Category Archives: organic

This Company Turns Food Waste Into Fuel and Fertilizer

by TPNLachlan Posted on June 10, 2016

Schools, campuses, food and beverage producers, and food banks all produce thousandsof pounds of food waste each year, and typically have to pay to have the waste hauled to a central location such as a landfill. In landfills, organic matterbreaks down and produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas that, if captured, can bea valuable source of energy.

Enter Impact Bioenergy: the companys small anaerobic digester systems, or microdigesters, convert food waste and other organic matter like paper and yard clippings into fertilizer and energy in the form of electricity, heat, and even transportation fuels.

As the companys 33-year-old co-founder Srirup Kumar explained to Conscious Company, Americans typically waste roughly one-third of our food, while one in six families in America lacks a secure supply of healthy food. Bytransforming food waste to a food resource, we can do better than this while doing right for our environment.

Using the companys microdigester, 10 pounds of food waste can be converted to between one and two kilowatt-hours of electricity and a gallon of liquid fertilizer. By diverting waste, avoiding transportation emissions from hauling waste, generating renewable energy, and return- ing nutrients to the soil, these on-site and portable systems provide a truly holistic solution to the food waste problem and help close the loop for the local food movement.

Impact Bioenergy is also democratizing food waste processing through a service it calls Community Supported Biocycling, or CSB, which is inspired by the cooperative model. By selling the three separate value-streams created by its microdigesters food waste processing, renewableenergy, and soil fertilizer to community stakeholders, Impact Bioenergy can provide a hyperlocal solutionto the food waste problem. Its firstCSB demonstration project launched in April of 2015 in partnership with Fremont Brewing Company and Seattle Urban Farm Company.

Looking to the future of thewaste-to-energy eld, Kumar said hebelieves that the waste processing industry will transform from a resource-intensive business to a restorative one. Food waste will becomea commodity, like oil, said Kumar.

One ton of food waste actually has about the same energy content asa barrel of oil, along with plenty of water, nutrients, and organic matter that can be recovered for hyperlocal food systems. Kumar also sees the waste sector becoming decentralized, the same way that computer processing became decentralized as people and businesses transitioned from large mainframes to personal computers and smartphones.

The waste-to-energy industry will under- go decentralization because there are simply too many externalities thathave resulted from the centralized solutions of the 20th century, suchas landfilling. The capacity to upcyclefood waste will be distributed hyper- locally in the 21st century. And as for the up-and-coming generation and how they may adopt solutions like Impact Bioenergys, Kumar said, We [Millennials] have hyperlocal values and we like to internalize externalities. Wasting resources is becoming unthinkable to younger generations, and they are ready to mobilize forpeople, planet, profit, and progress.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

View article:

This Company Turns Food Waste Into Fuel and Fertilizer

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Company Turns Food Waste Into Fuel and Fertilizer

This lobbyist denied climate change for ExxonMobil. Now he’ll do it for Trump.

by EvelynConstant Posted on June 7, 2016

This lobbyist denied climate change for ExxonMobil. Now he’ll do it for Trump.

By on Jun 7, 2016Share

Let’s take a quick stroll through the resume of Jim Murphy, hired Monday by Donald Trump’s campaign as national political director, according to the New York Times:

Former adviser to Bob Dole and Mitt Romney’s presidential bids.
Frequent donor to GOP political campaigns and PACs.
Managing partner and then president of the DCI Group from 2002 to 2012, at a time when the Washington, D.C., lobbyists represented ExxonMobil and assisted in attempts to sow doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change … Oh boy, here we go.

The Daily Beast points out that in addition to representing repressive military regimes and using fake “volunteers” to push for privatization of social security, DCI has gone to bat for both Big Tobacco and Big Oil. The firm has represented Exxon since 2005 according to the most recent data available from the Center for Responsive Politics. That collaboration, according to documents, involved working with the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute and conservative think tanks to counter greenhouse gas regulations, promoting a climate denial website called called Tech Central Station, and using Exxon money to produce a parody of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators sent Exxon a letter in 2006 demanding it “end any further financial assistance” to groups “whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth.”

