Full list: Agriculture in the News

VPR: Hundreds Of Vermonters Rally On May Day

05/01/12
Patti Daniels
Full Article 

Hundreds of demonstrators paraded through Vermont’s capital city on May Day, calling for health care for all, fair wages and an end to corporate greed.

The march and rally in Montpelier was organized by the Vermont Workers Center. Activists today chanted “We are the 99 percent” and urged lawmakers to “put people first.”

“We were always taught that if you just work really hard everything will work out and you’ll have a fair shot,” said  Melissa Bourque of St. Johnsbury, a member of the Vermont Workers Center.

“The Workers Center and all of these other different groups that are here today are giving an outlet for people to come together and stand together and say, we’re not okay with this and we’re actually not just ‘not okay’ with it, we’re going to do something about it,” she said.

Participants in Tuesday’s events included members of the Occupy movements, the Vermont Federation of Nurses and Health Care Professionals, Rural Vermont and Mobile Home Park Residents for Equality and Justice.


7Days: Meat Repeat: Another Vermont Farmer Looks to DIY Butchering

Full article at Blurt: the Seven Days Staff Blog
Posted by Kathryn Flagg on April 24, 2012
When I reported on LaPlatte River Angus Farm last week for our cover story on the local meat industry, farmer Jim Kleptz told me about plans to fire up a family-owned slaughterhouse on recently acquired land in Milton. The reason? Kleptz and his sons want complete control, from raising a calf to slaughtering the steer to, finally, packaging and selling the meat.

Well, add another farmer to the roster of those considering the DIY-approach. Walter Jeffries and his family (pictured) have been painstakingly building a butcher shop and abattoir from the ground up at Sugar Mountain Farm, the 70-acre farm in West Topsham where the family raises pastured pigs and other livestock. The family’s been at it — slowly but surely — since 2008. Back then, a series of slaughterhouse-related headlines prompted them to build their own facility. A Rutland slaughterhouse burned to the ground. A Grand Isle plant shuttered its doors after being outed for inhumane treatment. The family’s St. Johnsbury butcher was talking of retirement. For Jeffries, who had turned a homestead hobby into a family farm, the trend didn’t bode well.

“We were looking at that from the point of view of, ‘Wow, we’ve got all these pigs in the field, and if we can’t find a place to slaughter them, we’ll be strung up,’” Jeffries said.

It’s been slow going. In 2009, the family tore down an old hay shed, poured the insulated slab foundation, and began putting up walls. Construction was piecemeal, because to a very large degree the family has funded the operation upfront. They pulled $32,000 from a savings account they’d set aside for a future greenhouse. They routed the cash flow from their pork sales toward the project. A community-supported agriculture “pre-buy” drummed up capital from customers, and friends and neighbors pitched in with personal loans. Had a bank been willing to loan money for the project, Jeffries would have taken it, but the farm made do without. In the most recent bid for funding, Sugar Mountain Farm has taken to Kickstarter to rally the troops. With the help of more than 230 contributors, the farm has already raised more than $20,000 of its $25k goal.

[...]


7Days: Steak Holders

By Kathryn Flagg [04.18.12]
Vermonters can’t get enough local meat — and that’s good news for beef farmers
Full Article

Rambling over a gently sloping pasture in Charlotte, a stone’s throw from Lake Champlain’s edge, Jim Kleptz observes, “This is good grazing country.” It’s a warm day in mid-April, and he is visiting one of his several small herds of black Angus cattle that make up the now-sprawling LaPlatte River Angus farm. Kleptz and his sons run several hundred cows over 600 acres of leased land in and around Chittenden County. The field here is set against the backdrop of a few abandoned grain silos and empty dairy barns — leftovers from the pasture’s recent history.

An old-timer in the Vermont beef business, Kleptz has been raising cattle, first as a hobby and then professionally, since the 1970s. Some things have changed since then. After years of hand-wringing about the state of meat processing in Vermont — the perceived shortage of slaughterhouses, the dwindling population of skilled meat cutters and the exodus of culled dairy cows to out-of-state processing facilities are among the topics of concern — local foods experts say something is finally starting to give.

Consumers are asking for more local meat. Farmers are stepping up to supply it. Interested parties in between — from distribution specialists to would-be butchers — are moving in to fill the gap.

