Content by specific author

Conventional clothing manufacturing unleashes toxins on workers that linger on in consumer closets. Find out what makes the typical closet toxic, and meet eco-fashion entrepreneurs leading the way in making clothing safer for workers and consumers. Road to Toxic Clothing From field to factory, manufacturing clothes is a toxic business. This infographic lists the 11 worst chemicals used. 

 Road to Toxic Clothing - Infographic by Green America  Explore how to detox your closet in the latest issue of Green American Magazine.

Wheat is one of the world’s most important staples and is grown on more land worldwide than any other crop. It is a major food and protein source for much of the world’s population.

Unlike other major crops like corn and soy, genetically engineered (GE) or modified wheat is not on our grocery shelves. But now, Monsanto wants to change that--unleashing GE wheat and selling even more glyphosate.

If we allow Monsanto to commercialize herbicide-resistant GE wheat, we will relinquish the last stronghold of our food system and hand it over to Big Ag and biotech corporations.

Tell the USDA to stop the introduction of GE wheat and protect our food for generations to come!

Unapproved GE wheat has already caused serious economic and environmental problems. In 2013 and 2014, experimental GE wheat varieties were found in the fields of Oregon and Montana. Fearing GE contamination, Japan and Europe reacted by rejecting all wheat imports from the US, gravely impacting farmers of the Great Plains region.

The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is requesting public comments to proposed changes in the regulation of field trials for GE wheat. We need to tell the USDA that these trials should not happen at all, and if the USDA insists on moving forward with field tests, it must to do so in the most cautionary manner so that it protects the environment and surrounding communities, and prevents contamination of the world’s most precious crop.

Tell the USDA to weigh the full impact of testing GMO wheat and end field testing of this dangerous crop!

In order to build a more sustainable food system, we must reduce the use of GE crops and their associated pesticides and support farmers who use sustainable practices. It’s time for the USDA to start moving us in that direction and assessing the real, on-the-ground impacts of GE crop production systems.

Take action: add your voice to stop GE wheat and prevent further contamination of our food.

Guest post from Alexandra Beane, Wheels For Wishes

The United States is the world’s largest consumer of bottled water. In 2011, the United States set a record for purchasing 9.1 billion gallons of bottled water nationwide, which is equal to 29.2 gallons per person. Unfortunately, only 27 percent of plastic water bottles are recycled in the United States, and they are 100 percent recyclable. Each year, 35 billion plastic water bottles are thrown in the trash in the United States alone. The total carbon footprint of one 500 ml (16.9 oz) bottle of water is 828g of carbon dioxide. Water transported from overseas can have an even higher footprint!  Fiji water travels up to 5,000 miles to reach San Francisco, and French brands travel up to 6,200 miles to get there.

Choosing to drink from reusable water bottles instead of plastic water bottles is a small change that can make a huge difference for the environment, and it also saves you money in the long run. Bottled water can be up to 500 times more expensive as tap water, so you’d save plenty of money if you switched to a BPA-free reusable water bottle.

Even if you can’t do everything possible to reduce your carbon footprint, drinking local is a good place to start. Other ways to make a difference are to cut back on showers or reduce the amount of time you spend in the shower, and don’t let the water run while you’re brushing your teeth.

Instead of driving everywhere, walk, carpool, bike, or use public transportation whenever possible. Each and every little change you make will help to reduce your carbon footprint.

Reduce your Bottled Water Footprint

Wheels For Wishes

Green America technology director Hans Bauman (left) with two of his three children.

by Hans Bauman

Don’t get me wrong: I used to love a juicy steak as much as the next guy. But when my wife and I realized the impact our diets were having on the environment, we decided to stay away from Costco meat counter with its bulk-size offerings of cheap beef and commit to a more vegetarian diet and lifestyle.

Climate impact was a big initial motivator. The fact that it takes so much water and feed to produce beef, compounded with the high carbon impact of the cow’s waste, means that I couldn’t call myself an environmentalist unless we stopped buying beef.

So over the past decade, my wife and I shifted our family from being weekly omnivores to a diet that contains lots of local vegetables, sustainable fish, and regional poultry and eggs. As a special treat a couple times a year, we’ll splurge big and buy local, grass-fed beef or lamb at the farmer’s market. Our three kids are on board, and I’m amazed we don’t have to argue about it as a family.

The industrial nature of food production means that the lovely slabs of meat at the grocery store were shrink wrapped in an industrial warehouse that completely disconnects us from the animal.   I  think it’s important that you understand what you’re eating. Beef comes from a once-living animal called a cow! Once you really consider what goes into a hamburger—and share it with your kids!—that used-to-be-my-favorite McDonald’s Quarter Pounder becomes a LOT less appealing.

We talk about these food concerns with the kids, including why we try to eat local produce as well. They realize now that a steak is an extra-special treat and that at certain times of the year there are going to be lots of greens or no tomatoes. Sure, my wife and I get complaints from the kids sometimes, but we also find that, as the Rolling Stones say, “you can’t always get what you want” isn’t a bad message in life.

When making pasta sauce, ground turkey works as a great beef substitute. We often make burritos, and if you’ve got some good stuff to put in there (avocado, fried spinach, or maybe fried zucchini), you really don’t need to add meat. Veggie pizza is a crowd pleaser and, of course, pasta with cheese and a side or two of vegetables is a meal any kid will scarf down.

As a culture, we Americans eat too much high-impact meat. I know that entirely cutting out meat would be even better for the planet, but I feel good knowing that even our less-radical approach is lessening our impact on the world. And by instilling these values into my kids, we’re building these values into the next generation of eaters.

There are lots of resources to help either scare you into eating less meat (the film “Food, Inc.” really opened my eyes) or to help you make more sustainable choices:

• Check out the upcoming issue of the Green American on why it’s important to eat less (or no) beef in particular, as well as less meat overall. Select articles are available here.

• Find out more about Food, Inc., and watch it free if you have a Netflix account.

• Forks Over Knives is another eye-opening film that’s also available on Netflix.

• The Moosewood restaurants offer plenty of delicious, family-friendly vegetarian recipes on their site, and they’ve published several excellent cookbooks as well.

• The Vegan Mom is a great blog for families who want to eat vegan sometimes or transition to a plant-based diet all of the time—in a way that won’t make your kids clamor for Burger King.

• Don’t forget the Anything Vegan sisters, who love to help families transition to a plant-based lifestyle and vegetarian diet. Even if you don’t opt for vegan nutritional consulting packages from this member of Green America’s Green Business Network, you can find plenty of terrific recipes on their site and social media. See their blog entry from last week, and look for an article featuring them in the upcoming Green American.

—Hans Bauman is technology director at Green America. 

What are your favorite resources for eating less (or no) meat with kids?

WASHINGTON— September 8, 2015—Small businesses in Pennsylvania, California and New Jersey that promote recycled products and services were announced today as the winners of Green America’s quarterly “People & Planet Award.” The Award recognizes innovative U.S. small businesses that integrate environmental and social considerations into their strategies and operations.

The winners of the $5,000 prizes are: Mr. Ellie Pooh of Millersburg, PA; RocknSocks of San Rafael, CA; and TerraCycle of Trenton, NJ. The three winners were selected by the public during a month-long online voting period.

Alisa Gravitz, president of Green America, said: “Recycling is central to the notion of more sustainable living and the three companies we are recognizing today are innovators in this important field. All of the companies are finding new ways to expand the definition of recycling to include materials that are often ignored in conventional recycling programs. Our goal with the People & Planet Award is to recognize and highlight the people who are out there pushing the boundaries to make this a greener planet.”

The winning companies are:

• Mr. Ellie Pooh, Millersburg, PA. http://mrelliepooh.com/. Mr. Ellie Pooh is an Earth-friendly company that sells and produces 100-percent recycled paper products made of 50-percent fiber from elephant dung and 50-percent post-consumer paper. In Sri Lanka, elephants are being killed as they compete with farmers for land. Mr. Ellie Pooh believes that putting sustainable fair trade jobs in areas of human/elephant conflict can create an environment where elephants are thought of as assets and not as a threat.

• RocknSocks, San Rafael, CA. https://www.rocknsocks.com/. RocknSocks is the first and only U.S. made sock company to use pre-consumer regenerated cotton blend yarns exclusively in the manufacture of our dynamic eco-friendly sock line. Cotton scraps are taken from other textile manufacturing waste, sorted by color, ground up and spun into yarns allowing us to avoid using dyes in our cotton blend yarns. Winning the award will help RocknSocks recycle damaged, returned and sample socks to create a line of sock “creatures”. Our sock creature line will be a non-profit both giving away creatures and/or profits to children and families in need.

• TerraCycle, Trenton, NJ. http://www.terracycle.com/en-US/. TerraCycle’s mission is to “eliminate the idea of waste.” We run free consumer recycling programs, called Brigades, for waste streams that are typically considered non-recyclable. From drink pouches, toothbrushes and makeup containers to coffee capsules and even cigarette butts, our recycling programs give new life to waste that would otherwise be destined for the landfill.

Karl Wald, owner of Mr. Ellie Pooh said: “We are thrilled to win this prestigious award. Every penny of this award will go back to supporting our Fair Trade initiatives and promoting education about human/elephant conflict in Sri Lanka. Elephants have been in the news a lot lately. They are noble creatures and deserve this attention.”

Misty Reilly, founder of RocknSocks said: "RocknSocks is deeply honored to be chosen as a recipient of the $5000 prize. We plan on initiating an up-cycling project, by taking singles, returns, and damaged RocknSocks and turning them into sock creatures, like monkeys, bunnies, bears, and dragons. We then plan on donating the profits from the sales of these creatures to local non-profits that service low-income communities. In addition we will donate some of the creatures themselves to children in these communities." 

Tom Szaky, CEO of TerraCycle said:  “TerraCycle is thrilled to win the Green America People & Planet Green Business Award. Green America is a widely respected organization and we are proud to accept such a respected third-party validation of our work. The prize money will be utilized to help expand our free recycling fundraisers for schools and communities around the country.”

The next round of Green America’s quarterly award will be given to three green small businesses that focus on vegan products.

The businesses that the public vote on are determined by public nominations and an expert panel of judges: Katie Galloway and Gigi Abbadie, Aveda; Justin Conway, Calvert Foundation; Tess O’Brien, Clean Power Perks; Deven Clemens, Clif Bar; Jenny Burns, Honest Tea;  Jonathan Reinbold, Organic Valley; Martin Wolf, Seventh Generation; and Andrew Korfhage and Fran Teplitz, both of Green America.

ABOUT GREEN AMERICA

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses and individuals to solve today's social and environmental problems. http://www.GreenAmerica.org.

MEDIA CONTACT: Max Karlin, (703) 276-3255 or mkarlin@hastingsgroup.com.

Low-income communities in America are disproportionately affected by climate change, yet seldom have the resources to help finance solutions such as solar power.

Often located near power plants, low income communities in the US and worldwide have higher rates of asthma and other debilitating health problems associated with air pollution.

Cities, home to the urban poor, will face greater temperatures as a result of the heat island effect, a result of human activities and infrastructure. This warming then threatens at-risk elderly and children who lack adequate resources to prepare and adapt to these rapid changes.

Renewable energy sources like solar power provide one of the most efficient ways to combat air-quality issues and climate change, but are usually out of reach for those with the most at stake.

Solar energy companies have began to take notice of the opportunity to help improve environmental quality, social equality, while also generating profit. Community solar is one of the tools being leveraged by these companies to make this happen, and the White House has taken notice.

What is community solar? Sometimes called shared renewables, community solar is essentially an arrangement that allows several energy customers to source their energy from a local solar installation.

These installments may be owned by a local utility, nonprofit, or other organization that may provide the community with the opportunity to invest in, or purchase this renewable energy at a fixed rate.

Similar to those who turn to community gardens when individual plots are unavailable, many people live in condos, apartment buildings, or other setups incompatible with installing a solar array on their own roofs. These households have found community solar to be a great way to source reliable, clean energy at affordable rates.

Unfortunately, government regulations and utility companies haven’t kept pace with developments like these, and often get in the way of these investment opportunities. However, the White House recently announced a host of new programs and services to help break down these barriers and provide access to community solar throughout the U.S.

One of the key measures in the plan is the launch of a National Community Solar Partnership, aiming to increase access to solar for the half of businesses with setups incompatible for solar systems.

The administration has also set a goal to install 300 megawatts (MW) of renewables in federally subsidized housing, helping to make direct access to clean energy a reality for nearly 50,000 American households.

Yet, the government isn’t the only one in a position of power.

As a Green American, there are a few ways that you can help make community solar power a reality.

Volunteering for an organization like GRID Alternatives is a great way to lend on-the ground support for the movement, as they often require little to no previous knowledge or experience — just a desire and motivation to help others.

Additionally, you can write a letter to your local representative and utility company, encouraging them to support the development of community solar projects in your area.

To find out more about community solar, check out the White House’s fact sheet on their new initiative here.

Campbell’s Soup is one of America’s most iconic brands. The company famous for soups also produces thousands of other food items. Famous brands under the Campbell’s umbrella include Pepperidge Farm, Bolthouse Farms, and Prego.

Like most major food companies, Campbell’s had not kept up with the changing tide of consumer preferences for healthy and sustainable foods.  While the company bought farm fresh and organic companies like Plum Organics and Bolthouse Farms, many of their main products are still made with artificial ingredients, high fructose corn syrup, and GMOs.

Over the past year Green America staff has been meeting with Campbell’s about a transition to non-GMO and organics across their main product lines.  We highlighted the growing concerns around GMOs and pesticides, and the need to include healthy ingredients in all Campbell’s products.  We talked with Campbell’s at a time when they were looking to innovate and the company was very open to hearing from stakeholders.

This week, Campbell’s made several major announcements about improving the sustainability of their foods, including significant steps forward on going non-GMO and organic:

• Campbell’s will be launching several lines of organic kid’s soups, and removing MSG from all their kid’s soups.  In August 2015, the company will introduce Campbell’s Organic soup for kids in three chicken noodle varieties.  The soups will be non-GMO and certified Organic.
• Pepperidge Farm will be launching several organic wheat versions of their popular Goldfish Crackers.  Look for organic wheat versions of regular, cheddar, and parmesan in the coming year.  They still need to remove GMOs and go completely organic with the rest of their ingredients.
• Increasing organics across other food lines, and increasing the number of organic products offered by Plum.

Campbell’s announcements on organics were accompanied by statements that the company will be:

• Removing artificial colors and flavors from nearly all of its North American products in the next three years.
• Removing high fructose corn syrup from Pepperidge Farm fresh breads over the next two years.
• Increasing the transparency of its ingredients, including a new website, What’s in My Food (http://www.whatsinmyfood.com) that tells consumers the ingredients in their foods, starting with several major products.

Like all major food companies in the US, Campbell’s has a long way to go to be truly sustainable.  This week’s announcements are an important step forward.

Green America will continue to engage with Campbell’s with a goal of more products that are non-GMO and organic in the months to come.

When Bob Hamler decided to install a rain barrel in his backyard, he didn’t expect to start a neighborhood trend. Bob’s wife Maxine, who loves tending to their backyard garden, recommended that they get a rain barrel to collect water to use in the garden.

“It made so much sense!” says Maxine, “I knew it was a great way to cut our water bills and water our garden.”

A rain barrel is a water catchment system than you can easily set up in your yard. All you need to do is find a large plastic barrel, and install a screen over the top and a faucet at the bottom. Rain will run off your roof and into the barrel (placed strategically under a rain gutter downspout). The screen will catch debris, and you can attach a hose to the faucet and use the water as needed.

Bob was amazed by how easy the rain barrel was to put together. He found all the parts he needed at his local hardware store, and it took him less than an hour to assemble them into a functioning rain barrel. Soon the Hamlers’ do-it-yourself project was the talk of the neighborhood; people were impressed by the simple yet efficient design. Many of Bob’s neighbors soon got rain barrels of their own.

“Around here, you hear about water shortages all the time,” says Hamler, who lives in Florida. “I feel great that I can do this small bit to conserve water.”

As water shortages become more of a reality worldwide, communities everywhere are touting the benefits of rain barrels. By making the small investment in a rain barrel, you can help save water and lower your water bill.

Better for the Environment

For people interested in saving water and helping the environment, a rain barrel is a win-win.

“When it’s raining, your garden is getting the water it needs. Rain barrels come into use during periods of drought, when you would have to resort to using water from your house to water your garden,” says Daniel Winterbottom, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Washington in Seattle.

In many areas, these periods of drought bring area-wide water shortages, where citizens are asked to conserve water as much as possible. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that lawn and garden watering make up about 40 percent of household water use in summer months, and that a rain barrel will save most homeowners 1,300 gallons of water during that time.

In addition to conserving water, collecting runoff from your roof stops that water from polluting your local watershed. Typically, rainwater will run off of your roof and end up either in a local sewage system or stream. On the journey, the water will pick up pollutants like yard fertilizers, oil and gasoline from street surfaces, animal waste, and more. This polluted storm water runoff will either tax a municipal sewage system or pollute your local watershed. Also, some areas have combined sewer systems, where runoff and household waste water are combined and sent to treatment facilities. In times of heavy rainfall, the treatment facilities can be overwhelmed, causing overflow of household waste into local rivers. According to The National Resources Defense Council, urban storm water runoff rivals factories and sewage plants as a source of dangerous pollutants in local waterways.

“By diverting this storm runoff from your roof into your rain barrel, you’re stopping it from picking up all those pollutants and taking them to your local stream,” says Katie Register of Clean Virginia Waterways, a group that educates people about water stewardship. “You’re significantly contributing to the health of your local watershed.”

Many Ways to Use Rain

Whether you need to water your plants or wash your windows, you’ll find rainwater ideal for the task. Unlike treated water from your tap, rainwater is free of chlorine and chloramines, chemicals added to water to make it safe for human consumption. Rainwater is also free of salt, which can build up in the roots of your plants when they’re watered with tap water. By supplementing your watering needs with rainwater, you’ll flush salts further down into the soil, making the soil healthier for your plants.

Also, because rainwater is relatively free of minerals, it’s ideal for car and window-washing, as minerals from hard water often cause spotting on the glass. And Katie Register’s extra rainwater came in handy when her well pump failed.

“I brought some rainwater in with buckets and used it to flush the toilets,” she recalls. “I was really glad to have it!”

Become a Rain Harvester

When Register decided to construct a rain barrel for her house, she thought she was in for a daylong task. “But once we got back from the store with the parts, it only took 30 minutes,” she says.

Register eventually built six barrels to place around her house, all of which are still in good condition after six years.

The most challenging part of installing your own water barrel will likely be finding the barrel itself. You’ll need a 50-gallon plastic barrel that is strong enough to handle the water pressure (a plastic trash can is typically too thin for the task, and will collapse or break once it’s full). You can buy a barrel at most hardware stores, but you may want to save resources and find a used barrel. Barry Chenkin, owner of Aquabarrel, gets used barrels for his rain barrel business from local bottling companies, because they receive large shipments of liquids in plastic barrels and have no use for them afterward. These barrels are engineered so the plastic does not break down when it comes into contact with liquid.

Check with local restaurants, bottling companies, or food manufacturers to find used food-grade barrels (most will cost you between five and ten dollars and are solid colors). You can also find barrels on eBay.com. To avoid extra shipping, look for local eBay sellers, or put a request for a barrel on your local Craigslist.org or Freecycle.org list.

