Why I Choose Pesticide-free Foods: Lessons from Costa Rica

I know what happens when a craving inhibits our capacity to engage in sustainability economics and it is not always pretty. That said, a few recent life-experiences have forced me to put more thought into grocery shopping, whether I’m having a craving or not. Here, I've shared the experiences that taught me why choosing pesticide-free food is the only choice for my health, that of farmers, and of our ecosystems.

Malanga root on the left

My first serious thoughts about eating pesticide-free meals came when I visited a friend's organic farm in Costa Rica. Nuria grows everything from rice and beans to heart of palm and malanga. The farm's location is equally as unique as the foods grown there; on one side it borders protected areas - including Tortuguero National Park - and on the other side it borders a sea of pesticide-laden banana and papaya plantations.

Whenever I travel the road and approach her farm, I am always surprised at the stark changes in the landscape. The journey is not so scenic when I begin near the agricultural town of Guapiles. Mile after mile, all I can see are fields crowded with banana trees and littered with blue plastic. There is no wildlife in sight and the only farmers I can see are covered in hooded spray suits, these so-called banana farmer uniforms are necessary to protect them from the harmful chemicals that are sprayed on the acres and acres of fruits. Fruits destined for our grocery stores for us to buy and eat. As I get closer to Nuria’s farm, forest patches begin to break up the monotonous agricultural landscape. Wildlife and humans freely visit her crops, and this time no hooded spray suits are required.

Organic papaya tree, note rainforest in the background

Upon arrival, I am always greeted with fresh fruit, and if I’m lucky it is organic papaya. Nuria has to pick these fruits while they are still a little green because otherwise the toucans will devour them before she has the chance to harvest them. My first papaya was unforgettable, for the taste but also the story behind it.

Papaya thief

Nuria’s story began with a question, Did you know that I have a friend that works on a papaya farm yet always buys papayas from me? When I asked why he would not simply purchase the fruits from the farm where he works, she told me that he did not want them. In fact, this fellow had sworn to never eat a single papaya from his work because the plantations were laden with pesticides. He told her that anyone who has felt their nose burn and their chest tighten as they inhale pesticides would be a fool to eat a fruit smothered in them. He also told her that anyone who has seen farm workers suffer health complications as a result of their work, anyone who has seen young children living near these plantations with unexplained health issues, would be a fool to eat those papayas. I asked myself silently, if papaya farmers won't eat their papayas, why should I purchase them?

I took a minute to think. Only two years back, I had come to Costa Rica excited about eating papayas and tropical fruit salads. I'd been told by other Canadians that Costa Rican papayas were more colourful, softer, and sweeter than any papaya I would find in Canadian grocery stores. Nobody in Canada talked to me about making sure they were organic. So two years ago, oblivious to the differences between organic and conventional products, I bought the latter.

 On my friend’s organic farm, I began to see the real costs of being naive about where my food came from. These were not only costs to my health but to that of others, that of fathers, mothers, and children who have little say in what pesticides are used at their work or near their homes.

My papaya story was not the first I heard of its kind, unfortunately. A year later but still in Costa Rica, I was working as a teaching assistant for a tropical biology course that traveled throughout the country Although we spent most of our time at field stations, I occasionally found myself wandering away to talk to farmers that lived in whatever area we happened to be visiting.

While in Guanacaste, near Palo Verde Biological Station, I met up with a rice farmer. Rice is an important crop in Costa Rica because it is part of their signature meal, gallo pinto. We talked about rice farming, local food, and Coyol palm wine. He was quick to volunteer that he was out of work because of his health: he had cancer. I felt my heart grow heavy. Because I was familiar with the heavy pesticide use in Guanacaste's rice farms, I suspected this had something to do with his condition. I found out that he shared my suspicion. He told me that cancer, as well as other unexplained health conditions, were common among rice-farmers in Guanacaste. He told me that the farmers of the area knew that the pesticides they were using were causing them health problems but what was a small farmer to do when they had a family to support and an increasingly globalized market eliminated opportunities for diverse farming practices?