LaPlatte’s growth has mirrored that of the local meat industry. Kleptz moved to Shelburne to work as an engineer for General Electric, and in the early 1970s acquired a few cows. Why Angus? “It was just an accident,” he says — at the time he didn’t know much about raising cattle.

What started as a hobby is now a farm with 60 to 70 brood cows. When 10 acres in Shelburne weren’t enough for the animals, the family began leasing what were essentially backyards: odds and ends of pasture too small for neighboring dairy farmers to find useful. As “the dairy farmers started dwindling away,” Kleptz says, he and his three sons, Mark, John and Chris, seized the opportunities. With an almost encyclopedic knowledge of soils and grazing, Kleptz applied his training as a systems engineer to building an efficient, sustainable farm.

“We’ve got land all over hell,” Kleptz says, tallying up the acreage spread over Chittenden and Addison counties. More recently, the Kleptzes bought some 200 acres in Milton on which they intend to build a slaughterhouse. Controlling every aspect of raising and selling beef — from calving to meat cutting — allows them to explore innovative new ways to use the whole animal. For example, Kleptz is considering smoked dog food as one way to employ parts of the cow that aren’t popular for human consumption.

Local meat wasn’t always so enticing. Kleptz remembers trying to peddle beef at local fairs back in the ’70s and ’80s. Even the name was different then.

“They called it ‘native beef,’” says Kleptz, who struggled to convince customers to buy his product. “Native beef” meant culled dairy cows, which were bound for out-of-state slaughterhouses where they were turned into ground beef. Potential customers lumped Kleptz’s Angus cattle into the same category as old, tough milkers — and typically passed on the purchase. Kleptz even went door to door at one point, trying to sell frozen meat.

“It was a disaster,” he says with a rueful chuckle.

Some of the customers who now clamor for local beef weren’t interested then, either. Nina Lesser-Goldsmith, co-owner of Healthy Living Market & Café in South Burlington, recalls that when the store first opened its doors nearly 30 years ago, meat wasn’t part of the equation. Even after Healthy Living began selling it, customers typically didn’t want to see the stuff. The store stocked its meat in windowless freezers.

Now all that’s changed. Healthy Living hired a butcher, who breaks down animal carcasses into specialty cuts and in-house delicacies such as sausages and sauces. Ninety percent of the meat sold at the store is local — including LaPlatte beef, which Healthy Living has carried for three years. The store sells more meat than ever before. In fact, Lesser-Goldsmith says the only problem is getting enough.

“I don’t want to see it get to the level where it starts becoming factory farms,” says Lesser-Goldsmith. “But as a retailer, it does make it difficult for us when our farmers can’t fill the orders that we place.”

Consumer demand for local meat grows every year, according to Jennifer Colby, a farmer and outreach coordinator for the Vermont Pasture Network at the University of Vermont. But it “isn’t always matching the pace at which Vermont farmers are increasing their livestock.”

Because large livestock take about two years to mature, scaling up quickly to meet demand isn’t easy. Last year at this time, Colby says she heard from three people who couldn’t meet all the requests for their grass-fed beef.

But demand — even demand that can’t yet be met — is an exciting prospect for Vermont’s ag scene. And while Colby says there are still some “pinch points” in the system, particularly around processing and distribution, she says there’s an all-hands-on-deck approach to ramping up the industry.

Compared to the past, “now feels so much more positive,” Colby says. “At all levels of livestock production, we’re working on it.”

“Processing” the Problem
Colby’s optimism comes after years of doom-and-gloom talk about the slaughter industry in Vermont. Small farmers looking to butcher one or two pigs or cows complained about booking appointments six to 12 months out at some of the state’s far-flung slaughterhouses. Others worried that the small, aging facilities weren’t providing the most efficient or up-to-date techniques for killing animals.

These problems still exist, though they’ve arguably been overstated. Starting in 2009, and acting on the charge of the legislature, the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund took a deep-dive look at Vermont’s agricultural network. It was clear at the time that energy was mounting in the local foods movement, but big-picture planning and large-scale investments were hard to come by.

The resulting 10-year Farm to Plate Strategic Plan determined that slaughter facilities in the state were not operating at full capacity. A survey conducted by the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont found most were at between 30 to 80 percent — except during the busy fall, when summer-fattened livestock typically head to market. What emerged from the analysis was a far more nuanced understanding of the problems around slaughtering and processing livestock in Vermont.

