Please Vote!

The Organic Hype has entered a contest for blogs that make a difference! We are hoping that this will, at the very least, raise awareness for our cause! Getting a donation for the World Business Council for Sustainable Development would be a great accomplishment!

Make sure to vote for us here: http://bloggers.maker.good.is/projects/theorganichype

Keep up with TheOrganicHype!

Friend us on Facebook! http://www.facebook.com/theorganichype

Follow us on Twitter: @TheOrganicHype

And of course, check our blog daily! organic-hype.blogspot.com

The Solution: Part 7

Here are FIVE things that you can do to be a part of The Solution!

1. Support local farmers:
In her book “Your Money and Your Life,” Vicky Robin says “How you spend your money is how you vote on what exists in the world.” We love that quote. If you think about it, every time you purchase products from a local farmer, you are voting in favor of that company. We encourage you to take the time and buy as much produce as you need from local farmers to support their business so that they can continue selling locally grown, organic products. There are also many places where you can buy locally grown beef, chicken and eggs. Just recently, my parents decided to share the cost of a cow with five other families. This cow had been grass fed and raised locally. By giving this local butcher their money, they did not financially support another company who gets their meat from factory farms. Which brings us to point number two..

2. Do not financially support bad companies:
“Bad companies” seems quite loaded, so let’s expand on that. Companies who are destroying our planet to make a profit should not receive our money. Remember our favorite quote, ““How you spend your money is how you vote on what exists in the world.” When you purchase products from “bad companies” you are voting in favor of their existence and you are giving them the momentum to keep destroying our planet.

3. Financially support good companies:
There are many companies out there who choose to produce their products in a way that does not negatively impact our environment. These companies should be rewarded for that! We need to always be on the lookout for companies and organizations who choose to act this way.

4. Buy less beef:
From the article series, “Why Organic?”
“Domesticated cows account for seventy percent of animal-derived methane gases in the atmosphere.[2] This is, without a doubt, significant, but there are larger implications. The Amazon rainforest is responsible for carrying forty percent of the world’s fresh water into the atmosphere and the oceans.[3] Soya farms, which produce the ingredients to feed domesticated cows, are replacing the Amazon rainforest at a rapid rate to meet the demand for animal feed. Three American agricultural corporations fund sixty percent of the soy farming in Brazil.[4] As meat consumption continues to be the norm in first world countries, soya farmers will keep destroying the very rainforests that can offset the effects of the greenhouse gases these cows, and other products of the first world, create.”

“African farmers are currently seeing droughts that are causing significant reduction in crop yield, which has led to famine and malnutrition.[5] These agricultural problems will expand to Asian countries as well. As Greenland continues to melt, there will be less warm water from the tropics to cool the North Atlantic. This will cause less monsoon rains in Asia which will lead to a food crisis in China, India and Indonesia.[6] With world population predictions near nine billion in the year 2050, a food crisis will be exponentially impactful.”

It should be clear. Buying less beef needs to be a step we take NOW!

5. Stop financially supporting the fast food industry.
If you look at number four, you should be shocked. Who do we think are raising all these cows and destroying rainforests? The Fast food industry. Did you know that 25% of Americans eat fast food every day? Stop financially supporting the destruction of our planet! I was a poor, male, college student and I know how tempting it can be to pay one dollar for a tasty chicken sandwich or mcdouble. I promise that there are cheaper ways to fill your stomach which will not result in supporting some of the most destructive companies our world has ever seen.

BONUS: Spread the word!
This isn’t a plug for The Organic Hype. This is a call to action. Don’t be that annoying person who judges people for not buying organic. Don’t think you are any better than anyone else because of your lifestyle choices. Kindly spread the information you know is credible to your friends and explain why it is the RIGHT thing to do.

Recipe of the Day! 6/22/12

"Avocado-Pear Smoothie"

Today's recipe comes from @PlanetOrganic!

see it here: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=986565&l=5573ab85b5&id=172771382771615

Ingredients:
2 organic, firm avocados
2 cups unsweetened organic pear juice
2 Tablespoons raw honey
½ teaspoon vanilla extract
½ cup organic cream
2 cups of ice cubes
For directions, click here: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=986565&l=5573ab85b5&id=172771382771615

Organic Fact of the Day! 6/22/12

Organic Fact of the Day! 6/22/12


Organic fruits and vegetables now represent 11.4 percent of all U.S. fruit and vegetable sales!