DCI has also had dealings with the coal industry; from 2013 to 2014, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity paid some $5 million to the firm for its lobbying services. And earlier this year, both DCI and the Competitive Enterprise Institute were served subpoenas from the U.S. Virgin Islands U.S. attorneys’ offices as part of an investigation into companies — particularly Exxon — and organizations accused of funding of climate change denial.

That’s quite a resume.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Taken from: 

This lobbyist denied climate change for ExxonMobil. Now he’ll do it for Trump.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, organic, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This lobbyist denied climate change for ExxonMobil. Now he’ll do it for Trump.

Oregon explosion reminds us that oil trains are “weapons of mass destruction”

by RoccoKroemer Posted on June 6, 2016

Oregon explosion reminds us that oil trains are “weapons of mass destruction”

By on Jun 6, 2016Share

An oil train that went off the tracks and burst into flames in the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon last week hasn’t been cleaned up yet, but the railroad is already back to business as usual. And many North Americans are feeling renewed anxieties about the danger of what activists call “bomb trains.”

On Friday, 16 Union Pacific train cars filled with highly combustible fracked oil from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota derailed outside Mosier, Ore. Multiple cars caught fire, and about 100 people were evacuated from nearby homes. Elizabeth Sanchey, one of the first responders, told Oregon Public Broadcasting that the scene “looked like the apocalypse.” This weekend, a sheen of oil was spotted on the Columbia River nearby.

Mosier city officials quickly passed an emergency motion calling on Union Pacific to remove all oil from the damaged cars before the line was reopened, but Union Pacific just pushed the disabled cars to the side of the track and restarted operations. As of this writing, the cars are still filled with oil.

Oil train derailment in Mosier, Ore.Columbia Riverkeeper

“Restarting trains before the high-risk carnage of their last accident is even cleared from the tracks is telling Mosier they are going to play a second round of Russian roulette without our town,” said Mayor Alrene Burns in a statement. “It’s totally unacceptable.”

Mosier’s citizens agree. Dozens of locals — including city officials, tribal representatives, faith leaders, and members of environmental groups — gathered in nearby Hood River, Ore., over the weekend to protest the oil trains moving through their communities.

Protesters gathered after Mosier oil-train explosion.Columbia Riverkeeper

Mosier, of course, isn’t the only town at risk.

Crude oil from the Bakken shale is especially flammable, and it is transported all across the U.S. and Canada. In 2013, a train moving Bakken crude derailed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people and destroying much of the town center. It was the most deadly oil-train derailment in recent history, but it was far from the only one. In the past few years, more than a dozen derailments and explosions have occurred, leading to evacuations, oil spills, and, in some cases, fires that burned for days.

The 2013 oil-train disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. Public Herald

Though oil transport by rail is increasingly common, many residents have no idea that these trains are passing through their communities. (This map shows some rail lines that transport oil, as well as sites where accidents have occurred.) In 2014, national railroad operators agreed to eight voluntary measures to lower the risk of derailments, including reducing speed in some cities and increasing inspections, but communities still aren’t getting the information they would need to effectively respond to disasters, let alone prevent them.

Mosier has about 400 residents, but these oil trains aren’t only going through rural areas and small towns. They go through major American cities as well.

In Seattle, an oil train carrying nearly 100 cars derailed underneath a bridge in 2014. While all the cars were left intact and there was no public safety risk, according to officials, the incident underscored the potential for disaster. And that potential is huge: Last year, a KOMO News investigation captured video of more than a hundred train cars filled with oil rolling past the Seattle Seahawks football stadium as 32,000 fans watched a game inside. The Seattle City Council has called for railroads to curb oil train shipments through the city, but the companies have refused to comply, or even to release train schedules. And there’s no law that requires them to.

“The railroads are bringing weapons of mass destruction through our cities,” Fred Millar, oil safety and hazardous materials expert, tells Grist, and the only thing firefighters can do in the event of an explosion is to back off and let it burn.

