In the United States, Monsanto has been able to get top researchers and lawyers into important jobs in the FDA, so that they can influence the movement of engineered products into agriculture. The FDA, says Monbiot, "has approved some of the company’s most controversial products, including the artificial sweetener aspartame, and recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone."

Monsanto is also working through multinational bodies. The World Trade Organization said in August, 1997, for instance, that the European Union cannot exclude meat and milk from cattle treated with rBGH, even though farmers, retailers and consumers in Europe expressed widespread concern about the hormone.

Biotech firms are now trying to persuade the WTO to forbid labeling of genetically engineered foods. "With astonishing rapidity," says Monbiot, "a tiny handful of companies is coming to govern the global development, production, processing and marketing of our most fundamental commodity—food."

Public relations plays a big role in this dangerous game of genetic roulette, and in Europe, EuropaBio has hired the U.S. public relations agency of Burson Marsteller to tell consumers how good engineered foods will be for them, according to Earth Island Journal (Fall 1997). Burson Marsteller is the company that handled media strategy for the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the Union Carbide explosion on Bhopal. It has also represented oppressive regimes in Argentina, Nigeria and South Korea. Burson Marsteller’s strategy regarding engineered foods, leaked to Greenpeace and reviewed in Earth Island Journal, is to: a) stay off the ‘killing field’—i.e. instead of biotech companies refuting stories about possible environmental and human health risks from engineered foods, the industry should leave that job to politicians and regulators; b) put out "good," personified stories about benefits of biotech that elicit the emotions of hope, satisfaction, caring and self-esteem; and c) enable EuropaBio to become "the journalist’s best and most reliable continuing source" of "inspiration and information" about biotech, a place where journalists can get "editor pleasing, deadline-beating" stories.

Burson Marsteller has some formidable foes. In one action, Greenpeace, IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, which includes MOFGA), and many other organizations in the organic movement filed a petition against the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency to challenge the way the government authorizes genetically engineered plants that contain the toxin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).

Activists also continue to bring media attention to genetically engineered crops. Last August, for instance, they destroyed an experimental crop of engineered oilseed rape (canola oil) in England, and in April, they occupied four fields in Germany to prevent the planting of Monsanto’s herbicide-resistant sugar beets.

If Burson Marsteller is doing its job, The Guardian doesn’t know it. On Dec. 15, John Vidal and Mark Milner published a critical article, "Food: the 250 billion pound gamble," on the front page of this mainstream European newspaper. They reported, "The scale and speed of the food revolution gathering pace in the United States is surprising governments, industry and analysts. The companies claim that more than 30 million acres of genetically engineered crops have been planted this year, more than three times as many as in 1996 and 10 times the acreage of 1995." A Monsanto spokesman told the reporters, "The market is expected to double again next year."

Vidal and Milner go on to say that Monsanto’s $8 million investment (with five other international conglomerates—Novartis, AgroEvo, Dupont, Zeneca and Dow—following suite) "raises questions of corporate influences on governments," as the companies have engaged in heavy lobbying of trade organizations, regulators, legislators, the media and consumers, with almost no public debate or consideration for long-term consequences.

Consequently, "resistance to genetically modified foods is growing in Europe and the developing countries, uniting consumer and environment groups," report Vidal and Milner.

While genetically engineered crops are being planted on more and more acreage in the United States, they are showing more and more problems. A New York Times article ("Seeds of Discontent: Cotton Growers Say Strain Cuts Yields," by Allen R. Myerson,

Nov. 18, 1997) reported that Monsanto’s Roundup Ready cotton, developed in cooperation with Delta and Pine Land Co., has performed poorly in Mississippi, where about 46 of 200 farmers who planted it are asking that the companies cover their losses, which amount to as much of 40% of their crop. The engineered plants failed to resist spraying with Roundup. Some 25 Texas farmers, meanwhile, are suing the companies for losses from cotton bollworm damage after the genetically engineered Bollgard cotton did not resist bollworms to the extent that Monsanto had promised. Monsanto blames unusually heavy infestations of the insect and lack of spraying by farmers—even though company pamphlets promoting the variety told farmers not to spray.