[http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/food.html]

 

The Solution: Part 6

The Solution: Part 6

Looking back at the evidence presented in the “Why Organic?” series and “The Solution,” it is clear that we have a problem. Our population is growing and we continue to destroy our planet. We have already seen the effects of this in many areas, such as Africa and rural Asia. We believe that something needs to be done. Our ideal choice would be to decentralize the food production process here in America. We believe this would decrease the amount of animal-derived methane gases significantly, but it would also increase the cost of food.

Although there may be terrible effects on the price of food, specifically beef and other meat products, in America and many people will suffer, we believe it is time for Americans to take responsibility for the world we are destroying. If we stay on this path, the amount of damage caused by global warming will result in food shortages and famines around the world. Within a few hundred years, there could be no poor to suffer from the high costs of food. If we do not change our food production processes here in America, we could be a leading cause of the destruction of our beautiful earth.

So, what can we do? Obviously the food production process will not “decentralize” overnight. That would not be realistic, nor would it be good for the well being of many, if not all, Americans. I believe that anything is realistic, so those who say “The food production process in America will never decentralize” in my opinion have too little faith in not only the human race, but also underestimate the repercussions of what we are doing to our planet.

That being said, what should we do?

Monday, we are going to give you FIVE things that you can do to be a part of The Solution!

Company of the Day

Today's Quality Company is MeltSpread!

 http://www.meltbutteryspread.com/our-story/our-promise/

If you're looking for an organic, healthy alternative for butter, Today’s Quality Company @Meltspread provides just that!

@MeltSpread
“These products contain the perfect organic blend of the healthiest fats that supports healthy weight when replacing other fats in your daily diet. Each serving of Melt® & Honey Melt® Organic deliver an ideal combination of healthful saturated, polyunsaturated, and monounsaturated fats for optimal nutrient content and absorption, weight management, thyroid function, heart health, and digestive health. Melt® Organic is certified organic and kosher, and is soy free, Trans fat free, and gluten free. Our products do not contain artificial ingredients of any kind and they never will. Our ingredients are Eco-social, Fair Trade, and non-GMO.”

The Solution: Part 5

The Solution: Part 5

Here at The Organic Hype, we understand the arguments of all three of these writers. Each bring profound insights to this discussion. In the end, we as human beings must be conscious of our effect on the world and on other non-human persons. Northcott provides evidence showing how detrimental the consumption of beef alone has become due to our diets in America. Singer provides a great example for why we should treat non-human persons with as much respect and dignity as we do to our fellow human beings. On the other hand, the decentralization of food production in America would increase the price of food dramatically. Many families already struggle feeding themselves and this would have terrible effects on the poor. A question that must be addressed is whether or not decentralizing food production in America will solve all of the problems that come with climate change. The answer is no. Modern societies have created many different avenues of destroying the environment and this one change, no matter how drastic, will not ensure that climate change will discontinue.

A second question that must be addressed is the cost of organic, free range beef if America were to move to a decentralized model. We were unable to find academic studies which project the cost of beef in this hypothetical model, so we decided to investigate for ourselves. At our local grocery store, we found the cheapest beef at $3.49 per pound. This is obviously not organic, grass fed, free range beef, so we used this as the base price of a pound of meat currently available in our grocery store. We then looked for organic, free range, grass fed beef. The cheapest we found was $7.25 per pound. This is more than twice the cost of the cheaper beef selection available. There are many economic factors that would affect whether or not this would be the standard price of beef if the whole country moved to a decentralized model, so we cannot say with certainty what the price would be.

What we can say on this matter is that, as of right now, grass fed, organic, free range beef is a luxury item. It is not necessary at this time to purchase this more expensive beef if one is on a budget trying to feed a family. Our projection is that with the decentralization of food production in America, the average American’s diet would change drastically. Since the price of beef would increase significantly, our population would be forced to turn to different forms of protein. Quinoa, for example, has nearly eighteen grams of protein in one cup. Beans, lentils and legumes are also great sources of protein which would all be relatively cheap. This would make beef a product that we eat once or twice per week instead of once or twice a day. Although there may be terrible effects on the price of food, specifically beef and other meat products, in America and many people will suffer, we believe it is time for Americans to take responsibility for the world we are destroying. If we stay on this path, the amount of damage caused by global warming will result in food shortages and famines around the world. Within a few hundred years, there could be no poor to suffer from the high costs of food. If we do not change our food production processes here in America, we could be a leading cause of the destruction of our beautiful earth.

What to do now...? (Sneak Peek)
We at The Organic Hype have some ideas for what we can do to contribute to The Solution. It’s time for us to make a difference and positively impact our planet.

