Consumers today are increasingly conscious of the impact their choices have on the environment and their health. As a result, organic products have become more popular, with sales recorded at $63.3 billion in 2021, according to the Organic Trade Association (OTA), a figure that is set to rise in the coming years. Today, organic shoppers are found in natural products specialty stores as well as conventional grocery and club stores, and organic food shoppers span all types of consumer demographics. One common factor among these consumers is their trust in the USDA organic seal, the visual identifier for the only food marketing claim backed by a federal regulatory program that innately covers a broad range of consumer interests from natural and non-GMO to regenerative and climate smart.

The USDA organic seal first appeared on grocery shelves in 2002 to identify organic food products that met the new federal standard created by Congress after years of input from farmers. Use of the seal is governed by the organic regulations and enforced by the NOP, the federal organization that develops and enforces consistent national standards for organically produced agricultural products sold in the United States. As a food label, the USDA organic seal carries a lot of weight. It means that the farm that produced that food and any business that had a hand in processing it followed a strict set of standards and is watched over by certifying organizations accredited by the USDA.

The organic seal also means that each farm and business is examined every year by a qualified organic inspector. It means that NOP and certifiers regularly conduct surveillance targeting higher risk sectors, complex operations and supply chains, and operations with a history of challenges consistently meeting the standards. And it means that if someone commits fraud and uses the label on a non-certified product, the federal government will take action to stop that misrepresentation and hold the perpetrator accountable.

NOPs work with and overseeing of third-party accredited certifiers is a big part of this process. Certifiers audit producers and brands across the supply chain and enforce the standards, verifying that they use compliant processes, ultimately protecting consumer confidence in the integrity of the seal.

In the 21 years since the seals introduction, the organic market has grown significantly. In the 10 years from 2013 to 2022, the overall organic marketplace grew $32.9 billion to todays $67.5 billion, and studies have shown that today, organic products are purchased by approximately 80 percent of U.S. households.

Yet, as the organic market has grown both in dollars and global presence, so too have the complexities of the supply chain. Like any expanding marketplace, especially one with products that draw a premium price, this has led to myriad challenges, including some very public convictions and prison sentences for fraud. Fortunately, Congress and the Department of Agriculture have more than doubled funding for organic oversight and enforcement through the 2018 Farm Bill and the Administration priority of expanding market opportunities for U.S farmers and ranchers.

The USDA organic seal is a key standard for many consumers, and protecting that faith and trust is our top priority, said NOP Deputy Administrator Jennifer Tucker. Additional funding has enabled us to grow our in-house expertise, increase training for certifiers, and develop effective partnerships with other law enforcement partnerscreating a system where many hands actively support organic integrity.

The organic food sector continues growing because consumers value one or several of the attributes inherent to organic products. According to USDA, organic food production emphasizes natural processes and ingredients from farm to table.For example,it means that genetic engineering is not allowedso USDA organic means no GMOs.It means the food was grown in a way that supports soil health, water quality and biodiversity.It means that only allowed ingredients are used in processing.

According to NOP, the new rule was developed to increase consistency, maintain a level playing field for everyone in the supply chain, and minimize opportunities for fraud. SOE codifies recommendations from the National Organic Standards Board, previous NOP guidance, and industry input, marking this as the single largest revision to the organic standards since their inception.

The organic industry has changed a lot since 2002, and this new rule gives USDA more tools to make sure that we can effectively oversee the supply chain that moves ingredients from farm to market, to ensure that all of the practices that make the product organic were followed along the way, explains Tucker. This transparency is how we and our partners maintain organic integrity.

Tucker encourages everyone doing business in the organic sector to read the rule now and prepare to comply with any new requirements during the one-year implementation period that ends March 19, 2024.

While almost all entities need to be certified under the final rule, the section Applicability and Exemptions from Certification is an especially important section to help you understand the implications of the rule for organic trade, said Tucker.We are being cautious to not weigh in on hypothetical scenarios because businesses are so differentthe rule is written to help businesses analyze their own activities, assess their need for certification, and determine how to implement its requirements.

According to USDA, if you are currently using an uncertified commodity broker or are buying from or selling to an uncertified handler, that broker or handler will need to be certified before the implementation period is over for them to continue to serve the organic market. The very few exceptions to this requirement are listed in the rulein general, we encourage everyone who serves the organic market to get certified, said Tucker.

For those using imported commodities or products, after the implementation date, those imports will need to have an associated electronic organic import certificate. The new import certificate will be generated by the certifier who oversees the exporter sending the product to the United States. That exporter will provide the certificate to the importer of record. USDA will launch the technology to generate that certificate later in 2023.

The SOE final rule has been widely praised by organic industry stakeholders, who see it as a critical step towards ensuring the integrity of the organic seal. The rule will provide greater confidence for consumers and producers, alike, in the USDA organic label and will help to level the playing field for all organic businesses. We love the SOE rule, exclaims Ravi Arora of Global Organics. Organic is the only logo we have and if people dont trust it, it makes a lot of our work very difficult. We know it is hard work to implement, but integrity is critical to the organic marketplace.

The SOE final rule is a significant step towards reducing fraud in the organic marketplace, strengthening oversight of organic producers, handlers, and certifiers, and improving NOP's enforcement mechanisms. Tucker summed it up saying, Organic is a choice consumers can trust. This rule better protects American households because it allows us to protect the market and supply chain more effectively and more completely, discouraging the bad guys up front and bringing them to justice faster when they violate the rules.

As implementation of the rule unfolds, NOP will continue to share deadlines and updates, training, and FAQs through the USDA Organic Insider. Subscribe at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/reports/organic-insider.

The Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE) rule is a set of changes to the USDA organic regulations that improve the integrity of the USDA's organic certification program. Here's what you need to know:

To learn more about SOE, visit the USDA's National Organic Program website or consult with your organic certifier.

