Silent Spring #5- Reflections on the Precautionary Principle

by Sarah Janes Ugoretz
After spending the last several weeks exploring the implications that pesticides like neonicotinoids and glyphosate have on our pollinators and other beneficials, this week we bring the precautionary principle into the conversation. Now more than ever, we can be brutally honest and ask ourselves: how did we get here?

The precautionary principle (PP) was first formulated and invoked in the 1980s, primarily through the implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Its basic tenant mandates that: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically” (Raffensperger, 1998). In the event that this is true, the burden of proof falls to those who endorse and promote the activity, not the general public. For example, in accordance with the PP, instead of waiting until people become sick, the responsibility of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to extend to the public a reasonable expectation that we are shielded from danger. An informed, transparent, and democratic process must accompany the application of the PP, and the possibility of taking no action (as in, not moving forward with the marketing, sale, and widespread use of a potentially harmful pesticide) must be given equal weight when considering the range of alternatives (Raffensperger, 1998).

Unfortunately, as we touched on in our earlier conversation about glyphosate, the FDA is often presented with industry studies—studies that are conducted entirely by corporations like Monsanto and Dow Chemical Company and that are, apart from FDA review, classified. By attaching a commercial-in-confidence label to these reports, corporations manage to side step having to offer up their studies for review and assessment by external scientists, researchers or even the general public—groups who are less likely to be burdened by any conflicts of interest (Leu, 2014). As the Union of Concerned Scientists has noted, “By creating obstacles to independent research on its products, [corporations like] Monsanto make it harder for farmers and policy makers to make informed decisions that can lead to more sustainable agriculture” (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2012).

In the U.S., we depart starkly from Europeans, Canadians, Australians and others who tend to subscribe to the notion that it is better to prevent damage than to repair it. As Mark Bittman has commented, “We ask not whether a given chemical might cause cancer but whether we’re certain that it does” (Bittman, 2015). For an interesting contrast, let’s take the European Commission, which, in 2013, voted to impose a two-year ban on the use of certain neonics. Faced with incomplete data and uncertainty as to whether neonics are irrefutably related to the decline of bee populations, the European Commission erred on the side of caution in imposing the ban. The U.S., on the other hand, is still reviewing the evidence. According to Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the EPA is allowing science to inform the regulatory actions they do and do not take. Operating in this manner allows them to “make sure that [they] make accurate and appropriate regulatory decisions as opposed to [doing] things that could lead to meaningful societal cost without any benefit whatsoever” (Plumer, 2013). As Plumer has commented, where the European Commission is siding with the environment on this one, the U.S. is clearly letting economic considerations take center stage. “It’s still not clear that neonicotinoids are to blame, and pesticides are a billion-dollar industry, so regulators are moving slowly in setting restrictions” (Plumer, 2013).

Unsurprisingly, there are many in the U.S. who question the usefulness and the practicality of the PP. These critiques primarily fall in line with the question of weighing risks. Michael Specter, longtime staff writer at The New Yorker, insists that we “…have to be aware of blindly invoking the ‘precautionary principle’” (Specter, 2015). After all, risk is subjective and safety is difficult to prove. But when we really get down to it, what truly needs protecting here? The economy, silly! As we know (and as we can deduce from Mr. Jones’ comment above), the pesticide industry is a billion-dollar entity and in the U.S., we’re hooked on industrial agriculture, quick fixes and cheap food. All of these things are intimately tied to the convenience that comes with agro-chemicals. To move away from pesticides like neonics and glyphosate would be to unravel the model of agriculture we’ve worked so diligently to put in place since chemical fertilizers first appeared on the scene after World War II and Earl Butz so tenderly cooed, “Get big or get out” (Philpott, 2008).


Over 20 years ago, Farmer Richard spent some time in Holland. During this time, he met with several Dutch farmers, a majority of whom grew vegetables in greenhouses using hydroponic methods. They recounted to Richard that some months before, they had noticed a decline in the aquatic life and, by extension, the water birds that lived near and fed from the canals that traversed their region. The farmers quickly traced the problem back to their hydroponic systems—the water that was being discharged was making its way into the canals, and it was taking the farmers’ fertilizer and other chemicals along for the ride.

Despite being competitors in the same marketplace, these farmers came together to collectively recognize the problem and identify a solution. Though the cost was considerable, the farmers decided that the most effective solution would be to install recycling systems, which would work to clean the discharged water. Driven by the conviction that making this change was the right thing to do, and having faith that consumers would be willing to pay a few cents more for their produce, the farmers invested in the necessary infrastructure. Before long they began to notice that, in the absence of polluted water, the canals’ rich aquatic life had begun to rebound, along with other valuable species like birds.

This “do the right thing” mentality and attitude made a lasting impression on Farmer Richard—one that he has carried with him over his many years of farming. Where the Dutch farmers recognized the need for and ultimately embraced change, many farmers in our country tend to stick to the status quo—despite the fact that we need to adjust the overarching principles that drive large-scale conventional agriculture. As Farmer Richard has noted, here we are more likely to see farmers banning together in opposition to change. In advocating for “right to farm” laws (often with backing from the Farm Bureau), it becomes less likely that farmers will have to take a serious look at and acknowledge the detrimental impacts some of their farming practices are having on the health of their families and friends, employees, pollinator helpers and their own land.


