by ziggy

Gotta love stuff like this. In a subversive form of food production, the Guerrilla Grafters have been craftily grafting fruit bearing branches onto otherwise unproductive ornamental fruit trees in the city. In San Francisco (and many other cities), fruit-bearing trees are banned for somewhat ludicrous health concerns, based on fears that the fruit would attract vermin and insects.

The Guerrilla Grafters are turning that notion around, and attempting to make at least some of the thousands of trees in the city productive. In urban areas, where space for food production is intensely limited, the Guerrilla Grafters have targeted an already existing natural resource, in an attempt to make them productive, and to provide food locally.

The group claims that with organization and good stewardship, those thousands of trees can be managed to produce food for local citizens, in effect increasing local food security.

Nice!

by Michael Ricciardi

Imagine: One Monday morning in America…you pull into your favorite, drive-through espresso stand, only to find a “closed due to lack of beans” sign…Or you pop into you local coffee drink retailer, and find that the price of a 12 ounce latte has tripled to over 7 bucks, plus tax…

It’s fair to guess that this would have wide-spread repercussion on our nation’s economic engine, such as it is…Lack of convenient caffeine (in our favorite beverage form) could precipitate a real crisis, of unknown duration.

Ok, so maybe the thought of a drastic reduction in the world’s coffee supply is not on your ‘deep concern radar’…but it is to Coffee retail giant Starbucks, whose concern for its global supply chain — sourced most in Central America — has always been of deep (and obvious) concern.

In a recent interview in The Guardian, Starbucks’ ‘sustainability director’ Jim Hanna told the reporter:

” “What we are really seeing as a company as we look 10, 20, 30 years down the road – if conditions continue as they are – is a potentially significant risk to our supply chain, which is the Arabica coffee bean.”

How climate change is impacting coffee bean crop yields:

Apparently, a double-threat combination of increased frequency of severe flooding storms (like hurricanes), and a proliferating, resistant pest problem, does not bode well for a steady, robust supply of java beans.

Both of these problems have been attributed, directly or indirectly, to global warming and associated climate change impacts (see these other PS articles: Dry Times for Western North America, Climate Trends Forecast, and, Mississippi River Floods, Texas Drought, and Global Weirding (& Food Prices/Crises)

Crop yields the world over are projected to dwindle by significant amounts (see scenario above). Hanna stated in the same interview that its Central American suppliers are already seeing “changing retail patterns and more severe pest infestations.”

Map showing areas of coffee cultivation: r:Coffea canephora m:Coffea canephora and Coffea arabica a:Coffea arabica

Also noted were additional impacts from mudslides (caused in part by deforestation) and incremental changes in the lengths of the dry and wet seasons. These factors also impact crop yields and may eventually force farmers in the region to abandon coffee as a commercial crop and adopt others more suitable to the changing climate conditions.

To its credit, Starbucks has allied itself with other corporate business leaders to pressure the US Congress to move on Climate Change policy and legislation. So far, despite its considerable economic pull, the coalition has had little success doing so.

More about your java:

The main sources of Arabica coffee beans (Coffea arabica) are mostly tropical or sub-tropical nations such as Columbia, Nicaragua, Brazil, Java, Sumatra, India, Ethiopia, and Kenya. Three quarters of the coffee grown in the world is of the Arabica variety, which is considered the most flavorful.

Other types of coffee plants grown for commercial use are the “robust” and “mild” varieties of Coffea canephora, which though more bitter tasting, is more “full-bodied” and has 40 percent or more caffeine that Arabica beans. It is used in espresso blends to add body (and a richer foam or crema), and in common supermarket blends to keep costs low.

Over 900 natural pests of Coffea arabica have been documented, including the devastating coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix). Other pests include beetles (nearly 1/3 of coffeee pests), nematodes (tiny worms), mites, and even some species of slug and snail.

Coffea canephora is far more resistant to the leaf rust (found in nearly every coffee growing region of the world)and many farmers are moving towards growing the robusta variety of canephora which has the added advantage of being more easily cultivated at lower altitudes (much of the prized Arabica coffee is “mountain grown”) and warmer temperatures.

