| Friday, May 27, 2005 |  |
| 0 comments |
| 27 May 2005 @ 22:53 Flemming has a great article and editorial on his blog about optimization as applied to the infrastructure of our society. He makes some astute observations that support how we can create a sustainable more efficient means of sharing resources. The model he uses is from a startup company called DayJet. It goes something like this, but visit Fleming's site and read the whole thing. Essentially about a private jet company called DayJet, which has made a piece of software that makes it economical to provide relatively cheap business flights from just about anywhere to just about anywhere in the U.S. on cheap jets that have seats for just 3 passengers. They plan on having between 40 and 300 planes like that. The big deal is their optimization software. All airlines have to do a big optimization calculation, to figure out how best to utilize their aircraft, and transport the most people to places they want to go, for the lowest cost. But even for a major airline, the number of planes and routes and destinations is relatively small, and they don't change their routes very often. What DayJet has in mind is a much huger set of optimization calculations, done not every month, but every time somebody wants to go somewhere. The use of the planes will change all the time, and any little airport might be used, as long as the jets can land there. So, the whole calculation needs to be done basically for each customer, in relation to whoever else wants to fly around that time. You know, it isn't economical to fly just one person, so the optimization will figure out how best to serve everybody and fill up the seats as much as possible. |
| Why Women Think Men Are Immature | 4 comments |
 27 May 2005 @ 18:11 What can I say..... More funny fotos at Rock 103 More >      |
| Small Farmers Say USDA Has Stolen the Word "Organic" | 0 comments |
| 27 May 2005 @ 17:56 Small Farmers Say USDA Has Stolen the Word "Organic" The San Antonio Current 05/26/2005 Food & Drink What's in a word? By Brian Chasnoff Small farmers say USDA has stolen the word 'organic' Jacque Gates runs a small organic farm on the outskirts of Lockhart. She grows squash, onions, peppers, tomatoes, and cucumbers that she sells in the River Valley Farmer's Market down the road in Bastrop. A self-proclaimed "fanatic" when it comes to the rigors of organic farming, Gates labors under a comprehensive notion of her chosen trade. "How an organic farmer thinks of 'organic' is how the entire cycle works and how I fit into it," she says. "It's not just that I use organic amendments. I use drip tape to conserve water. I use compost to enrich my soil. I use mulch. It's a whole cycle." As Gates enters her fourth year as a conscientious organic farmer, the U.S. Department of Agriculture enters its third year as official arbiter of what it means to be organic. Since October 2002, producers and handlers have been required to obtain certification from a USDA-accredited agent to sell, label, or represent their products as organic. While some see federal regulation as an effective way to encourage producers to adopt more consistently healthful practices, others, such as Gates, consider it a hostile takeover. "As soon as [the USDA] took over the program, immediately Congress began trying to weaken the restrictions," says Gates. "I just have a bad feeling that pretty soon the word won't mean anything." What to look for when buying organic food: ? "100% Organic" means all ingredients are organic. ? "Organic" means a minimum of 95% of ingredients are organic. ? "Made with organic ingredients" means 70% to 94% of the product is organic. ? Multi-ingredient foods, such as breakfast cereal, with less than 70% organic ingredients may not use the organic label, but can list specific organically produced ingredients on the side panel of the package. ? "Natural" and "organic' are not interchangeable, but that and other quality claims such as free-range, hormone-free, and non-GM can still appear on labels. The National Organic Program is a voluminous list of criteria specifying allowed and prohibited substances, land-management practices, livestock standards, and labeling requirements. Prior to the law, a guiding light for the organic movement was the California Organic Foods Act, a state guideline program passed in 1990 that comprised the first organic standards in the nation. Congress passed the Organic Food Production Act the same year and lawmakers wrangled over the official national standards for nearly a decade before the National Organic Program finally went into effect in October 2002. Until then, certification requirements around the nation lacked consistency, with state and private certifiers using different standards. Some organic farmers, like Gates, believe the National Organic Program's uniform standards came at too high a price. In particular, Gates is concerned about a provision of the law that states "organic is not synonymous with GM-free." The USDA's website specifies that the "adventitious presence of a genetically modified or genetically engineered substance ... does not