Government cotton experts in Mississippi say that the companies hurried Roundup Ready cotton to production without letting them test it; usually they test new varieties for three years before recommending them to farmers. "The result has been a rare breakdown in the usually cordial relations between agribusiness and government," reports the New York Times. USDA geneticist Bill Meredith told the reporters, "These new varieties and new technologies are going out with less evaluation than they had in the past with traditional varieties." Despite such setbacks, Monsanto says it expects that by 1999 more than half of the 14 million acres of cotton in the United States will be planted to Roundup Ready cotton. It is developing a stronger variety of insect-resistant cotton and cotton that is naturally colored and doesn’t need chemical dyes.

Closer to home, on Dec. 12, Maine became the first state in the nation to refuse to permit use of a genetically altered field corn (see Sharon Tisher’s report on the Board of Pesticides Control in this issue) because a need for the pesticide-containing crop was not shown by its developers, and developers did not show that its use would not cause "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment." Indeed, the opposite may be true.

The Miner Institute reported (Weekly Market Bulletin, Dec. 3, 1997, N.H. Dept. of Agriculture): "Bt resistance in corn has concerned entomologists ever since cotton bollworm resistance was discovered in Bt cotton. It now appears that this concern is well-founded. Two corn borers were found in Illinois this summer happily munching away in Bt corn, apparently unaffected by the toxin. Uncooperative to the end, both borers died before the entomologists could determine the mode of resistance."

Right now, the only way you can know you are not consuming genetically engineered foods is to grow your own food from seed known not to be engineered (time to start saving those favorite varieties) or buy foods that are certified organic, since governments have failed to require labeling of genetically engineered foods. The purity if organic foods is under threat, however, as the USDA has suggested that genetically engineered foods might be certified as organic. For more information and to refute that suggestion, read Eric Sideman’s article about national organic standards in this issue of The MOF&G.

• JE

Thanks to Jim Gerritsen and Beedy Parker for providing some of the references noted in this article.

Source: A.N.E. Birch, I.E. Geoghegen, M.E.N. Majerus, C. Hackett and J. Allen, Interactions between plant resistance genes, pest aphid populations and beneficial aphid predators," Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA, Scotland.

Thanks to Nancy Allen for sending this article to The MOF&G.

The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), along with Vandana Shiva’s research organization in India, the Third World Network, Edmonds Institute (USA) and other non-governmental organizations, filed a legal opposition with the European Patent Office (EPO) against a patent that had been granted to the USDA and the agribusiness multinational W.R. Grace for a neem-based fungicide. In demanding that the neem patent be revoked, the Legal Opposition spotlighted the way that the intellectual property rights system is being used to appropriate the biological wealth of the South. The monopoly property right on the neem fungicide would have secured major financial gain for USDA and W.R. Grace, while the Indian farming communities, which first understood and developed the uses of neem, would not be compensated at all. In a preliminary assessment of the case, the EPO has unexpectedly concurred that the neem fungicide was not novel and that the alleged "invention" failed to show a sufficiently inventive step. It concluded that the patentee would probably not be able to maintain the patent in the form claimed. The case will continue into 1998.

Source: IFOAM press release

In December, the FDA approved the use of irradiation to kill E. coli, salmonella and other harmful bacteria on beef and other red meats, such as lamb, and changed the dosage for pork. Its action resulted from increased interest in the process after 25 million pounds of Hudson Food Co. hamburger that may have been contaminated with E. coli were recalled last summer. The original petition for the process came three years ago from Isomedix Inc., a New Jersey company involved in medical sterilization that also wants to offer meat processors irradiation with cobalt-60 gamma rays.

The meat industry lobbied heavily for irradiation, while the Clinton administration wanted greater government authority to recall contaminated products and punish violators. Consumer groups claimed that the large-scale, "efficient," worldwide system of raising, processing and distributing foods is at fault and is responsible for much of the food poisoning that occurs. Diseases spread more easily among animals that are housed in food factories. In 1945, for example, houses contained about 500 birds each, while in 1995, a henhouse might contain as many as 100,000 birds. Food that is tainted during processing in huge food factories is widely distributed before people begin to get sick.

"It isn’t the right approach to take a filthy product and irradiate it to make it sterile," said Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "We need to make sure that the filth is removed earlier in the process."

Sources: "Food poisoning cases increase," Curt Anderson, AP report, Bangor Daily News, Dec. 10, 1997; "FDA allows low-dose irradiation of beef," Curt Anderson, AP report, Bangor Daily News, Dec. 3, 1997; "FDA Approves Meat Irradiation," Julie Vorman, Reuters, Dec. 2, 1997.