Read more from the original source:

USDA bolsters consumer confidence in certified organic products ... - New Hope Network

The term slow food seems like a self-explanatory antonym for fast food. So if fast food is quick, cheap, and easy, slow food must then be time-consuming, expensive, and complicated. That view is not quite accurate. But the values of the slow food movement are somewhat foreign to the Standard American Diet. Expensive ingredients and fancy restaurants give it the rich aroma of elitism, putting a lot of people off. And thats a shame, because slow food has a lot to offer to people who are used to eating SAD.

In the United States, the slow food movement is most closely associated with celebrity chef Alice Waters. Waters founded Chez Panisse in Berkeley, California in 1971 and has been a constant advocate for seasonal farm-to-table cuisine and a culture of mindful appreciation for the processes behind the food we eat. However, the term slow food was not coined until 1986, when fast-food titan McDonalds opened a store in an iconic Roman square. Italians protested this act of culinary imperialism by distributing pasta and shouting the slogan We dont want fast food. We want slow food! Three years later, the Slow Food International organization was officially founded in Paris with the adoption of the Slow Food Manifesto.

There is an environmental aspect to slow food, but it is not primarily an environmental movement. The Slow Food Manifestos subtitle is International Movement for the Defense of and the Right to Pleasure. The single-page document points to fast food as a critical example of the way industrialization prioritizes speed to the detriment of culture, tradition, peace of mind, and the environment. It positions the Slow Food movement as a defense of quality of life.

Originally most interested in traditional food cultures and quality ingredients, Slow Food International began with events that celebrated sustainable and artisanal food products. Over time, they developed beyond simple epicureanism, to emphasize the impact of food systems on the environment, producers, and consumers. Slow Food International established a foundation for biodiversity that works with small scale food producers in more than 100 countries. They have developed educational resources that go beyond nutrition to instruction on combining culinary pleasure with social and environmental responsibility. There are now hundreds of projects around the world built on the assumption that everyone has the right to good, clean, and fair food.

Alice Waters (who has been vice president of Slow Food Intl. since 2002) founded the Edible Schoolyard Project, which advocates for universal free school lunch and a sustainable food curriculum. But she is still most famous for Chez Panisse, where dinner costs $175 per person. Few people can afford the good, clean, and fair prices at slow food restaurants. But slow food is not really about fine dining. It grew out of Italys home cooking culture and enshrined egalitarian principles in Slow Food Internationals 2017 Chengdu Declaration. Even so, the slow food movement has gained a reputation for self-righteous elitism, even from within. No movement is immune to dogmatism, and as the famous Portlandia Colin the Chicken sketch illustrates, people can get so carried away learning about their foods origin that they can no longer enjoy eating it. Dont let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Theres nothing wrong with eating at a pricey farm-to-table restaurant if you can afford it. These meals can be educational experiences, both in expanding your palate and teaching you about the origins of your food. Wherever we eat, there are many ways to act in support of Slow Food Internationals values. Consider starting or joining a Slow Food convivium or community to work toward a healthier, more sustainable and sustaining food system. You dont have to ally yourself with an organization at all.

At its heart, the slow food movement is about mindfulness. It is more concerned with how fast we eat than how fast we cook:

we propose the vaccine of an adequate portion of sensual gourmandise pleasures, to be taken with slow and prolonged enjoyment.

No snack is quicker to prepare than a piece of fresh fruit, but if we savor every bite, that snack qualifies as slow food. Visit a farmers market for local, organic produce (they can be surprisingly affordable). Or grow a window box full of edible flowers to elevate your meals. When you have the time or better yet, can make the time dedicate it to learning how to cook a new healthy dish or a traditional one. Then share a leisurely meal with friends and family.

Feature image: Askar Abayev, Pexels

Read the rest here:

Enjoying the Slow Food Movement - Earth911.com

David Attenboroughs latest TV series Wild Isles is delightful, astonishing, and harrowing in equal measure. His incredible insights into the natural world are inspiring. But, as he points out, the UK is one of the most nature-depleted places on Earth.

Helen Browning, the chief executive of the Soil Association, will be speaking at the SMALL IS THE FUTURE event taking place on Saturday, 17 June 2023. Speakers include Dr Ann Pettifor, Charlie Hertzog Young, Gareth Dale Professor Herbert Girardet. Tickets for the online event are on sale at 3 now!

He reveals shocking statistics. Over the last 50 years, 38 million birds have vanished from our skies, 97 per cent of our wildflower meadows have been lost, and a quarter of all our mammals are now at risk of extinction.

Historic habitat loss due to intensive agriculture has caused bird numbers to greatly reduce, natures champion points out in the Grasslands episode. In short, Britains wildlife is in trouble.

Groundswell

But the damage is not irreversible, as the eagerly anticipated Save our Wild Isles documentary, now available on BBC iPlayer highlighted. There is a way of farming that doesnt rely on destructive pesticides and instead focuses on creating homes for predatory insects that eat crop pests.

There is a way of farming that uses plants to fertilise soils and refuses to use the chemical products that pollute our land and waters. This is farming organically.

With nature in crisis and 50 per cent more wildlife on average on organic farms, it is a severe injustice to people, farmers, and nature that organic is seen as niche, exclusive or radical.

For more than 50 years, organic farmers have been pioneering practices that care for nature above and below the ground. Harmful chemicals are banned, contributing to there being a third more species overall on their farms, on average, including 50 per cent more pollinators and 20 percent more bird species.

It is a travesty that only around three percent of British farmland is organic. But there is hope change is in the air. There is a groundswell of nature-friendly farming in the UK farming scene.

Incentives

While fully certified organic farms remain a minority, the principles and methods of farming that underpin the organic movement are starting to get recognition as a vital solution for restoring nature.

Organic pioneers and the surge in regenerative and agroecological farming have shown it is entirely possible for farming to make space for nature. and that wildlife is crucial for producing good food.

Those behind the Saving Our Wild Isles documentary and campaign point out that nature is our life support. We cannot live without it. Farming in harmony with wildlife does not need to seem like a luxury it should and can be a priority.

