According to the Cornucopia Institute (CI), a non-profit which promotes economic justice for family scale farming, all organic eggs produced in the USA are not alike.
They recently released the report - Scrambled Eggs: Separating Factory Farm Egg Production from Authentic Organic Agriculture.
The report contains an Organic Egg Scorecard that rates 70 name brand as well as additional private label organic egg producers based on 22 factors that the organization deems critical to the typical organic consumer. The main rating criteria include outdoor access, outdoor management, indoor quality of life and welfare, and organic principles of farm interdependence and ecological sustainability.
The highest rating, five eggs, goes to companies CI considers ethical family farms, companies that go beyond national organic standards. Most of these companies are small, local distributers.
The producers given the lowest rating, one egg, are those CI believes are in violation of organic standards of animal welfare and/or were not transparent with their practices during CI's research. Sadly, many of the single-egg brands are the ones most easily available to consumers. Whole Foods' 365 brand, Trader Joe's brand, O Organic by Safeway, and Costco’s Kirkland brand all received a single egg for their sup-par performance.
The report, conducted over a one year period, details how organic egg producers vary greatly in their interpretation of the Federal USDA Organic Standards, "Paths are diverging in the organic-egg-producing community: One path affords more outdoor access and more diversity on the farm; and another path has led to large-scale industrialization motivated by profit."
While Australia has quite strict rules about what is organic and its labelling, it is quite possible that similar issues occur here.
Normally a producer is "Certified Organic" which includes strict inspections and using verifiable organic inputs, and the "Certified Organic" term is used. Claims about "organic" products are often just "claims", unless they are certified as organic.
So be careful........organic eggs ain't always organic eggs!
Showing posts with label eggs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eggs. Show all posts
Friday, June 03, 2011
Sunday, January 04, 2009
How Will Food Production Change over the Next 25 Years?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7795652.stm
This link will take you to a recent article on food production systems and the cry for a more efficient way of producing food. It is uk centric, but does have some relevance world wide. I am not sure that some of the claims regarding environmental damage and similar issues are as clear cut as the passing remarks indicate.
Cities require huge volumes of food to be transported into and through them. With Asia about to develop even more mega cities [ 9 million and up population], this situation is about to get a lot worse. The sheer logistics of providing food for those cities is mind blowing. If you have ever crossed the causeway between Singapore and Johore Bahru and noted the lines of trucks carrying food, that gives an idea of the logistical problems of feeding a city, in this case Singapore that has effectively outsourced ALL food production.
Two recent Australian ventures are tackling some of these issues by building monstrous greenhouses, for year round production, essentially hydroponically, or close to that by various soilless cultural options. One is in the New England area - 20 ha of tomatoes - year round, and the other announced last week will be on the South Coast near Sydney in an even larger operation through a joint Dutch / Australian venture. These sophisticated growing systems have superior management of water, compost, plants , disease and nutrition and aim to reduce growing costs while enhancing environmental performance. Both rely on Australia's abundant sunshine which allows year round production. Both are on major link roads to metropolitan areas, with excellent transport connections.
Some Australian agricultural science operatives have proposed green roof and wall systems for FOOD production, not just for carbon dioxide capture and heat reduction on the inevitable concrete surface, using a few ornamentals. The food production option has a huge amount of merit, as does the revival of the household veggie patch, which was common in the pre 1970s periods in many suburban yards - world wide.
There is a need to also get real about form and function in the food we choose and eat. It might be nice to consider that every carrot must be equal in size, shape and colour......but does it always matter? In some cases it might....odd shapes can hide disease at times, but in most cases it is IRRELEVANT to taste. Having a few less than perfect forms means far less wastage of produce to meet unrealistic at times consumer demands. Unless they will pay enormous prices - a bit like the high priced "perfect" fruit used for Japanese gifts.
