Modern Slaughterhouse Construction Halted

Two modern slaughterhouses are in the works in the zona oriental of El Salvador - in San Miguel and Pasaquina. The idea is that these two slaughterhouses would serve the entire eastern zone of the country, thereby abolishing all of the small slaughterhouses scattered throughout the countryside. As I outlined in a previous blog post about the typical Salvadoran slaughterhouse, the conditions are unhygienic, inhumane, and environmentally damaging. They are little more than cement floors (at best) with a roof, open to the air otherwise, with no treatment for the waste being washed from the floors into a drain. The water washes away the blood, feces, and I most like bleach or other cleaners as well, directly into a nearby creek. And while many industrialized nations are still debating the best way to slaughter animals (see recent BBC news article), in these slaughterhouses, they are stabbed in the brain and then exsanguinated by slitting the throat. Nothing about these primitive slaughterhouses are good, except that they get the job done and they are numerous, so people do not have to travel very far to get their livestock slaughtered.

All in a day's work - local Salvadoran slaughterhouses.

However, a modern slaughterhouse would ensure clean, well-treated meat was being delivered to the market, and potentially open the doors for an export market. As it is now, because El Salvador does not have any certified slaughterhouses, no meat can be exported, and the meat that large supermarkets and restaurants sell is imported - mostly from Nicaragua. So, El Salvador is losing out. Modernization could bring more sales to local farmers. However, if the entire eastern part of the country only had two slaughterhouses, it would put a strain on farmers who would need to travel great distances on poor roads to reach the slaughterhouse. This might have the opposite effect of reducing farmers' incomes because those who don't intend to export or sell to local supermarkets would now have a much higher input cost. A rancher from the San Miguel, Juan Andres Salazar, said exactly that; the costs incurred from transporting the animals to the slaughterhouse and the meat back, would make his profit margin narrow to almost nothing.

However, the debate may be moot because the process to complete the environmental impact assessments of the two proposed sites has been slow, and now that elections are on the horizon, local law prohibits the bidding process from happening for government projects during that time. Additionally, three government ministries have to approve the project - the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. The project is also being funded by the Social Investment Fund for Local Development, who provide further input into the project. So, nothing may move forward in terms of constructing these slaughterhouses until April of 2012. In my opinion, modernizing animal slaughter is a very important step and I am glad that the government is making an effort to do away with the unsanitary slaughterhouses. But I wonder if they couldn't modernize several small slaughterhouses instead. Apart from making life more difficult for already struggling ranchers and farmers in the poorest zone of the country, having all the region's meat concentrated in just two locations is akin to putting all your eggs in one basket. It's just not a safe food system. One sick animal that gets into the slaughterhouse could destroy thousands of pounds of otherwise perfectly edible meat. Furthermore, in a country where enforcement is practically nil, traceability becomes a major issue. If a disease is introduced, how easy will it be to find its source? This opens the doors to potential epidemics and is overall far too risky for a country such as El Salvador. Sadly, I don't think those government officials are reading my blog :)

GMOs coming soon to a farm near you?

Staring in the face of nearly $200 billion dollars in losses in the agricultural sector due to the rains of October, the Salvadoran government is considering trials of genetically modified crops. Some people believe this to be the magic bullet for the struggling agriculture industry in the country. Corn, beans, rice, sugarcane, and coffee are the top five crops, and genetically engineered varieties of four of those crops exist (although coffee is barely in its initial field trial stage and sugarcane isn't predicted to be commercially available until 2020). So, the government is looking mostly towards GMO corn, and potentially herbicide-resistant rice as a way to combat the challenges these crops are facing due to the changing climate and increasing population. Traditional land races in El Salvador succumb easily to the increasing floods and longer droughts, and so the idea is that with GMO crops, the goal to become self-sufficient as a country (in terms of being able to feed itself) can be realized. This movement is being sponsored by the Association of Agricultural Suppliers (APA), who apart from pushing to give the green light for GMOs to be planted, also would like to see investment in infrastructure that supports agriculture and technology credits for producers who upgrade.

Proponents of starting GMO trials in El Salvador point to the successes Colombia has had since they began planting transgenic cotton, corn, and soybeans in 2001. They - apart from APA, also representatives from CropLife Latin America- believe that the biggest bottle-neck in agricultural development in El Salvador is the lack of access to new technologies. Naturally the primary technology they hope to see in this country is the latest transgenic seeds being planted. The entity that has the authority to grant permission for the planting of genetically modified is the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), not the Ministry of Agriculture (MAG). Which, in my opinion, makes a whole lot of sense. As of now, MARN has not granted permission. And prices for basic grains have stabilized since the spike after the days and days of rain. And of course, we're into the summer months, where almost no rain will fall until April or May. It's going to long and dry, and crops without irrigation will wither and die. Yes, perhaps drought-tolerant genetically engineered plants would fair somewhat better, but how sustainable is it for subsistence farmers to buy the GM seeds year after year? A more sustainable solution would be to implement other types of technology - such as micro-hydro irrigation projects that could extend the growing season and give the farmers more stability for years and years to come.

Farmland in northern El Salvador - greenhouses, mostly for rain protection.

School Food Program Falling Short in El Salvador

The school lunch line: a familiar scene? Not in every school.

Wait...there's a school food program in El Salvador?? Well, yes and no. Recently (within the past few years, although I could not obtain the exact date of initiation), the government of El Salvador, through the Ministry of Education, launched a school snack program. It is called a "snack" program as opposed to breakfast or lunch because the majority of schools in this country have two sessions: a morning session, from around 7 until noon, and an afternoon session, from around 1 until 6. Students attend either the morning OR the afternoon session, not both. Teachers, of course, teach both sessions. And still the rooms are overcrowded and there are not enough resources for even a fraction of those students, or resources period. So, this government-sponsored food program would feed children either mid morning or mid afternoon, depending on the session the student attends. And not surprisingly, this is the best (and sometimes only) meal many of the students receive. A meal of beans are rice served with a vitamin-fortified drink or just plain milk. That's it. Fresh fruits and vegetables? Not so much, but it's calories and a bit of protein and carbohydrates - a start, but certainly not the best.

Junk food is readily available at schools - what about healthy wholesome meals?