As for Mosier, all evacuees have been allowed to return home, but their ordeal is far from over. The city’s wastewater treatment plant is offline, residents have a boil advisory for drinking water, and the full oil cars are still sitting there beside the tracks.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

More:

Oregon explosion reminds us that oil trains are “weapons of mass destruction”

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, organic, Safer, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Oregon explosion reminds us that oil trains are “weapons of mass destruction”

Charles Koch really wants us all to believe he’s pro-science

by BrandiY638208 Posted on June 6, 2016

Charles Koch really wants us all to believe he’s pro-science

By on Jun 6, 2016Share

Charles Koch isn’t a climate scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but he sure has a lot to say about it.

During the course of a lengthy interview this week with The Washington Post, Charles Koch touched on his views on climate change science, which have fluctuated quite a bit over the years.

What’s more, the petrochemical billionaire, whose foundations funneled more than $70 million to front groups that oppose climate change action, condemned the “climate lobby” while ignoring the work his massive network has done — one that exists in large part because of his own contributions.

In a conversation with The Post’s Jim Tankersley, Koch responded to the recent confusion about exactly what his stance on climate change is:

Yeah, I say that a lot of what is done by the climate lobby is anti-science. But there is some science behind it. Like, there are greenhouse gases, and they do contribute to warming. But if you look at the last, say, 160 years, the first 80 of that period, they went up four-tenths of a degree. And now, the second 80 that CO2 has gone up, what, 30 percent or something, it’s gone up five-tenths of a degree. And there’s been in the last 30 or 40 years, there’s been no real increase in storms or bad weather. So, let’s use the part that’s real science and then apply the Republic of Science to the rest of it.”

Koch referenced the “Republic of Science” 23 times over the interview, according to the Post. That references a theory, by Michael Polanyi, that market economics should govern science, particularly when it comes to funding academic research.

Funding science is one thing, but Koch steers his funds to elevate select conservative voices who advance confusion and anti-climate policies — ones that just happen to help his bottom line.

The interview is worth a read, if you can stomach it.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Link to original:

Charles Koch really wants us all to believe he’s pro-science

Posted in alo, Anchor, Anker, FF, GE, ONA, organic, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Charles Koch really wants us all to believe he’s pro-science

Tiny sea creatures are saving us from hell on earth. So why are we endangering them?

by CliffEliott Posted on June 6, 2016

Tiny sea creatures are saving us from hell on earth. So why are we endangering them?

By on Jun 6, 2016Share

Deep in the ocean where the sun don’t shine, fissures in the earth’s crust spew super-heated geothermal water and gases of up to 400 degrees Celsius.

Sounds like hell? Not quite — hydrothermal vents discovered just 40 years ago by scientists, teem with a surprising abundance of life. And these hotbeds of biodiversity are crucial for underwater ecosystems and the global climate, according to a recent report in Frontiers In Marine Science.

The vents dot the sea floor at depths of 5,000 to 13,000 feet, gushing sulfides, methane, iron, and hydrogen into the ocean. Like moths to a (very hot) flame, microorganisms around the vents convert these elements into food. They are, in turn, eaten by other organisms, transporting that geothermal energy up a food chain that includes mussels, clams, giant crabs, and those truly bizarre scarlet tube worm colonies.

Importantly, researchers found that vent-dwelling creatures gobble up as much as 90 percent of the released methane — which, if it were to be released into the atmosphere, would act as a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.

“There is more methane on the ocean floor than there are other forms of fossil fuels left in the oceans,” said Andrew Thurber, coauthor on the report, “and if it were all released it would be a doomsday climatic event. Through methane consumption, these life forms are literally saving the planet.”

But before you can say “OMG tube worm!”, there’s more. These extreme ecosystems are threatened by offshore oil and gas extraction — particularly the peripheral impacts like, anchors, noise pollution, leakage. Big plans are brewing to mine the vents for copper, gold, or silver, with the first deep-sea mining machines set for a test drive in the near future.