Link:

Embracing organic can save our wild isles - The Ecologist

PRESS RELEASE

Published May 1, 2023

The latest study released on the Global Organic Rice Syrup Market by HTF MI Research evaluates market size, trend, and forecast to 2029. The Organic Rice Syrup market study covers significant research data and proofs to be a handy resource document for managers, analysts, industry experts and other key people to have ready-to-access and self-analyzed study to help understand market trends, growth drivers, opportunities and upcoming challenges and about the competitors.

Key Players in This Report Include:

Suzanne’s Specialties (United States), Nature’s One, Inc. (United States), Wuhu Deli Foods Co. Ltd. (China), Axiom Foods Inc. (United States), California Natural products (CNP) (United States), ABF Ingredients (United Kingdom), Cargill Incorporated (United States), Archer Daniels Midland (United States), Wuhu Haoyikuai Food Co. Ltd.(China), Gulshan Polyols Ltd. (India)

Download Sample Report PDF (Including Full TOC, Table & Figures) @ https://www.htfmarketintelligence.com/sample-report/emea-organic-rice-syrup-market

According to HTF Market Intelligence, the Global Organic Rice Syrup market to witness a CAGR of 4.59% during forecast period of 2023-2029. The market is segmented by Application (Baking, Confectionery, Beverages processed foods, Dressing and spreads, Dairy products, Ice-creams) by Type (Brown Rice Syrup, White Rice Syrup) by Nature (Organic, Conventional) and by Geography (Europe, Middle East, Africa). The Organic Rice Syrup market size is estimated to increase by USD 591 Million at a CAGR of 4.59% from 2023 to 2029. The report includes historic market data from 2019 to 2023E. Currently, market value is pegged at USD 1919Million

Definition:

Rising Health consciousness among Consumers and Increasing Health Diseases such as Diabetes, High blood pressure, and various heart diseases have resulted in finding the alternatives like Rice Syrup to conventional table sugar among the health-conscious consumers is one of the major factors that are driving the Global Organic Rice Syrup market. Rice syrup is defined as the processed form of cultured rice, wherein, the rice is fermented using enzymes such as beta- and alpha amylase, which helps in the breaking down of starch to simple sugar molecules such as glucose, fructose, and maltose. These sugars are further processed by protein fractioning and refining in order to extract sweetening agents from the malted rice. Organic rice syrup is a low-calorie sweetener which is used as an alternative to high fructose corn syrup. It is made by fermenting the organic rice which includes no synthetic agents, pesticides or fertilizers that make this syrup safe and acceptable to the people of all age groups.

Market Trends:

Market Drivers:

Market Opportunities:

Major Highlights of the Organic Rice Syrup Market report released by HTF MIMarket Breakdown by Applications: Baking, Confectionery, Beverages processed foods, Dressing and spreads, Dairy products, Ice-creams

Market Breakdown by Types: Brown Rice Syrup, White Rice Syrup

Global Organic Rice Syrup market report highlights information regarding the current and future industry trends, growth patterns, as well as it offers business strategies to helps the stakeholders in making sound decisions that may help to ensure the profit trajectory over the forecast years.

Buy Complete Assessment of Organic Rice Syrup market Now @ https://www.htfmarketintelligence.com/buy-now?format=3&report=353

Geographically, the detailed analysis of consumption, revenue, market share, and growth rate of the following regions:

Objectives of the Report

Have a query? Market an enquiry before purchase @ https://www.htfmarketintelligence.com/enquiry-before-buy/emea-organic-rice-syrup-market

Major highlights from Table of Contents:

Organic Rice Syrup Market Study Coverage:

Browse Complete Summary and Table of Content @ https://www.htfmarketintelligence.com/report/emea-organic-rice-syrup-market

Key questions answered

Thanks for reading this article; you can also get individual chapter-wise sections or region-wise report versions like North America, LATAM, Europe, or Southeast Asia.

Contact Us :Craig Francis (PR & Marketing Manager)HTF Market Intelligence Consulting Private LimitedPhone: +1 434 322 0091[emailprotected]

COMTEX_431367303/2808/2023-05-01T08:19:52

See more here:

Organic Rice Syrup Market Gaining Momentum with Positive ... - Digital Journal

Apple pie is a classic American dessert that has been enjoyed for generations. Its popularity can be attributed to several factors, including its comforting and nostalgic flavor, its versatility, and its cultural significance. Many people associate apple pie with their childhoods or with family gatherings, making it a dessert that is often associated with warm memories and feelings of nostalgia.

The versatility of apple pie also contributes to its popularity. While it is often enjoyed as a traditional dessert with a scoop of vanilla ice cream, it can also be served in many different ways. Some people enjoy apple pie with cheddar cheese, while others prefer it topped with caramel or whipped cream. Apple pie can also be served warm or cold, making it a dessert that can be enjoyed year-round.

Apple pie also has cultural significance in the United States. It is often associated with American culture and patriotism, and it has been featured in many popular songs and movies. For example, the phrase as American as apple pie is a common expression that is used to describe something that is quintessentially American.

Boulder, Colorado, is known for its vibrant food scene, and its dessert restaurants are no exception. There are several factors that contribute to the abundance of great dessert restaurants in Boulder. One of the main reasons is the citys thriving culinary scene, which attracts talented chefs and bakers from all over the world. Many of these chefs and bakers are passionate about creating innovative and delicious desserts, and they bring their expertise to Boulders dessert scene.

Another factor that contributes to the popularity of dessert restaurants in Boulder is the citys emphasis on healthy and organic food. Many of the dessert restaurants in Boulder use organic and locally-sourced ingredients to create their desserts, which appeals to health-conscious consumers who want to indulge in sweet treats without sacrificing their commitment to healthy eating.

Boulders proximity to the mountains and outdoor recreational opportunities also plays a role in the popularity of dessert restaurants. After a day of hiking or skiing, many people crave a sweet treat to reward themselves for their physical exertion. Boulders dessert restaurants offer a wide range of options, from classic American desserts like apple pie to more exotic treats like macarons and sorbets.

