GMOs: Food, Money & Control: Part III

Charles W. Elliott

(In Parts I and II of “GMOs: Food, Money & Control,” we explored the failure of the leading U.S. state proposal to require labeling of GMO foods (California Proposition 37), the control of crop seeds through GMO patents and licensing, the loss of seed and crop diversity, and the increasing domination of the seed industry by biotechnology firms.  In this post, we examine GMO contamination of other food crops and the impacts of GMO technologies on pesticide use.)

“When we try to pick out anything by itself we find that it is bound fast by a thousand invisible cords that cannot be broken, to everything in the universe. —John Muir

Despite pervasive human intervention, the dynamism of the natural world overcomes virtually all artificial boundaries and limits.  We directly experience nature’s refusal to stay within the lines we draw. Plants penetrate concrete sidewalks; moving water inexorably surmounts or breaks through barriers; nature retakes land abandoned by humans.

Seed dispersal and plant cross-pollination are examples of this dynamic movement in the natural world.  In fact, the plant world depends upon it.   The notion that we can control genetically modified organisms requires a willful blindness to this fundamental fact of nature.

“Guilty by GMO Contamination”

Genetically modified crop seed can contaminate other crops. Seed movement, pollen flow and other causes result in “gene flow”, the transfer of genes from one population to another.  This occurs in a variety of natural ways: via birds, animals, flooding, or wind.  It can also result from human activities such as farm or seed cleaning machinery, spillage during transport, and other human errors throughout the production process.

Transgenic contamination cannot be recalled.  Genetically modified plants continue to reproduce where the seeds are sown or blown and where plants are pollinated. Their traits are passed on to subsequent generations of crops. They also reproduce in nature where genetically modified varieties can forever alter wild relatives, native plants, and ecosystems.

This process is virtually inevitable:

Scientists generally expect that if a GM variety of a crop is grown near non-modified varieties, gene flow will be a fairly common occurrence. It is well known that pollen from, for example, one variety of corn (conventional or transgenic) can spread to an adjacent field containing another variety and create a hybrid. There are plenty of documented cases of this kind of spontaneous “crop-to-crop” gene flow occurring between transgenic and conventional varieties of corn and canola. The likelihood of gene flow through pollen drift will depend on the specific crop.[1]

In fact, the risk of gene flow between GMO crops and conventional or organic crops is considered so high that Monsanto has disclaimed any liability for such contamination, and has described the phenomenon in cross-pollinated crops as “well known and is a normal occurrence.” [2]

GMO contamination is not a merely theoretical concern; it is already a problem.  In one well-reported GMO contamination fiasco, the corporate chemical giant Bayer A.G. and its global affiliates agreed to pay U.S. rice farmers $750 million in damages caused by the 2006 contamination of the nation’s rice crop by Bayer’s experimental and unapproved genetically modified “Liberty Link” rice.[3]  Bayer’s contamination of the rice supply threatened the entire U.S. rice export market. Rice futures plummeted by $150 million immediately after the contamination announcement. European Union nations halted acceptance of shipments of rice from the U.S. that hadn’t been extensively tested to show they weren’t contaminated. Japan, South Korea and the Philippines imposed a strict certification and testing regime on all rice imports, and Russia and Bulgaria imposed bans on imports of U.S. rice. [4]

The problem is not limited to a few well-publicized market-wrecking incidents. Research performed by the Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org) found that seeds of traditional varieties of corn, soybeans, and canola were “pervasively contaminated” by GMO crops:

The study found that the seeds of traditional varieties [of corn, soybeans and canola] bought from the same retailers used by U.S. farmers are pervasively contaminated with low levels of DNA sequences originating in genetically engineered varieties of those crops. This conclusion is based on tests conducted by two respected commercial laboratories using duplicate samples of seeds of six traditional varieties each of corn, soybeans, and canola. One laboratory detected transgenically derived DNA in 50 percent of the corn, 50 percent of the soybean, and 100 percent of the traditional canola varieties tested. The other laboratory detected transgenically derived DNA in 83 percent of the traditional varieties of each of the three crops.[5]

The GM Contamination Register (http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/) indexes more than 200 other publicly reported contamination incidents from 1997 to the present around the world.