In reflecting on our current state of affairs—our country’s ongoing dependence on pesticides and our populace’s relegation by the FDA to the de facto status of guinea pigs—I found this commentary by Mark Bittman (2015) particularly appropriate: “We don’t need better, smarter chemicals along with crops that can tolerate them.” Rather, Bittman argues that what we truly need is fewer chemicals and a heavy infusion of agroecology—intercropping, crop rotation, organic fertilizers, cover crops and other methods that are ecologically informed, environmentally safe, and demonstrated to be economically beneficial.
We should hold tightly to this image, as a future reality to strive for. In the meantime, however, at a time when our regulatory bodies are slow to take preventative, protective action on our behalf, we can use our own knowledge and understanding in deciding whether or not to apply the precautionary principle on a personal level, a household level or, as we’ll see next week, on a city-wide level….because it’s the right thing to do.

References

Bittman, M. (2015, March 25). Stop making us guinea pigs. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/opinion/stop-making-us-guinea-pigs.html?_r=0

Leu, A. (2014). The myths of safe pesticides. Austin, TX: Acres U.S.A.

Philpott, T. (2008, February 8). A reflection on the lasting legacy of 1970s USDA Secretary Earl Butz. Retrieved from http://grist.org/article/the-butz-stops-here/

Plumer, B. (2013, May 3). Why are bees dying? The U.S. and Europe have different theories. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/03/why-are-bees-dying-the-u-s-and-europe-have-different-theories/

Raffensperger, C. (1998). The precautionary principle: A fact sheet. Science & Environmental Health Network. Retrieved from http://www.sehn.org/Volume_3-1.html

Specter, M. (2015, April 10). Roundup and risk assessment. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/roundup-and-risk-assessment

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2012). Eight ways Monsanto fails at sustainable agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/eight-ways-monsanto-fails.html#.VcoKzzBViko

Vegetable Feature: Edamame

by Andrea Yoder

Alvaro & Luis Harvesting Edamame

This week’s featured vegetable is edamame, otherwise known as fresh soybeans.  Edamame is a favorite summer-time vegetable that’s gained popularity over the years.  You may associate soybeans with other soy foods such as tofu, tempeh and soymilk, but fresh edamame is much different. \

 We’ve carefully selected the variety of edamame we grow and have chosen a variety that originated in Japan where it is grown specifically for fresh eating.  Most varieties of edamame available commercially are also used for making tofu.  These varieties do not have the sweet flavor of the edamame we grow and have much more of that “beany” characteristic.  Tofu beans also often have darker “hairs”  on their pods which give them a dirty appearance.  The edamame we grow has light colored “hair”  which makes them much more attractive.

Edamame should be stored in the refrigerator to preserve the sweetness of the bean.  While they can be stored and cooked in their pod, the pod is not edible.  The easiest way to extract the bean from the pod is to cook it first.  One method is to bring a pot of salted water to a boil.  Add the edamame and cook for 3-4 minutes or until the beans are tender.  Drain the water off the beans and run cold water over them to stop the cooking. Now you can easily pop the beans out of the pods.

Edamame Plant

Once cooked, the fresh soybeans inside can be eaten raw as a snack or added to other preparations including fresh salads, summer vegetable sautes, or dishes such as the fried rice recipe in this week’s newsletter.  Edamame is often served in its pod as a snack.  In addition to boiling, you can also roast edamame.  If you are roasting it, first toss the edamame with a bit of oil and salt or your favorite seasoning.  Roast in the oven until the beans are tender, then serve hot.  When you eat them, you can put the whole pod in your mouth and then pull it out between your teeth to extract the beans from inside the pod as well as the seasoning from the outside of the pod.  If you’d like to preserve edamame, simply follow the procedure above for blanching or boiling them.  Once you’ve cooled them, put in freezer bags and pop them in the freezer.

Edamame and Sea Salt

Recipe featured in Japanese Farm Food by Nancy Singleton Hachisu.

Yield:  3-4 servings
1 ⅓ pounds edamame
1 ½ tsp sea salt

1. Fill a large stockpot with water and bring to a boil over high heat.  Boil the edamame about 3 to 4 minutes, depending on the size of the beans.  Scoop out with a strainer into a medium-sized crockery bowl and toss with sea salt.  Serve immediately.  The edamame should be so hot you can barely touch them.  
2. Grab a handful and eat quickly because they cool quickly (and are particularly good burning hot).  Don’t forget to prepare the cold beer (if you like) and a bowl for the empty pods.  Boil in batches for a big crowd so you can keep serving them hot.  If you have any left over, save the pods in a resealable plastic bag, then pop the beans out the next day and fold into a vegetable salad, or any curry or stewlike dish.  

VARIATION:  Heat an iron wok over high heat and throw in a couple of handfuls of raw edamame pods.  You want to make sure that each pod is in direct contact with the surface of the pan.  Toss with two flat-edged wooden spoons to ensure even heat distribution.  Cook until the skins are blistered and a little juice runs out.  Taste to check for doneness.  Sprinkle with sea salt, toss once or twice, and serve hot.

Fried Rice with Edamame and Corn

                                                  by Andrea Yoder

Yield:  4-6 servings

3-4 Tbsp vegetable oil, divided

4 eggs

¼ tsp salt plus more to taste

8 ounces ground pork (optional)

1-2 clove garlic, minced

1 Tbsp minced fresh ginger

1 medium onion, small diced

1 cup small diced carrot

1 Italian frying pepper, diced

½ pound fresh edamame in the pod, blanched

½ cup fresh corn kernels (cut from 1-2 cobs)