In conclusion, the popularity of apple pie can be attributed to its comforting and nostalgic flavor, its versatility, and its cultural significance. The abundance of great dessert restaurants in Boulder, Colorado, can be attributed to the citys thriving culinary scene, its emphasis on healthy and organic food, and its proximity to outdoor recreational opportunities. Whether you are a fan of classic American desserts or more adventurous sweet treats, Boulders dessert restaurants offer something for everyone.

The most recent reviews on Yelp indicate that Boulder Baked has achieved the highest possible ranking in the category of Apple Pie in Boulder, Colorado. According to Boulder Baked, the secret to the best Apple pie in Colorado is that they have one of the best bakers in the country. Nikki is her name. Nikki is the mastermind behind this Apple Pie.

Visit link:

This Boulder Bakery Serves the Best Apple Pie in Colorado | About ... - About Boulder

Abhi Ramesh stood in a Pennsylvania apple orchard, astounded by the sight before him. There were more apples lying on the ground than hanging from the trees, all destined to be thrown away. The farmer explained that these perfectly edible fruits would be stored for a month or two, and if they couldn't be sold by then, they'd be discarded. This unsettling discovery sparked a revolutionary idea in Abhi's mind: what if there was a way to save these "ugly" fruits and vegetables from going to waste?

The seed of Misfits Market, a company that would later be valued at a staggering $2 billion, had been planted.

Abhi set to work, contacting organic farms in the region and building relationships with the farmers. He convinced them to sell him their less-than-perfect produce at dirt cheap prices, and soon, his studio apartment was filled with odd-looking peaches, apples, tomatoes, and onions.

Risking everything, Abhi built a pre-order page on Shopify, spent $150 on a logo, and invested $1,000 in ads. He even went so far as to apply for five credit cards, racking up $150,000 in debt to fund his vision.

As luck would have it, a close friend, Edward Lando, stepped in as an angel investor, providing Abhi with the much-needed cash to pay off his debt and invest in inventory. Misfits Market started small, shipping just five boxes of produce a week, but it wasn't long before that number grew to 200 boxes a week.

Abhi's background in building businesses, both successful and unsuccessful, had prepared him for this moment. His entrepreneurial journey had started in college, reselling textbooks online, and continued with an SAT tutoring service and a coding boot camp called Horizons School of Tech. But despite these ventures, Abhi longed for something more impactful. After working as an Investment Analyst at Apollo, a private equity firm, he decided to take the leap and fully commit to Misfits Market.

The gamble paid off. Misfits Market, which began in a tiny 700 sq. ft. storage space, soon expanded to a 10,000 sq. ft. facility within just one year. Today, the company boasts over 1,000 employees and has raised more than $300 million in funding.

Misfits Market's mission is simple: make high-quality food more accessible and break the cycle of food waste. By selling ugly organic produce at 40% cheaper prices than traditional grocery stores and delivering directly to customers' doorsteps, the company is fulfilling its purpose.

Abhi Ramesh's inspiring journey with Misfits Market offers valuable lessons for entrepreneurs:

Abhi's story proves that with determination, risk-taking, and a bit of luck, even the most unconventional ideas can be turned into thriving businesses. Misfits Market serves as a powerful reminder that sometimes, the greatest opportunities lie in the most unexpected places.

See original here:

Turning Ugly Fruits into a $2 Billion Business: The Misfits Market Story - YourStory

Vermont Business Magazine 2023s US Good Food Awards results have just been announced and Blake Hill Preserves is honored with THREE WINNERS - two in the Elixirs category for theirWild Mint Botanical ShrubandSpicy Jalapeo Botanical Shrub,and Blake HillsFresh Tomato Savory Jamis a Winner in the Preserves category.

Blake HillsBotanical Shrub Collection continues to be their most successful new product launch yet, with six US Good Food Awards since its introduction just two harvest seasons ago. This unique Collection captures the essence of everything that is Blake Hill. At its very heart are wild herbs foraged from the meadows at Blake Hill, and fresh organic produce from local farms to provide a special taste of terroir.

OurWild Mint Shrubfeatures springtime wild mint tips from Blake Hill, and ourSpicy Jalepeo Shrubfeatures organic chili peppers from Honey Field Farm. We infuse our botanicals in pure apple cider vinegar within just a few hours of harvest - first a hot infusion, and then a long cold infusion - to capture their fresh, fragrant essence for enjoyment year round says Vicky Allard, Co-Owner and Executive Chef at Blake Hill.

What started as micro Botanical Shrub batches in Blake Hill's Private Kitchen Batch series that had customers traveling from afar to secure a rare bottle is now a formal collection of five botanically infused Shrubs for customers to make incredible cocktails, salad dressings, desserts and more. Our Shrub Collection also includesBasil Blueberrywhich has already garnered two US Good Food Awards of its own, our springtimeRhubarb & Honey Shrub, and a personal favorite ofGinger Turmericwhich makes an incredible Old Fashioned with a Ginger twist says Vicky.

Blake Hills Savory & Spicy Jams Collection has also won many US Good Food Awards since its launch a few years ago. Their latest Winner -Fresh Tomato Savory Jam -features seasonal organic tomatoes from Honey Field Farm, Cherry Tomatoes from the garden beds at Blake Hill, and a hint of Co-Owner Joe Hanglins Mediterranean heritage with a custom infused herb blend. This perfectly balanced sweet-savory jam is a classic pairing for a wide variety of cheese - especially aged cheddar and manchego. It is also a favorite jam to cook with, especially on a pizza base - keeping the crust crisp and providing maximum flavor with a perfect caramelization around the edge when baked. It is also phenomenal with any breakfast egg dishes and stir fries.

Blake HillsFresh Tomato Savory Jamjoins their Good Food Awards WinningRoasted Garlic Savory JamandJalepeo and Lime Spicy Chili Jam,and other special savory and spicy jam creations, at the heart of Blake Hills uniqueCooking with Jamseries comprising over 200 recipes for customers, guiding them through how to make simple dishes special with a jar of Blake Hills award-winning, artisan Jam.