After showing me some of the lesions he had on his body (and emphasizing that I could not leave Guanacaste with out trying locally-roasted Iguana), we parted ways. On my stroll back to the field station, I was reminded of a few conversations I had with a couple river gold-miners in the Peruvian Amazon a few years previously. Instead of pesticides the gold miners' poison was mercury. They showed me the ways mercury can burn your skin, kill a rivers' fish, and eat away at the health of their children, who have no choice but to drink the mercury-contaminated river water. Just as the papaya and rice farmers, these people knew the danger of these chemicals but did not have the choice to work without them.

Writing this essay brings back the same bone-chilling feelings I had when I was told these stories. The difference now is that I cannot claim the same naiveté as I did when I moved to Costa Rica. The burden of knowing, as some people would put it, seems so small in comparison of the burden that farmers bear because they have no real institutional support to rid their lives of these chemicals. Let's face it, if we buy fruits grown with harmful pesticides, then companies will continue using them and governments will continue to allow them.

I understand we do not all have the privilege to eat organic because it can be expensive and out of reach to many. But, for those of you like me with a choice, opting for pesticide-free is an important one. It is a choice for healthy people and healthy ecosystems. It is a choice to pressure governments and companies to honour the basic human rights to a life free of harmful chemicals.

Want to eat organic in Costa Rica? Check out the Feria Verde in Aranajuez, San Jose, it is one of my favourite markets.

More on plantation pesticide use in Costa Rica: 

van Wendel de Joode B, Barraza D, Ruepert C, Mora AM, Córdoba L, Oberg M, Wesseling C, Mergler D, & Lindh CH (2012). Indigenous children living nearby plantations with chlorpyrifos-treated bags have elevated 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCPy) urinary concentrations. Environmental research, 117, 17-26 PMID: 22749112

Do you know where your bananas come from?

Although this blog post has been on my mind for months, I did not write it in fear of doing the topic an injustice. How can words on a page possibly bring you to the root of the banana industry where women, men, and children engage in risky and consistently hard labour to bring the perfect unblemished banana to our tables? The longer I sit on this story, the more important I realize it is. So here is my story, based on eight months working with bananas.

When we want a banana the furthest most of us have to travel is to the grocery store. But, this convenience is not without costs. Save for a small label that identifies the country of origin, we have no idea about the farms our bananas come from. We also have no idea what farmers have sacrificed to produce a bushel of bananas. Buying organic satisfies many consumers and frees them of any guilt about unsustainable eating. Until 2012, I was one of those consumers who thought I was doing my best for farmers and the environment when buying organic.

Last year I realized the real danger of this assumption. I realized that the label organic tells us nothing about how banana companies treat banana farmers. I realized that organic bananas are bought and marketed mainly by Transnational Corporations and human rights aren’t necessarily one of their priorities, getting you to buy their organic banana is.

Traveling into these Talamanca Mountains, I did not expect to find the heart of Costa Rica's banana industry

In my experience I was farming organic bananas in a Southern Caribbean region of Costa Rica called Talamanca. I was working with Bribri Indigenous people who have lived in the country since time immemorial. In addition to being an Indigenous Territory this is arguably the most biodiverse region of Costa Rica and where you can find Costa Rica’s largest national park. This region is also hard to access, requiring boat, bus, and foot travel to arrive. Needless to say, when I moved to this remote and lush tropical forest, I did not expect to see large-scale banana farming.

 

Soils in Talamanca that have been organic since time immemorial

The first two questions I asked, when I unexpectedly found myself amidst a lot of bananas were: 1) With all the agricultural land in Costa Rica, why did organic banana companies choose to buy bananas from Talamanca? And 2) How was it cost-effective to export bananas through unpredictable rivers and hard to access roads?

On export day, twice a month, this rocky shore is buried under bananas to be transported to the capital city

As I recalled my research on organic farming, it dawned upon me. For organic bananas you need organic land, land that has not been exposed to chemical pesticides for at least three years. Unbeknownst to many, organic land is something that is hard to find in Costa Rica (because of widespread pesticide use). So, the fastest and cheapest way for companies to find organic land was likely to travel to Indigenous communities, deep into the forest where chemicals have never been used.

You don’t see anything wrong with the picture yet? Let’s dig a little deeper.

Do transnational banana companies pay Indigenous people fair wages?

