Let’s give a round of applause to landowners in the heart of California’s premiere winegrowing area who have volunteered to forfeit 135 valuable acres of prized farmland, so riverbanks along the Napa River can be stabilized and salmon spawns restored.

Many stretches of the 55-mile-long Napa River – a region that produces sauvignon blanc and cabernet sauvignon – have filled with silt over the years as floodwaters and non-native plants took a toll on the river banks. The river drains into the San Francisco Bay and is considered the most important watershed in the region for steelhead and Chinook salmon spawning.

The 40 landowners who have volunteered to give up a portion of their lands, some valued as high as $235,000 an acre, admit it’s valuable property but they want to be good stewards of the land and environment so their businesses can be passed on to future generations. The project is seen as a model for private landowners initiating environmental improvements before they’re mandated by government.

You know if our U.S. Congress could function in the spirit of cooperation that these 40 landowners have displayed, maybe we could extricate ourselves from the mess we’re in. Napa Valley volunteers – We salute you!

It’s funny what you come across on the Internet while researching fodder for news columns. Here’s a little diddy that I just had to share. Seems the park district in the small town of Highland Park in Illinois has decided to resume the use of chemical pesticides to treat its sports fields. The district changed its policy four years ago to use only organic, health-conscience techniques, including intensified irrigation, aeration, mowing, over-seeding and other cultural practices.
But a few months ago, the district confessed that the dandelions, clover and other invasive weeds had gained the upper hand. The baseball, soccer and football fields have become overrun with 60 to 80 percent weeds and are in the worse shape they’ve been in over a decade. So government officials finally threw in the towel and admitted defeat.
“The fields are getting worse every year,” lamented Park District Commissioner Cal Berstein. “I think something needs to be done to reverse the trend.” Well, maybe now the athletes will be able to find many of their lost sports balls. Live and learn …

Iowa State University researcher Wallace Huffman found that when consumers are presented with produce enhanced with consumer traits through intragenic means, they will pay significantly more than for plain produce.

The research is published in the current issue of the Journal of Agricultural & Resource Economics.

Intragenic modification refers to plants that are genetically modified with genes from other plants within their own species, the announcement explained, while transgenic foods refer to plants that are modified with genes from other species.

Consumer traits are those modifications that are seen as a benefit to the consumer, such as enhanced levels of vitamins. Farmer traits refer to traits that benefit farmers, such as pest and drought resistance.

“What we found was when genes for enhancing the amount of antioxidants and vitamin C in fresh produce were transferred by intragenic methods, consumers are willing to pay 25% more than for the plain product (with no enhancements). That is a sizable increase,” said Huffman, a distinguished professor of economics.

Consumers’ acceptance of GM plants is a real turnaround from previous research.

In 2001, Huffman first researched consumers’ willingness to pay for transgenic foods. At that time, he showed that consumers would pay 15% less for foods made from or containing farmer traits introduced by transgenic methods, compared with produce that was not genetically modified at all.

If there remains any hesitation by consumers to eat GM foods, it is difficult to say, Huffman said.

“There still could be a little bit of negative feelings toward a genetically modified product, but they (consumers) see real value being created in enhanced consumer traits, and they are willing to pay for those enhancements that are introduced by intragenic methods,” Huffman said.

It does seem that buying foods made healthier through intragenics does not make consumers uneasy, he said.

Huffman’s experiment involved consumers bidding on both GM and non-GM fresh potatoes, tomatoes and broccoli. The intragenically and transgenically modified products had increased levels of antioxidants and vitamin C.

“The basic idea is that when consumers saw that the intragenic produce had elevated healthful attributes, they were willing to pay more for them,” Huffman said.

Consumers were not willing to pay more if those enhancements were introduced through transgenic methods, he added.

What are your views on eating GM foods?

There is a very convincing agrument for the need for fumigants. On Feb. 22, a representative of the California Strawberry Commission told a joint hearing of Assembly committees that an effective alternative to fumigants has yet to be found and “the only economically viable remedy to combat soil-borne disease are fumigants.”

Thus we have the controversy involving methyl iodide, as a replacement for ozone-depleting methyl bromide, and whether it is safe for human health, farm workers and the environment. The crux of the debate is whether methyl iodide, that some allege is one of the most toxic chemicals on Earth and causes cancer, is a rational replacement for methyl bromide.

The fact is that strawberries aren’t the only crops that need methyl iodide — it is useful for cut flowers, nursery crops, nuts and vines, tree fruit and tomatoes and peppers. Years before California registered methyl iodide it had already been used safely on many thousands of acres of real farms. Its usage has been approved in more than a dozen other U.S. states. And, the fact is, methyl iodide has not harmed human health or the environment.