affect the status of the certified operation and does not necessarily result in loss of organic status for the organic product." "That's such bullshit," says Gates. Leslie McKinnon, coordinator of the Organic Certification Program for the Texas Department of Agriculture, says there are grounds for such standards."Because of the reality of the way pollen travels on the wind, it is unrealistic to take a zero-tolerance approach," she says. The law, says McKinnon, is "practice-based"; it is enforced only when a producer intentionally violates its standards. In determining whether the presence of GM substances or "products of excluded methods" in crops is intentional, certifiers consider the specific measures taken by producers to prevent their presence. At the same time, the USDA's website states that "buffer zones should not be sized at distances that attempt to achieve a zero tolerance for prohibited substances." Dan Gillotte, general manager of the Wheatsville Food Co-op in Austin, sympathizes with certain provisions of the National Organic Program that allow producers some leeway, such as its tolerance of 5 percent non-organic ingredients in certified organic products. (The California Organic Foods Act also allowed 5 percent non-organic ingredients in certified organic foods; the National Organic Program actually strengthened the requirements for the "made with organic" label, increasing COFA's minimum of 50 percent organic ingredients to 70 percent.) "The consumer might want 100 percent organic, but the reality is there are manufacturing concerns," says Gillotte. "If [certain companies] couldn't get [the organic label], then they wouldn't make any of the ingredients organic, so it's more beneficial that 95 percent of the ingredients are organic than to not have the product be organic at all." Producers and handlers certainly benefit from certification. Gillotte says 2005 is already Wheatsville's "best sales year ever," and he attributes the store's unparalleled performance to a booming demand for organic foods. Wheatsville is not alone. According to a 2004 Manufacturer Survey by the Organic Trade Association, U.S. organic food sales have grown between 17 and 21 percent each year since 1997. Gillotte says some of his store's best-selling foods are produced by leading organic manufacturers such as Muir Glen and Cascadian Farms, a trend that points to another contentious issue in the saga of organic certification: the industrialization of the organic movement. Despite Gillotte's general acceptance of the National Organic Program, he acknowledges it can often marginalize small, local farmers like Gates. "Sometimes [the National Organic Program's standards] tell farmers what they can't do, but [does not] tell them what they should do." - Steve Bridges "The scale becomes problematic," Gillotte says. "If you can have a 1,000-acre organic tomato farm, you're going to get some economies of scale that the guy who has a 10-acre farm is never going to have." For example, says Gillotte, larger-scale producers can apply fixed costs such as those spent on machinery to a larger quantity of crops, enabling them to charge less for their products. Because small farmers often cannot afford annual certification, which costs about $535 per 100 acres, they are unable to market their products as organic and compete with the larger producers. Another aspect of the National Organic Program is that it doesn't provide a way for "fanatics" like Gates to certify to a higher standard than the federal government requires, therefore making it impossible for the consumer to distinguish between foods produced according to strict organic standards and those produced at the minimum of the national requirements. "Sometimes [the National Organic Program's standards] tell farmers what they can't do, but [does not] tell them what they should do," says Steve Bridges, president of the Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, who likens federal regulation of organic farming to a corporate takeover. He says the encroachment of big business will further debilitate the standard. "As you get more corporate interest in being organic, they're going to seek to weaken the rules." Bridges sees more ominous developments on the horizon. He says that at a recent organic research workshop held in Austin, some scientists espoused the seeming paradox of genetic modification in organic foods. "They think technology can help organics," he says. To counter what critics such as Bridges and Gates consider a growing threat to organic production and to from those just meeting the minimum of the National Organic Program's standards, some farmers have adopted alternative food labels that indicate local or GM-free production. To use the word "organic" without federal certification, however, would bring a $10,000 fine. "That's why so many small farmers are disappointed in all this," says Bridges. "Because they've stolen the word from us." ? By Brian Chasnoff ©San Antonio Current 2005 |
| Hawaii Puts the Brakes on Two New GMO Crops | 0 comments |