It turned out slaughter wasn’t really the “pinch point,” as Colby calls it, that many thought it was. Navigating an animal across the kill floor takes a fraction of the time required to age the carcass, cut the meat and package the final product, aka “processing.” That’s where the Farm to Plate plan saw the industry’s greatest opportunity for improvement. The state didn’t necessarily need to pony up for a new slaughterhouse, but it did need to find ways to make slaughter and processing more efficient, consistent and profitable.

Policy makers and producers are still hard at work on that goal, but entrepreneurs aren’t waiting around. They’re jumping into the business. And a number of public-funding opportunities have sweetened the deal.

A combined total of $110,000 in public funding facilitated the official opening of the Mad River Food Hub in January: $50,000 from USDA Rural Development via the Mad River Valley Chamber of Commerce; $26,666 from the Vermont Agriculture Innovation Center; $15,000 from the Vermont Specialty Crop Block Grant Program; $10,000 from the Vermont Farm Viability Program; and $7500 from the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund. The shared processing facility gives small-scale producers access to licensed processing equipment, such as refrigerated storage and specialty meat-cutting equipment. Hub founder Robin Morris says that new United States Department of Agriculture certification — slated to kick in on Monday, April 23 — will give producers access to out-of-state markets.

“There’s lots of farmers with ideas, but they don’t have access to a facility,” says Morris. He hopes the food hub will change that, pointing out that it’s tremendously expensive to open an approved, inspected facility. A shared resource gives more small producers a seat at the table.

In Addison County, longtime meat handler Carl Cushing is angling to construct a state-of-the-art, nearly 12,000-foot slaughterhouse in Middlebury. He owns Vermont Livestock, a slaughter facility currently located in Ferrisburgh, and has partnered with the nonprofit Castanea Foundation on the expansion effort. Cushing told the Addison County Independent that operating at both the Ferrisburgh and potential Middlebury sites could double what Vermont Livestock currently processes each week — somewhere in the neighborhood of two dozen beef animals, 30 hogs, and a few sheep and other smaller animals.

Cushing’s proposed facility would also provide some hands-on training in a new meat-cutting program for adults soon to be offered at Middlebury’s Patricia Hannaford Career Center. Director Lynn Coale says that the first classes, in collaboration with Vermont Technical College, could be offered as soon as this fall, though the entire curriculum will have to wait until the school has access to red meat and poultry slaughter facilities.

Meanwhile, more experienced butchers are sharpening their knives. In North Springfield, Black River Produce recently purchased a defunct Ben & Jerry’s factory to retrofit as a meat-processing facility. They won’t be slaughtering there, but will receive carcasses from slaughterhouses, such as Cushing’s, and break them down, package them and distribute the meat. Black River co-owner Mark Curran and the distributor’s local meat buyer, Tom Biggs, hopes Black River’s investment will signal to farmers that there’s room to ramp up their own businesses.

Dairy Don’ts
Vermont’s slaughter and processing infrastructure appears to be changing for the better. But there are still big-picture questions to answer. Will the industry be one of small producers, peddling products with a distinctive terroir? Will consumer demand incentivize, or even require, larger-scale production? How big is big enough, and how big is too big?

Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund director Ellen Kahler, a champion of the Farm to Plate plan, says the industry is looking for the sweet spot. In the meantime, though, there are lessons to be learned from the commodity that still dominates Vermont’s ag receipts: dairy.

“It’s really about whether or not [meat] becomes a commodity, and who owns and controls the flow of those commodities,” she says.

And the dairy industry, at least in Vermont, has shown that bigger isn’t always better: Just as larger conventional dairies struggle to compete with cheaper operations in other parts of the country, farmstead value-added producers — such as cheesemakers — are finding more success.

Similarly, experts say that Vermont can’t excel on the commodity beef market: Input costs are high, and farmers here don’t have access to the same economies of scale that exist in other parts of the country. That leaves room for something in between — a system larger than individual farmers selling direct to customers, but still more specialized than the national beef market.

“I do think that scale is a very important part of the equation,” Kahler says.

Growers’ cooperatives are one intriguing option. Already some vegetable farmers have used this tool to make the jump from farmers markets to regional distribution to larger supermarket chains. Kahler points to Deep Root Organic Co-op in Johnson as an example; one of the oldest organic vegetable co-ops in the country, the collection of Vermont and Québecois farmers employs a hybrid approach. The farmers sell some of their vegetables directly to consumers, which yields the highest price for their goods. But the rest is collected at a shared facility and sent to grocery stores such as Whole Foods and City Market.