GMO contamination can threaten the livelihood of farmers of traditional and organic crops. If organic crops or conventional crops are tainted with genetically modified material, “farmers can lose their crop certification, their customers and markets, their reputation, and the ability to sow the crop of their choice.”  [6] Conventional farmers are concerned that GMO crops may endanger sales to some of their overseas markets. See, Have Transgenes, p. 7. Regulatory and market restrictions on the labeling and sale of GMO crops in other countries create concerns that gene flow from GMO crops may make U.S. crops unacceptable in those markets. European Union policies require food and animal feed containing more than 0.9 percent of “approved” GM content to be labeled as genetically modified. For non-approved GMOs, the threshold is “zero” and thus requires that cargoes containing non-approved GMOs are returned to the port of origin or are destroyed.

In one case, U.S. food (supposedly a “non-GMO” soy flour) contaminated with GMO material was forced to return to its port of origin. [7] In another case, Canadian organic crop producers “have been unable to certify canola crops as organic for the EU market because of the extensive potential for cross-pollination between GM and organic crops; these producers are losing a lucrative and growing market.” [8]

But the implications of GMO contamination extend far beyond market concerns:

The recognition that the seed supply is open to contamination by low levels of a wide variety of genetically engineered sequences has broad implications. In general terms, seed contamination is important for two reasons. First, seeds reproduce and carry genes into future generations. Every season of seed production offers new opportunities for the introduction of new genes. In the case of genetic engineering, transgenic sequences that enter the seed supply for traditional crop varieties will be perpetuated and will accumulate over time in plants where they are not expected and could be difficult to control. Second, seeds are the  wellspring of our food system, the base on which we improve crops and the source to which we return when crops fail. Seeds will be our only recourse if the prevailing belief in the safety of genetic engineering proves wrong. Heedlessly allowing the contamination of traditional plant varieties with genetically engineered sequences amounts to a huge wager on our ability to understand a complicated technology that manipulates life at the most elemental level.[9]

Moreover, hundreds of novel genes have been engineered into crops and field-tested. These include genes for the creation of so-called “pharma” and “industrial” crops that are genetically engineered to produce drugs, vaccines and industrial chemicals.  Examples include proteins, enzymes, hormones, antibodies, vaccines, and compounds used to manufacture paper, plastic and detergents.[10]

The problem of GMO contamination also creates legal confusion and unforeseen legal liabilities. Because United States patent infringement law does not require a showing of intent to infringe, farmers can be sued if their fields are contaminated and the patented GMO seed from the contaminated crop is saved and planted.  Monsanto and other corporate giants have investigated and sued farmers whose fields were contaminated by neighboring GMO crops or when a previous year’s GMO crop sprouted in fields planted with conventional varieties the following year. An investigation by the Center for Food Safety showed that “the industry also sues farmers even when they were never presented with, and hence never signed, a technology use agreement at the time of seed purchase.” [11]

Failed Promises: Failure to Yield

Although the advent of agricultural genetic engineering more than two decades ago arrived with promises of increased yields and reduction of world hunger, these promises have largely failed.  The only independent study of transgenic food crop yields concluded that, unlike traditional breeding techniques, transgenic crops have failed to increase yields. [12]

No commercial transgenic crop has been engineered for increased yield, nutritional enhancement, increased fertilizer use efficiency, or many other promised traits.  Instead, the biotechnology industry is focused on enhancing its bottom line.  Rather than concentrating its efforts on reducing world hunger, agricultural biotechnology firms have commercialized a small number of transgenic commodity crops that produce insecticides or withstand direct application of herbicides. Much of the commercial transgenic crop acreage is engineered to give crops the ability to survive intensive spraying of a single broad-spectrum herbicide: Monsanto’s RoundUp®.

