Showing posts with label Questions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Questions. Show all posts

Monday, 9 January 2012

Questions About Organic Produce and Sustainability

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Growers here on the Baja Peninsula, the epicenter of Mexico’s thriving new organic export sector, describe their toil amid the cactuses as “planting the beach.”

Del Cabo Cooperative, a supplier here for Trader Joe’s and Fairway, is sending more than seven and a half tons of tomatoes and basil every day to the United States by truck and plane to sate the American demand for organic produce year-round.

But even as more Americans buy foods with the organic label, the products are increasingly removed from the traditional organic ideal: produce that is not only free of chemicals and pesticides but also grown locally on small farms in a way that protects the environment.

The explosive growth in the commercial cultivation of organic tomatoes here, for example, is putting stress on the water table. In some areas, wells have run dry this year, meaning that small subsistence farmers cannot grow crops. And the organic tomatoes end up in an energy-intensive global distribution chain that takes them as far as New York and Dubai, United Arab Emirates, producing significant emissions that contribute to global warming.

From now until spring, farms from Mexico to Chile to Argentina that grow organic food for the United States market are enjoying their busiest season.

“People are now buying from a global commodity market, and they have to be skeptical even when the label says ‘organic’ — that doesn’t tell people all they need to know,” said Frederick L. Kirschenmann, a distinguished fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University. He said some large farms that have qualified as organic employed environmentally damaging practices, like planting only one crop, which is bad for soil health, or overtaxing local freshwater supplies.

Many growers and even environmental groups in Mexico defend the export-driven organic farming, even as they acknowledge that more than a third of the aquifers in southern Baja are categorized as overexploited by the Mexican water authority. With sophisticated irrigation systems and shade houses, they say, farmers are becoming more skilled at conserving water. They are focusing new farms in “microclimates” near underexploited aquifers, such as in the shadow of a mountain, said Fernando Frías, a water specialist with the environmental group Pronatura Noroeste.

They also point out that the organic business has transformed what was once a poor area of subsistence farms and where even the low-paying jobs in the tourist hotels and restaurants in nearby Cabo San Lucas have become scarcer during the recession.

To carry the Agriculture Department’s organic label on their produce, farms in the United States and abroad must comply with a long list of standards that prohibit the use of synthetic fertilizers, hormones and pesticides, for example. But the checklist makes few specific demands for what would broadly be called environmental sustainability, even though the 1990 law that created the standards was intended to promote ecological balance and biodiversity as well as soil and water health.

Experts agree that in general organic farms tend to be less damaging to the environment than conventional farms. In the past, however, “organic agriculture used to be sustainable agriculture, but now that is not always the case,” said Michael Bomford, a scientist at Kentucky State University who specializes in sustainable agriculture. He added that intense organic agriculture had also put stress on aquifers in California.

Some organic standard setters are beginning to refine their criteria so that organic products better match their natural ideals. Krav, a major Swedish organic certification program, allows produce grown in greenhouses to carry its “organic” label only if the buildings use at least 80 percent renewable fuel, for example. And last year the Agriculture Department’s National Organic Standards Board revised its rules to require that for an “organic milk” label, cows had to be at least partly fed by grazing in open pastures rather than standing full time in feedlots.

But each decision to narrow the definition of “organic” involves an inevitable tug-of-war among farmers, food producers, supermarkets and environmentalists. While the United States’ regulations for organic certification require that growers use practices that protect water resources, it is hard to define a specific sustainable level of water use for a single farm “because aquifer depletion is the result of many farmers’ overutilizing the resource,” said Miles McEvoy, head of the National Organic Program at the Agriculture Department.

While the original organic ideal was to eat only local, seasonal produce, shoppers who buy their organics at supermarkets, from Whole Foods to Walmart, expect to find tomatoes in December and are very sensitive to price. Both factors stoke the demand for imports. Few areas in the United States can farm organic produce in the winter without resorting to energy-guzzling hothouses. In addition, American labor costs are high. Day laborers who come to pick tomatoes in this part of Baja make about $10 a day, nearly twice the local minimum wage. Tomato pickers in Florida may earn $80 a day in high season.

Manuel Verdugo, 42, began organic tomato farming on desert land in San José del Cabo five years ago and now owns 30 acres in several locations. Each week he sends two and a half tons of cherry, plum and beefsteak tomatoes to the United States under the brand name Tiky Cabo.

He has invested in irrigation systems that drip water directly onto plants’ roots rather than channeling it through open canals. He is building large shade houses that cover his crops to keep out pests and minimize evaporation. Even so, he cannot farm 10 acres in the nearby hamlet of La Cuenca because the wells there are dry.

At another five-year-old organic farm, Rosario Castillo says he can cultivate only 19 acres of the 100 he has earmarked for organic production, although he dug a well seven months ago to gain better access to the aquifer. The authorities ration pumping and have not granted him permission to clear native cactuses. “We have very little water here, and you have to go through a lot of bureaucracy to get it,” Mr. Castillo said.

Many growers blame tourist development — hotels and golf courses — for the water scarcity, and this has been a major problem in coastal areas. But farming can also be a significant drain. According to one study in an area of northern Baja called Ojos Negros, a boom in the planting of green onions for export a decade ago lowered the water table by about 16 inches a year. “They were pumping a lot of groundwater, and that was making some people rich on both sides of the border at the expense of the environment,” said Victor Miguel Ponce, a professor of hydrology at San Diego State University.