Since the vents are dispersed around the ocean floor around the world, any coordinated plan to protect them would require international cooperation. Since losing them might spell disaster — not to get too fire and brimstone-y on you guys — it’s as good a reason as any to work together.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

From: 

Tiny sea creatures are saving us from hell on earth. So why are we endangering them?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tiny sea creatures are saving us from hell on earth. So why are we endangering them?

What Do Meat Labels Really Mean?

by RamonitaPalladi Posted on June 5, 2016

If you’re a meat eater and want to get the healthiest, tastiest cuts, how do you know what to buy?

Most labels today carry some kind of certification from the USDA (US Department of Agriculture), which basically acknowledges that the meat came from a facility that is supposed to meet the USDA’s standards for health and safety. But you might see other words on the label as well, such as “natural,” “fed vegetarian feed” or “no hormones or added antibiotics.” Some of these terms are significant, but others are essentially worthless.

Here’s a guide to the most common labels you’ll see on packaged meat and what they mean.

Grain-fed: These words indicate that at some point in its life, the animal was fed grain. The animal may have been raised in a factory-farm type operation or on a small family farm. Grain-fed doesn’t tell you that information. It only indicates that the animal ate corn, soy, brewers grain or another grain-based feed.

Grass-fed: Rather than being cooped up in a barn eating grain, grass-fed cows roam outdoors eating nothing but grass from the time they’re weaned until the time they go to market. The term does not guarantee that the animals weren’t treated with antibiotics nor confined. Grass is closer to the actual native diet of cows than grain, but that in and of itself might not be a reason to buy meat labeled this way.

AGA-Certified Grassfed: This label has some teeth to it. It says that the cows verifiably ate only grass, that they were not confined in a feed lot, and that they’ve never been given antibiotics or hormones. Unlike other grassfed meat, that which is AGA-Certified Grassfed is guaranteed to have been born and raised in the U.S.

Grass Finished: According to American Grassfed, this label is completely meaningless. It does not meet any standards set by the USDA and is used primarily for marketing purposes rather than to indicate superior quality.

Natural: In this context, “natural” does not refer to how the animal was raised, but rather how its meat was processed and packaged. According to the USDA, describing meat as “natural” means that it contains no artificial ingredients or added color and was minimally processed (such as ground into beef or trimmed into steaks). The word natural does not refer to the animal’s diet or how it was raised.

Naturally-raised: An animal that is “naturally raised” was not fed animal byproducts (like ground up parts of other animals), nor was it administered growth hormones or antibiotics. Other than that, the animal could have eaten either grain or grass and could have spent its life outdoors roaming or confined in a factory-type feedlot.

Organic: The U.S. Department of Agriculture has established a set of standards that farmers must meet if they are to label their meat organic. Those include that the animal was given no antibiotics or synthetic hormones, ate a pesticide and herbicide-free vegetarian diet, and was was fed or ate no food that was tainted with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Cows may either be fed organic grain or eat organic grass, and they may be confined rather than allowed to roam free.

Pasture-Raised: This is a term that sounds nice, but like “natural,” means essentially nothing. There’s no federal definition for what pasture-raised means, and not much industry cohesion behind the term either. Any producer can put it on any package at any time.

Certified Humane: This label primarily attests to how animals were treated as they were raised. It says that “Livestock must have access to fresh water and a diet formulated or assessed to maintain full health and promote a positive state of well-being. Feed and water must be distributed in such a way that livestock can eat and drink without undue competition.” It prohibits treatment with hormones and antibioticsother than to selectively treat disease and mandates that feeding and watering troughs be kept clean. This label also requires that calves be able to suckle for 24 hours after they’re born and not be weaned for 6 months after birth.

Of all these labels, the ones that mean the most are Certified Humane, Organic and AGA-Certified Grassfed. Don’t waste your money on “natural” or “pasture-raised” beef.