“Rounding Up” the Corporate Bottom Line: More Herbicides and “Superweeds”

In this perfect marriage of business models, Monsanto has managed to create a fantastically expensive technology that allows it to control food crops with patents and license agreements while also significantly expanding the use of its primary chemical herbicide, RoundUp®.  Monsanto uses genetic engineering primarily to develop patented “Roundup Ready®” crops for use with its own Roundup® herbicide. American soybeans, corn, canola, and sugar beets are now largely Roundup Ready®. This has made RoundUp’s active ingredient, glyphosate, the most heavily used chemical pesticide in history.[13]  Overall pesticide use has increased by 404 million pounds in the 16 years since transgenic crops were first released, largely due to the massive increase in glyphosate use with Roundup Ready® crops.[14]

This increase in the use of glyphosate-based herbicides is associated with widespread environmental contamination.  Glyphosate was found in 60 – 100% of rain and air samples tested in Iowa and Mississippi by the U.S. Geological Survey, and nearly every stream, river, and reservoir in heavily farmed regions contains glyphosate and its degradation products. [15]

Roundup Ready® crops have also worsened an ongoing epidemic of glyphosate-resistant “superweeds.”[16] Given the widespread reliance on glyphosate-based herbicides, the emergence of herbicide resistant weeds is perhaps one of the most serious challenges facing American agriculture.

Since 2000, glyphosate-resistant weeds have infested approximately forty to sixty million acres of cropland. [17] As a result of this superweed infestation, farmers are forced to use more Roundup® or more toxic herbicides, and to mechanically remove the weeds through soil-eroding tillage operations.[18]  The biotechnology corporate response to this problem is to offer more of the same, only worse: more genetic engineering to make crops simultaneously resistant to several herbicides, including the more toxic herbicide 2,4-D. [19]  Approval of these “stacked trait” crops with resistance to multiple herbicides will inevitably lead to large increases of ever-more toxic herbicides and consequential environmental contamination.

Another Vision: Sustainable Agriculture

We can reject this industrialized, technology-based way of growing our food. There is another way.  Indeed, there has always been another way –sustainable agriculture based on both ancient knowledge and modern practices that respect the natural environment, make the most efficient use of non-renewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles.[20]  This approach to agriculture recognizes the need for sustainability in three inter-related domains: environmental, economic, and social. This ecosystem approach includes options such as long-term crop rotations, returning to natural cycles that annually flood cultivated lands (thus returning lost nutrients indefinitely), soil building and soil conservation practices (e.g., minimization of soil erosion through no-till farming, creation of wind breaks to hold soil, incorporation of organic matter back into fields), reduction of use of chemical fertilizers, and utilization of integrated pest management programs.

This approach to agriculture also respects and protects smallholder farmers, traditional cultures, and the human relationship with the natural world.  In the long run, it is the only sustainable way to feed a growing human population on a small and increasingly warmer planet.

---

[1] “Have Transgenes, Will Travel: Issues Raised by Gene Flow from Genetically Engineered Crops”, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, August 2003, available at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/ wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Food_and_Biotechnology/food_biotech_transgenes_081803.pdf

[2]  Monsanto Co., 2005 Technology Use Guide, at 17 (“Since corn is a naturally cross-pollinated crop, a minimal amount of pollen movement (some of which can carry genetically improved traits) between neighboring fields is well known and is a normal occurrence in corn seed or grain production.”). The Monsanto 2005 Technology Use Guide can be found at: http://goo.gl/PsJ3g

[3] http://www.bayerricelitigation.com/

[4] See, e.g.,http://www.bayerricelitigation.com/PDFs/ SKELLY67_1271429373912.pdf; http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/ index.php?content=nw_detail2

[5] M. Mellon, J. Rissler, “Gone to Seed – Transgenic Contaminants in the Traditional Seed Supply”, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004, p.1 . The report is available at: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/ our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/gone-to-seed.html

[6]  Center for Food Safety, “Seed Giants v. U.S. Farmers, A report by the Center for Food Safety and Save Our Seeds” (2013), p. 7. The report is available at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Seed-Giants_final.pdf

[7] Davison, J., “GM plants: Science, politics and EC regulations”. Plant Science 178 (2): 94–98. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.12.

[8]  Belcher, et al., “Genetically modified crops and agricultural landscapes: spatial patterns of contamination”, Ecological Economics 53.3 (2005): 387-401. The report is available at http://www.saveourseeds.org/downloads/ belcher_contamination_2005.pdf   (last accessed February 16, 2013).

