There is a lot of confusion and disinformation circulating today about seeds and the ethics of their commercial sale.  Actually a healthy, commercial seed industry is critical for agricultural sustainability.  Because seeds are such a fundamental component of the sustainability of our food supply, this area deserves careful thought and accurate information even if you are never going to farm or even garden. I’ll try to address some of the modern “myths” about this.  I’ll talk about “farmer-saved seed,” and “hybrid seed.” In a later post I’ll talk about “GMO seed,” and the mythical “Terminator Technology.”  But first a little history.

Seed-bearing plants start showing up in the fossil record ~350 million years ago, first as gymnosperms like cycads, conifers… and eventually, flowering plants (angiosperms) like most of the living plants today.  Other than pine nuts and sea weed, I can’t think of any crops that are not angiosperms (Contest! - 5 virtual sustainability points to someone who can come up with another non-angiosperm crop plant)

Jarrod Diamond’s wonderful book, “Guns, Germs and Steel” talks about how the initially accidental and later intentional collection and planting of seeds is what made human civilization possible - the move beyond the hunter/gatherer state that happened about 10,000 years ago in the “fertile crescent.”

Read more of this story »

I’d like to speak directly to this as a long-time Ag industry insider whose experience does not support these suspicions. I know that some will dismiss this perspective assuming I am biased, but one has to balance potential for bias with actually having first-hand experience from which to speak.  Over the last 32 years I’ve work for or with most of the companies, large and small, that provide agricultural technologies.  Fourteen of those years have been as an independent consultant so I get to know what is going on inside of many companies in a given year.  I have still only had direct knowledge of a subset of what happens, but in all of that exposure I’ve never witnessed an unethical decision or action - not even the consideration of one.  I’ve seen certain decisions that were short-sighted.  I’ve sometimes seen decision-making processes that are more driven by fear than by opportunity.  I’ve seen missed opportunities because vision was lacking.  I’ve occasionally seen failures to take advantage of synergies that could have been realized between divisions of large organizations. I’ve seen problems, but I believe that some level of dysfunction is inevitable in any organization involving people.  Still, unethical behavior isn’t something I’ve seen so I disagree that it is automatically likely just because of the characteristics of the company.  

On balance I’ve also seen these organizations, large and small, frequently make important contributions to society in terms of the productivity and safety of our food supply.  I’ve seen these companies continue to do that in an environment of constant activist attack and very limited public understanding because so few people farm.

Read more of this story »

Around 1300 c.e. the Yao and Zhuang people of Guangdong Province in Southern China faced a serious problem.  In the Longsheng area there was a growing population, but their mountainous surroundings gave them very little land that could be used for farming.  They needed more food and so they turned to technology for the solution.  What they did was to terrace their mountainsides even up to slopes of 45%. I’m sure that the method was perfected over the 400 years of building.  What they were able to do is still an impressive example of civil engineering, even today.  Using stones and mud they built terrace walls that stand firm even with the torrential downpours that are common in the area.  They used bamboo piping to distribute water to each paddy - some so narrow that they only have room for two rows of rice.  This production system has remained productive for centuries when many other contemporary farming societies around the world simply depleted one area and moved on to the next.  These terraces are called Longji, or the ”Dragon’s Spine” and they now extend over 66 square kilometers.  They are both beautiful and inspiring.

Read more of this story »

I’ll come back to the Mycotoxin issue soon.  Instead, I’ll talk today about my serious worries about Climate Change.  

People involved in world agriculture have no patience with the supposed “debate” about climate change.  We are already seeing the effects, and the projections for the future are not encouraging.  The most troubling feature of this phenomenon (and one that occurs even if you don’t believe that it is human-driven) is that we are facing increasing variation in climatic events.  The yearly changes in average temperature or even annual rainfall may not be dramatic, but what we are anticipating is that there will be more extreme weather events.  Climate averages are not what matters for crop production - Variation is.  A few days of intense rain or heat at the wrong time can devastate a crop.  A few weeks of drought can do the same.  A single hail or frost event can make all the difference in what a farmer can harvest.  We have always had those risks for farming and only long term data will demonstrate whether there has been an increasing trend as is predicted.  For instance, It isn’t possible yet to say that the current, extended drought in Australia is caused by elevated greenhouse gasses, but some day we will know whether it was by looking back historically.  Of course that will be too late.  Our actions have to come now.  The other huge threat from climate change is that water supplies will be more limiting in many areas that are irrigated today.  Though that area is much smaller than rain-fed areas, it is very important to the food supply.