Related:
Five Myths About Grass-Fed Beef
With These Veggie Burger Ideas, You’ll Never Crave Beef Again

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

More here – 

What Do Meat Labels Really Mean?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Do Meat Labels Really Mean?

Here’s the Best News We’ve Gotten All Year

by AlfonzoIRKZ Posted on June 2, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

No joke. This may be boring as hell, but it really and truly is great news:

Federal Reserve officials strongly signaled they will toughen big-bank capital requirements even more than they have since the 2008 crisis, a move that will add to the pressure on the largest U.S. banks to consider shrinking. Fed governors Daniel Tarullo and Jerome Powell, in separate public comments on Thursday, said the Fed would require eight of the largest U.S. banks to maintain more equity to pass the central bank’s annual “stress tests.”

“Effectively, this will be a significant increase in capital,” Mr. Tarullo said on Bloomberg television….Mr. Powell said at a banking conference that the Fed’s move would make big banks “fully internalize the risk” they pose to the economy.

“I have not reached any conclusion that a particular bank needs to be broken up or anything like that,” he said. The point is to “raise capital requirements to the point at which it becomes a question that banks have to ask themselves.”

Bernie Sanders has campaigned heavily on the idea of breaking up big banks. But that shouldn’t be our goal. Our goal should be to make banks safer and to reduce the likelihood that they need to be bailed out in the future. That’s what higher capital requirements do: they force banks to carry a bigger buffer against losses, which makes them less likely to fail in any future downturn.

As it happens, new regulations put in place since the financial meltdown of 2008 have already increased capital requirements, but big banks still have an unfair advantage in the market: their funding costs are lower because investors figure they’ll be bailed out if they ever implode in the future. To make up for this, big banks should, as Tarullo said, “fully internalize the risk” they pose to the economy. In other words, if big banks have an automatic advantage simply because taxpayers have little choice but to rescue them in case they fail, they should be required to pay higher insurance premiums against failure. That’s essentially what higher capital requirements do.

This is fair. However, higher capital requirements also make big banks less profitable, which in turn gives them a strong incentive to downsize all on their own. And that’s how it should be. There’s no reason for the Fed or anyone else to pick and choose banks to break up. We just need to make sure they’re reasonably safe and are operating on a level playing field. If we do this, we’re providing an organic incentive to downsize. The banks themselves get to decide whether and how to do it.

The only bad news here is that the Fed is unlikely to raise capital requirements enough to suit me. Nonetheless, this is very much another step in the right direction.

See original: 

Here’s the Best News We’ve Gotten All Year

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s the Best News We’ve Gotten All Year

Forget Immigration and Affirmative Action. Chief Justice Roberts Wants to Talk About Peat Moss.

by DeidreBarreto Posted on May 31, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

With a month left before its summer recess, the Supreme Court has yet to issue rulings on several landmark cases involving immigration, reproductive rights, and affirmative action. So on Monday morning, TV cameras were parked outside, and the courtroom was buzzing with anticipation when the justices convened to release orders and opinions.

Then Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. read an opinion about peat moss.

Reporters in attendance, at least one of whom had driven all the way from Charlottesville, Virginia, for the occasion, hoped at least for a decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, the long-awaited case involving race in college admissions that was argued back in December. Or perhaps an opinion in the state of Texas’ case challenging the Obama administration’s executive action on immigration, which would defer the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants. Even a ruling in Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy case would have been more exciting than US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., a technical regulatory dispute involving peat moss and the Clean Water Act that was the subject of the first and only opinion of the day.

Reading from the bench, Roberts toyed with deflated reporters by jauntily discussing the benefits of peat, “an organic material that forms in waterlogged grounds, such as wetlands and bogs,” and its uses in gardening and golf. “It can also be used to provide structural support and moisture for smooth, stable greens that leave golfers with no one to blame but themselves for errant putts,” he continued. He ad libbed an observation about peat’s use in brewing whiskey, which was not in the published opinion.