Another option is one of aggregation, which some businesses are already doing. Take Hardwick Beef, which sources grass-fed beef from individual farmers and then packages, markets and distributes it.

The identity-crisis questions of scale and terroir also get at the tricky balance that Vermont meat has to strike. Consumers want to support small, artisan products but often expect big, factory-farm reliability. Farmers and consumers point to the challenge of achieving consistency in a field that, as Colby puts it, is “inherently unpredictable.”

“We want individuality but also consistency,” she says. “How do you do both of those things?”

LaPlatte’s success suggests it’s not impossible. Restaurant buyers praise the Chittenden County operation for both the high quality of the product and the reliability of the operation. Some of that owes to the Kleptz family’s tight control over every aspect of the animal husbandry, from rearing to slaughter. It also has to do with their grazing practices. While cows are raised for most of their lives on grass and hay, they’re finished for three months on grain. That removes the problem of seasonable variation in feed.

At this time of year, “They’re waiting on grass, just like the rest of us,” Kleptz says, as one of the sprightly black calves bounds up and down the pasture, racing the fence line. This is when the leggy little creatures are at their fastest. Nearby, other brood cows linger over their resting calves, eyeing the cattleman passively.

Kleptz is wearing a wool cap and faded flannel. His pants are well worn and speckled with mud. Farming keeps him robust in mind and body, he says, and at 80 years of age, he plans to keep at it until he dies. Kleptz ambles over the pasture in search of a bull he finds especially impressive and, when he spots him, points out how sturdy and healthy the animal looks. Next, he pauses to admire one particularly fine-looking calf. Kleptz can’t quite put his finger on what it is that he appreciates about the cow, but he knows a good one when he sees it.

On the road back to his Shelburne home, Kleptz comments on how different the town — and all of Chittenden County — is today than it was when he moved here in 1971. The dairy barn up the road from his house is newly empty, its surrounding land portioned off into residential lots now under construction.

Farming turned out to be a great second career for Kleptz, but he warns that raising meat is unlikely to be a get-rich-quick scheme for anyone. Still, juxtaposed against empty dairy barns, could it be the next big thing in Vermont agriculture?

It’s a timely question, as the last big thing — conventional dairy farming — is hitting its latest stumbling block. The industry that accounts for an estimated 90 percent of Vermont’s ag income is caught in a boom-and-bust cycle of erratic milk pricing. One year might be a bumper year for farmers, who have no say over the price they receive for their milk. The next — like this one — may see prices dip below the cost of production, which means dairy farmers are going into debt for the privilege of selling their milk.

“It’s not my nature to go do all that work and then hope and pray that someone treats me right,” says Kleptz.

Pittsford farmer David Mills knows something about that. He runs a herd of approximately 300 Devon, Hereford and Angus cattle on Millbrand Farm, his former dairy farm. Asked why he decided, about 11 years ago, to stop milking cows, Mills suggests: “Read the newspaper.”

By that he means the economics of dairying just didn’t make sense. A new father at the time, Mills wanted more time to spend with his growing family. He says he probably spends just as many hours, if not more, maintaining his beef herd, but has more flexibility than he did. He’s not tied to a milking schedule, and if he wants to leave the herd for a day, he can.

Mill says that so long as a farmer knows how to feed a cow — and all dairy farmers do — he thinks the switch isn’t that tricky. For now, he’s not worried about newcomers crowding the market.

“Could there be too many little guys out there selling [meat]? I suppose,” Mills says. “It’s going to take years before that is an issue, I think.”


New Yorker: Is Raw Milk Worth It? The Case of the Single-Udder Butter

From the New Yorker
Posted by Dana Goodyear, April 23, 2012
“I’m an advocate for flavor,” Dan Barber, the chef and co-owner of Blue Hill and Blue Hill Stone Barns, told me. “I think milk has a superior flavor when it’s not pasteurized. And I love the challenge of working with something that’s changing constantly—even weekly.” To be clear: Barber does not serve raw milk at his restaurants—that would be illegal in the state of New York, where only on-farm sales are permitted—but for home experiments he does have access to a reliable supply of it, from his two-hundred-acre farm in the Berkshires. (It is not illegal anywhere to drink raw milk.) His farm’s sweetest milk comes in June, when the spring grass is in but the wild garlic and onion flavors are not as dominant, and in the fall, in the flush that follows a good rain.