Some have predicted that “Global warming” and elevated CO2 will boost crop production in certain areas.  There might be some occasions where higher temperatures will enhance some yields in normally cold areas, but if the warmth comes with other extreme weather events, the benefits will be diminished.  It also turns out that plants can’t really take full advantage of high CO2 levels.  Basically,  there is no real “up-side” of climate change for farming.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://sustainablog.org/2009/09/27/food-supply-worries-of-an-agricultural-scientist-part-3-climate-change/feed/ http://ecoworldly.com/2009/07/30/sea-slug-eats-algae-and-becomes-plant-like/ http://ecoworldly.com/2009/07/30/sea-slug-eats-algae-and-becomes-plant-like/#comments Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:37:44 +0000 Michael Ricciardi http://ecoworldly.com/2009/07/30/sea-slug-eats-algae-and-becomes-plant-like/

A common garden slug, Arion lusitanicus, eating (note: the subject of these experiments was a sea slug) photo credit: Håkaan Svensson, Xauxa

After two weeks of a strict algae-only diet, a one-inch, green sea slug species (Elysia chlorotica) was somehow able to incorporate the plants chloroplasts (the cell-like organelles that trap solar energy and convert it to sugar), and then live out the rest of their single-year lives without eating.

The slug, a snail-like mollusk without a shell, was able to photosynthesize, just as plants do. Scientists are not sure exactly how it is able to pull this trick off, but they do know that the slug is able to harness the DNA found within the alga’s chloroplasts (note: chloroplasts in plants are like mitochondria, in that each has its own DNA apart from the DNA found in the cell’s nucleus). But this DNA only encodes a small percentage of the genes (and their proteins) needed for complete photosynthesis. The rest of the needed genes (in particular the nuclear osbO gene) are in the algae cell’s nuclear DNA. Not to worry, somehow, the slug is able to “steal” those genes as well, and incorporate them into their germ line cells–allowing them to pass this new capability on to their off-spring.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://ecoworldly.com/2009/07/30/sea-slug-eats-algae-and-becomes-plant-like/feed/ http://inspiredeconomist.com/2009/06/23/business-seeking-a-moral-compass/ http://inspiredeconomist.com/2009/06/23/business-seeking-a-moral-compass/#comments Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:24:46 +0000 Kelli Peterson http://inspiredeconomist.com/2009/06/23/business-seeking-a-moral-compass/ On June 3, 2009, the day before their official graduation, 400 Harvard MBA’s took an unofficial oath to “serve the greater good”, “act with the utmost integrity” and guard against “decisions and behavior that advance my own narrow ambitions, but harm the enterprise and the societies it serves.”

It may seem idealistic or even naïve for students to be taking this unsanctioned oath yet, 8 years after Enron kicked off a two-year run on accounting and financial fraud (WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco, Global Crossing), we seem surprised that financial fraud has brought the global economy to it’s knees.  Our infrastructure is begging for systemic changes and the principles of capitalism are being challenged, yet perhaps it’s simply our moral compass that needs re-setting?

When President Obama took office, he asked us to be virtuous.  He asked business to make decisions on not just whether it was profitable, but to ask the question “is it right?”

Fareed Zakaria suggested in Newsweek’s The Capitalist Manifesto: Greed is Good (to a point) this week, that no system can work without a “sense of ethics and and values at its core.”  No matter what reforms get put in place, no matter what systemic shifts we make, unless common sense, judgment and an ethical standard are in place, future innovations in business will result in the same excess and collapse.

And at TED Talks in February, Barry Schwartz,  a psychologist from Swarthmore who studies economics and psychology, spoke about the loss of practical wisdom in business.   Incentives have driven out moral will.  Rules have created an over-reliance on whether or not they exist. Instead of nurturing decision-making capabilities and moral character, a “solution” based on pay-offs has been implemented.

So maybe the students from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford aren’t so idealistic after all.  Across the spectrum, leaders and pundits are calling on a return to old-fashioned notions of virtue, nobility and the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.  As the next generation of business leaders emerges into the worst job market in decades, perhaps this re-focus will not only serve to raise our expectations (and hopes) for future business leaders, but will be a call to action for the current management profession as a whole.

image credit: JordanH at Creative Commons

Read more of this story »

And sure, I really enjoyed the show at first. The little kids were cute, and it was entertaining to spend an hour seeing two adults tearing their hair out trying to complete the simplest of tasks, like grocery shopping, or getting dressed, with six toddlers and two older kids.