Then, you just need to get your supplies and put them together. To construct your own rain barrel, follow our easy instructions in the box below. If you don’t want to put together your own rain barrel, there are plenty of vendors who sell them ready to install. Contact the businesses in our resource box, or visit a local garden supply store.

Just Don’t Drink It

Keep in mind that the water collected in rain barrels is not safe for human consumption. Do not use it for drinking or cooking, and make sure it is clearly marked so that visitors, especially those with children, know that it’s not like a normal garden hose you might find in your yard. (Barry Chenkin has a big yellow sticker on his barrel so his grandson is always reminded that the water is not safe to drink.)

If there is moss-killer on your roof, avoid using the water from the first few rainfalls, which will flush the moss killer off your roof, and avoid applying chemicals on your roof that will be harmful to your plants or your local watershed.

If you think your rainwater may be exposed to heavy air pollution with heavy metals, consider having it tested (call the EPA at 800/426-4791) before using it to water fruits and vegetables. But don’t worry too much—all of the rainwater tested by Winterbottom and his colleagues was safe for use in vegetable gardens.

If you have cold winters, store your rain barrel in the winter. Turn it on its side so it doesn’t collect water that will freeze. Taking good care of your rain barrel will keep it in good condition for years to come.

Make your own rain barrel:

First, you’ll need a strong plastic barrel in which to store the water. Check with local restaurants or food manufacturers to find re-usable, food-grade barrels, or look for barrels at your local garden supply store or a retailer from GreenPages.org, a directory of our certified Green Business Network members. 

Once you have a barrel, these are the tools you’ll need:

• Power drill with hole bit (1/16 inch smaller than faucet insert) and pilot drill bit. (A 3⁄4” faucet measures 1” on outside, so you need a 15/16” hole bit)
• Pliers to tighten washers
• Paper towels (for excess caulk)
• Utility knife or small saber saw to cut lid
• Scissors to cut screening
• Hacksaw to shorten downspout
• Screwdriver for hose clamp

Once you’ve gathered your tools, you’ll need to make a trip to your local hardware store to gather your supplies. You’ll need:

• A 3⁄4” faucet (measures 1” on outside
• Washers and lock nut for the faucet
• Caulk (clear plumber’s)
• Screening (Buy a roll that is used to repair screen windows. Nylon fabric-like netting is better than the metal type.)
• Hose adapter for your overflow (Many options here, depending on where you want your overflow to go.)
• Washer and lock nut needed for the adapter
• Hosing (short piece) to connect one barrel to another, if you want to have multiple barrels. Hose clamps as needed.
• Bricks or cinder blocks to raise your barrel above the ground (this will improve water pressure).

Now it’s time to put together your barrel! Follow these steps, provided by Clean Virginia Waterways. If you need some extra help, they have photos to accompany each step on their website:

1. Drill a hole near bottom of barrel where your faucet will be.
2. Caulk around outside of hole.
3. Screw faucet in, using a washer.
4. Caulk inside, then put on lock nut with washer and tighten with pliers.
5. Drill a hole near top for overflow, where water will fl ow out when your barrel is full.
6. Put in a hose adapter for overflow with washers and tighten with pliers.
7. Cut out center of lid.
8. Cut screen larger than lid (the screen will be placed on top of the lid, and will help keep out debris and mosquitoes).
9. Level the dirt under the rain barrel, then add some sand.
10. Rain barrels need to be higher than ground level—use bricks or cinder blocks to give your barrel some height.
11. Measure and cut off part of the downspout.
12. Put the barrel in place, securing the screen over it with the lid, and placing it under the downspout.
13. Connect the overflow from one barrel to the next, or have overflow hose divert excess rain to a garden or distant area of your choice, away from your home’s foundation.

By Kegan Gerard

1. Emails: Tiny Climate Bombs

Email may have done a great job improving productivity and reducing the amount of paper we waste, but those little messages can pack a carbon punch. An average email accounts for 4 grams CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent)—the result of the many servers, computers, and routers that enable you to hit send. For comparison’s sake, a plastic shopping bag is responsible for about 10 gCO₂e. Considering an average worker sends between 121 and 140 emails per day, your daily footprint from these emails can quickly add up to over 484 g CO₂e—the equivalent of nearly five and a half hours of TV watching. Next time you want to send your coworker that “thanks!” email, consider walking there and saying it in person. Unsubscribing from all of those listservs you never read anyway is another great way to declutter your inbox and cut the carbon.

2. Netflix Streaming: Equal to Powering Your Fridge

Everyone loves watching movies online. It’s cheap, it’s easy, and you don’t have to put on real clothes to leave the house. Even though you may not put much energy into your movie selections, there’s a great deal of it required to power that 13-hour Orange Is The New Black binge. Streaming just one hour of video per week for a year requires more energy than two new refrigerators, according to a 2013 report by the Digital Power Group. Considering that Netflix at times accounts for nearly half of Internet traffic in North America, all that streaming can equate to the energy usage—and resulting climate emissions—of hundreds of thousands of “extra refrigerators” worldwide. Oddly enough, the 2013 report was funded by members of the coal industry and argued for the need for more dirty coal to power the cloud. Because Netflix is hosted on Amazon Web Services (AWS), much of the energy used to power the site comes from dirty sources of power like coal. Until AWS starts obtaining more of its energy from renewables, streaming from Netflix has the potential to impact more than just your social life. Even for those who like their movies a tad on the dirty side, the power that goes into streaming those films should come from clean sources. Visit buildacleanercloud.com to find out how to make this happen.

3. Turn Off the Lights

While we’re on the topic of Netflix, your viewing habits may lead to other energy usage that you’ve never thought of. Leaving the lights on while you watch movies at night may be leading to higher energy bills for you, and more CO₂ for our atmosphere. Nielsen reported that the average American watches television (on a TV) for 34 hours a week. For those who prefer to watch online, Business Wire estimates that the average Netflix user alone spends about 8 hours per week watching that service alone. Either way, that’s a lot of time for the lights to be left on. Flicking that light switch not only helps you to reduce your energy usage, it’s also a better viewing experience—images appear brighter and sharper when viewed in a darker room. Next time you’re watching House Hunters to see if they go with house number one, two, or three, try turning out the lights in yours.

4. Online Shopping: What’s in Your Cart?

Those four hours you spent online shopping at work, while not so great for your productivity, may have been pretty good for the environment. Scientists from MIT looked at a number of shopping scenarios—whether you bought online or in store, how many visits to the store you made, whether or not you returned the product, etc.—and found that online shopping is often a more environmentally friendly way to buy. For those who completed every step of buying an item online, their carbon footprint was almost two times smaller than traditional shoppers, who often make several trips to a store before buying. Green America has also compiled a list of some environmentally and socially responsible alternatives to purchasing from Internet shopping giants like Amazon, so you can feel even better about that pair of shoes you need to order online.

5. Let the Music Play

Just as those Netflix movies have to be streamed from somewhere, so too does your music. Spotify, one of the most widely used streaming services, is hosted by AWS, which uses non-renewable sources like coal to power a majority of its operations. Streaming the music online does cut down on the physical waste associated with CD production, but it’s often hard to conceptualize the energy mix behind your playlists. Streaming music is also much easier than obtaining physical copies of music, leading to increased consumption levels. Fortunately for music lovers out there, there are some great services that give you all the freedom of streaming and less of the ecological footprint. Apple’s new streaming service, Apple Music, is run out of the company’s own data centers, which are entirely powered by renewable energy sources. Subscribers to the service have the ability to save songs for offline listening (a function also offered by Spotify), which further reduces the amount of streaming data required. Bonus: Tweet Flatulation Tweetfarts.com claims that each tweet produces the same amount of CO₂ as a human wind. Click through to their website to have them explain that one...

Investing in renewables makes sense. From an economic standpoint, Bloomberg is now forecasting that wind energy will become the cheapest new energy globally by 2026, before passing that title to solar production in 2030. This is great news, considering that poor air quality associated with traditional energy sources like coal will lead to an estimated increase of 57,000 premature deaths annually by 2100, according to a new report from the Obama administration. Not to mention all the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels.

Businesses, then, have any number of incentives to fuel their operations with renewable energy, with companies like Tesla leading the way to net-zero energy consumption.

Not everyone, however, has the resources to complete a solar installation comparable to Tesla’s “Gigafactory.” Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) can offer these organizations a way to commit to a renewable energy future.

What’s a REC and what can it do?

A Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) is a tradable tool used by organizations to represent the environmental, non-power qualities of a unit of energy. Think of it as a permit to claim the “green-ness” of a given energy source, with each REC certifying the generation of one megawatt-hour (MWh) of renewable energy.

This “greenness” claim can then be useful for a company, either to meet its own sustainability goals, or to meet the terms of federal Renewable Electricity Standards (RES).

Not All RECs are Created Equal

With a REC essentially representing the green aspect of renewable power, it can either be sold in a “bundle” with the power itself, or “unbundled” and sold independently. This, for many, is a hard distinction to understand, so I’ll break it down.

When 1 MWh of energy is created from a renewable source, like a solar array or wind turbine, there are two components to this: the actual electricity itself, and the claim of being produced in a “green” way. As the electricity generated from renewable sources is physically indistinguishable to electricity generated from dirtier coal and natural gas, the electrons themselves aren’t inherently green.

With “bundled” electricity, energy is sold to the customer along with the claim, the REC, that the energy was produced in a renewable fashion. In this setup, the power provider and buyer are located in the same power grid, so that produced green electricity can be delivered to the REC buyer.

Conversely, the REC and electricity generated can be sold separate from one another, with one business buying the use of that electricity and another buying the REC. To avoid “double-counting,” only the owner of the REC can claim the greenness of their energy.

Why does this matter?

Outside of reducing carbon emissions to curb climate change, one of the biggest advantages of renewable energy is its potential to grow local industries and improve regional air quality. This is key, because new investment in solar, wind, and other clean-energy technologies can both stimulate new jobs as well as decrease a region’s healthcare costs. Unbundled RECs, however, take away much of this opportunity. Here’s how:

As bundled green energy requires the power to be sourced within the same power grid, demand for the green alternatives increases. More businesses buying bundled green energy sends a message to local power providers that the community is invested in renewable energy. To meet this demand, local utilities increase the share of their energy sourced from renewables in order to supply more bundled RECs.

Conversely, unbundled RECs can often be purchased from states on the other side of the country. While this may still sound okay—”A REC is better than no REC, right?”—it fails to incentivize local power providers to provide green energy at a level comparable to bundled RECs. Think of it this way: if power providers can continue to generate high profits from coal or natural-gas sources, they may believe they have little economic incentive to spend additional funds to incorporate renewable technologies in their regions. High local demand for green, bundled RECs shifts this slope in favor of renewables.

Understanding Renewable Energy Claims

Many companies may claim to be “carbon-neutral,” or committed to investing in renewables. However, this may mean that they are simply buying unbundled RECs to meet arbitrary standards.

As consumers, it’s important that we stay informed and know how to read a company’s marketing claims about its renewable-energy commitments. Take Amazon for instance. It claims that its GovCloud web hosting service is carbon neutral, all the while sourcing much of the power for its data centers from dirtier coal-based utilities and buying unbundled RECs to make up its green “cred.” In doing so, it deprives the region’s communities many of the jobs and environmental benefits that new renewable investments have the potential to bring.

It’s important for consumers to continue to call for renewable-energy creation to replace dirty energies like coal, natural gas, and nuclear. At the same time, we need companies to demand renewable energy as well so that utilities will transition to cleaner sources of power like wind and solar. Bundled RECs, in the short term, can help quantify demand for renewable energy. In the long term, as more and more companies shift to sourcing 100% renewable energy directly, the RECs will no longer be needed.

Amazon Web Services announces construction of a solar farm in Virginia and a wind farm in North Carolina.

This is the latest victory in Green America's campaign, launched in 2014, to urge Amazon to adopt 100% clean energy for its servers by 2020.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – June 30, 2015 – Unsustainably low cocoa prices – made possible by extreme poverty among West African cocoa producers, with farmers in Ghana earning as little as 84 cents per day, and Ivorian farmers earning only 50 cents per day – could jeopardize the future of chocolate since young farmers are not replacing the current aging generation, according to the updated U.S. edition of the 2015 “Cocoa Barometer.” Together, Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire produce more than 50% of the world’s cocoa supply.

Available online at cocoabarometer.org the new report is being released today as cocoa industry representatives gather in Washington at the World Cocoa Foundation conference to discuss ongoing sustainability projects. Produced by a network of European nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the “Cocoa Barometer” is a semi-annual report that reviews the state of sustainability in the cocoa sector. This latest edition was co-written with U.S. NGOs and includes updates on programs of the U.S. government and U.S. cocoa companies.

“Despite all the efforts in cocoa at the moment, the core of the problem is still not being addressed: the extreme poverty of cocoa farmers, and their lack of a voice in the debate,” said Antonie Fountain, co-author of the Barometer. “Unless the cocoa sector fundamentally changes, there will be no future cocoa farmers.”

“Around the world, child labor is a symptom of extreme poverty and limited opportunity,” said Elizabeth O’Connell, campaigns director at Green America. “In order to prevent children from working in dangerous settings, we must ensure that farmers, including women, sharecroppers and tenant farmers, are earning enough to harvest cocoa sustainably.”

Key findings in the 2015 U.S. edition of the report include the following:

• Low incomes. West African cocoa farmers live well below globally defined poverty level of $2 per day. The lack of a decent livelihood for cocoa farmers leads to bad labor circumstances, human rights violations, and many other problems in the cocoa supply chain, including child labor.
• Cocoa no longer offers an attractive future. Increasingly, younger generations of cocoa farmers are leaving cocoa, and older farmers are nearing the age of life expectancy.
• High market concentration leads to greater farmer exploitation. Mergers and takeovers have resulted in just a few companies dominating up to 80 percent of the whole value chain, while farmers lack a sufficiently organized voice to be strong actors.
• Certified chocolate production continues to increase globally, from just 2 percent reported in the first Barometer in 2009, to almost 16 percent of global chocolate sales in the 2015 “Cocoa Barometer.” The Barometer also indicates that there is far more certified cocoa available at the moment, than is being purchased on certified term. However, with the mainstreaming of certification, the challenges of certification are also increasing. Improvements in certification are needed, especially concerning impact on the ground, the quality of auditing, and unrest among farmers about low payments of premiums.
• Current approaches won’t solve the problem. Most corporate sustainability efforts focus on increasing a farmer’s productivity. However, increasing yields must be coupled with an increased cocoa price for farmers. This means that chocolate needs to become more expensive. Crop diversification, tenure security, better infrastructure and access to information for farmers are also needed.

Recommendations for action in the report include the following:

1. Develop a living income model for smallholder cocoa farming.
2. Address the price-setting mechanisms in order to increase prices at farm-gate level.
3. Move from voluntary to mandatory sector-wide solutions.

Report co-author Fountain said: “All players in the cocoa value chain need to step up to the plate. Companies, governments, retailers, as well as consumers should take their shared responsibility, and truly start looking for new approaches to some of these longstanding problems.”

The full version of the 2015 Cocoa Barometer is available online.

ABOUT THE GROUPS
The Cocoa Barometer is published by a European consortium of civil society actors; FNV Mondiaal (NL), Hivos (NL), Solidaridad (NL) and the VOICE Network – ABVV/Horval (BE), Berne Declaration (CH), FNV (NL), Oxfam Novib (NL), Oxfam Wereldwinkels (BE), Stop the Traffik (UK), and the Südwind Institut (GE). The 2015 USA edition of the Cocoa Barometer was also written with Green America, the International Labor Rights Forum, and Oxfam America.

Media Contacts:
Will Harwood 
wharwood@hastingsgroup.com 
(703) 276-3255

Antonie Fountain 
antonie@voicenetwork.eu 
Mob: (+31) 06 242 765 17

BOSTON, Mass. and WASHINGTON, D.C. – June 29, 2015 – EnergySage and Green America, a national nonprofit organization working to create a green economy, today announced that they have partnered to help U.S. homeowners “get all the facts” about solar adoption as well as secure the lowest possible price when purchasing quality systems. The EnergySage Green America online solar marketplace is a comprehensive, unbiased destination where consumers can quickly research and compare turnkey solar energy systems, explore all of their financing options and obtain multiple, instant price quotes from more than 250 high-quality, pre-screened solar installers. As a result, marketplace users can expect to pay prices up to 20 percent less than market averages.

Founded in 1982, Green America empowers individuals to make purchasing and investing choices that promote social justice and environmental sustainability. The organization focuses on promoting green and fair trade business principles while building the market for businesses adhering to these principles. As part of this mission, Green America provides resources for helping people and businesses to reduce their carbon footprints, and advances clean energy solutions that create jobs and tackle climate change.

“We are deeply committed to advancing the green economy, and as part of that effort, take pride in offering people proven resources that will help them to make the best environmental and financial decisions,” said Todd Larsen, executive co-director at Green America. “We see the EnergySage Green America marketplace playing a key role in empowering consumers to make the move toward clean energy by providing – in one place – all of the information and tools they need to evaluate their solar options.”

There are a lot of decisions for consumers to make when seeking to go solar – they must determine the equipment that best suits their homes, select the right installer, and decide whether buying, borrowing or leasing is the right fit for their budget. This has traditionally been a complicated and very time-consuming process for homeowners, and lack of price disclosure within the solar market has left many of them paying thousands of dollars more for systems that weren’t even tailored to their particular needs.

“By aligning with Green America, we’ve extended our ability to serve as an advocate for consumers, providing them with much needed simplicity, transparency and choice when seeking to ‘go solar,'” said EnergySage CEO Vikram Aggarwal. “The EnergySage Green America marketplace puts the power in the hands of the U.S. homeowner, instead of the installers, enabling them to easily compare their options and make well-informed decisions about solar in the same way that they shop for everything else.”

ABOUT GREEN AMERICA
Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses, investors, and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems (http://www.greenamerica.org).

About EnergySage, Inc. 
EnergySage provides the first comprehensive online marketplace for consumers and businesses interested in converting to solar energy. By enabling people to comparison shop for “apples-to-apples” competitive quotes from pre-screened installers and financiers, the EnergySage Marketplace typically delivers cost-savings of up to 20 percent when compared to going directly to installers. EnergySage also simplifies today’s complex solar industry by providing tools and unbiased information that enable people to fully understand their product and financing options as well as their return-on-investment scenarios. Many leading organizations have forged partnerships with EnergySage to promote the adoption of solar energy, including Connecticut Green Bank, Staples, Walgreens and the World Wildlife Fund. For more information, please visit: www.energysage.com.

Media Contacts:
Tracey Frederickson
Davies Murphy Group
781.418.2414
media@energysage.com

Bernard Lietaer is the author of the forthcoming Of Human Wealth and The Future of Money (London: Random House, 2001), and has been studying monetary systems for over 25 years. While at the Central Bank in Belgium, he co-designed and implemented the convergence mechanism to the Euro, the European single currency system. He is the co-founder and chair of the ACCESS Foundation, (www.accessfoundation.org), an educational nonprofit that educates the public about best practices in the domain of complementary currencies. He is currently a Fellow at the Center for Sustainable Resource Development at UC-Berkeley.

This interview, conducted by Green America Editor Tracy Fernandez Rysavy, complements "Re-examining the Structure of Money," a piece that appears in the Spring 2009 issue of the Green American, From Greed to Green.

TRACY FERNANDEZ RYSAVY: Green America’s executive director Alisa Gravitz told me that you long ago predicted our current economic downturn and have been saying it’s going to last at least ten years.