Marketing studies, large-chain grocery stores and Wall Street all confirm the same phenomenon: sales of organic foods are increasing tremendously. According to an article by Sharon Mack in the Bangor Daily News ("Demand grows for organic food," Dec. 6-7, 1997), a 1995 Food Marketing Institute study showed that 25% of all shoppers buy natural or organic foods at least once a week; that 42% of all supermarkets were carrying organic foods in their produce departments; and that 90% of natural foods shoppers also shopped at conventional markets.

Bernard Rogan, spokesman for Shaw’s supermarkets, based in Massachusetts, told Mack, "In every one of our stores, we are offering organic products and are closely watching the enormous growth of sales in the industry." He added that the organic market is no longer a separate section at Shaw’s but has been integrated throughout the store—a sign of its success.

Likewise, Mack quoted Steven Hoffman, publisher of Natural Business, The Journal of Business & Financial News for the Natural Products Industry: "In terms of Wall Street’s perception of organic foods and products, bigger players are paying attention and buying into organics. The industry has gained respect in the financial market."

Breaking Ground is a new publication by the editors of The Herb, Spice and Medicinal Plant Digest. It tells how to choose and establish specialty crops and connect with markets, and lists more than 100 resources, such as seed and supply companies, publications, Internet sites, and more. To order, send a check or money order for $15, payable to University of Massachusetts, to HSMP Press, 12A Stockbridge, Univ. of Mass., Amherst, MA 01003. In addition to Breaking Ground, you’ll receive a free copy of two issues of The Herb, Spice and Medicinal Plant Digest: "Financial Considerations" and "Process Budget: A Tool for Analyzing."

Source: HortIdeas, Dec. 1997.

Review pg.

Source: HortIdeas, Dec. 1997.

The proposed national standards for organic production "take a step in the right direction, but several deal breaker issues remain," says Kathleen Merrigan, senior analyst at the Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture. "We need to tell USDA how to fix the proposal." Merrigan praised the USDA for ending its historic opposition to organic agriculture, saying that "the willingness of this Administration to embrace organic agriculture indicates real progress. Strict national standards and qualified inspectors will bolster consumer confidence and lead to market growth. The likely outcome is that more farmers will go organic, and our soil, water and wildlife will be better off."

"Organic growers will soon see their market get a jump start," predicted the Kiplinger Agriculture Letter. "New standards will boost demand by raising consumer confidence in the organic label and creating a wider selection of organic products." A recent poll by the Food Marketing Institute found that 54% of consumers would be more likely to purchase organic produce if it carried a national organic certification seal; 51% would buy certified organic meat and poultry; and 43% would buy certified processed foods.

The proposed standards, which took seven years to develop and release, define "organic" as agricultural products produced through a natural versus synthetic process. They also address the methods, practices and substances used in producing and handling crops, livestock and their processed products, including producing and handling organic agricultural products; labeling of organic products; certification of organic operations; accreditation of state and private certifying agents; compliance testing; equivalency of foreign organic certification programs; approval of state organic programs; and user fees.

The proposal drew criticism from environmentalists and organic farmers who "worried that the rules could permit use of germ-killing irradiation, growth of genetically altered crops and spreading of sewage sludge as fertilizer," according to the Associated Press.

The National Organic Standards Board rejected all three practices, about which the USDA put off a final decision, calling for public comment on them. An editorial in The New York Times referred to this USDA action as one of several "troubling signs of vacillation and, perhaps, of industry or political pressure... Whatever the value of these technologies and practices may be, none are part of accepted organic practice, and each offers a beachhead within the program for major nonorganic agricultural corporations."

According to Merrigan, "Our major concern with the USDA program is the attempt by the Secretary to usurp the role of the National Organic Standards Board in determining which synthetic substances may be used in organic production. It is appalling to see synthetic materials in the proposed rule that the Board rejected for environmental and health reasons. Hopefully, USDA will listen carefully to public comment and make important changes before the rule becomes final."

Source: Alternative Agriculture News, Jan. 1998; See Eric Sideman’s article in this issue of The MOF&G to find out how to respond to the proposed standards.