About Blake Hill Preserves:An English fruit preservatory in Vermont creating innovative sweet, savory andspicy jams, marmalades, condiments, pie fillings and cocktail shrubs for the modern pantry. They combine three generations ofpreserve-making skills with innovative yet super elegant flavors and the finest ingredients for health-consciouscustomers. Blake Hill has garnered multiple wins at the US Good Food Awards, the Specialty Food Association's SOFIsand the World Marmalade Awards, and are available nationwide at specialty food stores, and served on the plate andcheese board at restaurants and other fine establishments.Blakehillpreserves.com

About the Good Food Awards:The Good Food Foundation exists to celebrate, connect, empower and leverage the passionate and engaged, yet often overlooked, players in the food system who are driving towards tasty, authentic and responsible food in order to humanize and reform our American food culture. With over 2,000 entries each year, the competition is fierce for a Good Food Award. In each category, three food crafters from each region North, South, East, West and Central receive the honor each year. Look for the blue Good Food Awards seal on the shelves of exceptional grocers like the Good Food Merchants Collaborative who take care to stock them. Explore their standards and discover the winners.goodfoodfdn.org/

Source: 5.1.2023. Windsor.Blake Hill Preserves

See the original post:

Blake Hill wins another three Good Food Awards - Vermont Biz

San Francisco, CA Mayor London N. Breed and City Administrator Carmen Chu today announced up to $3 million in grants to fund community-driven beautification and greening projects through the Community Challenge Grant Program (CCG). Funding for this years grants was included in the Mayors Budget from fiscal year 2022-2023.

Founded in 1991, the Citys CCG Program partners with San Francisco nonprofits, community benefit districts, schools, neighborhood groups, and businesses to provide funding and technical assistance for community-led neighborhood improvement projects. The program has brought approximately $30 million of project funds to neighborhoods across the City.

"Theres a long list of reasons to love San Francisco and our beautiful outdoor public spaces and parks have an unrivaled spot at the top of that list,said Mayor London Breed. Community-based organizations are vital to the work we are doing to create public spaces that are accessible for all to enjoy. I want to thank the grantees for their commitment to keep San Franciscos many outdoor areas welcoming and thriving, and I look forward to seeing their work.

For over 30 years, the Community Challenge Grant Program has empowered and supported neighborhoods to design and create spaces they want to see in their communities,said City Administrator Carmen Chu, who oversees the Community Challenge Grant Program. This years grantees continue that tradition of building inviting and creative neighborhood-driven community spaces that enrich the experience of residents, visitors, and businesses who live in, work in, and visit San Francisco. I am grateful to each of the grantees for their vision and commitment to strengthening our communities.

This years 26 grantees will make physical improvements to public spaces, create welcoming places for residents to build community, and engage residents and businesses in beautifying neighborhoods. The funded projects include:

"CCG is proud to award over $2.5 million to 23 neighborhood improvement projects,said Lanita Henriquez, Director of the Community Challenge Grant Program. These awards empower community groups and residents to work collaboratively to make positive changes to their neighborhoods. This years innovative projects help build strong, connected neighborhoods and create a cleaner, greener, and more vibrant San Francisco.

In addition to the 23 CCG-funded projects, this years projects also include three grants totaling $450,000 dedicated to supporting community-led green infrastructure projects through the Urban Watershed Stewardship Grant Program, a partnership between CCG and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. These grants will fund rainwater harvesting and rain garden projects in College Hill and Bernal Heights to help manage stormwater and educate residents about the Citys watersheds.

"We are thrilled to partner with the Community Challenge Grant Program again this year to support more neighborhood-driven green infrastructure projects across the City,said SFPUC General Manager Dennis Herrera. The awardees from this years grant cycle will better manage local stormwater runoff, beautify our communities, and educate residents about our Citys water and wastewater systems. Through these grants we are building a more sustainable and resilient San Francisco, one project at a time.

The Union Square Alliance is a proud recipient of the Community Challenge Grant 2023! This important grant empowers the Alliance to create more inclusive spaces, promote creativity, and ensure that the heart of San Francisco is alive and thriving again,says Marisa Rodriguez, CEO of the Union Square Alliance.We share the Community Challenge Grant Programs vision of fostering innovation and engagement in our neighborhoods and look forward to making a lasting impact on our community.

CCG also provides grantees technical assistance and coaching to support project implementation and community engagement. Throughout their projects, grantees help foster neighborhood participation and stewardship by engaging community members, including youth and young adults.

"The Friends of Alemany Farm is very grateful to receive this CCG grant for the coming year,said Abby Bell, Farm Director. CCG funding has been critical for us over the years and has allowed us to grow and distribute over 20,000 lbs. of food in 2022 and to develop and maintain paid urban agroecology apprentice programming. This grant will enable further growth in workforce development in southeast San Francisco and continue our free production and distribution of fresh organic food, school garden support, youth outdoor experiences, and stewardship of a unique community greenspace.

The C.A.R.E. leadership is ecstatic to be awarded this amazing grant from CCG,said Uzuri Pease-Greene, Executive Director of C.A.R.E., a non-profit created and staffed by neighbors in the Potrero Hill community. The expansion of our garden project is a huge opportunity for healing and transformation for the residents of Potrero Hill. These much-needed resources will create transitional work as well as facilitate environmental and sustainability education.

A complete list of funded projects can be found onCCGs website. Funding for CCG comes from businesses designating a percentage of their gross receipts tax or other business taxes to the program. Learn more about CCGhere.

###

Read more from the original source:

Mayor London Breed and City Administrator Carmen Chu announce ... - City and County of San Francisco

Reducing plastics in the organic supply chain is the focus of a May 9-10 event in Washington, D.C.

The conference, Organic Confluences: Reducing Plastics Along the Entire Organic Supply Chain, will convene scientists, industry experts and organic stakeholders from across the supply chain to strategize on how to break the plastic cycle and reduce plastic use from the farm to the table, according to a news release. The agenda for the event is available here.

The Organic Centers conference will address the challenges of plastic from the perspective of waste, climate change, and environmental and human health, according to the release.