Check back tomorrow for the next step!

Quality Company of the Day

06/21/12

Todays Quality Company is Organic Valley

See their website http://www.organicvalley.coop/about-us/overview/our-history/
Follow on Twitter: @OrganicValley

“If a company is going to make a difference in today’s world, it’s going to have to think differently. At Organic Valley, our philosophy and decisions are based on the health and welfare of people, animals and the earth. We’re a mission-driven cooperative, owned by family farmers, and we’ve been leaders in organic agriculture from the very beginning.”

Quality Company of the Day!

"Love your planet - choose Organic"

Today's Quality Company is Soil Association!

See there website here: http://www.soilassociation.org/
Follow them on twitter @SoilAssociation

“In the face of climate change and a growing world population, business as usual in our food and farming system is not an option. We want to ensure that organic systems can secure a durable and humane solution to the challenges facing us."


"We help provide solutions that help people to live, eat, farm and grow with the resources that are available. We want to pioneer new solutions to tackle climate change, support biodiversity, improve animal welfare and champion fairness.”

The Solution: Part 4

The Solution: Part 4

(Naysayers)

In his book The Economics of Animal Health and Production, Rushton argues that the current processes in America have two distinct benefits for Americans, which we should not abandon. The first is food security. He states that since the average American is living in urban environments with little access to livestock, we have become dependent on the system of relying on others to supply our food for us. He argues that our current system of centralizing food production in America has created security knowing that a sufficient amount of livestock will be produced and supplied to the general public.[1] This also forces the price of food products to stay at a manageable level, which allows for more people to afford food.

The second benefit to our current system is food safety.[2] He argues that since Americans have placed the responsibility of food production in the hands of fewer entities, it is inevitable that the food will be safe to eat. This can result from organizations, like the FDA, being able to address many of the large factory farms, making sure they are up to standards. In these two arguments, Rushton provides a compelling argument for the continuation of the centralization of food production in America.


The Solution: Part 5 (Sneak Peek)

The conclusion! What do we at The Organic Hype think needs to be done about our food production process.



Citations:

 

[1] Rushton, Jonathan. 2009. The economics of animal health and production. Wallingford, UK: CABI. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=408053. p. xi
[2] Ibid.



Company of the Day 6/18/12

Twitter @SlowFoodUSA






“Slow Food is an idea, a way of living and a way of eating. It is part of a global, grassroots movement with thousands of members in over 150 countries, which links the pleasure of food with a commitment to community and the environment”


See them at : http://www.slowfoodusa.org/index.php/slow_food/

The Solution: Part 3

The Solution: Part 3

(Peter Singer Continued)

In his book In Defense of Animals: A Second Wave, Singer argues against the current food production processes in America stating that they use cost benefit analysis to “justify crowding animals, the use of antibiotics in feed, and converting farming communities into factory towns.”[1] He continues on to list the many injustices that result from the centralization of food production. These injustices include the mutilation and killing of animals, risk of consumer disease, degradation of land, destruction of wildlife habitat, contribution to global warming and ultimately the harm to human dignity as a result of being active participants.[2] It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Singer is against the centralization of food production and factory farming, but he does not explicitly state his opinion of decentralizing these processes.

I think it is fair to assume that Singer would support the decentralization of food production in America. Although Singer chooses not to consume meat and urges others to follow in his footsteps, utilitarian ideals would want the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, or, in this case, animals. It is clear that with the decentralization of food production, factory farms would be significantly smaller, if not entirely extinct. Factory farms are where the most injustices towards animals occur, so it can be assumed that the decentralization of food production in America would greatly reduce the amount of injustices towards animals. This would be the greatest good for the greatest number of animals.

The Solution: Part 4 (Sneak Peek)
 What arguments can be made FOR centralized food production?

Citations:

[1] Singer, Peter. In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. p. 119
[2] Ibid.

Follow us!

Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @TheOrganicHype

Join our facebook group! Search "The Organic Hype"

The Solution: Part 2

The Solution: Part 2

(Peter Singer and Utilitarianism)

The centralization of food production in America has separated people from the food they eat. Americans are eating meat which has not been properly raised, we eat far more protein than our bodies require and we have little knowledge of the global warming effects. The centralized food production process in has negatively affected our environment, it has ruined the quality of food and it has, ultimately, changed the diets of Americans today.

