Author: Dr. Mercola

More Details Emerge in Organic Dairy Fraud

(Dr. Mercola) U.S. prices of wholesale organic milk have dropped significantly — in some cases by more than 30 percent — in the last year. While this might seem like welcome news for consumers looking for a price break on this premium milk, it comes at a cost to small farmers — some of whom are selling organic grass fed milk at non-organic prices or, worse, being forced to dump it.1

Small farmers risk being forced out of business in this market, even as the organic dairy industry has grown in size. The problem is that as larger industrialized farms have entered the organic market, it’s increasingly pushed the small players by the wayside. The Washington Post reported a glaring reason why: The number of organic cows rose by 13 percent from 2008 to 2015, but the amount of organic milk products produced rose by 35 percent.2

The Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA) attributed some of the increase to “better practices,” but others, including an investigation by The Washington Post, suggest skimping on organic practices may be a better description.3 Even NODPA noted the reason behind the large jump is “the increase in those mostly larger herds where the cows are fed in the barn instead of going out to pasture as the organic regulations require.”4

Large Organic Dairies Skimping on Grazing Time

Cows produce more milk, faster, when they’re fed grain in the barn, as opposed to grazing on grass on pasture. Industrialized organic dairies are capitalizing on this by skimping on grazing time, raising thousands of cows in veritable CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations), yet still gaining the USDA organic label that suggests otherwise.

When the Post visited Aurora Organic Dairy in Colorado, the company that provides organic store brands to corporations like Wal-Mart, Target and Costco, a few problems were evident right off the bat. For starters, the farm is massive, housing 15,000 cows, “making it more than 100 times the size of a typical organic herd,” the Post noted. Further, organic standards require that cows have free access to certified organic pasture for the entire grazing season, but there are large loopholes in the requirement.

The Post investigation revealed that Aurora Organic Dairy appears to be stretching the limits of the rule, noting that “signs of grazing were sparse, at best” and “at no point was any more than 10 percent of the herd out.”5

The Post even had samples of Aurora’s organic milk tested for “a key indicator of grass-feeding” (its fatty acid profile), which revealed the milk matched conventional, not organic milk. When raised correctly, organic milk contains about 25 percent less omega-6 fats and 62 percent more omega-3 fats than conventional milk, along with more vitamin E, beta-carotene and beneficial conjugated linoleic acid (CLA).6

Organic Violators Allowed to Keep Operating

Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is not doing nearly enough to protect the integrity of its organic label. Farmers hire their own inspection agencies to comply with USDA rules, and even when violations are found, they typically amount to only a slap on the wrist in terms of punishment.

In 2007, for instance, while the USDA sanctioned Aurora Organic Dairy for willfully violating organic standards, the farm was allowed to continue operating after a settlement was reached. Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute told the Post:7

“The USDA has shown a remarkable lack of interest in whether these big organic dairies are really organic … Most times, they don’t even investigate. And when they find a problem, there’s very little punishment, if any. It’s a gross betrayal of the spirit of the organic law.”

The latest Post investigation did prompt some of Aurora’s wholesale customers to look into their practices but so far none, including Wal-Mart and Costco, have decided to change suppliers. Meanwhile, small farmers who allow their herds to graze the right way are unable to compete with the industrialized organic farms that are cutting corners, yet both get rewarded with the same USDA organic label.

Organic Amish farmer James Swantz told the Post, “We know with that high concentration of cows that it’s impossible to meet the grazing rule … They’re not organic. No way.”8

The Cornucopia Institute has engaged with two law firms that are investigating Aurora’s role in creating a glut of organic milk that has driven prices down and pushed many small farmers out of the business. Kastel told Sustainable Food News the law firms are investigating “the gross amount of milk [Aurora Organic Dairy] creates and … the marketplace pressure their customers place on the balance of participants in the industry.” He continued:9

“We are in the exploratory stage right now … It appears that there is a good legal basis to pursue this and we are attempting to develop a plaintiff pool. We just need to have solid and creditable plaintiffs with standing. We have already had a number of farmers who have expressed a willingness to pursue this legal action prior to our outreach …”

Dairy Industry Forced to Make ‘Grass Fed’ & ‘Free-Range’ Claims as Organic Label Damaged

With the organic dairy label under increased scrutiny, the U.K.’s Arla Foods has changed the name of its Arla Organic Farm Milk to Arla Organic Free Range Milk. Studies have shown that many people in the U.K. are unaware that organic milk comes from cows with free access to pasture (or at least is supposed to), which is why Arla is highlighting the fact on its label.

The company claims that its cows are outside for an average of 200 days per year.10 Likewise, in the U.S., Organic Valley also offers a separate Grassmilk brand promoting 100 percent grass fed milk and cows fed no grain. According to the company:11

“Since grazing is a bedrock principle of our organic farming practices, all Organic Valley farmer-owners nationwide do their utmost to maximize fresh and dried forages to maintain the health and well-being of their animals, and because they know that milk produced from grazing cows contains increased levels of beneficial omega-3 and (CLA) fatty acids.”

As for why some Organic Valley milk is 100 percent grass fed and some is not, they explained that not all farms have the land base available to produce enough forage for cows when grains are removed from their diet. In addition, they noted some farms’ soils “are not ready for full conversion to pasture” while “cows must be transitioned slowly from a grain diet, to less grain, to no grain.”12

Similarly, Organic Pastures calls their milk “grass-grazed” as opposed to “grass fed,” the latter of which they point out could mean virtually anything, like “grazed at some point,” leading to milk with questionable nutritional value.13 Unfortunately, even with a claim of grass fed, it’s still a buyer beware market when it comes to choosing dairy. As it stands, dairy can be sold as “grass fed” whether the cows ate solely grass or received silage, hay or even grains during certain times.

Fortunately, the American Grassfed Association (AGA) recently introduced much-needed grass fed standards and certification for American-grown grass fed dairy,14 which will allow for greater transparency and conformity.15 I would strongly advise you to ensure your dairy is AGA certified as grass fed. As reported by Organic Authority:16

The new regulations are the product of a year’s worth of collaboration amongst dairy producers like Organic Valley as well as certifiers like Pennsylvania Certified Organic and a team of scientists.

‘We came up with a standard that’s good for the animals, that satisfies what consumers want and expect when they see grass fed on the label, and that is economically feasible for farmers,’ says AGA’s communications director Marilyn Noble of the new regulations.”

Non-Organic Ben & Jerry’s Continues to Stall on Cleaning Up Dairy

A recent commentary written by Will Allen and Michael Colby, co-founders of the organic advocacy group Regeneration Vermont, for Vermont Digger reveals that ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s, which is owned by Unilever, is still not living up to their natural and socially responsible reputation. Ben & Jerry’s does some things right, like supporting GMO labeling, and their environmentally friendly image has propelled the ice-cream maker to a $600 million-a-year enterprise — slated to be a billion-dollar-a-year corporation by 2020.17

However, Ben & Jerry’s is a non-organic dairy, and they source their milk largely from CAFOs. In Vermont, more than 200 dairy farms have transitioned to organic and returned their cows to a grass-based diet. Regeneration Vermont is dedicated to bringing sustainable, regenerative agriculture back to Vermont and that includes bringing Ben & Jerry’s into the discussion.

Regeneration Vermont has urged the ice cream maker to source milk from organic/regenerative farmers, which would signal to desperate dairy farmers that there’s another, viable option to the destructive GMO, CAFO method that’s currently considered the norm. Allen’s and Colby’s commentary explains:18

We shared all of our research on labor abuse, animal abuse, farm bankruptcy, water pollution and damaged rural communities with Ben & Jerry’s. We also introduced them to consultants and resources in an effort to convince them that going organic would not only be good for them — practicing what they preach and all — but it would also be an essential lifeline for farmers in the state who wanted to convert to organic but had no market.