New findings confirm that long-term use of vitamin C supplements reduces the risk of cataracts. Seventy-seven percent fewer early-stage cataracts appeared in women who took the supplements daily for more than 10 years, compared with those who didn’t.

Cataracts—a clouding of the eye’s lens—are believed to result from oxidation of proteins within the lens. Vitamin C prevents oxidation. The study of 247 women was conducted by scientists at an Agricultural Research Service-funded research center in Boston, in collaboration with the Harvard University Nurses Health Study. Supplement users took at least 500 milligrams of vitamin C daily, in addition to food and multivitamin sources.

The findings corroborate a 1992 report linking 10-plus years of taking the supplements with far fewer cataract surgeries among nurses in the Harvard study.

Kudos to Mark Waid, keeper of the green at Oakhurst Links golf course at White Sulfur Springs, West Virginia. Waid has a flock of 25 sheep grazing the fairways of this 100-acre course. He keeps a close eye on them to make sure they are not damaging the greens. The greens "are handsomely lush despite the absence of fertilizers or pesticides," reports The Golf Journal (Sept.-Oct. 1997). The grass must be tasty, because the sheep never leave the unfenced course. Also at this historically accurate course, the 26,000 square feet of putting surface is weeded by hand.

Thanks to Robert English (Dad) for sending along this clipping.

Stonyfield Farm Yogurt of Londonderry, N.H., had a banner year for growth last year.

President Gary Hirshberg says the company increased sales 40% over those of the previous year, stretching the limits of plant capacity and forcing seven-day, round-the-clock work weeks for months on end.

Stonyfield’s success has been fueled by surging sales of its line of reduced and no-fat products and its introduction of certified organic yogurts. The firm has been investing in projects to help its suppliers of organic milk boost productivity and practice sound land stewardship.

Source: Weekly Market Bulletin, N.H. Dept. of Agriculture, Dec. 10, 1997.

Reviews

Worth noting:

Penn State Dairy Housing Plans, NRAES-85, offers 29 plans for freestall barns, heifer barns, dry cow and maternity housing facilities. This 106-page publication was written by Robert E. Graves, Prof., Agricultural and Biological Engineering Dept., Penn State;

Apple Harvesting, Handling, and Storage, NRAES-112, provides an overview of current issues in harvest and postharvest technology. The 84-page publication is the proceedings from the Harvesting, Handling and Storage Workshop held at Cornell in August, 1997. It is available for $15 plus $3.50 shipping and handling from NRAES (address above).

Post-Frame Building Handbook: Materials, Design Considerations, Construction Procedures, NRAES-1, is a major revision of the popular NRAES publication Pole and Post Buildings: Design and Construction Handbook (1984). The 1997 edition has 78 pages, including 38 additional illustrations and new sections on building codes, zoning regulations, functional planning, heating and ventilation, structural wood products, design stresses, earthquake loading, critical load combinations, and engineering safety factors. Updated sections include wood preservatives, structural lumber grades, site drainage and planning, post foundation design, frost action, truss and roof bracing, wood fasteners, structural loading, construction safety, and bulk storage of commodities. The book was edited by Jon M. Carson, Asst. Prof. of Engineering, Penn State Univ., Wilkes Barre Campus, and Mark Dougherty, Staff Engineer, Northeast Regional Ag. Engineering Service. It is available for $12 plus $3.50 shipping and handling from NRAES address above).

Home*A*Syst: An Environmental Risk-Assessment Guide for the Home is a 122-page publication designed to help residents of rural and suburban areas evaluate their homes for safety and environmental risks. Topics include evaluating a property for environmental risks, stormwater management, drinking water well management, household wastewater, hazardous household products, lead, yard and garden care, liquid fuels, indoor air quality, heating and cooling systems, and household waste management.

The book was written by 15 authors from cooperative extension, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the National Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst Program.

It is available for $8 per copy plus $3.50 shipping and handling from NRAES (address above).

Each company listed in the Green Pages is pioneering solutions to today’s most pressing problems. "Few Americans realize the extent to which concerned companies are creating practical solutions to today’s social problems," says Alisa Gravitz, Co-op America’s Executive Director. "Companies like Blessed Maine Herb Company are meeting the bottom line as well as playing a key role in creating a better world."