Yet there is a concerted effort under way in California by certain environmental groups to have its approval and registration revoked. Are you for or against this move and why?

Here’s an interesting article I came across recently that appeared in the online “Truth About Trade & Technology.” The writer’s name was not mentioned but I’d like to give him/her a medal. WPHA has been railing against EWG for years for its fear-mongering and seriously flawed dirty produce list. This writer hits the nail directly on its head.

Here’s a press release. “The Environmental Working Group opposes the use of pesticides.” That, in essence, is the point of the organization’s annual “Dirty Dozen” list of fruits and vegetables. Otherwise, why would the organization go through the trouble of trying to scare the pants off anyone who eats an apple, a stalk of celery — or any other produce, for that matter?

Every year, the group regurgitates USDA studies on pesticide residue and makes a big showy splash about how “bad” some produce is. That the group doesn’t like pesticides is one thing. Anyone is entitled to choose whatever he wants to eat. But to inflict that position on both farmers and consumers in a misleading manner is quite another thing.

The sad irony of such attacks is that once it grabs headlines with its scare tactics the group encourages people to eat fruits and vegetables. On its website EWG says: “Eat your fruits and vegetables! The health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure. …eating conventionally grown produce is far better than not eating fruits and vegetables at all.”

In other words, “Never mind.”

Talk about a mixed message. In point of fact, the amounts of pesticides cited by the EWG are far below government limits. And without the use of pesticides, many fruits and vegetables may not reach consumers at prices they can afford or in adequate quanities. And then there’s the group’s other motive: raising money. Its website asks visitors to contribute to the “good work” the group does.

So what’s the hubbub about? It’s about getting headlines once a year with a publicity stunt — and filling the till.

You can read WPHA’s latest article about the EWG at this link: http://bit.ly/iqUuzC

Another related story at this link: http://bit.ly/kgViKn

I thought I would share this letter from a student in Los Angeles.

My name is Marlin Dawoodjee and I attend University High School in Los Angeles. I have become aware that synthetic nitrogen fertilizers have become popular in farms but the consequences have not been paid much attention to. Nitrogen is needed in order for plants to grow, but too much of it will result in excess running into rivers and it will affect the air we breathe.

Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are used because they increase crop growth in a shorter amount of time. This appeals to farmers because it becomes beneficiary for them. The truth is that when synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are used constantly, it removes nutrients from the soil and damages it. The crop size may be bigger, but it lacks in its health benefits. The nitrogen naturally turns in nitrate when it interacts with oxygen. Nitrate can be ingested and processed by most children and adults, but infants cannot and it can cause Blue Baby Syndrome. In pregnant women, it has been linked to cancer and birth defects. Adults and children can be affected by the fertilizers also because nitrates form methemoglobin. Methemoglobin interferes with the body’s ability to transport oxygen to individual cells.

Methemoglobin does not only have an affect on humans, animals are also greatly impacted. The high concentrations of nitrogen in the oceans allow for algae to form. These plants consume a lot of oxygen and are very large which blocks sunlight from reaching animals below the sea. Many organisms have died and there are now “dead zones” in the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River, and the Black Sea where there is a lack of oxygen. These outcomes are avoidable.

Crop rotation is a simple way that healthier crops can be produced. The natural nitrogen is already in the soil and will be replenished after every harvest. Yes, many do not like change, but that is not the only way to make change. A well balanced fertilizer will also promote growth while not completely destroying the environment. I believe that this issue should not continue to be ignored, but for it to be taken into account.

How would you answer this student?

These days we hear a lot about what farmers need to do to improve agricultural environmental stewardship. At the same time, we all know that California growers will play a tremendous role in feeding an ever increasing world population. While the suggestions on what agriculture needs to do to be more “environmentally friendly” are in abundance, most reports fall short in giving California growers the rightful credit for the tremendous job they are now doing in keeping the world fed.

Some people seem to think that farmers need to learn and adopt Best Management Practices (BMPs). This observation seems to miss the fact that BMPs have been routinely practiced in commercial farming for years. Consider the following: A full 90 percent of large commercial California growers are using sophisticated GPS systems to apply pesticides and fertilizers to their crops, thereby cutting down on product waste and off-target spraying, according to Big W Sales representatives in Stockton, who sell modern precision agriculture equipment; farmers are also investing in new automatic section controls and other modern farming equipment as they come online to reduce product waste, save money and protect the environment.