Instead of greenwashing, we argued that they could finally advertise their decision to completely clean up their supply chain. They said they would get back to us.”

As of July 2017, however, they have not, and they continue to profit immensely off cheap, inhumanely produced and environmentally destructive milk while passing themselves off as a natural, environmentally responsible company. Allen and Colby continue:

Stalling has been refined to an art form with Ben & Jerry’s social mission and dairy teams. In April 2016, they felt that they would have a decision on changing their dairy sourcing by September/October 2016. When October came, they felt that they would have a decision by December. In December, we were told that February or March would be when they made their sourcing decision …

Finally, April or May was to be the target date for making sourcing decisions. It is now July — still no decision, still no meeting with the CEO. Still stalling … It’s time to stop pretending that Ben & Jerry’s is a socially or environmentally conscious corporation. They know how damaging their milk supply chain is. They know that labor is being abused. They know that cows are burning out before they are [5] years old.

They know that antibiotics were being misused. They know that the dairies that supply their milk are polluting our drinking water and most of the rivers and lakes in Vermont. They can’t pretend that they didn’t know how damaging their supply chain is, because we shared all this data with them. Yet they refuse to act.”

Cornucopia’s Organic Dairy Scorecard Helps Level the Playing Field

How can you tell if your organic milk comes from grass fed cows being raised humanely on a small family farm — or from a pseudo-organic CAFO? Getting your raw milk from a local organic grass fed farm or co-op is best, but if you’re considering milk from another source, check out Cornucopia’s Organic Dairy Scorecard.19 The Cornucopia Institute is an organic industry watchdog whose core constituencies are family farmers across the U.S. and consumers concerned about the availability and quality of organic foods.

Their goal is to empower you to make informed purchasing decisions. You might be surprised to see many big-name organic brands ranking near the bottom of the list, even receiving a “zero” rating. In this case, it’s not worth your money to pay for an “organic” product that’s likely no better than conventional. You’d be better served by supporting the ethical farms that received a “4- or 5-cow” rating instead (meaning their farming practices are either excellent or outstanding).

While you’ll certainly notice the difference in flavor when purchasing truly grass fed, organic dairy, you can even see the difference. Grass fed organic milk tends to be yellowish, not pure white. The coloration comes from the natural antioxidant carotenoids found in the grass, which is a precursor to vitamin A. When cows are raised on dried grass or hay, as opposed to fresh-growing grass, you end up with a whiter product, which is an indication of reduced carotenoid and antioxidant content.

The increased coverage about certain big-name organic brands putting out a sub-par product is important news for consumers, but please don’t let it deter you from supporting the organic farmers raising truly grass fed cows. For more information about finding high-quality farm-fresh foods near you, see the links below:

American Grassfed Association

The goal of the American Grassfed Association is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education.

Their website also allows you to search for AGA approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100 percent forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; and born and raised on American family farms.

EatWild.com

EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.

Weston A. Price Foundation

Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.

Grassfed Exchange

The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass fed meats across the U.S.

Local Harvest

This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass fed meats and many other goodies.

Farmers Markets

A national listing of farmers markets.

Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food From Healthy Animals

The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA)

CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.

FoodRoutes

The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs and markets near you.

The Cornucopia Institute

The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO “organic” production from authentic organic practices.

RealMilk.com

If you’re still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws. California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.

Common Pain Relievers Are Causing Heart Attacks

(Dr. Mercola) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are prescribed extensively throughout the world. In the U.S., nearly 70 million prescriptions are written and 30 billion doses are consumed each year when over-the-counter NSAIDs are included.1

In many cases NSAIDs are prescribed to treat back pain, headaches, menstrual pain and arthritis. While most consider the medication innocuous, the truth is that by conservative estimates over 105,000 people are hospitalized each year from the side effects of NSAIDs and over 16,000 of those die.2

Side effects from long-term use of NSAIDs range from hearing loss to gastrointestinal bleeding. Unfortunately, there is no specific antidote for NSAID poisoning, which may lead to metabolic acidosis, multisystem organ failure and death.3

Research has now discovered side effects from NSAIDs may occur even with short-term use, increasing your risk of a heart attack in the first week to month if you take the medication consistently.4 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recognized the risks associated with NSAIDs since 2004.5

In order to review all studies involving NSAIDs, the FDA also recommended limiting use of over-the-counter NSAIDs. This review order came on the heels of rofecoxib’s (Vioxx) withdrawal from the market due to an increase in cardiovascular risk.6 Shortly after the withdrawal of Vioxx, another NSAID, valdecoxib (Bextra), was pulled from the shelves due to increased risk of heart, stomach and skin problems that outweighed the benefits of using the drug.7

Related: NSAIDs Study Shows Side Effects are Worse Than Original Ailments

What Is a Myocardial Infarction?

Your heart requires a supply of oxygen and nutrients to enable the muscle to continue to pump. You have two large coronary arteries that branch off your aorta, the right and left coronary arteries. These arteries branch further to feed your heart the oxygen and nutrients it needs.

If one of the larger arteries or branches becomes blocked the portion of the heart that artery feeds is starved of oxygen. If the situation continues for too long that area of heart muscle will die. This is the conventional description of a myocardial infarction (MI), or literally “death of heart muscle.”8

For an entirely different view of how your heart actually works and what causes heart attacks, see my interview with Dr. Thomas Cowan, founding member of the Weston A. Price Foundation and author of “Human Heart, Cosmic Heart: A Doctor’s Quest to Understand, Treat and Prevent Cardiovascular Disease.”

In either case, the signs of a heart attack are not always straightforward. There are several early signs that may not even seem related to your heart. Although chest pain is the most common, you may experience other symptoms and women may have a heart attack without feeling pressure in their chest.9

Even though heart disease is still the No. 1 killer in women in the U.S., women may attribute the symptoms to less serious conditions such as acid reflux, the flu or aging. Even when the symptoms are subtle, the consequences may be deadly. If you or a loved one experience any of these symptoms10,11,12,13 do not wait. Call your local emergency number — 911 in the U.S. — to get help. Activating your emergency system early may reduce the risk of permanent heart damage and death.

Chest pressure described as an elephant sitting on your chest Fullness or pain in the center of the chest that may come and go Pain in the arm, back, neck, jaw or stomach
Toothache that comes and goes Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing Cold sweat, lightheadedness or nausea
Indigestion or “choking” feeling Extreme weakness or anxiety Rapid or irregular heartbeat
Pain that spreads to the arm Unusual fatigue that may last days General malaise or a vague uneasy feeling of illness
Must Read: NSAIDs Warning – These Drugs Are Not Safe (Motrin, Advil, Naproxen…)

NSAIDs May Raise Your Risk of Heart Attack in the First Week

The objective of the most recent study was to evaluate the risk of an MI associated with NSAID use in real-world situations using a statistical model (Bayesian) that turns the results of testing into a real probability the event may occur.14

The researchers used studies that pulled information from European and Canadian health care databases, gathering information from eight studies that met the criteria and over 440,000 individuals.15 The researchers evaluated the probability of an MI in the first through seven days that an individual took specific NSAIDs.

They found increasing probability an individual may experience an MI in the first seven days for celecoxib (Celebrex), ibuprofen, diclofenac (Voltaren), naproxen (Naprosyn) and rofecoxib (Vioxx). This only adds to mounting evidence linking NSAIDs to cardiovascular symptoms.