In Barber’s experience, though, whether or not milk is pasteurized is secondary to what the cow—in his view, a “vector for the grass”—eats: not only are pasture-fed ruminants eating food they evolved to digest, but also their milk reflects the subtle, seasonal changes in the field. “Grain-feeding is a little like pasteurization,” he said. “It’s a dumbing down, an evening out of the flavors.” In the battle over raw milk, which I write about in the magazine this week, Barber sees a more important point being lost. “The picture is not just about pasteurization,” he said. “It’s part of a much larger question about how you’re raising the cattle and what quality of milk you’re trying to produce. To some people, having a U.S.D.A. official tell you that you have to heat the milk to a certain point takes away your American right to live, but I’d say you have a much more egregious problem if you’re importing transgenic grain from Iowa and polluting the Gulf of Mexico with so much nitrogen that it’s causing dead zones.”

But back to flavor. At Stone Barns, Barber serves “single-udder butter”: butter made from the pasteurized milk of a specific cow. (For example: Clover is an alpha-type who goes hard after the best grass; her butter is typically a darker yellow than that of Sunshine, an erratic, moody cow.) In September, Barber said, Alain Ducasse—who grew up on a farm—visited Stone Barns; Barber served him some toast and a sampler of single-udder butter and eagerly waited for his reaction. “He wasn’t overly complimentary,” Barber said. “I was like, Oh, man. It’s one of the best things we do!” He recalled that Ducasse asked him two questions: Has it been raining? Where are the cows pasturing?

As it happened, the Berkshires were being drenched by Irene, though Ducasse didn’t know it. He just tasted a washed-out flavor in the milk. In answer to the second question, Barber said that he’d recently been at the farm, and knew that the cows were right next to the barn, in the field with the richest, best-fertilized grass. Ducasse politely disagreed, telling Barber he believed the cows were on weak grass. “A week later, I talked to my farmer and he told me that after my visit he had moved the herd to the back pasture—the weediest, least mineralized spot,” Barber said. “It shows you that what we’ve lost in a couple of generations is the ability to taste those values that are truly delicious and healthful for us and for the property.”

Nutritional science has not yet caught up with the interest among chefs and deliberate eaters in less processed and untreated ingredients—and regulatory science sees reason to be wary of raw foods, milk especially. Barber says it makes sense to him that wild foods that taste especially good might have some as-yet unquantified value. “My personal opinion—not from hard evidence—is that nutrient-density benefits follow from flavor,” he said. “Over the course of ten thousand years, we bred and improved and preserved things not to sell to a foreign market but because they tasted better. I believe advocates of raw milk are right because the taste buds say so.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/04/is-raw-milk-worth-it-the-case-of-the-single-udder-butter.html#ixzz1t53uEeF0


VPR News: Vermont To Expand Farm To School Program

From Vermont Public Radio
4/24/12
Vermont is planning to expand a program that connects schools to local farms. Since 2006, the Vermont Farm to School program has provided nearly 50 schools with funding to get more nutritious food into cafeterias, and nutrition and agriculture education into classrooms.

Officials say a total of $200,000 in state and federal funds will allow the Vermont Agriculture Agency to expand the program over the next five years.

The funding will go to schools and to support the development of regional networks and resources to evaluate the impact of the program. The Vermont Agriculture Agency says Vermont was the first state to pass legislation to make Farm to School initiatives a priority.


Free Press: GMO label movement faces hurdles in Vermont

Full article at the Burlington Free Press
Terri Hallenbeck, 4/23/12
MONTPELIER — Jeff Weinstein runs a small Montpelier company called Two Guys in Vermont that makes soups that are sold in area stores.

Weinstein said he uses as many local, wholesome ingredients as he can find. He packages the soup in glass jars to steer clear of the chemicals in cans. He would love it if his soups could stand out on the supermarket shelf as not containing genetically engineered foods.

“For people who buy my soup, GE-free is important,“ Weinstein said.

Weinstein recently urged the House Agriculture Committee to pass a bill requiring foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled as such. That means some of Weinstein’s competitors’ soup might come bearing a prominent label that reads: “This product may be partially produced with genetic engineering.”

Legislators have heard a drumbeat of support for labeling. Some 300 people turned out for an April 12 public hearing at the Statehouse. More that 100 addressed the House Agriculture Committee, all speaking in favor of labeling genetically engineered foods.