But peat is not all golf balls and highballs, or the case wouldn’t have been at the high court. The Hawkes Co. wanted to harvest about 500 acres of peat moss from swampland in Minnesota for use in golf courses and landscaping. But the Army Corps told the company that the tract in question included wetlands, which it asserted were protected under the Clean Water Act. The Army Corps argued that its decision couldn’t be reviewed by the courts, but the company sued. The suit led Roberts to expound on the virtues of peat and ultimately to rule in the company’s favor by allowing the courts to oversee such wetlands determinations.

After Roberts cheerfully finished reading his opinion, he announced that there were no more decisions in the queue. Further opinions won’t come until next Monday.

While the unanimous Hawkes decision has the potential to weaken enforcement of the Clean Water Act, it isn’t among the court’s pending high-profile cases that could affect large numbers of people and tip the scales in the culture wars—the kinds of cases that make news. The cases that remain undecided are significant, and there are a lot of them. By one count, the court still needs to issue opinions in 24 cases argued this term. Right now there are only four days in June scheduled for the release of new decisions before the summer recess.

What explains the backlog? The court is not a transparent institution, so observers can only hypothesize. But the February death of Justice Antonin Scalia is no doubt a major factor. There’s been some speculation, for instance, that Scalia had been assigned to write the opinion in a case involving Puerto Rican self-governance. Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle remains the only case argued in January that hasn’t been decided. When Scalia died, the opinion in that case may have had to be reassigned to a different justice.

It’s possible that other half-written Scalia opinions, especially if they involved other contentious, potential 5-4 cases, are also in limbo or need to be retooled by other justices. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said last week, eight “is not a good number for a multi-member court.”

Regardless of the reasons for the slowdown, if the justices want to get out of town before the Fourth of July weekend and partake in some of those peat-enhanced activities, they’re going to have to start cranking out a lot more decisions.

Link: 

Forget Immigration and Affirmative Action. Chief Justice Roberts Wants to Talk About Peat Moss.

Posted in Casio, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Forget Immigration and Affirmative Action. Chief Justice Roberts Wants to Talk About Peat Moss.

Should You Buy Free-Range, Organic or Humane Eggs?

by KristieBlount Posted on May 28, 2016

What eggs are the best when it comes to how the chickens they come from are raised and the kind of impact those chickens have on the planet?

Many eggs come from chickens raised in industrial cages that leave no room for the animals to move around in, let alone walk or peck at the ground. They’re basically kept in a state of non-stop egg laying until they can’t lay any more. It’s a cruel and inhumane way to treat any animals, so labels that verify that the chickens aretreated humanely are particularly important. This Care2 post on ethical egg production explains the issue in more detail.

Here are the labels to look for when you go shopping.

Skip These Cartons

The following words and phrases are essentially meaningless when it comes to indicating how chickens were raised on the land, what they were fed and how the eggs themselves were produced.

Natural or FarmFresh – There are no federal definitions or industry standard for these terms. If an egg’s only claim to fame is that it’s natural or farm fresh, leave it on the shelf.

Vegetarian Fed – Again, this designation doesn’t indicate how a chicken was treated or what the nature of the feed was. Chickens are actually meat eaters (they like worms and grubs), so it’s not necessarily a benefit that they’re fed vegetarian food, even if it’s organic.

Omega-3 Enriched – This designation has nothing to do with how the animals were raised or what they ate.

Cage-Free, Free-Range, Pasture-Raised, Natural, Humanely-Raised – Unfortunately, none of these words actually mean much unless they’re accompanied by a third-party certification that verifies them. This verifies not just that the animals weren’t in cages, but that they were allowed room to roam and forage. “Cage-free” or “free-range” can still describe crowded, filthy living conditions for chickens, potentially in barns with tens of thousands of other birds. If you’re buying eggs at a farmer’s market, the farmer may have photographs of what his chicken operation looks like. In the grocery store, you’re at the mercy of a meaningless label.

No Added Hormones – Federal regulations have never allowed the use of hormones or steroids in poultry, so this is a meaningless claim.