The risk of heart attack increased 24 percent with celecoxib (Celebrex), 48 percent with ibuprofen, 50 percent with diclofenac (Voltaren), 53 percent for naproxen (Aleve, Naprosyn) and 58 percent for rofecoxib (Vioxx), which was removed from the market due to increased cardiovascular risks.16

The researchers determined there was a higher risk associated with higher doses. Over-the-counter doses are commonly lower than prescription doses of NSAIDs. Mounting evidence of cardiovascular risks with all NSAIDs triggered the FDA to strengthen their warning in 2015.17 The warning was based on the FDA review of the literature since the order in 2004, and included information such as:18

  • NSAIDs increased the risk of heart attack and stroke, especially at higher doses
  • NSAIDs can increase the risk of heart attack in individuals with or without a history of heart attack or risk of heart disease
  • Patients treated in the first year after a heart attack with NSAIDs were more likely to die than those who were not treated with NSAIDs
  • There is an increased risk of heart failure in those using NSAIDs

Myocardial Risk Differences Between NSAIDs

In this video, Dr. Partha Nandi, creator and host of the medical lifestyle television show, “Ask Dr. Nandi,” describes the results of another study evaluating the use of NSAIDs during an upper respiratory infection. The results were similar to the recent study evaluating MI and NSAIDs in the European and Canadian health care databases.

The researchers noted the recent study was observational, so drawing conclusions as to cause and effect would not be possible from their results.19 Others criticized the study, saying other factors may have been the cause of the increased MIs in the study.20 However, the researchers studied over 60,000 cases of MI before concluding current use of NSAIDs were associated with a significant increased risk of an acute MI.21 Use of NSAIDs exhibited a quick onset of MI risk in the first week that leveled by Day 30.

Celecoxib and diclofenac showed a single wave of increased risk in the first week, while ibuprofen, naproxen and rofecoxib exhibited an additional increased risk during eight to 30 days of consuming the drug. The researchers speculated the differences between NSAIDs may be related to the drugs’ effect on renal function.22

The findings also suggested MI risk associated with rofecoxib was greater than those of other NSAIDs included in the study. This aligns with results from past studies that prompted the removal of rofecoxib from the market.

NSAIDs Carry Further Risks

NSAIDs also increase your risk of other health conditions, some of which may be lethal. For example, researchers have determined women who took NSAIDs in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy had a significantly higher risk of miscarriage.23 The study evaluated the health records of over 50,000 Canadian women and found those who took NSAIDs early in their pregnancy had a 2.4 times higher risk of miscarriage.

The researchers hypothesize NSAIDs’ effect on hormone-like prostaglandins that support pregnancy may be the trigger. NSAID use is also associated with atrial fibrillation in patients who previously had an MI.24 While you may believe you can discount this particular risk factor, it is important to note research demonstrates up to 45 percent of heart attacks are clinically silent or without symptoms.25

Many of these silent heart attacks are discovered during a routine physical examination or electrocardiogram where the physician notes damage to the heart muscle.

NSAID use also increases your risk of upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract bleeding. Upper GI bleeding is more commonly reported, and occurs with all formulations of NSAIDs.26 Up to 15 percent of upper GI bleeding reported in a single county of Denmark may be attributed to NSAID use.

Lower GI bleeding occurs with most NSAID drugs, as does increased mucosal permeability and inflammation of the lower GI tract.27Other findings associated with lower GI bleeding include anemia, occult blood loss, protein loss and malabsorption.

Painkillers Are a Bitter Pill

Use of over-the-counter pain relievers, including ibuprofen, have been associated with hearing loss in men28 and women.29 Prescription strength or long-term use of NSAIDs and aspirin are associated with interstitial nephritis,30 a type of kidney damage that may be permanent, leading to kidney failure.31

NSAID use may also induce other renal function abnormalities, including fluid retention, electrolyte complications and deterioration of renal function.32 It’s also worth remembering that even short-term consistent use of pain control medications may increase your risk of further injury as these drugs help to mask pain, enabling you to continue your activities. Further injury or pain may lead to use of stronger pain medications.

Pain and discomfort are the common triggers for opioid prescriptions, which have risen over 100 percent between 2000 and 2010,33 while treatment modalities for injuries have improved. I believe the drastic increase in these numbers play a major role in the global epidemic addiction to opioids.

After just one month on morphine, patients showed demonstrable changes in brain volume.34 The number of deaths from overdoses rose from a little over 10,000 a year in 2002 to nearly 35,000 in 2015.35 Now, some states are fighting back,36 trying to hold manufacturers accountable for the epidemic of addiction that resulted from deceptive marketing.37

Drug-Free Pain Control

Pain control without addressing the underlying physical issue may increase your risk of experiencing side effects from medications you’re taking, or lead you to resort to even stronger medications that have more dangerous side effects. I strongly recommend you exhaust other options before resorting to consistent use of painkillers, even in the short term. The truth is that many drugs used to treat pain may increase your risk of heart attack, change your brain chemistry and possibly your behavior.

Sleep, for example, is one important factor in how you perceive pain. Getting eight hours of quality sleep on a nightly basis may help you cope with the discomfort you experience.38 Your pain experience is affected by several factors, of which sleep may be the most important. Sleep, pain and depression are a strongly interconnected triad where a change in one impacts the other two.

If you have trouble getting to sleep, or staying asleep, you’ll want to check out my 33 tips to a better night of sleep. You may read more about the changes medications make to your brain, and 19 non-drug solutions for pain relief in my previous article, “Drugs for Physical and Emotional Pain Change Your Brain.”

Recommended Reading:

 

Fluoridated Water Destroys Your Brain and Teeth

(Mercola.com – Dr. Mercola) In the U.S., water fluoridation has been widespread for the last 70 years. Despite the fact that clear-cut evidence suggests consuming fluoride is dangerous to human health and does little to protect teeth from cavities, it continues to be supported and recommended by nearly all public health and academic institutions.

This includes the American Dental Association (ADA), the American Academy of Pediatrics, U.S. Public Health Service and the World Health Organization (WHO). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) even went so far as to name water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century.

Meanwhile, the evidence continues to stack up against this archaic practice, with federal data now showing more than half of U.S. kids may be suffering ill effects from consuming too much fluoride.

Most US Kids Have Fluoride-Damaged Teeth

According to research presented at the April 2017 National Oral Health Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 57 percent of youth between the ages of 6 and 19 years have dental fluorosis, a condition in which your tooth enamel becomes progressively discolored and mottled, according to data from 2011 to 2012.1

The statistic represents an increase from 37 percent reported from 1999 to 2004. Further, the author stated, “There was a significant increase in caries experience …” When Fluoride Action Network (FAN) researchers analyzed the same set of data, they found “The 2011 to 2012 NHANES survey found dental fluorosis in 58.3 percent of the surveyed adolescents, including an astonishing 21.2 percent with moderate fluorosis and 2 percent with severe.”2

According to FAN, “The data suggests that up to 24 million adolescents now have some form of dental fluorosis, with over 8 million adolescents having moderate fluorosis, and 840,000 having severe fluorosis.”

In stark contrast, when fluoridation was first started in the U.S. in 1945, it was promised that only 10 percent of people would suffer from mild dental fluorosis.3 Public health officials often brush off fluorosis as a purely aesthetic issue, one they believe is a good trade-off for the supposed benefits of fluoride but, in reality, fluorosis is an outward sign that fluoride is damaging the body.

