<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:isc="http://dtd.3dcart.com/ecommerce-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>Econscious: Blog Posts</title>
<link>http://www.econscious.net</link>
<pubDate>2012-05-17</pubDate>
<description>List of Latest Blog Posts at Econscious</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<isc:store_name><![CDATA[Econscious]]></isc:store_name>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[In defense of organic]]></title>
<link>http://www.econscious.net/In-defense-of-organic_b_7.html</link>
<pubDate>2011-07-26</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ As Grist readers know, mythbusting Scientific American blogger Christie Wilcox took on organic agriculture recently in Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming &gt; Conventional Agriculture. Now, I do agree that there should be no sacred cows -- we should examine everything with a critical, if not jaundiced, eye. And indeed Wilcox brings up issues surrounding organic ag about which many people may not be aware. But sadly, her analysis goes quickly and seriously off the rails.First the good points: Organic ag does use pesticides, sometimes in large quantities. This is not a new revelation: There are a set of pesticides approved for organic use, including copper and sulfur anti-fumigants and the naturally occurring Bt toxin. Copper and sulfur in particular are often overused, especially among fruit growers. While these chemicals can be used by any scale of farmer, it's a particular problem among so-called industrial organic farmers. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.econscious.net/In-defense-of-organic_b_7.html</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[As Grist readers know, mythbusting Scientific American blogger Christie Wilcox took on organic agriculture recently in Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming &gt; Conventional Agriculture. Now, I do agree that there should be no sacred cows -- we should examine everything with a critical, if not jaundiced, eye. And indeed Wilcox brings up issues surrounding organic ag about which many people may not be aware. But sadly, her analysis goes quickly and seriously off the rails.First the good points: Organic ag does use pesticides, sometimes in large quantities. This is not a new revelation: There are a set of pesticides approved for organic use, including copper and sulfur anti-fumigants and the naturally occurring Bt toxin. Copper and sulfur in particular are often overused, especially among fruit growers. While these chemicals can be used by any scale of farmer, it's a particular problem among so-called industrial organic farmers.]]></content:encoded>
<isc:description><![CDATA[As Grist readers know, mythbusting Scientific American blogger Christie Wilcox took on organic agriculture recently in Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming &gt; Conventional Agriculture. Now, I do agree that there should be no sacred cows -- we should examine everything with a critical, if not jaundiced, eye. And indeed Wilcox brings up issues surrounding organic ag about which many people may not be aware. But sadly, her analysis goes quickly and seriously off the rails.First the good points: Organic ag does use pesticides, sometimes in large quantities. This is not a new revelation: There are a set of pesticides approved for organic use, including copper and sulfur anti-fumigants and the naturally occurring Bt toxin. Copper and sulfur in particular are often overused, especially among fruit growers. While these chemicals can be used by any scale of farmer, it's a particular problem among so-called industrial organic farmers.As the organic industry has taken off, many large-scale farmers have in essence adapted the industrial agriculture mindset -- with its monocropping, its focus on inputs and outputs and maximizing productivity -- if not all its techniques. Tom Philpott has written about the problematic nature of this phenomenon; for a deep dive on the subject, I recommend Sam Fromartz's excellent Organic, Inc.Wilcox should also be commended for her point that the main criteria for allowed organic pesticides are simply that they be naturally occurring rather than synthetic. As she says, just because something is natural doesn't make it non-toxic or safe. Too true.So far so good. Next up, she knocks down health claims about organic food; this is where the problems start. While this issue is actually very much in flux, Wilcox doesn't treat it as such. Instead, she cites a 2010 review paper that concludes any consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money. Wow -- pretty clear cut, right?But science isn't nearly at a place where anyone can definitively make that claim. Some evidence shows conventionally grown food is decreasing in nutritional quality, and we've collected credible data showing organic food is more nutritious. Wilcox might have mentioned a recent study from Washington State University that examined conventional vs. organic strawberries. As Grist reported, organic methods resulted in strawberries with increased antioxidants, vitamin C, and total phenolics ... The study emphasized the importance of vitamin C and antioxidants in relation to human health. There was also a recent study in the Journal of Dairy Science that showed clear evidence that organic milk was more nutritious than conventionally produced milk.It's simply going too far to suggest the science on the matter is settled, and thus unfair to call the health evidence mythical.But Wilcox's worst offense came with an attempt to bust the myth that Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment. Her bizarre claim defies even a cursory understanding of how agriculture (conventional or organic) works, but rather than attempt to defend it, Wilcox immediately declares that the solution to all our problems lies with GMOs:GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use ...And with that, Wilcox moves from science to science fiction. Grist has documented the hype and the risks of GMOs before, and it pains me to have to do it again. But here goes.None of the fabulous features she claims for GMOs exist commercially -- and most don't even exist in the lab. In fact, strong evidence demonstrates that, despite Wilcox's claims, even GMOs' basic productivity lags behind non-GMO crops. She does not observe (or perhaps know) that conventional, advanced breeding