By Caitlin Aylward

Drought and high food prices in 2012 threatened the food security of over 18 million people in the Sahel Region of Africa, which includes parts of Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Gambia, Cameroon, and northern Nigeria. The Sahel is prone to drought, and is becoming increasingly so with climate change. Consequently the people in this region are experiencing more frequent bouts of food insecurity and malnutrition.

Women-led cereal banks help reduce hunger and malnutrition in the Sahel. (Photo credit: World Food Programme)

Fortunately, organizations such as the World Food Program (WFP) and Care are joining forces to create all-women-managed cereal banks in villages throughout the Sahel that not only help protect against seasonal famine, but also empower women as agents of food security in their communities.

Cereal banks are community-led grain distribution projects that store grain after harvests, and then loan grain when food is scarce during what is known as the ‘lean season.’

In 2009, WFP and Care established exclusively women-operated cereal banks to help ensure the availability of grain supplies year round. These community cereal banks loan grain below market price, helping protect against market speculation, and enabling even the poorest women to purchase food for their families during times of scarcity. The women are expected to repay the loans, but at very low interest rates and only after they have harvested their own crops.

WFP and Care also fund educational enrichment programs that give lessons to women on arithmetic, reading, and writing, which give women the skills needed to manage the village granaries, including bookkeeping, monitoring stocks, and administering loans. Education is of critical importance for the advancement of women in the developing world. As the Girl Effect reports, an extra year of primary school results in an increase of women’s eventual wages by 10 to 20 percent, while an extra year of secondary school increases potential wages by 15 to 25 percent.

Given women’s traditional role as primary caregivers who invest 90 percent of their incomes into their families (as compared to the 30-40 percent invested by men), it makes sense to employ them as managers of community cereal banks. “Women traditionally feed the village; we know when our children and neighbors are hungry,” says cereal bank treasurer Sakina Hassan, “Our intimate knowledge of hunger drives our management of the cereal bank.”

Cereal banks decrease communities’ dependence on unpredictable weather, and provide villages with a much needed safety net during times of drought and famine. In addition to emergency food relief programs, these cereal banks helped save thousands of families throughout the region from hunger and malnutrition during the most recent food crisis in the Sahel.  These community granaries have also led to improved educational opportunities for women, empowering them to better provide for their families and their communities.

Can you think of other innovations that are helping to improve food security, while empowering women? Let us know in the comments section!

Caitlin Aylward is a former research intern with the Worldwatch Institute’s Food and Agriculture Program.

Go to Source

By Eleanor Fausold

Sometimes the best things come in small packages. Camu camu (Myrciaria dubia) is a tiny fruit native to the Amazon region of South America that is rising in popularity, as both an element in local treats and a main component in dietary supplements. Although its high level of acidity once made it unpopular for consumption, the fruit is now valued for its exceptionally high vitamin C content and is, consequently, growing in demand in health-food stores around the world.

Camu-camu, a tiny, vitamin C-rich fruit native to the Amazon region of South America, is rising in popularity (Photo Credit: Youshi Guo)

Also known as camocamo in Peru and cacari in Brazil, among other names, the camu camu tree can grow up to 40 feet high. The species thrives in swamps along rivers and lakes such as the Rio Mazán near Iquitos, Peru, and in Amazonian Brazil and Venezuela. The base of the camu camu’s trunk is frequently underwater, and the tree’s lower branches are often submerged for long periods during the rainy season.

Despite its frequent submersion, the camu camu tree produces fragrant flowers with tiny white petals and tiny fruits that turn from yellow to a maroon or purple-black color as they ripen. In the right growing conditions, a single tree can produce as many as 1,000 fruits per year, which are harvested by boat.

Known for its extremely high vitamin C content (half-ripe fruits have been found to contain 1,950 to 2,700 milligrams per 100 grams of edible fruit, an amount greater than that found in 50 oranges), the camu camu fruit has a very acidic taste. In fact, until fairly recently, the fruit was used almost exclusively as fish bait and the tree, when dead, was used as a source of firewood.

Today, camu camu is growing in popularity. The fruit has become a common ingredient in drinks, popsicles, and candy, and the plant’s cortex (the outer layer of tissue) is also sometimes steeped in aguardiente, a strong alcoholic drink, producing a mixture that is believed to prevent rheumatism.