Farmers will be able to share their needs, priorities and experiences with plastic and alternatives; researchers and plastic-alternative innovators can offer potential solutions; and policy experts can guide the discussion in the context of current National Organic Program (NOP) requirements and future NOP direction, the release said.

The Organic Confluences sessions are part of OTAs 2023 Organic Week in Washington, D.C.

The organic sectors use of plastics is a key concern for everyone involved in the organic food system from the organic farmer to the organic retailer, Dr. Amber Sciligo, director of science programs for The Organic Center, said in the release. The use of synthetics such as plastics is at odds with traditional organic values, but plastic is used for critical tools that serve important functions. For instance, farmers can replace herbicide and pesticide sprays, and reduce water consumption with tools like plastic mulch and drip tape. Available alternatives to plastic that also meet the National Organic Program's standards just arent there yet."

Sciligo continued: "Our conference is gathering individuals from every aspect of organic because finding a solution to this critical issue requires input and collaboration across the sector. This isnt just organics problem to solve, but we can be leaders on the path to change. Our overall objective is to expand communication and collaboration across the diverse organic sector with policymakers and researchers at the table so that the industry can reimagine plastic use in organic production.

Read more:

The Organic Center and Organic Trade Association join to address ... - The Packer

A leaked internal document from the German anti-biotech NGO community recently found its way to the Risk-Mongers dusty basement. As it shows these militant activist groups recognising how factual evidence has undermined their 30-year long fear campaign and how low their views are on the intellectual capacity of those citizens they have been frightening over this time, I thought it worthy of publication (with an English translation). The source who shared this document with me is aware of this decision.

The facts and science do not support the NGO campaigns against new genomic plant breeding techniques. This is widely accepted today and as the German anti-GMO campaigners had recognised they were losing the genetic engineering debate and could not compete with the clear scientific realities of gene editing, they produced a strategy paper setting the scene to reframe the activist narrative. Rather than accepting the factual realities and ending their destructive and utterly useless three-decade long campaigns against the development of better, more sustainable agriculture, the document offers a strategy realignment with pathways for how the anti-biotech NGOs will try to regain the upper hand.

The Risk-Monger decided to publish the original German documentand anEnglish translationas it offers a glimpse into the thinking of some of the most extreme ecological cult warriors. They do not run campaigns to make the world better. They do not run campaigns based on the best available facts and scientific research. They run campaigns to win and as they admitted they have not been winning, it is interesting to see their end-game strategy on how they are prepared to fight on. It shows how they plan to use arguments they dont believe, how they think their audience is not very smart and how they will believe anything these activists tell them.

The Risk-Monger received this document on the day that German NGOs in Berlin and Munich were publicly celebrating the closure of Germanys last three nuclear reactors. A decision that has led to up to a third of German citizens suffering from energy poverty and a massive increase in the generation of coal-fired electricity with coal power plant operating permits extended into the foreseeable future (with the entailing ecological and public health consequences). But the activists won, and winning is all that matters to these green cosmopolitan elites.

German green campaigners are the most extreme, most militant and, frankly, most stupid of all European environmental NGOs (and that is saying a lot when we see what has been happening with the attacks on farmers irrigation ponds in Sainte-Soline, France). With cultural and historical roots going back to Steiner and Hitler, German Greens have proven to be extremely intolerant, uncompromising and undemocratic. For too long they have been politically tolerated and their unhinged ideology romanticised. Years back I had comparedGerman Greens to a fascist cultand things have only worsened since then.

The Internal Strategy Document was reportedly distributed in January, 2023 following a meeting that involved different German anti-genetic engineering NGOs including the bee-campaigning group,Aurelia Stiftung, and the organic food retail chain,Bioland. Many of the phrases and arguments reflect articles on the Aurelia Stiftung website. It seems there is a page missing from the original document that was printed and then scanned. Quotes from the internal document are from the English translation, indented and in italics, with my discussions in the regular text.

The internal NGO document begins with an admission of defeat. The pro-science argument and the positioning of plant gene editing as a climate solution have destroyed the ability of the anti-GMO campaigners to make an impact. They admitted they cannot continue along the present campaign strategy.

Individual organisations and actions against genetic engineering cannot develop the authority and clout that would be necessary to break the unfortunately very successful narratives of the Pro-GMO proponents. Catchy arguments and narratives like:

These arguments cannot be stopped by individual NGO actions against genetic engineering in the relatively short time available (even if they take place in parallel). We have been trying this for years without much success and to the contrary, we are increasingly put on the defensive.

If the science and the facts are against you and no one is listening or supporting your argument, then it is highly likely that your position was just plain wrong. But the anti-biotech NGOs are a dogmatic cult, so facts and reality are not the most important elements affecting their belief system. They seem to understand that the gene editing science is sound, that there are enormous benefits and that the policymakers are moving toward approving it, but these activists dont understand why they should accept it. As zealots, they are driven to win at all costs, so packing it up, admitting defeat and doing something useful with their time is not even considered as an option.

The view of these anti-biotech cult warriors could be compared to those stubborn Christian Creationists battling evolutionary science. They see the facts, they understand the benefits from the science, but they are unwilling to accept that the Bible could be wrong. Creationists have fought hard for centuries to find nuggets of miniscule doubt in evolutionary theory and have been extremely creative in finding science-like justifications by stretching scriptural interpretations. Like flat earthers before them, these fundamentalists just dont know how to stop.

In the case of German ecological cults, you can replace the existence of a Biblical source with the demand that all agricultural solutions come from nature. This Church of Nature has different sects, from biodynamics to agroecology, but they are largely advocating taking humanity back to a more medieval world (of impoverished, agrarian production).

The anti-biotech activists recognise their present position is not working hence this internal strategy document seeks out a new path for their political actions.

For a real campaign strategy breakthrough, we need a new narrative that cannot be dragged onto the slippery slope of scientific (risk) arguments and one that even cautiously pro-GM actors can agree with. With primarily scientific arguments, we can only lose as we have nothing adequate to counter the follow the science framing because the people we actually want to reach disengage from debates about genetic engineering when it becomes too complicated for them. (Even though they reject genetic engineering on their own plates).