Research has found impairment in cognitive abilities among children with fluorosis (even mild fluorosis) compared to children with no fluorosis. And some studies have even found that children with higher levels of fluorosis have increased rates of cavities.4,5

US Lowered Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water, but Risks Still Remain

With all the fanfare over water fluoridation, you may be surprised to learn that in 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced plans to lower the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water for the first time in 50 years. This meant the level of fluoride in drinking water was reduced to 0.7 mg/L from a previously recommended range of between 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L.

This was a significant reduction in fluoride exposure for some U.S. communities, but it’s important to understand that at doses ranging from 0.7 to 2.3 mg/L of fluoride per day, adverse effects including reduced IQ, behavioral alterations, neurochemical changes, hypothyroidism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been demonstrated.

Also noteworthy, reduced IQ has been seen in study participants with higher urinary fluoride concentrations, even when no dental fluorosis was present, which suggests that the doses of fluoride that impair cognitive ability are lower than those that cause severe dental fluorosis.6

FAN is among a coalition of environmental, medical and health groups urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the addition of fluoride to public drinking water supplies.

In a petition toward this end, they highlighted several other studies that also demonstrated “fluoride’s ability to cause neurotoxic effects at low levels,” including one that found just 0.5 uM of fluoride (.009 mg/L) caused lipid peroxidation after 48 hours of exposure. “Most individuals living in fluoridated areas in the United States have fluoride levels in their blood that exceed this level,” they wrote.

National Cancer Institute Researcher Warned Against Fluoride in the 1960s

Chemist Dean Burk, Ph.D., co-founded the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) in 1937 and headed its cytochemistry department for over 30 years. In the taped interview, he equates water fluoridation to “public murder,”7 referring to a study that had been done on the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation compared to the 10 largest without it.

The study clearly demonstrated that deaths from cancer abruptly rose in as little as a year or two after fluoridation began. This and other studies linking fluoride to cancer were government-ordered but were quickly buried once fluoride was found to be linked to dramatic increases in cancer.

Since then, a 2012 study found a link between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma, a rare type of bone cancer.8 A 2006 study also found a link between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among men.9 Such a link is biologically plausible, according to FAN, because of the following:10

“The plausibility of a fluoride/osteosarcoma connection is grounded in the three considerations:

  1. Bone is the principal site of fluoride accumulation, particularly during the growth spurts of childhood;
  2. Fluoride is a mutagen when present at sufficient concentrations; and
  3. Fluoride stimulates the proliferation of bone-forming cells (osteoblasts), which may increase the risk for some of the dividing cells to become malignant.”

In addition, the inhalation of airborne fluoride has been found to be a potential cause of bladder cancer and lung cancer among fluoride-exposed workers.11

‘If It’s Not Effective, Why Do It?’

Retired journalist Jack Crowther of Rutland, Vermont, wrote an opinion piece for news outlet VT Digger that brings up a very important point: “Regardless of the other objections to fluoridation, if it’s not effective, why do it?”12

He presents graphs of data prepared by FAN showing that tooth decay in countries that fluoridate most or some of their water (or salt) has been on the decline from 1970 to 2010. Likewise, another graph shows that tooth decay has also been on decline in countries with no water (or salt) fluoridation during the same period, including Italy, Sweden, Finland, Japan, Norway and Belgium.

If you’re surprised that so many countries do not fluoridate their water, you should know that the U.S. is in the minority when it comes to water fluoridation. In fact, the vast majority (97 percent) of Western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, whereas in the U.S. 200 million Americans live in areas where water is fluoridated.

Tooth decay in 12-year-olds is coming down as fast, if not faster, in nonfluoridated countries as it is in fluoridated countries. In one Lithuanian study, for instance, it was shown that dental caries did not vary according to the level of fluoride in the water.

Regardless of the concentration of fluoride in the drinking water, the prevalence of past and present caries was high,” the researchers noted,13 showing once again that subjecting entire populations to a form of mass medication without informed consent is highly questionable and dangerous, especially considering its unnecessary and ineffective.

Leading Fluoride Supporter Changed His Position When Confronted With the Evidence

Crowther also features data from the late New Zealand dentist John Colquhoun, who was a leading fluoridation supporter until he delved into the research in 1980.

His international tour showed no difference between rates of tooth decay in the nonfluoridated versus fluoridated areas he visited, causing him to change his position and become a fluoridation opponent. “For the remainder of his life, Colquhoun sought to end fluoridation, a program he had helped create,” Crowther said.14 An interview with Colquhoun is above and well worth watching. FAN added:15

The most obvious reason to end fluoridation is that it is now known that fluoride’s main benefit comes from topical contact with the teeth, not from ingestion. Even the CDC’s Oral Health Division now acknowledges this.

There is simply no need, therefore, to swallow fluoride, whether in the water, toothpaste or any other form. Further, despite early claims that fluoridated water would reduce cavities by 65 percent, modern large-scale studies show no consistent or meaningful difference in the cavity rates of fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas.”

Fortunately, the word that fluoridation is not a suitable means for keeping teeth healthy is spreading, including in Meadville, Pennsylvania. The city was considering adding fluoride to their water, necessitating a fluoride forum held May 4, 2017.

Fourteen speakers spoke in opposition of fluoridation while 11 spoke in favor of it, trying to sway the Meadville Area Water Authority board’s decision. Board member Hal Tubbs, who voted against fluoridation, pointed out that most of those in favor were affiliated with the pro-fluoridation Meadville Smiles group, leaving only perhaps one independent voice.

This tells me that actual customers are against fluoridated water by a count of 14 to one,” Tubbs wrote in an email to The Meadville Tribune. “What I took away from the presentation is that our customers want to decide and control what they put into their bodies … They don’t want a fluoride additive forced on them.”16

Protecting Your Oral Health Has Nothing to Do With Fluoride

When it comes to good oral hygiene and preventing cavities, please remember, drinking fluoridated water and brushing your teeth with fluoridated toothpaste is not the answer. Rather, it’s about your diet and proper dental care: brushing and flossing. By avoiding sugars and processed foods, you prevent the proliferation of the bacteria that cause decay in the first place.

Following up with proper brushing and flossing and getting regular cleanings with a mercury-free biological dentist will ensure that your teeth and gums stay healthy naturally.

Your toothbrush and natural fluoride-free toothpaste are important, but don’t be misled by thinking they’re the only options for sound dental health. Many natural substances, like the foods you eat, also have the power to drastically improve the health of your teeth and gums, and thereby the health of the rest of your body, too.

Recommendations released by The University of Calgary School of Public Policy championed the use of prevention and education to prevent early childhood cavities, noting water fluoridation wouldn’t be needed if such measures were effectively practiced.

The paper’s authors even pointed out that water fluoridation is not preventing tooth decay, as areas with water fluoridation still have a high rate of early childhood cavities. The recommendations call for increased education for parents on the importance of proper feeding and dental hygiene for infants, as well as for health care professionals to discuss these issues with patients.17

Help End the Practice of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to the CDC, 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why? The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place.

Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and visit the links below:

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve

In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

Recommended Reading:

Stay Away From This Brand of Organic Dairy

(Mercola.com – Dr. Mercola) In the U.S., organic dairy brings in about $6 billion in sales annually.1 Consumers pay a premium for the milk expecting they are getting a superior product. Organic milk (and meat) from cows raised primarily on pasture have been repeatedly shown to be higher in many nutrients, including vitamin E, beta-carotene and beneficial conjugated linoleic acid (CLA).

Organic milk also contains about 25 percent less omega-6 fats and 62 percent more omega-3 fats than conventional milk,2 and the animals, when given appropriate access to pasture, are raised in a more humane environment than cows raised on CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations).