While the article referred to above makes a low key plea for organic production, the reality is that certified organic production will NOT produce enough to feed the masses. A recent article on the "Politics of Food" by an Oxford professor debunks that myth. But we will have to do more with organic residuals - compost manures and related materials, as that is where many of the residual nutrients finish up, and those nutrients can be reused to grow additional food. Getting them back to the production areas is an issue in itself, unless production areas change. In Australia the vineyards have made enormous progress in use of efficient watering systems, organic compost and semi organic production - saving money and doing it better.
On this issue of food availability, it is also noted that the worlds food deficit areas are mostly where the abject poverty and malnutrition occurs. And the Politics of Food book, rightly infers that producing more in those areas, with more science and even a good dose of GM crops, and solving a few conflicts would aid that issue enormously.
Subtly, food production areas are changing in Australia, with poultry production relocating away from outer metropolitan city areas back to rural areas closer to the production areas for grain, and processing is moving too, to where the birds are grown. It is cheaper to produce both eggs and poultry in those areas close to grain areas and move the finished product. Moreover, the residuals are being used on land around the poultry production areas to grow hay and other crops. Sensible thinking.
We in Australia do not have the monster cities of Europe, Asia or the Americas, and suitable agricultural land is reasonably available, except that many of the great horticultural areas with good soils close to major cities are being converted to land for houses. That has been happening for many years. And it may not be stoppable. In Australia availability of water may be an issue, although treated effluent is potentially suitable for some horticultural uses eg open space irrigation, even to be able to free better water for food production. Do you realise that Sydney, developed when a single use of stored dam water was acceptable, places about 90% of the cities effluent into the adjacent ocean, although that is being reduced - albeit quite slowly.
But we as a society need to think through these type of choices. If regular food production is forced further away from consumers, will it be come too expensive? You cannot grow mangoes in Melbourne; they will always need to be transported from production areas in the tropics. That inherently makes them costly in Melbourne.
As more Australians live in the tropics however, a diet change to locally grown produce might be a good option. That might mean asian vegetables - and some are very good- rather than the usual temperate peas, parsnips and potatoes. And all of the last three will always be imported to the Australian tropics - we do not have a highland area nearby to grow them although some may argue the Atherton Tableland might fit - but not really high enough.
Think of your choices......
This link will take you to a recent article on food production systems and the cry for a more efficient way of producing food. It is uk centric, but does have some relevance world wide. I am not sure that some of the claims regarding environmental damage and similar issues are as clear cut as the passing remarks indicate.
Cities require huge volumes of food to be transported into and through them. With Asia about to develop even more mega cities [ 9 million and up population], this situation is about to get a lot worse. The sheer logistics of providing food for those cities is mind blowing. If you have ever crossed the causeway between Singapore and Johore Bahru and noted the lines of trucks carrying food, that gives an idea of the logistical problems of feeding a city, in this case Singapore that has effectively outsourced ALL food production.
Two recent Australian ventures are tackling some of these issues by building monstrous greenhouses, for year round production, essentially hydroponically, or close to that by various soilless cultural options. One is in the New England area - 20 ha of tomatoes - year round, and the other announced last week will be on the South Coast near Sydney in an even larger operation through a joint Dutch / Australian venture. These sophisticated growing systems have superior management of water, compost, plants , disease and nutrition and aim to reduce growing costs while enhancing environmental performance. Both rely on Australia's abundant sunshine which allows year round production. Both are on major link roads to metropolitan areas, with excellent transport connections.
Some Australian agricultural science operatives have proposed green roof and wall systems for FOOD production, not just for carbon dioxide capture and heat reduction on the inevitable concrete surface, using a few ornamentals. The food production option has a huge amount of merit, as does the revival of the household veggie patch, which was common in the pre 1970s periods in many suburban yards - world wide.
There is a need to also get real about form and function in the food we choose and eat. It might be nice to consider that every carrot must be equal in size, shape and colour......but does it always matter? In some cases it might....odd shapes can hide disease at times, but in most cases it is IRRELEVANT to taste. Having a few less than perfect forms means far less wastage of produce to meet unrealistic at times consumer demands. Unless they will pay enormous prices - a bit like the high priced "perfect" fruit used for Japanese gifts.