BERNARD LIETAER: I’m not the only one saying that now. There have been a handful of people in the States who were predicting this. Paul Volcker was one. Nouriel Rubini at New York University. I was one of the early ones—I first wrote this in 1999, predicting that before 2010, we’d actually hit the wall.

Rubini said this recession is going to be long, deep, and brutal. Nobel Prizewinner Joseph Stiglitz, the ex-head economist at World Bank who’s currently at Columbia University, said that in the beginning of a recession, the debate between economists is whether it’s going to be a "V"—deep and short—or a "U"—not as deep but longer, as in three to four years. He says this one could possibly be in the form of an "L"—hitting the ground and staying there.

TRACY: Why did you see this coming, when very few people didn’t?

BERNARD: This problem is structural, and it is being treated as if it were a cyclical problem, or a managerial problem, in that things were badly managed. The kinds of solutions the federal government is doing, like dropping interest rates, saving the banks, saving some key businesses and doing big projects—all these things have been tried for 18 years in Japan. 18 years. And Japan is now where they were then, 18 years ago [when the country entered its own banking and economic crisis].

When I say the problem is structural … let me give you a metaphor. Let’s assume I give you a car. And I say "By the way, that car doesn’t have any brakes, and the steering wheel doesn’t work one time out of two." Then I tell you to drive it across the Rockies.

Guess what? You’re going to have an accident! That’s pretty certain.

Now I come back to you and say, "What a bad driver you are!" And, "Oh, gee, they really didn’t do a good job on those maps. They didn’t warn you about that curve where you crashed."

What we’re doing with the regulations to "fix" the economic crisis is akin to saying that the way to prevent an accident in the car I gave you is to make better maps. Nobody is saying the car is the problem, i.e. the system you’re driving is the problem.

Our money system is structurally brittle. It doesn’t matter if you put a very clever guy or a stupid guy at the wheel. The clever guy will take a half hour to have an accident, and the stupid guy will take ten minutes.

I know the structure of money systems. If you have a professional look at the car, they can tell you, "Don’t drive that thing." That’s what I’m saying about the current money system: Don’t drive that thing. It will get into an accident.

TRACY: What is wrong with our monetary system today? Why shouldn’t people "drive that thing?"

BERNARD: Basically, for any complex to be sustainable needs to have a balance between two factors: resilience and efficiency. These two factors can be calculated from the structure of the network that is involved in a complex system. A resilient, efficient system needs to be diverse and interconnected. On the other hand, diversity and interconnectivity decrease efficiency. Therefore, the key is an appropriate balance between efficiency and resilience.

This is more understandable in ecosystems. One animal that can eat only one plant is going to get more easily on trouble than a more omnivorous one. If that plant gets in trouble, the animal will become extinct. If he eats 50 types of plants, when one plant gets in trouble, he can just eat some of the others.

The same thing is true for whatever eats that animal. It’s a chain of the appropriate levels of diversity and interconnections—which are the key to sustainability. We have know been able to measure quantitatively the conditions under which any complex flow network will be sustainable as a function of these two structural variables of diversity and interconnections. 

Our economy is precisely a complex flow network where money circulates, similar to biomass circulating in a natural ecosystem. When you apply what we learn from ecosystems to money systems, it’s clear that our current money system is a monoculture, and that creates problems. Just imagine that you plant one type of plant on the whole planet and eradicate everything else. It’s very predictable that one day, that crop will get in trouble. We don’t know have to know from what—whether a new microbe or climate change or whatever. It is structurally brittle..

Look at any financial institution, at any bank. They’re all photocopies of each other. There’s no diversity of institutions and even less diversity of currency. Therefore, just as you say its very logical that an ecosystem like this will collapse, it’s very predictable a monetary system like this will collapse, too. And it hasn’t finished collapsing, by the way.

TRACY: What’s next?

BERNARD: A dollar crash. Paul Volcker has said that there’s a 75 percent chance for "a dollar hard landing." He probably wouldn’t say that today, because now he’s in a different role again [as Chair  of President Obama’s Economic Advisory Board].

TRACY: You’ve also said our current money system, automatically builds in a scarcity factor. Can you explain that?

BERNARD: To understand the reason how scarcity is created, one has to understand the way money is created. Money is created through bank debt. When you go for a mortgage through a bank, they give you $100,000 to buy a house and basically send you out into the world to bring back $200,000 in the next twenty years. The first $100,000 is principal, and the second is interest.

When the banks create the money, they don’t create the interest. They send you into the world to compete with everybody else to get the second $100,000 that never was created and bring it back to them. So if we’re in a world with zero-growth population, goods, services, and money, the problem would be obvious. You would feel it. The way we do not feel it is that there is growth in population, there is growth in production, and growth in money. So basically what you’re doing when paying interest is pay someone else’s principal . Fundamentally, everybody has to compete against everybody else. If you don’t succeed, you lose your house or whatever other collateral was used to obtain your loan.

I have a story that I call the "11th Round Parable." I learned the story in Australia, so I’m setting it in the Australian Outback, in a little village where people don’t know about money. Every week they gather, and people bring hams, chickens, and eggs and barter and bargain with each other.

Then one day, a gentleman comes with a very fancy hat and very shiny shoes, and he observes the market. At one point, he sees a farmer trying to carry 12 chickens around the market to exchange them for a ham—and the farmer is obviously having trouble doing that. So the man starts laughing.

The wife of the farmer says, "Hey, stranger, do you know a better way of getting around with the chickens?"

And the man says, "I don’t know about chickens, but I know a better way of doing all this."

"Oh, really," she says. "What would that be?"

"See that tree in the corner?" he asks. "I’m going to sit under that tree. One of you bring me a big cow skin, and I will prepare something. Bring every family together, and I will explain it to you."

He goes to the tree, and they bring him the skin. He cuts nine little rounds in that skin and puts a fancy little seal in each of those rounds. He gives ten rounds for every family. One round is equal in value to a chicken. So now the villagers can carry those rounds instead of the chickens.

Then he says, "I’ll come back next year and sit under the same tree. I want everyone to bring 11 rounds. The 11th round is the token of appreciation for the improvement that I’ve made possible in your community."

The farmer’s lady asks, "Where will the 11th round come from?"

He says, "You’ll see, you’ll see, you’ll see. Don’t worry."

Do you know what’s going to happen?

TRACY: Some people will have enough, and others will be left with fewer than 11.

BERNARD: What has to happen is on average, one of ten families has to go bankrupt to provide the 11th round to someone else. We’ve created a negative-sum game. And the next time the harvest is ready, not everyone will participate to help a neighbor in trouble to get his harvest in before a storm.

That’s how scarcity is created and how competition is generated.

TRACY: How can complementary currencies help solve these problems?

BERNARD: Complementary currencies work in addition to existing money, rather than replacing existing, official money. There are whole different families of complementary currencies. One of them is local currencies. One is regional currencies. Another is functional currencies. Another is social-purpose currencies.

Today, conventional money is supposed to be doing everything. By adding in complementary currencies, you actually get different types of things and different outcomes from different complementary currencies.

If you want to create or bolster a local economy, you can use local currencies to stimulate that kind of outcome. A local currency has been proven effective only for up to 300-500 families, within a particular part of town.

If you want to help mitigate unemployment, I would recommend regional currencies. Regional currencies could work for a million people. The purpose there is to create a sense of regional pride and to encourage economic development on a regional level. We have a number of regional currencies operational in Europe. There are 64 projects in Germany, of which 28 are operational and the rest are in process of launch. There are six projects in France that are now in pilot stage..

There are also social-purpose currencies. There is one in Japan that people use to trade elderly care. The Time Dollar system in America is another.

Global currencies can be complementary as well. The Terra is one such example (see www.terratrc.org).

TRACY: On a bigger level, you’ve been saying that the Terra and Business-to-Business or B2B currencies could help us navigate this economic crisis we’re in. How do you get people to start accepting them?

BERNARD: The Terra is a subset of Business-to-Business (B2B), and I would recommend implementing first a B2B when it comes to addressing this crisis. Being optimistic, it would take at least three to five years for the Terra to make a difference. The B2B could be operational in three to six months.

The prototype of a successful B2B is the WIR system in Switzerland, which  has been proven to help keep the country’s economy and employment more stable than all its neighbors since it was started in 1934.

The B2B keeps the businesses interconnected and trading with each other without borrowing money from the banks, which is the real bottleneck. Because the money is not anymore available from the banks as it used to be, period.

TRACY: How could we start a B2B currency this quickly? And how could we get it to be a national movement in the US?

BERNARD: We’re starting a B2B currency here in Europe. I was just at a meeting today at one of the pilot programs in Germany. They are considering calling it the "Com" for complementary and commercial—one Com equals one Euro, and it doesn’t have interest. There are now four pilot projects in gestation in Europe.The idea is to launch the pilot projects independently of each other and then interconnect them in 2010.

One of the main reasons we can do it so quickly is that thereare open-source softwares available for free, to make it all work. That solves much of technical problem.

Therefore, the only thing to be done is the social part, i.e. convincing businesses to be involved. Let me give you an example of how that might be done.

If one of your biggest customers tells you "We are going to buy from you at the condition that we can pay 10 percent with this new Com complementary currency." As a supplier, when your biggest customers tell you that, you basically have a choice. You don’t have this big customer, or you accept the 10 percent payment in Coms.

The pilot projects are the beginning of the process. As we start to interconnec them on the European level, throughout the Euro-zone, there will be 16 countries that are using the same currency, all connected by the same software.

One of the key elements is transparency. With the Com system, I have the right to see your account before I make a trade with you. In other words, so it’s self-policing. That will make it very unattractive for the mafia and anyone else interested in criminal activity.

You can implement a B2B currency with same pricing structure and the same marketing mechanism and everything else. It simply offers an additional source of funding. The hope and idea is that at some point, at least during the period of the crisis, governments—particularly local and city governments—will accept partial payment of their taxes in the B2B currency, making it acceptable to everybody.

TRACY: Is there any talk about doing a B2B project in the US?

BERNARD: That will depend on the American businesses themselves. In order to do something like the B2B, you need to be willing to think out of the box.  

TRACY: Our economic system is based on growth, and a lot of economists that are thinking about the coming environmental and even population crises are coming to an agreement that we are reaching a point where the growth has to stop. Can complementary currencies help stop consumption and waste, as well?

BERNARD: I actually disagree that growth as a whole needs to stop. I think what we need is to stop stupid material growth. What I believe is that we only need more smart growth. For instance, we need an infinity of growth in learning. An infinity of growth in beauty. Large amounts of growth in care, help and restoration. So the question is not whether we need growth or not. The real question is to define what kind of growth.

TRACY: Well said! Do the B2B currencies stop stupid growth?

BERNARD: For example, we can have currencies that motivate you to put less carbon in the atmosphere. There are now six cities in Europe that are planning to launch a carbon currency to do just that—Bristol, Dublin, Munich, Rotterdam, Brussels, and Amsterdam.

TRACY: How does that one work? Is this different from the cap-and-trade system we read so much about?

BERNARD: Oh, yes. Cap and trade involves basically only corporations and governments. The consumer is not involved. Here we’re talking about actually motivating the citizen/consumer to get involved.

Let’s assume that you take the bus or the subway instead of your car. Well, we give you credit for the carbon units that you’re saving with your ticket. It’s all done electronically, using a "smart" card [that works much like a standard credit card with a rewards program]. You want to go buy a bicycle? You can pay for the bicycle with the carbon credits. Or if I install solar panels in my house, I get carbon credits, which I can then use to take the subway.

 The way that the US some state governments try to motivate people to buy a hybrid car is that they give you two- or three-thousand dollars in a tax rebate when you buy a hybrid. You can then use those two- or three-thousand dollars to go to Hawaii and emit more carbon than [you would save in the life of driving that hybrid]. So the government has no way of influencing behavior patterns after the first transaction.

The carbon currency works only in carbon-producing activities. So you create and economy that favors that activity. That’s an example of a complementary currency that actually encourages smart growth.

TRACY: What do you think individuals can do, here in the US, as we’re headed toward an unprecedented crisis?

BERNARD: If you’re a business manager, start a B2B currency. There are models available. We’re not talking theory: It’s been done before, and in Europe, we’re in the process of doing it again.

If you are a mayor, or a state governor, obtain the permission to accept such B2B currencies in payment of local taxes. You can choose the criteria that makes that currency acceptable for partial payment in taxes. This will provide the most powerful incentive for other businesses to accept that currency, and it will provide you with city and state income that you otherwise wouldn’t have.

If you’re an individual, gather your community, and create your community, to help build social capital.

In Brazil, the central bank is now helping to launch 150 dual currency banks to solve local problems, at the rhythm of 10 per month. In communities that have little money, survival is about the social capital. You can solve problems together that you can’t do alone. There are complementary currencies to achieve that as well, like Time Dollars. It doesn’t have any meaning to accumulate lots of Time Dollars, but the relationships you establish within a Time Dollars network are important. And local complementary currencies are very easy to start!

TRACY: Joanna Macy and others have talked about this moment where we’re going to have to act, to fundamentally change our economic system, or we’re going to enter a period of destruction. Is this it? Is this sink-or-swim time?

BERNARD: Yes, we’ve started, and yes, it’s sink-or-swim time. It’s time to do things differently—structurally differently. The faster we shift, the less suffering we will engender. Time is of the essence.

If I want to be cynical about it, I would guess the federal government will start making structural changes in about five years. What they’ll do is try the classic solutions, which we’ve already talked about, and then they’ll find out that those solutions will not work. I think that process will take three to five years.

The same thing happened to Japan, when it hit an economic crisis like this one. They tried the classical solutions, and after five years, they stopped believing the economic downturn was a cyclical thing, that it was like all the other ones. That’s when they started implementing these structural kind of solutions, which is why Japan is a full-scale laboratory of complementary currencies. However, Japan still haven’t gone to scale yet. They’re still experimenting. My suspicion is in the next two to three years, Japan will announce 10,000 local currencies, or a national B2B currency, and they’ll tell the world they’ve changed their development model.

In Europe, we’re trying to experiment with taking complementary currencies immediately to scale. By the end of 2010-11, we hope to have a B2B system that is available at the  Euro-zone level.

We could do the same thing in America. Basically, we need leadership. It doesn’t need to be political leadership. It could be business leadership. American business has proven it’s capable of turning on a dime. They don’t need to go to Washington to try to beg for a little more money. That won’t work, because there won’t be enough money for everybody. But American business needs save themselves. Nobody can do it for them.

The Children’s Place pays more than $2 million to the victims of Rana Plaza building collapse—the deadliest disaster in the history of the global garment industry.

Green America joined with labor allies worldwide to put pressure on Children's Place and other major brands to compensate workers and families impacted by the Rana Plaza disaster.

Business Cloud News, June 10, 2015

Notforprofit environmental advocacy group Green America is launched a campaign to try and convince Amazon to reduce its carbon footprint and catch up with other large cloud incumbents’ green credentials.

Green America said Amazon is behind other datacentre operators – including some of its large competitors like Google, Apple and Facebook – in terms of its renewable energy use and reporting practices.

“Every day, tens of millions of consumers are watching movies, reading news articles, and posting to social media sites that all use Amazon Web Services.  What they don’t realize is that by using Amazon Web Services they are contributing to climate change,” said Green america’s campaigns director Elizabeth O’Connell.

“Amazon needs to take action now to increase its use of renewables to 100 percent by 2020, so that consumers won’t have to choose between using the internet and protecting the planet,” O’Connell said.

Executive co-director Todd Larsen also commented on Amazon’s green cred: “Amazon lags behind its competitors, such as Google and Microsoft, in using renewable energy for its cloud-based computer servers.  Unlike most of its competitors, it also fails to publish a corporate responsibility or sustainability reporting, and it fails to disclose its emissions and impacts to the Carbon Disclosure Project.”

Amazon has recently taken strides towards making its datacentres greener. In November last year the company committed to using 100 per cent renewable energy for its global infrastructure, bowing to pressure from organisations like Greenpeace which have previously criticised the company’s reporting practices around its carbon footprint. But organisations like Green America still believe the company is way off the mark on its commitment.

Green America’s campaign is calling on Amazon to commit to full use of renewables for its datacentres by 2020; submit accurate and complete data to the Carbon Disclosure Project; and issue and annual sustainability report.

An Amazon spokesperson told BCN that the company and its customers are already showing environmental leadership by adopting cloud services in the first place.

“AWS customers have already shown environmental leadership by moving to cloud computing, which is inherently more environmentally friendly than traditional computing. Any analysis on the climate impact of a datacentre should take into consideration resource utilization and energy efficiency, in addition to power mix,” the spokesperson said.

“On average, AWS customers use 77 per cent fewer servers, 84 per cent less power, and utilize a 28 per cent cleaner power mix, for a total reduction in carbon emissions of 88 per cent from using the AWS Cloud instead of operating their own datacentres. We believe that our focus on resource utilization and energy efficiency, combined with our increasing use of renewable energy, will help our customers achieve their carbon reduction and sustainability goals. We will continue to provide updates of our progress on our AWS & Sustainable Energy page,” she added.

Yesterday, we shared the wonderful news that Hellmann’s now offers a non-GMO food option: mayonnaise made with olive oil. Hellmann’s is not only one of the top mayonnaise brands, but it is also part of a much larger company, Unilever. As a company with huge purchasing power, it has the opportunity to increase sustainability along the supply chain for its ingredients. We are so glad to see the company making initial strides towards a more sustainable food system.

While its non-GMO announcement is huge and we celebrate it, Hellmann’s can build on it by addressing the following concerns GMO Insiders  raised last year:

1. Non-GMO Chicken Feed: Hellmann’s non-GMO sourcing statement on its website does not include animal feed as part of its definition for non-GMO. Animal feed is the largest market for GE corn and soy, with nearly 50% of GE corn going to livestock consumption. GE crops are extremely resource intensive and demand high inputs of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and water. It is important that when a company addresses the issue of GMOs, it also considers what the animals eat. Therefore, in order to truly impact the GMO supply chain, animal feed must be addressed; otherwise, any non-GMO transition is more beneficial for marketing purposes than improving the sustainability of our food system. It is essential that large companies lead in this transition as they have the power to make contractual commitments that help farmers transition away from GMOs.

2. Third-Party Verification: As of now, Hellmann’s is not getting its non-GMO claim verified by an independent third party, such as the Non-GMO Project. Customers look for third-party verification which tests for the presence of GMOs, and will continue to call for the company to take this important step. By getting verified, Hellmann’s will also address the issue of eggs from chickens fed GMO grain. The Non-GMO Project’s standards do not allow a product to be certified if ingredients are sourced from animals fed GMOs. Always be on the lookout for GMO labeling when grocery shopping—transparency from our food sources is always a good sign.

3. Pasture-Raised Organic Eggs: Hellmann’s committed to using cage-free eggs in its products, with a portion of their eggs currently cage-free and a mission to use 100 percent cage-free eggs by 2020. To qualify as “cage-free”, the birds must be kept uncaged inside barns–but may still be kept indoors at all times. This means there can still be thousands of chickens in an enclosed structure—a factory farm—with little room to move around. GMO Inside encourages Hellmann’s to commit to pasture-raised organic eggs, a much stronger standard for animal welfare, one that allows the chickens to roam outdoors and forage. And, a standard that produces a healthier and better product for consumers as well.