The Ministry of Education has recently announced that this new school feeding program to be a success, but apparently many schools are not receiving nearly enough food. Most schools in the department of Santa Ana receive three deliveries during the school year: one in March, another in June, and the final delivery at the beginning of October. (The nine-month public school year starts in March and ends at the close of November.) Many schools can only stretch the food deliveries to last a month, at best. One school in Santa Ana says their October delivery will probably last only until the 22nd of this month. The school year ends November 23rd. That means for one month, students will be going without their snack. Teachers have reported that when there is food for the snacks, they see a dramatic change in the students. They are better behaved, have more focused energy, and exhibit less behavior problems. So when the food supply runs out, they see increased absenteeism, increased disruptions in class, and overall less enthusiastic kids. A hungry student is not a happy student, it's that simple.

Snacks are sold at the schools - or right near the schools, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure - but these snacks are basically just golosinas - candies - or perhaps chips. They provide little in the way of sustenance for the student who buys them - if they can even afford to buy them. The best part about the school food program is that it does not discriminate: it is food available to every student who attends school, regardless of income. This does away with the stigma of getting "handouts" or other forms of charity that kids might shy away from for fear of ridicule by their classmates (yes, despite that a large percent of their classmates are in the same situation). This highlights the need for farm to school programs and school gardens. School yards are locked up when students leave, which would help protect the school garden, and the school garden itself could be part of the curriculum for the classes, and students can help with the labor. Land is often a problem, but most of the time, some is available. Or perhaps raised beds and other innovative and low-tech systems could be implemented to grow food on otherwise undesirable land. So many possibilities!!

(By the way, the Ministry of Education responded to the claims of too-little or undelivered foods by saying that the school directors had not properly filled out the correct forms letting them know how much food the students had eaten daily so they could then properly fill the orders....I guess they didn't get the memo about the necessary cover sheet....)

*Most information taken from an article from El Diario de Hoy, 16 October, 2011 by Emilia Pacheco.

El Salvador Reaps Record Coffee Earnings

Coffee growing near Tacuba, El Salvador.

El Salvador has seen record earnings in coffee this past year; the combination of increased cultivation and soaring world prices has led to many coffee producers bringing in more money than they've seen in a decade. According to the Salvadoran Coffee Council, the past year's export earnings were over $435 million - an increase of 130% from the previous year. A large part of this increase is thanks to the world price of coffee, which is currently at just over $200 per quintal (hundredweight, or 100 kilograms, about 220 pounds). Yes, many of you buy coffee for over nine dollars a pound, nowhere near the 90 cents per pound it's being sold for, but keep in mind this is the "green" coffee bean. Your price includes the cost of transport to the roaster, the roasting of the coffee bean, the fancy coffee packages, transporting to the distribution centers and stores, all the people who are involved with this process along the way, not to mention the brand of the coffee, and marketing too. You might be feeling the sting of higher coffee prices; they are double what they were five years ago, which was double what they were five years before that. That's right, in 2000, coffee prices were around $50 per quintal. Coffee prices (for green coffee beans) are higher than they've been in over twenty years. What's happening? Coffee shortages. Coffee has been affected by recent climate events, such as flooding and droughts, which has shrunk the world supply of coffee.

Thankfully, El Salvador has been able to add to its total harvest in the past year to reap these benefits. This past year, El Salvador harvested the largest quantity of coffee in a decade and a 67% increase over last year's harvest. It's all relative, however, because it looks good when we compare it to the 2000/2001 harvest year. But that year was lower than it had been in over ten years. So, although El Salvador has made great gains compared to the previous ten years, if you line it up with the previous 22 years, it's not looking as hopeful. Perhaps, though, production will continue to increase (trying to insert optimism here!) But it also looks a little bleak, as many coffee fincas are aging and the plans are to take them out of production, which would reduce overall harvest yields. The coffee groups are calling for investments in renovating old coffee fincas and planting new coffee trees, which will help for the future, but likely we'll see a dip in El Salvador's coffee earnings over the next few years.

G-20 Recommends Increasing Investments in Agriculture

The G20 is a group comprised of the top twenty largest economies in the world; together they account for 85% of the world's production of goods and services; over 80% of the GDP and about 80% of the world trade, while accounting for about 65% of the world's population. The members themselves are finance ministers and central bank governors from their respective countries. Their objective is to serve as council to those wealthy nations. Until recently, G8 has been the primary council, but the G20 has risen in stature and is now considered the "go-to" for global economic advising. For the U.S., Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke are the representatives. Not surprisingly, El Salvador is not among the top 20 wealthiest nations; it's ranked somewhere around 95 to 100, depending on the source. In fact, no Central American country is represented in the bloc; Mexico, Argentina and Brazil are the only three Latin American countries in attendance.

In a recent meeting, the concern was voiced as to how we would feed a world of 9 billion people, which is the predicted world population in 2050. Less than forty years away. Plenty of time for change, if we start now. One of the seven pillars defined by the G20 in this recent Washington, DC meeting, is to support small-scale farmers through inclusion in farm-to-school connections as well as supporting public-private partnerships that particularly focus on women agricultural producers. The G20 bloc also stressed the importance of protecting the world's most vulnerable citizens from food price volatility and establishing safeguards for pending climate variations that will inevitably affect agriculture around the world. Other suggestions included improving infrastructure, particularly in the energy and transportation sectors, where large gaps exist and many small and poor farmers do not have access to basic infrastructure.

The World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) urged the richest world economies to invest $100 billion annually each year through 2020 (I can only assume that's a combined total and no what each country should be investing, but my source was not clear). Some of this money, according to Oxfam, could be gained by taxing international financial transactions and imposing a tax of $25 per ton of carbon emitted by cargo planes and ships traveling in international airspace and waters. Whether or not these taxes will be imposed, and if the appropriate investments in agriculture will be made, remains to be seen. But at least it is on the agenda, and high up on the list at that. Food is something we cannot do without, and a food system that places a high value on sustainably and locally produced agriculture will also be one that improves the lives and livelihoods of millions of people - most of them quite poor people - around the world.

Pedro, a Salvadoran farmer, points to his damaged lettuce plants. Despite the overhead protection from the rain (and excessive sunlight - depending on the season), and the fact that he has terraced his land, he still faces many risks. As an organic grower, he strongly believes in how he's helping the world and earning a living. Increasing investments in small-scale agriculture would help growers like Don Pedro.

