a 3 percent greater chance of being fat,” he says.

At least one critic isn't buying it.

Preparing for Bioterrorism

Is U.S. agriculture prepared to respond effectively to a terrorist attack on the nation’s food supply?

An advisory committee report to the U.S. Department of Agriculture last fall concluded that the United States “is not adequately prepared at this time to respond effectively to the potential introduction of a highly infectious animal disease or any type of biological agent that might disrupt the food chain.”

Nevertheless, federal officials note they are making headway in the fight against bioterrorism.

More food inspectors, for example, have been hired in the last couple of years, bringing the number to 7,500 in the Department of Agriculture and 1,500 in the Food and Drug Administration.

Also, for the first time, food shippers and processing facilities serving the U.S. market, whether domestic or foreign, have registered with the government, thereby increasing the changes that inspectors will be able to quickly trace the origin of suspect products.

Food importers must also notify the government of shipments and their contents, or the products will not be permitted into the country.

State Authorities Doing Poor Job Informing Farmers, Food Processors about E.coli Risks

Consumer groups are urging state health authorities to do a better job keeping farmers and other at-risk groups informed about E.coli outbreaks.

These groups say many state health departments throughout the country currently have no process in place to inform growers or food processors about others in the business being investigated for unsafe food handling practices.

"The state officials have an obligation to inform farmers more broadly of these risks," said Caroline Smith de Waal, food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C. "I don't think it's good enough to tell one farmer what to do. That would be like trying to tell one consumer how to cook their meat."

Feds Embraces WHO Global Dietary Strategy

The World Health Organization’s blueprint to combat world obesity has garnered the support of the Bush administration, which previously criticized an earlier draft.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson praised the WHO strategy as a “sound blueprint for action for all of us.” He and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman are in charge of a process currently under way to revise U.S. dietary guidelines. The new recommendations would shift the emphasis from carbohydrates to a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, fish and whole-grain foods.

Washington Post columnist Sally Squires says the new guidelines can be summed up in six themes: monitor your weight; choose a variety of foods; go beyond potatoes by including more dark-green leafy vegetables and other produce in the diet; move more throughout the day; pump iron; and go easy on sweetened food and beverages.