Are these activists recognising that their followers are not really too smart?Dont get too sciencey please it is too complicated for our followers.Back to the Creationist strategy, if we make jokes about people evolving from monkeys, those simpletons will continue to bow down and drop some coins in the collection basket. If the Eco-Cult Creationists shift the focus away from the science and pump up the fearometer, no one within this diminished congregation will notice (theyre not farmers or scientists and, if sufficiently scared, they will gladly continue to pay more at the organic shop for their daily bread).

The activists argue that they should not talk about facts, research or science they cant win there. They feel they need to create a new emotional, fact-free narrative against biotechnology. But this is not some new activist campaign strategy breakthrough (the German term: Befreiungsschlag literally means liberation attack or coup). Most environmental activist campaigns have evolved in the last few decades to become emotion-laden, anti-corporate, anti-science and anti-innovation at a time when societies have become more technology-dependent.

Time to benchmark from the best.

Our campaign strategy needs to be loud and scandalous in order to be heard, while at the same time precisely avoiding polarisation and establishing proximity to our target audience. Is that even possible? Yes! Because thats exactly what the climate movement has managed to do. We should learn from them. Fridays for Future are loud and scandalous, but avoid strong polarisation. Those in power have not been built up into bogeymen, but have an ongoing opportunity to step in, take action, prove themselves, and side with the good guys. Above all, the climate movement appeals to emotions and values, creating closeness and humanity. This resonates! Scientific terminology (unfortunately) generates yawns, and potential genetic engineering risks seem even more abstract than climate change.

So the good guys want to be scandalous. Only zealots get up in the morning thinking what they are going to do during the day is a battle of good vs evil. When you believe you are the good guys and those you are fighting are evil, how will you be able to compromise in order to ensure policymakers can reach a reasonable consensus? That is a trick question. These dogmatic zealots never compromise and never give up. Yet somehow, they continue to getGerman government fundingto influence the public debate.

But should these groups compare themselves to the Fridays for Future movement? Does that mean anti-GMO groups will start trying to enlist children to weep in the streets? Im not sure that trick can be pulled off twice and now an image stuck in my head of Claire Robinson hanging around outside of middle schools looking for opportunities is creeping me out.

Rather than Fridays for Future, I think these strategists, with their ambition to become hugably scandalous, were thinking more about becoming the next Extinction Rebellion. This now basically defunct flash in the pan was indeed scandalous but I doubt you could say they were avoiding polarisation. They craved it and tried to glorify the us vs them battle to save the planet.

This new anti-biotechnology campaign strategy would entail stepping up their civil disobedience. Sorry, but anti-GMO campaigners have gained a lot of attention by breaking in and destroying test-fields (often in fields without GMO seeds). How would they possibly be able to become more scandalous while keeping a good relationship with those in power?

The internal report then shifted to how to be more effective as a collective of NGOs via third-party online websites.

This neutral web platform does not have to be very extensive. On the contrary, it must focus on our lowest common denominator. It should also actively attack and counteract the other sides narrative about the opponents of genetic engineering.We are not against genetic engineering- we are for freedom of choice.(I myself, for example, have had myself vaccinated with genetic engineering).Being for or against genetic engineering is the framing of the pro-genetic engineering proponents. We must not adopt it.

Did they really have to put the word neutral in quotation marks? This indicates that they are only pretending to set up a neutral website to try to deceive people and that, in reality, they do not, for a moment, believe this common ground position they are communicating. Where is their integrity? Where is their commitment to delivering trustworthy information for their followers? It shows pure contempt toward the intellect of those they are trying to enlist:Lets just sell them that lowest common denominator bla-bla-bullshit!

The paper identified different web techniques they need to exploit to pretend their organisations and movements are actually bigger than three people in a room with a laptop. Many of these tricks are already being used by the Aurelia Stiftung like theirthird-partySave the Bees call to action.

But the biggest alteration in the NGOs strategy is their focus to show how their struggle to stop biotechnology is actually a fight for your freedom.

We demand no more and no less than that the citizens right to self-determination be respected. And they do not want genetic engineering. Especially not untested. Period.We therefore say: If genetic engineering is to be used, then it must be risk-tested. Just like vaccines. Untested genetic engineering must not be smuggled secretly onto fields and plates.

So it is not about facts or benefits. It is not about risks to the environment or public health. The new Anti-Biotech 2.0 is about you, the people and your right to be free!!! Hmm.

This is a bit confusing and indicative that these groups have still not quite figured out their strategy. We are not against genetic engineering (some of my best friends are genetic engineers!!!) but our followers dont want it. But havent the activists been grooming these people to do what they tell them to?

Until now, all GMOs requesting EU authorisation have been risk-tested and have passed the most stringent EFSA regulatory risk assessment requirements, but still these activist NGOs have fought tooth and nail to refuse authorisation. So it is not about untested genetic engineering. The main issue these groups have is that some gene-edited food may be untestable because there is no difference between a native plant and a plant with a few genes edited out to reduce blight or pest vulnerabilities (without the need for pesticides). This mystical fear is similar to Creationists arguing about the role of angels just because you cant see them does not mean theyre not there.

Like the Creationist argument that there has to be a first cause, these activists can now accept that the science on gene editing is sound, there are benefits, but they still dont feel they need to believe it or accept the technology. We are free to reject gene editing and if you try to continue your research and development, then you are violating my right to self-determination! So in order to not violate the rights of these activists, they argue, we must ban the use of all gene editing technologies. I suppose freedom for farmers to have better seeds and more sustainable yields or the freedom for consumers to have affordable food security dont factor into this newfound Activist Freedom Struggle.

I have frequently seen this We dont want this technology, so ban it now! line and oftenwonderedwho this We was (besides three people in a room with a laptop). 400,000 signatures on a biotech-free bee petition is not a democratic quorum. And how are The People asked? If I went out into the street with my clipboard and asked these lowest common denominators if they would like to eatunregulated poisons secretly pushed on us by evil corporations, then Id get the answers I want. If I had time to explain to people the gene editing process, the benefits and the safety then I would likely get a more informed result.