No. An average farmer receives from 20-160 USD a month, far less than the Costa Rican minimum wage of 502 USD. A kg of bananas is bought for less than one-cent USD and sold – at my store – for about 20 times more.

Do banana companies recognize and respect traditional farming practices?

No. Although Bribri bananas are cropped alongside many other food and timber species, companies do not see this biocultural diversity as beneficial, they see it as getting in the way of profits. Consequently, company representatives have tried to coerce people to increase production (and decrease crop diversity) through training as well as with economic threats.

Fresh peach palm fruits, just one part of the rich crop diversity common on Bribri farms

Do companies have any liability if people get hurt or harmed on the job or do they compensate people if their bananas get lost during unpredictable river transport?

No and No.

As you can imagine, corporations are different and may not have the same modus operandi as the one I experienced in Costa Rica. However, other people’s experiences suggest that transnational corporations elsewhere are similarly concerned with profit increase and similarly disinterested in human rights. My experiences demonstrate that buying organic is not enough to free us of our social and environmental eating responsibilities.

After moving home from Talamanca, it is safe to say that I do not necessarily support large banana companies that simply label their products as organic . When I do buy bananas – and other exotic foods like coffee or chocolate - I look for equal exchange or other fairly traded products. 

A Bit of Arsenic in Rice Can’t be that Bad, Can it?

BBC Interviewer: If you are accustomed to eating maybe one or two servings [of rice] a week, it’s not going to make that much difference?

Scientist: No, no that’s absolutely the facts

This morning I listened to this interview with a toxicologist about arsenic in rice. I don’t question scientific studies that report that people seem unaffected by trace amounts of heavy metals in food, in the short term. However, I do question the above BBC interview where a scientist claims it’s, “…absolutely the facts” that one or two servings of rice a week is fine for human consumption, no matter where the rice comes from and no matter how long you are exposed to it. For one thing, this scientist doesn’t address the issue of prolonged exposure to arsenic, found linked to bladder cancer in Taiwan. Most importantly, this scientist doesn’t support his claim with any evidence at all.  

In the journal Nature, scientists recently reported that the arsenic-laden rice in the news likely comes from rice crops cultivated on land used in the past to grow cotton in the United States. In the past, U.S. cotton fields were treated with arsenic-based chemicals to kill pests and to make cotton harvest easier.

The current arsenic scare comes from a study on 200 samples of rice and rice products found in the U.S. Scientists from the FDA say this sample is not big enough to recommend changes in people’s diet. So, these scientists have advised the general public to wait on the results of a study based on 1000 rice samples.

After reading the news and science blogs I asked myself a few questions.

Do we need more evidence to find out exactly where arsenic-contaminated rice is coming from and to clean those lands up?

I think so.

But, do we need more evidence to change our eating habits?

Most definitely not.

The interview I quote at the beginning of this blog scares me. I’m envisioning a reoccurring scenario, when scientists from food organizations say its okay to eat a little bit of heavy metals, just not too much. Take tuna for example, many of these fish have methlymercury levels so high, pregnant woman are warned not to eat them at all. This tuna scare has not been enough to stop many of us from eating tuna. Maybe we have limited the amount of methylmercury-contaminated tuna and maybe will eat arsenic-enriched rice in moderation, but, let’s use our common sense, when was even a little bit of these heavy metals ever good for us?

If cotton-farmers 100 years ago knew the chemicals they put on their crops would be absorbed by the rice their great-granddaughters would be eating, would they still use it? I don’t have that answer. I can say that farmers and consumers today should be well aware of how pesticides, and other chemicals, persist in our ecosystem for generations. Today we are talking about arsenic used a century ago. What will it be tomorrow? For one example, my guess is that our descendants will slap their forehead when they think of all the glyphosate we use today to remove weeds (really any other plant) from our soy, wheat, and cereal crops.

So will a little arsenic in our stir-fry harm us today? Will a little glyphosate in our toast harm us tomorrow? I guess it all depends on what we are thinking when we make our eating choices. Are you simply eating to get by? Or, are you are eating to protect your health and that of generations to come?

GM Alfalfa: Changing the Future of Dairy and Organic Farming?

With “World Food Day” approaching - October 16^th - I thought it was timely to bring up some of the more ‘global’ issues reaching our ‘local’ food systems.