In chapter three of his book Practical Ethics, Peter Singer argues that since equality for all humans has become an accepted moral standard, we should apply this same moral basis to those outside of our own species.[1] Singer cites Jeremy Bentham, the man he calls the founding father of modern utilitarianism, when comparing the treatment of people with black skin to the current treatment of animals. Bentham says “it may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs [and] the villosity of the skin... are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.” He then brings this compelling statement, “the question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” Many of Singer’s beliefs in regards to the treatment of animals are derived from modern utilitarianism.

Bentham’s school of thought within utilitarianism states that “pain and pleasure [are] the only intrinsic values in the world” and further “that the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.”[2] Along the same lines, Singer comments on speciesm, the idea that it is justifiable to give preference to beings strictly on the grounds that they are of the species homo sapiens. Singer recognizes that the practice of giving preference to homo sapiens is wrong.

The Solution: Part 3 (Sneak Peek)What does Singer say about centralized food production?

Citations:
[1] Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. 48.
[2] "Philosophy: By Movement / School Modern Utilitarianism." The Basics of Philosophy: A Huge Subject Broken down into Manageable Chunks. Accessed March 26, 2012. http://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_utilitarianism.html.

Quality Company of the Day

Our Quality Company of the Day is "Natures Path Organic"

See their website @ http://www.naturespath.com/company/minifesto
Follow them on Twitter @NaturesPath

"We aspire to advance the cause of people and planet, along the path to sustainability. And we like to think we put our money where our mouth is. Or rather, where our heart is. Because growing organic, healthy foods in a sustainable way is our passion—the cornerstone of our family company. It’s where, and how, it all began."

Recipe of the Day

Our featured recipe of the day comes from Organic Liason!

BBQ Summer Squash

Preparation Time: 10 minutes.

Cooking Time: 5 minutes.

Servings: 6 cups. Each serving: 3/4 cup.

Ingredients:
1 organic zucchini, sliced into 1/2 inch rounds
1 organic yellow summer squash, sliced into 1/2 inch rounds
1 medium organic eggplant, sliced into 1/2 inch rounds
Marinade:
1 Tbsp organic safflower oil
3 Tbsp organic balsamic vinegar
2 cloves garlic, crushed
ground black pepper to taste
1/4 cup chopped green onion


Directions:
Combine the ingredients for the marinade in a large bowl and blend well. Add the vegetables to the marinade and mix together. Place on the barbecue turning regularly until golden brown on each side. Brush with extra marinade as necessary. When cooked, remove the squash slices from the barbecue and toss with any remaining dressing. Sprinkle with the chopped green onion and serve immediately.

To read more, including nutritional information, visit: http://www.organicliaison.com/blog/2012/05/15/barbecued-summer-squash-organic-recipes/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Status%2BUpdate&utm_content=20120514%2BBBQ%2BSummer%2BSquash%2BOrganic%2BRecipe&utm_campaign=20120514%2BBBQ%2BSummer%2BSquash%2BOrganic%2BRecipe%2B-%2BLink%2Bto%2BOL%2BBlog%2BArticle%2Bfrom%2BTwitter

Featured Quality Company of the Day

The Organic Dish

The Organic Dish provides healthy, simple to make, and delicious organic meals - we prep 'em, you cook 'em.

Check out their website at http://www.theorganicdish.com/

twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/TheOrganicDish @TheOrganicDish

Featured Recipe of the day!

Featured recipe for 6/14/12 comes from 3BRanch : http://www.3branchct.com/green-bean-casserole

Green Bean Casserole

Yields 12 side dish servings Total time 1 hr 15 min Ingredients 3 pound(s) green beans, trimmed and cut in half 4 large shallots 1 tablespoon(s) olive oil 1 1/2 cup(s) coarse fresh bread crumbs 1 teaspoon(s) fresh thyme leaves, chopped Salt and pepper 3 cup(s) lowfat 1% milk 3 tablespoon(s) margarine or butter 1/4 cup(s) all-purpose flour 1/8 teaspoon(s) freshly ground nutmeg 1/2 cup(s) freshly grated Parmesan cheese Preparation Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Heat covered 8-quart saucepot of salted water to boiling...

For the rest of this recipe, visit: http://www.3branchct.com/green-bean-casserole

The Solution: Part 1 (An Introduction)

I assume many of you are thinking that this article series is going to be a plug for buying Organic. As much as I do encourage buying Organic, that is a very small part of what we believe to be the overall solution to our planet’s problem. We’d love your feedback and comments! Here we go with...