While the article referred to above makes a low key plea for organic production, the reality is that certified organic production will NOT produce enough to feed the masses. A recent article on the "Politics of Food" by an Oxford professor debunks that myth. But we will have to do more with organic residuals - compost manures and related materials, as that is where many of the residual nutrients finish up, and those nutrients can be reused to grow additional food. Getting them back to the production areas is an issue in itself, unless production areas change. In Australia the vineyards have made enormous progress in use of efficient watering systems, organic compost and semi organic production - saving money and doing it better.
On this issue of food availability, it is also noted that the worlds food deficit areas are mostly where the abject poverty and malnutrition occurs. And the Politics of Food book, rightly infers that producing more in those areas, with more science and even a good dose of GM crops, and solving a few conflicts would aid that issue enormously.
Subtly, food production areas are changing in Australia, with poultry production relocating away from outer metropolitan city areas back to rural areas closer to the production areas for grain, and processing is moving too, to where the birds are grown. It is cheaper to produce both eggs and poultry in those areas close to grain areas and move the finished product. Moreover, the residuals are being used on land around the poultry production areas to grow hay and other crops. Sensible thinking.
We in Australia do not have the monster cities of Europe, Asia or the Americas, and suitable agricultural land is reasonably available, except that many of the great horticultural areas with good soils close to major cities are being converted to land for houses. That has been happening for many years. And it may not be stoppable. In Australia availability of water may be an issue, although treated effluent is potentially suitable for some horticultural uses eg open space irrigation, even to be able to free better water for food production. Do you realise that Sydney, developed when a single use of stored dam water was acceptable, places about 90% of the cities effluent into the adjacent ocean, although that is being reduced - albeit quite slowly.
But we as a society need to think through these type of choices. If regular food production is forced further away from consumers, will it be come too expensive? You cannot grow mangoes in Melbourne; they will always need to be transported from production areas in the tropics. That inherently makes them costly in Melbourne.
As more Australians live in the tropics however, a diet change to locally grown produce might be a good option. That might mean asian vegetables - and some are very good- rather than the usual temperate peas, parsnips and potatoes. And all of the last three will always be imported to the Australian tropics - we do not have a highland area nearby to grow them although some may argue the Atherton Tableland might fit - but not really high enough.
Think of your choices......
Monday, October 06, 2008
Free Range Eggs are Probably Not
It seems that only about one in three of those labelled as free range eggs actually are free range. At least in Australia.
That has a bit to do with the semantics of how free range is actually defined, but evidence shows about one million free range chooks EXCEPT that the markets indicate over 2.5 million seem to be around, based on the number of free range eggs that are labelled that way. And sold at much higher prices, too.
That has a bit to do with the semantics of how free range is actually defined, but evidence shows about one million free range chooks EXCEPT that the markets indicate over 2.5 million seem to be around, based on the number of free range eggs that are labelled that way. And sold at much higher prices, too.
Each day, hundreds of thousands of barn-laid eggs are passed off as free range in an egg-substitution racket that costs Australian consumers billions of dollars each year, Ivy Inwood, the president of the Free Range Egg & Poultry Association of Australia, told The Sunday Age.
Two years ago, egg substitution was estimated to have cost consumers $13 million annually but the problem has become worse as the sale of free-range-branded eggs continues to soar, she said.
The true cost of the scam might never be known because proper records are not kept, and governments have left themselves effectively powerless to police the egg-substitution issue. "The ACCC has its hands tied because there are no agreed standards, they can't do anything," Mrs Inwood said. "You can call anything free range and get away with it."
Mrs Inwood has called on all Australian governments to urgently develop a nationwide, legally binding definition of free-range eggs, including how they should be produced.
Any new laws should require that laying hens be allowed out of sheds at first light, have adequate space for foraging and that all hens should be reared as free rangers from hatchlings.
Two years ago, egg substitution was estimated to have cost consumers $13 million annually but the problem has become worse as the sale of free-range-branded eggs continues to soar, she said.