Consider These Cartons

The following words and phrases are better indicators of how eggs were produced.

Organic – As defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture standards, organic means that hens’ feed is organic, not tainted with GMOs and free of additives and animal byproducts. Hens are also to nest in boxes rather than cages and given access to the outdoors, weather-permitting. Farmers cannot administer antibiotics except during an infectious outbreak.

No Antibiotics – This is good information to have, given how over-treated conventional meat and poultry production can be.

Certified Humane – While “humane” itself is not defined by the USDA, the “certified humane” label indicates farmers who have met the standards set by the non-profit group Humane Farm Animal Care. The are also Animal Welfare approved.

If this is all a bit confusing, refer to this very handy chart created by The Cornucopia Institute. The non-profit research groups rates companies that produce eggs according to how well they meet the organic standards as well as how the animals are treated.

Ratings range from “5 eggs,” which signifies the best sources, to “1 egg,” which is the worst. FYI, Safeway’s O Organic brand, Wegman’s, Kroger’s Simple Truth, Giant’s Nature’s Promise, Meijer’s Organics, Whole Foods’ 350 Organic brand and Trader Joe’s all only rate 1 egg. If you can buy eggs from smaller egg operations and farmers at local markets, chances are you’ll be supporting more humane chicken operations.

Related:
Which are Healthier? Egg whites or whole eggs?
Who Says Eggs Aren’t Healthy or Safe?

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Link: 

Should You Buy Free-Range, Organic or Humane Eggs?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Omega, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Should You Buy Free-Range, Organic or Humane Eggs?

What’s Better: CSA, Farmers Market, Grocery Store, or Garden?

by CedricChan Posted on May 25, 2016

Whenfruit and vegetable stands are about to be filled with all kinds of fabulous summer produce, does it make more sense to buy from a CSA, farmer’s market, or grocery store? And where does your own garden fit in?

Here are the pros and cons of each option, designed to help you maximize your access to fresh and delicious locally grown, hopefully organic, food.

CSA:CSA stands for “community supported agriculture.” Farmers sell “shares” in the food they harvest; consumers sign up at the beginning of the growing season, and then get fresh food usually every week throughout thesummer and fall.

PROS: An advantage of the farmers is that they get investments up front to help with cash flow. The number of CSA shares they sell will tell them what demand for their food will be. Consumers have the chance tobuild a relationship with the people who grow their food, and also get very fresh food. Plus, CSA shareholder may be able to visit the farm their food comes from and help with harvesting and other chores.

CONS: One complaint some people have about CSAs is that they get a lot of greens they don’t necessarily know what to do with. When lettuce, spinach, kale, mustard and the like start to be harvested, they’reusually available in abundance. Some farmers help by providing recipes on their websites. But farmers also encourage consumers to split shares if they can’t consume everything in a full share in one week. Most CSAs have a pick-up spot that’s central to a lot of shareholders, so when you sign up, make sure it’s convenient to where you work or live. Other CSAs distribute their produce at farmers markets, which is good because you can supplement your share with other produce that your particular farmer might not grow.

Is a CSA cheaper than shopping on your own? It will depend on what you normally buy and what the price of a share or half-share is. You might want to start with a half-share and see how it works for you, both financially and in terms of the choices you have.

You can find the nearest CSA to you at the Local Harvest website.

FARMER’S MARKET:Some farmer’s markets operate all year long; others are spring, summer and fall markets only. Obviously, weather is the determining factor in many regions. I live in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Our market runs 12 months a year, but food vendors vary, depending on the season. The summer and fall fruit and vegetable growers give way to wineries, cheesemakers, bakeries, and egg producers once the cold weather hits. There is also a hydroponic lettuce grower who sells at our market in the winter, but not the summer.

PROS: Shopping at a farmer’s market is a great experience because the food is so fresh, the farmers are so accessible, and you’ll inevitably run into friends and neighbors. You get to taste almost everything you want to buy. And farmers at the markets have a tendency to grow heirloom varieties, so rather than having one bland Beefsteak tomato to choose from at the grocery store, you might have four or five different, delicious options at the market. You’ll also get food that’s picked when it’s at its ripest, rather than food that’s been picked green and shipped half-way around the world.