But the activists are not interested in learning what the people really want; they have nothing but contempt for anyone who disagrees with them. In any case, most people are struggling to pay the rent and keep the lights on and really have bigger fears to deal with than those pushed on them by some self-appointed privileged elites. But maybe theyll pay attention if their freedom is being taken from them.

The main task of these anti-biotech NGOs now is to reframe the narrative with freedom at the centre.

Narrative, not only slogans: develop complete text with decision-makers/victims/villains/heroines (in a small working group). Always let it resonate subliminally: New Genomic Techniques are also genetic engineering! Compile hero narratives from this (also with victims: empowerment!)

What a novel idea! I can just imagine a group of hard-core anti-GMO activists sitting around the table, enjoying their organic, non-dairy lattes when one of them speaks up: You know what maybe we should just go out and find some victims. I am sure no NGO activist has ever had that idea before. There must be some CRISPR victims out there. And do tell me: Who should the villains be?Scientists? Farmers? Industry?The juvenile stupidity of these eco-warriors and their contempt for the intellect of their public is unbelievable.

The funniest part of this ridiculous paragraph though is their claim to Always let it resonate subliminally: New Genomic Techniques are also genetic engineering! Subliminally??? Ya think!!! GMO 2.0 was the only message the anti-science activists communicated on gene editing technologies and they blasted in continually until they scared the bejeebers out of the European Commission civil servants, leaving them immobilised for nine years until the European Court of Justice was forced to make an uninformed decision. Highly charged, emotional eco-warriors are incapable of being subliminal.

The internal strategy document then went through a long list of ways to reframe the narrative that most NGOs are already doing (promoting the ecologisation of agriculture as the only way to mitigate climate threats, show how industry must be excluded from agricultural developments, link all seed breeding to intensive industrial agriculture and, of course, strengthen the precautionary principle). The main focus, they insist, should be on consumer freedom, freedom from poisons and industry and freedom to know what is on their plates.

Who should be deciding on these rights to self-determination? The good guys or those dictating corporations?

Whether we will be able to decide for ourselves in the future what we eat and how we breed, cultivate or keep and eat plants and animals, or whether corporations like BAYER-Monsanto dictate what goes in our fields and on our plates, will be decided by the people on the ground: through their daily work in ecologically or conventionally GMO-free farms, through the purchase of appropriate products and through civil society commitment.

But this freedom already exists. Consumers are free to choose non-GMO. Farmers are free to grow organic. The organic label (now euphemistically renamed ecologically grown) leaves consumers free to make that choice. When I buy canned corn in France, some labels say GMO-free (even though I am aware that all canned corn in France is GMO-free). Marketers have always had this option and they have been deceptively taking advantage of these activist-driven fears. Where is the loss of freedom?

What these activists want though, is to stop farmers from using better technologies. They dont want to ensure that their consumers have a free choice; they want to remove the free choice from others who trust scientists and food regulators. They want to remove any options for farmers to grow food more sustainably.

This is a good example of where green activists are rather fascist.Not in my backyardis only possible if they can change the regulations to make sure it isNot in anyones backyard. If I am afraid of food derived from enhanced seed breeding, who am I to then force everyone else to comply with my demands? If I am afraid of a minimal risk from a low pesticide residue on food, what right do I have to make it impossible for farmers to protect their crops and for everyone else to have to pay so much more for their fresh fruit and vegetables? If I am afraid of ten-metre-high waves hitting a nuclear power facility outside of Munich, who gave me the power to ignore reality and force those struggling on low incomes to suffer in cold homes with no lights? And now, when they admit the facts fail them, these dogmatic fundamentalists want to tell me they are fighting for my freedom.

And our lame, leaderless governments took the cowardly route, ignored standing up to defend the best available science and sided with the good guys while declaring precaution. They decided to call this utter nonsense: Farm2Fork.

A decade ago, when the emerging plant breeding technologies showed some promising benefits for farming and global food security, the organic food lobby was having a serious debate on whether these seed innovations could fall under the organic classification (as there was no synthetic or transgenic interventions). Those in the militant faction like Testbiotech and Corporate Europe Observatory prevailed, and the non-scientific GMO 2.0 strategy became the official organic food industry lobby position. This was a brutally stupid decision that badly handcuffed organic farmers and has now marginalised the anti-biotech campaigners.

These activists know the science is against their position (theyve admitted it here). These activists know their campaigns are damaging farmers means to make a living. These activists know they are threatening food security in developing countries where local research institutes have been using gene editing to eradicate some important threats. So why didnt they just admit defeat, pack it in and look at doing something positive for humanity? Who keeps pushing them to flog this dead horse?

Follow the money.

The only people who would think continuing this campaign is reasonable would be those profiting from such imposed decisions, ie, the organic food industry lobby. Maybe that is why organic food retail chain, Bioland, was present at this strategy meeting (someone had to pick up the bill). As long as people are afraid of food technologies, organic food retail will continue to increase their markets. As long as these low-cost genomic technologies are identified with big corporations, people will lash out and demand more ecological food. As long as groups like Bioland keep writing the cheques, these worn-out, defeated cult eco-warriors will continue to get up in the morning and try to confuse the public with emotions to challenge the obvious facts. I suppose thats what the good guys do.

Maybe its time these Luddites just admit they were wrong, the science does not support their zealot dogma and that it is time for them to just shut up and sit down. Maybe its time for policymakers to start treating the anti-biotech crowd in the same way they treat religious Creationists be polite but dont give them a microphone. They offer no value to the future of agriculture. Maybe its time that time is called on this incredibly stupid debate so we can move forward to develop the best tools to support our farmers, consumers and the environment.

David Zaruk is a Belgian-based environmental-health risk policy analyst specializing in the role of science in policy and societal issues. He blogs under the pseudonym:The Risk-Monger. Follow him on Twitter at@zaruk

A version of this article was originally posted at The Risk-Monger and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article.

See the article here:

Viewpoint: Perverting the science of crop biotechnology Leaked ... - Genetic Literacy Project