Additionally, BMPs currently practiced by growers focus on the management of inputs to provide economic, environmental and agronomic efficiency in production agriculture. Examples of BMPs include practices for the management of pests, nutrients and waste; vegetative and tillage practices, such as contour farming, cropping and rotational field sequences and windbreaks; and structural practices, such as terraces, grade stabilization and sediment control basins.

There is also a lot of discussion about how farmers should be moved to more organic systems by eliminating inorganic fertilizers and crop protection tools. I would note that central to the science of agronomy is the topic of increasing crop yields and growing healthy plants that provide high nutritional value. While the debate will continue between organic and inorganic fertilizers one fact is clear: When it comes to feeding a hungry world inorganic fertilizers are unsurpassed in their ability to provide high levels of nutrients to plants in an efficient and economical manner.

When comparing organic fertilizer sources with low-input conventional farms, the greenhouse gas emissions are about the same. And unlike conventional systems, the majority of organic cropping systems rely heavily on mechanized tillage for weed control, which increases erosion and soil carbon emissions.

And concerning energy expenditure, since the 1940s agricultural productivity has increased dramatically, largely because of the increased usage of energy-intensive mechanization, fertilizers and pesticides. The vast majority of this energy comes from fossil fuel sources, it is true. However, agricultural food systems in the percentage of energy expended in three industrialized states, for example, show that agriculture plays a very small role in overall energy consumption. The United Kingdom in 2005 used 1.9 percent of indirect and direct energy consumption; Sweden in 2000 used 2.5 percent; and the United States in 2002 used a paltry 2 percent. (U.S. figures come from “Energy Use in the U.S. Food System,” USDA Economic Research Service Report No. ERR-94.)

“Sustainability” has become a buzzword whose definition remains as unclear as its proponents’ goals. To some folks, a sustainable farm or ranch must not have an impact on the land, air or water. To others, sustainability has to do with the new technology they prefer over old technology.

Beyond all the talk is a single economic principle: No matter how “sustainable” a project is, if it doesn’t make money it will eventually fail. Ask any farmer or rancher. If it isn’t profitable, it won’t be sustainable. This fact must be uppermost in the minds of those wishing to discredit modern day production agriculture that safely integrates the usage of pesticides and fertilizers – public opinions which unfortunately fail to reflect the tremendous advances in food production that California growers are using each day to keep the world’s food supply safe, affordable and plentiful while also protecting the environment.

Lastly is the ongoing debate over Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the food chain. For decades now there has been a growing number of people who do not trust food products that have been genetically altered. They believe there hasn’t been enough scientific research done to properly evaluate these food stuffs and they are fearful that these ungodly “Frankenfoods” will eventually make them sick – in which they may suffer maladies such as hair growth on the bottoms of their feet or an extra nostril or third eye.

In a recent year-long study about GMOs and their usage on crops in Monterey County – California’s third largest crop-producing county – it was recommended that the Monterey County Board of Supervisors “not consider” a moratorium on the growth and cultivation of GMO crops in the county.

The study was requested by Supervisor Dave Potter and conducted by the staffs of the county’s agricultural commissioner and director of Environmental Health. Potter asked for the study after more and more citizens expressed concerns about GMOs in their foods and environment.

Here’s what the researchers concluded:
• GMO foods currently on the market have passed risk assessments and no adverse human effects have been observed resulting from the consumption of such foods.
• The research found little scientific evidence that GMOs pose significantly more threats of cross-pollination contamination (gene flow) and environmental drift than do conventionally bred crops.
• The use of GMO crops with insect and herbicide-resistance traits has resulted in cumulative reductions in chemical usage (particularly for some pesticides and herbicides that are less specific pest targeted), resulting in decreased impacts to farm workers, consumers and the natural environment.
• Biotechnology may become a key resource for developing local crop cultivars adapted for climate change.

These research findings about the positive impacts of GMOs, coupled with the use of BMPs in modern day farming technology, serve to dispel fears and apprehensions about production agriculture being a greedy monster out to destroy the planet and poison the world’s food supply. Put simply, the “science” is on our side as we are confronted with the daunting task of feeding an ever growing global population. It is a noble task indeed.

In reference to an Op-Ed piece on Sunday, Jan. 9, titled “America’s Good Food Fight” by Nicolette Hahn Niman, it was pointed out that organic commercial food production alone can feed our growing world population, which will be 9 billion people by the year 2050.

While Ms. Niman appears to have pure intentions in bringing this matter to our attention, it is simply not true.

According to crop experts Kirchman, Holger, Bergstrom and Lars, in the 2008 book “Organic Crop Production – Ambition and Limitations” – a scientific work that largely debunks utopian organic food claims – there would be a 40 percent reduction in global crop yields through large-scale conversion to organic agriculture. A 40 percent reduction in yield on a global scale is equivalent to the amount of crops required to feed 2.5 billion people.