3 cups cooked rice

3-4 Tbsp soy sauce

Freshly ground black pepper

1. First, heat a medium skillet over medium heat and add 1 tsp of oil.  When the pan and oil are hot, add the beaten eggs and ¼ tsp salt.  Scramble the eggs until they are cooked through, yet soft.  Remove from the heat and set aside.
2. In a large skillet or wok, heat ½-1 Tbsp oil over medium heat.  If you are using ground pork, add the pork now and cook until browned.  If you are omitting the pork, go on to the next step.
3. Next, add the garlic, ginger and onion.  Increase the heat to medium high and continually stir the mixture to prevent the ginger and garlic from getting to brown.  Stir-fry for 1-2 minutes or until the onions are softened.  Next add the carrots and the frying pepper and  continue to cook for another 2-3 minutes, stirring frequently.  Add the corn and cook for an additional minute.
4. Add 2 more Tbsps of oil to the pan and tip the pan to distribute the oil evenly.  Next, add the rice and continue to move the rice so it is evenly distributed in the pan.  Continue to stir-fry the mixture until the rice is thoroughly heated, 3-5 minutes.  
5. Next, add 3 Tbsps of soy sauce, the fresh edamame, and freshly ground pepper.  Reduce the heat to low and cook for a few more minutes.  Adjust the seasoning with more soy sauce if you like and additional salt if needed.  Stir in the scrambled egg and serve hot.

Vegetable Feature: Tomatillos

by Andrea Yoder

Tomatillo blossom

Tomatillos are an interesting “vegetable,” which are technically a fruit.  While we plant them alongside our tomatoes and they are often referred to as a “green tomato,” they are a bit different.  Tomatillos  grow on massive plants that are similar to a tomato plant, but with more of a wild, vine-y appearance.  Their main stem is thick and sometimes resembles a small tree trunk.  The plants grow over seven feet tall, so we put stakes in between and tie the plants to them progressively as they grow in order to keep the plant upright and the fruit off the ground.  Tomatillos grow from pretty little yellow blossoms which are a favorite food source for bumble bees and other pollinator creatures.  The fruit is hidden inside a husk that looks like a little paper lantern.  You know the tomatillo is ready to pick when it fills the husk completely.  While most tomatillos are green, this year we’re trialing a purple variety that will be dark purple when ripe.  It’s supposed to have a more pronounced, sweet, fruity flavor.  We’re hoping to send some your way in a future delivery.

Tomatillos can be eaten raw or cooked.  They have a mild flavor with a slightly tart and sometimes fruity flavor.  In their raw form they are firm with a dense flesh, but when you cook them they break apart and become more like a sauce.  Before you use them, you need to remove the outer husk which is not edible.  The fruit inside might feel a little sticky, which is normal.  Just give them a quick rinse and you’re ready to go.  Tomatillos are most commonly used in salsa verde, a popular green salsa made with onions, garlic, lime, jalapeños and cilantro.  This salsa can be prepared with either fresh or cooked tomatillos.  If you want to kick the flavor of your salsa up a notch or two, roast the tomatillos and other vegetables on a grill or open flame before you put them into the salsa.  But don’t stop with just salsa, there are a lot of other ways to utilize tomatillos! They can be incorporated into soups, stews and a variety of sauces.  They are also a delicious ingredient in fresh vegetable salsas and salads.  Another tasty preparation is to cut thick slices of tomatillos, bread them and pan-fry them.

Tomatillos growing in the field.

Tomatillos are super-easy to preserve for use in the off-season.  Simply remove the outer husk and wash and dry the fruit.  They can be frozen raw in a freezer bag.  When you’re ready to use them, simply thaw them and use them in soups, stews or cooked salsas.  The texture when thawed will be soft.  We’ll be offering tomatillos as a produce plus item soon!




If you’re looking for some interesting recipe suggestions, check out MarthaStewart.com.  In their cooking section they have a “Seasonal Produce Recipe Guide” that features many of the vegetables in your box this week including tomatillos.  It’s a great resource to find some tasty ideas this summer!

Chilled Buttermilk Tomatillo Soup

Recipe featured on Marthastewart.com in their “Seasonal Produce Recipe Guide” for Summer.

Yield:  4 servings
2 tsp extra-virgin olive oil
1 medium-size onion, coarsely chopped
1 pound tomatillos, husked, rinsed, and quarterd
2 garlic cloves, minced
1 jalapeño pepper, seeded and finely chopped
3 cups chicken stock
1 tsp ground cumin, plus a pinch for garnish
2 Tbsp coarsely chopped cilantro, plus  
4 sprigs for garnish
1 cup buttermilk
Salt and freshly ground black pepper, to taste

1. Heat the olive oil in a medium saucepan over medium heat. Add the onion and cook until translucent, about 10 minutes. Reduce the heat if the onion begins to brown.
2. Add the tomatillos, garlic and jalapeño and cook for 5 minutes. Raise the heat to medium-high, add the chicken stock, cumin and cilantro, and cook 10 minutes more. Remove from the heat and cool.
3. Pour the mixture into the bowl of a food processer and puree until smooth. Add the buttermilk, salt and pepper and pulse to combine. Transfer to a bowl and chill in the refrigerator.
4. Ladle the soup among 4 bowls and garnish each with a cilantro sprig and the cumin.

Tomatillo Dressing

Recipe borrowed from Vegetables Every Day by Jack Bishop

Yield:  1 cup

4 medium tomatillos, husk removed

1 Tbsp lime juice

¼ cup extra-virgin olive oil

Salt, to taste

Freshly ground black pepper, to taste

Wash the tomatillos and cut into quarters.  Place the tomatillos, lime juice and oil in a food processor or blender and puree until smooth.  Add salt and pepper to taste.  Use the dressing immediately or refrigerate in a covered container for several days.  Shake well before using.

Silent Spring #4 - Glyphosate-Roundup's Best Friend Part 2

by Sarah Janes Ugoretz

This week, we’ll keep our attention squarely focused on glyphosate, the active ingredient in commonly used herbicides like Roundup. While we considered the potential as well as the demonstrated implications glyphosate has on human health in the previous article, this week we’ll explore what glyphosate’s widespread proliferation has meant for animal life and for our environment in general.