[9] “Gone to Seed – Transgenic Contaminants in the Traditional Seed Supply”, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004, p.2.

[10]  For a list of pharma/industrial crops, see UCS, “Gone to Seed”, p. 36; Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (PIFB),“Harvest on the Horizon: Future Uses of Agricultural Biotechnology”, (2001) Washington, DC: PIFB, pp. 53-63 and references therein; Union of Concerned Scientists, “Pharm and Industrial Crops: the Next Wave of Agricultural Biotechnology” Washington, DC, pp. 3-4 and references therein, available at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ food_and_agriculture/pharmcropsucs403.pdf

[11] Center for Food Safety, Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers, (Washington, DC: Center for Food Safety, 2005), http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarmerReport1.13.05.pdf, pp.37-45.

[12]  See, Doug Gurian-Sherman, Union of Concerned Scientists, “Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops” (Apr. 2009),  pp. 1-5 .The report is available at http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html.   Monsanto disputes these claims, asserting that genetically modified traits have indeed increased yields of various crops. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/do-gm-crops-increase-yield.aspx   These reported Monsanto claims are largely based on analyses by PG Economics Ltd, a UK-based independent consultancy that “specializes in analyzing the impact of new technology in agriculture.” http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/focusonyieldeffects2009.pdf. Its work has been criticized as relying on biased data and using faulty analyses.  See, “Cooking the Books: A Methodological Critique of PG Economics’s 2011 Global Report on GM Crops,” http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/briefs/cooking-the-books/. For more information about critiques of the UCS study and UCS’ responses, see http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/48-2009/11340-responses-to-qfailure-to-yieldq-critics.

[13] EPA, Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 2006 and 2007 Market Estimates, tbl. 3:6 (Feb. 2011), available at: http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/07pestsales/market_estimates2007.pdf

[14] Benbrook, C., Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the U.S. – The First Sixteen Years, 24 Envtl. Scis. Eur. 24 (2012), available at http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/2190-4715-24-24.pdf; Brian Clark, “Pesticide Use Rises as Herbicide-Resistant Weeds Undermine Performance of Major GE Crops, New WSU Study Shows”, Wash. State Univ. (Oct. 1, 2012), http://news.cahnrs.wsu.edu/2012/10/01/pesticide-use-rises-as-herbicide-resistant-weeds-undermine-performance-of-major-ge-crops-new-wsu-study-shows/

[15] Feng-Chih Chang, Matt F. Simcik, P.D. Capel, 2011. “Occurrence and Fate of the Herbicide Glyphosate and Its Degradate Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in the Atmosphere,” Envir. Toxicology  Chem., Vol. 30, pages 548-555.

[16] Comm. on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Econ. & Sustainability, Nat’l Research Council, “The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States”, 82 (2010), available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804; Stephen B. Powles, Gene Amplification Delivers Glyphosate-Resistant Weed Evolution, 107 Proc. of the Nat’l Acad. of Sci. 955, 955 (2010).]

[17] Melody M. Bomgardner, War on Weeds, Chemical & Eng’g News, May 21, 2012, at 20, 20-22 (see map), available at http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i21/War-Weeds.html;  Benbrook, supra note 7, at 4 .

[18] Benbrook, C., “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years”, pp. 28-30, 34-36, 40 (The Organic Center, 2009), available at http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159n; Georgina Gustin, Resistant Weeds Leave Farmers Desperate, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 17, 2011.

[19] See, Green, J.M., C.B. Hazel, D.R. Forney and L.M. Pugh. 2008. “New multiple-herbicide crop resistance and formulation technology to augment the utility of glyphosate”, Pest Manag. Sci. 64:332-339; Benbrook, C. 2009. “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: the First Thirteen Years”, The Organic Center, Boulder, Colorado, http://www.organic-center.org; Gray, M.E. 2011. “Relevance of traditional integrated pest management (IPM) strategies for commercial corn production in a transgenic agroecosystem—a bygone era?”, J. Agric. Food Chem. 59:5852-5858.