“We have a right to uncontaminated agriculture in this state,” Peggy Luhrs of Burlington told the committee at the hearing, echoing a common sentiment of uneasiness with the science of genetically engineered seeds. Many noted that 50 other nations require some sort of labeling.

“There is a desire to know what’s in their food,” Rep. Carolyn Partridge, D-Windham, chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee.

Despite the clamor, labeling appears to be a long ways off in Vermont. Legislation that emerged from the House Agriculture Committee on Friday afternoon comes too late in the legislative session for there to be any hope of it making its way through the full House, the Senate and into law. In addition, the resistance that the legislation ran into highlights the chasm that can exist between the goals of a burgeoning political movement and the pressures legislators face as they seek to fashion laws.

The bill faces powerful opposition, and not only from the biotechnology industry that manufactures and defends its genetically engineered seeds. Some of the very people one might assume would be for the bill are also against it. [...]


Free Press Op-Ed: Why not label GMO foods?

From the Burlington Free Press
Becky Cushing, 4/23/12
Low fat. Gluten free. All natural. Organic. Cage-free. Contains: peanuts.

The latest buzz words or health crazes plastered on food products give us a reason to purchase. Savvy advertisers dream up enticing packaging. Or maybe it’s just a handwritten “local” sign put up at the co-op. While the sea of labels can be confusing, they also alert us to what may or may not be in our food. And we have every right to know.

So when we’re standing in the grocery store ready to buy, why don’t we know which foods contain genetically engineered ingredients? Good question. All it takes is a label. And that’s where the story gets interesting.

The H. 722 bill (also known as the Vermont Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) would require labeling of genetically engineered food products sold in Vermont and would give us, Vermont consumers, the ability to make more informed food-purchasing decisions. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) already requires food manufacturers to list ingredients, nutrition facts and common allergens. Why make an exception for genetically modified ingredients?

Recently, Vermonters filled the Statehouse to show their support for the bill and share their stories with the House Agriculture Committee where the bill currently sits. Health concerns, food intolerances and environmental considerations are just a couple of reasons consumers might want to know if the food they buy is genetically modified. VPIRG, NOFA Vermont and Rural Vermont have joined forces to advocate for the passage of the bill and garner public support through the Vermont Right to Know GMOs project.

On the project’s website Vermonters can sign a petition in favor of the bill and learn more about the increasing prevalence of genetically engineered foods ranging from bread to baby food (www.vtrighttoknow.org/). Some consumers might find it alarming that the majority of corn and soybeans grown in the United States have been genetically modified — and not for increased nutritional benefits. Rather, these GMO crops have been engineered to withstand pesticides so that broad spraying efforts will kill everything but the modified target crop. In addition to the genetically engineered food, we are eating high doses of weed killer.

Fifty other countries already label genetically engineered foods including the European Union, which has championed consumers’ right to choose for more than a decade. I’m proud that Vermonters are leading the charge (along with California and Connecticut) as part of a much larger nationwide campaign to require labels on genetically engineered foods. The nationwide campaign, Just Label It, a partnership of 525 plus organizations, submitted a petition to the FDA last month with more than one million signatures in favor of labeling. All Americans, not just Vermonters, want to know what’s in their food. And why shouldn’t we?

Even if the bill passes here in Vermont the work will not be over. Corporate giant Monsanto has threatened to sue the state if the bill passes. The Grocery Manufacturers Association and Council for Biotechnology Information are two industry groups shoveling resources — including money — into stopping the bill. Monsanto defends the safety of genetically engineered food, citing its own scientific studies. Scare tactics warn consumers that food labeling costs will hurt them the most.

Though I believe that knowing what’s in our food is important, I’m increasingly alarmed by the bullying of the opposition. Maybe the lashback is less about a label and more about corporate secrecy: Why is Monsanto so concerned about telling us what’s in our food?

Becky Cushing lives in Burlington.


VPR News: Demand For Greek Yogurt Bodes Well For Dairy Farmers

Listen at Vermont Public Radio
Nancy Eve Cohen, 4/23/12
Yogurt has always been associated with good health. Now demand is growing for a new kind of yogurt – the Greek variety. Sales more than doubled last year. And just as this market shift is healthy for consumers, it’s also good for dairy farmers.

Fans of Greek yogurt say the thick, creamy yogurt fills them up with the right stuff. It has a lot more protein – double or even triple the amount that’s in conventional yogurt. That’s because Greek yogurt is made with a lot more milk.