4. Other Products: Hellmann’s has a number of products, many of which likely contain GMOs. While adding a non-GMO mayo option is a great step in the right direction, instead of simply transitioning a current product to non-GMO, it created a new line (or brand) of mayonnaise. This means that the majority of people who purchase Hellmann’s will still be eating GMOs. It also limits the positive impact on the supply chain that this change will have. GMO Inside hopes to see a long-term commitment to fully transition the Hellmann’s product line to non-GMO and third party verification.

5. GMO Labeling: While Unilever no longer gives money directly to fight state GMO labeling initiatives, it is still a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). Since those dues may be used to fight consumers’ right to know, we urge Unilever to make a public statement asking the GMA to stop funding these campaigns.

Unilever’s Hellmann’s certainly raised the bar for its big mayo competitors by offering a new non-GMO product. We ask the company to keep moving forward and address the concerns listed above. Eaters are asking for products that are non-GMO, organic, and have real animal welfare standards in place. They will choose other products that meet their standards (or make their own) if their childhood favorite—Hellmann’s—does not quite cut it. Hellmann’s, please bring out the best mayo.

In a huge first step for the company, Hellmann’s just announced it is releasing non-GMO mayonnaise dressing made with olive oil.

Green America's GMO Inside Campaign mobilized tens of thousands of consumers to urge Hellman's to go non-GMO.

National Geographic builds on its commitment to use recycled paper (May 2015)

https://www.greenamerica.org/about/newsroom/releases/2014-07-17-Tipping…

In a major step forward for the use of recycled paper in the magazine industry, the National Geographic Society (NGS) has begun incorporating recycled fiber in all the pages of National Geographic Magazine, National Geographic Kids, and National Geographic Little Kids. The shift clearly demonstrates the viability of using recycled paper for high quality photographic reproduction. This expanded use of recycled paper comes as a result of close collaboration with Green America and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

If you haven’t yet heard, here is some exciting news—and just in time for lunch. Chipotle announced that it is removing all of the genetically engineered ingredients from its menu, now serving only non GMO foods. In the New York Times, Steve Ells, founder and co-chief executive of Chipotle, put it quite nicely, “just because food is served fast doesn't mean it has to be made with cheap raw ingredients, highly processed with preservatives, and filler and stabilizers and artificial colors and flavors.” Since the company uses mainly whole ingredients that do not have a GE variety, the two main ingredients it has to remove are corn and soy. Mainly, corn and soy were both found in Chipotle tortillas, corn (obviously) and hidden soy ingredients in the shortening inside the flour tortillas. Chipotle also had to deal with the challenge of using a new type of oil, which can affect the flavor cooked ingredients like rice and fajita veggies.

Why did they go through all the trouble of making this transition?

Three simple reasons:

1)      Scientists are still studying the long-term implications of GMOs

2)      The cultivation of GMOs can damage the environment

3)      Chipotle should be a place where people can eat food made without GMO ingredients

Short, sweet, and straight to the point. GMOs simply don’t fit within Chipotle’s corporate vision. And we think that is great. Chipotle is a company that has developed a set of ideals and is doing what it can to make sure its practices are in line with those ideals.

GMO Inside could not agree more with Chipotle’s reasoning for making this transition. It is clear that there is no consensus within the scientific community of the safety of GMOs, and we are only now starting to even scratch the surface of what the long-term health implications are. The World Health Organizations classification of Glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, which opens up a whole new can of worms and is broadening the discussion on whether or not Monsanto’s products are really as safe as the company lead on.

GMOs have been in cultivation for the last 20 years and it is clear that they are not all that they are cracked up to be, and the environment is paying the cost. Herbicide resistant super weeds are becoming a major issue as biotech companies try to tackle these with much stronger and more dangerous herbicides. The overuse of these herbicides and the monocrop farming methods associate with GMOs has led to deterioration of our soil. Loss of soil health has major implications for crop nutrition (and therefore human nutrition), food security, as well as the soils ability to act as a carbon sinkk, and relieve some of the pressures of climate change. All in all, GMOs are causing harm to our environment.

People want food that is free of GE ingredients. And they should have opportunities to eat out and have the option not to eat GMOs. Chipotle is a business and it already has a strong customer base who for years have been demanding a better food system and support Chipotle’s efforts to be a part of creating one. Chipotle is simply meeting the demand of its customer base. It is leading the way and giving consumers what they have been demanding since CA Prop 37 failed, a more transparent and sustainable food system

Chipotle’s announcement that it is removing genetically engineered ingredients is an important step in building a better food system. Consumers are increasingly concerned about the impacts of GMOs on the environment and human health. Chipotle has shown that it is possible for a large “fast food” chain adopt a more sustainable food supply. It is time that all food companies follow suit and move beyond genetically engineered ingredients and towards a more sustainable food system that benefits people and the planet.

To learn more about Chipotle’s transition away from GE ingredients and how this effects its ingredients check out the company’s FAQ page here.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – February 23, 2015 – In response to tens of thousands of Facebook posts, emails, and telephone calls from consumers who took part in GMO Inside’s campaign calling on Hershey’s to move to non-GMO ingredients, the U.S. chocolate giant released a statement last week (http://www.thehersheycompany.com/newsroom/news-release.aspx?id=2017846 and http://www.thehersheycompany.com/nutrition-and-wellbeing/q-and-a.aspx) that it “will feature a lineup of simple ingredients, and transition some of its most popular chocolate brands, including Hershey’s Kisses Milk Chocolates and Hershey’s Milk Chocolate Bars to simpler ingredients.”

Today, Hershey’s confirmed that as part of its commitment to simpler ingredients, its two iconic products will be non-GMO by the end of the year.

Green America Food Campaigns Director Nicole McCann stated: “We congratulate Hershey’s on this important move and great first step. As one of the leading chocolate companies in the U.S., this commitment will help move the rest of the companies in this sector. Hershey’s joins General Mills, Unilever, Post Foods, and other leading companies in responding to consumer demand to make at least some of its products non-GMO.”

Two years ago, in February 2013, GMO Inside began calling on consumers to put pressure on Hershey’s (as well Mars) to make its products without GMOs due to concerns over the environmental and health impacts of GMOs (http://gmoinside.org/hershey-mars/). In response, thousands of consumers emailed the company urging it to remove GMOs.

In December 2014, when Hershey’s announced it was exploring transitioning away from high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), GMO Inside mobilized consumers to call the company to urge it not to use any other form of GMO sugar, such as from GMO sugar beets (http://greenam.org/1Bfmbre); and then again in February 2015 called on consumers to post on the company’s Facebook page on Valentine’s Day (http://gmoinside.org/hersheys-show-us-love-organic-sugar/).

“Hershey’s needs to take the next step and go non-GMO with all of its chocolates, and get third-party verification for non-GMO ingredients. This includes sourcing milk from cows not fed GMOs and agreeing to prohibit any synthetic biology ingredients, starting with vanilla,” stated John Roulac, co-chair of GMO Inside. “Consumers are increasingly looking for non-GMO products and verification, and Hershey’s and its competitors would be wise to offer third-party verified non-GMO products to consumers.”

ABOUT GMO INSIDE

GMO Inside is a campaign dedicated to helping all Americans know which foods have GMOs inside; and removing GMOs and toxins from our food supply. We believe that everyone has a right to know what’s in their food and to choose foods that are proven safe for people, their families, and the environment. GMO Inside provides the information for a growing community of people from all walks of life, to make informed decisions around genetically engineered foods. Join the campaign at www.gmoinside.org, and take part in the GMO Inside community on Facebook and Twitter.

ABOUT GREEN AMERICA

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses, investors, and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems (http://www.greenamerica.org).

MEDIA CONTACT:  Will Harwood, (703) 276-3255 or wharwood@hastingsgroup.com.

Hershey announced that as part of achieving “simpler ingredients” it will be switching to non-GMO sugar, removing artificial flavors (vanillin), and sourcing milk from cows not treated with the growth hormone rBST in its iconic Milk Chocolate Bar and Kisses by the end of 2015.

Green America's GMO Inside campaign mobilized tens of thousands of consumers to urge Hershey to go non-GMO.

Originally published on Mamavation
by Gina Badalaty

Valentine’s Day often means a box of candy from your sweetie, but just what are you getting in that candy? That annual indulgence could cost you a lot more than you bargained for. Unhealthy chocolate brands are full of more than just sugar. Following our exposes on toxic ingredients in children’s cereal and what’s in your peanut butter, this week we take a look at some of the unwanted ingredients hiding in your favorite chocolate candies and show you some better options.

These are the ingredients we found in traditional, brand name chocolates that you might want to avoid:

• High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and Corn Syrup Solids:
  These are GMO sweeteners created from corn. The amount of sugar in the standard American diet is disproportionately high, putting many at risk of diabetes and heart disease and have even been linked to cancer and dementia. According to Dr. Mark Hyman, HFCS poses those risks even if you eat moderate levels of it. Although hotly debated, he contends that our bodies process HFCS differently than cane sugar, allowing fructose to be more rapidly absorbed into the blood stream. It then travels to the liver triggering functions that increase your appetite, and increasing your chances of weight gain, diabetes, cancer and dementia.
• Soy Lecithin:
  Derived from GMO soy most of the time, this additive is extracted using hexane, which is removed but particles may be left behind. Hexane is a neurotoxin and carcinogen and since this removal is unregulated by the FDA you may want to consider avoiding it – especially when you add in the fact of GMOs and residual pesticides present in soy.
• Artificial Colors:
  Artificial colors have been linked to ADHD and hyperactivity, as well as allergies. Certain dyes including Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 contain benzidine, which is a carcinogen that the FDA approves for use at very low levels. We recommend avoiding them.
• Artificial Flavors:
  According to EWG, when generic “artificial flavor” is listed as an ingredient, you cannot be sure what the manufacturer used to create the flavor nor how many ingredients are inside. That makes this a wild card ingredient which may not be suitable for those with allergies or food sensitivities.
• PGPR:
  Used to decrease the use of pricier cocoa butter, this ingredient is made from castor beans. That’s right, they have replaced your chocolate with something else! It is used as an emulsifier so it’s possible this is what brands are referring to when they label “emulsifier” as an ingredient without clarifying which one. Companies have added it to reduce costs since 2006 so long term effects are still to be seen. The need for more research on this additive has been debated since some claim it has had harmful effects on lab animals, but I did not see links to those studies. Use your own judgment with this additive.
• Partially Hydrogenated Oils:
  These likely contain trans fats because that is the easiest way to process this additive. According to the Mayo Clinic, trans fats can raise your “bad” cholesterol (LDL) and lower your “good” cholesterol (HDL), putting your health at risk. This is possible even for palm oils, although it does have less unsaturated fat available to be converted into trans fat.
• TBHQ:
  The FDA has labeled this preservative as safe up to the legal limit of 0.02% of all the total oils in a product. According to Livestrong.com, 1 gram can make you sick while 5 grams is lethal, so you should be safe, depending on your diet. However, it’s obviously not a healthy choice, even if it’s only mildly toxic.
• Vanillin:
  This is imitation vanilla. There seems to be some debate on whether or not it is toxic, depending on whom you talk to. It can be made from guaiacol, which is a precursor to petrochemicals; in other words, a product from oil.
• Potassium Sorbate:
  This additive is safe for most people, but according to WebMD.com it can cause stomach upset, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, intestinal gas, and other side effects. They further state that it is unsafe to have too much potassium while pregnant or breast feeding, or if you have disorders of the digestive tract.
• Carrageenan:
  Labeled “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the FDA, this item has received so much flack in the last year, that many companies are voluntarily removing it from products such as coconut milk. Is it actually safe? There’s much debate and controversy on that. Wellness Mama has written an excellent article with sources covering carrageenan controversy however; it can irritate those who have food sensitivities.
• Sorbitol:
  According to Food Facts, too much of this ingredient – about 10 grams in a day – can lead to Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). It is safe to eat, but you need to watch how much you consume.

On their own, these unhealthy chocolate facts may not seem like much unless you or your child is sensitive to certain foods or additives, or have digestive issue. However, they can add up. If you are not carefully monitoring what your child is eating, she can easily over indulgence. Note that all of these brands contain GMOs. What candies contain these ingredients?

Popular Unhealthy Chocolate Brands to Avoid

FOR KIDS

Mars M&Ms

This candy greets Valentine’s Day in shades of red, pink and white, so naturally it contains artificial color, in the form of at least Red 40. It also has artificial flavor and soy lecithin, as well as corn syrup and cornstarch.

Hershey’s Kisses

What kid doesn’t immediately think of Hershey’s Kisses on Valentine’s Day? The plain milk chocolate version of these contains soy lecithin, which naturally means GMOs, and artificial flavors. Nowadays, Kisses come in a long variety of flavors and also include corn syrup solids, high fructose corn syrup and PGPR.

REESE’S Peanut Butter Cups

There’s always one loved one who can’t eat the chocolate without peanut butter. This iconic candy has long been an American staple, but in addition to soy lecithin and PGPR, it also contains the preservative TBHQ. Maybe it’s time to find a new tradition.

FOR MOM

While many of the above brands may be what your kids want for Valentine’s Day, you may want something a little more grown up, like a box of chocolates. Let’s take a look at some of the more adult brands of Valentine’s Chocolate.

Russell Stover Milk Chocolate Truffles

I loved these growing up so I was disappointed to see they contain soy lecithin, vanillin, corn syrup and potassium sorbate.

Russell Stover Milk Chocolate Almond Clusters

Ingredients include soy lecithin, GMOs, an unnamed emulsifier (possibly PGPR?) and vanillin.

Whitman’s Sampler

This popular box of chocolates contains a description so you know what “flavor” you are getting, but on their website, the ingredients are more of a mystery. Food Facts had reported a list of “warning” ingredients that looked outdated so I checked them against my local supermarket’s list of Sampler ingredients, which matched a more updated version. This brand still has a lot of questionable ingredients: soy lecithin, vanillin, corn syrup, sorbitol and partially hydrogenated palm kernel oil.

Lindt HELLO Heart

These were not the worst offenders in the bunch, but they do contain some choices that you might not want to indulge in. HELLO Hearts contain glucose fructose syrup, the name for high fructose corn syrup in Europe – and that means GMOs here in the States. (Lindt is based in Switzerland.) They also contain caramelized sugar.

Sees Candies Nuts & Chews

This popular brand of Sees boxed chocolates also contains ingredients you might want to avoid. Ingredients include corn syrup, Red 40, artificial flavors, soy lecithin and vanillin.

Godiva

Who doesn’t think of a better quality chocolate when you think of Godiva? They certainly cost more, so the ingredients must be cleaner, right? Turns out, not so much. Ingredients include soy lecithin, corn syrup, vanillin, partially hydrogenated palm kernel oil, dipotassium phosphate, carrageenan and artificial dyes.

Where Are The Ingredients?

The most surprising part of this research was how few websites listed ingredients. It was a challenge to find ingredients for more than a handful of products at each of these brands except for M&M and Hershey. In fact, for the Hershey’s ingredients, I had to use a different website than the main product site to get the listing of what’s in a Hershey’s Kiss. I don’t know why chocolate manufacturers are not more forthcoming with their ingredients. Is it because there contain more controversial ingredients than I listed above, or other harmful ingredients that they don’t want to reveal? I also wondered why they did chose to list the ingredients for the 2 or 3 products that I found.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while there are less questionable ingredients in the traditional milk chocolate versions of these candies (like Hershey’s Kisses), flavor varieties will include a host of other additives. A chocolate covered cherry may contain Red 40, for example. In addition, you may find more PGPR than cocoa butter in dark chocolate varieties. Always read the package before buying any of these candies if you are concerned about eating clean and avoiding harmful ingredients.

Nontoxic Chocolate Brands You Should Buy

All of these candies can be replaced by healthier, wiser choices – without PGPR standing in for real cocoa butter! If you want to really show someone you love them, why not give them quality organic chocolate for Valentine’s Day? Here are replacement options, creative Valentine’s selections and high quality bars that are organic and make for a better chocolate candy gift choice.

Truffles:

Alter Eco Truffles are USDA Organic, Non-GMO Project Verified and Certified Gluten Free. They contain no artificial flavors, soy or emulsifiers and are made with pure coconut oil. In addition, they are Fair Trade Certified and come in a compostable wrapper!

Box of Hearts:

Available at The Natural Candy Store, Sjaak’s makes a heart shaped box filled with vegan milk chocolate. All ingredients are certified USDA Organic, are gluten free (and made in a wheat-free facility) and do not contain any corn or corn derivatives.

Nut & Chews:

Sjaak’s also make a Nut & Chews Valentine’s Box, available at the Natural Candy Store.

Peanut Butter Cups:

No need to buy Reese’s! Unreal Candy has you covered, with 5 kinds of Non GMO nut butter cups – even Milk Chocolate Crispy Quinoa Peanut Butter. They are also gluten free and Fair Trade Certified and available in your local markets. (Better yet, they are coming out with a Unreal Candy Coating Milk Chocolates – with and without peanuts – that will be corn and soy free, and colored with natural ingredients like red cabbage juice and turmeric extract so you can ditch the M&Ms.)

Other great nut butter cups include Justin’s Nut Butter Cups with a variety of flavors and Sun Cups for those with nut and gluten allergies,. Both are Non-GMO Project Verified and certified organic. If you want to give a Valentine themed version, check out Theo Chocolate for heart shaped peanut butter cups.

Valentine’s Sets:

Theo Chocolate also has a line of bars just for Valentine’s Day – My Cherry Baby Milk Chocolate and Cinnamon Love Crunch Dark Chocolate, or you can splurge for a box of caramels. Can’t decide? Combine both with their Casanova Kiss Gift Set, which has all three. Theo Chocolate is organically certified through QAI, Project Non-GMO Verified and Fair Trade Certified.

Loose Chocolate Hearts:

If you like chocolate hearts, Equal Exchange Dark Chocolate Hearts are certified organic and Fair Trade. They are also gluten free, vegan, corn-free and Kosher, and you can buy them in bulk.

Chocolate Bars Brands

Let’s face it, some of us just flat out love getting a great big bar of chocolate! With these products, you can feel safe that your bar is organic and delicious. The only problem? You might be asked to share…

Chocolove:

Not all of their products are organic, but the ones that are feature unique flavors. Check out Cherries & Almonds Dark Chocolate, Almonds & Sea Salt Dark Chocolate, Orange Peel Dark Chocolate or Toffee & Almond in Milk Chocolate, all available at Thrive Market.

Salazon:

This is another great brand that is certified 100% organic, gluten free, Kosher and mostly vegan. Using cocoa beans that are Rainbow Alliance certified, Salazon chocolate bars are also Fair Trade Certified. This product is also available at Thrive Market.

Green & Black’s:

USDA certified organic and Fair Trade certified, these delicious candies are a must for the chocolate bar lover. Their Milk and Dark Chocolate bars make a great gift for that special chocolate lover in your life.

It’s up to you to decide: do you want to give your loved ones boring chocolate full of GMOs and questionable ingredients this holiday? No way! Instead, show them how much you care with an amazing gift of organic chocolate made with real cacao and full of safe, clean ingredients.