In addition, camu camu’s high concentration of vitamin C has made it appealing to the growing health-food market in countries around the world, including the United States and Japan. For use in supplements, the fruit is peeled and made into a juice, which is then dehydrated, resulting in a powder that can be used in health products. Because of the increasing demand for its export, large-scale planting of camu camu has begun throughout the Amazon, where the tree is frequently interplanted with cowpea, squash, cassava, and other annual crops.

Producing camu camu for widespread sale has its complications, however. Because the plant is not domesticated, camu camu’s level of Vitamin C can vary from tree to tree. The fruit must also be processed and used quickly and carefully—in even just one month of storage, the fruit can lose up to a quarter of its Vitamin C content, and the powdered form cannot be heated or stored for more than one year.

But camu camu still has vast potential to become a more mainstream component in both sugary treats and the global health foods market.  As demand grows and exports increase, this tiny South American fruit is likely to become even more well-known for its vitamin C strength.

Do you know of other nutritious fruits rising in popularity? Tell us about them below!

Eleanor Fausold is a former research intern with the Worldwatch Institute’s Food and Agriculture Program. 

To read about other crops native to the Amazon, see: Moringa: The Giving Tree, Tsamma Melons: Watermelon’s Wild Cousins, African rock fig: A fruit with historical significance and potential for the future, False Yam: A Famine Prevention Trifecta, and Manara Vanilla: Cultivating Delicate Flavor.

Go to Source

By Laura Reynolds

On April 29, the European Union voted to largely ban the use of neonicotinoids, a type of pesticide, for two years beginning in December 2013. The ban had 15 member state supporters, including France, Germany, and Poland; eight opponents, including the United Kingdom; and four abstaining votes.

Neonicotinoids are a possible cause of the rapid decline in bee populations worldwide. (Photo credit: University of California)

The ban restricts the use of three pesticides—imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam—on flowering crops, which honeybees depend on for pollen and hive health. Environmental groups, beekeepers, scientists, and the public hailed the ban as a victory for the precautionary principle, which urges caution and careful scientific study in circumstances where the effects of a chemical or action on the environment are not sufficiently clear.

Neonicotinoids are thought to be particularly harmful for insects because the chemical is applied directly to a plant’s seed instead of its leaves or flowers. This makes the pesticide present in the plant’s pollen. Neonicotinoids are also persistent chemicals, meaning that they do not degrade within weeks or months, but rather remain in the nerve systems of insects, causing systemic and lasting damage.

In the United States, a coalition of beekeeping companies and environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency in March over its approval of neonicotinoids for domestic use. The groups cited a lack of scientific understanding of the pesticides’ effect on bees and other insects, and drew a possible connection between the chemicals and the ongoing collapse of honeybee hives across the country and worldwide.

This bee population crisis, known as colony collapse disorder, emerged in 2005, and scientists have not yet identified a clear cause. Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies have both confirmed and denied a link between neonicotinoids and beehive collapse. Scientists agree that viruses, mites, drought, and loss of native habitat could also be contributing to the collapse.

Anecdotal reports from commercial beekeepers suggest that the U.S. bee population may have declined as much as 40 to 50 percent over the past year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will release its official assessment in late May. Annual hive losses of 5 to 10 percent were the norm for beekeepers in previous decades, but since 2005, losses have escalated to some one-third of all hives. Simply put, no bees means less or no production of certain foods: the USDA reports that one-third of the American diet depends on pollination by honeybees.

This spring, for the first time ever, orchardists in California couldn’t find enough bees to pollinate their crops. Bees are shipped to pollinate hundreds of thousands of fruits and trees in California’s Central Valley. Some of these specialty crops, such as almonds, are nearly 100-percent dependent on domestic honeybee hives. Because of the high concentration of fruit and nut production in California, the state imports its bees, possibly also importing diseases and viruses from around the country.

Because of the high demand and low supply of hives this year, farmers had to pay up to 20 percent more to use hives on their farms—which could result in increased food prices over the coming months.

What is your opinion on the effect of pesticides, as well as herbicides and other agrochemicals, on bee health? Let us know in the comments!

Laura Reynolds is a Food and Agriculture Staff Researcher at the Worldwatch Institute.