Sustainable Coconut Industry in El Salvador

The coconut, Cocos nucifera, is the sole species of the genus Cocos, a palm tree grown around the world for its fruit and fiber. The origin of the plant is still debated: some scientists believe the tree is from India or the Asia-Pacific region, while others contend they're from South America. Either way, the tree has been cultivated and used for food and building materials by humans for centuries. And on the Island of the Holy Spirit, near Bahia de Jiquilisco in El Salvador, the coconut is a way of life. A little more than 10 percent of the island's 1800 residents are employed in the coconut industry; approximately 9 million coconuts are harvested from the island's trees each year. On the island is a cooperative that transforms the coconut into edible products, industrial products, or items of ornamental value.

Coconut plantation near Bahia de Jiquilisco (close to Playa El Espino).

Forty-five men cut, transport, and split about a thousand coconuts each day and thirty-five other people (primarily women) separate the "meat" of the coconut from the husk. Historically, most of the edible portion of the coconut has been used for industrial oil production. For this to happen, the women spread the meat out on the cement patios of the cooperative to dry - for six to fifteen days, depending upon if it is the rainy or dry season. Once dehydrated, the coconut meat is crushed in a mill, treated to clean it, and then sold to a factory that produces it into oil. This has been the most prominent activity, and the longest-running, on the island, but it is not consistent because contracts have not been created with the buyers; their needs fluctuate and they might not request a shipment of coconut for oil for two months. So, the islanders are changing the industry; they are looking for new avenues to sell their product. Fresh sales have been up: around 4,000 coconuts (only the meat part, removed from the husk and hard shell) are sold every few days to vendors who make it into food products.

Neat rows of coconut palms (Cocos nucifera) at the edge of Bahia de Jiquilisco, growing right up to the high tide line.

On the island, locals have started initiatives to make preserves, sweet bread, and crafts from the coconut. Today, nearly 800 pieces of coconut candies are made each day in ten different flavors and varieties, such as coco con dulce, coco rayado, coco pina, etc. Coco Art is also gaining popularity as women are making items from the hard shell of the coconuts, such as jewelry, mobiles, candle-holders and other ornamental items. The cooperative is still looking to invest in equipment that will allow them the ability to refine the oil themselves, and also for a machine that would allow them to bottle the coconut water in a sanitary method. Right now, the coconut water is just wasted, dumped out.

What is not being wasted is the natural fiber around the coconut fruit. For the past four years, this "waste product" has been made into planting substrate, liners for plant baskets, and as cropping bags. This sector of the coconut industry employs ten people who formally made a living fishing and collecting small mollusks in the mangrove swamps - jobs that were often back-breaking and low-paying. This sector is hoping to ramp up production by creating coconut coir - a substrate used for sowing seeds in greenhouses made from the pith of the coconut (the part of the husk around the spindly fibers). They also hope to increase sales of the plant baskets, but recently realized that people have become so accustomed to the plastic liners that even though the coconut liners will last seven years, consumers do not realize this and are therefore biased against them. With some strategic marketing, they should be able to improve sales.

Enjoying fresh coconut water by the pool! Near the beaches, you can always find fresh coconuts for sale, ready-to-drink for fifty cents a pop.

This seems all good. But is it? Having a coconut plantation naturally means that you have one large monoculture of nothing but C. nucifera growing for as far as the eye can see. But in this country, having something growing all the time, holding the soil in - particularly in coastal areas - is a lot better than the otherwise rampant deforestation. Coconut plantations are certainly better for the environment and human health than sugar cane plantations. Yes, there are insect pests - as one would expect in a monoculture - and those are managed by insecticides, although I cannot say specifically what kind or how often they spray on this island. So, unlike in other countries, in El Salvador, coconut plantations are not the cause for deforestation because the whole landscape was already deforested where coconuts are planted! Additionally, from personal experience, I have seen how coconut plantations are not just used for coconut cultivation; the land is used for cattle. Cows roam around in the thin shade of the palm trees, eating vegetation around the base of the trees, keeping the weeds down and adding fertility to the soil. Overall, it seems to be a reasonably sustainable industry for El Salvador.

Cheap Chinese Beans

In a bean-producing and bean-consuming country, smack in the middle of a bean-eating, bean-growing part of the world, beans are being shipped in from nearly 9,000 miles (14,000 km) away. And amazingly, despite the miles traveled from field to fork, these beans sell for 35-50 cents less per pound than locally grown beans. It was supposedly a venture that required collaboration between the Chinese government and the agricultural ministry in El Salvador, and this joint venture was meant to "benefit the citizens" of El Salvador. With short-term imported cheap food? Personally, I would like to see the Ministry of Agriculture (MAg) invest in long-term solutions such as providing education and resources to implement sustainable farming practices and seed saving techniques. Methods to reduce erosion, to capture rainwater for irrigation, to restore soil health, to fight insects or plant diseases without chemicals, to bring the product from harvest to market with minimal loss...these are topics that would truly benefit the citizens. But instead, what is the biggest complaint? That the cheap Chinese beans are only being sold in 5-pound bags, which is difficult for many people to afford (yes, the $3.75 is a stretch for many campesinos). Which is why it's obvious that only solutions that are rooted in longevity will have any lasting impact. The MAg says is has at least enough beans to cover all people in the department of La Union for 15 days. After that, what?

This bean import is being complemented by a corn import. But in this case, the importation causes the corn prices to rise despite the fact that the corn is only coming from Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras. This importation is causing worry on the minds of local (Salvadoran) farmers. They fear that the importers will have too much inventory when the harvest comes locally (which is the end of September into October), and this glut will cause prices to drop below what could otherwise be earned without the imported corn saturating the market. But let's dig down to the root of the issue: the reason the corn harvest is late here in El Salvador is because the rainy season began and then suddenly stopped for a couple of weeks (this was back in May). During that 2-week dry spell, all of the little corn seedlings desiccated and most died. Farmers had to turn the fields and replant when the rains started again, putting them about a month behind schedule. What could have prevented this? Very simple irrigation systems. Especially those farmers that sow their seeds on hills - these systems could be low-tech gravity fed systems. With a little proper investing and focusing on long-term solutions, many problems can be prevented!

Red beans - a staple part of the diet in El Salvador.

(NOTE: I know many problems are not as simple as they appear on the surface, I don't mean to oversimplify the issues!)

Organic Production is Growing in El Salvador

In a few small towns in the eastern part of El Salvador, in the Conchagua department, are growing their crops with homemade organic fertilizers. In a project begun by the Salvadoran Foundation for Social Promotion and Economic Development (Funsalprodese), small family farmers are using organic fertilizers made from cow manure, including bocashi and California Red Worm compost (vermiculture). Funsalprodese has a development program that focuses on sustainable agricultural production, focusing its efforts on subsistence farmers primarily. The farmers that they reach have learned that the overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides are harmful to their health as well as the health of the land. By making their own fertilizers, not only are they putting to use materials that would otherwise become waste, they are also helping rebuild soil fertility.