Tom Moffit is President of Commonwealth Dairy in Brattleboro. His plant makes yogurt for retail stores who want their own brand. Moffit said he’s getting as much as 45,000 gallons of milk delivered every day.

“Part of the reason we are receiving so much as a yogurt maker is because we make a lot of Greek yogurt,” Moffit said. “Greek yogurt takes about five times as much milk to make than conventional yogurt.”

Moffit said he’s making almost all Greek now.

He leads the way up two flights of stairs to a catwalk that overlooks six stainless steel tanks each full of 8,000 gallons of skim milk that’s fermenting. That’s where the milk is cultured. But to become Greek yogurt it goes into a centrifuge that separates out the whey, the watery part of conventional yogurt.

“That’s what makes the Greek yogurt so thick and smooth and creamy,” he said. “You’re taking all the liquid out of it so we’re going to open this up and you can see fresh Greek yogurt that has just been made.”

But making such a rich yogurt requires much more milk than the conventional kind – two to five times as much. And Moffit says up until last month, when cows began producing more milk – as they do every spring – he couldn’t always get enough.

“Milk has been a challenge for us,” Moffit said.

It has also been a challenge for other yogurt makers. In New York state there are 29 yogurt plants, many of which make Greek yogurt. Pepsico says it’s opening a $206 million yogurt plant there. Moffit says that’s a big plant.

“We’re really concerned about the long-term prospects in the northeast for milk supply,” he said. “Its been a struggle for us. We expect over the next few years it will continue to be a struggle and I kind of scratch my head and wonder where all that milk is going to come from.”

“Five years ago we didn’t know what we were going to do with all the milk and now with the yogurt plants coming on it’s been drying up the milk supply,” said Robert Gilchrist, who markets fluid milk for Agrimark, one of the biggest milk-cooperatives in the region, with 1,200 farms. He said Agrimark couldn’t always deliver enough milk to yogurt makers when they wanted it last fall.

“Not on the days that they wanted,” Gilchrist said. “Most everybody got the milk that they needed, but they had to change their production schedules.”

Gilchrist said he expects the supply will be very tight again next fall.

Diane Bothfeld, Vermont’s Deputy Secretary for Dairy Policy says this is good news.

“I don’t think we’re concerned,” Bothfeld said. “We’re excited. It’s a great opportunity for our farmers in the region.”

When it’s harder for yogurt makers to get milk, they’ll pay a premium for it – a price above the floor price set by the federal government. Bothfeld compared the demand for the milk supply to the demand for a star baseball player.

“You’re going to have to pay to move that player away from that team to someone else’s team,” Bothfeld said. “So this milk all had a home and now there are new processors that want milk and they have to get it away from someone else who was making another dairy product.”

Bothfeld said she wants to find ways to push this opportunity further. Right now dairy cooperatives collect the premiums and share the extra money equally among all their farmers. Bothfeld said one idea being discussed is directing premiums to the specific farms that produce milk with a higher protein content, something Greek yogurt makers want.

As Bothfeld said, “The farmer had to change some feeding practices and management to get that extra protein. Is there a direct payment for that?”

This spring the milk supply has increased and the price paid to farmers has dropped. But back at Commonwealth Dairy, President Tom Moffit said he has persistent concerns about the future milk supply. He pointed to a machine that’s pumping Greek yogurt nonstop and said, “This filler is making 90 cups a minute of two-pound cups of Greek yogurt, so its using about 630 pounds of milk a minute. That’s a lot of milk!”

Moffitt says he doesn’t see an end to the demand for Greek yogurt. Or the milk that’s needed to make it.


Free Press: House panel OKs GMO labeling bill, but with a caveat

Full article at the Burlington Free Press
Terri Hallenbeck, 4/20/12
[...] The bill comes out of committee as the 2012 legislative session is in its final weeks. The legislation would need approval from the House Judiciary Committee, the full House, the Senate and the governor before becoming law. Supporters and opponents acknowledge that’s not going to happen.

Even if it did, the bill itself also delays enactment until 365 days after California and at least two other Northeast states enact similar laws.

“We wanted to do it this way so we didn’t disrupt the supply chain,” said House Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Partridge, D-Windham. Legislators heard concerns from Vermont food producers that they would have to have two labeling systems for in-state and out-of-state sales.