And the parents? They were AWESOME! Kate’s obsessive need to dress the kids identically and keep a fastidious house clashing with her husband’s desire to just chill–now that’s entertainment.

I visited my grandpa at Christmas, though, and again for Spring Break, and I was disturbed to see that the tenor of Jon & Kate Plus Eight has really changed over its few seasons. The show has gone from a documentary about how to parent through the hard times, with integrity and an emphasis on maintaining family connections, to a documentary about a couple of stage parents and all the misery they put their unloved and ill-behaved little kids through in order to bring in the cash. Here’s why I think Jon & Kate Plus Eight has become distinctly family-unfriendly, both for me to watch and for Jon and Kate and their children to live through:

Read more of this story »

I craft with acrylic felt.

That’s right–acryclic. Made of PLASTIC! Plastic comes from the devil, you know, and yet I put it on my daughters’ felt board, I make their birthday crowns out of it, I applique it onto my holiday buntings:

My name is Julie, and I’m an acrylic felt user.

Read more of this story »

Will this research help revive extinct animals like the woolly mammoth or saber-toothed tiger?

The findings of this fascinating study were published this week in the journal Proceedings Of The National Academy of Sciences. So without further ado, here’s how they brought the long dead mice back to life.

Read more of this story »

Well, this question can better be answered when you consider that charity knows no copyright, especially when it involves a fashion icon like Louis Vuitton and one of the French fashion house’s creations.

For 26 year old Danish art student, Nadia Plesner, being slapped with a copyright infringement lawsuit demanding “$7,500 for each day she keeps selling the product, $7,500 for each day she displays Louis Vuitton’s cease-and-desist letter and $ 7,500 for each day she mentions the name ‘Louis Vuitton’ on her website” has never overridden a good cause and she is as defiant as ever.

Those sums and more - legal costs for the suit and another $15,000 for related “other expenses”. But what would Louis Vuitton do with the money if their lawsuit succeeds? Of two guesses, only one can suffice; either to fund further research for a hyped luxury product or give away to victims of the war in Darfur.

Read more of this story »

Read more of this story »

Those were the days when morals as they were then known were riding high and there was not much of the politically-correct language pretense we see in the world today. The H-word is gone, now there is same-sex relationships; the N-word is gone too, now there are proud African-Americans forever patriotic to the beloved country - which is a good thing for all humanity.

In 2004, David Cobb, the Green Party presidential candidate for that year’s election said this in reaction to an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court to void same-sex marriage licenses issued by Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco:

Read more of this story »

Set for April 10 - 12, “Energy and Responsibility” will feature presentations by, among others, Robert Socolow, the Princeton professor who helped develop the concept of “stabilization wedges” to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and curb climate change.

Read more of this story »

The Rough Guide to Shopping with a Conscience looks to provide some guidance for getting behind the layers of obfuscation and presents the issues that need to be considered in many of these decisions. The book is divided into three parts. Part I: Issues lays out the alternatives and some of the standards for ethical decisions. Part II: Products & companies goes through different categories in more detail. And Part III: Find out more deals briefly with sources for further information.

The Issues section looks at five approaches to ethical decisionmaking: Going green, Fair trade, Boycotts, Selective shopping, and Buying locally. The authors recognize the complexities in all of these issues, and point out the (sometimes conflicting and contradictory) arguments that can be made about deciding one way or another. In most circumstances, they lay out the different viewpoints, but do not offer any definitive answer, because no such solution exists.

"Once you start thinking about all the positive and negative implications of what you buy and use, it quickly becomes clear that there's no one-size-fits-all approach — no simple list of moral checks and crosses. For one thing, there are always conflicting priorities. Is it better, for instance, to support the local independent cafe around the corner, or buy a fairly traded cup from the global chain across the road? Is it "ethical" to favor local products — doing your bit to limit envionmentally harmful transportation — or does that mean harming impoverished countries that are eager to export?"

The middle section on Products & companies collects information about all manner of products and services, and examines the various concerns and tradeoffs involved in searching for the most ethical choice in a given category. More detailed discussion of particular issues for a given topic. Food is a multifaceted topic, and the discussion includes issues such as the use of antibiotics, by catch in fishing, organic standards (and alternatives to the 'organic' label), vegetarianism and the humane treatment of animals, genetically modified organisms, and more are all discussed.