Let’s explore what COWS, BEES, and MONSANTO have in common.

The answer is ALFALFA!

Alfalfa Plants (photo courtesy of www.myessentia.com)

Some may be thinking, so what? I don’t eat much alfalfa myself. But, if you eat chicken eggs, cheese, ice cream, or cows, you do eat alfalfa. Alfalfa is used as cow and chicken feed. In fact, it is the backbone of the dairy industry. Alfalfa also creates its own natural fertilizer. It captures nitrogen from the atmosphere and makes it available in the soil. This makes alfalfa a key resource for organic farmers who do not use chemical fertilizers.

Alfalfa Hay

The dairy industry, and organic farming in general, is about to change drastically with the proliferation of genetically modified alfalfa, aka GM alfalfa. GM alfalfa seed is the project of a multinational company, Monsanto. GM alfalfa was once banned in the USA, but courts have recently overturned this ban. GM alfalfa is not yet legal in Canada, but a quick Google search, or conversation with a Canadian farmer, will reveal that the pressure is on. 

We know the links between dairy, Monsanto and alfalfa, now where do bees fit in this equation?

Bees pollinate alfalfa. Once a GM bee-pollinated crop is let loose there is no turning back (recent history tells this story for GM canola). Bees go everywhere; therefore, so does the pollen they collect and exchange among distant plants. An exchange of pollen from a GM plant to a non-GM plant can result in the exchange of genetic material. Successful exchange of genes means that the seeds of a new plant generation in the non-GM fields may be genetically modified (aka “genetic contamination”). Because bee pollinated crops are at high risks of genetic contamination, even farmers who want to avoid these GM plants often can’t. For certified organic farmers, the introduction of GM alfalfa is particularly alarming.  As you may know, organic certification prohibits the use of genetically modified seeds. Therefore, farmers that rely on non-GM alfalfa can run the risk of losing their certification if they are found with GM plants in their farms.  

Organic Alfalfa Put To Use!

What is GM Alfalfa?

Like other Monsanto-modified seeds, such as soy or canola, GM alfalfa is genetically altered to be resistant to a broad-spectrum herbicide. This herbicide called “Roundup” – also produced by Monsanto - is marketed because of its chemical capacity to kill weeds. “Roundup Ready” crops can be sprayed with the herbicide Roundup to support industrial-scale crop production (on the short-term). Although GM crops are resistant to herbicides, components of such herbicides (e.g., glycophosphates) can affect other life forms, such as aquatic organisms, as well as soil system complexes. 

Canadian farmers I’ve spoken to see no reason for GM alfalfa. They also view Monsanto as the only beneficiary. First, this company will benefit because the use of their seeds goes hand in hand with the use of their Roundup chemicals. Second, Monsanto holds the patent, thus the legal rights to control the GM seeds (and the herbicide-resistant genes for that matter). Therefore, once crops become contaminated with GM genes, farmers are no longer owners of their crops. This prevents farmers from saving-seeds after harvests, and implies the need to purchase new seeds from companies each year. The implications of this cannot be overstated. For millennia farmers have saved and traded seed maintaining natural sources of diversity. In the words of Bartlett and Steele, “Monsanto has turned this ancient practice on its head.”

One farmer I spoke to sees a benefit in GM crops.  This Manitoban said that his “Certified Local Sustainable” bee farm is stuck in a sea of crop monocultures frequently sprayed with pesticides. In his opinion, GM crops have resulted in less frequent spraying of herbicides because GM crops have a high level of pest resistance. He said that less spraying has resulted in his bees picking up fewer chemicals. We ended our discussion on the note that more attention to GM crops is needed, especially because the human experience with GM crops is extremely limited.

This begs the question, why are we modifying crops in the first place? Or similarly, why are we growing so much of the same thing?

Being that there is strong political and economic support for seed modification, I am curious what support exists for those that explore alternatives to GM seeds. If you weren’t sure how to contribute on “World Food Day”, here is an issue we can talk about. If anyone has any GM crop-related comments, please feel free to post them here, or to e-mail me.

Also, in light of World Food Day, I hope to post a few short posts related to unique projects seeking alternatives to industrial food production. Any ideas? Send them my way!