Activists honored the Raise the Bar Hershey Campaign with the Activists Choice BENNY Award, celebrating the work of Green America’s coalitional efforts with allies to push Hershey into addressing child labor in its supply chain. The BENNY Award recognizes Green America's efforts with Global Exchange and the International Labor Rights Forum. This powerful work brought together thousands of concerned individuals, students, teachers, faith groups, investors, and socially responsible businesses to pressure Hershey to trace its supply chain and verify its cocoa would not be grown with child labor. In response, Hershey adopted a 2020 deadline and is on schedule to meet this goal.  Green America, Global Exchange and the International Labor Rights Forum led efforts to take on Hershey, which at the time was the only big chocolate company left with zero commitments to a child labor-free supply chain.  Support groups for the Raise the Bar Hershey campaign included U. Roberto Romano’s groundbreaking film The Dark Side of Chocolate, along with dozens of student  and religious groups. Businesses were critical too: companies like Whole Foods and dozens of food co-ops— including many Green Business Network (GBN) members — dropped Hershey products from their stores. The Business Ethics Network (BENNY) Awards are sponsored by Corporate Ethics International. Celebrating ten years, the BENNY Awards recognize outstanding individual and organizational achievement for campaigns to make corporations more socially and environmentally responsible. Raise the Bar Hershey won by popular vote. GBN Member Green Century also won a BENNY for outstanding achievement in advocating for better corporate behavior. Filmmaker and tireless activist Romano tragically passed away in 2013 from complications related to Lyme disease. He documented child labor globally in countries including Brazil, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nepal, Pakistan, Mexico, the Ivory Coast and the United States. The coalition accepted the award in his honor, calling Romano, “one of our most important allies—and one of the most fierce advocates for children the world has ever seen.” Fellow activist Len Morris wrote that Romano’s, “courage was tested in dozens of the world’s poorest places, where government officials, even NGOs, rarely venture. He’d wear a hidden camera to film girls being trafficked, with the full knowledge that discovery meant death.” Romano’s work remains online, leaving a legacy of advocacy for the world’s most vulnerable.

Imagine the farm where the veggies you buy grow: sun, water, a plow. But if you think you need all of this to grow food at a large scale, LED power says: think again.

Using LED bulbs developed by GE, 40 percent less power, 80 percent less food waste and 99 percent less water usage, Shigeharu Shimamura turned a former Sony semiconductor factory in Japan’s Miyagi Prefecture into the planet’s biggest interior hydroponic farm. It’s the world’s largest indoor farm and it’s 100 times more productive than outdoor conventional methods.

Watch this video to experience the LED-powered indoor farm:

Hydroponics has grown in popularity recently as climate change poses new challenges to traditional outdoor growing methods, and waste valuable resources. Shimamura’s energy and space saving ideas, though, have taken hydroponics to a new level.

So, how do they do it?

About 17,500 LED lights over across 18 cultivation racks, each standing 16 levels tall, are used in conjunction with tightly regulated temperature and humidity levels within this productive grow room.

Just 25,000 of square feet produces 10,000 heads of lettuce per day. The cycles of days and nights have been shortened, growing food faster, utilizing a core-less lettuce variant to reduce waste, and maintaining water so it’s not lost to soil. But with a half automated/half manual function method of growing and harvesting, this artificial environment produces some very real results.

This big idea grew out of the rubble of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami that shook Japan, leaving food shortages in its wake and radiation contamination from the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster. The hydroponic farm helped repurpose a building left abandoned in the aftermath, and feed communities with fresh greens that had could no longer grow.

According to weburbanist.com Shimamura got the production idea as a teenager, when he visited a ‘vegetable factory’ at the Expo ’85 world’s fair in Tsukuba, Japan. He was inspired to study plant physiology at the prestigious Tokyo University of Agriculture, and started an indoor farming company in 2004 called Mirai—meaning future.

Shimamura believes that technology will make it possible to produce almost any kind of plant in a factory setting, including medicinal plants

What’s amazing about this type of expansion and refinement are the opportunities that lie ahead in thinking about climate-controlled areas, or localities with food shortages. Indoor vertical farms could be the answer to a more sustainable, cost-efficient, space-saving farming technique.

What’s the freshest news about these greens?

Shimamura’s indoor farming company, Mirai, is working with GE to set up new facilities using the same technologies in Hong Kong, with Mongolia, Russia and mainland China, focusing on jam-packed areas with geographical limitations to fresh foods.

These methods are popping up in the U.S., like in Chicago with Green Sense Farms. And given the efficiency seen so far in Japan, we could be looking at the next big green opportunity.

The Keystone XL Pipeline, which would carry roughly 830,000 barrels of tar sands crude oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast in the US, has been one of the most polarizing issues in American politics over the past few years. Environmentalists recognize that the pipeline will do little more than encourage continued tar sands extraction, one of the most carbon-intensive oil production methods on the planet. Supporters of heavy industry see the pipeline as a crucial piece of infrastructure that will create a more robust economy including jobs and increased energy security (although the Keystone would produce very few permanent jobs). President Obama has stated that the future of the pipeline project depends on whether or not it will contribute further to climate change.

Protestors oppose the Keystone Pipeline at a Rally in Washington, DC[/caption] This week, the EPA weighed in on the State Department’s environmental impact statement, using authority granted by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The letter sent to the State Department from the EPA outlines their findings that the pipeline would indeed contribute to climate change. The production, transport, and refining processes, and the burning of the final product would result in an additional 1.3 -27.4 million metric tons of CO2 each year. On the high end, that’s equivalent to the GHG emissions from 5.7 million passenger vehicles or 7.8 coal-fired power plants. With oil prices currently lower than most economists expected, construction of the pipeline would make it cheaper to transport tar sands oil than the current method of shipping it by rail, and would most likely result in increased tar sands production. Although Congress has voted many times in attempt to pass the pipeline without presidential authority, the project remains to be approved. The President has vowed to veto any attempt to force the pipeline into construction before environmental assessments were turned in and considered. The EPA’s comments all but confirm that the pipeline will contribute to climate change, in the face of massive skepticism and denial from supporters of the project. The letter may give the president the confidence he needs to stand up to fossil fuel interests and knock down further attempts at its passage. To learn more about the effort to block the construction of the pipeline, click here, here, and here. You can also take action with Green America, urging President Obama to veto the pipeline.

With the failure of the Federal Government to pass any legislation mandating the labeling of GMOs, and the uphill battle states are fighting to establish a right to know, consumers are looking for alternative options that allow them to choose whether or not the food they are eating contains GMOs. Consumers have two main options for avoiding GMOs at the grocery store including Non-GMO Project Verified and USDA Certified Organic. Market research from the Hartman Group, as well as questions we get regularly at GMO Inside, demonstrate that there is confusion about what each of these labels mean, as well as the validity of each.  Many consumers wonder if organic products can contain GMOs, or if non-GMO means less pesticides in their foods.

In 2001, the FDA, unwilling to set standards for the labeling of GMOs, issued draft voluntary labeling guidelines that allow companies to label products non-GMO or GMO if they choose. Unsurprisingly, no one has voluntarily labeled products that contain GMOs. The only requirement for these labels is that they should not be misleading. If a manufacturer chooses to label their products GMO-free there is no system of checks and balances to confirm the validity of this statement. By contrast, products containing the Non-GMO Project Verified symbol have been verified by the Non-GMO Project, a third-party nonprofit that tests for the presence of GMOs. Products that are USDA certified organic cannot contain GMOs and are regulated by the USDA.

Consumer Reports recently released a study comparing the validity of the labels  and offered insights into which labels tested true. The study found that the Non-GMO Project Verified and USDA organic labels are the most trustworthy. The products met the .9% threshold held by each of these standards (meaning that no more than .9% of the product contains GMOs). Both of these labels provide a guarantee that the product is non-GMO. Consumer Reports did give slightly more standing to the Non-GMO Project Verified label, as the standard requires testing of all ingredients included in a product whereas organic uses process inspection to document the lack of GMOs rather than verification testing. Organic-certified farmers have to document that they are not using GMO seed for their farm to meet Organic standards, but it is possible that GMO seed can drift into their fields from nearby conventional fields.  Additionally, Consumer Reports tested products that were self-labeled by the manufacturer as non-GMO and not verified by a third party which also tested GMO-free and met the .9% threshold. However, transparency is key, and it is possible that as more companies self-declare that their products are GMO free that errors will creep in, so look for third-party verification.

Both organic and Non-GMO Project Verified labels are great ways to avoid GMOs and provide transparency for consumers about what’s in their food and how it was produced. Overall, GE crops have encouraged systematic changes in our food and agricultural systems. Industrialization and consolidation of agriculture has led to increased herbicide use (with a huge increase in glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp), dependence on synthetic fertilizers, and monocropping, just to name a few. GE crops have also had a major impact on the formulation and prevalence of processed foods, drastically impacting the American diet. With overall changes to industrialized agriculture many of the environmental impacts of GE crops have expanded to impact non-GE farming as more farmers have become dependent on pesticides, fertilizers, and seeds provided by only a few companies.

Here are the key differences between the USDA Certified Organic and Non-GMO Project Verified labels:

Boston Organics[/caption]

To summarize, the Non-GMO Project is “designed to honor the National Organic Program’s excellent guidelines for traceability and segregation and build off of the work that certified organic companies are already doing.” The Non-GMO Project seal serves as a rigorous standard of verification for the presence of GE DNA and they see themselves as something that can be done in addition to organics, which provide the healthiest option for food. USDA organic standards incorporate policies for maintaining soil fertility and crop nutrient levels, limiting pesticide and fertilizer usage (prohibiting most synthetic chemicals), and preventing overall negative impacts on surrounding environments. We are seeing a trend where products are opting to have both Non-GMO Project Verified and USDA organic labels to ensure the highest food safety and lowest environmental impacts.

To create a truly healthy food system in the US, we need to shift our crops away from genetically engineered seeds and toxic pesticides and herbicides.  We need to move to organic farming.  It is important that when we fight against GMOs we look at the big picture. Removing GE crops alone will not be the sole solution; it will not undo the changes in our current agricultural system. In order to combat the long lasting environmental impacts of intensified agriculture we need to do things differently, we need to farm in a way that preserves soil health, removes toxins, and preserves that health of farm workers, farmers and consumers. Non-GMO Project Verified is a great step on the path toward organic and moving away from GMOs and intensified agriculture, something that we certainly need. Ultimately we are going to need to do more. Organic, regenerative agriculture is the goal to achieve a just and sustainable food system for human and environmental health.

Around the world, several countries support a consumer's right to know by requiring some sort of labeling for genetically modified foods.

The European Union led the way in 1998, with countries steadily following suit (though laws vary widely worldwide) since then.

The US and Canada do not require labeling of genetically modified foods.

1998: Europe

European Union countries beoame the first to embrace labeling for genetically modified food. Companies must label all other food products and animal feed made with more than .9% of ingredients derived by genetically modified processes (including additives and flavorings). Current laws don’t cover genetically modified animals used as food (not yet on the market in Europe), though the European Food Safety Authority is currently working on proposed future guidelines.

2001: Japan, Australia, New Zealand

Australia and New Zealand’s laws target a slightly higher threshold than Europe and Russia (1%), while Japan’s laws allow a much higher GM threshold of 5%. Also, Japan’s laws aren’t comprehensive, but rather target a legally specified list of food items and ingredients known to sometimes contain GM content. New introductions would need to be added to the list.

2002: China, Saudi Arabia, South Korea

Initially, China’s labeling law resembled Japan’s, requiring labeling of only certain known categories of genetically modified products derived from corn, cotton, rapeseed, soybeans, and tomatoes. In 2007, this law was expanded to stipulate that all GM foods must be labeled (no minimum threshold stipulated). Saudi Arabia, which relies heavily on food imports, follows the 1% threshold, maintains a legally specified list of food items, and exempts restaurants from labeling. South Korea adopted a 3% threshold, and only for products containing GM soybean, corn or soybean sprout.

2003: Thailand, Indonesia

Thailand’s labeling law requires that a food product that lists a GM ingredient as one of the top three ingredients must be labeled, and then only if the GM content accounts for more than 5% of the total product by weight. Indonesia’s labeling law also follows the 5% rule, without the “top-three” stipulation. Animal feed is exempted in both countries.

2004: Brazil, Venezuela

All human and animal feed containing more than 1% GM ingredients must be labeled.

2005: Taiwan

After a three-part phase-in, Taiwan institutes a 5% threshold labeling law for products containing soy or corn.

2006: Russia, India, Chile

Russia’s laws on GM food mirror those of the European Union, including the .9% threshold for food products, but make an exemption in allowing GM animal feed to be sold without a label. One of the most stringent proposals for GM labeling in existence, India’s “draft rule” published in 2006 would require labeling for all “primary or processed food, food ingredients, or food additives.” Six years later, controversy around this language still prevents the draft rule from being codified into law.

2011: South Africa

South Africa introduces labeling for all GM products, using the 5% threshold.

Today, Internet retail giant Amazon announced the first steps in moving to 100% wind power for the servers that power Amazon Web Services (AWS), its hosting subsidiary. In response to activists (including tens of thousands of Green America members) calling out the company’s failure to create sustainability goals or green their energy sources, Amazon Web Services, Inc. announced a power purchasing agreement from a wind farm in Indiana. The 150-megawatt Amazon Web Services Wind Farm (Fowler Ridge) project in Benton County, Indiana has agreed to supply AWS with up to 500,000 MWh (megawatt-hours) of wind-generated electricity each year for its data centers – or enough to power 46,000 homes each year. AWS hosts all of Amazon’s online operations, as well as many popular websites including Netflix, Pinterest, and Spotify.

For years, Amazon has been in the rear in the race amongst technology giants to minimize their environmental impacts, coming in well behind Google, Apple, and Facebook in terms of greening its energy usage. Nearly half of AWS’s servers are based in the Northern Virginia region. Dominion, the region’s utility, generates electricity from a mix of 37% coal, 41% nuclear, 20% natural gas, and only 2% renewables. Greenpeace has led the efforts to push Amazon to use renewable energy for its servers by publishing several reports highlighting the company’s lack of environmental and sustainability efforts. Senior Climate and Energy Campaigner David Pomerantz greeted today’s announcement by stating, “As it invests in renewable energy, Amazon can give its customers greater confidence in its new green ambition by publishing information about its energy footprint, as Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook have done. Increased transparency will allow AWS customers to know where they and AWS stand on their journey to 100% renewable energy.” Amazon’s announcement today is a step forward, but the company still has far to go. For one thing, it is not yet clear to what extent Amazon’s current and planned servers will be powered by wind. In the fall of 2014 Amazon Web Services committed to a billion dollar investment in a new data center somewhere in Central Ohio – in proximity to one of the largest coal-producing regions in the US, and where 70% of the electricity in the state is produced by coal. AWS has declined to comment on details of the proposed project, and while it is possible that this new data center will be powered by wind from Indiana, there has been no indication that the site to the company’s renewable energy initiatives. Creating a greener energy footprint involves far more than simply purchasing power from one windfarm. A successful path towards greening operations includes measures to maximize energy efficiency, a strong commitment to long-term renewable energy generation, a departure from the renewable energy credits offered by utilities, increased investment in renewable technologies, and advocacy for policies that support renewables. As of now, Amazon is not disclosing any information regarding the path towards becoming a more sustainable company with clean energy production. That is why Green America is continuing to push Amazon to be more transparent about a wide range of sustainability measures, including energy usage. Amazon recently hired a sustainability director and publicly committed to switching to 100% renewable energy. However, the company is still not reporting energy usage data to the Carbon Disclosure Project and has offered no view into their plan towards reduced environmental impacts. Their recently announced deal in Indiana is welcomed and recognized as a step forward, but there is still much more to be done.

I just read an important editorial by New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow, in which he dissects a January survey from the Pew Research Center, showing how it explodes the myth of the so-called “welfare queens,” a term popularized by President Ronald Reagan to describe people, usually women, who gamed the welfare system to receive undeserved government benefits.

The survey found that this view hasn’t changed much since the Reagan era: 54 percent of the wealthiest Americans believe “poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return.”

In his op-ed, Blow doles out statistic after statistic showing that nothing could be further from the truth.

As Blow states, “‘Easy’ is a word not easily spoken among the poor. Things are hard—the times are hard, the work is hard, the way is hard. ‘Easy’ is for uninformed explanations issued by the willfully callous and the haughtily blind.

He cites a Bureau of Labor Statistics paper stating that 11 million Americans work but don’t earn enough to lift themselves out of poverty. Compounding that, he notes, the poor end up paying more in income taxes than the rich and middle class, and they spend over 40 percent of their income on transportation. Even worse, the poor are “unbanked”—the key reason Green America campaigns for breaking up with mega-banks and moving to community development banks or credit unions.

Blow quotes the St. Louis Federal Reserve to illustrate just how serious it is to be underserved by banks and credit unions: “Unbanked consumers spend approximately 2.5 to 3 percent of a government benefits check and between 4 percent and 5 percent of a payroll check just to cash them. Additional dollars are spent to purchase money orders to pay routine monthly expenses. When you consider the cost for cashing a bi-weekly payroll check and buying about six money orders each month, a household with a net income of $20,000 may pay as much as $1,200 annually for alternative service fees—substantially more than the expense of a monthly checking account.”

It’s powerful stuff. Add to that the fact that the poor are more often victimized by predatory lending schemes and denied credit and loans for mortgages or education—as Green America illustrated in the “Break Up With Your Mega-Bank” issue of our Green American magazine—and you have a lot of struggling people trying to climb out of poverty with far too many unjust burdens holding them down.

This is why it’s so vital to break up with your mega-bank and support a community development bank or credit union, which make it a key part of their mission to provide banking services and fair and affordable loans to low- and middle-income borrowers,  in addition to the educational support they need to succeed.

Visit our website, breakupwithyourmegabank.org, to find out today how you can move your accounts and credit cards to responsible banks that lift up communities that have so much stacked against them.

1. THE RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH
More and more studies point to the idea that there’s grave cause for concern about the health effects of consuming GMOs, including food allergies, irritable bowels, organ damage, and more. But when GMOs appear so frequently in the grocery aisle, one might start to question if GMOs really are good or bad. We're here with five reasons you should avoid GMOs, for the health of people and planet. 

Today, 94 percent of the soybeans and 72 percent of the corn grown in the US are genetically engineered to be “Roundup Ready,” or able to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide or its generic form, glyphosate. While Monsanto initially marketed Roundup as being “safer than table salt,” several studies have pointed to health risks. A 2008 study in Sweden linked Roundup exposure to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A 2007 study in Ecuador found a higher degree of DNA damage in a population that had been aerially sprayed. DNA damage can ultimately lead to cancer or birth defects. A 2003 study of tadpoles exposed to Roundup in Argentina found a higher incidence of skull, eye, and tail abnormalities. Corresponding to that study, a 2009 study in Paraguay found that women exposed to Roundup during pregnancy were more likely to give birth to babies with skull and brain abnormalities.

As for the GMO crops themselves, there’s evidence that the new substances engineered into some GMO foods can mimic potent, potentially life-threatening allergens. So basically, we’re introducing new, hidden allergens into foods that will be much more difficult to pinpoint than a standard food allergy, making them deadlier than the average peanut or seafood allergy.

In addition, new research points to the possibility that GMO foods could damage the gut. Bt corn, for example, introduces a protein that pokes holes in the gut of common pests, killing them. While Big Biotech claims that humans won’t experience the same kind of damage, studies out of Cuba and Mexico have found that certain Bt crops do poke holes in the guts of mice. And Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini from the University of Caen in France re-analyzed 17 studies in 2011 and again found statistically significant occurrences of these effects, in addition to liver and kidney damage in rats.

Could this kind of damage extend to humans? Researchers say more studies are needed, but the possibility is strong enough that Green America recommends exercising precaution and avoiding GMO foods whenever possible.