Bee in Tomatillo field.

Thirty years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared that glyphosate might be a cancer-causing agent. By 1991, however, the agency had reversed its stance, citing—rather ironically—the same study on which it had based its original, precautionary decision. Fast-forward to March 2015 and this study has once again found itself in the crosshairs, as a 17-member panel of researchers compiled by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listed it as supporting evidence in its declaration of glyphosate as a human carcinogen.

In exploring glyphosate’s potential as a human carcinogen, IARC panelists examined circumstances under which glyphosate might cause cancer. While Monsanto and others have pointed to a preponderance of negative studies, the IARC stands firm in its insistence that even a handful of positive studies—those that suggest there is a linkage—can justify naming a substance as hazardous. In the case of this highly cited study, three of the 50 mice exposed to a specified amount of glyphosate developed an unusual type of kidney cancer. According to Dr. Aaron Blair, a retired National Cancer Institute epidemiologist and chairman of the IARC researchers, “that type of tumor is rare…they literally don’t occur, but they occurred when rodents were dosed with this stuff” (Pollack, 2015).

Researchers’ sights are not solely set on understanding the connection between glyphosate exposure and cancer, however. In general, the primary question guiding many is more broad and centers on understanding the potential health effects of low dose exposure over an extended period of time. This is a question we do not yet have an answer to. Yet as studies continue to develop—especially longitudinal studies—we may begin to put more of the puzzle pieces into place. In Germany, for instance, researchers found glyphosate in the urine of dairy cows, rabbits and humans at levels ranging from 10 to 35 parts per million (ppm) (Krüger et al., 2014). Recall from our discussion last week that chemicals like glyphosate are biologically active at parts per billion (ppb) levels (Hemmelgarn, 2015). Upon dissection, the tissues of each cow’s kidneys, liver, lungs, spleen, muscles and intestines were found to contain similar amounts of glyphosate residue as their urine. As Leu (2015, p. 91) explains, “this means that glyphosate is not being passed through urine without affecting the organism, and that meat and dairy are an additional source of glyphosate for humans.”

Bee in strawberry blossom.

A number of studies have also documented the various ways in which glyphosate has resulted in teratogenicity (birth defects) in animals. In 2003, researchers found that of those tadpoles exposed to glyphosate at rates commonly found in the environment, 55 percent experienced deformities to their tails, skulls, mouths, eyes and vertebrae (Lajmanovich, Sandoval, & Peltzer, 2003). Meanwhile, Dallegrave et al. (2003) found that rats that were exposed to glyphosate produced offspring that were more likely to have skeletal abnormalities. Perhaps most significantly, a 2010 study demonstrated the ways in which glyphosate actually causes teratogenicity (Paganelli, Gnazzo, Acosta, López, & Carrasco, 2010). Paganelli et al. found that at levels as low as 0.5 ppm, glyphosate is able to disrupt the retinoic acid signaling pathway—a crucial biochemical mechanism. All vertebrates (yes, that includes humans) use this mechanism in order to ensure that bones, organs and tissues develop at a specific time and in the correct place within embryos. If malformations begin to occur, the mechanism enables corrective action. Disrupting this mechanism is akin to scrambling a motherboard—essentially, signals may be sent at the wrong time, resulting in the incorrect formation of organs and tissues and leaving malformations uncorrected.

Much like neonicotinoids, research suggests that glyphosate also has sub-lethal impacts on honeybees. Honeybees that were fed sub-lethal doses of glyphosate spent more time—and more often took indirect paths—returning to their colonies. As the authors note, the navigation of these honeybees appears to be impacted by consuming concentrations of glyphosate that are commonly found in agricultural settings—a factor that may have “long-term negative consequences for colony foraging success” (Balbuena et al., 2015).

Bee in melon blossom.

Environmentally speaking, glyphosate residues—primarily glyphosate’s degradation product, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA)—have been detected in soil, air, surface water and seawater. Studies show that these residues persist and accumulate over time with ongoing agricultural use (Leu, 2015). While glyphosate attaches firmly to soil initially, these particles eventually migrate throughout the environment until they finally dissolve in water (Grossman, 2015). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently sampled a collection of rivers, streams, ditches and wastewater treatment plant outfalls in 38 states. Their findings revealed that a majority of those waterways tested contained glyphosate residues, as did 70 percent of rainfall samples (Grossman, 2015).

Though glyphosate’s weed-killing capabilities have had a number of major environmental impacts, one has received a great amount of attention as of late: the decimation of milkweed plants.  As the usage of genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready crops have proliferated throughout the Midwest, the application of Roundup has wiped out enormous tracts of this plant, which serves as the monarch caterpillar’s sole source of food (Pleasants & Oberhauser, 2012). In the last 20 years, it is estimated that the North American monarch butterfly population has declined by 90 percent. This decline coincided with the loss of over 165 million acres of habitat—owing primarily to the pervasive use of glyphosate (The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 2014). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently conducting a review to determine whether to place the North American monarch population under Endangered Species Act protection. Tierra Curry, a senior researcher with the Center for Biological Diversity, believes that this is the “most powerful tool” we can leverage to save America’s monarch population (The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 2014).
In agricultural applications, glyphosate has been touted as a tool that will ultimately assist in reducing pesticide use, as Roundup ready crops will theoretically thrive with fewer applications of only one herbicide throughout the growing season. However, as many conventional farmers have come to rely almost exclusively on Roundup year-in and year-out, weeds that have been able to survive have spread their seeds. Now, what we’re left with is an evolutionary inevitability—Roundup resistant weed species. Facing this new dilemma, agro chemical companies are looking to develop the next GM varieties of corn and soybeans that can withstand chemical formulations like those that make up 2,4-D and dicamba, which can be described as potentially more dangerous than glyphosate (Bohnenblust, Vaudo, Egan, Mortensen, & Tooker, 2015). Unsurprisingly, this has been embraced as a “new era,” representing “a very significant opportunity” for chemical companies like Dow Chemicals (Johnson, 2013).