The Solution: Part 1

Americans are constantly targets of stereotypes; we all drive gas guzzling SUV’s, we all suffer from obesity, we all have horrible taste in beer and none of us have the slightest idea of what is going on in the rest of the world. Of the standard set of stereotypes, there is one that seems to be more fitting than the others; Americans love fast food. Fast food has revolutionized the way the average American eats on a daily basis. There are nearly thirteen thousand McDonald’s restaurants in America today.[1] With the expansion of fast food in America came a centralization of food production, especially with regards to beef, an American favorite.

It is generally regarded as a good thing that Americans have access to such cheap food due to the centralization of meat and produce. In this article series, we plan to analyze the ethical dilemmas of the centralization of food production in America according to Peter Singer. We have already addressed ethical issues raised by Michael Northcott in his book A Moral Climate (See “Why Organic?”). We intend to analyze the opinions of Peter Singer in his book Practical Ethics along with Michael Northcott and attempt to apply their thoughts to the idea of the decentralization of food production in America. We will then analyze the counter argument of Jonathan Rushton in his book The Economics of Animal Health and Production.

These three thinkers bring us different perspectives on this issue that result in different conclusions. Singer and Northcott would agree that the current food production processes in America are, at the very least, bad, if not immoral. While Peter Singer might be more focused on the well-being of the animals and Northcott focused on the environmental effects of our food production process, they both would agree that a change needs to be made. Rushton argues that the centralization of food production in America has many advantages which are not worth giving up.

Peter Singer, in chapter ten of his book Practical Ethics, asks the question “Why should I act morally?” This question urges a person to develop reasons for acting with the consideration of others, human and, arguably, non-human animals, in mind. We will analyze this idea of acting morally with the consideration of non-human animals in mind to discover whether Singer would believe the decentralization of food production in America to be moral.

Here at The Organic Hype, we believe that the best solution to our problems (i.e. climate change, american obesity, loss of food appreciation etc) is to decentralize the food production process. Throughout this series, we hope to spell out what that would look like on a national scale and what you can do to contribute to The Solution.

The Solution: Part 2 (Sneak Peak)
Let’s take a look at what Peter Singer and Utilitarianism would tell us about the treatment of animals!

Citations:

[1] "Food Statistics McDonalds Restaurants (most Recent) by Country." Nation Master. Web. <

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/foo_mcd_res-food-mcdonalds-restaurants>.

Why Organic? Part 4 - To All the Naysayers

Northcott concludes his book addressing this question; What if the naysayers are right and global warming is all just a scientific misunderstanding? Although he recognizes that this conclusion cannot be based on any “rational grounds,” it is a question that leads to an even more significant question; would that even matter? If we pretend that science is wrong and global warming is not significant, would the lifestyle changes made due to our understanding of global warming have any negative affects? In all reality, the changes Northcott and I are calling for would only increase the quality of human life.

Addressing the skeptics of global warming, Northcott discusses the concepts of Pascal's wager. (This is not to open a religious discussion or debate. It is simply an example) Pascal’s wager states that even if the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by living a life assuming that God does exist. Moral action rarely lies in certainty. Why do we demand certainty sometimes and other times not? Although there is a significant amount of science to support global warming, unlike the belief in God, this can be applied to the “belief” in global warming. These are moral ways of living regardless of what science says or does not say. We, as human beings, have everything to gain and nothing to lose by making these changes in our lives. By continuing to ignore the issue of climate change, we risk losing our world and ruining it for future generations.

Being conscious of where your food comes from and how that food has affected your fellow human beings cannot have truly negative effects. Americans have a powerful stake in the political realm of the world. There are a lot of Americans who control a lot of money. Returning to the question stated earlier, should a person support the developed world’s food production process by purchasing and consuming meat at the rate that has become common in the first world? In her book “Your Money and Your Life,” Vicky Robin says “How you spend your money is how you vote on what exists in the world.” We have the power to purchase goods or not purchase goods. It is the job of each individual to decide how their money will “vote” for what does and does not exist in this world.

The Solution Series (Sneak Peek)

We at The Organic Hype will be posting a new article series titled “The Solution.” Right now, it is divided into 6 parts, which will be posted once a day for the next 6 days. The Solution Series will end with a 7th article titled “What to do now...” We hope that the “Why Organic?” series has presented our planet’s problem and “The Solution” series will present a solution.

What is the solution? Believe it or not, it is not solely to buy Organic. The solution is much bigger than that. Come back tomorrow for “The Solution: Part 1”

-The Organic Hype

Organic Expansion with US and EU

From the USDA (not written by TheOrganicHype)

WASHINGTON, Jun. 4, 2012—The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced today that organic products certified in the United States or European Union may now be sold as organic in either market, as trade opened up on Friday, June 1, under a new U.S.-EU equivalency partnership. Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan signed formal letters creating the partnership in February, along with Dacian Cioloş, European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, and Ambassador Isi Siddiqui, U.S. Trade Representative Chief Agricultural Negotiator.