Sources


Relyea, R. (2005). THE LETHAL IMPACT OF ROUNDUP ON AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL AMPHIBIANS Ecological Applications, 15 (4), 1118-1124 DOI: 10.1890/04-1291

Doublet, J., Mamy, L., & Barriuso, E. (2009). Delayed degradation in soil of foliar herbicides glyphosate and sulcotrione previously absorbed by plants: Consequences on herbicide fate and risk assessment Chemosphere, 77 (4), 582-589 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.06.044

Meet Your Farmer

In many posts, I’ve suggested that the best way to find out just where your food comes from is to talk to the farmer that produces it. The opportunity for me to do just that arose recently during “Open Farms Day”. To encourage farming and food education, the province of Manitoba organized this event, which included around 40 open houses at participating farms. To take advantage of this opportunity, I took a 45 minute drive and spent some time on the Blue Lagoon, certified organic farm. Here are a few highlights.

My visit began with a walk through a chicken coop. The chickens barely noticed me, they were busy pecking at melon rinds outside of their coop. I couldn’t help but ask, don’t chickens eat grain? Sure, replied Stefan, a farmer and Manitoban chef. He explained that the chickens are happy to eat parts of their food compost, and they especially love fruit seeds. Stefan continued to explain that the melon rinds were left over from his gelato experiment.  In fact, Stefan explained that the chickens are great composters, they work food remains into the ground as they peck and graze. This year Blue Lagoon has not used any mechanical tilling of the soil. Instead, chickens are moved around to different soil patches. Just letting the chickens roam around can help transform the soil from hard unworkable land to aerated and more fertile ground.

Next, I hopped on a wagon towed by a tractor and was greeted by Stefan’s parents, Lori Ann and Rene. Clearly proud of their farm, which was recently certified as organic (the only one in St. François Xavier), they explained how every patch of land has its purpose. In the fields you could find rows of veggies, each row a different species, and within rows different varieties. Less fertile land was filled with alfalfa plants. Alfalfa breaks up hard soil and also provides a natural source of nitrogen. It looked perfect if you ask me. But, as Lori Ann soon pointed out, things weren't as simple as they looked. She drew our attention to the live raccoon traps within the fields, as well as garbage bag flags used to deter hungry mammals. Some of their most common visitors are deer. Deer are especially fond of their organic strawberries. So much so these farmers confessed to have forfeited their strawberry crops over the past few years to curious and hungry deer.  

Because these flags are always moving, they are thought to simulate predators and discourage crop thieves

I inquired if animal thieves and crop pests present the greatest challenge for organic farmers. In response I was informed this was partly right, along with the challenge of maintaining soil fertility without chemical inputs. Lori Ann pointed out their cauliflower plants whose leaves had been chewed on by insects. In fact, there are only two things organic farmers can use as insect deterrents while retaining their certification. One is Btk, a bacteria thought non-toxic to organisms with the exception of some insects. The second is row cover, a cloth used to cover plants. Although Btk is an option, Blue Lagoon rarely uses it. They prefer to keep things as natural as possible. 

Cauliflower Plants

I was surprised to later find out that the only insect ‘pest’ this year had been the crucifer beetle, it was this insect that had caused the cabbage damage I noticed earlier. At the end of the tour, Stefan convincingly explained how their farm doesn’t actually have that many pests simply because they don’t grow too much of one thing.  Because this farm is surrounded by a matrix of canola monocultures, it was no coincidence that the crucifer beetle found them. Crucifer beetles eat cruciferous plants, which include crops such as cauliflower or canola. The beetles thrive on monoculture farms, such as the ever-expansive prairie canola fields. A vast crop of the same species is also a concentrated food resource for pests. In addition, because monocultures simplify the complex landscape, this means monocultures have less natural enemies around to control thriving pests. This is a clear example of the far-reaching impacts of industrial agriculture, even organic farmers can’t avoid them.

In previous posts, I’ve discussed the pros and cons of organic certification and the benefits of supporting farmers who aren’t officially certified but practice organic, or nearly organic, farming. I thought I would get an expert’s opinion on these subjects. Lori Ann enthusiastically responded that she sees a strong benefit in purchasing food that is certified as organic, as well as being an organic-certified farmer herself.  I smiled as she said, “this ensures that us farmers don’t cheat!” She explained how hard it is to watch as your crops are destroyed and not be able to do anything about it, no matter how tempting it may be to use something like chemical sprays. The threat of losing the organic certification is a big motivation in holding off on the chemicals.