We opened our first Silent Spring article with news that The White House had taken an historic step in revealing the National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators. Investing in the protection, restoration and enhancement of pollinator habitats is a critical piece in proactively responding to the rapid decline of various pollinator populations within North America. In a similar vein, designating North American monarchs as an endangered species would, in theory, work to protect them and increase their odds of long-term survival. However, without a rigorous plan to curtail the use of harmful pesticides like neonicotinoids and glyphosate—classes of compounds and chemicals which we now know more than ever are undeniable points of concern for the health of humans, animal life and our environment more broadly—these efforts may ultimately be for naught. Even with the establishment of widespread tracts of native prairieland, pollinators and other beneficials will continue to be exposed to these harmful chemicals for the simple fact that they are not sedentary organisms. They move. They pollinate. As Dr. May Berenbaum says, “pollinators are [a]…keystone species. You know how an arch has a keystone? It’s the one stone that keeps the two halves of the arch together…If you remove the keystone, the whole arch collapses” (PBS Nature, 2007).




Next week, we’ll turn our attention to the precautionary principle and how it has—or has not—been applied in relation to the adoption and widespread application of such substances as neonicotinoids and glyphosate.

References

Balbuena, M. S., Tison, L., Hahn, M., Greggers, U., Menzel, R., & Farina, W. M. (2015). Effects of sub-lethal doses of glyphosate on honeybee navigation. The Journal of Experimental Biology. doi: 10.1242/dev.117291.

Bohnenblust, E.W., Vaudo, A.D., Egan, F., Mortensen, D.A., & Tooker, J.F. (2015). Effects of the herbicide dicamba on non-target plants and pollinator visitation. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, online 17 July.

Dallegrave, E., Mantese, F.D., Coelho, R.S., Pereira, J.D., Dalsenter, P.R., & Langeloh, A. (2003). The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats. Toxicology Letters, 142(1-2), p. 45-52.

Grossman, E. (2015, April 23). What do we really know about Roundup weed killer? National Geographic. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150422-glyphosate-roundup-herbicide-weeds/

Hemmelgarn, M. (2015). Little things, big impacts. Acres, U.S.A.

Johnson, N. (2013, October 14). Roundup-ready, aim, spray: How GM crops lead to herbicide addiction. Grist. Retrieved from http://grist.org/food/roundup-ready-aim-spray-how-gm-crops-lead-to-herbicide-addiction/

Krüger, M., Schledorn, P., Schrödl, W., Hoppe, H., Lutz, W., & Shehata, A. (2014). Detection of glyphosate residues in animals and humans. Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology, 4(2).

Lajmanovich, R.C., Sandoval, M.T., & Peltzer, P.M. (2003). Induction of mortality and malformation in Scinax nasicus tadpoles exposed to glyphosate formulations. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination Toxicology, 70(3), p. 612-618.

Leu, A. (2015). Glyphosate under the gun: World Health Organization weighs in. Acres U.S.A.

Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., López, S.L., & Carrasco, A.E. (2010). Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 23(10), p. 1586-1595.

PBS Nature. (2007). Silence of the bees.

Pleasants, J.M., & Oberhauser, K.S. (2012). Milkweek loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: Effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 6(2), 135-144.

Pollack, A. (2015, March 27). Weed killer, long cleared, is doubted. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/business/energy-environment/decades-after-monsantos-roundup-gets-an-all-clear-a-cancer-agency-raises-concerns.html?_r=0

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. (2014). Monarch butterfly moves toward endangered species act protection [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.xerces.org/2014/12/29/monarch-butterfly-moves-toward-endangered-species-act-protection/

Vegetable Feature: Eggplant

Dancer Eggplant

August is upon us and that means it’s that time of year already-eggplant season! A member of the nightshade family, eggplant was once considered poisonous when introduced in Europe. Thankfully, those perceptions have changed and we now recognize eggplant for the culinary gem that it is. The eggplant varieties we grow are particularly delicious and have firm flesh that holds its firmness after both picking and cooking. Growing eggplant can be challenging, so we plant our eggplant in double rows on reflective mulch to combat the Colorado Potato Beetle and the flea beetle. The reflection from the silver plastic disorients the pests and deters them from the plant.

Lilac Bride Eggplant

Eggplant contains fiber, potassium, Vitamins B1 and B6, folate and magnesium. By itself, it is very low in calories. Eggplant should always be cooked, thus giving it a soft, creamy, silky texture and a mild taste. While many culinary sources will warn you to salt eggplant in advance to take away its bitterness, this step isn’t necessary with the varieties we grow. Old varieties do have some bitterness in the seeds and flesh, but newer varieties have been developed and do not have this trait.   Eggplant is thought to have originated in India & China, but has since been spread around the world. You will find a wide variety of ways to utilize eggplant from Indian dishes to curries, glazed with miso or fried & topped with marinara.
When it comes to cooking eggplant, there is no shortage of ways to enjoy it! Eggplant is wonderful when it’s grilled, braised, baked or cooked and pureed into a dip. In your box this week, you will find either Lilac Bride, Listada, Black or Purple Dancer varieties. Our Lilac Bride eggplant is perfect for slicing and including in a stir-fry. Listada is an Italian heirloom variety that can be used for grilling, roasting or stewing. Of course there is also the traditional Black Globe eggplant that shines in traditional recipes such as baba ganoush, eggplant Parmesan and moussaka.  Purple Dancer is one of our favorite varieties because it produces very well, has a creamy white flavorful flesh and is an “all-purpose” type of eggplant.