For example, in many cases, the terms we think are indicative of preferred products may not be as meaningful as we believe. "Free range" poultry, for example, conjures a vision of chickens wandering a barnyard, but "in theory, a coop or stall door could be opened for five minutes a day to satisfy such minimal requirements." We can make well-meaning choices, but what we are actually supporting may be a very different thing. It is difficult to know all of these things, because so much energy is spent to convince us of some beautiful image, rather than the truth of the situation. With fuller knowledge, we can make more meaningful choices.

Clothing, money matters, household goods (including cleaning products, furniture, toys, and more), and transportation are all covered in greater depth, as well. Most topic areas have a few listings for websites of suppliers and producers of products or sources for further information.

The final Find out more section is a brief collection of resources for gathering further information and a little bit of information about how to research a company. The websites and books and magazines listed may have some usefulness, but this is more of an addendum than a crucial part of the book.

There is a lot of good information in this book. It is less the sort of thing one should read cover to cover than it is a reference to keep on hand. If many of these concepts are still fresh with you, it is likely to be too much to absorb all at once. The authors do a very good job of pointing out the differing opinions and the tradeoffs involved in these choices, because none of this is black and white. Rather than feeding pat answers, this is a book that will prick at your conscience, and help you to address those decisions you make as a consumer and as a citizen with more thought and care.

The first of the major components of fair trade we will look at is transparency. In order to obtain Fair Trade certification, the producer must, among other requirements, be “organized into cooperatives or associations that are transparent, accountable and democratic.” IFAT defines transparency and accountability as “transparent management and commercial relations to deal fairly and respectfully with trading partners.” Transparency appeals to me as a consumer. If you need to cover your operations you have something to hide, right?

Wired magazine agrees that transparency has high potential commercial value. Wired used a very literal take on transparency in the March 2007 issue with their lead article “Get Naked and Rule the World” featuring a transparent cover that pulls away to reveal a naked Jenna Fisher from The Office… along with a strategically placed sign. While it is the image that garnered a lot of attention, it is the article that is truly controversial. It features a series of stories about "radical transparency, our notion that the next model of business success is laying your company bare to the world—sharing secrets with your rivals, blogging about ideas as you have them, and copping to fumbles and foibles as you make them.”

Sharing secrets (gasp), owning up to mistakes (no!), utter madness! What could possibly come from such openness? Perhaps consumer trust? Maybe innovation and advancement? Perhaps even ethical business?

The requirement that producer cooperatives be transparent and accountable has proven to benefit the Fair Trade movement greatly by establishing trust amongst members of the cooperatives and providing a means to account for the spending of Fair Trade social premiums, which are to be used only for community development purposes. One of Fair Trade's major shortcomings is that this requirement is not extended to the purveyors of the products in Western markets. Many Fair Trade retailers and wholesalers have chosen to emulate the transparent cooperative model (perhaps the best example is coffee roaster Equal Exchange), and all retailers and wholesalers who are members of the Fair Trade Federation are commited to transparency. However, since transparency is not strictly required, large retailers that offer Fair Trade certified goods are not living up to the same standard required of the producers of those goods. JustThings.info has a good example of this failing:

While 100% fair-trade roasters like Just Coffee are proud to post their producer contracts on their website and share solidarity stories of the relationships they’ve developed with communities from Chiapas to Ethiopia over the years, this is not the case for a player like Starbucks. Instead, one hears tales of price gouging, corruption, insider trading, racketeering, ghost buyers – all the worst hallmarks of corporate capitalism.

All of this is to say that despite the many successes of the Fair Trade movement, until it requires the same standard of transparency and accountability from retailers that is required of producers, the burden of holding all companies accountable still rests squarely on the shoulders of the consumer. There are plenty of retailers and wholesalers from which to choose that do meet this standard. As Fair Trade has moved into the mainstream, popping up everywhere from McDonalds to Wal-Mart, there is great oportunity for such companies to take advantage of the marketing edge available through the Fair Trade label without committing to the true purposes of the movement. Should these companies be forbidden from selling fair trade? Perhaps not, as we can seize this opportunity to get a foot in the door and demand that these companies commit 100% to the ideals and criteria of fair trade, transparency included. I want to see every business standing naked and proud before the world, their fair and just business practices stripped bare for the entire world to see and respect.