2. THE RISK TO THE ENVIRONMENT
Seventy-two percent of US GMO crops are engineered to tolerate a certain type of herbicide. But the weeds that these herbicides used to kill are coming back bigger and stronger, creating herbicide-resistant “superweeds” that require greater quantities of more toxic pesticides to eradicate. 

In the US alone, superweeds resistant to the RoundUp/glyphosate herbicide have taken over 10 million acres of farmland.

Palmer pigweed, one of the worst of the glyphosate-resistant superweeds, has infested over a million acres in North Carolina, and has caused half a million acres in Georgia to be weeded by hand.

Overwhelmingly, the answer to these superweeds is to spray even more glyphosate, and to engineer crops to be resistant to other pesticides, such as dicamba and 2, 4-D. Dicamba has been linked to reproductive and developmental effects, and 2, 4-D—originally developed as an element of the
notorious Monsanto defoliant Agent Orange—has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, endocrine disruption, and kidney and liver damage.

It’s a vicious cycle of pesticides-resistant weeds-and ever-more-toxic pesticides, which will have devastating consequences on human health and the environment, while lining the coffers of pesticide and biotech companies.

3. THE RISK TO FARMERS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Every three minutes, a farmer commits suicide in India due to meet rising debts, a phenomenon that has been steadily rising since the 1970s. While the causes behind the farmers’ crushing debt and resultant suicides are complex—ranging from unfair government floor prices for cotton to international trade agreements skewed in favor of other countries—GM seeds do appear to play a role. 

For millennia, farmers in India had cultivated cotton with seeds they’d saved from their own plants. In the 1970s, hybrid seeds came to market, which had been bred to increase yields. Hybrid seeds, however, cannot be saved, so the farmers had to buy more seeds each year. In time, the hybrids required more costly pesticides, as well. Farmer suicides began in 1997, as many went into debt and couldn’t make ends meet.

In 2002, Bt cotton seeds arrived, and though they promised higher yields and higher earnings, the suicide rate has kept going up. These seeds are injected with the Bt soil bacterium so they “naturally” produce an insecticide to fight off the bollworm, a primary pest.

But to produce the higher yields it promises, Bt cotton needs more water and fertilizer than cotton from heirloom or hybrid seeds, applied according to precise timetables. But 90 percent of farmers in Kopulwar’s region have no irrigation and are rain-dependent. They have no money for extra fertilizer.
And so, as the rains fail to come, their cotton plants start to wither. In addition, new pests like mealy bugs have started destroying cotton crops in India, because genetic engineering “weakens the plants,” says scientist and international activist Dr. Vandana Shiva.

And so, as farmers across India continue to pay Monsanto a royalty to plant Bt cotton—often the only kind of seeds available at local markets—the farmer suicide rate continues to climb.

4. THE RISK TO ORGANIC FARMERS
Even when a farmer isn’t growing GM crops, contamination can easily occur—through seed mixing or pollen drift from neighboring GM fields. While this contamination is troubling for those of us who wish to avoid GMOs, it can be an economic disaster for organic and family farmers.

In their 2004 report “Gone to Seed,” the Union of Concerned Scientists found that most of the traditional US corn, soy, and canola crops they tested were contaminated with GMOs.

USDA Organic standards mandate that certified organic produce must come from non-GMO seeds. To prevent inadvertent GMO contamination, organic farmers must establish barriers between their fields and potential GMO contamination. Even with these measures, GMO contamination of organic fields occurs. Absurdly, the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21), a group appointed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to address transgenic contamination of organic and non-genetically engineered (GE) crops, recently issued a report recommending that organic and non-GE conventional farmers pay for crop insurance or self-insure themselves against unwanted GMO contamination. The burden is placed on organic farmers to stop unwanted GMOs from contaminating their fields, instead of being placed on the companies that sell GMOs.

In addition, organic and family farmers are under the threat of spurious lawsuits related to this accidental contamination. US biotech giant Monsanto is now notorious for its “seed police,” which detect Monsanto-patented GM seeds or plants on farms that have not purchased the seeds; Monsanto then sues farmers for patent infringement, even if the farmer is a victim of accidental contamination through seed or pollen drift.

Monsanto filed 144 such lawsuits against farmers between 1997 and 2010, and has brought charges against 700 more who chose to settle out of court, according to the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA).

5. OPPOSING OUR RIGHT TO KNOW
Most non-organic soy, corn and sugar beets are GMO, and they make up a significant portion of the Today, most non-organic US corn, soy, cotton, sugar beets are GMO—and combined, they provide a vast portion of the additives used by food manufacturers. 

Green America and our allies believe it’s imperative to mandate labeling on foods containing GMOs, so consumers can avoid these foods if they choose. Unfortunately, the big biotech and processed food companies are fighting back against consumers’ basic right to know, both by spending millions to prevent labeling laws (such as California’s Prop 37) and by working to discredit studies that reveal potential health risks of GMOs. Read more…

Click through to longer version:
This fall, processed food conglomerates and big biotech celebrated as California’s Proposition 37, or the “California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” was defeated. Prop. 37 would have mandated labels on GM foods and foods containing GM ingredients.

Given that polls show that over 90 percent of Americans would prefer GMO foods be labeled and a majority would avoid GMO foods, it’s clear that the companies with a financial stake in these foods would benefit from keeping their GM ingredients hidden. Monsanto, General Mills, Coca-Cola, and others sunk over $35 million into defeating the measure. Despite enjoying a 70 percent lead early on, California’s Prop. 37 was defeated, and the corporate campaign won the day over the public interest and consumers’ right to know.

But big biotech isn’t stopping there. According to Consumer Reports biologist Dr. Michael Hansen and the Institute for Responsible Technology’s Dr. Jeffrey Smith, the big biotech companies often try to obscure results from GMO safety studies that aren’t in their favor.

Says Hansen: “What the biotech companies will do, if they find [unfavorable,] statistically significant results, they’ll say, ‘We see this result, but only in males, not females, so it’s not biologically significant.’ Or, ‘We only see effects at a low dose and not a high dose, so there’s no dosage dependency, and there’s no real effect.’ There are things that can harm and that can behave in a way that isn’t linear, but rather in a U-shaped curve: They can have an effect at a low dose, not much at an intervening dose, and then another effect at the higher dose.”

That phenomenon became all-too evident in the summer of 2012, when biologist Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen published another study in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicity pointing to possible health risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Seralini and his team fed 180 rats GM corn for two years, and found that the rats developed large tumors or kidney problems and died 2-3 times more often during the study than the 20 control group rats. He found similar results in rats fed GM corn and Roundup, the Monsanto herbicide that certain types of GMOs have been engineered to tolerate. Critics took swipes at the Seralini study immediately after its release, dismissing the claims because the study tested a too small group of rats and included a too-small group of control rats to be statistically relevant.

Echoing Hansen’s warnings, these critics also hit at Seralini’s team because, as Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik put it, “The rats fed higher doses of pesticide or GM corn didn’t consistently get sicker than those fed lower doses. In fact, some rats fed higher doses did better than the others.”

And here we are, hearing the exact same criticism of Seralini’s new study as Hansen predicted. In fact, Hansen and eight other scientists wrote an open letter to Independent Science News—signed by 92 scientists from around the world—defending Seralini. “The Seralini publication, and resultant media attention, raise the profile of fundamental challenges faced by science in a world increasingly dominated by corporate influence,” the letter states. “... Seralini and colleagues are just the latest in a series of researchers whose findings have triggered orchestrated campaigns of harassment.”

As a result, Green America’s GMO Inside Campaign recommends additional research to see of the Seralini study is validated. If additional research supports Seralini’s findings, the call to label and remove GM ingredients will only grow.

(Washington, D.C.) -- Green America joined forty-four labor and human rights organizations today to send a letter to Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, asking him to end a pilot project to recruit prisoners from Thailand’s correctional facilities to fill a labor shortage in the fishing industry. Multiple reports have documented gross labor violations on Thai fishing boats, including forced labor, physical violence, illegally low wages and human trafficking.

“Thailand cannot run from the trafficking problem in its fishing fleet,” said Judy Gearhart, executive director of the International Labor Rights Forum. “And sending prisoners to sea will not address the systematic, pervasive labor problems in Thailand’s fishing industry. It is time for the Thai government to recognize that its treatment of migrant workers lies at the heart of the problem and take real, meaningful steps to ensure all workers within its borders work in dignified, just conditions.”

The groups cited rights abuses as a primary reason that explains labor shortages on fishing boats, and said the prison program would do nothing to end those abuses. They also expressed concern that the plan would merely augment the migrant workers from Burma and Cambodia who currently comprise the majority of the workforce on Thai fishing vessels with Thai prisoners who are equally vulnerable to abuses. Migrant fishers are almost entirely undocumented and without legal status, making them afraid to report to Thai authorities about rights violations they suffer on fishing boats.

The signatories also predicted the prison labor plan could have negative economic and political consequences for Thailand. It noted Western retailers and buyers are already increasingly wary that Thai seafood is produced in supply chains dependent on forced labor and other labor rights abuses, and warned that this scrutiny would intensify if buyers have to deal with new concerns regarding conscripted prison labor in their supply chains.

“The retailers we have worked with in Australia are very responsive to the threat of forced labor in their supply chains,” said Mark Zirnsak, director of the Justice & International Mission at the Uniting Church in Australia Synod of Victoria and Tasmania. “We are working with them, and with Thai suppliers, to increase transparency and ensure just working conditions on Thai fishing vessels. We are deeply concerned that the prison labor program could make it more difficult for the industry partners we work with to verify workers in their supply chains are working without threat of coercion.”

The letter also noted that the plan could be considered evidence by the US State Department that the Thai government is unable, or unwilling, to address the risk of human trafficking in its fishing fleets. Thailand was downgraded to the lowest rank, Tier 3, in the United States’ 2014 Trafficking in Persons Report, and the fishing industry cited as a major area of concern.

“Thailand has repeatedly said that it’s committed to end forced labor and human trafficking, but this pilot project heads in precisely the opposite direction and will make things worse,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch. “This prisoners on fishing boats project should be immediately scrapped.”

Originally published by the Organic & Non-GMO Report
by Ken Roseboro

Snowville Creamery’s Warren Taylor creates model to increase non-GMO feed supply as a way to convert to organic farming and eliminate GMOs.

Snowville Creamery, based in Pomeroy, Ohio is a small dairy operation, but its owner, Warren Taylor, has big ideas. Taylor wants to change the food system—from one based on factory farms and GMOs to one based on local, sustainable, non-GMO, and organic farms and foods. He is starting with his own operation.

Taylor is a career dairyman; he followed in his father’s footsteps and became a dairy process engineer. In his 40-plus-year career, Taylor designed processing plants and systems for companies such as Safeway, Dannon, Land O’ Lakes, and Yoplait. Cut him, and Taylor says he will “bleed white.”

Seven years ago, Taylor left a successful dairy consulting business to start Snowville Creamery. Why? Because he felt that the milk produced today was an inferior, poor-tasting product.

“I was mad at the industry,” he says. “I built a creamery to prove that we can produce good high quality, good tasting milk for everybody in America.”

Applying his engineering knowledge, Taylor wants to produce a model of non-GMO and organic milk production that can be replicated nationwide. I’m not into marketing; I’m a revolutionary and want to change the world,” Taylor says.

Pasture-raised cows

Snowville buys milk from 10 local dairy farms and processes it into milk, cream, and yogurt products. The creamery produces 15,000 gallons of milk per week. Snowville’s dairy products are sold in supermarkets such as Kroger and Giant Eagle and to Whole Foods stores in Ohio, Pittsburgh, PA, Louisville, KY, and Washington, DC. Restaurants in the Columbus and Athens, Ohio areas also use Snowville’s products.

Many of Snowville’s dairy farms raise the brown Jersey cows, which are known to produce milk that contains higher butterfat, lactose, protein, and minerals.

Cows graze on pasture, which makes up about 75 percent of their diet, the rest being grains such as corn, which supply protein.

According to Taylor, pasture-raised cows produce more nutritious milk that is much higher in omega 3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid, essential nutrients for heart and brain function.

It tastes better too. “You can taste the difference of milk from grass fed cows,” he says.

Snowville’s cows graze on pasture 250 days per year, more than double the National Organic Program’s requirement of 120 days for organic dairy cows.

So why doesn’t Snowville just go organic? Taylor, who has heard that question many times, has a ready response.

“Because there is not a sufficient quantity of economically available certified organic feed and forage,” he says. “Organic corn costs about twice whatever commodity corn costs.”

Encouraging farmers to grow non-GMO without chemicals

The feed challenge led Taylor to apply his engineering skills and build his own supply chain, which he believes can be replicated nationwide and could lead to the elimination of genetically modified crops. Taylor chose to source non-GMO corn for feed, which is readily available from Ohio farmers. The non-GMO corn sells for a $.50 per bushel premium above the cost of commodity corn. Taylor offered farmers a $1.00 per bushel premium as a way to encourage them to develop long-term relationships with Snowville. Taylor plans to pay the farmers an additional $.50 per bushel premium each year to encourage them to reduce the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. In this way he is subsidizing the farmers’ transition to certified organic production, which is his ultimate goal.

“In three or four years we are paying $2 or $3 over commodity price, and have created additional organic grain supply for livestock agriculture in Ohio,” Taylor says. “We want to leverage non-GMO into certified organic as quickly as possible. Non-GMO is a bridge.”

Publishes GMO test results on website

Taylor contracted an Amish mill in Wooster, Ohio to process the non-GMO corn and test it for GMOs. He supplied the mill with GMO testing equipment from Envirologix including a Quikscan scanner, computer, and Quickcomb GMO test strips. Taylor developed a protocol with the mill that includes testing, notification to Snowville of test results, and rejection of grains that test above 1.5% GM material.

Snowville publishes the GMO test results on its website for all to see. “I want to be transparent, which is what we all should be doing in the food industry,” Taylor says.

Taylor wanted to label his dairy products as “non-GMO-fed” so he contacted the US Food and Drug Administration, which told him to contact the US Department of Agriculture, which then told him to go back to the FDA. After the government revolving door, Taylor contacted the Ohio Department of Agriculture, which worked with him to develop a label for his products, which reads “From Grass Grazed Cows Fed Only Non-GMO Feeds & Forage.”

Taylor is also putting his products through the Non-GMO Project’s verification program at the request of Whole Foods Market, which wants its suppliers to be verified to meet the company’s GMO labeling requirement by 2018.

Future plans for Snowville include building a local mill to process the feed. Taylor hopes to secure a Slow Money loan to finance the mill. He also received a grant to purchase seeds and work with farmers to grow small grains as feed alternatives to GMO-risk corn.

Taylor sees organic farming and his non-GMO operation as a small but significant step to addressing the big threats posed by chemical intensive GMO agriculture.

“Our approach has the potential to increase the supply to meet the demand, while leading non-GMO feed and forage producers towards certified organic production,” he says. “I’m optimistic we will be able to change the food system.”

As part of our Farmer-Grower series we interviewed Jill Smith, a dairywoman who is most definitely doing milk right. Jill owns and operates Pure Èire Dairy located in Othello, Washington. The name Èire is a bit of a play on words as it literally means Ireland, but has a deeper familial meaning as their family is of Irish heritage and employs practices that her husband’s grandfather would have used. Despite being located in a region surrounded by conventional farmland, Jill is doing things differently with her sustainable agriculture operation. Pure Èire is certified organic, milking all Jersey cows, 100 percent grass-fed and never fed corn or soy. The dairy is also Non-GMO Project Verified and Animal Welfare Approved. They are farming in a way that they believe is respectful to the land and to the animals.  They respect what the animals are giving to them and they want to dairy and farm in that manner.

Q: When and how did your interest in food and farming start? Who or what influenced you?

A: I was a farm kid and my husband was a dairy kid. I was 14 when I started my first project, with FFA. I went to Washington State University and majored in Ag Business and spent the first ten years of my career in the livestock industry, so I have a background in conventional agriculture. I worked for a pharmaceutical company and saw firsthand the use of antibiotics & growth hormones. I have been on both sides of it and I am not knocking on conventional production whatsoever. My husband and I decided to leave our big jobs where we were working really hard for someone else. We went out on our own to raise dairy heifers, working hard for ourselves. We grew it into a large operation where we were feeding and breeding heifers for other milk producers. We practiced good animal welfare, but we raised the heifers as the dairymen wanted, whatever vaccine or antibiotic protocols they used on their own farm. Somewhere along the way my husband had the crazy idea to start an organic dairy. We were shipping to a national processor and under their guidelines. Even if we exceeded organic standards or practices, our milk was mixed with milk from many other dairies.

In 2009, I started this little dairy on the side with only seven cows. I started with just raw milk. In the meantime, we had already taken over the family farm and transitioned it to organic. We were in a unique situation because we had a conventional herd we could feed transition-feed to. When this dairy started to grow, we were lucky enough to have already transitioned the ground to organic in Othello. There was a barn on one of the pieces of property that we actually decided to rehab into a milking parlor and a certified organic processing facility. The dairy has continue to grow from seven cows to milking 160 cows and processing our own milk. We are now in control of the operation from the soil, to the feed, to milking the cows, to putting that milk in the jug, and getting it on the shelves. This dairy took on a life of its own as it grew. Thankfully, along the way, we were able to transition out of the other two operations we were involved in and make this our sole focus.

This process gave us a great opportunity to have backgrounds in both the conventional and organic dairy industries. We’ve had the chance to ship our milk to a processor and direct market our milk. This dairy has allowed us to take our milk further and find our own niche in the market place with a product that we feel really good about producing. It has certainly given us a whole different perspective on the industry and deepened the respect for those within the dairy industry, on all levels.

Q: Considering emerging and pressing issues like climate change, increased use of pesticides and genetically modified seeds, and intensified agriculture – how has your relationship with food and farming changed over time?

A: When you become a mother or a parent you start to look at your food more. I think the more you delve into the industry and the more you learn, the more you evolve as a producer and a consumer. The more you research your food, the more you learn about production practices and you make choices based on your research. We’d all previously been taught that “milk is milk is milk;” but the more we look at food and farming practices, the more we learn about how we want to feed our own family. Our kids are looking over our shoulders and we want them to make wise food choices, as well as learn to respect animals and land. We want to teach them to be good stewards of the land and environment.

Q: What is your involvement with the coffee industry and how does it relate to your views on food and farming?

A: The coffee industry has been really interesting because they have taken it to the furthest degree to figure out where their coffee is coming from, the flavor notes that change based on where the beans are grown, knowing exactly who it comes from, even knowing the exact batch. They have taken it so very far, and yet, have been slower to look at the quality of the milk they are using. In a lot of cases, the milk makes up 80 percent or more of the drink. A friend within the coffee industry has gotten me involved with the Specialty Coffee Association of America. We took a different perspective and said let’s look at milk the same way we look at the coffee. We focused on identifying the flavor notes that come with the seasonality of a milk like ours, how much milk is actually going into the drink, and how it affects the customers; the taste, the experience, basically the whole package. So I spoke a lot about what our farm does and why. We had baristas using our milk and really enjoyed the flavor it brought out in their coffees. We had several baristas competing in the cappuccino portion of the US Coffee Championships with our milk.  In fact, we worked with the US Barista Champion. She and I hand-picked the bottle of milk to pair with her coffee for competition based on the flavor notes. To pair your coffee with the milk and tell the farmer what you want; that hasn’t been an option in the past. We formulated a special fat percentage at the request of the barista who won, one that we don’t have on store shelves. She had the chance to tell us exactly what she wanted. The dairy industry has long told consumers what they should drink.  I think there are some unique opportunities out there to be telling the farmers what you want, not just in the dairy industry.