Unfortunately, not all organic dairy is created equal, and just seeing the USDA organic label on a gallon of milk is not enough to verify its quality (or lack thereof). An investigation by The Washington Post revealed that some organic dairies are nothing more than CAFOs in disguise, selling higher-priced milk that is scarcely different from conventional CAFO dairy.

Must Read: Candida, Gut Flora, Allergies, and Disease

Milk From Large Organic Dairies May Not Be as Organic as Promised

When the Post visited Aurora Organic Dairy in Colorado, the company that provides organic store brands to corporations like Wal-Mart, Target and Costco, a few problems were evident right off the bat. For starters, the farm is massive, housing 15,000 cows, “making it more than 100 times the size of a typical organic herd,” the Post noted.

Further, organic standards require that cows have free access to certified organic pasture for the entire grazing season, but there are large loopholes in the requirement.

As Aurora spokeswoman Sonja Tuitele told the Post, “The requirements of the USDA National Organic Program allow for an extremely wide range of grazing practices that comply with the rule.”3 The Post investigation indeed revealed that Aurora Organic Dairy appears to be stretching the limits of the rule:4

” … [D]uring visits by The Washington Post to Aurora’s High Plains complex across eight days last year, signs of grazing were sparse, at best. Aurora said its animals were out on pasture day and night, but during most Post visits the number of cows seen on pasture numbered only in the hundreds.

At no point was any more than 10 percent of the herd out. A high-resolution satellite photo taken in mid-July by DigitalGlobe, a space imagery vendor, shows a typical situation — only a few hundred on pasture.”

The Post even had samples of Aurora’s organic milk tested for “a key indicator of grass-feeding” (its fatty acid profile), which revealed the milk matched conventional, not organic milk. Adding to the problem, farmers are allowed to hire their own inspectors in order to be certified USDA Organic.

In Aurora’s case, the Post investigation revealed the inspectors had visited the farm outside of the grazing season, which means they had no way of knowing whether the dairy’s grazing habits met the organic requirement. In 2007, the USDA even sanctioned Aurora Organic Dairy for willfully violating organic standards, but the farm was allowed to continue operating after a settlement was reached.

Half of the Organic Milk Sold in the US May Come From CAFOs

It’s very much a buyer beware market when it comes to organic dairy. Theoretically, choosing organic milk makes sense, but this holds true only if the farmers are giving the cows actual free access to pasture. Mark Kastel, co-director of the nonprofit Cornucopia Institute, told the Post that right now, “About half of the organic milk sold in the U.S. is coming from very large factory farms that have no intention of living up to organic principles.”5 It’s a widespread problem.

When the Post visited seven other large organic dairies in 2015 (these located in Texas and New Mexico), they found the cows were primarily kept on feedlots, not pastures. Cornucopia also noted that aerial photography, backed up by satellite imagery, from 14 “industrial scale” organic livestock operations revealed “few if any animals” out on pasture.6

As a result of the Post investigation, Cornucopia has filed legal complaints against Aurora Dairy and Colorado Department of Agriculture, their organic certifier. They’ve also asked for the removal of the USDA’s lead organic regulator, Miles McEvoy. Kastel explained:7

“The rigorous investigative work by Peter Whoriskey at The Washington Post clearly illustrates a pattern of long-term corruption by both Aurora Dairy and the USDA’s National Organic Program Our organic regulators have turned a blind eye as giant industrial operations place ethical family-scale dairy farmers at a distinct competitive disadvantage.

… These gross violations of the law were well-documented in a series of complaints we filed against Aurora operations in Texas, and other ‘organic’ CAFOs in the U.S., as well as their certifiers that have languished at the USDA for over a year and a half without enforcement action.”

What’s Better Than Organic? Grass Fed

Unfortunately, the USDA certified organic label is not the last word on food quality. Until the loopholes are closed and the standards adjusted to ensure dairy cows receive regular access to pasture, you’ve got to do your homework to ensure your favorite organic dairy brand isn’t ripping you off.

Must Read: How to Optimize Curcumin Absorption – With Golden Milk Tea Recipe

There are organic dairies out there that are doing it right, like Organic Pastures, which provides organic raw milk from cows that graze 365 days a year, going above and beyond the organic standard.

They call their milk “grass-grazed” as opposed to “grass fed,” the latter of which they point out could mean virtually anything, like “grazed at some point,” leading to milk with questionable nutritional value.8 As it stands, dairy can be sold as “grass fed” whether the cows ate solely grass or received silage, hay or even grains during certain times.

Fortunately, the American Grassfed Association (AGA) recently introduced much-needed grass fed standards and certification for American-grown grass fed dairy,9 which will allow for greater transparency and conformity.10 As reported by Organic Authority:11

“The new regulations are the product of a year’s worth of collaboration amongst dairy producers like Organic Valley as well as certifiers like Pennsylvania Certified Organic and a team of scientists. ‘We came up with a standard that’s good for the animals, that satisfies what consumers want and expect when they see grass fed on the label, and that is economically feasible for farmers,’ says AGA’s communications director Marilyn Noble of the new regulations.”

Considering how important a cow’s diet is when it comes to the quality of its milk, especially when we’re talking about raw milk, as well as the potential for grasslands to restore health and diversity to the environment, I would strongly advise you to ensure your dairy is AGA certified as grass fed.

Why Grass Fed Dairy Is Supreme

There are a number of reasons to seek out grass fed dairy products. For foodies, the seasonal variations in flavor are a huge draw. For the health-conscious, milk from cows raised primarily on pasture has been shown to be higher in many nutrients, including vitamin E, beta-carotene and the healthy fats omega-3 and CLA.12

On an environmental level, grass fed dairy has a considerably reduced footprint compared to the way most dairy is produced on CAFOs. When cows eat grass, it’s a closed-loop system that, as Maple Hill Creamery put it, “bypasses the considerable resources used to produce the [genetically engineered] corn, soybeans or grains to feed dairy cows.”13

Farms producing grass fed dairy products are able to naturally regenerate the soil and maintain ecological balance without relying on chemical fertilizers and pesticides. And on an ethical level, cows are designed to eat grass.

When they eat corn and grain, not only does the quality of their milk degrade but they live in a state of chronic inflammation, which increases their risk of infection and disease. When a cow eats grains in a CAFO instead of the grasses they were designed to eat three adverse events happen:

  1. The cow becomes acidotic (acidic) as a result of using glucose from the grains as their primary fuel rather than short-chain fatty acids derived from the nondigestible fibers in the grasses
  2. It becomes over protonated, which harms the cow’s kidneys. As a result, the cow can only provide milk for 1.7 lactations, which is 44 months, after which they get slaughtered
  3. Grain can contain mold mycotoxins that can make the animal sick

So while organic, raw grass fed dairy is ideal, keep in mind that the grass fed portion should be non-negotiable. You may find grass fed dairy farmers who have not yet gone through (or who cannot afford to go through) the USDA’s organic certification process. In that case, speak to the farmer directly to find out how the animals are raised.

Related: Why You Should Avoid Pasteurized Cow’s Milk

Cornucopia’s Organic Dairy Scorecard

Getting your raw milk from a local organic grass fed farm or co-op is best, but if you’re considering milk from another source, check out Cornucopia’s Organic Dairy Scorecard.14 The Cornucopia Institute is an organic industry watchdog whose core constituencies are family farmers across the U.S. and consumers concerned about the availability and quality of organic foods. Their goal is to empower you to make informed purchasing decisions.

You might be surprised to see many big-name organic brands that rank near the bottom of the list, even receiving a “zero” rating. In this case, it’s not worth your money to pay for an “organic” product that’s likely no better than conventional.