CONS: Farmer’s markets can be more expensive than grocery stores because they don’t have the industrial output that allows grocery stores to charge lower prices. Also, farmer’s markets are usually open only once a week, so you can’t necessarily rely on them if you need groceries in the middle of the week. While some farmers markets sell meat and dairy products, selection is usually pretty limited.

GROCERY STORE:Grocery stores have gotten better about stocking food that’s locally grown. Many stores will put up signs so shoppers know what’s local and what’s not.

PROS: Because grocery store chains buy so much food at one time, they’re able to charge much less for it than farmers selling at local markets or CSAs. Grocery stores are open 7 days a week, usually from 7 or 8 in the morning until 10 p.m. or later, and they often deliver. If you get stuck for salad fixings or a dozen eggs, they’re pretty easy to pick up on your way home from work. You can also set up a regular weekly delivery from a lot of grocery stores so you never have to set foot in the actual store. Grocery stores that are buying from local farmers instead of far-away producers are helping to boost the local economy, and of course, grocery stores employ a lot of people locally, too.

CONS: Grocery stores sell a lot of junk and shoppers end up buying — and wasting — food they don’t need because they impulse-buy productsthey see on theshelf. It’s also possible that people waste more food when they shop at a grocery store because they overbuy, something that’s easy to do when you’re pushing a shopping cart around but perhaps less likely if you’re carrying a couple of shopping bags through a farmer’s market. Farmers aren’t on hand in grocery stores, so you don’t get to build a relationship with the people who are growing and harvesting your food. You don’t get to visit the farm, either, since grocery stores usually don’t tell you which farm produced which apple or tomato.

YOUR OWN GARDEN:The garden you plant is about the freshest, most local, and most organic food source you can have.

PROS: You can plant exactly what you like to eat, plus try a few unusual foods to expand your palate. Gardening is great exercise, and will get you outside and active. For many people, gardening is a spiritual and wondrous experience. It’s extremelysatisfying planting seeds, watching them grow, harvesting them, and serving a meal consisting of food produced with your own sweat and care. When you grow your own food, you have total control over what chemicals are used in the process. Growing your own is the cheapest way to get organic food from “field to table.”

CONS: Gardening can be hard work. It takes time and effort to sow seeds, keep garden beds weeded, and ward off bugs if you’re gardening organically. Growing enough food to feed a family for a summer is tough without enough space, though there are ways to use raised beds and companion planting to increase your yields. You need to keep an eye on your own garden and be available to harvest the food when it’s ripe, or all your effort will have been made in vain. You also need to be prepared to water your garden regularly in the event that a drought hits — in which case, you may have a very high water bill. Depending on where you live, rodents and deer might get into your garden and eat your food; birds will happily eat up all the berries when your bushes are ripe. On the other hand, freshly picked tomatoes and beans are absolutely delicious, and extra special because they came from your own yard.

My recommendation is that you take advantage of them all: CSAs, farmer’s markets, the grocery store and your own garden. Find someone to split a CSA share with, and get to know the variety of interesting foods that will inevitably show up in your box. Supplement the share with additional fruits and vegetables from your farmer’s market, and if you need to stop bythe grocery store, shop at the local produce bins first. If you’re new to gardening, start with pots of herbs you can keep in a sunny spot on a porch or patio, along with cherry tomatoes, and even a pot of lettuce. Or be bold, and till a section of your yard so you can plant beans, cucumbers, radishes, and zucchini along with lettuce and tomatoes.

RELATED:

Get a Head Start on Planning Your Organic Salad Garden

Want to Support Local Farmers and Get Fresh Food? join a CSA.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

View article – 

What’s Better: CSA, Farmers Market, Grocery Store, or Garden?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, organic gardening, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What’s Better: CSA, Farmers Market, Grocery Store, or Garden?