“This partnership will open new markets for American farmers and ranchers, create more opportunities for small businesses, and result in good jobs for Americans who package, ship, and market organic products,” said Merrigan. “In the months ahead, USDA will continue to work hard to expand opportunities for all U.S. products, including organics. Equivalency arrangements such as this are critical to growing the U.S. organics industry—they require careful negotiation to ensure that we maintain existing U.S. trade policies while ensuring that U.S. agricultural products will compete on a level playing field in world markets.”
The United States signed a similar partnership with Canada in July 2009, and additional equivalency arrangement conversations have begun with South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

Previously, producers and companies wanting to trade products on both sides of the Atlantic had to obtain separate certifications to two standards, which resulted in a double set of fees, inspections, and paperwork. The partnership existing now eliminates these significant barriers, which is especially helpful for small and medium-sized organic farmers. During negotiations, both parties conducted thorough on-site audits to ensure that their programs’ regulations, quality control measures, certification requirements, and labeling practices were compatible.

“This agreement provides economic opportunities for certified organic farmers as well as additional incentives for prospective farmers,” said Miles McEvoy, National Organic Program Deputy Administrator. “We look forward to working with our European Union counterparts to support organic agriculture.”
Although there are slight differences between the United States and European Union organic standards, both parties individually determined that their programs were equivalent, thereby allowing the agreement that opened up trade today. The exception has to do with prohibition on the use of antibiotics. USDA organic regulations prohibit the use of antibiotics except to control invasive bacterial infections (fire blight) in organic apple and pear orchards. The European Union organic regulations allow antibiotics only to treat infected animals. For all products traded under this partnership, certifying agents must verify that antibiotics are not used for any reason.

The United States and the European Union will continue to have regular discussions and review each other’s programs periodically to verify that the terms of the partnership are being met. Later this year, representatives from both markets will compare the USDA organic wine standards to the recently published European Union wine standards and determine how wine can fit into the trade partnership. In the interim, traded wine must meet the production and labeling requirements of the destination market.
The arrangement covers products exported from and certified in the United States or the European Union only. All products traded under the partnership must be shipped with an organic import certificate, which shows the location where production occurred, identifies the organization that certified the organic product, and verifies that growers and handlers did not use prohibited substances and methods. In addition to certifying that the terms of the partnership were met, the certificates also allow traded products to be tracked. Both parties are committed to ensuring that products traded under the agreement retain their organic integrity from farm to market. The European Commission’s Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development and the USDA National Organic Program—which oversees all U.S. organic products—will take on key oversight roles.

Estimates show the market for U.S. organics sales to the EU could grow substantially within the first few years of this arrangement. Today, more than two-thirds of U.S. consumers buy organic products at least occasionally, and 28 percent buy organic products weekly.

Under President Obama, USDA has continued to expand markets for American goods abroad, worked aggressively to break down barriers to trade, and assisted U.S. businesses with the resources needed to reach consumers around the world. U.S. agriculture is currently experiencing one of its best periods in history thanks to the productivity and resourcefulness of our producers. Overall, American agriculture supports 1 in 12 jobs in the United States and provides American consumers with 83 percent of the food we consume, while maintaining affordability and choice. Strong agricultural exports contribute to a positive U.S. trade balance, create jobs, boost economic growth and support President Obama’s National Export Initiative goal of doubling all U.S. exports by the end of 2014.

For additional details on the trade partnership, please visit http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOPTradeEuropeanUnion or contact the National Organic Program at (202) 720-3252. The National Organic Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture facilitates trade and ensures integrity of organic agricultural products by consistently implementing the organic standards and enforcing compliance with the regulations.

Disclaimer: Message from the USDA. Not written by TheOrganicHype

Why Organic? Part 3

Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @TheOrganicHype

Join our facebook group! Search "The Organic Hype"

Why Organic? Part 3
The question of the impact of an individual’s carbon footprint is one that holds some weight in this discussion as well. Can one person’s actions really affect the overall state of global warming? More specifically, will the decision of one person to consume less meat actually make a difference? Although this is a valid point made by many people who, in my opinion, would rather ignore the problem instead of address it, that is not the question that should be asked of a person truly pursuing a healthy lifestyle. A more appropriate question might be whether or not it is right for a person to be conscious of his or her carbon footprint and to act in a way that reduces harm to the planet and fellow human beings residing in it?