Listada Eggplant

Its flesh is very good at soaking up whatever you pair it with, like cream, olive oil or marinara sauce in your Eggplant Parmesan. Check out the delicious recipes featured in this newsletter for more ideas. Store your eggplant on your counter at room temperature and use within a few days. Eggplant is very susceptible to chill injury and should never be stored in the refrigerator.

Black Eggplant

Sweet & Sour Eggplant Salad

“Eggplant takes on a soft, almost melting, texture when cooked slowly in a pan.  Though I usually don’t peel eggplant, I do here just to emphasize that silky quality.  Spoon this piquant salad onto crackers or bread, and serve it with good cheese and a bowl of olives.”

—Domenica Marchetti, The Glorious Vegetables of Italy

Serves 8-10
⅓ cup extra-virgin olive oil
1 garlic clove, sliced paper-thin
2 medium eggplants (about 1 ½ pounds), peeled and cut into ½ inch dice
½ to 1 tsp salt
3 tsp balsamic vinegar
1 Tbsp minced fresh herbs (mix of basil, mint, oregano or other as available)
Crostini or Sliced bread, for serving
Pecorino Romano Cheese (or other hard cheese variety), for serving

1. In a large skillet, heat the oil and garlic over medium-low heat.  Cook, stirring frequently, for 7 to 8 minutes or until the garlic is soft and translucent but not browned.  Add the eggplant and ½ tsp salt and stir well to coat the eggplant with the oil.  Cook, stirring occasionally, for 10 minutes or until the eggplant is just tender and cooked through, but not mushy.
2. Spoon the eggplant, along with the garlic slices and any juices, into a bowl.  Sprinkle in the vinegar and herbs and toss gently to combine.  Taste and add more salt if you like.  Cover and let the eggplant sit for at least 30 minutes, preferably longer, before serving.
3. Serve the eggplant salad on top of the crostini and top with shavings of the cheese.

Eggplant Fritters

Recipe borrowed from Mark Bittman’s book, The Best Recipes in the World.

Serves 6

1 ½ pounds eggplant

Salt

1 egg

½ cup fresh parsley leaves

½ cup freshly grated Parmesan cheese

1 garlic clove, peeled

Pinch of cayenne pepper

½ cup bread crumbs, or flour

Corn, grapeseed, or other neutral oil for frying

Lemon wedges, for serving

1. Trim and peel the eggplant and cut it into 1-inch cubes.  
2. Set a large pot of water to boil.  Blanch the eggplant in the boiling water for about 5 minutes or until soft.  Drain in a colander, pressing to get rid of as much moisture as possible.  
3. Combine the eggplant in a food processor with the egg, parsley, Parmesan, garlic and cayenne and process until smooth. Pulse in enough bread crumbs or flour to make a batter that will hold together.
4. Put enough oil in a large nonstick skillet to coat the bottom to a depth of about ¼ inch.  Turn the heat to medium-high and wait until the oil is hot;  when it’s ready, a pinch of flour will sizzle.  Carefully drop the batter from a spoon, as you would pancake batter, and cook until nicely browned on both sides.  Do not crowd the fritters, and adjust the heat as necessary so they brown without burning.  Total cooking time per pancake will be about 6 minutes.  Serve hot or warm, with lemon wedges.

Silent Spring #4-Glyphosate: Roundup's Best Friend Part 1

A Note from Farmer Richard

“Before we introduce the next topic in our ‘Silent Spring Series,’ I wanted to interject a comment about this series and our overall goal in publishing these articles.  We understand the topics in this series can be of a “depressing nature”  and we’ve received some comments to this point from some members.  This series of articles has grown out of our initial interest in preserving pollinators and responding to the White House’s National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators.  Throughout our research, we are coming to understand that these systemic pesticides, neonics and glysophate, and GMO crops are having a wide-spread impact resulting in systemic contamination that is impacting our entire ecosystem and food chain.  Sarah has fearlessly attacked the research to get to the heart of the matter and we have found this has been quite an education for us in this process.  
So, I’d encourage you to please bear with us!  Once we understand the extent of this complex problem, there are many positive things that we can all participate in to turn this around.  Next week we are hosting a group of visitors representing the Xerces Society as well as federal representatives from NRCS & the USDA who are interested in looking at what we’ve done to establish pollinator habitats on our farm.   Stay tuned!”