Go to Source

By Laura Reynolds

In 2010, global greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector totaled 4.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalent, up 13 percent over 1990. Agriculture is the third largest contributor to global emissions by sector, following the burning of fossil fuels for power and heat, and transportation. In 2010, emissions from electricity and heat production reached 12.5 billion tons, and emissions from transport totaled 6.7 billion tons.

Agricultural emissions have increased over the past two decades. (Photo credit: www.mnn.com)

Despite their continuing rise, emissions from agriculture are growing at a much slower rate than the sector as a whole, demonstrating the increasing energy efficiency of agriculture. From 1990 to 2010, the volume of agricultural production overall increased nearly 23 percent.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, methane accounts for just under half of total agricultural emissions, nitrous oxide for 36 percent, and carbon dioxide for some 14 percent. The largest source of methane emissions is enteric fermentation, or the digestion of organic materials by livestock, predominantly beef cattle. This is also the largest source of agricultural emissions overall, contributing 37 percent of the total.

Livestock contribute to global emissions in other ways as well. Manure deposited and left on pastures is a major source of nitrous oxide emissions because of its high nitrogen content. When more nitrogen is added to soil than is needed, bacteria convert the extra nitrogen into nitrous oxide and release it into the atmosphere. Emissions from manure on pasture in Asia, Africa, and South America together account for as much as 81 percent of global emissions from this source. These emissions from the three regions increased 42 percent on average between 1990 and 2010, reflecting an increase in range-based livestock populations; elsewhere, these emissions either decreased or stagnated.

Carbon dioxide emissions from cultivated organic soils account for some 14 percent of total agricultural emissions, with Asia contributing 54 percent of these emissions. Deforestation and clearing for agricultural land in many tropical South and Southeast Asian countries are a leading cause of these emissions. Asia is home to four out of the top five countries with the highest CO₂ emissions from cultivated organic soils, with Indonesia contributing 279 million tons, Papua New Guinea 41 million tons, Malaysia 35 million tons, and Bangladesh 31 million tons.

These data clearly indicate that livestock production accounts for an enormous share of global greenhouse gas emissions. Together, emissions from enteric fermentation, manure left on pastures, manure applied to soils, cropland devoted to feed production, and manure treated in management systems contribute more than 80 percent of total emissions. Meanwhile, emissions related to the direct human consumption of food crops represent less than 20 percent of the total.

One obvious way to reduce agricultural emissions is for people to minimize their consumption of meat and dairy products. This would help stabilize or shrink livestock populations, lessen the pressure to clear additional land for livestock, and reduce the proportion of grain that is grown for livestock feed instead of for direct human consumption.

Farmers and landowners have numerous opportunities to mitigate these impacts as well, bringing environmental and even economic co-benefits. For example, applying fertilizer more efficiently, precisely, and at times when plants can absorb it can significantly reduce nitrous oxide emissions while lowering fertilizer costs. Planting fallow fields with nitrogen-fixing legume crops—such as soybeans, alfalfa, and clover—can also naturally rebuild nitrogen and other nutrients in soils.

Growing trees and woody perennials on land can sequester carbon while simultaneously helping to restore soils, reduce water contamination, and provide beneficial wildlife habitat. Reducing soil tillage can also rebuild soils while lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Some practices can even result in increased income for farmers: “cap-and-trade” programs allow farmers to monetize and sell certain sequestration practices, while government programs like the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program pay farmers to set aside some of their land for long-term restoration. As detailed in the 2012 Worldwatch report, Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture: Supporting Climate-Friendly Food Production, many mitigation practices use existing and accessible technologies and can be implemented immediately.

Read the full report, with references, at Vital Signs Online.

Laura Reynolds is a Food and Agriculture Staff Researcher at the Worldwatch Institute.

Go to Source

By Sophie Wenzlau

Continuing a decade-long increase, global food prices rose 2.7 percent in 2012, reaching levels not seen since the 1960s and 1970s but still well below the price spike of 1974. Between 2000 and 2012, the World Bank global food price index increased 104.5 percent, at an average annual rate of 6.5 percent.

Global food prices rose 2.7 percent in 2012 (Photo Credit: Thinkstock)

The price increases reverse a previous trend when real prices of food commodities declined at an average annual rate of 0.6 percent from 1960 to 1999, approaching historic lows. The sustained price decline can be attributed to farmers’ success in keeping crop yields ahead of rising worldwide food demand. Although the global population grew by 3.8 billion or 122.9 percent between 1961 and 2010, net per capita food production increased by 49 percent over this period. Advances in crop breeding and an expansion of agricultural land drove this rise in production, as farmers cultivated an additional 434 million hectares between 1961 and 2010.

