Selling the Forests
NY Times March 25, 2006 Editorial
It's rarely a good idea to sell off assets to pay normal operating expenses. It's an even worse idea when the assets are chunks of national forest. But that's exactly what the Bush administration wants to do.

Washington has long sent money to isolated local communities surrounded by national forests. The communities cannot tax federal property, so the money helps pay for schools. The grants were calculated as a percentage of timber sales. When the annual harvest declined, partly as a result of court rulings in favor of various endangered species, the money was taken from general revenues.

President Bush's 2007 budget proposes to raise the money by auctioning off about 300,000 acres of federal forest in 41 states, at an anticipated price of $800 million. The administration recently sent a bill to Congress that would give the Forest Service the authority to conduct the sales. The bill has many defects, especially a provision that would sharply limit the public's opportunity to comment on the sales, short of embarking on expensive litigation. But its most glaring defect is its underlying strategy of trading long-term assets for short-term gain.

Gov. Mike Easley of North Carolina, which would lose 9,828 acres, or nearly 1 percent of its national forest acreage, put the matter eloquently in a letter to Mark Rey, the under secretary of agriculture who helped concoct this scheme. The plan, he said, would blatantly contradict North Carolina's efforts to preserve open space for future generations by removing priceless resources "from public access for all time in order to provide temporary funding."

This page has objected on many occasions to the administration's efforts to roll back protections for the national forests, chiefly its decision to rescind President Bill Clinton's "roadless rule," which would have shielded nearly 60 million acres of national forest from further commercial intrusions. Though it involves much less acreage, the proposal to sell forest land reflects the same insensitivity to environmental values, not to mention misplaced budget priorities. In addition to the forest sale, the administration also proposes to sell a half-million acres managed by the Interior Department, not for any purposes related to stewardship of the public lands, but simply to reduce a national deficit already bloated by tax cuts.

Veggies retain traces of antibiotics, study finds
Laurie Budgar
One more reason to eat organic: Conventionally grown vegetables may be more likely to serve up a dose of antibiotics along with their nutritional properties.

When nonorganic farmers and ranchers give antibiotics to their animals—a widespread practice to ensure health and stimulate growth—small traces of the drug are excreted. When that manure is applied to crops, the vegetables retain the antibiotics in their tissues, according to a University of Minnesota study published in the Oct. 12 online edition of the Journal of Environmental Quality.

The U of M study examined corn, green onion and cabbage for levels of two commonly used antibiotics. All three crops absorbed chlortetracycline but not tylosin. The amount of antibiotics in the plants was small, but increased according to the concentration present in the manure.

"This study points out the potential human health risk associated with consumption of fresh vegetables grown in soil amended with antibiotic-laden manures," the study's authors wrote. "The risks may be higher for people who are allergic to antibiotics and there is also the possibility of enhanced antimicrobial resistance as a result of human consumption of these vegetables."

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration t! his summer banned the use of Baytril, which belongs to a different class of antibiotics than those in the study. The European Union in 1998 banned many human antibiotics from being used in animals, except for therapeutic purposes. The bans came amid concerns that foodborne illness was resistant to treatment when humans ate meat from animals treated with antibiotics.

While organic agriculture has drawn fire in the past for its reliance on manure as a fertilizing agent, the practice is widespread in conventional agriculture as well.

"Manure use is very tightly regulated in organic agriculture and is completely unregulated in conventional agriculture," said Mark Lipson, policy program director at the Organic Farming Research Foundation in Santa Cruz, Calif. "The National Organic Rule is really quite strict on the use of uncomposted manure. It cannot be applied to a crop within 120 days of harvest," Lipson said. Because of that, he said, "The use of manure in organic agriculture is much less risky than in conventional." Lipson also cited several flaws in the U of M study's design: "They tested the crops after only six weeks after planting and application of manure," not the 120 days that organic farming would require. And, he said, "they were doing it greenhouse pots, so it wasn't a real field." The amount of manure used was "not outlandish, but it's a heavy application," he said. "This study is not that relevant to drawing any conclusions about organic agriculture."

In addition, relatively few organic farmers use uncomposted, or raw, manure, the type used in the study. In OFRF's Third Biennial National Organic Farmers' Survey, published in 1999, 22 percent of organic farmers said they used uncomposted manure frequently or regularly; nineteen percent said they used it occasionally. "The number has almost surely gone down," Lipson said, since the survey was conducted before implementation of the National Organic Rule. In addition, he said, some organic growers are almost certainly using organic manure—compost derived from animals raised organically—so the issue of antibiotics in manure would be nonexistent for them.

"The real issue is the use of antibiotics," Lipson said. "The alternatives for managing healthy livestock systems are only just beginning to get serious scientific research. Organic growers are figuring out how to get by but they have very, very little help from the scientific community in doing that. … If organic research … got a fraction of a fair share of resources that are spent on agricultural research and livestock management, we'd be able to help wean conventional livestock manufacturers off of these materials."

NEWSLETTERS:
AUGUST 05 Newsletter
(NOTE: This is an Adobe PDF - Portable Document Format - file. To download the latest version of Adobe Reader for Windows-based PCs click here, or to download the latest version for Macintosh users, click here.)

Gary's Organic Website Relaunched
CHARLESTON (April 3) - Gary Franks is pleased to announce his newly redesigned Website is now live. With a little help from his friends at Abbott-Ross Communications, LLC, Gary completely overhauled and added a fresh new "face" to his organic produce business' site. Please let him know what you think when you see him, or send a quick email!

Organic Produce Businesses Sprouting Nationally
By MELANTHIA MITCHELL, AP
SEATTLE (August 2) - Most of Ronny Bell's friends have always been farmers, but tilling the earth was not for this New York transplant. Instead, Bell started an organic produce delivery business that blended healthy eating with convenience.
READ MORE>

The Organic Explainer
The organic foods movement promotes the health of humans and their environment by encouraging farmers to use agricultural methods that neither deplete the soil nor hurt environmental systems or farmworkers. Organic farming also promotes biological diversity and the recycling of resources through such methods as crop rotation, rotational grazing, planting of cover crops, intercropping, animal and plant waste recycling, tilling, and adding minerals to crops.
READ MORE>

Protect your Garden with
Beneficial Bugs
By Barbara Pleasant
Potatoes were planted for the first time last summer at Clemson University’s Calhoun Field Laboratory Research Farm in South Carolina. Soon after the plants emerged, potato beetles showed up and began eating the plants. Then came a rowdy band of soldier bugs, sometimes called predatory stink bugs. “It was neat and exciting to see them,” says Dr. Geoff Zehnder, a professor of entomology at Clemson. “The stink bugs really did a job on the potato beetles. We still had to spray once with Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), but the rest of the time, the stink bugs kept the potato beetle population down.”
READ MORE>

What you eat matters!