It has been really interesting to work with baristas, to hear what they want and for us to get to be part of these activities. It is great to get recognition for producing a milk that really has great flavor that people are proud to use. It changes that “milk is milk is milk” thing; it shakes it up a little bit. There is a coffee roaster in Seattle, Slate Coffee, who is top ten in the US and the best in Seattle. Their entire staff took the time to sit down with me to ask all the questions they had about their milk. They utilize the time they have with their consumers, to stand and talk with them about what makes them unique. It is a bar style where you have the chance to work through your drink with the barista. We have felt so honored to have them use our milk in a deconstructed cappuccino. They put the espresso itself in a small glass and the steamed milk in another glass to be tasted. Then, they combine them so you can taste the combination. It is really forward-thinking and exciting for us to be part of. They have a unique opportunity to explain product differences to their customers and really create a great experience with the coffee. They are a great example of a coffee shop that is trying to tell consumers the whole story.

Q: What do you think is the biggest misconception that modern consumers have when it comes to food, especially dairy?

A: I think it goes back to “milk is milk is milk;” the misconception that it is all the same. If we tell a consumer that we are grass-fed they might look at us and say, “Don’t all cows eat grass?” I think that is a misconception based on great marketing campaigns, such as happy cows coming from California. The majority of cows in California are in confined feeding operations. The dairy industry, for example, has made it even more confusing with different claims such as rBST-free, natural, or growth hormone-free. I use the dairy industry as an example, but I think that it is across the board. Unless you really understand the labels and take the time to ask questions, you just have to go with whichever label looks the best. Our industry has also trained our customers to look for the cheapest milk possible, rather than to seek out product differences. Grocery stores have long used milk as a loss leader. Milk prices are something that nobody wants to see go up, but they don’t reflect the true cost of farming or support the improvement of more sustainable practices.

Q: What do you think is the most important thing for modern consumers to understand when it comes to food, especially dairy?

A: I think knowing where your food comes from and understanding labels are imperative to making thoughtful food purchases. Milk, for example, is one of those foods that we give our kids from the time they are babies. This is a food that is truly in our diet from day one. Ask questions, do your research. There are so many things that go into a gallon of milk; drying processes, removal of protein and fat, all processes that may affect the way we digest milk. I think we have lost a lot of milk drinkers because some of the processes just don’t fit with people’s systems. When we make a naturally nutritious product so sterile that we have to add vitamins and nutrients back to it, we’re really changing the product’s make-up.

Q: What advice would you give to someone who wants to learn more about sustainable food but doesn’t know where to start?

A: If you get an opportunity to meet with a farmer, ask questions, and learn about their practices. I think that leads you to ask more questions and to take it a step further. We had these really sweet gals come over from Seattle because one of the things on their bucket list was to learn how to milk a cow. They probably got 15 no’s before they got our yes. They drove all the way over just to touch and feel a cow. It was fun for all of us, for my husband and me, and for our employees. We take what we do for granted, but to see someone giddy and excited over getting milk out of a cow; it kind of jazzes you up again. People do care and they want to know and develop relationships, but those opportunities are hard to track down these days.

Q: What do you believe is the most underrated issue in talking about food systems? Are there any issues that you don’t feel are talked about enough in mainstream media?

A: I think truth in labeling is huge and deciphering labels. I think it creates so much confusion and it’s an injustice to our consumers. I also think stepping back and actually seeing how the family farm is functioning and whether it is sustainable. The manufacturer may present a much different picture than what is actually happening on the farm. This will be significant for the sustainability of organic milk. If those dairymen are not making it on the pay price that they are getting from their organic processors, they are not going to be around to supply that milk. Again, milk is a special product that nobody wants to see the price to go up on. You will see the price of other products such as beef or conventional milk move around because they are traded as a commodity. In the organic milk industry, the farmer’s milk pay price; whereas in the conventional world, milk trades based on supply and demand. Organic has worked so hard to stay at a low enough price point to attract consumers, but it is not necessarily sustainable for the family farm. If we want organic milk we have to make sure that it is sustainable all the way back to the family farm.

Q: What is your favorite go-to resource when it comes to sustainable food? List any of your favorite books, magazines, websites, cookbooks, etc.

A: The dairy and organic industries do try to educate producers about new methods and ways to improve on what we’re doing. Consumers are a great resource in a business like ours.  As for cooking, my favorite all-time cookbook is an old Irish cookbook that my mother-in-law gave me. It really is just whole foods and simple ingredients. My mother in-law is a great resource because she cooked with what they raised or what was local and seasonal. My husband was raised in a family that wasn’t trying to be organic, they just used what was in season or what they preserved themselves. I didn’t grow up that way even though I was on a farm, so she is my go-to. My primary driver is that I am trying to provide my children with whole foods, or foods we raise ourselves, and teach them to make thoughtful food choices.

This interview has been edited for length.

Read about more Sustainable Agriculture Spotlights and organic farming stories at GreenAmerica.org.

In continuing our Farmer-Grower series, where we celebrate those who engage in sustainable agriculture, we interviewed Albert Straus, a dairyman who is revolutionizing what it means to operate a sustainable dairy. In addition to the dairy, Albert operates Straus Family Creamery located in Marshall, CA. Straus Family Creamery is organic and Non-GMO Project Verified, dedicated to improving environmental practices and long-term sustainability of family farms throughout the area.

History of the Straus Creamery

My father started the farm in 1941 and ran it as a conventional farm for decades. Both my parents were very much environmentalists and concerned with preserving the land, the businesses that were on the land, and farming families. They each formed community groups that were trying to facilitate the conversation between farmers, environmentalists and government agencies in hopes to come up with a plan to keep the land open and to preserve the farming community. My mother started the first agricultural land trust in the nation in 1980, the Marin Agricultural Land Trust, which has now preserved nearly 50,000 acres and some 70 farms that won’t be developed in perpetuity.

In 1990, a Petaluma entrepreneur approached me about doing organic milk for ice cream. I had done my senior thesis at Cal Poly about building a processing plant and ice cream was already a passion of mine. After he gave up on the idea, I kept looking into it. It took me three and a half years to figure out what organic was and how to feed the cows, how to treat the cows, how to find funding to build a plant, how to market the products, and how to package the products. Beginning in 1994, we were the first certified organic dairy and creamery in the western United States.

We try to make our products the highest quality that we can, minimally processed and with no additives. From cream-top milk, which is pasteurized but not homogenized, in reusable glass bottles, to European style yogurt, to Greek yogurt to sour cream; the yogurts are all milk and cultures without additives, same with the sour cream. Our ice creams don’t use stabilizers other than egg yolk so it is all organic and super premium ice cream. We have a nutritional ice cream, it is called “NuScoop” that we have been marketing and are just about to re-launch. We have butter that has some of the highest butter fat and lowest moisture of any butter on the market in the world and it is all made in small batches. We make a barista milk that is partially homogenized for coffee shops, it foams better and is sweeter. It is used by Intelligensia in LA and a bunch of other coffee shops. We have an ice cream mix that Bi-Rite and other places use as a base to make their flavors. We also make a soft serve ice cream for their machines. We do a lot of different things.

Q: Transitioning to organic in part was a way to ensure your family farm’s financial security. What were the other key reasons, for you personally, in making that transition? How has that evolved over time?

A: The whole idea was first how do we survive as a family farm; with the conventional dairy system you never know month to month what your milk prices are going to be, it is a big roller coaster while your costs keep going up and up. We lose five percent of our farms every year in the United States: there were 4.6 million dairy farms in 1940 and today there are 49,000. So how do you change that model, how do you survive?

First it was building our own brand and controlling our own prices, creating an environmental and sustainable farming system for ourselves, and then over time our vision became how do we “create a thriving relationship between farms, food, people and earth?” We focus on how we can create a model that can sustain family farms, make them profitable, sustainable, and also help facilitate the revitalization of the farming community.  Seventy-five percent of the dairy farms in Marin and Sonoma Counties are now certified organic, it is no longer the niche, it is the mainstream and the wave of the future.

Q: Considering emerging and pressing issues like climate change, increased use of pesticides and genetically modified seeds, and intensified agriculture – how is your relationship with food and farming changing?

A: Everything that I look at, in our farming system as well as in our creamery business, is about how do we minimize our impact on the environment, build soils, create enhanced animal welfare, as well as coming up with high-quality products that the consumer can be confident in. In 2010, we became the first verified non-GMO creamery in the United States. I had found GMO contamination in our certified organic corn in 2005, and so I started our own verification program and then became verified through the Non-GMO Project. Anytime there are threats to what I feel is organic we see how we can keep organic integrity so consumers can be confident in what organic is.

On the dairy side, for the last ten years we have been generating all of our own electricity and most of our heated water from the waste from cows; we have a methane digester that captures all of their waste as well as the creamery waste. We capture all of the methane gas, which is 23 times more detrimental than carbon dioxide, and use that as a fuel for creating electricity that we sell back to the public utility, and offset our own usage costs. We have several electric vehicles: a farm utility vehicle, an ATV, and Nissan Leaf that we charge off the methane system. (And at our offices in Petaluma we have several electric cars and we use solar power.) What we are trying to do is minimize our use and ultimately the goal is to have a carbon-neutral system. We are part of the Marin Carbon Project where we are measuring the amount of carbon that is being sequestered on our farm by applying compost and doing organic grazing methods; and we are actually showing that you can sequester about 2,000 pounds of carbon per year per hectare. It not only enhances the environment, we are making a system that is more productive for grass forage for the cows as well as having a global impact. Everything we look at is how we can minimize our impact or create a positive change.

We minimize our water consumption use by reusing water and reclaiming it. Our long-term goal is actually to take all our creamery’s wastewater back to potable; we have been doing all sorts of experiments with that to get rid of chemicals. Between the creamery and dairy we reuse almost 90 percent of our water. We have never had sufficient water at the creamery so we haul water in and all of our wastewater out. Water is a precious resource for us.

We are always looking at different types of packaging. Reusable glass bottles is part of that, we get almost 80% of them back. Deposits are paid when bottles of milk are purchased and then consumers bring them back; we get 4-6 uses out of each bottle. We have already reduced the plastic content of each yogurt container by 50 percent and are looking toward at least another 50 percent reduction. Ideally we will get out of plastics all together. We look at all of our resources, and look at how we can improve on those steadily. We are looking at moving our creamery into a new location and the idea is to build a zero-impact creamery. It would include everything from solar power, to highly efficient insulation, and take all these practices that we use for heating and cooling our products and try to make it zero impact, and get to a sustainable model.

Q: There is currently a major divide between organic and conventional dairy. What has been your experience in being a part of the inception of modern organic dairy? What do you think the future of organic dairy looks like?

A: I think dairy farming has been a challenge for farmers. What I have tried to encourage is that the only way to make farming viable and sustainable, to be able to pass on to next generations, and to get new farmers in, is to make a model where farmers pay themselves-- and most farmers don’t. It is important to look at farming as a business not a lifestyle. It can’t be a lifestyle where you either have jobs off the farm or have to use other monetary resources to make the farm go. The only way it can be sustainable for the long run is to make it where the next generation wants to be farmers because they are not going to be working seven days a week, 24-hour days for no money.

When you are looking at conventional and organic, I think organic is something that has a future because we look at all the different systems, how to balance them, make them sustainable and profitable, and look at people, planet and profit as a triple bottom line. It is not just one part; it can’t be profitable without taking care of the land and the animals. In conventional farming, people have been pushed to get big because they have no control over their pricing. You try and get bigger and bigger just to offset some costs, but it is not the answer. You have more problems with pollution and animal welfare because you are being pushed by economics and it is not a sustainable system.

A: As a successful organic dairyman, what advice would you give to others trying to transition to, or survive in, the organic dairy industry?

A: What we are trying to do is gather the resources and advice that farmers need in order to make good decisions. I think it is about getting mentors, consultants, and people that actually can help you move your business forward, and look at the whole picture and help you get the education and experience that you need. The average age of farmers is getting close to 60 years old, so how do you have succession planning? How do you help the next generation get started? Those are things that are challenges and we are trying to come up with solutions for them.

Q: What do you think is the most important thing for modern consumers to understand when it comes to dairy?

A: What I saw happen in the UK is that organic foods lost sales for the last 7 or 8 years because consumers didn’t understand what organic meant, about the farming practices and the system and they didn’t understand quality differences. I think the lesson to be learned is consumers need to understand what the farming practices are, how they are different, how they are sustainable, and how they produce high quality food. I think that to have that understanding and that connection to farming is important; when you have the big chain stores that have labels that don’t reflect actual farms or farming practices there is a disconnect. It is a danger when some retail companies think that sustainability still just means low prices, and that’s not sustainable, it just puts pressure on processors and farmers to produce things below the true costs of production.

Q: In terms of the Farm Bill, do you think there are federal incentives that could be in place and support organic dairy, and what do you think those could be?

A: I like the idea of a system that is not reliant on federal subsidies. I think there are consumers who want to buy organic food but can’t afford it; maybe that is where subsidies should be going. The food stamps and food programs which are a part of the Farm Bill could be expanded to a level that would allow families to afford organic products; I think that is something that has a place. A farmer should be able to get a price that they need and not rely on subsidies to do the basic business of farming. The problem is that a lot of times the government doesn’t understand what farming is.

This interview has been edited for length. All photos are courtesy of Straus Family Creamery.

Read about more Sustainable Agriculture Spotlights and organic farming stories at GreenAmerica.org.

Sabra is one of the fastest growing hummus and dip brands in the US. But Sabra, which is part of Pepsi, has a secret: its hummus contains soybean oil that is likely genetically engineered (GMO).

Green America’s GMO Inside is calling on PepsiCo to remove GE soybean oil and citric acid from Sabra hummus.

Non-GMO Sabra Hummus would join PepsiCo's Stacy's Pita Chips, which recently hit the shelves without GMOs. Pita Chips are just one of Stacy's many cracker-like products that are being transitioned to non-GMO, it only makes sense that the most popular dip for them be non-GMO as well.

Our new campaign, “Sabra Hummus: Stop Mixing in the GMOs!” asks for four specific steps from PepsiCo:

1. We want Sabra Hummus to go non-GMO and for PepsiCo to certify Sabra products through a non-GMO-verified third party.

2. We want PepsiCo to work throughout its supply chain to reduce the use of toxic synthetic pesticides.

3. We want PepsiCo to stop fighting state-level GMO labeling efforts. We have a right to know what’s in our food! It is time PepsiCo starts supporting a mandatory Federal-level labeling initiative.

4. We want PepsiCo to commit to not using GE wheat in Stacy’s Pita Chips if GE what is approved in the future.

Find more background information and tell PepsiCo it is time to change at gmoinside.org/sabra.

Company Spending $640,000 to Block Consumers’ Right to Know If GMOs Are In Food Also Censors Consumers Talking About GMOs on Social Media

November 3, 2014

WASHINGTON D.C - November 3, 2014 - Green America’s GMO Inside campaign is calling out the J.M. Smucker Company (Smucker’s) for removing anti-GMO posts and posts critiquing the company’s funding of opposition to GMO labeling ballot initiatives in Oregon and Colorado. 

Over the past week, Smucker’s systematically has removed posts and comments from its Facebook page that are critical of the company’s stance on GMOs. 

The new censorship policy is an extension of the company’s ardent efforts to keep consumers in the dark about GMOs in food products.  According to the Cornucopia Institute, Smucker’s has spent $640,000 this year to oppose Measure 92 in Oregon and Proposition 105 in Colorado.  The company spent $349,977 to oppose Initiative 522 in Washington State last year.

“Not only does Smucker’s want to prevent consumers from knowing what’s in their foods, they also don’t want visitors to their Facebook page to know about their opposition to labeling,” said John Roulac, co-chair of the GMO Inside campaign and CEO of Nutiva. “Trying to silence consumer outrage is going to backfire on Smucker’s and turn customers away from them."

Alisa Gravitz, co-chair of GMO Inside and president and CEO of Green America, said: “Instead of blocking consumers’ right to know and censoring their Facebook page, Smucker’s should be making plans to label their foods that have GMOs and work to remove GMOs from their foods, since this is what American consumers increasingly want.  Smucker’s can't afford to alienate more than half of their customers.”

GMO Inside learned of Smucker’s removal of posts critical of the company’s stance on GMOs from consumers whose posts were removed.  GMO Inside staff and allies then made several posts and comments to the Smucker’s Facebook page regarding GMOs over the past several days, all of which were removed within the same day.

Smucker’s is allowing other posts on its Facebook page that voice criticisms of the company, and appears to only be deleting posts that are critical of the company’s position on GMOs.

ABOUT GMO INSIDE

GMO Inside is a campaign dedicated to A) helping all Americans know which foods have GMOs inside, and B) removing GMOs from our food supply. We believe that everyone has a right to know what’s in their food and to choose foods that are proven safe for people, their families, and the environment. GMO Inside provides the information for a growing community of people from all walks of life, to make informed decisions around genetically engineered foods. Join the campaign at www.gmoinside.org, and take part in the GMO Inside community on Facebook and Twitter. GMO Inside coalition partners include Nutiva, Food Democracy Now!, Institute for Responsible Technology, LabelGMOs.org, and Vani Hari, creator of FoodBabe.com.

 
ABOUT GREEN AMERICA

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses, investors, and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems. http://www.greenamerica.org.

MEDIA CONTACT:   Will Harwood, (703) 276-3255 or wharwood@hastingsgroup.com.

Consumers have unrealized power to steer the close marriage between agriculture and the climate toward healthier outcomes, according to food-policy activists at the Green Festival in Chicago Saturday.

Agriculture is particularly vulnerable to climate conditions, according to the EPA, but also a major contributor to climate change because of carbon-emitting practices including deforestation, fertilization, transportation, fermentation, irrigation and the burning of crop residues.

Not all farmers, however, participate in all those practices.

"There's a huge, huge range in methods of food production," said Lindsay Record, the program director of the Illinois Stewardship Alliance, during a panel at the sustainability and green-living festival at Chicago's Navy Pier. "There's a lot of voting with your fork that you can do."

Record suggested five steps consumers can take to make sure the food they consume has the smallest possible carbon footprint:

1. "Try to incorporate a greater diversity of small grains that are produced locally or regionally," she said.

In recent years, American consumers have gained access to locally grown fruits, vegetables, meats, and cheeses, but grains still tend to be mass produced by large farming operations and shipped across large distances, making them more carbon intensive.

"Grains is the thing that local farmers are producing less often," Record said. But "when they have a grain crop in addition, crop rotations can protect soil from carbon loss. It will help sequester atmospheric carbon, which is really important. At the same time it will help to support those small farmers by increasing their bottom line, because they can diversify the products that they have available."

2. "Eating in season is really a big thing."

American consumers can enjoy oranges in summer and cherries in winter thanks to international food-distribution systems, but all that shipping means more greenhouse gas released to the atmosphere.

"You might think the idea of eating a strawberry in December or January sounds delicious, but they really don't taste as good, and they're shipped from far away. And so by eating fruit in season, you're reducing your transportation carbon footprint. Regional distribution systems are the most efficient. And that is the best, most efficient way to reduce your carbon footprint."

3. "Organic does matter," Record said, not only to the purity of food but to its carbon footprint.