You’d be better served by supporting the ethical farms that received a 4- or 5-cow rating instead (meaning their farming practices are either excellent or outstanding). While you’ll certainly notice the difference in flavor when purchasing truly grass fed, organic dairy, you can even see the difference.

Grass fed organic milk tends to be yellowish, not pure white. The coloration comes from the natural antioxidant carotenoids found in the grass, which is a precursor to vitamin A. When cows are raised on dried grass or hay, as opposed to fresh-growing grass, you end up with a whiter product, which is an indication of reduced carotenoid and antioxidant content.

‘So-Called Organic Milk’ Pushing Real Organic Farmers Out of Business

If you’re not a dairy farmer, you may not be aware that we’re in the midst of a massive milk glut. Thanks to the unnatural efficiency of swiftly growing dairy CAFOs, milk supply has outpaced demand, causing milk prices to tank. This is even true of organic milk. John Boere, a California dairy farmer, used to be an organic farmer but was unable to find a market for his milk, forcing him to switch back to conventional farming at a steep loss. He told Cornucopia:15

“The surplus of milk is so bad here in California that some organic handlers are being forced to divert organic milk onto the conventional market, at a substantial loss. This contributes to the crumbling farm-gate pricing, and for some, like me, being forced out of organic altogether.

.. If all organic dairies were forced to get 30 percent of their dry matter intake (feed) from pasture, as the law requires, there would be a shortage of organic milk, not a surplus!”

Another small organic farm in Wisconsin told Cornucopia they’ve lost about 30 percent of their income due to the “so-called organic milk” glut. Simply by getting informed about what’s really going on at the organic farms you support, you can directly support the farmers who are raising cows the right way while voting against the rest.

Must Read: Homemade, Vegan Nut Milk Recipes and More

How to Support the ‘Real’ Organic Dairy Farmers

As Kastel put it, “Shoppers can vote in the marketplace … There is a higher authority than the USDA, or even the federal courts, and that’s the consumer dollar.” The Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA) responded to the Post investigation, understandably concerned that the headlines knocking organic dairy would tarnish the images of ethical, small family farms producing organic dairy the right way.

How can you tell the difference among the organic brands of milk at your supermarket? In addition to using Cornucopia’s dairy scorecard, Liz Bawden, New York organic dairy farmer and NODPA president, suggests:16

“I can’t guarantee that the milk in your carton comes from a family farm that has values and not from one owned by a group of investors in Boston, but check the plant code on the top of the containers to make sure it’s not 08-29 (Aurora Dairy)[and] choose name-brand over generic or store brand organic dairy products (as they have a reputation to preserve).”

American Grassfed Association

The goal of the American Grassfed Association is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education.

Their website also allows you to search for AGA approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100 percent forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; and born and raised on American family farms.

EatWild.com

EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.

Weston A. Price Foundation

Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.

Grassfed Exchange

The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass fed meats across the U.S.

Local Harvest

This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass fed meats and many other goodies.

Farmers Markets

A national listing of farmers markets.

Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food From Healthy Animals

The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA)

CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.

FoodRoutes

The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs and markets near you.

The Cornucopia Institute

The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO “organic” production from authentic organic practices.

RealMilk.com

If you’re still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws. California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.
Sources:

Our Future Relies on Healthy Soil

(Dr. Mercola) It’s easy to take soil for granted. That is, until you lose it. The dirt beneath your feet is arguably one of the most under-appreciated assets on the planet. Without it, life would largely cease to exist while, when at its prime, this “black gold” gives life.

In nature, plants thrive because of a symbiotic relationship with their surrounding environment, including mircroorganisms in the soil.

The rhizosphere is the area immediately around a plant’s root. It contains microorganisms that thrive on chemicals released from the plant’s roots. These chemicals, known as exudates, include carbohydrates, phytochemicals and other compounds.

In exchange for the exudates, the root microbiome supplies the plant with important metabolites for health, which, along with exposure to pests and pathogens, helps plants produce phytochemicals.

A well-fed root microbiome will also supply plants with ample nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) — the three ingredients that also make up most synthetic fertilizer (NPK).

Unfortunately, while nature’s system results in handsome rewards, including more nutritious foods and less environmental pollution, modern-day farmers have largely become stuck in a cycle of dousing crops with synthetic chemicals tthankshat destroys the soil and, ultimately, the environment.

Why Synthetic Fertilizers Are Ruining the Planet

Synthetic fertilizers make sense in theory, and they do make plants grow bigger and faster. The problem is that the plants are not necessarily healthier. In fact, they miss out on the symbiotic relationship with their root microbiome.

Because they’re being supplied with NPK, the plant no longer “wastes” energy producing exudates to feed its microbiome.

Therefore, it receives fewer metabolites for health in return. The end result is plants that look good on the outside but lack minerals, phytochemicals and defenses against pests and disease on the inside.

Further, as reported by Rick Haney, a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil scientist, less than 50 percent of synthetic fertilizers applied to crops are used by the plants. Haney told Orion Magazine:1

“Farmers are risk averse … They’ve borrowed a half million dollars for a crop that could die tomorrow. The last thing they want to worry about is whether they put on enough fertilizer. They always put on too much, just to be safe.”

The excess fertlizer runs off into the environment, with disastrous effects. As fertilizer runs off of farms in agricultural states like Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri and others, it enters the Mississippi River, leading to an overabundance of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, in the water.

This, in turn, leads to the development of algal blooms, which alter the food chain and deplete oxygen, leading to dead zones. One of the largest dead zones worldwide can be found in the Gulf of Mexico, beginning at the Mississippi River delta.2Fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico have been destroyed as a result.

Soil Health Campaign Educates Farmers How to Work With Nature

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) convenes sessions around the U.S. in an effort to improve soil health and teach farmers how to use less fertilizer and produce the same, and in some cases better, yields. Haney told Orion Magazine:3

“Our entire agriculture industry is based on chemical inputs, but soil is not a chemistry set … It’s a biological system. We’ve treated it like a chemistry set because the chemistry is easier to measure than the soil biology.”

While standard soil tests measure chemical properties in the soil, Haney developed a test to measure soil biology. A rich microscopic community is what Haney is after. Only this can support the fascinatingly complex process of plant growth and, at the same time, naturally cut carbon emissions by fixing carbon in the soil.

It’s estimated that one-third of the surplus carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stems from poor land-management processes that contribute to the loss of carbon, as carbon dioxide, from farmlands.4 Writing in Orion Magazine, Kristin Ohlson, author of “The Soil Will Save Us,” explained:5

“When we admire good soil’s dark chocolate-cake sponginess and sweet smell, we’re admiring the handiwork of trillions of soil microorganisms over time.

They eat carbon and expire carbon dioxide, just as we do, but they also “fix” a percentage of that carbon in the soil. Barring disturbance, it stays there for a very long time.

… Photosynthesis is the only process that safely and inexpensively removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, allowing carbon that is a problem in the skies to become a boon for the land.

Based on this principle, one hundred governments and nonprofits launched the 4/1000 Initiative … calling for an increase of carbon in the world’s soils by 0.4 percent per year.

This relatively small boost will not only radically improve soil fertility but also, the coalition claims, halt the annual rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

Three ‘Game-Changing’ Practices for Agriculture

Carbon farming is a simple premise that involves using agricultural methods that can naturally trap carbon dioxide in the ground (for decades, centuries or more) while also absorbing it from the air.