Blessed Maine Herb Company is a member of the Co-op America Business Network, the largest association of socially responsible businesses in the world. Descriptions of these businesses are found in the National Green Pages, which contains over 100 categories and almost 2000 companies, including Tom’s of Maine and Ben & Jerry’s. Copies of the directory are available for $7.95 (including shipping and handling) by sending a check to:

Co-op America, 1612 K St. NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006; or call (800)584-7336.

This is not the only honor Blessed Maine has received lately. In September, it was awarded two ribbons at the Common Ground Country Fair: one for the Most Educational Booth in the Agricultural Products Area; and another for Special Friend from the Common Kitchen, in recognition of the herb teas the company provided. In addition, Gail was invited to speak about her work with schoolchildren and preserving herbs that are in danger of being overharvested at the Herb Growing and Marketing Network Conference in San Antonio, Texas, this winter.

I felt like I was in a little bit of heaven last summer as I watched several kinds of butterflies, especially monarchs, feast on "my" butterfly milkweed (Asclepias tuberosa).

In September, when my son was to bring a monarch caterpillar to school, we knew just where to look. On the first day of school, we purposefully marched out to the butterfly weed where easily a dozen caterpillars had been feeding.

Carlson explains that the monarchs from the eastern United States travel to "just 10 small patches of trees in the mountains of central Mexico"—a distance of 2500 miles for some of them. These are the only insects that migrate both north and south annually, he says— although those that return to your garden are not the same ones who went south. While one generation of adults makes the trip south in the fall without mating along the way, the adults do stop along the way back to mate and lay eggs, and the adults that eventually come from those eggs continue the northward movement. "Indeed," writes Carlson, "it takes from three to five generations of butterflies to bring the migratory cycle full circle."

Considerable mystery surrounds this migration. For instance, why do monarchs of South America not migrate, while an introduced species in Australia does? How do monarchs know when to migrate and where to go? Why do some take one route directly to Mexico, while others head toward the Carolinas? Experiments reveal parts of answers. The butterflies "are able to find their way, at least in part, by synchronizing their internal clocks with the sun’s position," says Carlson. That doesn’t explain, however, how they are able to fly correctly on overcast days. Carlson suggests that they may follow the earth’s magnetic field or contours in the land. Monarch Watch (developed by Jim Lovett of the Univ. of Kansas) says that daylength and temperature changes influence the movement of the monarch, but points out that no one knows exactly what leads the butterflies en masse, often to the same trees each year.

Everyone seems to know that the monarchs are seriously threatened by habitat destruction. Sites where western populations overwinter, along the coast of California, are prime real estate for humans. In some (few) cases, development rights have been bought, but increasing land prices are a constant threat to such conservation. In the Transvolcanic Mountains of Mexico, where eastern monarchs overwinter at 11 to 14 sites of just over an acre each, the tree they seek—the oyamel—is a valuable source of lumber, upon which local landowners depend for income. When trees are removed, not only are overwintering sites removed, but openings in the forest canopy expose monarchs to snow and cold rains, which can kill them.

While conservationists have tried to save the oyamel trees by helping establish tourism and related industries in this part of Mexico, the income from these has not been enough to supplant that of lumbering or clearing forests for grazing cattle. Possible solutions include having conservationists lease trees annually; having the Mexican government buy the land; or fostering other industries. "Action must be taken soon if the Monarchs are to survive the 21^st century, but it will require creativity, hard work, and compassion for both the butterflies and their human neighbors," says Monarch Watch.

In the north, the larvae, which feed exclusively on milkweed species and genera of the Asclepiadaceae family, are threatened by habitat destruction for new houses, roads and agricultural enterprises, as well as by ozone, which damages milkweed plants. "Both milkweed and adult nectaring plants are also vulnerable to the herbicides used by many landscapers, farmers, gardeners, and others," says Monarch Watch. "And Monarchs themselves can be killed outright by many pesticides."

What can you do? Encourage common milkweed (A. syriaca) to grow on your land. Plant butterfly weed (A. tuberosa) in your gardens. Start butterfly gardens at your local schools or businesses. (I shudder every time I pass a business that has a bland "turf and a few trees" landscape; I’d love to see butterfly gardens and a ban on herbicides at those places!) If you’re on the Internet, visit Monarch Watch; the more you learn, the more you’ll appreciate this amazing creation.