The true cost of the scam might never be known because proper records are not kept, and governments have left themselves effectively powerless to police the egg-substitution issue. "The ACCC has its hands tied because there are no agreed standards, they can't do anything," Mrs Inwood said. "You can call anything free range and get away with it."
Mrs Inwood has called on all Australian governments to urgently develop a nationwide, legally binding definition of free-range eggs, including how they should be produced.
Any new laws should require that laying hens be allowed out of sheds at first light, have adequate space for foraging and that all hens should be reared as free rangers from hatchlings.
"Over half the free-range eggs are falsely labelled because they're not coming from genuine free-range farms," Mrs Inwood said. "The public is paying big bikkies for these things, so we need to get genuine free-range eggs."
And this is following the recent news that really, free range eggs are no different to caged egg production in quality. Did they actually test free range eggs?
I cannot note any differences, except the outlandish high prices for free range eggs.
So should we be throwing mud at China?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Free Range Eggs are not What They're Cracked Up to Be
Almost a quarter of all eggs sold now are laid by free-range hens — even though they cost up to four times as much as cage eggs and their claims to superior taste and nutritional benefits are debatable.
Consumers are paying up to $9.50 a dozen for free-range eggs — about $6 more than the retail price of a dozen cage eggs, according to the Australian Egg Corporation. Despite the cost, consumption has steadily risen over the past decade and now 22pc — or nearly 45 million dozen — of all egg sales are free range. The corporation — which represents all egg producers — said some people opted for free-range eggs because of animal welfare concerns, but customer feedback showed most were prepared to pay extra for the eggs because they believed they were more nutritious, better for health and better tasting.
However, corporation spokeswoman Jacqueline Baptista said research had shown free-range eggs were no different from those laid by caged hens. "Our extensive research has shown there is no significant difference in nutrition or taste between both types of eggs," she said. "Consumer feedback is that some people buy them for the welfare aspect of hens but we believe that it is animal husbandry practice that determines welfare, rather than the actual production methods farmers use for their eggs."
Ms Baptista said caged hens often had better disease controls and protection from predators.
But the RSPCA argues that battery hens suffer from confinement in cages which do not allow them space to exercise or to carry out behaviours such as wing flapping, dust bathing and foraging.
Free-range farmers say consumers believe it is worth paying more to know the eggs have come from "contented hens that range freely during daylight hours over natural sunny pastures" and return to sheds at night for roosting and laying.
But the research is now in.......there is no difference in quality. Why pay more, especially when the middle man or retailer is really the one that profits, not the farmers.
[partially sourced from Australian Egg Corporation media release]
Consumers are paying up to $9.50 a dozen for free-range eggs — about $6 more than the retail price of a dozen cage eggs, according to the Australian Egg Corporation. Despite the cost, consumption has steadily risen over the past decade and now 22pc — or nearly 45 million dozen — of all egg sales are free range. The corporation — which represents all egg producers — said some people opted for free-range eggs because of animal welfare concerns, but customer feedback showed most were prepared to pay extra for the eggs because they believed they were more nutritious, better for health and better tasting.
However, corporation spokeswoman Jacqueline Baptista said research had shown free-range eggs were no different from those laid by caged hens. "Our extensive research has shown there is no significant difference in nutrition or taste between both types of eggs," she said. "Consumer feedback is that some people buy them for the welfare aspect of hens but we believe that it is animal husbandry practice that determines welfare, rather than the actual production methods farmers use for their eggs."
Ms Baptista said caged hens often had better disease controls and protection from predators.
But the RSPCA argues that battery hens suffer from confinement in cages which do not allow them space to exercise or to carry out behaviours such as wing flapping, dust bathing and foraging.
Free-range farmers say consumers believe it is worth paying more to know the eggs have come from "contented hens that range freely during daylight hours over natural sunny pastures" and return to sheds at night for roosting and laying.
But the research is now in.......there is no difference in quality. Why pay more, especially when the middle man or retailer is really the one that profits, not the farmers.
[partially sourced from Australian Egg Corporation media release]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)