Rep. Norm McAllister, R-Highgate, was the lone vote on the committee against the bill. McAllister is a dairy goat farmer who grows genetically modified corn and considers it safe.

Supporters of the labeling legislation — noting that 300 people turned out for a public hearing last week in favor of the labeling — said they were disappointed Friday that the committee opted for the delay and that the bill came out so late in the session.

“They passed a piece of legislation that has its arms and legs tied and eyes and ears covered,” said Andrea Stander, executive director of Rural Vermont. “This essentially ends any opportunity for Vermont to pass a meaningful labeling law.” [...]


Washington Post: Hemp supporters see mainstream support for legalizing crop in Kentucky, led by promise of jobs

By Associated Press, Published: April 5
Full Article

LEXINGTON, Ky. — Hemp isn’t legal in Kentucky yet, but the eclectic mix of people at a recent seminar in Lexington was evidence that support for the versatile plant may be taking root.

One by one, elected officials stepped forward to promote the virtues of hemp production, staking out a position that once might have sown political trouble back home. They were cheered by liberals and libertarian-leaning conservatives alike.

“We’ve come a long way,” said state Sen. Joey Pendleton, who has sponsored a string of unsuccessful bills seeking to reintroduce hemp in the Bluegrass state. “The first year I had this, it was lonely.”

Kentucky once was a leading producer of industrial hemp, a tall, leafy plant with a multitude of uses that has been outlawed for decades because of its association with marijuana. Those seeking to legalize the plant argue that the change would create a new crop for farmers, replacing a hemp supply now imported from Canada and other countries.

The plant can be used to make paper, biofuels, clothing, lotions and other products.

Despite bipartisan support, the latest hemp measures failed again this year in the Kentucky General Assembly. But this time, hemp advocates think they have momentum on their side and vow to press on with their campaign to legalize the crop.

Pendleton, D-Hopkinsville, urged his fellow hemp supporters to lobby hard in preparation for another push in 2013.

“I think next year is the year,” said Pendleton, whose grandfather raised hemp in western Kentucky.

Hemp bills have been introduced in 11 state legislatures this year, but so far none have passed, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The bills include allowing privately funded industrial hemp research, allowing hemp production under strict licensing programs and urging the federal government to allow hemp production for industrial uses.

Hemp’s reputation has undergone drastic pendulum swings in the U.S.

During World War II, the U.S. government encouraged farmers to grow hemp for the war effort because other industrial fibers, often imported from overseas, were in short supply. But the crop hasn’t been grown in the U.S. since the 1950s as the federal government moved to classify hemp as a controlled substance because it’s related to marijuana.

Imports include finished hemp products and hemp material turned into goods. U.S. retail sales of hemp products exceeded $400 million last year, according to industry estimates.

Pete Ashman, of Philadelphia, was among those at the Lexington hemp seminar, where he displayed a myriad of hemp products, from food, to toilet paper to shampoo. He claimed, “There’s nothing greener on God’s earth.”

Republican state Sen. Paul Hornback didn’t go that far, but the tobacco farmer from Shelbyville said in a phone interview that he sees industrial hemp as an alternative crop that could give Kentucky agriculture a boost if it ever gains a legal foothold.

Agriculture Commissioner James Comer also supports legalization, arguing that industrial hemp could yield more per acre than corn and soybeans. He sees hemp as a viable alternative to tobacco, a once-stalwart crop that has been on the decline in Kentucky.

Comer, among the speakers at the Lexington seminar, said most Kentucky farmers have the equipment needed to produce hemp. He added that the crop needs no herbicides or pesticides, a plus for the environment and a cost savings for producers.

Hemp production would spin off new manufacturing, Comer said, creating jobs in parts of rural Kentucky where a once-thriving garment sector disappeared after the North American Free Trade Agreement took effect in the 1990s.

Once factories started churning out hemp products, farmers would flock to the crop, Comer predicted.

Comer, a Republican, said he’s been contacted by three “very legitimate industrial prospects” that would consider opening hemp production plants in Kentucky if the crop becomes legal to grow. One company wants to use hemp to make vehicle dashes, he said. Another wants to make ethanol, the other cosmetics out of hemp, he said.

John Riley, a former magistrate in Spencer County, sees hemp as a potentially lucrative crop that could become a renewable fuel source. It would be a big transformation for a crop once known as a major source for rope.

“I look forward to continuing to fight the fight,” Pendleton said. “We can make this happen in Kentucky.”