[20] Detailed information about sustainable agriculture is widely available.  One good source is “Applying the Principles of Sustainable Farming: Fundamentals of Sustainable Agriculture” from the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, a program of the National Center for Appropriate Technology, available at: https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/viewhtml.php?id=29

Buddhist Global Relief Makes Emergency Donation To Feed Syrian Refugees

Moved by the plight of the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have fled the ongoing conflict in Syria, Buddhist Global Relief has made an emergency donation of $10,000 to the World Food Programme (“WFP”) to help feed families forced from their homes.

According to the WFP, over 1.2 million people are displaced inside Syria and some 250,000 people have fled the country and become refugees in neighboring countries. Many fled the conflict zones with their families under shelling and gunfire from both government and rebel forces, often able to bring along only the clothes that they were wearing. Harsh conditions in refugee camps—including plummeting temperatures and flooding—are making for a life of intense suffering. Many families living in tents lack heaters and winter clothing.

Food for these families is the most critical need. It takes only $72 to provide a month’s worth of food for a Syrian refugee family. BGR’s donation will feed 138 families for an entire month during the difficult winter season.

The WFP is the food assistance branch of the United Nations, and it is the world’s largest humanitarian organization addressing global hunger. It is funded entirely by voluntary donations.  To read more about the humanitarian crisis in Syria, and to make a personal  donation, go here.

We are thankful to BGR’s generous donors who are making this emergency food donation possible.

GMOs: Food, Money & Control: Part II

Charles W. Elliott

It’s All About the Patents. And Control. And Money.

“Seeds are the most basic thing that we got. Everybody has to eat. We want to have a healthy planet with healthy people, we have to have good seeds.” – Seed Farmer, Dan Jason

For more than 10,000 years, humans have engaged in the simple free act of saving natural seeds from a season’s crop and replanting them in the next season. The primeval cycle of planting crops, saving seeds and replanting them in the next season is the practice of agriculture itself.  But we are now witnessing the passing away, in a single generation, “this ancient ritual as old as civilization, a ritual in many ways responsible for civilization.” [1]  This is due to the use of genetically engineered plants, protected by patents and contracts, which make saving seed and replanting them in the next season illegal. The replacement of nature’s bounty with increased sale of genetically engineered crops under such restrictions leads inexorably to expanded corporate control of our food supply.  This problem is exacerbated by the loss of crop diversity and increasing market concentration in the seed business.

Seeds and Patents

A patent is the exclusive right, granted by law, to commercialize a new invention for a limited period of time. Thus, patent law confers upon the patent holder a monopoly on the “exploitation” of the invention. Thanks to U.S. Supreme Court decisions that recognized the right to patent life forms[2], crop seeds and other agricultural products produced from genetic engineering are subject to patent rights.

In the context of crop seeds, this monopoly grants companies the exclusive right to sell the seeds and allows them to charge higher prices for them. As applied in most countries, such seed patents prohibit farmers from saving seeds from their own harvest. As a result, they must either buy new seeds each year or pay for a license to use the patented seeds they have saved. [3]

For non-hybrid crops that employ transgenetic biotechnology, agribusiness and seed companies use intellectual property law, tangible property common law, and strict contracts to prohibit farmers from saving seed. For example, when Monsanto sells seeds for its genetically modified crops, it requires that farmers agree to severe restrictions before they can open a bag of its GMO seed. Monsanto’s typical so-called “Technology/ Stewardship” license: (1) prohibits growers from using seeds for any purpose other than planting a single commercial crop; (2) prohibits growers from saving any crop produced from seed for planting; (3) prohibits supplying seed produced from seed to anyone for planting other than to a Monsanto-licensed seed company; and (4) prohibits transferring any seed containing patented “Monsanto Technologies” to any other person or entity for planting. The agreement also requires that the grower allow intrusive investigation of the growers’ records, including examination and copying of “any records and receipts that could be relevant to Grower’s performance of this agreement.”[4]

GMOs: Food, Money & Control: Part I

Charles W. Elliott

The recent battle over California’s Proposition 37, a ballot initiative to require consumer labeling of genetically modified organism (“GMO”) food[1], has shone a harsh spotlight on the impacts of biotechnology on agriculture and our food supply, and on corporate influence over the political process and the public’s right to information. As corporate efforts to expand the use of genetic engineering in agriculture march onward, we see a counterweight in the movements for sustainable food production and support for organic and small scale farming. We’ll be taking a look at some of the issues surrounding use of genetic engineering in food production in a series of blog posts on GMOs: Food, Money & Control.