Here are a few tips if you want to plant butterfly weed: It grows in full sun and in poor, sandy or dry soil, and should only be watered in very dry periods; it has a taproot, so is difficult to move once established (but is not invasive); root cuttings can be made in early spring; potted plants (preferably those in deep pots) can be bought from nurseries and planted in the spring; seeds germinate in three to four weeks, although fresh seed may need to be stratified (kept cold and moist, as in a bag of peat moss in the refrigerator) for about three months; and the plants are slow to sprout in the spring, so be careful when you cultivate.

Steve Gilman of Stillwater, N.Y., told his audience at NOFA’s Summer Conference last year that he was tired of weeding the strips between the beds at his CSA farm, and he knew that the flowering weeds between the beds provided pollen and nectar for insects.

He also found out that researchers at Rutgers University found that weedy strips provided habitat for beneficial insects. Thus, Gilman began using the cultural tool called Strip Insectary Intercropping and, as a result, hasn’t had to use any insect controls—not even Bt-on his crops in the past three years.

His 52-inch-wide beds have 28-inch-wide strips between them, where tractor wheels can roll. The strips are mowed several times during the season to keep the weeds and grasses lower than 1 foot but taller than 3 inches in height. He also times his mowings to prevent weedy species, such as dandelion, from infesting his plots. He mows them after they bloom but before they go to seed. A side discharge mower blows the cuttings onto beds, creating an instant mulch. Gilman is careful not to blow material onto beds that grow leafy, easily damaged crops.

Gilman recommended seeding Dutch white clover and hard red fescue in the strips if you are just beginning a plot, then letting other species come in as they will.

Source: "Strip Insectary Intercropping," by Anita Kelman, Country Folks Grower, Oct. 1997

Overhead sprinkling of apple orchards in the Pacific Northwest cut codling moth injury to fruits by 60 to 90%, according to USDA researcher Alan Knight. Sprinkling reduced flight, egg laying and survival of eggs and larvae during the summer months.

Source: HortIdeas, Dec. 1997; original source: Anonymous, "Overhead Water Sprinklers in Orchards Can Cut Fruit Injury from Codling Moths," Quarterly Report of Selected Research Projects, July 1-Sept. 30, 1997, 8. Agricultural Research Service Information, 6303 Ivy Lane, 4^th Floor, Greenbelt MD 20770; Knight is located at Wapato, Washington, Tel. (509)454-6550.

Merchandise exotic specialty crops together as a group. Displaying them side by side with ordinary varieties makes customers wonder why they should spend the additional money for them, while placing them in a separate section helps emphasize the products’ premium or exotic quality and makes them look different and interesting.

Excerpted with permission from Sell What You Sow! The Grower’s Guide to Successful Produce Marketing, by Eric Gibson. Free brochure on request or send $25 postpaid to New World Publishing, 3085 Sheridan St., Placerville, CA 95667. Tel. (916)622-2248.

Creative touches can enliven a produce display, e.g., carrot wheels, fresh flower bouquets, edible flower arrangements, garden-like groupings of lettuce and greens, baskets within the displays, or hand-stacked potatoes and yams. Enliven your display and avoid monotony with the use of tilted tables, barrels, produce baskets, buckets, paper sacks, burlap, pallets, bulk bins, etc. One inexpensive way to decorate your roadside stand is to nail baskets to walls at a tilt. In addition to creating a charming country look, the baskets will provide more space to display impulse items.

What a thrill to pull the Bangor Daily News out of the newspaper box on and see a front-page story about MOFGA’s success in raising enough money for its permanent site to meet a $50,000 challenge grant. How rewarding, also, to read a few stories about the promise of organic agriculture in that same, mainstream paper this winter. Organic is more than acceptable now, more than a niche. It holds the promise of healthy soils, healthy bodies and a healthy economy for all of us. Consider, for example, a recent poll by the Food Marketing Institute showing that 54% of consumers would be more likely to purchase organic produce if it carried a national organic certification seal; 51% would buy certified organic meat and poultry; and 43% would buy certified processed foods. The same Institute also showed, in a 1995 survey, that 25% of all shoppers buy organic or natural foods at lease once a week and that 42% of all supermarkets were carrying organic foods in their produce sections. These figures have, doubtless, increased. For those of us who have been involved in this movement for a couple of decades or more, our diligence, sometimes against great odds, has paid off.