And one more thing:

And, if you think you can just switch over to hot chocolate when the time comes, new research by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, shows that if present warming trends continue, by 2050 it will be too hot to grow cacao trees (Theobroma cacao) in the main producing nations (Ivory Coast, Ghana).

The price of pure chocolate is already at historical highs.

by Glenn Meyers

The word, aquaponics, may be foreign-sounding, but the practice is beginning to get the attention of many who see it as one sustainable agricultural solution for an increasingly crowded planet. This is especially true for poverty stricken countries that have limited access to either water or tillable land. Aquaponics systems are even appearing now on rooftops of buildings in urban settings.

Put in the simplest terms, aquaponics stands for growing food without soil. Georgia author Bevan Suits has written an engaging e-book about the topic, “The Aquaponics Guidebook, Access to Personal Agriculture.” Suits’ book opens the world of aquaponics, “so you can learn about it quickly and get started, no matter your experience, budget or available space. Even beginners on a small scale will see amazing results. Greens like lettuce or basil can grow to harvest in four weeks.”

Aquaponics pioneer Wayne Dorband, owner of Mountain Sky Ranch and the developer of many small-scale aquaponics systems, reports growing and harvesting vegetables, herbs and fish from many of his testing tanks in the low light settings at his company warehouse in Loveland, Colorado. He adds that this method of growing food is innovative, inexpensive, pleasant to look at, and sustainable.

Both Dorband and Suits believe families can use these compact systems worldwide, producing fish and vegetables to feed individuals on an ongoing basis. A viable aquaponics system combines traditional agriculture and aquaculture methods without soil. In short order the system can produce a healthy culture for fish, herbs, fruits, vegetables and ornamentals to thrive. The only additional material required is water. Fish are fed some of the plants growing in the system, and their waste fertilizes the plants.

“There is no need for additional fertilizer, weed killers or outside food if the system is properly designed,” says Dorband, pulling a trout filet from his freezer that required four months to mature. According to Dorband, the simplest of his aquaponics system can be purchased and installed for less than $100, sometimes using recycled materials. The components used in Dorband’s aquaponics systems come from recycled materials such as 55-gallon drums otherwise destined for landfills, PVC pipes, pumps and washed gravel. No special water is required, as the plants purify local, well, or pond water.

In this You Tube video above, Travis Hughey, founder of Barrel-Ponics, features a system where plants grow without soil, fed by fish waste, and where fish feed on water plants for nutrition. This three-minute video, although somewhat arduous, shows how the system works and is worth the time.

by Steve Savage

I have been posting updates on the most recent, global food price spike since February 2011 – most recently in June. Yesterday, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) released its most recent data on the prices of food in international trade. As seen in the graph above, the overall index and its various components have declined slightly, but remain at very high levels.

People living in the developed world have seen some food price increases, but because we grow so much of our own food and spend a small part of our income on feeding ourselves, the impact is minor. This has the greatest effect on the lives of poor people in import-dependent countries.

What is actually most unsettling about this phenomenon is that nothing like it has occurred for decades, and yet we are in a second such spike. The first was in 2007/8, and the current spike has been in 2010/11. In this post I want to compare these two spikes.

The graph above compares the two spikes on a month-by-month basis beginning in January of the starting year. What we see is a later and/or slower decline in prices. The earlier spike showed a steep decline after 19 months, while in 2010 the decline is just beginning at 21 months. That is for the aggregate “food index,” but a similar broadening of the spike appears to be occurring for the cereals-specific index (see below). Similar trends are seen with the dairy and oils indices.

The most dramatic difference between the 2007-8 and 2010-11 spikes is the path of the meat price index (see graph below). Meat prices in international trade showed only a minor bump in the first spike, but were the most changed category in the current round. The index did drop 3 percent from August to September which may represent an earlier reversal than in 2008.