Consumers Kept in the Dark: Big Push to Label Genetically-Modified Food Fails

Proposition 37 — the ballot initiative that would have required GMO food labeling in California, the world’s ninth largest economy — drowned under the tsunami of corporate money opposing it.  Monsanto, a leading maker of genetically engineered seeds, contributed $8.1 million alone. More than $45 million was spent by large agribusiness, big processed food manufacturers, and chemical companies, including DuPont, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Conagra and Dow. It should come as no surprise that Dow, the company that brought us dioxin-laced Agent Orange, would prefer that we not know whether the food we eat contains foreign genetic material.

Celebrate World Food Day and Help End World Hunger

Charles W. Elliott

Each October 16 is World Food Day, a celebration of the founding of the lead international agency for global efforts to combat hunger: the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). World Food Day has been observed every year since 1979, in more than 150 countries, raising awareness of global poverty and hunger. It serves as a wonderful example of international cooperation and community-building to help the poor, exemplifying our common humanity and basic goodness.

For World Food Day 2012, Buddhist Global Relief joins the FAO and our partner, Oxfam America, to both celebrate FAO’s work and to raise awareness of how much more work must be done to ensure a world in which everyone has enough food. We still confront the unacceptable: one billion people continue to suffer from chronic hunger and malnutrition in a time of unprecedented plenty.

The FAO’s tireless work to end hunger is well worth an annual celebration. It has been a central driving force for worldwide fulfillment of the human right to food. It responds to soaring food prices by helping small scale farmers raise their output and providing direct aid. It supports projects in more than 100 countries to enhance food security, providing early warning and emergency response to mitigate the impact of natural disasters on food security. Its Alliance Against Hunger and Malnutrition (AAHM) creates global connections between local, regional, national and international institutions which share a common commitment to the rapid eradication of hunger and malnutrition. FAO “Goodwill Ambassadors” such as Jeremy Irons and Céline Dion attract public and media attention to the problem of hunger. Its online campaign against hunger, www.EndingHunger.org, is a vital networking campaign to build the movement through social networks, presenting world governments with more than three million signatures on a global petition to end hunger.

World Food Day is a wonderful opportunity to share your concern for the world’s poor and hungry with your family, friends and community. You can “walk the talk” and join Buddhist Global Relief’s Walks to Feed the Hungry by walking with us, or simply making a walk donation through our First Giving page.

As Oxfam America suggests, you can host a simple World Food Day dinner on October 16th that “fosters a conversation about where your food comes from, who cultivates it, and how you can take personal actions that will make the food system more just and sustainable.” You can get discussion guides and free materials from Oxfam at: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/campaigns/food-justice/world-food-day. You can organize a “food and fund drive” for local food banks and pantries. In the United States, if you don’t know where your nearest food bank is located, you can find one in the nationwide list at: http://www.feedingamerica.org/Home/foodbank-results.aspx. Food banks help feed tens of millions of people in the United States. They need your support and food donations.

Taking action can be as simple as picking up the phone. Call your political leaders and representatives and ask them: what specific, concrete steps are they taking to end hunger? Each one of us can find our own best way to help on World Food Day.  For more information, visit Buddhist Global Relief’s World Food Day page at http://www.buddhistglobalrelief.org/active/WorldFoodDay.html

Ending the Wasting of Food, Energy, Our Environment: Triple Net Benefits

A new report by the Natural Resources Defense Council takes a close look at one significant – and eminently solveable – world hunger problem: the wasting of food at every step of our food supply. The report,  “Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill” (PDF file), also illustrates the interdependence of our food supply, our use of energy, and our impact on the environment.