Silent Spring #4- Glyphosate-

Roundup’s Best Friend Part 1

by Sarah Janes Ugoretz
In this fourth article in our Silent Spring series, we turn our attention to glyphosate—the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup. We’ll start by briefly exploring the development and proliferation of this chemical—primarily through the use of Roundup and genetically modified Roundup Ready seeds. From there, we’ll consider the implications glyphosate’s use has for human health and, in the subsequent article, for our world’s animal life and our environment overall.
In 1974, Monsanto introduced Roundup, a chemical formula anchored by glyphosate that kills weeds by blocking key proteins that are essential to their growth. Today, Roundup is the most commonly used herbicide in the world (Grossman, 2015). Early uses were focused on lawns, recreational spaces and cropland. With the creation and release of Roundup Ready seeds in 1996, however, agricultural applications skyrocketed. Using seeds that had been genetically engineered to withstand Roundup, farmers were suddenly able to spray entire fields without the worry of destroying their crops. As a result, today nearly all of the U.S.’ corn, soybean and cotton crops are regularly treated with Roundup. Chemically speaking, this translates to over 300 million pounds of Roundup being applied to cropland each year (globally, this number is near the 1.4 billion mark).
As the use of glyphosate has increased dramatically over the last two decades, Grossman (2015) echoes a concern that has long been held by many: we have a dearth of research that explores what happens once glyphosate is released into the environment. Though Monsanto (2015) maintains that Roundup is “supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product,” Leu (2014) makes an astute (and rather obvious) point—one that may be missed by those operating outside of the scientific community. What it comes down to is a convenient designation called commercial-in-confidence. A majority of the studies Monsanto points to as working in its favor are classified as industry studies, which means they are not available for external scientists and researchers to review and assess. What is even more alarming is that these in-house studies—rather than independent studies published in peer-reviewed journals—are most often utilized by regulatory bodies as they make their safety assessments (Leu, 2014).
Unfortunately for Monsanto and their bedfellows, in March of this year, glyphosate was officially classified as a probable carcinogenic to humans (Reuters, 2015a). Operating under the auspices of the United Nation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 17 experts from 11 countries reviewed animal, cell and human studies before reaching their decision. Among these studies were cases in which glyphosate was found in farmworkers’ urine and blood, cells were shown to have experienced chromosomal damage, exposed humans demonstrated a higher risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposed animals were prone to tumor formation (Grossman, 2015). Aaron Blair, a retired National Cancer Institute epidemiologist and chairman of the 17-member team of reviewers, said that the decision to classify glyphosate as a probable carcinogen was unanimous. “All three lines of evidence…said the same thing, which is we ought to be concerned about this” (Pollack, 2015). In lieu of the IARC’s findings, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, although it has maintained since 1991 that glyphosate is safe, has announced plans to review and revisit its official stance.
Having been officially regarded as a chemical free from safety concerns, the U.S.’ regulatory infrastructure surrounding glyphosate is virtually non-existent (Reuters, 2015b). As U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist Paul Capel points out, our country’s regulatory practices do not mandate that glyphosate residue be tested for in food or in human blood and tissues. “As a result there is no information on how much people are exposed to from using it in their yards, living near farms or eating foods from treated fields” (Grossman, 2015).
We do, however, have a growing number of studies to look to that suggest that our concern is justified. As Leu (2014, p. 62) observes, “the regulation of glyphosate is a good example of authorities ignoring an extensive body of published scientific study showing the harm that can be caused by this widely used pesticide.” In one peer-reviewed, U.S.-based study, researchers found a strong correlation between a rapid increase in glyphosate use and 22 diseases, including cancers of the kidney, liver, thyroid and bladder and urinary systems (Swanson, Leu, Abrahamson and Wallet, 2014). Another peer-reviewed study found that glyphosate—even at levels that are commonly found in humans—caused estrogen-sensitive human breast cancer cells to multiple at a rate five to thirteen times greater than they normally would in the absence of the chemical (Thongprakaisang, Thiantanawat, Rangkadilok, Suriyo, & Satayavivad, 2013).
Glyphosate has also been detected in human breast milk and is capable of crossing the placental cells (Leu, 2015). One study demonstrated that within 18 hours of exposure, glyphosate had caused damage to human placental cells, even at concentrations lower than those found in commercially available pesticides and herbicides (Richard, Moslemi, Sipahutar, Benachour, & Seralini, 2005). As Hemmelgarn (2015, p. 5) notes: “the chemical industry is quick to tell us not to worry about low levels of contaminants, such as pesticide residues on produce or the BPA that migrates out of food packaging and can linings into our food. However…the chemicals designed by drug companies, such as Ritalin to control hyperactive behavior in children, are active at levels similar to, or even lower than, the levels of toxins found in the blood of children and pregnant women.”
Another group of researchers, after studying four different commercial glyphosate formulas, detected breaks in 50 percent of the DNA strands present in the human liver cells of subjects (Gasnier et al., 2009). This damage compromised the DNA’s ability to communicate with various physiological systems, including the endocrine system. These breakages occurred at doses of 5 parts per million (ppm). As Hemmelgarn (2015) explains, chemicals like glyphosate are biologically active at parts per billion (ppb) levels. To give you an idea, 1 ppb is equal to 2 tablespoons of sugar dissolved into an Olympic sized swimming pool.
These findings represent a tiny fraction of the data that is currently available to us—data that has been gathered through transparent, independent scientific studies, with results rigorously reviewed prior to publishing. Despite this, Monsanto, in reacting to the IARC’s decision earlier this year, declared that the agency must have “an agenda” against the company and their good work. Vice President Philip Miller stated that designating glyphosate as a probable carcinogen was “starkly at odds with every credible scientific body that has examined glyphosate safety” (Pollack, 2015). Well, I suppose when you have Big Ag and a commercial-in-confidence hand trick on your side, anything becomes possible!
Join us again next week as we turn our attention to glyphosate and its impacts on animal life and the environment.

References

Gasnier, C., Dumont, C., Benachour, N., Clair, E., Chagnon, M.C., & Seralini, G.E. (2009). Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology, 262(3), 184-191.

Grossman, E. (2015, April 23). What do we really know about Roundup weed killer? National Geographic. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150422-glyphosate-roundup-herbicide-weeds/

Hemmelgarn, M. (2015). Little things, big impacts. Acres, U.S.A.

Leu, A. (2014). The myths of safe pesticides. Austin, TX: Acres U.S.A.

Leu, A. (2015). Glyphosate under the gun: World Health Organization weighs in. Acres U.S.A.