It would be best not to over-interpret these trends, but also unwise to ignore them completely. We know that basic food demand is rising between population growth and an increased standard of living in many populous regions of the world. We know that energy prices are high. It will take the benefit of years of hindsight to know whether climate change has been contributing to these unusual price patterns. If the current spike is like the last one, it should be largely corrected by the end of 2011. For now, I plan to update this series in January of 2011 with three more months of data.

Photo by Nicholas T/flickr/Creative Commons

by Elizabeth Smyth

We all know the modern food chain is way too long, costs too much and consumes too many natural resources. One New York company is hoping to change all that.

BrightFarms designs, finances, builds and operates hydroponic greenhouse farms on supermarket rooftops. By creating a hyperlocal market, cost, time and resources are lessened and consumers get the freshest food available.

According to the company, a 1-acre BrightFarms greenhouse will grow around 500,000 lbs of produce a year, generate $1 million to $1.5 million in revenue per year and create between 8 to 16 new local farm jobs. Environmental savings amount to around 740 tons of CO2 emissions per year, 430 lbs a year of pesticides and around 5 million gallons of water a year.

To be eligible, Grocers must sign a 10-year purchase agreement, requiring the retailer to purchase 100 percent of the BrightFarm’s output at fixed prices. Simultaneously BrightFarms guarantees the volume and quality of output by contracting with experienced local farmers.

Since Grocers don’t have to pay the upfront costs of designing and building the greenhouse, typically $1.5 – 2 Million USD, many smaller grocers should be able to take advantage the BrightFarms offering.

So far, 10 supermarket chains have signed up to work with BrightFarms, including 5 of the top 50 national chains, since December 2010 with the first three commercial greenhouses opening in early 2012.

Watch the video below to learn more!

by Beth Buczynski

Would-be urban farmers have organized to fight an outdated city ordinance that prohibits the growing gardens on parkways, the city-owned strips of land between curbs and sidewalks.

Plantable land is scarce in densly-populated urban environments like Los Angeles, California. So those interested in growing their own food have to get creative about finding open plots.

By law, Los Angeles residents are required to maintain their parkways by mowing and watering them. So Richard Finely, founder of L.A. Green Grounds, decided he would use the convenient strip of land to grow edible plants instead of just grass.

Unfortunately, under a local ordinance, citizens wishing to grow plants on L.A. parkways must first obtain permits which cost at least $400 and up to thousands of dollars. Even with the permits, plants can be no taller than 36 inches, ruling out corn, beans, and lots of other delicious plants.

“The high cost of the permit to plant is very prohibitive for communities will very little excess income,” said Finley. “A lot of these places have very few options for healthy fruits and vegetables, so they are being called ‘food deserts.’ Parkway gardens would add food options, enhance lives, open up communication, and build stronger ties in communities.”

The city threatened to make Finley get rid of the garden, but backed off in August after community members and local press rallied around the issue.

The rule is ridiculous, especially because cities often have to hand out tickets just to get people to mow their parkways, and Finely and other like him are just trying to turn them into a productive and beautiful piece of urban land.

To fight for the right of any L.A. citizen to garden his or her parkway, Finely recently launched an online petition campaign at Change.org asking council members to amend the ordinance. In fewer than 48 hours, more than 300 people have already signed the petition.

by Christian Schwagerl

From the flat roof of a brick building in Berlin‘s Kreuzberg district, the German capital looks like a concrete jungle. Apartment blocks, churches, and office buildings dominate the panorama. But Erika Mayr thinks this spot is the ideal habitat for her seven bee colonies. “My bees like it very much up here,” Mayr says.

Standing at the edge of the roof, she points to an alley of lime trees lining some streets near the building. She mentions the “trees of heaven” in the neighborhood, an invasive species that loves urban heat islands and is known for its nectar-rich flowers. And she highlights some sandy wastelands that are home to flowering plants during the period critical for honey production in spring and early summer.

Mayr grew up in rural Bavaria and now splits her life between three jobs, typical for her generation: She works in her original profession as a gardener, runs a nearby bar, and for the last few years has been producing and selling “Stadtbienenhonig” or “Berlin Citybee Honey.” Mayr, who is in her 30s, is one of the protagonists of a new trend in Berlin: raising bees. In recent years, paralleling the rise of urban farming in small gardens, keeping thousands of buzzing bees and producing one’s own honey has become very popular in this city of 3.3 million people.