Food price volatility has increased dramatically since 2006. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the standard deviation—or measurement of variation from the average—for food prices between 1990 and 1999 was 7.7 index points, but it increased to 22.4 index points in the 2000–12 period.

Although food price volatility has increased in the last decade, it is not a new phenomenon. According to World Bank data, the standard deviation for food prices in 1960–99 was 11.9 index points higher than in 2000–12. Some price volatility is inherent in agricultural commodities markets, as they are strongly influenced by weather shocks. But the recent upward trend in food prices and volatility can be traced to additional factors including climate change, policies promoting the use of biofuels, rising energy and fertilizer prices, poor harvests, national export restrictions, rising global food demand, and low food stocks.

Perhaps most significant has been an increase in biofuels production in the last decade. Between 2000 and 2011, global biofuels production increased more than 500 percent, due in part to higher oil prices and the adoption of biofuel mandates in the United States and European Union (EU). According to a 2012 study by the University of Bonn’s Center for Development Research, if biofuel production continues to expand according to current plans, the price of feedstock crops (particularly maize, oilseed crops, and sugar cane) will increase more than 11 percent by 2020.

Large-scale imports of agricultural commodities in 2007–08 and 2011 were important factors in the global food price spikes in those years. High Chinese imports of soybeans, for instance, contributed to the 2011 spike. National export restrictions, including taxes and bans, also drove up food prices; policies enacted in 2007–08 in response to the price spike generated panic in net-food importing countries and raised grain prices by as much as 30 percent, according to some estimates.

In the last few decades, periods in which the cereals stock-to-use ratio (the level of carryover reserves of cereals as a percentage of total annual use) was near its minimum have correlated with a high price of calories from food commodities. When food stocks are high, shocks can be absorbed more easily than when stocks are low or nonexistent. The world stock-to-use ratio for calories from wheat, maize, and rice was lower in the last decade than in the two preceding decades, which may be a main reason for higher global food prices.

Rising energy and fertilizer prices drove up food prices as well, by adding to production, processing, transportation, and storage costs. According to the World Bank commodity price index, the average price of energy during 2000–12 was 183.6 percent higher than the average price during 1990–99, while the average price of fertilizer increased 104.8 percent in the same period.

There is reason to believe that food commodity prices will be both higher and more volatile in the decades to come. As climate change increases the incidence of extreme weather events, production shocks will become more frequent. Food prices will also likely be driven up by population growth, increasing global affluence, stronger linkages between agriculture and energy markets, and natural resource constraints. According to the FAO, although high food prices tend to aggravate poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition, they also represent an opportunity to catalyze long-term investment in agriculture, which could boost resilience to climate change and augment global food security.

Read the full report at Vital Signs Online.

Sophie Wenzlau is a Food and Agriculture Staff Researcher at the Worldwatch Institute

About Vital Signs Online:

Vital Signs Online provides business leaders, policymakers, and engaged citizens with the latest data and analysis they need to understand critical global trends. It is an interactive, subscription-based tool that provides hard data and research-based insights on the sustainability trends that are shaping our future. All of the trends include clear analysis and are placed in historical perspective, allowing you to see where the trend has come from and where it might be headed. New trends cover emerging hot topics—from global carbon emissions to green jobs—while trend updates provide the latest data and analysis for the fastest changing and most important trends today. Every trend includes full datasets and complete referencing. Click here to subscribe today to Vital Signs Online.

Go to Source

Nourishing the Planet’s Kimberlee Davies spoke recently with Matt Ray, the principal farmer for Sweet Water Organics, an aquaponics training organization in Milwaukee, about his experience in the field of aquaponics.

Sweet Water Organics uses aquaponics technology to grow food in downtown Milwaukee.

What is aquaponics? How did you become involved?

Aquaponics has been around for centuries. It was traditionally a technique in tropical climates, using floating bamboo rafts with vegetation in fresh water pools. This was simply the adaptation of agriculture to the tropics. The technique has become cutting edge over the last 20 years. We can adapt aquaponics to today’s geographies and culture.