So far, only 33 families are a part of the program, but Funsalprodese hopes to reach all farmers in the Conchagua department in their efforts to improve the livelihoods of the poorest citizens of the country. The foundation works to educate farmers about new techniques that will save time and money, as well as improve their health through less contact with chemicals or through greater nutritional value of their typical meals by diversifying their crops. Funsalprodese does hope to expand to commercial farmers eventually. Meanwhile, the majority of the country still waits for the winter rains to begin. In some zones, the rain has been more frequent, but overall the rainfall has been so low that the hydroelectric company have issued a warning, saying that if 20 more days pass without rain, they will not be able to generate electricity (on a positive note, the geothermal plants have responded by saying they will boost production to cover the deficit). However, the plants and people need the rain, so it's time to be doing our best rain dances!

Corn Harvest: Lost & Postponed

In El Salvador, corn seeds are sown in early May - in the winter, or so it's called here. This winter began in the normal way: suddenly the rain began. April warmed up, making us uncomfortably sticky during the day and sigh with relief when we enter a bank or supermarket or other similarly over-air conditioned location. When the rains began, although it put a damper on our outside activities, we welcomed the rain because it meant the humidity would be lifted. Subsistence and commercial farmers also breathed easier when they saw the start of winter, the start of the growing season. It had been a long dry season and the parched countryside burst into green. Farmers took their seeds to their plots of land, that had been previously prepared by burning last year's crop waste. And they sowed their seeds. But after a week of daily rains - suddenly, there was none. And for the past two weeks, the skies have only held empty clouds; not a drop of water has hit the soil in many zones of the country and the corn seeds that had begun to germinate have died.

Corn seedling - succumbing to the lack of rain. (Photo credit: University of Wisconsin, IPCM - www.ipcm.wisc.edu)

The majority of farmers in El Salvador (most of whom are subsistence farmers) rely solely on the rain to provide their water. They often live in areas where there are no rivers or wells - or if there are rivers, at this point in the year, they are still dried up. Water that is not captured for free from nature is very expensive, especially to people who make only a few dollars (or less) per day. So when a dry air mass sweeps into the country's atmosphere and holds the rain at bay - they are at its mercy. Some farmers did not sow their seeds with the others in early May. Perhaps they were just a bit behind schedule, or maybe they didn't trust the rains would last. So their lands still sit idle, waiting to be sown. Luckily, they still have their seeds, but at this point, the corn harvest now seems like it will be in October instead of late August, as it normally is. Farmers who did sow in early May and then lost their plants may or may not be able to obtain more seeds for a second try. This will have long-term consequences on the price of corn later this year. If the harvest is later and smaller than normal, prices will rise, as we have seen in the past several years with beans.

This is also not a promising outlook for the current administration. El Salvador's president, Mauricio Funes, had assured that this year's harvest will be 25% greater than last year's - and took steps to ensure more farmers had access to seeds and other materials necessary for cultivation. So while he is learning that he too is at the mercy of mother nature, he is also making promises about greater seed distribution for the second sowing. Although corn is perhaps the crop that has suffered the most, that is only because it is the most widely planted at this time of year. Other crops lost include: beans, radishes, blackberries, and a wide variety of other annual fruits and vegetables that are consumed in their own houses, and sold or traded to their neighbors.

In my opinion, this seems to be less an issue of obtaining seeds and more an issue of improving infrastructure that would help keep the country's farmers from being pushed to their knees by nature. Micro-hydro irrigation and other water-catchment systems would be an example of practical technology that could have longer term ramifications for the country's farmers than constantly handing out seed packets.

Coffee Exports ~ Good News in El Salvador, not so in Colombia

"Green" coffee beans - bagged and ready to be sold to roasters.

The 2010/2011 harvest season has been a good one in El Salvador; not only have yields increased, they have nearly doubled when compared to the yields at the same time last year, and coffee prices have also gone up. The price per quintal (approximately 100 kilograms) this year is $213.28, whereas last year it was $148.11 - a jump of $65. Yields increased from 1.08 million quintals in the 2009/2010 harvest season to 2.07 this year. Germany buys the majority of Salvadoran coffee (at approximately 35%) followed in close second by the United States (with 32%) and then Japan at nearly 10%, Canada at 6%, and twenty-six other countries making up the remaining exports. The rise in prices and yields is certainly a boon for coffee exporters, but unfortunately those picking the coffee don't see the extra value. Of course more beans to pick does mean more money, but they do not earn more per basket of picked beans when coffee prices are high. The average Salvadoran coffee picker will see about eight dollars per quintal picked. And I can promise you that picking 100 kilograms in one day is impossible - it takes about two days, which brings the average monthly salary of a coffee picker to around $150. As long as there's work. So the more coffee to be picked, the better for these pickers. And the happier the coffee plantation owners are when the prices are high. But is it win-win?

Coffee processing/cleaning plant at Finca Santa Isabel, on the slopes of Volcan Chaparrastique (San Miguel)

Colombia is a different story this year. Due to the heavy rains that plagued the country in the later months of 2010, continued rains throughout April and unusually cold temperatures, the coffee harvest was 19% less than what it was last year at this same time. However, 2010 saw a big increase in production and exports, so the drop this year still puts them ahead of where they were in 2009. Additionally, exports only dropped by about 2%, which means producers were favoring exports to local sales - most likely due to the high prices of the global coffee market. If producers are going to be low on volume, they will make up for in with the higher prices. And indeed, Colombian coffee exporters have not seen a much lower income this year than last, thanks to the higher world coffee prices.

What I wonder is: how many of you know where your coffee comes from? And does it make a difference to you?

Round 'em Up!

I am a champion of local foods. And I am a huge promoter of organic foods, but not if it's industrial organic because that seems antithetical to the intrinsic organic principles. I definitely do not support growing and eating genetically modified plants for the myriad reasons I outlined in a previous post. And while I am not flat-out against all pesticide use no matter what, I am a strong supporter of the precautionary principle and using alternative, natural methods to control pest problems that enhance and protect biodiversity. I think, by and large, that chemicals that have been created by humans are overwhelming our environment and our bodies, and we don't yet know what the consequences will be. Contradicting the precautionary principle, the producers of these chemicals put the burden of proof on the public instead of proving to us that their chemical is harmless. These chemicals are generally manufactured by multinational corporations that not only have heavy lobbying influence in Washington, but are party to the revolving door phenomenon, whereby people who are supposed to be the regulators leave the government for a high-paying job at the chemical company, and then eventually return to another governmental post (often in the EPA or USDA). How can people who have a vested interest or something to be gained make decisions for the good of the public? I don't think they can.