Berlin is just one of many cities worldwide where beekeeping is enjoying a surge in popularity. Globally, a renaissance of beekeeping is underway as urban dwellers seek to reconnect with nature — and earn some money. In Hong Kong last year, expert product designer Michael Leung brought together local beekeepers and artists to form “HK Honey,” a company that markets honey from the city’s rooftops, rare green spots, and suburbs. In Britain, according to a recent report in The Guardian newspaper, membership of the British Beekeeping Association has doubled to 20,000 in just three years “as young, urban dwellers transform a rather staid pastime into a vibrant environmental movement.”

This renaissance taps into a culture of urban beekeeping with particularly deep historical roots in European cities. Paris at the turn of the twentieth century boasted more than 1,000 hives, and after a long decline following World War II, that number has resurged to almost 400. Some hives even claim expensive real estate, like that atop the historic Paris Opéra. For all of Germany, the beekeepers’ association reports the first increase in memberships in years, to over 40,000, following a long decline in both beekeepers and number of colonies.

In the U.S., where the number of colonies decreased from 6 million after World War II to 2.4 million today, thousands of young people are re-discovering this ancient skill. Beekeeping is still banned in many cities by “No Buzz Zones” for fear of people getting stung. But places like Detroit and Chicago are showcases of a movement to make it an integral part of the urban economy and ecology. Chicago’s city hall is home to more than 100,000 bees. With its rich patchwork of urban farms and open lots, Detroit is investigating beekeeping as a new tool for community development and economic growth. New York, where beekeeping fines once topped $2,000, lifted the ban last year, legalizing what many people had been doing for a long time.

Both environmental activists and bee researchers recognize a great potential for beekeeping to benefit from urban environments and at the same time improve them. In Britain, research by the University of Worcester and the UK National Trust supports the notion that in a world of large-scale industrial agriculture, bees find a greater variety of sources for their honey production in cities, leading to equally diverse flavors. When scientists compared pollen sources in beehives in urban and rural locations, they saw that in cities like London, bees collect from many different plants, whereas in rural Yorkshire and in Somerset, “samples were heavily dominated by oilseed rape with little other pollen types detectable.”

“Bees today often fare better in urban environments than in contemporary farmland,” says Matthew Oates, Nature Conservation Adviser at the National Trust. Ecologist Jane Memmott from the University of Bristol, who is involved in a UK research project called the Insect Pollinators Initiative, thinks that the untapped potential of urban beekeeping is huge. “There’s a greater diversity and abundance, probably, of flowers in cities than there are in nature reserves and the countryside,” she told the BBC. Also, the flowering season is longer because cities are heat islands with an average temperature that is 2 to 3 degrees higher than in the countryside. Many city gardeners grow plants that flower very early and very late in the year, “so there is forage over a longer period of time,” says Memmot.

The most serious side of urban beekeeping is that it might sustain the colonies (and the many skills involved in keeping them) while investigators attempt to sort out the causes of so-called “colony collapse disorder,” which wiped out 35 percent of the U.S.’s honeybee population between 2006 and 2009 and has also afflicted hives in the UK and some other European countries.

Berlin’s beekeepers see themselves as part of the global renaissance. The last big boom of beekeeping in Berlin occurred immediately after World War II, when food was scarce and people tried to make a living with what was left in the ruins of Nazi Germany. Today, beekeeping is not a sign of hardship, but of a raised ecological awareness in a nation that prides itself on its recycling mania and transition to renewable energy.

Berlin‘s beekeeping boom recently came to public attention when two of the city’s leading hotels, the Intercontinental and the Westin Grand, installed beehives on their roofs. Many other large buildings, like the Berlin legislature’s offices, also have become home to bee colonies, though most people have not noticed it. A pro-bee initiative, “Berlin Buzz,” was recently awarded a federal grant to equip prominent buildings in Berlin with beehives. Initiatives like this inspire many city dwellers who start keeping bees in more private locations — on balconies, in backyards and on rooftops. Even kindergartens offer themselves as beehive locations. Courses for beginners to learn the many skills necessary during the “bee year” have become very popular.