Dana Gunders, report author and an NRDC food and agriculture project scientist, treats the reader to a detailed description of America’s food waste problem and practical solutions.  The report traces our systems of food production, processing, distribution, consumption and disposal, identifying inefficiencies and losses at each step of these interlinked systems. (The report is worth reading even if only for its patient walk-through of the realities of the food system in the United States.)

Hunger in America: Rescuing Food, Rescuing People

More than 1 billion people suffer from hunger. Yet, a federal study found nearly 100 billion pounds of edible food was wasted by U.S. retailers, food service businesses, and consumers in a single year. For a family of four, that amounted to 122 pounds of food thrown out each month in grocery stores, restaurants, cafeterias, and homes.

All of the food we receive comes, at least in part, from the effort and generosity of others.  We have every reason to receive it with a sense of gratitude and thankfulness.  To cherish one’s blessings, no food should be wasted.

To remedy the shameful waste of food, Buddhist Global Relief supports the practice of “food rescue“: safely retrieving edible food from grocery stores, vendors, farmers’ markets, and restaurants that would otherwise go to waste, and distributing it to those in need.  For example, one of BGR’s newest partners, City Harvest, Inc. of New York City, responds to the urgent needs of thousands of hungry NYC residents, rescuing 29 million pounds of food this past year and delivering it free of charge to food pantries and soup kitchens.

For information on food recovery organizations in your area, contact Feeding America at 1-800-771-2303.  You can learn more about hunger in America and what you can do to help at www.Feeding America.org.  For information on “gleaning” (collecting leftover crops from farmers’ fields after they have been commercially harvested or on fields where it is not economically profitable), contact The Society of St. Andrew‘s national office at 1-800-333-4597.

Restaurants and grocery stores interested in donating food can contact Food Donation Connection at 1-800-831-8161. They link donors with food recovery organizations. Businesses can also make donations of food by becoming a Feeding America “product partner“.

We are grateful that there are so many ways to help.

Help on the Way: New Buddhist Global Relief Programs (Part II)

As a followup to our June 21 post on Buddhist Global Relief’s new programs, we are pleased to announce new support to communities in Sri Lanka and Vietnam:

Tam Binh Red Cross (hospital feeding)

For the fourth consecutive year, BGR continues to support Vietnam’s Tam Binh Red Cross’ program to help the poor feed family members who are hospitalized. Located in the Tam Binh district in the Mekong Delta region, a single hospital exists to serve more than half a million people. The price of a hospital stay does not include food, and poverty-stricken families who must carry the heavy weight of medical and hospital costs are further burdened by the need to buy food for their ill family members. BGR’s funding will allow the Red Cross to purchase in-season vegetables, tofu and charcoal for cooking for these patients. These funds are leveraged with the volunteer labor of more than 80 volunteers, who prepare the meals and serve lunch and dinner to the most vulnerable ill and poor people.

Tam Binh Red Cross (Scholarships)

BGR continues to support the scholarship program of the Tam Binh Red Cross with a third year of funding. Entrenched rural poverty in Vietnam has forced many families to make the difficult decision to keep their children at home to work in the fields rather than send them to schools where they cannot afford the basic fees. BGR funds will provide the annual enrollment fee, educational materials and basic health care for 150 students, enabling them to overcome the barriers of poverty and to continue their studies. 100% of BGR’s funds will be used for these scholarships, without any deduction for administrative costs. To qualify for these scholarships, each student must meet criteria for low income, high teacher recommendations, and good conduct. By providing educational opportunities to these promising students, BGR hopes to break the cycle of poverty in their families.

Sarvodaya (Kelwatte water supply)

This year, BGR is supporting its long-time partner, Sarvodaya (“Welfare of All”) USA with a life-saving project to provide reliable clean water supplies in the Kelwatte district of Sri Lanka. Currently, these residents obtain untreated water from an open and polluted stream. An assessment of the needs of these villagers showed a high rate of childhood disease from drinking unsafe water. Dry seasons threaten water shortages every year, putting crops, livelihoods and health at risk. BGR funds will help provide safe and clean water to hundreds of residents with a new gravity water supply system. The local community participates in the construction by providing direct labor through shramadana: “sharing work, knowledge, talents and time.” This project will empower the community, raise individual and self-esteem and be a model project for neighboring communities. Thus, the project will provide a foundation for personal and social awakening and offer the gifts of water and health.