And that's how we have Roundup herbicide. Roundup is the brand name broad-spectrum herbicide manufactured by Monsanto; the main active ingredient is glyphosate. Monsanto developed and patented the glyphosate molecule in the early 70's; Roundup has been on the shelf since 1973, but in 2000 the patent expired and now there are other manufacturers of glyphosate-based herbicides. This herbicide made it onto the shelf without being tested by the EPA; although the main active ingredient (glyphosate) has been classified in Toxicity Class III by the EPA (meaning it's harmful if swallowed or inhaled). Roundup kills weeds, and other plants, by inhibiting an enzyme (EPSP synthase) from being produced; without this enzyme, plants cannot produce the correct proteins for growth, and so they quickly die. The EPA has requested test results investigating any potential harmful effects of glyphosate on humans, animals, or the environment in general. Twice, the EPA caught scientists who were deliberately falsifying the test results in testing labs hired by Monsanto. Those responsible were convicted of felony charges and sentences to jail for 5 years and the lab was required to pay a hefty fine.

Map credit: University of Washington Extension

Monsanto has also been convicted of false advertising. In the late 90's, Roundup labels claimed the herbicide was as safe as table salt, and practically non-toxic to fish and other aquatic wildlife. In France, Monsanto even wrote "biodegradable!" on the label. None of these things are true; it is definitely not as safe as the salt you sprinkle over your food, it does not biodegrade, and it is very toxic to aquatic organisms. Despite all this, it is the most popular herbicide in the US, especially since Monsanto began developing Roundup-resistant varieties of agricultural crops, such as corn, soybeans, canola, sorghum, cotton, wheat, alfalfa, and beets. These plants have been genetically modified to be able to produce an enzyme similar to EPSP synthase that will trigger the proteins to keep producing, unaffected by glyphosate. This means a farmer can spray his whole field with Roundup, killing all the weeds while leaving his crops unharmed. However, some plants have developed a natural resistance to glyphosate. These are called superweeds because they cannot be killed by Roundup, or similar herbicides, and are causing farmers significant troubles around the world. Farmers are reporting over 50 different species of weeds have become resistant to Roundup; in every case, the weeds were grown in areas of intense Roundup spraying.

This is a field sprayed with glyphosate - the plants (weeds) that are still green are resistant to the herbicide. In this case, it's marestail weed. (Photo credit: Nature.com)

And now, after nearly 40 years on the market, the EPA is considering a ban or strict limiting of the herbicide due to new information of the probable human health effects from this herbicide. New studies have found glyphosate responsible for causing infertility and spontaneous abortions in pigs, cattle, and other livestock. Another study showed that glyphosate caused malformations in frog and chick embryos. In another study sponsored by the National Institute of Health, they have found that farmers and others who frequently use glyphosate have an increased risk of developing a cancer that affects the bone marrow compared to those who never used glyphosate. This same study found detectable levels of glyphosate in the urine of farmers and their children. This new information that brings to light some previously unknown adverse affects, along with the increased instances of glyphosate-resistant plants, will likely change the future of glyphosate's approval. Many farmers and scientists believe glyphosate's days are numbered. What I worry, though, is what the alternative will be. Glyphosate is not going to just go away with nothing to replace it; it's the mostly widely used herbicide in the world - something has to take its place. And will that "something" be well tested? Or will it take forty more years to discover that the chemical we've been dousing on our environment is actually a carcinogen, mutagen, and endocrine disruptor? My hope is that the precautionary principle will be called into play. There's nothing wrong with a little hope, right?

El Salvador's Slaughterhouses

*CAUTION: GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS & PICTURES*

Six years ago, the municipal slaughterhouse in La Union, in the southeastern region of El Salvador, was ordered to be closed by the Ministry of Health because it did not meet the health standards outlined by the ministry. Yet still it continues to operate. If you are picturing an image from Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, of horrific assembly line style production practices, wipe that image from your mind. Instead picture this: one by one cows are pushed and prodded, forced in any way (including contorting their tails) to get them into a large cement building, where they are tied to a cement post. The rope is tied around their heads, and they are tied as close to the post as possible so they cannot move their heads. Next, they are stabbed in the back of the head (into the brain) so they become immobilized, and then they are untied and generally they collapse to the ground in fits of spasms and convulsions. The rope is usually re-tied to the bottom of the post to help control the dying spasms of the cow. While thrashing, their throats are slit. The brain-stabbing is to paralyze them, the throat-slitting is to actually kill them. Often, a worker will stand on the cow to help the blood rush out of the gash in the neck. The blood cover the floor and flows into a drain in the center of the large cement slaughterhouse. More often than not, this drain flows untreated into the environment (into the nearest stream or river). The floor may or may not be made of cement; it's possible it's just dirt.

After being killed and bled out, the cow carcasses are left to "rest" over night, during which time flies and other insects have free access to the raw meat. The hides are cut free and the meat is then butchered into large sections, which is how it is sold into the local markets. Local health officials lack the means to properly enforce their closure, which is why slaughterhouses such as the one in La Union continue to operate, despite the deplorable conditions. However, even if the slaughterhouse were meeting the proper standards, that would not actually change much. The blood would have to be treated before leaving, and workers would be required to wear shirts, boots, gloves, and masks while slaughtering, but nothing would change for these poor cows. So this is the reality of meat slaughtering and butchering in El Salvador. In the large supermarkets, such as Super Selectos and Dispensa de Don Juan, most of that meat comes from Nicaragua, where the slaughterhouses are more modern. But the majority of the Salvadoran population do not buy their meat there, they buy the meat at local markets, which purchase their meat from those types of slaughterhouses. Exact numbers are difficult to find, since many slaughterhouses are operating without authority to do so, and data collection is often lacking here as it is. Suffice it to say, I moved here not being a regular meat-eater (my last meat was a delicious burger from Seneca Breeze Organic Dairy in upstate NY two years ago), and with this knowledge, it makes my decision to avoid meat even easier. However, I will keep searching for humanely raised and slaughtered local meat in this country and provide an update when I encounter such a thing.