| 27 May 2005 @ 17:54 Hawaii Puts the Brakes on Two New GMO Crops For more on what's happening in Hawaii see the GMO Free Hawaii ------ 1.UH vows to hold off genetic tests with Hawaiian taro Researchers will consult with native Hawaiians on cultural concerns By Diana Leone Star Bulletin Hawaiian varieties of taro will not be used in any University of Hawaii genetic engineering research until native Hawaiians advise scientists about cultural concerns, a university dean said yesterday. The promise is an attempt to stave off controversy and foster dialogue between the university and the native Hawaiian community, said Andrew Hashimoto, dean of the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. The dialogue is expected to take place through a process being organized by the Royal Order of Kamehameha on all islands. To solidify the promise, Hashimoto signed a one-page statement about the university's intentions with taro research yesterday at a taro patch at the UH Center for Hawaiian Studies. "We have encountered perceptions in the community that CTAHR's taro research focuses entirely on genetic engineering and that the college sells or gives away genetically engineered taro huli (shoots). These perceptions are incorrect," the statement said. "The CTAHR scientists currently involved in genetic engineering research on taro have no plans to modify Hawaiian taro varieties." The only ongoing genetic engineering of taro at the UH is of a Chinese variety and is being done only in a lab setting, not in greenhouses or open fields, Hashimoto said. Genetic engineering involves the placement of a gene from one species of plant or animal into a different species. For example a disease-resistant gene in rice could be added to taro. Genetic engineering is much faster than traditional cross-breeding, Hashimoto said. Opponents of genetic engineering worry that open-field test crops could escape test plots and affect native plants or other nongenetically engineered crops nearby, said Kat Brady of the environmental group Life of the Land. But for taro, the cultural factor is an additional concern. The connection between Hawaiians and taro goes beyond its historical use as a staple food to a "mystical, mythological parable that all Hawaiians are attached," said kumu John Lake, who chanted in Hawaiian, then spoke in English at yesterday's event. "Kalo (taro) is intrinsically part and parcel of Hawaiians and of ohana," he said. In Hawaiian mythology, the gods Wakea and Ho'ohokukalani's first child, Haloanakalaukapalili, was stillborn. When he was buried in the ground, he became the first taro plant, said Nalei Kahakalau, a teacher at the Big Island public charter school Kanu O Ka Aina. The couple's next child, Haloa, was the founder of the Hawaiian people, according to the legend. Visiting students from the Big Island charter school chanted about the legend for those attending the event. The prospect of genetically altering taro is "kind of scary," said Ernest Tottori, president of Honolulu Poi Co., one of the islands' largest taro growers and processors. For example, taro is known to be tolerated by people with allergies to wheat and rice, but Tottori asked what if it lost that quality under genetic engineering? "You want to be very cautious about anything like that," he said. ... VOICE CONCERNS Anyone with concerns about genetic engineering of Hawaiian taro varieties can contact William Souza, of the Royal Order of Kamehameha, at 282-6005, or Andrew Hashimoto, dean of the University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, at 956-8234. ------ State Rejects Proposal For Genetically Engineered Algae Hawaii Channel, May 24, 2005 The Hawaii Channel HONOLULU -- A local biotechnology company's plans to grow a genetically engineered strain of algae ran into a roadblock Tuesday. Mera Pharmaceuticals wanted to bring the algae to its facilities in Kailua-Kona, to see if it can be grown in large quantities. The company needed approval from the state Board of Agriculture to bring the algae to the islands. Mera said the algae can be grown to develop therapeutic drugs for such conditions as herpes and tumors. Company officials said it would not be able to harm the environment if samples got out of its facility. "The proof is in the pudding. Algae did not escape and invade an environment. It's very tough for them. It's actually very tough to grow them in large scale," said Dr. Miguel Olaizola of Mera Pharmaceuticals. However, opponents are not convinced. "Really they haven't had a good look yet at whether this can escape into the wild, whether it can survive in the wild, in fresh water, and whether there might be any health or environmental concerns, any impacts," project opponent Elisha Goodman said. The board voted 6-3 against the company's request. Mera has applied to bring seven other algae strains to Hawaii Islands. The board expects to handle that issue at a later meeting. |
| Demand for Organic Dairy Products in USA Exceeds Supply | 0 comments |