Aquaponics is a blending of aquaculture (the raising of aquatic animals) and hydroponics (growing plants in water without soil). In aquaponics, aquatic animals serve as the nutrition base for the plants. The great thing about aquaponics is that it is a closed system; it doesn’t have to flow in one pipe and out of another.

I saw it begin to pop up in the late 1980s, starting with the Virgin Islands, Australia, and even Asia, where fish are grown symbiotically with rice paddies. Forward-thinking farmers and activists began to develop the practice in non-tropical climates, and academics began researching the field. Twenty years later, we have a lot more people doing it. Scientific data has emerged to support the spread and success of this technique. It’s possible to take the nuts and bolts and adapt them to wherever you are. It’s going to work and it can be replicated.

My background was originally as a Montessori teacher for the 7th and 8th grades. I began a transition to aquaponics in 1996. Will Allen—a leader in the aquaponics field and chief executive officer of Growing Power—became my mentor. Milwaukee has a strong history in aquaponics, and Will has always been on the forefront. From Will’s tutelage, I moved into my own classroom—a natural move with my background in Montessori. I am now both an educator and a farmer.

At Sweet Water Organics, we built our first system in 2008, and we recently put up our first satellite aquaponics system at a local school building. Aquaponics provides endless educational content: worldwide food distribution, cooking, microbiology, food handling, fishing, marketing, and economics. It’s everything. It puts the students in a real-life situation. Plus, the system doesn’t require machinery, permitting students to participate.

How has the local community responded to Sweet Water?

I think all-in-all, the feedback is positive. You have to look at what your true impact on a community is: people asking when you’re going to hold a workshop; when you’re working with graduate students; when restaurants are dedicated to using our local products, and they understand we’re just getting into this. Even the public school system has picked up on our work. A high school is about to roll out a whole aquaponics program. Aquaponics offers the opportunity to empower the everyday citizen. It is personal and natural: something that can feed yourself and your neighbors.

We also engage the community in several ways. Most recently, we have challenged local architecture students to redesign our 40,000-square-foot indoor facility. The designs must incorporate our multiple forms of community outreach, including: a culinary facility, a learning lab (with an open classroom dynamic), a tinker lab (for hobbyists and entrepreneurs), a research lab (to encourage good data collecting), an innovation hub (to demonstrate design, similarly to living art), an area to grow commercial sprouts, food storage (something more concrete), and an area for art experimentation. This facility even includes performing arts.

A modern farmer looks for multiple outreaches and income streams. You’ve got be engaged in the community.

What are the biggest challenges to local food production? How does aquaponics address these issues?

I don’t know if aquaponics has answered the substantial global needs: food, shelter, health care, water, etc. I don’t know if one agricultural technique can solve these problems. The potential is there, but to say it can completely offset traditional farming is a big step. What aquaponics does do is provide local food. It also provides brownfield remediation. In more dense urban areas, it reclaims buildings and revitalizes real estate. Plus, it causes a ripple effect (people notice and get involved). People gravitate toward things that are nurturing, providing hope and an alternative answer.

Our disconnect to our food is one of the biggest challenges. This connection is directly related to our children’s health. The further we get removed from agriculture, the greater our reliance on big producers, which use a lot of water and pesticides. We have to change how we view agriculture; farmers can be smart, educated producers. In urban areas, we’re bringing farming to the people, solving the disconnect. It’s kind of like the neon sign. People naturally want to check it out. We create citizen ownership and pride.

Could such facilities potentially feed, or supplement the diet of, large populations?

I think so. It depends on how active any particular urban area is on pursuing local production. I think of total diversification: fruit trees and nut trees in parks; vertical aquaponics; remediate a part of the city and turn it into an intensive gardening plot; etc. Hit it hard. Our city has to commit to urban food production.

By creating consistent, fresh, and local products, you can gain institutional players—assistant living accounts, hospital accounts, school accounts. In my mind, this motivates me to do what I’m doing. These people—children, the recovering, the elderly, the poor—need the healthiest food. Let’s open to these accounts, knowing that they don’t pay the same premium as fancy restaurants. I’d love to see aquaponics hit the public school market. I know a charter school and high school that already participate. Even universities and business owners can get involved and become suppliers.