While describing the worldwide benefits of conventional fertilizers, the experts summarize their findings with this observation: “It is obvious that worldwide adoption of organic agriculture would lead to massive famine and human death.” Put simply, you can starve much of the world population so we can feel good about using organic labels, or utilize environmentally safe and agronomically sound conventional systems that will feed the world. You choose.

What are your thoughts on this letter to the editor at the Los Angeles Times? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

It appears that agriculture is finally embracing the fact that if the industry doesn’t take measures to toot its own horn and enlighten the public about the benefits found in safe and plentiful food and fiber – then very few others will.

In fact, documentaries like “Food, Inc.” and books such as “Fast Food Nation” and “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” coupled with the constant attacks and lawsuits from powerful environmental extremists – which may or may not be motivated by the best of intentions – are actually crippling the ability of farmers to produce the food, fiber and the plants that we all depend on.

So it is both refreshing and encouraging to see agricultural commodity groups, farmers, dairymen and ranchers all across California – and across the nation for that matter – coalesce around the common cause of setting the record straight as to just what it is that they actually do. Since the emergence of the Almighty Internet appears to be the modern-day delivery mechanism utilized by green groups, it makes sense to venture into this arena to level the playing field.

Evidence abounds that agriculture has “seen the light” by entering the fray to set up websites, establish accounts on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, and create blogs to become a power player in the daily rapid-fire exchange of ideas, viewpoints, crusades and controversies available in the modern public forum know as “Social Networking.” The Western Plant Health Association (www.healthyplants.org), along with other trade associations such as CropLife America and the California Farm Bureau Federation, represents just a few of the farming associations that have produced educational videos for the Web to enlighten the general public about the true benefits of the agriculture industry.

This brings me to the focus of this month’s article. You are encouraged to explore www.knowacaliforniafarmer.com, a valuable ag website that came online on Sept. 1. Without doubt, this site is like no other when it comes to spreading the message about who it is growing our food and the shaky and tenuous times that California farmers and ranchers are currently facing.

With fewer than 2 percent of all Americans engaged in farming today, consumers have become increasingly isolated from the source of their food supply. Adding to this growing detachment is the fact that the public is only hearing one side of the story – and it’s not from the farming side. Furthermore, few people understand the reality that farmers are overburdened with regulatory schemes laid out by politicians in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. that only make matters more difficult.

The new website has been two years in the making; a direct response to the passage of California’s Prop. 2, the initiative sponsored by the Humane Society aimed at prohibiting the confinement of certain farm animals. This was the beginning of the California Agricultural Communications Coalition (CACC), a collection of California commodity groups and various agricultural associations of which WPHA is a member. However, the driving force behind www.knowacaliforniafarmer.com is California’s family farmers, ranchers, fruit and vegetable producers, rice growers, poultry farmers, dairymen and nut producers.

Through videos, photos and blogs that they post on their own, participants can engage consumers in real-time dialogue about the many benefits agriculture provides to our communities and state. CACC and WPHA encourage industry professionals to visit the site, establish an account, read the easy instructions on how to post your contributions, and get involved in educating and sharing your experiences of spending “life in the trenches” in California – the largest agricultural state in the union. And while you’re at it, view WPHA’s most recent videos at www.healthyplants.org, featuring Frank Muller, of Joe Muller and Sons farms and Yolo Vineyards, talking about the benefits of modern-day farming and championing the technology of crop protection tools. And, while visiting www.healthyplants.org, feel free to engage us in discussion about the many agricultural articles we have on our blog site.

USDA Report: Agriculture still a business of family farms
While viewing the above mentioned WPHA video, Frank Muller makes it a point to separate his farming operation in Yolo County from the stereotypic “corporate” agribusiness conglomerates that are the usual focus of criticism from green groups. And family farms such as his remain the “norm” in commercial crop production in this country. This fact is driven home by a recent analysis of demographic trends focused on American farms and ranches.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s report has some salient points listed below:

• Agriculture remains a sector dominated by family businesses. Ninety-eight percent of farms and ranches are family farms, the report said, and they account for 82 percent of farm production.
• Small farms – defined as those with annual sales of less than $250,000 – make up most of the nation’s farms and hold the bulk of farm assets, including farmland. Most farm production, the report noted, occurs on larger-scale family farms and non-family farms.
• Of the total number of farms in the United States, 88 percent qualify as small farms, the report said. Those farms hold 63 percent of the nation’s farmland.
The full 12-page report may be downloaded from the USDA’s Economic Research Service at www.ers.usda.gov by searching for it by its title, “America’s Diverse Family Farms 2010 Edition.”

