In what some might call a federal cop-out, the US Army Corps of Engineers informed Maryland and Virginia that it would not provide a recommendation on whether the states should seed the Chesapeake Bay with Asian oysters.

The Army Corps’ no-decision decision came after researchers spent $15M to find out that the Asian oyster might indeed grow well in Chesapeake Bay - so well that the researchers were concerned that it might outcompete the already-struggling native oyster.

Perhaps understandably, the Corps didn’t want to get in the middle of a values debate, weighing a fisherman’s harvest against the integrity and biodiversity of a region. But the Corps’ lack of a recommendation leaves the contentious decision to each state – and being that multiple states share the waters of the Bay, and oysters don’t pay attention to state lines…one state’s decision could affect the future of the entire Chesapeake Bay.

The least risky way to improve oyster harvests in Chesapeake Bay is to respond to the environmental conditions that are threatening the native oyster. In 2007, only 12% of the Chesapeake Bay had enough oxygen to support seafloor life like oysters, thanks to widespread hypoxic conditions created by agricultural run-off. These pollutant sources have not been addressed in former oyster restoration efforts - and are still not addressed with the introduction of an exotic oyster to Chesapeake Bay.

Via the Washington Post

You may have read about the Colorado farm who opened their field up to free harvesting. Instead of getting the 5,000 to 10,000 takers they had originally estimated, 40,000 people showed up. Joe and Chris Miller ended up giving away about 600,000 pounds of food in one day from their 600-acre farm. It's reported that the Millers had extra food, wanted to thank their customers and were responding to reports of food being stolen from churches.

Meanwhile, in New York City, people are flocking to soup kitchens and food pantries at record rates but the organizations are struggling to keep up with supply. Here in Missoula, Mont., our food bank has seen the demand for food hit record highs all year. Not only that but 8 of the 10 poorest counties in the United States are in Montana and every single one of those counties is agriculturally based.

A food Bank in Chesterfield, Mo. expects to hand out about 300,000 more pounds of food this month compared to November of last year, when it delivered 800,000 pounds. You can find this story from almost any state's emergency food suppliers across the nation.

Demand in Los Angeles has risen 41% since last year, and Reuters news service just recently asked the question: Will food banks need a bailout? That's not what we want to hear, of course. But, regardless, it's clear that something needs to be done about food security. And bailouts, being a quick fix, don't fix the system.

Daily News NY, The New York Times, The Missoula Independent, St. Louis Today, Reuters

Last week, the US Food and Drug Administration banned all imports of milk-containing products from China, unless they were tested for melamine. Some consumer advocacy groups, like Food and Water Watch, think that should have happened a lot sooner.

In September this year, media broke the “Chinese Milk Scandal.” Over fifty brands of milk-containing products in China had tested positive for melamine, a banned industrial chemical used in fertilizers and plastics. Under the media spotlight, the Chinese government investigated, and nearly 500 pounds of the chemical - considered toxic at the parts per billion - were seized from 27 different producers and processors.

The nitrogen-rich melamine was being added illegally to the dairy product to increase the apparent protein content. As of October, over 50,000 Chinese children had been hospitalized for melamine symptoms, and four children had died.

Yet only a week ago, the US FDA finally decided to issue an alert to us about milk-containing products from China. China’s feelings are hurt even by this late admonishment - after all, China banned our country’s beef in 2003 after positive tests for mad cow disease, but then lifted the ban, even as South Korea had violent protests against the re-importation of U.S. beef.

Qin Gang, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, in what appears to be a thinly veiled threat, simply states that the milk-product ban will hurt bi-lateral trade between the two countries.

Via Food and Water Watch

Today is the deadline for submitting comments to USDA regarding its oversight of genetically engineered plants and other organisms. While USDA says the proposed rules will establish safeguards for the introduction of organisms derived from biotechnology while reducing "regulatory burdens," consumer groups are rallying their membership base to sign petitions in support of stronger regulations.

Two of the most problematic issues include:

1. Contamination. The rules include language that would formalize a policy to basically overlook low levels of contamination by unauthorized transgenic crops. That is, when crops not approved for commercial planting -- those still in the experimental stage -- contaminate food crops, the companies responsible for these test plots would not be held liable. These contamination events wouldn't lead to remedial action. What's a farmer's recourse, then, if he or she loses an important market due to contamination? Equally concerning, USDA would still allow the outdoor planting of experimental pharmaceutical crops, such as food crops engineered to produce industrial chemicals and drugs.

2. Preemption. As written, the rules would preempt "all state and local laws or regulations that are inconsistent [with USDA rules]." So, local initiatives, including Hawaii's Big Island ban on transgenic coffee and taro, GMO-free counties, and even state laws that aim to shift liability away from the farmer, could all potentially be impacted by the new rule.

This is the first major revision to biotechnology regulations since they were implemented in the late 1980s. In 2005, the USDA's own Inspector General found that the agency's regulations, policies, and procedures do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology. With new studies showing potential health problems and evidence of contamination, the agency must provide strict measures that protect consumers, the environment, and conventional and organic marketplaces, as well as hold biotech firms accountable for any economic and environmental implications of their technology.