| 27 May 2005 @ 17:50 Demand for Organic Dairy Products in USA Exceeds Supply--New Farmers Needed MADISON, Wis. Consumer demand for organic dairy products has eclipsed industry expectations growth predictions that once seemed overly optimistic are lower than actual growth. Yet, despite the market potential, organic companies are failing to cash in on the demand. There simply is not enough organic milk to keep the shelves fully stocked. Steve Pechacek, president and general manager of Organic Family LLC, which does business as Organic Choice, says he is short approximately 384,000 pounds of milk this week. "We're doing the best we can, but it's hard," says Pechacek. "This week I had orders for eight additional loads that I don't have." Headquartered in Prescott, Wis., Organic Family works with 12 milk processing plants and primarily ships its milk to the East Coast. Pechacek says he easily could sell an additional 720,000 pounds of organic milk per week. Teresa Marquez, chief marketing executive for Organic Valley Family of Farms, LaFarge, Wis., says her company expected sales to increase by 20 percent in 2004. Instead, it had a 36 percent increase in sales. "It really has taken us by surprise," says Marquez. "We really felt that the 20 to 30 percent growth would kind of slow down. The whole sector is meeting maybe 85 percent of the demand." Marquez says companies are focusing on filling basic demand for fluid milk, cheese and yogurt, but because of low supply are missing out on the opportunity to diversify their organic products. For example, Marquez says demand for organic infant formula is high. Bruce Ellis, CEO of Wisconsin Organics, says his company is dealing with the shortage of organic milk by limiting company growth. If supply were unlimited, Ellis says his company could "certainly grow several hundred times." In addition to capping company growth, Ellis says Wisconsin Organics is exploring buyout options of existing organic dairy companies and looking for traditional farms willing to transition to organic. However, despite the promise of a higher and more stable premium for organic milk, farmers are hesitant to go organic. The problem seems to be in the transition period. Transitioning to organic production is an expensive process and farmers do not begin receiving a higher premium until their milk is certified organic. Ellis says organic feed costs 40 to 50 percent more than conventional feed. Federal law requires that cows be fed organic feed for a year before their milk will be considered organic. In addition, farmers who save money by growing feed on their own land are subject to a longer certification process. Stephen Walker, certification program manager, Midwest Organic Services Association (MOSA), says 95 percent of the farms he works with grow feed on their own land. If they have used prohibited substances such as herbicides or pesticides, the land will not be certified organic for an additional three years. The cows must be fed the organic feed for an additional year. Pechacek says that for many of the farmers he talks to, four years is too long to wait for a higher premium. "Unfortunately conventional farming has left so many in dire straits that they have a real hard time getting through transition," says Pechacek. "I've known farmers that even though they made the transition it was too late. Financially they couldn¹t hold on due to debt load." Ellis adds that small farms may not be able to cash in on the organic market because they may not have the cash reserves or the option to take out a loan to pay for the transition period. "Anybody with 200 cows or under is going to have a heck of a time when it comes down to expense," says Ellis. "Smaller dairy farms will not be able to afford it and once again the family farmer is on the outside looking in." Faye Jones, executive director, Midwest Organic Sustainable Education Service Inc. (MOSES), Spring Valley, Wis., educates farmers about going organic and says the transition period is a "big problem." "But a farmer will know the price he's going to be getting and know its going to be stable and that¹s a big incentive," adds Jones. Marquez says the challenge now is to convince farmers that going organic is a good business decision. She notes that the farmers who had an ideological motivation to produce organic milk have already transitioned, leaving farmers who "don¹t know how to do it and don't see the value in it." "But they look at the premiums, especially in dairy, and they think about it," adds Marquez. Organic Valley recently started a "Transition to Organic Fund" which supplies financial assistance to farmers who transition to organic. The company hopes that offering assistance will convince dairy farmers that are unsure about organic to sign on. But as good as the organic market is now, farmers are rightfully concerned about how the market will perform one to three years from now. "For everybody that's the No. 1 question, "how long is this going to last?" says Pechacek. "I think all indicators point to the position that it is going to continue to grow." Ellis says he expects organic dairy products to transcend the classification as niche or specialty products and become a commodity in the dairy sector. "I can see where organic dairy could easily become 25 percent of the dairy industry," says Ellis. |