This makes it all that more important (since there’s strength in numbers) for California farmers and ranchers to team up and take the time to enlighten the general public, via www.knowacaliforniafarmer.com and other websites, about the rewards and hurdles inherent in growing today’s food supply for an ever growing world population.

California commodity growers have taken the gloves off in their fight to refute a list by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) that gives the false impression that pesticide residue amounts on certain fruits and vegetables are toxic and should be avoided.

EWG’s “Dirty Dozen list” of commodity fruits and vegetables – or its “Shoppers Guide,” as EWG describes it – has been around for almost two decades, but in the last few years has been getting an exorbitant amount of press coverage almost daily. So much publicity, in fact, that consumers have begun avoiding buying these commodities out of fear for their health and the well-being of their families.

This steady drip-drip of bad publicity has begun transforming consumer buying habits into preferring organically grown produce over the conventionally grown fruits and vegetables named on the Dirty Dozen list. Or, if unaffordable, avoiding them all together, despite the proven health benefits afforded by these food items. As you can well imagine, agricultural commodity groups and medical experts as well – quite perplexed and alarmed by this troubling trend – finally put their heads together in combating a threat that they see as based on unscientific, misleading, or outright bogus claims targeting conventionally grown produce. They asked the obvious question: Are the commodities listed on the Dirty Dozen list really dangerous as EWG claims?

In an attempt to find out the science used to arrive at the Dirty Dozen list, an expert panel of toxicologists, risk assessors and nutritionists was commissioned by the Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF located in Watsonville) – a small but stalwart band dedicated to preventing the defamation of the farmer.

During a series of AFF webinars presented in July to agricultural groups as well as health specialists and journalists, the panel concluded that consumers should not be afraid of eating any fruit or vegetable because of pesticide residues, despite claims to the contrary generated by the Dirty Dozen list. In addition, AFF launched a new website located at www.safefruitsandveggies.com that focuses on the research conducted by its panel of experts. Below is what they found:

• The Dirty Dozen list is misleading to consumers because it is based only on exposure data while remaining silent about available information on the toxicity of pesticides present in the diet. Merely detecting a residue does not mean it is unsafe.

• The U.S. EPA’s process for evaluating the potential risks of pesticides on food is rigorous and health-protective. The EPA’s testing requirements for pesticides used on food are more extensive than for chemicals used in any other category, and include testing targeted specifically to assess the potential risks to fetuses, infants and children.

• Given the widespread media attention devoted to the Dirty Dozen list, it is disconcerting that the group behind the list has not shared its algorithm with the scientific community or the public, nor has the report been subjected to outside peer review. Put another way, EWG assigned each commodity a score of 1 to 100, with 100 being the worst. However, the details on how the scoring for each commodity involving six different measurements was integrated into a composite score have never been provided. Thus, the scores cannot be readily reproduced.

• The currently available scientific evidence does not conclude that there is any risk associated with the pesticide residues found on fresh fruits and vegetables.

AFF’s webinars were quickly countered by a media teleconference by the Washington, D.C.-based EWG. Group President Ken Cook said that a main reason “Big Agriculture” is attacking the Dirty Dozen list is because of the quickly growing organic produce market. He said consumers are saying they like pesticide-free produce, adding, “What Big Agriculture seems to be saying is, ‘Shut up and eat your pesticides.’ ”

Now I’ll interject my two cents. I think it’s a good idea to give people all of the information that we can about pesticides. But the myth that organic foods don’t have pesticides used on them is one that really needs to go away. You see, the federal National Organic Program and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation registers pesticides for use on organic crops, so the message that organic crops don’t use pesticides is in fact a misnomer.

These organic pesticides may be present at higher concentrations than synthetic pesticides and may have similar effects on humans. No farmer, organic or non-organic, wants to use anymore pesticides than the crop requires. Certain crops are rarely sprayed regardless of whether they’re produced organically or not. Pesticides are expensive, but when faced with the potential loss of a crop, growers will do what they need to do to avoid losing their crop, and if that means applying pesticides then that is what has to be done.

Lastly, I am living proof that conventional produce is not all that bad. I’ve been on this earth for 63 years and I have been eating fruits and vegetables with pesticide residues since I was a kid. I’m still kicking and so are a bunch of my friends who ate the same. And as far as avoiding conventional produce because of the Dirty Dozen list, it turns out that our moms were right: eat your fruits and vegetables, conventional or otherwise. For the good of your own health, it sure beats filling up on fast-food junk or Hostess Twinkies.