I’ll leave the choice to support certified organic, or other sustainable practices to the readers. What I do recommend is a farm visit or a conversation with a farmer at any chance you get. Thanks again to Stefan, Lori Ann, and Rene for sharing their time and experiences as organic farmers.

For more information on the ecological role of biodiversity in agricultural systems: 

Altieri, M. (1999). The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 74 (1-3), 19-31 DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00028-6

How Would You Like Your Eggs?

Living in Winnipeg gives me the chance to connect with farmers who sell eggs from chickens that are organically fed, and free to roam. For all of us egg-eaters however, we’ve surely been in the position where we’ve had to choose between natural, vegetarian-fed, omega-3, free-range, free-run, or certified organic eggs, at the supermarket.  It’s just plain confusing if you ask me. In this blog, I hope to clarify what you get when you shop for eggs.

Thanks to the Vancouver’s Human Society, the “Chicken Out!” program has made egg shopping a little easier. Here is what this, and other sources have to say about egg-labels.

Free-run: Hens are free to run inside a barn, but lack outdoor access. However, this label is unregulated.

Free-range: This label suggests hens have “access” to the outdoors. But, this does not tell us how often or for what amount of time.  As Kelly Myers, an Oregon chef says, on an industrial scale this label is likely to mask the scenario of thousands of chickens found in a large shed with a small door (through which the chickens may or may not venture).

Cage-free: Hens are not confined in cages. This generally means thousands of hens are roaming around a barn floor.

Because Free-run, Free-range, and Cage-free labels are not certified, and thus unregulated, Chicken Out recommends visiting farms or checking references to be sure their practices live up to these standards.

Certified Organic: Of the labels, this is one of the best and it ensures the most space for hens. Hens can roam outdoors, they are provided with perches, nest boxes, and dust-bathing areas. Certification means farmers are inspected for animal welfare.

SPCA Certified or Certified Humane: These labels are sponsored by humane societies. Hens are free-range or free-run. Like Certified Organic, hens have perches, nest boxes, and dust-bathing areas. Farmers are audited for animal welfare.

Farm Fresh, Natural, Vegetarian-fed: These labels sound good, but they are unregulated and do not consider animal welfare. This means eggs come from hens raised in battery cages. Vegetarian-fed means no-animal by-products are used in the feed.

Omega-3: Omega-3 means a hen’s diet is supplemented with fish or flax omega-3 oils. One study looked for differences between oil content in certified-organic eggs versus omega-3 eggs, and found differences were negligible.  

Summary: Certified Organic and SPCA Certified/Certified Human, are the only regulated eggs which guarantee the best animal welfare as far as labeled eggs go. If you want to support Free-range or Free-run eggs, make sure to check their source because these are unregulated labels. Natural, Vegetarian-fed, and Omega-3 eggs, among others, do not account for animal welfare and are from battery-caged hens. For more specific information about farming practices and animal welfare standards click here. 

If you want to be safe, contact the egg farmers. This can even be done in urban areas where chicken farming is becoming more popular. Remember, bigger is not always better. My experience both in North America, and in Costa Rica, with very free-roaming chickens has opened my eyes to what happy, healthy chickens' eggs look like. Although egg size may vary with chicken breed, I bet you can guess which eggs in the picture below are from factory-farmed hens, and which are from the free-running, healthy eating kind.

One way to get around deciphering labels is to raise your own chickens! For the rest of us with chicken-free homes, here is a helpful guide to help with your informed egg-eating choices.

Other Sources:

A friend of mine has recommended the booked “Eating Animals” by Johnathan Safran Foer, for a more in depth discussion on this topic. 

No Farms No Foods: Is Organic Farming Always Sustainable?

The more we learn about what our foods go through to be bigger, better and stay fresh, the more convincing it is for us to buy organic. However, due to high social and economic costs, organic certification is not always a viable option for small-scale farmers. In this blog I want to address a popular question, how do we support local farmers and still make healthy and environmentally conscious decisions?