*Most information was taken from El Diario del Hoy, 31 de marzo 2011, the remainder was from personal accounts from my students, who visited a local slaughterhouse.

*Photos taken from the video of the aforementioned students, who must remain anonymous.

See the full gallery on Posterous

Farming Cooperatives

The United Nations has declared that next year, 2012, will be the International Year of Cooperatives; since 1992, the first Saturday in July has been the International Day of Cooperatives. Worldwide, cooperatives directly employ over 100 million people, according to the UN. A cooperative is a business owned by a group of individuals, and the members are owners who share equally in control of their business and most likely meet at regular intervals to discuss the operations. Typically a cooperative will elect a director or small group of directors to oversee day-to-day affairs and hire people as needed. The idea of a cooperative is that those with similar needs join together for mutual gain, which often is helpful in gaining greater market access, purchasing necessary equipment or supplies, or obtaining services at a lower overall cost. A typical agricultural cooperative will unite agricultural producers to gain a wider market share, to collaborate on various processing and transportation needs, and to obtain supplies at a reduced cost.

Farmers work with greenhouse tomatoes.

Voluntary private cooperatives have recently been a boon to Mexican farmers; there are approximately 15,000 farming cooperatives in Mexico whose memberships numbers surpass 5 million. For the cooperatives in Mexico, the greatest benefit has been bulk marketing. The cooperatives have warehouses and other storage facilities that allow their farmers to immediately deliver their products to the cooperative, and then the cooperative can deliver the larger quantities to the buyers. NGOs have cited cooperatives as the primary reason behind positive community development in regions where new cooperatives have joined together. An increase in community development has meant more jobs are created, education is prioritized, health is improved, and local economy is strengthened. Another benefit from the cooperatives in Mexico is that the farmers can share expensive equipment that improves their efficiency, but alone they would not have been able to afford. Around 85% of the world's 460 million farms are less than 2 hectares, and the majority of these farmers earn less than 2 dollars a day. Access to infrastructure, knowledge of improved farming techniques, processing capacity, and even basic health care are all often out of reach of these farmers. Couple that with rising food prices and distorted market prices as a result of agricultural dumping, and it's clear that these farmers are at a distinct disadvantage.

Los Planes processing facility: where the produce is triple washed with purified water, dried, and packaged. This facility employs 18 women and two men.

Joining together in a cooperative will improve the livelihoods of these same farmers, but starting a cooperative is challenging due to the start-up costs. There are few resources and start-up capital available in Latin America for farming cooperatives. Governmental, non-governmental and private investors have all had a part in investing in the 15,000 cooperatives in Mexico, and once a cooperative gets off the ground, the results can be tremendous. According to the Inter-Press Service News Agency (IPS), cooperatives in Mexico have assets totaling 8.3 billion dollars - which demonstrates the economic importance of their existence. Several agricultural cooperatives exist in El Salvador as well, such as Los Planes Organic Cooperative, and Biolact - a yogurt producer, and several coffee cooperatives. Investing in agricultural production is an investment in food security and regional stability. In developing (and even developed!) countries, allowing small farmers avenues to thrive and compete against giant agribusiness corporations will improve the status of the most impoverished and therefore improve the overall health and wealth of the nation.

El Salvador Invests in Reducing Dependence on Imports

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a foreign aid agency
that aims to combat poverty around the world. A year and a half ago,
they granted El Salvador $461 million - well, they granted the
organization Fondo del Milenio de El Salvador (Fomilenio) the money,
and that organization has committed to using the majority of that
money on developing productive and profitable agriculture in the
northern parts of the country, la zona norte. The goal of Fomilenio
aligns with MCC; they seek to reduce poverty while growing the
economy, and their work is aimed entirely in the northern zone of the
country. Fomilenio describes the grant's purpose as a way to
strengthen the farmer's access to markets, improve their productivity,
and increase overall sustainability and quality of product.

Five products were identified as the most economically important in
the region: Hass avocados, pineapples, tomatoes, plantains, and cacao.
Hass avocados are a variety developed in the U.S. using a strain from
Guatemala, and now dominate the worldwide market. El Salvador consumes
about 12 thousand tons each year, but only produces a little over 2
thousand tons. Pineapples are the second most cultivated crop in the
world after bananas; El Salvador imports 12 thousand tons and produces
8 thousand tons. Tomatoes are another economically important crop;
approximately 70 thousand tons are imported to satisfy the local needs
- only 28 thousand tons are produced in the country, demonstrating a
major gap between demand and supply. Two crops that Fomilenio is
hoping to boost for the export market are cacao and plantains. Cacao
(Theobroma cacao), also called cocoa tree, is an evergreen tree native
to El Salvador. Its seeds are used to make cocoa powder and chocolate,
and typically fetches a high return on investment. Plantains are the
other crop Fomilenio would like to see grown in increasing numbers. El
Salvador is the third largest importer of plantains in the world, and
according to experts from Fomilenio, it is a profitable crop that can
be a viable alternative to sugarcane production. Under irrigation, the
production levels could be very high; Fomilenio believes 130 thousand
hectares of land could be devoted to this crop.

Most of the funds from MCC are going towards improving the road,
carretera Longitudinal del Norte, which runs the breadth of the zona
norte. Improvement in this infrastructure will allow easier and faster
market access. This $380 million project, apart from easing
transportation for agricultural products, benefits the 423,000
residents along that road (about half of the total population of the
zone). Fomilenio is also investing in extending electric lines over
400 kilometers in the area, installing 400 solar photovoltaic systems
in places where it is too difficult to bring the electric lines,
providing 25 communities with potable water, and offering two thousand
training courses for farmers wanting to begin or increase production
of agricultural products. Fomilenio firsts wants to see farmers
selling their products in the large stores, such as SuperSelectos and
Wal-Mart, but then their eyes are on the export prize. My hope is that
they at least develop these agricultural businesses in a sustainable
way, being considerate of the environment while working to achieve
financial success. Time will tell...

The Current GMO Debate: Know Your Food!