"The synthetic fertilizers and pesticides are made using fossil fuels and fossil fuel derived energy," she said, "so looking for organic products is one of the things that you can do."

Some consumers avoid organic products because of the tend to cost more because of the cost of organic certification and because of economies of scale. But the cost of organic food is amortized over time by health-care costs, according to panelist Alisa Gravitz, president and CEO of Green America, an economic advocacy group.

"You can pay the farmer or pay the hospital," Gravitz said, "and it's a lot less expensive to pay the farmer now than to pay the hospital later."

4. "On dairy, meat, and eggs, look for the pasture-raised" certification, Record said, rather than organic or cage-free.

The meat-production industry produces more greenhouse gas than transportation or industry, so the best thing you can do for the climate is become a vegetarian or vegan. But if you can't kick the meat habit, you can still select meats that do less harm:

"When a farmer is using grass or pasture to raise their animals or livestock, if its managed correctly it can serve as a carbon sink and work to sequester carbon."

According to Nicole McCann, Green America's director for food campaigns, "Even an organic egg, if it's not pasture raised, comes from a factory farm. And 'cage free' really means nothing."

5. "Look for companies that have a commitment to sourcing sustainable ingredients," Record said. "Or if they make it a policy to give back to sustainable organizations."

"Chipotle, Amy's, Lundberg Rice, Clif Bar—all of them are committed to sourcing responsibly and sustainably raised ingredients as well as providing funding to organizations that work to support sustainable farmers," she said.

Consumers can influence food companies more than they realize, the panelists agreed, because they control the demand-side of the industry. Gravitz suggested emailing food companies, leaving Facebook comments (because others see them), and especially calling their 800-number (because every call costs them money, so they pay attention).  Jim Slama, founder of FamilyFarmed.org, said "the key is go to the store and ask for better than they've got."

"It's really an opportunity to bring more sustainability and responsibility into systems by creating that demand," Slama said.

By Jeff McMahon, based in Chicago. Follow Jeff McMahon on Facebook, Google Plus, Twitter, or email him here.

Industrialized dairy operations aren’t what they once were: bucolic imagery of red barns and a few cows roaming the grass-covered hills. The industry has become a thing of the past; more concerned with profit and efficiency than the cows themselves.

Overall consumption of cow's milk has been decreasing in the United States for years and Dean Foods, once the nation's largest milk producer, declared bankruptcy in 2019. Some of the largest producers of dairy worldwide are companies such as Nestlé and Kraft, known for their questionable ethics and concerning environmental practices. Due to consolidation, the majority of dairy cows are raised in large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) linked to issues of animal welfare and public and environmental health.

Animal Welfare in Industrialized Dairy Operations

The modern cow’s diet is a direct result of the consolidation of the dairy industry and the CAFO lifestyle. When you drink a nice tall glass of milk there is a good chance that unbeknownst to you, you are consuming a product heavily reliant on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Soy and corn are not only the top crops grown in the US, but they are also majorly genetically engineered (GE) with 92% of corn, 94% of soy, and 96% of cottonseed being GMO. These crops are turned into many hidden additives that result in 75% of processed foods containing GMOs, and are widely used in the dairy industry as feed.

With such large numbers in a herd and no access to grazing, dairy cows consume a diet of mostly GE corn and soy. Currently more than 95% of animals used for meat and dairy in the US eat GE crops. These crops require numerous inputs such as herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers, not to mention large quantities of water, making dairy feed an extremely resource-intensive crop. Cows were not intended to live on a diet of corn and soy; these feeding practices cause numerous severe health issues and digestive problems.

Organic milk is one step in the right direction, though it is not the end all be all. Organic ensures that dairy cows are not given any hormones or antibiotics, but does not ensure the quality of their living conditions and the diversity of their diets. An organic cow is not necessarily grass-fed and vice versa. The USDA definition of grass-fed is very limited and only refers to the type of feed given to cattle and has nothing to do with living conditions and antibiotic usage. Organic doesn’t always mean local or small producer either; many of the environmental issues associated with dairy are a result of consolidation and organic doesn’t remedy this problem. As described above, corporate dairy consolidation is a trend likely to continue.

When it comes to dairy cows there is one key thing to remember: in order for a cow to produce milk it must first produce a calf (usually through artificial insemination). Every year farm operators impregnate dairy cows so they can spend the year continually lactating and then start the cycle again. Throughout the process of impregnation and lactation, cows live in extremely crowded and unnatural conditions, such as standing on concrete floors surrounded by their own urine and feces, without access to pasture.

Once industrial dairy cows have completed their 4-5 prime years of production they are culled from the herd and sold off as hamburger meat (despite the fact that a healthy cow can produce milk for 15-20 years). In industrialized dairy operations, calves are seen more as a byproduct of milk production rather than as actual living beings. Immediately after birth they are taken from their mothers; bull calves are either killed, sent to veal-producing facilities, or raised for hamburger. Therefore, the conventional dairy industry directly supports the production and consumption of conventional meat.

Public and Environmental Health in Industrialized Dairy Operations

Factory farms pose a number of risks to both people and the environment. As a response to crowded and unsanitary living conditions, cows are often given daily doses of antibiotics via feed or injection to prevent the spread of disease and spur growth. The overuse of antibiotics for non-therapeutic purposes has resulted in the prevalence of a number of antibiotic-resistant (AR) bacteria.

These “superbugs” can transfer from animals to humans through contact with animals, contact with infected meat, and the consumption of crops that have been fertilized with manure from feedlots. AR bacteria pose such a great risk due to their ability to horizontally transfer genes to other bacteria that factory farms serve as breeding grounds for life-threatening AR genes to enter the world.

According to the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) 2019 Threat Report on Antimicrobial Resistance, of the 2.8 million AR infections each year, 35,000 of them result in death. A number of these infections and deaths could be prevented if animal agriculture did not use our antibiotics supply to compensate for poor living conditions.

In order to maintain and even increase the already high levels of milk production, dairy cows often receive hormones. The most common hormone is recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a genetically engineered synthetic hormone developed by Monsanto. This hormone results in increased cases of infections among the cows leading to a greater need for antibiotics.

The EU and Canada prohibit the use of rBGH due to major human health concerns including a connection to various forms of cancer and its likely impacts on reproductive health. Savvy companies such as Chipotle have already transitioned to sourcing hormone-free dairy products, and it’s time that other companies follow suit.

Along with animal health risks from factory farms, this type of concentrated agriculture results in a number of unmeasured environmental externalities. A large number of cattle contained in one area, without access to pasture, creates vast amounts of consolidated animal waste and methane emissions.

A report published by the CDC voices concerns over the environmental and health impacts of CAFOs (farms with 500 or more cows). Animals produce 3-20 times more waste that humans every year. Cattle manure and gases result in high levels of greenhouse gases, a drastic impact to ambient air quality and is a major contributor to climate change.

Not only is dairy production extremely water intensive with producers using up to 150 gallons of water per cow per day, the waste can leach into ground and surface water polluting numerous ecosystems and water sources. Such environmental hazards pose a constant and direct risk to communities within a close vicinity to a facility. One region cannot contain the harmful impacts; therefore, ecosystems and communities far and wide are at risk.

Steps Toward Change in Industrialized Dairy Operations

It is easy to lose sight of what milk really is and what it takes to produce it. By opening up the discussion on the impacts of industrialized dairy operations, we are creating a space for conversation and change. Many dairies are incorporating organics and grass-fed principles and it is time they become the norm rather than the exception. How do we do this?

Companies such as Starbucks have massive purchasing power and require such large quantities of a product that they have the ability to create a tidal wave of change and drastically improve our food system. We need to hold them accountable. Recently, Chobani announced three organic yogurt flavors coming soon, along with a commitment to work with farmers on transition strategies toward a GMO-free and organic milk supply and to explore what 21st century sustainable dairy operations can entail. When consumers band together by encouraging companies to set higher standards and make more ethical decisions in their supply chains, things begin to change.

Upated February 2023

The global chocolate industry commands more than $83 billion annually, but how much of this gets back to the farmers? Since most chocolate on US store shelves comes from West Africa, Green America has been persistently pressuring US cocoa companies to step up and take care of the workers—and child laborers—in their supply chains. This infographic traces the conventional cocoa supply chain in an effort to show where the majority of the money consumers spends ends up when they buy a chocolate product. Purchasing fair trade chocolate from companies that have more direct relationships with farmers is important, as is ongoing pressure on manufacturers, processors, and traders, to improve the situation for farmers and their families. Want to take this with you to share with others when you trick-or-treat? Download our 1-page version.

Hershey announced yesterday it will be going 100% certified by 2020. Hershey will utilize three different certification systems -- Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance, and Utz.  All three prohibit child labor, which is endemic in the cocoa sector in West Africa, where Hershey sources most of its cocoa.

Green America joined with allies in the child labor and social justice movement in a ten-year campaign to urge Hershey to certify its cocoa as child labor free.  The campaign included protests, letter writing, and petitions, and involved hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

Exactly two years ago, Hershey announced it would source only ethically certified cocoa by 2020. This announcement came after years of pressure on Hershey to prevent child labor on West African cocoa farms from Green America members and our allies Two years later, we’re checking on Hershey’s progress and on how these commitments have impacted cocoa growing communities. But first, a little back story…

2000-2009  

credit: International Labor Rights Forum

In 2001, the world was shocked by stories of horrific forced child labor in West African cocoa growing communities. In response, a “slave-free” label was proposed by US lawmakers. The chocolate industry defeated this proposal and instead signed on to the Harkin-Engel protocol, to voluntarily fix child labor in their supply chains. A decade went by with the industry missing deadline after deadline to stop child labor, as their profits soared. Very little progress was made to prevent child labor among most major chocolate companies.

September 2010 Green America and our allies grew tired of waiting for big cocoa to act on its own to fix child labor. We launched our Raise the Bar, Hershey! Campaign, calling out Hershey, the largest US chocolate manufacturer, as a laggard in addressing child labor problems in its supply chain. In 2009, Mars had already committed to sourcing 100% sustainable cocoa by 2020.

 credit: Celery Street Blog 

September 2011 With growing consumer awareness and outrage, Green America published “Still Time to Raise the Bar” to keep the pressure on Hershey[1]. The report called out Hershey’s failure to address child labor and other labor abuses in its supply chain (a topic that Hershey failed to mention in its own corporate responsibility report). The report acted as a catalyst for tens of thousands of people to write to Hershey. Consumers and religious allies took part in protests at Hershey stores, and investors called on the company to address child labor as well.

January 2012

Green America and our allies planned to run a Super Bowl add targeting Hershey for child labor. In response, Hershey agreed to purchase Rainforest Alliance certified cocoa for its Bliss chocolate products[2]

August 2012 Consumer pressure continued to escalate on Hershey, and retailers started putting pressure on the cocoa giant as well. Green America united food coops, specialty retailers, and Whole Foods to voice their concerns regarding child labor in Hershey products. Whole Foods agreed to drop all Hershey products from its stores.

October 2012 Hershey announced it would ethically source 100% of its cocoa by 2020, but does not disclose an incremental timeline or which certification it will use.[3]

March 2013 In response to ongoing pressure, Hershey shares it plans to worker with Fair Trade USA, Utz and Rainforest alliance for certification, and that it will reach 10% certification by the end of 2013, 40-50% by 2016.[4]

January 2014 Hershey announced it was ahead of its original goal, reaching 18% certified cocoa[5].

Today: Green America is pleased that Hershey has followed through on its plan to move to certified cocoa, and is in fact ahead of schedule. Eight years is a long time in the life of a child, so the sooner Hershey can purchase cocoa that comes from farms that screen out child labor, the better. Child labor remains an urgent issue in West Africa’s cocoa sector, and one that stems from extreme poverty. The average income of West African cocoa farmers and their dependents is well below the level of absolute poverty, according to the Cocoa Barometer.  

Poverty is a major driver of child labor. In order to address the extreme poverty faced by cocoa farmers, chocolate companies must develop long-term relationships with the farmers they purchase from and pay prices that cover the farmers’ cost of production, including the costs of additional hired labor and necessary fertilizers. The added benefit of chocolate companies paying a higher price for their cocoa is that it guarantees the future supply of chocolate, for chocolate companies and all their chocolate loving consumers.

Two years after Hershey’s announcement to ethically certify its chocolate products, we’re celebrating the impact consumers can have when they band together to make change happen! Over the next two years, we’ll continue to monitor Hershey, to ensure the company meets or exceeds it 2016 commitment of 50% certified. We’ll also put pressure on companies who have not taken steps to trace their cocoa supply, like Godiva.

Thank you for taking action with us!

[1] http://www.greenamerica.org/PDF/Still-Time-to-Raise-the-Bar-Hershey-Report-2011.pdf

[2] https://www.greenamerica.org/about/newsroom/releases/2012-02-01-Hershey-Will-Offer-Certified-Chocolate-Following-Consumer-Driven-Campaign.cfm

[3] http://www.thehersheycompany.com/newsroom/news-release.aspx?id=1741328

[4] http://www.thehersheycompany.com/newsroom/news-release.aspx?id=1798984

[5] http://www.thehersheycompany.com/newsroom/news-release.aspx?id=1894137

  My oldest daughter a few years ago at what she calls "the Pumpkin Cart of Honesty," in which a neighbor grows pumpkins and simply sets them out on a cart with a cash box and trusts that people will pay for what they take. We now officially come to the end of our "Don't Have a Cow" blog series. Since many of the posts have been focusing on vegetarian or vegan eating, I'm going to take a different tack.... As part of my quest to eat healthier with my family, I’ve been spending a lot of time getting to know what my local options are. I telecommute for Green America from the Midwest, and it’s pretty easy to find fresh, local food here at harvest-time among all the family farms. But could I eat three meals a day from local sources for ten days, with only a handful of non-local foods allowed (like, oh, chocolate?)? That’s the question behind Vicki Robin’s new 10-day Local Food Challenge. Vicki recently published a wonderful book, Blessing the Hands that Feed Us: What Eating Closer to Home Can Teach Us About Food, Community, and Our Place on Earth, which was all about what she learned by eating food for a full month that came from no further than ten miles from her home. The challenge she’s issuing now is less stringent: You pick any ten days in October and eat only food that has come from within 100 miles or less of your home.  And you can pick ten “exotics”, or foods from afar—like coffee, chocolate, or olive oil—“to make it doable.” The results, says Vicki, can be a life-changing exercise in connecting to your food and community. “Why do it at all? For fun, for curiosity, for integrity, for health, for the love of farmers and community, for making friends, for encouraging others to eat local food, for building an alternative to food-as-usual, for taking a stand for the food system we-the-eaters want: fresh, fair, affordable food for all,” she says. I’d like to try it. Because the local food producers that I’ve connected with are all sources of some of the best and healthiest food I've ever eaten, and dedicating ten days to being mindful about finding more can only make my life richer. There’s Jeff, the apple farmer who smiled indulgently when I asked him for a bag of Honeycrisps and then promptly sliced up some of his close-to-organic heirloom apples for me to try. I dream of those apples all year long and am overjoyed that he just opened up his orchard store again for the season. Mrs. D. operates a small dairy ten miles away where she sells fresh milk, butter, and every flavor of ice cream we could ever want. Alice makes homemade bread with all sorts of wonderful flavors and sells it at the local farmers market. Bill sells organically farmed, truly free-range chicken at the same market for when my family does eat meat, which is less and less often since my animal-loving daughters prefer to eat plant-based meals—as long as their father or I don’t mess them up in the kitchen. Lindsey and Joe operate an award-winning winery within walking distance from my house, and I’ve fallen in love with several of their sweet reds—and with the musical nights and other fun community events they throw at the winery. I just bought a jar of the crunchiest dill pickles I’ve ever eaten at an art fair from a woman my mother’s age who cans four different types, and I’m vacationing on Lake Michigan soon, where I’ll pick up some herb-infused olive oil made only in Wisconsin. Round it all out with mint tea and stevia syrup from my herb garden, which I swap with a friend for fresh zucchini and tomatoes (the deer got all of ours this year). But I know I’ve only hit the proverbial tip of the iceberg when it comes to seeking out local food treasures. I can’t wait to discover more. As Vicki says, “If we want a GMO-antibiotic-cruelty-free, nontoxic, fair to farmers and nutritious food supply, the 10-Day Local Food Challenge gives us firsthand experience of what we stand for. We know we are participating in building the world we want, bite by bite, even as we protest and boycott the food system we don’t want.” To learn more about and join the 10-Day Local Food Challenge, visit localfoodchallenge.org. And don't forget to ask your local growers if they farm organic or close to it, so you can avoid pesticide residues and genetically modified organisms for your health.

—Tracy Fernandez Rysavy, editor-in-chief

“All animals are equal,” Orwell’s pigs proclaim in the novel Animal Farm, “but some animals are more equal than others.”

I've always loved this quote and the round-about ways the pigs describe their own special status. But lately while researching the myriad problems around beef, I've thought about this quote again and again. Meats are often seen as interchangeable when we talk about their place in our diets. Eating animals can be seen as equally problematic from a humane standpoint. Similarly, we often don't differentiate between meats with the labels we use for one another -- "vegetarians," "vegans," and "meat eaters." But the more I read, the more it became apparent that from an environmental standpoint, meats are not equally damaging.

Chances are you’re aware that beef is bad for the environment –if you've kept up with our blog series on the subject or read the lead article of our last magazine issue, you'll know that beef has a disproportionately large impact on our water, climate and even our own health.

But a study conducted by Gideon Eshel, Alon Shepon, Tamar Makov and Ron Milo published earlier this summer quantifies this disproportionate impact in a way that knocked me out of my socks. The study notes that while there’s a general understanding that meat has a higher environmental cost than plants, there isn’t a lot of information comparing the different types of meats on the same standards. The study authors sought to remedy that lack of comparative data.

They found that “beef production requires 28, 11, 5, and 6 times more land, irrigation water, GHG and Nr, respectively than the average of the other livestock categories.”  Let's take a look at that fact in a more visual format. The study authors were kind enough to send me the numbers behind their summary graphs. I've reproduced them here (without standard deviation included).

Here's the resources used by various meats and plants.

The study authors note that beef – the least efficient on all four counts – is the second most popular animal category in the average US diet “accounting for 7% of all consumed calories.”

So what's the solution? In an interview with us Denis Hays, the author of Cowed, explains that while he admires vegetarians and vegans, his first priority is to convince meat eaters to reduce the amount of beef they eat. "If we can persuade those people to reduce their consumption from 1.6 pounds of bad beef every week to, say, one-half pound of good, healthy beef from the right sources, the benefits for human health and the environment will be profound."

And Dr. Alon Shepon, one of the authors of the study agrees about the potential impact of curbing beef consumption. "Beef's inefficiency in GHG, water, land and fertilization towers over all other" categories, he told us. "Exchanging beef with other animal products including other sources of meat reduce the environmental impacts associated with food production."

If you're reducing the amount of beef you eat, make sure you're replacing it with other yummy foods. I particularly like savory apple recipes in the fall.

So for all you vegetarians and vegans -- keep up the good work, and consider focusing on beef if you talk to your friends or family about meat consumption. For you meat eaters who want to make a difference, the "low hanging fruit" in your diet is beef -- reduce that and make a world of difference.

If you'd like a more personalized analysis of your diet, take our food-print quiz to find out how you can make your diet even more climate-friendly and how you compare to other Americans.

Finally, don't let yourself equate beef-reduction with depriving yourself of good food. Check out some of my favorite autumn vegetarian recipes here and here.