Erika Mayr started to become interested in bees around 2004 through an arts project. For a competition, her architect friend Stéphane Orsolini had developed a concept about how to revitalize Detroit. It involved creating new sources of income by setting up hundreds of bee colonies on vacant lots. Mayr joined the project in 2008, but her involvement with bees didn’t end there. Rather, it changed her life. “I’ve since become a bee person,” she explains. “It really means a lot to me to connect nature and people in a city like Berlin through this fantastic product, honey.”

Although the origins of apiculture in Egypt and Greece are closely linked with cities, most people today consider the countryside as the ideal place to keep bees. But in Berlin, there are more than 400,000 trees lining the streets, many lots and gardens with flowering plants, and open spaces that offer vegetation to bees. “Pesticide use is much lower in the city than in the countryside,” Mayr says, “so urban beekeepers can offer a very clean product.“ She is proud of her honey production of 40 kilograms per colony — twice that of the countryside.

The Berlin beekeeping boom has already led to a specialized company being formed to market urban honey. The woman behind “Berliner Honig,” 34-year-old Annette Müller, said, “I see a real case for a local bee economy. Berliners consume about 4,000 tons of honey each year, but mainly from sources they don’t really know.”

Müller bemoans the fact that according to German law, food producers don’t need to tell their customers where honey comes from. “Food labels will show idyllic German landscapes, but most of what people consume will be produced more industrially in places like China and brought here after long storage periods with huge CO2 emissions over long distances,” she says.

Müller wants Berliners to ask for locally produced honey and to enjoy fresh honey with distinct tastes and textures. “It really should become a product like wine and cheese, where people do appreciate when, where, how and by whom it was produced,” she says. Recently, Galeria Kaufhof and Edeka, two major supermarket companies in Berlin, started carrying “Berlin Honig” in their food sections.

Müller says about 500 beekeepers exist in Berlin today, producing 150 tons of honey. But the boom also brings with it some risks. Both Mayr and Müller are worried that people who start beekeeping as a private hobby underestimate the efforts and the responsibilities that come with it. “You can’t just leave it alone for six weeks because you lost interest or you need to go on a business trip,” Müller warns.

Varroa mites and foulbrood are of particular concern. Nothing akin to the colony collapse disorder seen in the U.S. has occurred in Germany so far, but hygiene and pest control are crucial. As bee diseases are contagious, Mayr says a lack of control could easily lead to a large number of beekeepers getting into trouble due to the negligence of only a few.

At the most fundamental level, the new generation of beekeepers in Germany’s capital believe their local honey will at least raise people’s awareness about the origins of their food. “With our honey,” says Müller, “we want to tell a story about urban biodiversity and the coexistence of people and insects in the city.”

by Luke Seall

Some people say that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Well I beg to differ. After partaking in a short 1 day foraging course, my eyes have been opened to the world of edible delights growing on my doorstep. Next time you’re on your way to the supermarket, why not have a look in nature’s larder first. Here are some tips to get you going.

Start with something familiar. I started by picking blackberries because they are easy to find and easy to eat. When you find what you are looking for, take a look around at what kind of environment they are growing in, and what else is growing there. You will start to recognize familiar plants and understand what conditions certain plants grow in.

Get yourself a good book, or indeed several on wild plant identification or foraging. Find out about any local courses or wild food walks. The best way to learn is to be shown by an expert. Talk to the locals when you are foraging. They may have valuable knowledge on where to find specific plants. Take photo’s of plants that you are struggling to identify and seek help from online forums. Make a map and take notes of what you’ve found and where you found it. This will make it easier to find next year and help you develop an instinct for where to look for certain plants.

Living in a city is no excuse not to get your foraging basket out. Many edibles thrive in urban areas. Having spent weeks scouring the countryside for rocket, I found vast quantities of it growing out of the pavement one street away from my house. In many cases, it’s easier to forage in the city than to go to the supermarket!

Get yourself a good collection of recipes. You probably won’t find many recipe books that tell you how to cook something like Sea Purslane, but the Internet is a wonderful resource for learning how to prepare and eat your wild food. There is no point in gathering a basket full of edibles if you don’t know what to do with them. Be patient and open minded. Many wild plants require careful preparation before they can be considered pleasant enough to eat!

Never, under any circumstances risk eating a plant unless you are 100 percent sure you have identified it correctly. Always consult a good book or speak to an expert before eating something you are unsure about. Also be aware of where the plant is growing. In towns and cities, many edible plants are considered weeds and may have been doused in herbicides. You must also respect the environment when foraging. Only take what you need. Don’t strip a plant bare, take a little from many plants to allow them to continue growing healthily. In the UK there is a huge collection of laws and bi-laws that relate to foraging. The best advice is to use your common sense. One regulation to keep in mind is that it is illegal to uproot any wild plant in Great Britain. It is advisable to contact your local authority to find full details on what you can and can’t do.

Here is a selection of the most common plants to get you started. They should be quite easy to find.

In the countryside

Blackberries, Damsons, Sloes, Plums, Crab Apples, Apples, Elderflowers, Gorse flowers, Mallow, Rose hips, Wild Garlic, Fennel, Horseradish, Hawthorn.

By the seashore

Sea Kale, Sea Beet, Rock samphire, Marsh samphire, Kelp, Fennel, Sea Purslane, Seaweed (Many edible species).

In the town

Perennial wall rocket, Blackberries, Elderflowers, Wild Mustard.

Foraging for your dinner may not always be as convenient as popping to the local shop, but it certainly makes up for it with the enjoyment and satisfaction you get from collecting and cooking your own food. There is a forgotten world of delicious, unusual and exciting edibles out there waiting to be tasted. Who cares about convenience when you are up to your waist in nature collecting crab apples! So get your wellington boots on and get out there.

by Steve Savage

For a long time we have been hearing that “Organic is the fastest growing segment of the food industry.” Organic advocates make the claim that Organic could “feed the world” or that it could be “the solution to global warming.” There is definitely enough buzz about Organic to make all of this seem plausible. The popular image of Organic is that it is finally becoming a significant part of the food supply. The actual statistics paint a very different picture.

In 2008, a USDA survey of US Organic growers got responses from over 90 percent of the growers, so we know a great deal about the US Organic industry. In that year there were nearly 2.5 million acres of certified Organic cropland. That follows growth since 1995 at the rate of 144,000 acres/year (see graph below). That sounds like a lot of land to most people (an acre is roughly the size of a football field).

In fact, all those Organic acres put together still only represent 0.71 percent of the 370 million acres of US cropland. The amount of that cropland that was actually harvested in 2008 represented only 0.52 percent of the total. Organic cropland area has been growing, but only at 0.0385 percent per year on an absolute basis (see chart below). At that rate of growth, US Organic cropland will still represent less than 2.5 percent of the total in the year 2050. The math suggests that Organic will remain as a small niche market.

Organic has been heavily marketed as a “super brand” so that the advertising dollars spent on everything from yogurt to spinach to baby clothes contributes to a unified consumer image. Organic also receives a great deal of free promotion by certain environmental groups, University programs, and certain corporations wanting to present a “green” image. Positive messages about Organic and negative message about conventional food are abundant in the world of food and sustainability blogging, and in the media in general. All of this gives the impression that Organic must be a sizable industry.

When you hear a statistic about rapidly growing Organic sales, there are several things to remember. The Organic farmer gets a premium price which is needed to cover higher production costs. The “Organic Premium” does not end there. Instead, each player in the value chain (shipper, broker, distributor, retailer) charges a premium over their normal margin for Organic products. Also, most of the statistics are about grocery retail, which don’t include food service, which is about half of US food consumption. So a lot of Organic spending does not mean a great deal of Organic farming.