The process, known as “carbon sequestration,” could help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and:

Regenerate the soil Limit agricultural water usage with no till and crop covers
Increase crop yields Reduce the need for agricultural chemicals and additives, if not eliminate such need entirely in time
Reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels Reduce air and water pollution by lessening the need for herbicides, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers

A recent study published in the journal Nature further revealed that by managing soils to reduce greenhouse gases, it could lead to a wealth of “side benefits,” including healthier soils and ecosystems, less fertilizer runoff and less soil erosion.6

In an interview with The Christian Science Monitor, Phil Robertson of Michigan State University explained three “game-changing” practices that could help make soils “net mitigating,” meaning they capture more greenhouse gases than they emit.7

  1. No-till cultivation, in which crops are grown without plowing
  2. Advanced nitrogen fertilizer management, or applying only minimal amounts of fertilizer
  3. Cover crops

The latter strategy alone, cover crops, can virtually eliminate the need for irrigation when done right. The cover crops also act as insulation, so the soil doesn’t get as hot or cold as it would if bare. This allows microbes to thrive longer.

Also, the soil biology heats up the soil, which can extend your overall growing season in colder areas, and it helps prevent soil erosion. In 2012, a Census of Agriculture report found just over 10 million acres of farmland (out of 390 million total) were being planted with cover crops, but its use is growing.

In an annual survey of farmers taken in 2014, farmers reported planting double the mean acreage in cover crops reported in 2010.8 Farmers who adopt the technique have reported better soil texture, less erosion, and increased crop yields.

Planting Winter Cover Crops May Make Farmers Money

This is key, because convincing most farmers to change their practices solely for environmental reasons isn’t an easy proposition, especially if it also involves increased costs to the farmer. Robertson recommends using conservation payments, which have been in place for decades, to pay farmers to adopt more sustainable agricultural practices.

Some farmers also change their ways after seeing the success of their neighbors’ farms. Farmer Doug Anson, who along with his family plants cover crops on 13,000 of their 20,000 acres of Indiana farmland, told The New York Times:9

“In the part of a field where we had planted cover crops, we were getting 20 to 25 bushels of corn more per acre than in places where no cover crops had been planted … That showed me it made financial sense to do this.”

A research project that’s been ongoing for two decades in Michigan, comparing crop plots using four different farming methods, has also shown promise for cover crops. The fields that received small amounts of fertilizer and were planted with winter cover crops had yields similar to conventional fields with far less nitrogen leaching.10

The U.S. government has even set up a small subsidy system to help farmers offset the costs of cover crops and other regenerative practices, but one major hurdle to cover crops becoming mainstream involves absentee land owners.

Many farmers grow crops on land they do not own but rather lease; they therefore have little incentive to want to improve soil quality on land they do not own. Landowners could, however, offer incentives to farmers to use regenerative practices that would, in turn, increase the value of their land.11

Farmers and Landowners Can Get Paid for ‘Carbon Credits’

Conventional farmers have much to gain from trying out carbon-sequestration practices like planting cover crops, applying compost and not tilling; they can accumulate, and be paid for, carbon credits.

Farmers can even use the USDA’s COMET-Farm online tool to find out their approximate carbon footprint, as well as experiment to see which land-management practices sequester the most carbon on their farm.12 How does it work? Modern Farmer explained:13

“Land-based carbon sequestration is measured in metric tons per hectare (2.5 acres); one metric ton earns one carbon credit, making the math easy. In California — the only state in the US with a full-fledged cap-and-trade program — the current value of a carbon credit is around $12 to $13. (Farmers in other states, by the way, are eligible to earn credits through the California carbon market.)

Alberta, which has the most robust carbon market in Canada and rewards several agricultural practices with carbon credits, raised the price of carbon credits from $15 to $20 on January 1, 2016; in 2017, the price will go up to $30 per credit.”

Unfortunately, the way the system is currently set up, farmers already using beneficial conservation practices are not eligible for carbon credits. Only those switching land from conventional agriculture to soil-conservation practices may receive credits, with the exception of spreading compost over grazed grasslands, which are used to raise grass-fed beef and other pastured animal products.

This recently approved carbon credit “protocol” was largely the result of the Marin Carbon Project, which found a single 1/2-inch dusting of compost on rangeland can boost the soil’s carbon storage for at least 30 years.

If you’re a farmer interested in receiving carbon credits, you’ll need to sign up with a carbon credit registry such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, or and the Verified Carbon Standard. An inspector will visit your farm regularly to ensure you’ve carried out the protocols correctly.14It’s easy to take soil for granted. That is, until you lose it. The dirt beneath your feet is arguably one of the most under-appreciated assets on the planet. Without it, life would largely cease to exist while, when at its prime, this “black gold” gives life.

In nature, plants thrive because of a symbiotic relationship with their surrounding environment, including mircroorganisms in the soil.

The rhizosphere is the area immediately around a plant’s root. It contains microorganisms that thrive on chemicals released from the plant’s roots. These chemicals, known as exudates, include carbohydrates, phytochemicals and other compounds.

In exchange for the exudates, the root microbiome supplies the plant with important metabolites for health, which, along with exposure to pests and pathogens, helps plants produce phytochemicals.

A well-fed root microbiome will also supply plants with ample nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) — the three ingredients that also make up most synthetic fertilizer (NPK).

Unfortunately, while nature’s system results in handsome rewards, including more nutritious foods and less environmental pollution, modern-day farmers have largely become stuck in a cycle of dousing crops with synthetic chemicals tthankshat destroys the soil and, ultimately, the environment.

Why Synthetic Fertilizers Are Ruining the Planet

Synthetic fertilizers make sense in theory, and they do make plants grow bigger and faster. The problem is that the plants are not necessarily healthier. In fact, they miss out on the symbiotic relationship with their root microbiome.

Because they’re being supplied with NPK, the plant no longer “wastes” energy producing exudates to feed its microbiome.

Therefore, it receives fewer metabolites for health in return. The end result is plants that look good on the outside but lack minerals, phytochemicals and defenses against pests and disease on the inside.

Further, as reported by Rick Haney, a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil scientist, less than 50 percent of synthetic fertilizers applied to crops are used by the plants. Haney told Orion Magazine:1

“Farmers are risk averse … They’ve borrowed a half million dollars for a crop that could die tomorrow. The last thing they want to worry about is whether they put on enough fertilizer. They always put on too much, just to be safe.”

The excess fertlizer runs off into the environment, with disastrous effects. As fertilizer runs off of farms in agricultural states like Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri and others, it enters the Mississippi River, leading to an overabundance of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, in the water.

This, in turn, leads to the development of algal blooms, which alter the food chain and deplete oxygen, leading to dead zones. One of the largest dead zones worldwide can be found in the Gulf of Mexico, beginning at the Mississippi River delta.2Fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico have been destroyed as a result.

Soil Health Campaign Educates Farmers How to Work With Nature

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) convenes sessions around the U.S. in an effort to improve soil health and teach farmers how to use less fertilizer and produce the same, and in some cases better, yields. Haney told Orion Magazine:3

“Our entire agriculture industry is based on chemical inputs, but soil is not a chemistry set … It’s a biological system. We’ve treated it like a chemistry set because the chemistry is easier to measure than the soil biology.”

While standard soil tests measure chemical properties in the soil, Haney developed a test to measure soil biology. A rich microscopic community is what Haney is after. Only this can support the fascinatingly complex process of plant growth and, at the same time, naturally cut carbon emissions by fixing carbon in the soil.