The logistics of getting water and transporting large volumes of perishable produce favors bigger producers. Some of the largest are American-owned, like Sue?o Tropical, a vast farm with rows of shade houses lined up in the desert that caters exclusively to the American market.

While traditional organic farmers saw a blemish or odd shape simply as nature’s variations, workers at Sue?o Tropical are instructed to cull tomatoes that do not meet the uniform shape, size and cosmetic requirement of clients like Whole Foods. Those “seconds” are sold locally.

Yet the connection to the United States has brought other kinds of benefits. Del Cabo Cooperative, which serves as a broker for hundreds of local farmers, provides seeds for its Mexican growers and hires roving agronomists and entomologists to assist them in tending their crops without chemicals. As the American market expands, said John Graham, a coordinator of operations at Del Cabo, he is always looking to bring new growers into his network — especially those whose farms draw on distant aquifers where water is still abundant.

David Agren contributed reporting.


View the original article here

Monday, 2 January 2012

Bits Blog: Questions About Motives Behind Stratfor Hack

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

When hackers used the Christmas holiday to attack Stratfor, a security group based in Austin, Tex., they initially said they were aiming to steal the credit card numbers of its clients and use them to make $1 million in donations to charity.

But by Tuesday, it was unclear who was actually behind the attack, and whether the real goal was to play Robin Hood or release a trove of Stratfor e-mail correspondence.

On Saturday, hackers claiming to be members of the collective known as Anonymous defaced the Web site of Stratfor, which puts out a newsletter on security and intelligence issues, and posted a file online that they claimed was the organization’s confidential client list, along with credit card details, passwords and home addresses for those clients. The clients were affiliated with organizations including Bank of America, the Defense Department, Doctors Without Borders, Lockheed Martin, Los Alamos National Laboratory and the United Nations.

The hackers claimed to have obtained 2.7 million e-mails from Stratfor’s servers, a number they later increased to 3.3 million. They said they were able to obtain the e-mail and credit card details because Stratfor had failed to encrypt its data — a basic first step in data protection.

IdentityFinder, a data protection software maker, found that hackers had released 47,680 unique e-mail addresses and 50,277 unique credit card numbers — of which 9,651 were not yet expired. Of the 44,188 encrypted passwords, IdentityFinder said 50 percent could be easily cracked.

Stratfor has not clarified whether its data was encrypted, and did not respond to repeated requests for comment. But on Sunday, with its Web site still down, it took to Facebook to respond to the attack. There it said that the published list of “private clients” was “merely a list of some of the members that have purchased our publications and does not comprise a list of individuals or entities that have a relationship with Stratfor beyond their purchase of our subscription based publications.”

By then, hackers had already begun posting receipts online that it said were for donations made with Stratfor subscribers’ stolen credit card details to organizations like the Red Cross and CARE.

In an interview on Monday, a Red Cross spokeswoman, Laura Howe, said that because her organization sees an uptick in giving around the holidays, it was difficult to ascertain how much of its weekend donations online were related to the Stratfor breach.

“We’re aware of the issue and our online giving team is looking into it,” Ms. Howe said. “If someone believes an unauthorized charge has been made, they need to contact their credit card company and we will work with the credit card companies on refunding the donation.”

Contacted Monday, Brian Feagans, a CARE spokesman, said he had not heard about the Stratfor breach. But on Tuesday he issued this statement: “We are looking into this matter and will work with any Stratfor hacking victims who did not intend to give to CARE to assure they get reimbursed.”

Computer security experts began weighing in on Stratfor’s breach Monday. Mikko Hypponen, an influential security expert, pointed out in a blog post that the hack was likely to do charities more harm than good. “When credit card owners see unauthorized charges on their cards, they report them to their bank or credit card company. Credit card companies will do a charge back to the charities, which will have to return the money,” Mr. Hypponen wrote. “In some cases, charities could be hit with penalties. At the very least, they will lose time and money in handling the charge backs.”

In a statement posted online on Monday, Barrett Brown, an Anonymous spokesman, said that the goal of the Stratfor attack was not to donate money to charities.

“Rather, the operation was pursued in order to obtain the 2.7 million e-mails that exist on the firm’s servers,” Mr. Brown wrote in a post on the Web site Pastebin. “This wealth of data includes correspondence with untold thousands of contacts who have spoken to Stratfor’s employees off the record over more than a decade.”

But by Tuesday, hackers had released only limited e-mail correspondence. They posted one e-mail from Stratfor’s chief executive, George Friedman, to a Stratfor senior programmer, thanking him for his help in promoting Mr. Friedman’s recent book.

There were also questions as to whether the Stratfor attack was really the work of Anonymous. On Sunday, someone claiming to represent Anonymous posted a message on Pastebin denying responsibility for the attack: “The Stratfor hack is definitely not the work of Anonymous.”

The confusion escalated Monday night when a separate note on Pastebin claimed that the authors of the first post were Stratfor employees and that the post “claiming the Stratfor hack is not the work of Anonymous is not the work of Anonymous.”

“With these sorts of operations, there will always be objections from one quarter or another that it’s not really an Anonymous op,” Mr. Brown said in an e-mail on Monday. He said that the denial message had been posted by someone “who has a history of putting up such things under false pretenses.”


View the original article here