GMOs – Genetically Modified Organisms – have invaded our food system. It is a fact: the majority of items on the supermarket shelves contain genetically modified corn or soybeans. The meat and dairy items displayed in their refrigerated cases come from animals fed genetically modified grains (again, primarily corn and soybeans). Even the farmed salmon was fed GMOs. Any time you see “high fructose corn syrup” on the ingredient list, you can be guaranteed that it is from GM corn plants, from an endless monoculture somewhere in the Midwest USA. Advocates of GMOs insist that there is nothing unnatural about these seeds produced in a lab using the latest biotechnological techniques. But, in fact, nature cannot do what they are doing in the lab. For thousands of years, farmers have been selecting the best seeds, or the best animals, and breeding them for the future. Corn, as we know it today, was once a mere grass like most other grasses, with just a handful of kernels not even together on a single cob. Over time, as farmers (in Mexico) continued to save the seeds of those plants that had the most and largest kernels, the species improved until it hardly resembled its ancestor. This took several thousand years, and it happened naturally, and they do not have the genes of any other species in them, and the ones that continue to grow in Mexico are well adapted for the soil conditions, climate, and naturally resistant to pests. Not immune to pest destruction, but more resistant than if you brought a corn seed taken from a corn plant growing in Germany, for example.

Seeds are genetically modified when a foreign gene is inserted into its DNA, a gene from a different species not at all related to the corn (for example). This can be accomplished with a gene gun, attached to a virus, inserted with a tiny syringe, or using a bacterium. In order to ensure the foreign gene made it into the cell correctly, biotechnologists also insert an antibiotic marker gene. Douse the cells with bacteria, and if it doesn’t die, it’s got the gene in it. Neat idea, huh? So what the heck are scientists inserting into our food? In corn, some are modified to contain an insecticide called Bacillus thuringiensis, (Bt), which essentially causes the plant to be toxic to the little worms that take a bite out of it. Very common are the RoundUp Ready varieties of plants, which have a gene inserted that causes them to become resistant to an herbicide, glyphosphate, which Monsanto sells under the trade name RoundUp. Other modifications include resistances to other pesticides, to various kinds of viruses, and even to contain increased amounts of vitamins. When the field is sprayed, all of the weeds die, but the modified plant lives on! Sounds brilliant, doesn’t it? In order to protect their inventions, these “seed” companies also engineer in “terminator technology” whereby the offspring (seeds) from their plants are sterile; or they include “traitor technology” in which the genetically added trait will only get “switched on” by the application of a certain pesticide or fertilizer of the seed company’s design.

Well, there are multiple issues that arise with GMOs. For one, the use of Bt integrated into the plant material means that insects would become resistant to that naturally occurring insecticide, which is probably not a big deal unless you’re an organic farmer. Bt is derived from a soil-dwelling bacterium, and is one of the few pesticides approved for organic farming. Then there are the antibiotic marker genes. Already, 50% of antibiotics in the U.S. are used on animals (no, not on your sick puppy, but on your steak), and that in combination with the antibiotics in GMOs means those antibiotics will go the way of Bt: utterly useless. However, unlike the insects that will be resistant to Bt, us humans will still be sick – looking for another antibiotic that will actually work! Another issue with GMOs is the potential for crossing over into wild species. Imagine if the terminator gene somehow managed to spread to wild species – what a devastation that would be for biodiversity if plants could not produce viable offspring! Is this likely? Well, the Canadian market for organic canola has collapsed because it’s virtually impossible to find a canola field free from GM-canola contamination. It’s not the plant’s fault; it’s just doing what it’s supposed to do – try to reproduce by spreading its pollen. And speaking of pollen, butterfly larvae (caterpillars) fed GM pollen grew slower and suffered a 50% increase in mortality rate, according to a controlled study done at Cornell University. Additionally, planting GMOs mean a loss of genetic diversity. Remember the Great Famine (aka, the Irish Potato Famine)? This was caused by loss of genetic diversity. If you plant all of the same variety, and a disease or blight wipes that specific variety out, you’re going to be left hungry. When the same potato blight hit Peru – another potato-loving culture – they were just fine because they had dozens of varieties of potatoes, so the few that succumbed to the blight didn’t matter as much. If all farmers are buying the same Triple Stacked Corn from Monsanto, they are creating one vast monoculture stretching from the Colorado border clear through to the hills of the Appalachians. Well, on second thought, if a blight did come through, maybe that would be a good thing – most of that corn is now being made into ethanol and animal feed, and not directly feeding the country anyhow! Lastly, although I am going to skip the potential risks to human health from GM seeds (for now), I do need to mention the rise of Super Weeds. Like Super Man, except instead of saving the planet and protecting the innocent, these weeds have become resistant to glyphosphate, and now these tough weeds are taking over, making life even harder on farmers.

GMOs – Genetically Modified Organisms – have invaded our food system. It is a fact: the majority of items on the supermarket shelves contain genetically modified corn or soybeans. The meat and dairy items displayed in their refrigerated cases come from animals fed genetically modified grains (again, primarily corn and soybeans). Even the farmed salmon was fed GMOs. Any time you see “high fructose corn syrup” on the ingredient list, you can be guaranteed that it is from GM corn plants, from an endless monoculture somewhere in the Midwest USA. Advocates of GMOs insist that there is nothing unnatural about these seeds produced in a lab using the latest biotechnological techniques. But, in fact, nature cannot do what they are doing in the lab. For thousands of years, farmers have been selecting the best seeds, or the best animals, and breeding them for the future. Corn, as we know it today, was once a mere grass like most other grasses, with just a handful of kernels not even together on a single cob. Over time, as farmers (in Mexico) continued to save the seeds of those plants that had the most and largest kernels, the species improved until it hardly resembled its ancestor. This took several thousand years, and it happened naturally, and they do not have the genes of any other species in them, and the ones that continue to grow in Mexico are well adapted for the soil conditions, climate, and naturally resistant to pests. Not immune to pest destruction, but more resistant than if you brought a corn seed taken from a corn plant growing in Germany, for example.

Seeds are genetically modified when a foreign gene is inserted into its DNA, a gene from a different species not at all related to the corn (for example). This can be accomplished with a gene gun, attached to a virus, inserted with a tiny syringe, or using a bacterium. In order to ensure the foreign gene made it into the cell correctly, biotechnologists also insert an antibiotic marker gene. Douse the cells with bacteria, and if it doesn’t die, it’s got the gene in it. Neat idea, huh? So what the heck are scientists inserting into our food? In corn, some are modified to contain an insecticide called Bacillus thuringiensis, (Bt), which essentially causes the plant to be toxic to the little worms that take a bite out of it. Very common are the RoundUp Ready varieties of plants, which have a gene inserted that causes them to become resistant to an herbicide, glyphosphate, which Monsanto sells under the trade name RoundUp. Other modifications include resistances to other pesticides, to various kinds of viruses, and even to contain increased amounts of vitamins. When the field is sprayed, all of the weeds die, but the modified plant lives on! Sounds brilliant, doesn’t it? In order to protect their inventions, these “seed” companies also engineer in “terminator technology” whereby the offspring (seeds) from their plants are sterile; or they include “traitor technology” in which the genetically added trait will only get “switched on” by the application of a certain pesticide or fertilizer of the seed company’s design.