It’s estimated that one-third of the surplus carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stems from poor land-management processes that contribute to the loss of carbon, as carbon dioxide, from farmlands.4 Writing in Orion Magazine, Kristin Ohlson, author of “The Soil Will Save Us,” explained:5

“When we admire good soil’s dark chocolate-cake sponginess and sweet smell, we’re admiring the handiwork of trillions of soil microorganisms over time.

They eat carbon and expire carbon dioxide, just as we do, but they also “fix” a percentage of that carbon in the soil. Barring disturbance, it stays there for a very long time.

… Photosynthesis is the only process that safely and inexpensively removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, allowing carbon that is a problem in the skies to become a boon for the land.

Based on this principle, one hundred governments and nonprofits launched the 4/1000 Initiative … calling for an increase of carbon in the world’s soils by 0.4 percent per year.

This relatively small boost will not only radically improve soil fertility but also, the coalition claims, halt the annual rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

Three ‘Game-Changing’ Practices for Agriculture

Carbon farming is a simple premise that involves using agricultural methods that can naturally trap carbon dioxide in the ground (for decades, centuries or more) while also absorbing it from the air.

The process, known as “carbon sequestration,” could help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and:

Regenerate the soil Limit agricultural water usage with no till and crop covers
Increase crop yields Reduce the need for agricultural chemicals and additives, if not eliminate such need entirely in time
Reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels Reduce air and water pollution by lessening the need for herbicides, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers

A recent study published in the journal Nature further revealed that by managing soils to reduce greenhouse gases, it could lead to a wealth of “side benefits,” including healthier soils and ecosystems, less fertilizer runoff and less soil erosion.6

In an interview with The Christian Science Monitor, Phil Robertson of Michigan State University explained three “game-changing” practices that could help make soils “net mitigating,” meaning they capture more greenhouse gases than they emit.7

  1. No-till cultivation, in which crops are grown without plowing
  2. Advanced nitrogen fertilizer management, or applying only minimal amounts of fertilizer
  3. Cover crops

The latter strategy alone, cover crops, can virtually eliminate the need for irrigation when done right. The cover crops also act as insulation, so the soil doesn’t get as hot or cold as it would if bare. This allows microbes to thrive longer.

Also, the soil biology heats up the soil, which can extend your overall growing season in colder areas, and it helps prevent soil erosion. In 2012, a Census of Agriculture report found just over 10 million acres of farmland (out of 390 million total) were being planted with cover crops, but its use is growing.

In an annual survey of farmers taken in 2014, farmers reported planting double the mean acreage in cover crops reported in 2010.8 Farmers who adopt the technique have reported better soil texture, less erosion, and increased crop yields.

Planting Winter Cover Crops May Make Farmers Money

This is key, because convincing most farmers to change their practices solely for environmental reasons isn’t an easy proposition, especially if it also involves increased costs to the farmer. Robertson recommends using conservation payments, which have been in place for decades, to pay farmers to adopt more sustainable agricultural practices.

Some farmers also change their ways after seeing the success of their neighbors’ farms. Farmer Doug Anson, who along with his family plants cover crops on 13,000 of their 20,000 acres of Indiana farmland, told The New York Times:9

“In the part of a field where we had planted cover crops, we were getting 20 to 25 bushels of corn more per acre than in places where no cover crops had been planted … That showed me it made financial sense to do this.”

A research project that’s been ongoing for two decades in Michigan, comparing crop plots using four different farming methods, has also shown promise for cover crops. The fields that received small amounts of fertilizer and were planted with winter cover crops had yields similar to conventional fields with far less nitrogen leaching.10

The U.S. government has even set up a small subsidy system to help farmers offset the costs of cover crops and otherregenerative practices, but one major hurdle to cover crops becoming mainstream involves absentee land owners.

Many farmers grow crops on land they do not own but rather lease; they therefore have little incentive to want to improve soil quality on land they do not own. Landowners could, however, offer incentives to farmers to use regenerative practices that would, in turn, increase the value of their land.11

Farmers and Landowners Can Get Paid for ‘Carbon Credits’

Conventional farmers have much to gain from trying out carbon-sequestration practices like planting cover crops, applying compost and not tilling; they can accumulate, and be paid for, carbon credits.

Farmers can even use the USDA’s COMET-Farm online tool to find out their approximate carbon footprint, as well as experiment to see which land-management practices sequester the most carbon on their farm.12 How does it work? Modern Farmer explained:13

“Land-based carbon sequestration is measured in metric tons per hectare (2.5 acres); one metric ton earns one carbon credit, making the math easy. In California — the only state in the US with a full-fledged cap-and-trade program — the current value of a carbon credit is around $12 to $13. (Farmers in other states, by the way, are eligible to earn credits through the California carbon market.)

Alberta, which has the most robust carbon market in Canada and rewards several agricultural practices with carbon credits, raised the price of carbon credits from $15 to $20 on January 1, 2016; in 2017, the price will go up to $30 per credit.”

Unfortunately, the way the system is currently set up, farmers already using beneficial conservation practices are not eligible for carbon credits. Only those switching land from conventional agriculture to soil-conservation practices may receive credits, with the exception of spreading compost over grazed grasslands, which are used to raise grass-fed beef and other pastured animal products.

This recently approved carbon credit “protocol” was largely the result of the Marin Carbon Project, which found a single 1/2-inch dusting of compost on rangeland can boost the soil’s carbon storage for at least 30 years.

If you’re a farmer interested in receiving carbon credits, you’ll need to sign up with a carbon credit registry such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, or and the Verified Carbon Standard. An inspector will visit your farm regularly to ensure you’ve carried out the protocols correctly.14

Regenerating Our Soil Is the Solution

It’s clear that paying attention to our soils is crucial to our health and future. Fortunately, change is occurring both on large and small scales. The USDA’s NRCS has become very committed to understanding and teaching about natural soil health and regenerative agriculture

Not only will regenerating our soils lead to improved food production, it will also address a majority of resource concerns, such as water. When you add carbon back into the soil, such as by adding mulch or cover crops, the carbon feeds mycorrhizal fungi that eventually produce glomalin, which may be even better than humic acid at retaining water. This means you naturally limit your irrigation needs and make your garden or fields more resilient during droughts.

Considering data suggesting we may lose all commercial topsoil, globally, in the next 60 years if we keep going at the current rate, such changes cannot move fast enough. The NRCS website is an excellent resource for anyone interested in learning more about soil health, including farmers wanting to change their system.

At present, about 10 percent of U.S. farmers have started incorporating practices to address soil health. Only about 2 percent have transitioned to full-on regenerative land management, however. On an individual level, you can get involved by growing some of your own food using these regenerative principles on a small scale.

Regenerating Our Soil Is the Solution

It’s clear that paying attention to our soils is crucial to our health and future. Fortunately, change is occurring both on large and small scales. The USDA’s NRCS has become very committed to understanding and teaching about natural soil health and regenerative agriculture

Not only will regenerating our soils lead to improved food production, it will also address a majority of resource concerns, such as water. When you add carbon back into the soil, such as by adding mulch or cover crops, the carbon feeds mycorrhizal fungi that eventually produce glomalin, which may be even better than humic acid at retaining water. This means you naturally limit your irrigation needs and make your garden or fields more resilient during droughts.

Considering data suggesting we may lose all commercial topsoil, globally, in the next 60 years if we keep going at the current rate, such changes cannot move fast enough. The NRCS website is an excellent resource for anyone interested in learning more about soil health, including farmers wanting to change their system.

At present, about 10 percent of U.S. farmers have started incorporating practices to address soil health. Only about 2 percent have transitioned to full-on regenerative land management, however. On an individual level, you can get involved by growing some of your own food using these regenerative principles on a small scale.

Related Reading: