In the context of food riots and other agricultural woes, it's hard to consider the luxuries of life. But making consumption more about quality, not quantity is in the environmental, sustainable vein. And vodka is cultural, too, which is not a frivolous matter.

360 Vodka is not organic, but it is distilled in a small Missouri operation and made from local grains. The company also uses waste-paper labels, giving it a green edge. The other newest vodka is Square One which is distilled in Idaho from organic rye grain grown in North Dakota.

Actually, it's more important for wine to be organic because so many of the ingredients remain in the final product. And vodka distillation burns off impurities. But here is an instance where you can support the organic and/or local booze for environmental reasons, and know that you're supporting small-scale, boutique distilleries and small-operation farmers. And that's important because, while you can find small wineries, spirits are generally owned by multinationals.

This new trend toward small distilleries is a heartening path, and may lead people to think “green” when filling up the shot glass.

Na Zdorovie!

“Black gold” makes me think of the Beverly Hillbillies -- you know, as in Jed Clampett and “Texas Tea.” But we're not talking oil, of course. The “black gold” of agriculture is actually a sustainable technology called "biochar" -- a charcoal derived from biomass that improves soil fertility and may help mitigate climate change.

This stuff is well established having been used at least fifteen hundred years ago by farmers in the central Amazon basin. Their charcoal was derived from animal bone and tree bark and the basin today still contains some of the richest soil in the world.

That's because the biochar is inert, and unlike manure and compost which breaks down pretty easily, it persists for thousands of years, in a pretty permanent fashion. It increases water retention, microbial activity and the mineral uptake of plants. And the process? Not as intensive as you might think. It's a heating process known as pyrolysis where organic residue is packed into a metal container, sealed, and heated to the charcoal point.

As a climate change mitigator, biochar may not have a monstrous effect, but it is more likely to stay in the ground than a forest which might eventually get chopped down. It also appears to decrease emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, two major greenhouse gases. In one study, nitrous oxide emissions were reduced by 80% and methane emissions were suppressed completely when biochar was added to a forage grass stand.

Source: Treehugger.com, Science Daily, Environmental Science & Technology

News flash: pesticides are never applied in a vacuum.

Most recently, the minty-sounding, methoprene-based larvicide Altosid, commonly added to waterways to squelch mosquito larvae, has been accused of causing decreased lobster harvests along the eastern coast of the U.S.

Lobsters and mosquitos? We’re probably all familiar with the weird, bobbleheaded mosquito larvae - seen them squirming around in puddles and old rainwater filled buckets. But lobsters (and crabs, and oysters, and clams, and mussels) also have a nearly microscopic larval stage. For up to several months, shellfish and mollusk larvae become members of the massive swirling planktonic community before fattening up, developing shells, and settling on the ocean floor.

Unsurprisingly, lobstermen in Rhode Island who are seeing widespread shell disease and reduced hatch rates are blaming the state’s use of Altosid for indiscriminate larvicide. And although there are no scientific studies to back them yet, the lobstermen may have a case – Maine has banned methoprene-containing substances, and their lobsters are free of the shell disease and low birth rates plaguing other states.

Should these “side effects” of pesticides ever really be unexpected? When will pesticides cease to be evaluated in laboratory vacuums, and instead be studied in ways that acknowledge their potential influences on the ecosystems to which they are applied – before they’re actually applied?

Via The Jamestown Press, Photo from The Secret Life of Lobsters

Synthetic chicken breasts plucked from bubbling vats in laboratories - freaky or phenomenal?

It’s possible they’ll be at the grocery store before you’ve come up with a good answer to that. As the New York Times reported, the first In Vitro Meat Symposium convened in Norway this week, where scientists came together to present and discuss research on laboratory created meat.

Scientists involved with the In Vitro meat movement identify themselves as environmentalists. Twenty-six percent of all land on earth is grazed by livestock, and 33% of all cropland is already used for animal feed, and is responsible for everything from deforestation to oceanic dead zones. The scientists say that their creations are a way to ethically and environmentally respond to the fact that global meat consumption is rising by 4.7 million tons each year.

New Harvest, a group promoting research and marketing for laboratory meat, explains the interesting process of its creation:

The production of such "cultured meat" begins by taking a number of cells from a farm animal and proliferating them in a nutrient—rich medium. Cells are capable of multiplying so many times in culture that, in theory, a single cell could be used to produce enough meat to feed the global population for a year. After the cells are multiplied, they are attached to a sponge-like "scaffold" and soaked with nutrients. They may also be mechanically stretched to increase their size and protein content. The resulting cells can then be harvested, seasoned, cooked, and consumed as a boneless, processed meat, such as sausage, hamburger, or chicken nuggets.

PBS offers an on-line virtual taste test, along with a two-minute video documenting the creation of this sci-fi meat.

Soybean farmers may have an upperhand in biodiesel now, but hazelnut farmers might have the more sustainable edge.

Currently, 99% of US commercial hazelnuts come from Oregon, but farmers in Minnesota and Wisconsin are looking to get in on the action. Not that Oregonians should be wary; the Midwestern hazels are actually smaller and tougher, not so suitable for human nibbling, but perfect for animal feed and conversion to biodiesel.

Consider this: soy is composed of 20% oil and canola is 40%. But hazelnuts are a whopping 60% oil. Hazelnut biodiesel involves a one-step crushing and chemical process with a $16,000 German machine. Biodiesel makers say the machine is still a work-in-progress, but it's getting there. With so much oil in each hazelnut, it apparently would take very little for a nut farmer to grow his own operating fuel, and make a profit off the rest.

Farmers also say that they can produce a ton and a half of hazelnuts per acre, and that as perennial crops with hardy root systems, hazelnuts are environmentally-friendly, drought-resistant, and protect the soil from erosion.

Sound like a miracle? Well, it sounds promising, at least. We'll have to see if farmers who take the hazelnut path are able to maintain sustainable practices as operations expand.

Sources: Capital Press, Biodiesel Now

A recent report was snubbed by the U.S., Britain, Canada and Australia despite its resounding support from sixty countries, the World Bank, most UN bodies, and 400 scientists.

The reason?

The report states that world hunger is a distribution problem, not a shortage problem. And given this diagnosis, genetically-modified foods – which are usually manufactured to increase yields – appear to be irrelevant. It's not what the U.S. and Co. wanted to hear considering their countries' intensive GMO research and connections with GM corporations.

It also states that biofuel crops are threatening to plunge the world into crisis. Staple food prices have risen over 100% in some countries, resulting in hunger and riots, with more violence on the horizon. The report, entitled International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development says that the world produces enough for everyone, but still 800 million+ go hungry.

Backers of the report are critical of governments who stress food production increase, without regard to food security and natural resource conservation. Food production and worldwide food trade has led to unequal distribution of benefits and is contributing to climate change.

Most of all, GMOs are not a panacea but a distraction from the real solutions. "Assessment of the [GM] technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable," said the report.

Source: The Age (Australia)

Remember methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus (MRSA) – a bacterial infection that causes more deaths in the U.S. than HIV/AIDS?

While MRSA has typically invaded people in hospitals – patients undergoing medical procedures with weakened immune systems, for example – it's proving to be much more pervasive than originally thought. People who are otherwise healthy, including those who haven't been hospitalized and haven't been taking antibiotics, are contracting MRSA bacteria.

Now, food products are a culprit, as discovered in pork sold in retail stores across Canada.

Researchers have found MRSA in 9 percent of pork products tested for the deadly bacteria, the first confirmed report of MRSA in retail meat in North America (and one of the first in the world). Similar studies are reportedly underway in the U.S.

There isn't a huge food poisoning concern, as the bacteria is destroyed when the meat is cooked properly. Still, researchers wonder if people who handle meat with MRSA would end up carrying the bacteria on their skin, leading to a full-on infection. (The lead researcher's recommendation to just be sure and wash our hands doesn't make me feel better.)

It was only a matter of time until this bacteria showed up in meat products, I guess, given the conditions of some livestock operations where antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been found. Envirovore told you about a study where 100 – 1,000 times more resistance genes in soil bacteria were found around conventional hog farms than soil around organic farms, giving kudos once again to small livestock operations that don't administer antibiotics.

Source: The Toronto Star

Are organic foods really more nutritious than conventionally grown food?

The commonplace answer among skeptics has been "we don't know" or "there isn't enough scientific evidence." Even the National Organic Program declares that organic food is no more nutritious than its conventional counterpart.

But oodles of research on the subject does exist and a new report by scientists at The Organic Center summarizes this data for us. They examined nearly 100 studies to reach the conclusion that organic fruits and vegetables on average had higher levels of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants than their conventional counterparts.

This is the first in-depth review of scientific peer-reviewed literature on the nutritional benefits of organic food since 2003. (Forty new studies have been published since then.)

Lucky for us, The Organic Center is going to update these findings online as new studies that compare organic and conventional foods are published.

So, yes, organic foods are generally more nutritious than their conventional counterparts. And now there's science to back it up.

Source: The Organic Center