GMOs were ruled to be not different enough from their non-modified counterparts to be labeled as such (they term the FDA used was “substantially equivalent” and called them G.R.A.S. – generally recognized as safe). And yet, they are different enough that the USDA has written into law that foods grown and sold as organic may not contain genetically modified organisms. Well, they cannot have detectable levels of GMOs greater than 5 parts per million (ppm). So – are GMOs “substantially equivalent” or not? It seems even the US government cannot agree. And the main reason is – no surprise here – industry lobbying. I’m not being cynical; ask Monsanto yourself, the reason why they were opposed to labeling is because they were concerned consumers would not buy it, because they (the consumers) would be afraid of the label and see it as a warning. Yes, perhaps consumers would view it as a warning, but at least we would be informed! In the EU, labeling GMOs is required; they apparently trust their citizens to make informed decisions. The amount of land planted with genetically modified seeds has increased dramatically in the past fifteen years. Fifteen years. That is not much in terms of seeing the effect our actions have on nature. And yet, we (the U.S.) seem to be plowing full-steam ahead. Just recently, the Obama administration approved the partial or complete deregulation of GM alfalfa, sugar beets, and a type of corn for ethanol production. Trials of GM alfalfa have shown high probabilities for contamination to occur; in fact conventional (non-GM) fields in California are already contaminated just from one year of planting the GM variety. This approval is seen as a major blow to not just the organic industry, but also for conventional farmers who wish to export their alfalfa abroad. The EU is very strict about GM contamination, and has already imposed a ban on rice that was found to have traces of unapproved genetically modified genes.

Protesters in Rotterdam call the U.S. out on their illegal shipment of GM-contaminated rice that was imported into Europe. This led the EU to place a ban on all U.S. rice imports.

The new GM corn for ethanol production is also troubling. This corn was modified to produce an enzyme that breaks down cornstarch into sugar – this is the first step in producing ethanol, which would create a “self processing” corn of sorts and eliminate the first step in producing ethanol. According to an article from the NY Times, if contamination of the food supply by this genetically modified corn seed happened, “it could lead to crumbly corn chips, soggy cereal, loaves of bread with soupy centers and corn dogs with inadequate coatings.” The foreign gene comes from a microorganism that lives near thermal vents on the ocean floor; how this foreign gene would act inside us is anyone’s guess. I haven’t been able to find any studies yet. That’s fine, we’ll wait until after it’s planted to know for sure… Of course, what is this trait manages to spread to wild species? Again, I am not aware of any studies that have been done. Some studies have indicated that corn left unharvested, or for some reason left in the fields, will leave a high amount of enzyme reside in the soil, adversely affecting the carbon cycle. While it seems like a valiant effort – to save energy and water and chemicals by making the little corn kernel do the work for us, the real question comes down to this: should we be using food to fuel our cars? And if so, should we be putting so much at risk for it?

So what will GMOs give us? Super-weeds, super-germs, super-insects, and we’ll be left SOL (super-outta-luck)!

Delicious Organic Food?

Organically grown corn ~ it tasted delicious!

Of all the reasons to choose organic food, the one that is the most cited by organic food purchasers is because organic food tastes better. Many people are appreciative of the environmental benefits organic food brings along with it, but when it comes right down to it, their taste buds are doing the talking. Why would you pay more for something that wasn't more pleasing to your palate? So does organic food really taste better, or is it people's peace of mind enhancing the overall perceived mouthfeel? Is there any science behind this? Can we actually judge what tastes better scientifically, because isn't taste subjective? Let's see if we can work all of these aspects out.

Studies have been conducted on the organoleptic quality of conventional versus organic foods. OrganoWHATic? It refers to the qualities of senses, such as taste, color, and odor given off by a certain item, in our case, food. It is a subjective form of measurement, and the results of these sensory tests have a wide range of variables, starting with whether the taster is trained or untrained in the art of tasting food. (There are beer and wine connoisseurs, why not food connoisseurs?) But then the food itself throws in all sorts of variables just to make the measuring even trickier. It's almost impossible to get an identical fruit or vegetable that only varies in whether or not it was grown organically or conventionally. Soil quality, weather, how ripe the crop was at harvest, how it was handled after harvest...all of these factors could be marginally different but may cause a wide variation in the final taste of the crop. These studies have also found that whether or not a person knows the food is organic does indeed affect how they perceive the taste. This is called the "halo" effect, because organic is perceived as better, so the taster will rate it as such, even though the flavor may be the same, or perhaps inferior.

However, there is some hard science behind all of this uncertainty - science where we can measure and record quantitative data. This has to do with the antioxidant levels in the crop, and the availability of nitrogen during crop maturation. Organic foods tend to have higher levels of antioxidants and lower levels of nitrates. This combination helps naturally preserve crops, but moreover, low nitrate presence in foods has been linked with improved flavor. The lower nitrate levels is likely due to the lack of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, that is typically used in conventional farming. Increased nitrogen availability in the soil allows for greater yields per plant. However, there is speculation that this increased yield means that the vitamins and antioxidants in the produce are diluted because they are, in a sense, divided up among more fruits or vegetables.

Organic vegetable basket from El Salvador!

The studies conducted on the organoleptic quality of organic versus conventional products have consistently found three fruits that repeatedly score much higher for organics: apples, tomatoes, and strawberries. The science supports the subjective tests; antioxidant levels of the organic fruit for all three were higher than their conventional counterparts. All three also resisted deterioration better after harvest. Analysts believe that it is the practices used in organic farming that allow for this to happen, practices such as using compost and cover crops, which allows for the slow release of nitrogen over the entire life of the plant, instead of just at strong "doses" that would come with adding synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. Additionally, antioxidants in foods can be lost during processing, and sometimes this loss is promoted by additives that may be banned in organic processing. For example, the chemical hexane is used to extract oil from crops in conventional oil processing, but is banned in organic oil processing; hexane has been known to remove antioxidants from foods. So, it seems that organic food can indeed taste better, not just because we think it should, or we want it to, but because it just might be healthier for us! Our taste buds are judging well in this case!