Monsanto. (2015, March 20). Monsanto disagrees with IARC classification for glyphosate. Retrieved from http://news.monsanto.com/news/monsanto-disagrees-iarc-classification-glyphosate

Pollack, A. (2015, March 27). Weed killer, long cleared, is doubted. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/business/energy-environment/decades-after-monsantos-roundup-gets-an-all-clear-a-cancer-agency-raises-concerns.html?_r=0

Reuters. (2015a, March 20). Monsanto weed killer can ‘probably’ cause cancer: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/20/us-monsanto-roundup-cancer-idUSKBN0MG2NY20150320

Reuters. (2015b, April 20). Regulators may recommend testing food for glyphosate residues. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/20/us-food-agriculture-glyphosate-idUSKBN0NB1N020150420

Richard, S., Moslemi, S., Sipahutar, H., Benachour, N., & Seralini, G.E. (2005). Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(6), 716-720.

Swanson, N.,L., Leu, A., Abrahamson, J., & Wallet, B. (2014). Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America. Journal of Organic Systems, 9(2), 6-37.

Thongprakaisang, S., Thiantanawat, A., Rangkadilok, N., Suriyo, T., & Satayavivad, J. (2013). Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 59, 129-136.

HVF's "Culture of Cleanliness"

By Farmers Richard & Andrea

Color-Coded Brushes: Red is for cleaning equipment and green
is for cleaning harvest totes and trays.

Earlier this spring we had our annual visit from our Food Safety Inspector, Dr, Kolb.  For over 10 years we’ve chosen to do a third-party, voluntary food safety audit of our farm.  When the inspector comes, he checks out all areas of our operation from the packing shed to the field and everything in between.  He looks at equipment, storage facilities, tractors, records, etc.  He actually starts his inspection before he ever pulls in our driveway!  As he approaches our farm he looks at the roadsides scouting out trash and debris.  Seriously, are we responsible for the roadsides too?  Yes!  Any area near or surrounding our farm is important to our “Culture of Cleanliness,” a term we adopted from Dr. Kolb’s food safety jargon.  We want every person who visits our farm to have a positive “first impression” that leaves you thinking “Wow!  What a clean, organized farm!”
When we first started down this road many years ago, food safety on farms was not as much at the forefront as it is now.  Many smaller farms still don’t have a food safety program in place and are scrambling to pull it all together given more recent legislation and increased regulation regarding food safety at the farm level.  While the requirements of this legislation are still being determined, it’s inevitable that the requirements will only continue to become greater.  One of the biggest complaints from farmers is the time and money they need to invest to implement a food safety program.  Yes, it is an investment of both time and money.  We have two crew members who spend several hours per week doing pest control monitoring around the farm.  We also take time to put up fencing in vulnerable field areas to exclude critters such as deer & raccoons from crop areas.  Every month we do environmental lab tests which cost not only time, but also the cost of the lab analysis.  Every day we invest time in properly cleaning and sanitizing wash lines and equipment.  These are just a few of the expenses we incur to support our program.  Nonetheless, we feel it is important to be aware of food safety issues and stay well ahead of the curve.  Many of our wholesale accounts now require documentation of our food safety program in addition to organic certification.  But the value of our interest in food safety goes beyond satisfying a buyer’s request.  With each visit from our inspector we learn new things and are challenged to make improvements to procedures, facilities, machinery, etc.

Moises is preparing the wash tank at the beginning of the day
 (notice the red bucket we use only for cleaning).

Over the years Dr. Kolb has taught us to see our operation through a different set of eyes.  Over the course of time we have developed what we referred to previously as the “Culture of Cleanliness.”  This mentality extends to all areas of the farm.  Everyone on the farm, regardless of position, shares a responsibility in upholding the policies we have in place as well as helping us continue to identify areas for improvement.  We are proud of the progress we have made over the past 8-10 years that has led to a more organized, clean farm that we are all proud of!
We don’t just think about food safety once a year when the inspector is coming.  No, we think about it every day.  We take our job of providing you and your families with safe food very seriously.  Color-coded brushes, red buckets, orange buckets, white buckets, stainless-steel equipment, food-safe grease, clean equipment bearings, yellow-handled harvest knives, tractor-diapers and general good hand-washing….these are just a few parts of our day-to-day work lives that are directly related to food-safety.  We have many SOPs (standard operating procedures) in place and more yet to develop.  Every year we set aside time to do annual training to remind every crew member about the SOPs and build upon previous knowledge.

Our food safety program will likely never be “finished.”  It will always be a work in progress as we make continuous improvements and build upon our current program from year to year to ensure we’re always moving forward.  This past year we invested in some pricey stainless steel packing shed equipment that was greatly needed.  We also implemented a new procedure for knife control.  Upon Dr. Kolb’s recommendations, we’ll be putting together a HACCP plan over the next year and further developing some of the details of our traceback program.  While traceback has been part of organic inspection for many years, we’re starting to see an even greater emphasis on being able to trace back a vegetable not only to the field in which it was grown and harvested in, but also down to the exact lot of seed and every input and operation the crop went through over the course of its growing season!

Pedro and Catarino utilizing designated painted totes as
temporary tables for their work station.

Despite the time, energy and resources a good food safety program requires, we feel that this is one area that is well worth the investment.  We are not scrambling to comply with regulations and feel that our farm is much better overall because of our food safety program.  This year we earned an 100% rating score on our audit and a huge compliment from Dr. Kolb. When he sent his report and our certificate, he stated ‘I was absolutely serious when I said Harmony Valley Farm is a “Model Facility”  - it is at the top of its game and very few in the produce industry can hold a candle to what you have done.’