In my opinion, aquaponics does bring some consistency that outside farming cannot. At the very least, you can say, “who else can grow lettuce in January?” By repurposing an old factory, aquaponics is able to consistently produce healthy lettuce in the off-season.

Based on your work over the last several years, what advice do you have for those interested in working in aquaponics?

Read. And visit.

Do a little bit of both. Take a course if you can. And tinker. Use the gentle assets you have or those of your loved ones (if you know a plumber, ask for help). Most importantly, follow the yeses. One of my mentors told me that. You take stock of what you need and what you have. If somebody says no, you ask if they know somebody. If you get a no, find a yes. Follow those yeses.

What can individuals do to support your work?

If we’re doing a workshop, certainly sign up. Also, we’re always looking for funding for the work we do with the community through the Sweet Water Foundation. We are also looking for grant partnerships as well as contracting with schools and community organizations.

On a bigger level, learn about it, decide what you want to do with it, do it well, and teach others. The Internet allows people to check it out, so learn. We’re working on one of the major global issues. It’s more than how you can make money. If you want to do alternative energy, or waste management, it’s more than about you or your organization. We’ve got to get on the ball. Leave your ego at the door.

Kimberlee Davies is a former research intern with the Worldwatch Institute’s Food and Agriculture Program.

Go to Source

By Supriya Kumar

Some 1.2 billion people—almost a fifth of the world—live in areas of physical water scarcity, while another 1.6 billion face what can be called economic water shortage. The situation is only expected to worsen as population growth, climate change, investment and management shortfalls, and inefficient use of existing resources restrict the amount of water available to people. It is estimated that by 2025, 1.8 billion people will live in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity, with almost half of the world living in conditions of water stress.

Global water scarcity map. (Photo credit: International Water Management Institute)

Water scarcity has several definitions. Physical scarcity occurs when there is not enough water to meet demand; its symptoms include severe environmental degradation, declining groundwater, and unequal water distribution. Economic water scarcity occurs when there is a lack of investment and proper management to meet the demand of people who do not have the financial means to use existing water sources; the symptoms in this case normally include poor infrastructure.Large parts of Africa suffer from economic water scarcity.

World population is predicted to grow from 7 billion to 9.1 billion by 2050, putting a strain on water resources to meet increased food, energy, and industrial demands. But there are many other pressures, including increased urbanization and overconsumption, lack of proper management, and the looming threat of climate change. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and UN Water, global water use has been growing at more than twice the rate of population increase in the last century.

Read the full report at Vital Signs Online.

Supriya Kumar is Worldwatch’s Communications Manager.

Go to Source

Check out this information-packed graphic about water scarcity, the dangers of unsafe water, and country-specific water usage. The infographic was created by the training firm ableskills on the occasion of World Water Day.

Many everyday foods require huge amounts of water for production. (Image credit: ableskills.co.uk)

Go to Source

In our February newsletter, we wrote about the environmental and humanitarian consequences of food waste. Worldwide, 30 to 40 percent of all food produced is either lost or wasted between the stages of production and consumption. We asked readers to send us their ideas on how to curb food waste, and we got many thoughtful and innovative responses.

Many readers responded to our February newsletter about how to reduce food waste. (Photo credit: Zero Waste Europe)

Some of our readers who own or work on farms wrote about their methods of recycling excess organic matter. Jan Steinman of Vancouver, Canada, wrote: “I live on a co-op farm, and nothing is wasted. We have a ‘three bucket’ system in the house. What people don’t want goes in the goat bucket, as appropriate (vegetable trimmings, etc.). If it isn’t suitable for the goats, it goes in the chicken bucket (moldy bread or cheese, cooked grains or legumes, etc.). Finally, if neither humans nor goats nor chickens will eat it, it goes into compost.”

Noting that many readers do not raise their own goats or chickens, Jan added, “If they go to a farmers market, they can surely find someone who will put their ‘waste’ to a higher use.”

For farmers who have more produce than they can sell or eat, organizations are cropping up to help get this food to hungry consumers. Peter Burkard wrote, “Here in Sarasota, Florida we have a food gleaning project run by Transition Sarasota which saves food from the fields that would otherwise go to waste and donates it to the local food bank.”