To do so, I would like to introduce you to a family of pecan farmers who are health and environmentally conscious, but not certified organic.

I first met George and Becky this summer at the Auburn, Alabama Farmers Market. What caught my eye was their pecan honey granola. Before taking some home, I inquired if their products were organic. Here is what they told me:

“We prefer to use the word sustainable…”, George kindly explained. He added that they don’t feel that there is anything wrong with organic farming, but the costs of starting and keeping a certified organic farm are steep; these costs are often unrealistic for small-scale farmers. Instead, George and Becky explained to me, the sustainable farming practices they follow allow farmers to make a living while being as environmentally sound and as healthy as possible. Let me give you an example.

www.samswildbees.com

Becky and George started with a pecan farm. They did not want to use chemical fertilizers to keep the soil rich for their pecan trees, so they came up with a sustainable solution, planting clovers! Clovers provide nitrogen to the soil; therefore these plants serve as a natural fertilizer (the biology of this is a little more complicated). But the story does not end there. Clovers do not grow without pollination. To use clovers as fertilizers, Becky and George decided they would need a healthy population of bees. Conveniently, Ben, the head of the local beekeepers association, was able to help them start a small beekeeping operation. Now, not only do they have a fertilizer-free pecan harvest, but honey as well. 

The story is more complicated still. Wild grasses often take over in fields, meaning clovers have trouble growing alongside them. The easy way to get rid orchards of grasses is to use a weed killer. Instead, Becky and George looked for a sustainable solution. This time it was cows, which roam through their orchard while foraging (and cleaning up) the wild grasses. Since these farmers do not spray with pesticides, they also produce pesticide-free, grass-fed beef.  I’ll stop here because Becky and George’s story goes on, but, in a nutshell, this is what they meant by sustainable farming.

After hearing this story, I asked, if you are so careful to practice environmentally sound farming, why don’t you advertise as organic?

C. Leopold (Flickr)

George explained to me that although they do their best to be sustainable, there are still many challenges for farmers. For pecan farmers it is the “pecan scab”. Pecan scab is a hard-to-control fungus that attacks pecan trees with the potential to decimate entire pecan harvests. For now, these farmers spray pecan trees once a year to protect trees from this pest. If these farmers were to become organically certified, they would be required to have a pesticide-free farm for minimum three years (among other hurdles). Because there is no effective organic control of pecan scab, trying to go ‘organic’ may mean drastic losses on their orchard and drastic losses means big hits to their income.

Although Becky and George would like to eliminate all use of pesticides one day, for now they are satisfied with sustainable small-scale farming. As Becky told me, sustainable cannot only be defined in relation to the environment, there has to be something in it for farmers too. If not, there is little motivation to continue these practices.

Although I talk about pecan farming here, this story is not unique to George and Becky. After speaking with many farmers on this topic, I’m encouraged to look a little further past a label in order to best support innovative and sustainable farming practices.

Certified organic is an excellent choice when we are trying to reduce the amount of chemicals in the environment. But, there are many benefits to buying local as well, including supporting small-scale farmers engaging in environmentally-sustainable practices. As always, the best way to find out more about the food you eat is by talking to the people who grew it.

A great way to meet them is by purchasing your vegetables at farmers markets or through Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) networks. Here are a couple links that allow you to search for farmers markets near you in Canada or in the U.S.A. 

For more information on the health and environmental effects of pesticides: 

DAVID PIMENTEL (2005). ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC COSTS OF THE APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES PRIMARILY IN THE UNITED STATES Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7, 229-252

What is Causing Honey Bees to Disappear?

Honey Bees (Apis Mellifera)

After my recent blog on the environmental benefits of honey, readers have asked about global reports of bee declines. Among these reports is the case of the honey bee – one of many species of bees. This is different from the bumblebee (Bombus spp.), which you will probably have observed in your garden or eating pollen from wild flowers. In fact, there are hundreds of species of bumblebees. As for the honey bee, there are also many species, but the most common domesticated species used for honey production is Apis mellifera.