In making these grants, BGR addresses the twin problem of pollution and poverty,  helps ill and vulnerable members of poor families, and acknowledges the critical role of education in escaping intergenerational poverty and hunger.

Help on the Way: New Buddhist Global Relief Programs in the U.S. and Africa (Part I)

Buddhist Global Relief is pleased to announce new support for a number of programs to help combat the chronic problem of hunger in urban communities in the United States and childhood hunger in West Africa.

City Harvest Healthy Neighborhoods Program, New York City, NY

One of BGR’s newest partners, City Harvest, Inc. of New York City, responds to the urgent needs of thousands of hungry NYC residents. It meets the challenges of urban poverty with a remarkably creative range of services, such as the rescuing of 29 million pounds of food this past year that would otherwise have been discarded at restaurants and grocery stores, and delivering it free of charge to food pantries and soup kitchens. This year, BGR funds will support City Harvest’s Healthy Neighborhoods, an integrated series of interventions in some of the most food-insecure areas in the United States, including neighborhoods in the South Bronx and Bedford-Stuyvesant. We’ll support mobile “farmer’s markets” that will provide some 800,000 pounds of fresh, free produce directly to neighborhoods with more than 2,000 low-income households. Addressing the links between poor health and poor nutrition, these “mobile markets” are also used as hubs to provide additional services such as food stamp screenings and health education.

Glide Sustainable Nutrition Program, San Francisco, California

Located in the heart of San Francisco’s poverty-stricken Tenderloin district, the community group Glide has provided help to the homeless and hungry since 1969, when a dedicated group of community members gathered to offer a free potluck dinner to anyone in need of a meal. Since then, Glide has skillfully developed its Sustainable Nutrition Program that provides food and nutrition and wellness education. BGR is partnering with Glide this year to support this multi-pronged program. Our program funds will help provide three healthy meals each day to anyone in need, healthy meals and snacks for children in the local childcare center, workshops on family nutrition cooking, information on healthy food sources, youth classes in gardening, ecology and health, and visits to local farmers’ markets.

Helen Keller International Child Feeding Program, Côte d’Ivoire

Building on its past partnerships with Helen Keller International, one of the oldest international relief organizations devoted to reducing malnutrition, this year BGR is funding a program to support improved infant and young child feeding practices in Côte d’Ivoire. This country is one of the poorest in the world, ranking 149 out of 169 countries on the U.N. Human Development Index. Over 40% of the population lives in poverty, and more than a quarter of its population are children under the age of five. Poor infant and young child feeding practices is one of the leading causes of chronic malnutrition among children under two, and malnutrition during this critical developmental window can condemn these children to a lifetime of poor health. BGR’s program funds will be used to educate and train women-led community based volunteer care groups about optimal feeding practices, including the importance of breastfeeding of children under 6 months and providing micronutrient-rich complimentary foods to children under 2 years old. Education and training will be provided to more than 100 volunteers, who will then help hundreds of households with young children.

These programs will make a difference in the lives of so many poverty-stricken families, extending a compassionate helping hand to reach those both close at home in the United States and children in the poorest continent in the world.  You can extend your helping hand, too, at www.buddhistglobalrelief.org.

Military Spending and Waging War on Hungry Children

Charles W. Elliott

This past week the U.S. House of Representatives approved a budget measure that would spend $29 billion more on war and preparing for war than even the Pentagon wanted. At the same time, the budget measure effectively launches an assault on the poor and hungry.  The New York Times reported that according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the House bill would push 1.8 million people off food stamps and could cost 280,000 children their school lunch subsidies. It would wipe out  health insurance coverage through the federal and state Children’s Health Insurance Program for 300,000 children. Eliminating the social services block grant to state and local governments would hit child abuse prevention programs, Meals on Wheels and child care.  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in addition to cutting off nearly two million people from food stamps, the House Agriculture Committee portion of the budget measure would reduce food stamp benefits for more than 44 million others.  All in all, a quarter of the budget cuts in the bill would come from programs for the poor.