The current food production process is not all bad. Although it has direct, negative effects on many people around the world, the price of food is considerably low. The current food production process lowers the cost of food making it more accessible to more people. A can of soup with significant amounts of protein can be purchased for less than fifty cents. The amount of food that a wealthy person can purchase to feed the poor has greatly increased due to the mass production of food. A person might ask, “Isn’t the fact that we can feed so many people with the low cost of food worth the negative side effects?” Once again, this might be the wrong question.

With five dollars, a person can contribute up to fifteen or twenty canned goods to a food drive depending on the sales at their local grocery store. That might be a significant contribution, but is that can of food really good for the homeless person it is feeding? It would be hard to argue that eating the canned food, regardless of its poor quality, would be worse for the homeless person than not eating at all. The question that should be asked is whether or not purchasing those cheap, processed canned goods is contributing to the very system that continues to separate the gap between the rich and the poor.

Why Organic? Part 4 (Sneak Peek)What if science is wrong? How to combat the naysayers.

Follow Us!

Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @TheOrganicHype

Join our facebook group! Search "The Organic Hype"

Why Organic? Part 2

Human societies have known where their food came from for thousands of years. It is a recent development in the first world that has separated the food production process from the people. The first world claims to be a sophisticated, developed society by doing this, but the fact that our farming practices fail to recognize the interdependency between mankind and the earth has led to destructive behaviors, such as destroying invaluable rainforests and other bioregions. With this disconnect between the citizens of the first world and the food they eat, came a complete disregard for the earth that provides the ingredients. Human beings associate with food differently when they know where it came from. For instance, people generally show a higher appreciation for meals that are home cooked and slaved over for hours than they do a happy meal from a drive through restaurant. The interdependence of humans and the earth has become an issue rarely considered or discussed among the common layperson. This is because our society has moved into large cities far from agriculture. Our food is shipped to facilities which process our food to make it more accessible, marketable and long lasting.

The first world is driven by a fast paced society who value individualism and hard work. It can be argued that these very values are the reason that we are the first world. It can also be argued that we have created a society which does not value community and fellowship. The fast food restaurant industry has made eating on the go a common reality for the fast paced American. Over twenty-five percent of Americans eat fast food every day.[1] Drive thru windows have encouraged this fast paced lifestyle. More and more, people eat in their car on the way to work or just stop for a few minutes to eat by themselves. Although this may be efficient and conducive to the fast paced, overworked lifestyle of American society, it has directly affected the relationships between human beings.

Why Organic? Part 3 (Sneak Peek)
Can we change our current practices? Even more importantly: should we change our current practices?


Citation:
[1] Ransohoff, Julia. "Fast Food." Doctors, Patient Care, Health Education, Medical Research |    PAMF. Accessed December 12, 2011.    http://www.pamf.org/teen/health/nutrition/fastfood.html.

The Free Range Deception

Definition:
The Free Range Deception: Companies using USDA terminology to trick consumers into thinking their “free range” meat is Organic.

From the USDA website, a company must meet these requirements to label their meat and poultry free range:
“Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside.”

I don’t know about you, but I sure expected free range to mean a lot more than that. This post is going to clarify some terms so we can all be better informed consumers.

FREE RANGE or FREE ROAMING:
Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside.
(This seems a bit deceptive to me. I wonder if these cows are “free range”)

NATURAL:
A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as "no artificial ingredients; minimally processed").

NO HORMONES (beef):
The term "no hormones administered" may be approved for use on the label of beef products if sufficient documentation is provided to the Agency by the producer showing no hormones have been used in raising the animals.

ORGANIC:
Includes provisions for Livestock feed, Livestock health care practice standard, Livestock living conditions, Pasture practice standard, Organic handling requirements along with many others! Far too much information to list them all, so read it for yourself!
See:
 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6c55bf313e472f2c1b2351bd48ef0ff1&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.3&idno=7

Why Organic? Part 1

In an attempt to not publish a dissertation on the reasons for joining The Organic Hype movement in a single post, I am starting a series of posts which will hopefully encourage you, the reader, to join in this lifestyle.


So... Here we go with Why Organic? Part 1

In his book, A Moral Climate (a book I highly recommend), Michael Northcott discusses the ethics of global warming. Naturally, the practices of food production in the first world, and their negative effects on human beings worldwide, are a significant focus of his book. Although there is undeniable evidence that these practices affect the welfare of those in third world countries, that will not be the focus of this post. It is not only third world countries that have been negatively affected by the first world’s obsession with food. The mass production of food that is required to sustain the first world’s incomprehensible appetite has negatively affected the very inhabitants who claim to prosper from it (that’s us).