Organic also seems bigger to many consumers because they have some direct contact with a small, local Organic farm through a CSA, a farm stand, or a farmer’s market. Many people know a student who has gone to work on an Organic farm because that has been a major trend in recent years. All of this gives the impression that Organic is a major movement in the food industry. Indeed there are a great many small Organic farms. By 2008 there were >9,600 relatively small Organic farms in the US (having less than $100,000 in total sales – net income would be lower). Those farms represented 70 percent of all the Organic farms. Having a lot of people involved in farming is a great thing; however, all of those farmers combined only produced 6.6 percent of total Organic sales (see graph below) and thus an even smaller percent of all food sales. People enjoy being able to buy from small, local, Organic farms, but they represent a miniscule proportion of our food supply. A highly visible Organic farming industry does not mean that Organic is large.

In recent years, much of actual growth in the Organic sales at the consumer level has come from imports of mainly non-perishables from outside of North America (frozen fruit and vegetables, grains, dried fruit, fruit juice concentrate, milk products etc). This last point is of concern to many different observers (Tree Hugger, Cornucopia Institute, Public Radio International, USDA, Business Week, various bloggers) Because the Organic certification process relies mainly on paperwork and does not include random or even scheduled product testing, the possibility of fraud is substantial. Many US Organic farmers are also concerned about being undercut on price, particularly if the certification system in other countries has less integrity. Organic consumers are often surprised about the imports. In a famous case, a frozen vegetable mix called “California Blend” was sold at Whole Foods. In small font on the back of the package were the words, “produced in China.” It is even more difficult to get statistics on the extent of Organic imports or to know which food products contain imported ingredients. There are widespread concerns about this major source of growth in the US Organic sector.

So, in spite of seeming otherwise, Organic farming is a very small part of US crop agriculture. It seems destined to remain small. Organic is a solid niche and a good business for some players, but when we hear Organic being promoted as “the solution” to our food supply and environmental issues, we need to be skeptical.

Graphs by Steve Savage based on USDA-NASS and USDA-ERS data.

by Jennifer Lance

As a gardner, I have certain assumptions about food. Fresh is always better; however, I do freeze for winter. Recently, a friend shared that frozen food was actually more flavorful and nutritious than fresh food available in the grocery store. This threw me for a loop: I always thought “frozen fresh” was an oxymoron, but the reasoning made sense.

With today’s massive industrial agricultural system, fruits and vegetables are picked before they are ripe to ensure they do not spoil in transportation. As result, flavor is lost and heirloom varieties that will only ripen on the plant become obsolete. In contrast, frozen food is picked when ripe then frozen immediately. So which is better?

Contrary to my assumptions, some vitamin content actually drops upon ripening. Natural Hub reports, “The vitamin C content of many fruit is higher when it is slightly immature, and declines as the fruit hits peak ripeness.” According to Vitamin Deficiency Today:

- “Potatoes lose 50 percent of its vitamin C in two month after harvesting and almost 80 percent of vitamin C is lost after four month of storage.”
- “Spinach which is very popular because of its valuable nutrients, lose 80 percent of its vitamins during first two days after harvesting even if it is stored in cool and dark place.”
- “Fresh green peas…lose significant amount of its valuable nutrients within a week. Study has showed that 77 percent of vitamin C in fresh green peas was lost after seven days of storage.”

Thus, eating the freshest food possible is the best for your health. But what happens when the fruit is picked days or sometimes weeks before reaching your local grocery store? Vitamin Deficiency Today explains:

Studies have found that frozen vegetables in some cases contain more nutrients than fresh ones.

Scientists found that cooked frozen green peas contain higher levels of beta carotene than cooked fresh peas. Most frozen fruits and vegetables bought at supermarket were frozen very soon after harvest and it helps to minimize the loss of nutrients. Today we should agree that fresh vegetables are not always better for us, because of long food storage periods.

If you are not growing your own food or shopping at a local farmer’s market, do not discount frozen vegetables, especially if eating out of season. Frozen food grown in the United States is better for you than fruits and vegetables grown in South America and transported to the United States. Energy consumption used to freeze produce is an environmental concern; however, the carbon footprint of transporting food is also heavy. As always, local, seasonal produce is the best bet for your health and the environment.