In 2006 people began to observe large numbers of honey bees vanishing from their hives. As you may know, less bees means less pollination of many of our crops. Without bee pollination, many foods can not be produced. For example, almonds would cease to exist if it weren’t for bees. Before I promise any answers, I should make clear there is no straightforward answer to what is causing honey bee deaths and their entire colonies to collapse. That’s why people have called this mysterious phenomenon “Colony Collapse Disorder”.  Here, I talk a little about what this means. 

Stacked White Boxes = 1 Bee Hive

My first real experience with honey bees occurred only recently. A few weeks ago, I introduced myself to Ben McGehee at the farmers market out of a curiosity regarding his work, and my love of honey. I asked if I could tag along on a day in the life of a beekeeper. When six-thirty am rolled around, and I was all suited up in my bee-gear, I went out with Ben, and his beekeeping student Mollie, to talk about bees and find out why colonies are collapsing.

Colony collapse is the loss of many adult worker bees from a single hive in a short time span. It does not necessarily affect all of the hives in one area, as Ben explained, but one day you may go out to find one or a few beehives absent of their adult bees. To give you an idea of what that means, a healthy hive can contain from 55, 000 – 70, 000 bees.  So, losing one hive is a devastating loss for beekeepers. As Ben, as well as researchers report, the cause, or causes, of colony collapse are not fully understood. 

So, what do we know?

Ben and Mollie Working at the Hives

Causes of colony collapse are thought to be multiple and interrelated. Pests and pathogens may be among the most important factors related to colony loss (Ratnieks and Carreck 2010).  One of these pests is the bee mite (Varroa destructor).  Mites alone however, cannot account for all the losses in bees.  In fact, the mites arrived to North America in the 80’s, but recently has it been suggested that they play a role in transmission of viruses that affect honey bees.  As Ben explained, the Varroa mite was first found on the honey bee in the USSR in the 60’s and appeared in the USA in the late 80’s. Although mites are believed to be important in the mystery of colony collapse, they are also problematic in general.  Most beekeepers have to treat for the mites no matter what, and this involves chemicals.  Ben has a few tips for natural ways of handling mites.  One is to dust the bees with powdered sugar. As the bees naturally groom themselves to rid themselves of sugar, they will hopefully clean off the mites too.  Natural ways of controlling for mites exist, but as Ben pointed out, they are less effective and involves a significant time investment for beekeepers.

Brood Comb Where the Queen Bee Lays Eggs

Mites and pathogens are probably not something most of us think about, however, there is one factor thought involved in colony collapse that will make us think twice…Pesticides. Pesticides, intended to rid fields and home gardens of insects other than bees, may also play a part in colony collapse. Honey bees forage during the day, collecting nectar and pollen from wild flowers or the flowers of agricultural crops. In doing so, they are subject to the harmful chemicals sprayed on crops or grasses. Honey bees are insects too, and just because they aren’t the target of pesticides doesn’t mean they aren’t harmed by them. If we continue to spray our fields with pesticides or support these practices by buying foods that are farmed with the use of pesticides, we may play more of a role in colony collapse than we would like to believe.  Although pesticides may not the primary cause of the collapse, it appears they are an important part of the puzzle. 

While out with Ben and Mollie, pesticides were mentioned to be a large concern for his 35 hives. Ben’s hives are placed in different agricultural fields, such as cotton and peanut, to help pollination (farmers hire him to complete this essential process). Spraying anywhere around these field can directly affect the foraging honey bees.

In sum, from what we know so far, a combination of agents are likely responsible for colony collapse.  These may include, pests and pathogens (mites, viruses), pesticide use, poor weather conditions that affect a bee’s ability to work, a lack of food, among other stressors. Although here I’ve described threats to domesticated honey bees, similar factors affect wild bumblebees (click here for a summary).  Unlike honey bees, bumblebees must make their own nests and suitable sites can become harder to find in fragmented habitats. Bee declines are indeed complicated, but what is good for the bees does not seem unreasonable. I know I prefer living near pesticide-free farms and landscapes that support flowers and nests for the bees.

Sources:

Ratnieks, F., & Carreck, N. (2010). Clarity on Honey Bee Collapse? Science, 327 (5962), 152-153 DOI: 10.1126/science.1185563

Goulson, D., Lye, G., & Darvill, B. (2008). Decline and Conservation of Bumble Bees Annual Review of Entomology, 53 (1), 191-208 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093454