The world has seen great change in food production practices in the last three centuries. As the industrial revolution developed, there was great population growth and more people demanded more food. This created what some call the second agricultural revolution, partially defined by the dependence on non-renewable energy sources, mainly fossil fuels.[1] Farming, a once honorable and fairly paid profession, has now turned into a method of mass producing food. Government subsidies have essentially bullied family farms into focusing solely on potatoes, corn, soy, wheat or cotton, instead of other vegetables which are, arguably, much better for the human body. Our “modern” and “sophisticated” new ways of producing food in the first world have forced us to clear forests and destroy bioregions, which will have lasting effects on the welfare of the earth.

Domesticated cows account for seventy percent of animal-derived methane gases in the atmosphere.[2] This is, without a doubt, significant, but there are larger implications. The Amazon rainforest is responsible for carrying forty percent of the world’s fresh water into the atmosphere and the oceans.[3] Soya farms, which produce the ingredients to feed domesticated cows, are replacing the Amazon rainforest at a rapid rate to meet the demand for animal feed. Three American agricultural corporations fund sixty percent of the soy farming in Brazil.[4] As meat consumption continues to be the norm in first world countries, soya farmers will keep destroying the very rainforests that can offset the effects of the greenhouse gases these cows, and other products of the first world, create.

African farmers are currently seeing droughts that are causing significant reduction in crop yield, which has led to famine and malnutrition.[5] These agricultural problems will expand to Asian countries as well. As Greenland continues to melt, there will be less warm water from the tropics to cool the North Atlantic. This will cause less monsoon rains in Asia which will lead to a food crisis in China, India and Indonesia.[6] With world population predictions near nine billion in the year 2050, a food crisis will be exponentially impactful.  

These problems are a result of a first world lifestyle and the carbon emissions that it produces. Although there are many factors that contribute to the increase of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it is clear that the mass production of food plays a significant role. First world societies do not consider the impact their diet has on the world because we have detached ourselves considerably from the food production process. We have lost the connection between our welfare and the welfare of the earth due to the fact that we have lost all knowledge of where our food comes from. We need to make a conscious decision to consider how our diets are directly affecting the earth we live in.

Citations:
[1] Anthony J McMichael, John W Powles, Colin D Butler, Ricardo Uauy, Food, livestock    production, energy, climate change, and health, The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9594, 12 October 2007, Pages 1253-1263, ISSN 0140-6736, 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61256-2.    (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607612562)

[2] Northcott, Michael S. A Moral Climate: the Ethics of Global Warming. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis    Books, 2007. 237.

[3] Ibid. 242

[4] Ibid. 243

[5] Ibid. 236

[6] Ibid.

The Organic Hype!

Growing up, I couldn't have cared less about the food I ate. The terms organic, free range and all natural meant nothing to me. Like many of my fellow Americans, I would get into heated debates over who had the best dollar menu. Then everything changed.


I decided to start The Organic Hype because this is one of the few things I truly believe in. Even growing up in California, Organic eating really wasn't exposed to me until I went to college. I had to take an ethics course as one of the requirements for my law school certificate program and when I saw that "Climate Change" was one of the topics, I literally laughed out loud. I thought thought that topic was forever behind us along with Al Gore's presidential campaign. In my defense, I was young and relatively uneducated at the time.


As I started studying the environment and climate change, I realized how big of an impact eating has on our planet. The more I studied, the stronger I felt about the subject. The only thing I wish is that I would have known about these things earlier in life. That is why I have started The Organic Hype. This is a blog to promote an Organic lifestyle. I hope I can convince you through logic and reason to stop supporting companies who are knowingly destroying our planet. I don't just want you to stop supporting fast food restaurants (although I highly suggest you do just that), I want to encourage you to purchase from companies who are promoting healthy living.


In her book “Your Money and Your Life,” Vicky Robin says “How you spend your money is how you vote on what exists in the world.” That is one of my favorite quotes because it is so true! If enough people give their money to organizations who are mindful of their effect on our planet, they will take over those companies who are doing just the opposite.


I want this to be a place of educated discussion. I will try my best not to say anything without having evidence to back it up and I expect the same from you (those who wish to comment)! If you have recipes you love, companies you support or thoughts to share, do it! That's what The Organic Hype is all about!






-The Organic Hype