At the other end of the food supply-chain, many readers make use of food waste in their own backyards. John Davies of Nova Scotia, Canada, explained: “Our backyard compost pile takes in our waste veggie and fruit that we mix with grass and flower clippings plus autumn leaves. After a few months that pile becomes great compost, which means we don’t need to buy chemical fertilizer.”

Similarly, Fran DiDonato wrote, “We have backyard chickens and vermicompost in our basement, and feed all of our food scraps to the chickens and worms to get eggs and compost.”

Communities and municipalities are taking measures to reduce food waste as well. David Straus of New York shared: “Our county is considering purchasing a large grinder and establishing a county-wide food-composting program. The key is to charge for landfilling mixed waste but provide the opportunity to recycle/compost for free. Finished compost can be sold or given away to local gardeners and farmers.”

Across the world in India, Usha S. wrote about the role that governments can play in ensuring food security and distribution. “We have to change our ways of how food is produced first of all,” she argued. “In India, we think that decentralized planning is [needed] for ensuring food security, safe food, and to strengthen the production systems and make farming economically viable for the youth in the villages.”

And Selina Juul brought our attention to her Danish organization, Stop Wasting Food. Among the group’s innovations is a list of creative ways to define food waste. A few examples: “Food waste is merely using the amount stated in the recipe and throwing the rest away.… Food waste is pushing the older food to the back of the fridge or cupboard, and placing fresher food in front.” 

Björn Dahlroth pointed out that wasted food is just one consequence of an imperfect food system, and that curbing waste requires complex solutions. He noted that decreasing food waste in developing countries will not translate directly to increased food security and nourishment. “Very much of the food that is destroyed in the world is actually destroyed in poor countries due to inadequate handling and storage,” he wrote.

Finally, Annabel Ascher of The Frugal Goddess offered: “Food waste is a result of bad planning and misguided food procurement. It takes thought, planning, and work to eliminate food waste. But the results are worth it.”

Go to Source

By Carol Dreibelbis

Most people have heard of the health benefits of using olive oil instead of butter or other saturated animal fats. The monounsaturated fats in olive oil have been shown to reduce levels of harmful cholesterol, and as a result nutrition experts have touted it and other aspects of the Mediterranean Diet as heart healthy.

Photo Credit: Jane Alexander

But olive oil isn’t the only celebrated oil from that region of the world. In Morocco, argan oil has been consumed by the Berber people for centuries. Berbers add the deep yellow, toasty-flavored oil to couscous, serve it alongside bread, or eat it on its own. Argan oil has been shown to reduce cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood, and recent research by France’s Institut Pasteur, Morocco’s Lipoproteins and Atherosclerosis Research Laboratory, and others suggests that it might contribute to the prevention of various cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes.

Beyond the health benefits of consuming argan oil, there are also important environmental benefits associated with its production. The same deep root systems that make argan trees well adapted to heat and frequent drought in southwestern Morocco also protect the land against soil erosion and desertification. Meanwhile, argan trees provide shade and protection for crops or pastureland, presenting opportunities for agroforestry.

Arguably, however, the most noteworthy impact of argan oil production is social. This rare oil has captivated a global audience, primarily because of its use in cosmetics. As a result, market prices have been on the rise (making it the most expensive edible oil in the world), and argan oil producers—largely local Moroccan women—have been reaping the benefits.

Because the process of extracting argan oil is extremely labor intensive (it can take 50 kilograms of seeds to produce just half a liter of oil), the women who produce it by hand are frequently part of production co-operatives, such as the UCFA (Union des Cooperatives des Femmes de l’Arganeraie). Founded in 1999, this innovative co-operative produces and markets argan oil and is supported by the Moroccan government as both a conservation and development strategy. Today, the UCFA unites 22 smaller women’s co-operatives. The women who make up these groups gain status, a steady income, and, in some cases, an education through their work.

Yet the argan oil boom has been a double-edged sword. Argan trees and the area in which they grow are threatened by overuse and deforestation. A study by the University of California, Davis finds that “the boom has predictably made households vigilant guardians of fruit on the tree, but it has not incited investments in longer term tree and forest health.” While the development of a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in Morocco is a step in the right direction, it will be both economically and environmentally critical for the same non-governmental groups, development agencies, and government offices that supported argan oil production in the first place to keep sustainability in mind.

Carol Dreibelbis is a research intern with the Worldwatch Institute’s Nourishing the Planet Project.

Go to Source