Source: Reuters

Consumers Union is criticizing a decision by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), an elected body that guides USDA's policy decisions regarding the National Organic Program (NOP), on the topic of certified organic aquaculture, which has been the subject of debate for years.

The NOSB recently sent recommendations to USDA for fish that can carry the USDA organic seal. Consumers Union and other watchdog groups fear that labeling fish as organic will undermine the organic program, because the new rule would allow fish to be labeled "organic" even if they're raised under conditions that don't meet fundamental USDA organic principles.

The new rule would allow:

• Fish to be fed non-organic feed. Currently, certified organic livestock have to be fed 100% organic feed.

• Farmed fish to be fed fishmeal made from wild fish, which can carry mercury and other toxins.

• Fish to be raised in open net pens. These cages lead to pollution from concentrated waste and can spread disease and parasites to wild fish populations.

Consumers Union conducted a poll that showed 93% of Americans think fish labeled as "organic" should be fed 100% organic feed. Nine in 10 respondents said that "organic" fish shouldn't be allowed to pollute the environment.

To date, the NOP doesn't include rules for organic aquaculture because of disagreement within the organic industry. The Organic Trade Association says, "the fundamental point is that any fish operation is a different kind of operation from organic production, not simply a different degree of operation. This different kind of operation requires a different kind of certification and labeling."

Source: Consumers Union

The transgenic sugar beet lawsuit that Envirovore wrote about earlier this year is still a heated debate. Organic growers of chard and table beets fear contamination from Monsanto's sugar beets because the plants are closely related. Read the latest.

Thousands of people oppose planting transgenic papayas in Florida, says the Global Justice Ecology Project. These papayas, engineered to resist ringspot virus, are currently grown in Hawaii, where tests have revealed widespread contamination of conventional and organic papayas.

The Korea Food and Drug Administration says it's strengthening the country's GMO labeling rules to include all food products. Some products, including soybean sauces and cooking oils, have been exempt thus far because it's difficult to identify the amount of transgenic material in the finished product. Food companies are begging the Administration to postpone the new requirements.

EU governments are in disagreement over the approval of a new Monsanto transgenic soybean variety. The decision is being handed back to the European Commission where it's expected to be approved.

The Irish poultry sector says it's at risk because of a competitive disadvantage regarding feed. The EU is "slow" to approve GMO varieties of corn and soy, it argues, meaning they're paying more for non-GMO feed.

A proponent of biotech crops explains why he thinks transgenic crops are the future of food in an article entitled, "Tomatoes with added Viagra: how to get consumers to love GM crops."

Newsweek's video clip, "Chicks and the City," gives a snapshot of one Brooklyn family's backyard chickens. The Mackin family strives to make their urban chickens a worthwhile and sustainable project by feeding the hens food scraps; selling eggs to a local bistro; and providing chicken manure to a community garden for fertilizer in exchange for hay. Each Easter, they buy more chicks -- a variety of breeds that make for a colorful flock.

While some people are concerned that avian flu -- if introduced to the U.S. -- will flourish in backyard coops, studies indicate that "diverse, small-scale poultry farming is the solution, not the problem."

According to Newsweek, "Many urban farmers are taking that motto to heart." At least 30 community gardens in New York are raising chickens for eggs. And in Madison, Wisconsin, residents overturned a residential chicken ban four years ago and the city now has more than 80 registered chicken owners. In fact, many cities have worked to establish chicken ordinances:

This past year alone, grass-roots organizations in Missoula, Mont.; South Portland, Maine; Ann Arbor, Mich.; and Ft. Collins, Colo., have successfully lobbied to overturn city ordinances outlawing backyard poultry farming, defined in these cities as egg farming, not slaughter. Ann Arbor now allows residents to own up to four chickens (with neighbors' consent), while the other three cities have six-chicken limits, subject to various spacing and nuisance regulations.

But these ordinances have had their share of controversy outside the avian flu issue. Here in Missoula, our chicken ordinance inspired this clever video that gives voice to both sides of the debate.

Source: Newsweek

Of all the contamination events involving genetically engineered crops, few have received more attention than a UC-Berkely study that brought to light contamination of indigenous Mexican maize varieties. The study was published in Nature magazine in 2001, and ignited so much controversy around its accuracy that Nature rescinded its support of the article, a decision that many believe was a result of industry pressure.

But new research shows that the Berkely researchers' findings weren't off base.

Last week, Nature published another study that identified contaminated "landrace" maize varieties in the Mexican heartland, this time by researchers at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Nature reports that the study "largely confirms a similar, controversial result published in Nature in 2001 and may reignite the debate in Mexico over GM crops."

Transgenic varieties are currently not approved for commercial planting in Mexico, the center of origin for maize. Acknowledging this fact, the Mexican government banned the cultivation of transgenic maize in 1998 to protect the 60-some native varieties. This hasn't stopped contamination, however, since corn is imported to the country, most of which is genetically engineered, and some Mexican farmers illegaly plant transgenic seed.

Ensuring the genetic integrity of native seed is crucial to future research in the face of climate change. It's also important to sustaining a diversity of food sources. Evidence for contamination highlights an important question: do seed technologies have the right to exist at the expense of other varieties?

Source: Nature