techniques can achieve similar or better increases in yield and even nutritional quality than GMOs. Moreover, she doesn't even acknowledge the debate surrounding one of her key examples of GMOs' promise: golden rice -- rice genetically modified to contain Vitamin A. This BBC report from 2003 does just that, suggesting that its benefits are a mirage. It quotes Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, who says, Seeking a technological food fix for world hunger may be ... the most commercially malevolent wild goose chase of the new century.And her embrace of therapeutic food is chilling. In her vision, genetic modification is all benefit and no risk. And if recent history has taught us anything, it's that there is no such thing as the elimination of risk. It's crucial we fully understand the implications of futzing with animal and plant genes before we introduce them into the environment, much less feed them to people. And we simply don't know as much as industry and government want us to think we know.In fact, the reason that the science behind GMOs is shockingly thin is that it's almost entirely performed by the biotechnology industry or by industry-funded scientists. Independent scientists are either not allowed access to the patented technology behind GMOs or are restricted in what they can study, e.g. they can't get access to the seeds unless they promise not to look at the human health effects of these seeds.And even the things that GMOs can do -- like produce pesticides or resist herbicides -- are beginning to fail. This report from India shows that the country's cotton crop is being devastated by insects -- even genetically engineered Bt cotton, which produces its own pesticide. (So much for the magic of a GMO seed that needs no additional chemicals.) Even scarier: The pesticide produced by these kind of crops is turning up in the blood of women, despite biotech industry promises that such a thing simply could not happen.While we're at it, check out the latest issue of Weed Science, which researches the rise of superweeds -- a phenomenon resulting in large part from the broad planting of GMO crops resistant to Monsanto's herbicide glyphosate. Their success in the marketplace has led to a massive increase in the application of glyphosate and, as evolution dictates, the weeds that survived the chemical have taken over farm fields across America. If this is the future of agriculture, we're all in deep doo-doo.Don't get me started on her feeding the world argument, given that conventional ag, which has already almost entirely made the transition to GMOs (especially where grains are concerned) has utterly failed to do so. In fact, that BBC report on golden rice contained this brutal quote from Steve Smith, a Syngenta biotechnology scientist who died in 2003. If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world, tell them that it is not ... To feed the world takes political and financial will -- it's not about production and distribution.I am not one to argue that the future lies solely with organic ag as we practice it here, and in that way I agree with Wilcox's point that it's not all or nothing. That said, the true experts in the field would argue that the future lies in agro-ecological techniques, not in high-tech, patented technology with unknown risks. (The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's new Save and Grow program forcefully advocates this.) Agro-ecology does allow some use of pesticides but fundamentally relies on natural, ecological systems that enhance productivity and combat pests. Evidence is strong that these practices represent our best way forward.Perhaps that's the ultimate agricultural myth to be busted: that the true future of food production lies along any other path.             Tom covers food and agricultural policy for Grist. Follow him on Twitter. ]]></isc:description>
<isc:productid><![CDATA[7]]></isc:productid>
<isc:author><![CDATA[Tom Laskawy]]></isc:author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Organic farming just as productive as conventional, and better at building soil, Rodale finds]]></title>
<link>http://www.econscious.net/Organic-farming-just-as-productive-as-conventional-and-better-at-building-soil-Rodale-finds_b_6.html</link>
<pubDate>2011-07-21</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ Organic agriculture is a fine luxury for the rich, but it could never feed the world as global population moves to 9 billion.That's what a lot of powerful people -- including the editors of The Economist -- insist. But the truth could well be the opposite: It might be chemical-intensive agriculture that's the frivolous luxury, and organic that offers us the right technologies in a resource-constrained, ever-warmer near future. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.econscious.net/Organic-farming-just-as-productive-as-conventional-and-better-at-building-soil-Rodale-finds_b_6.html</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Organic agriculture is a fine luxury for the rich, but it could never feed the world as global population moves to 9 billion.That's what a lot of powerful people -- including the editors of The Economist -- insist. But the truth could well be the opposite: It might be chemical-intensive agriculture that's the frivolous luxury, and organic that offers us the right technologies in a resource-constrained, ever-warmer near future.]]></content:encoded>
<isc:description><![CDATA[     Organic agriculture is a fine luxury for the rich, but it could never feed the world as global population moves to 9 billion.That's what a lot of powerful people -- including the editors of The Economist -- insist. But the truth could well be the opposite: It might be chemical-intensive agriculture that's the frivolous luxury, and organic that offers us the right technologies in a resource-constrained, ever-warmer near future.That's the conclusion I draw from the latest data of the Pennsylvania-based Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial (FST), which Rodale calls America's longest running, side-by-side comparison of conventional and organic agriculture. Now, Rodale promotes organic ag, so industrial-minded critics will be tempted to dismiss its data. But that would be wrong -- its test plots have an excellent reputation in the ag research community, and the Institute often collaborates with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service.Housed on Rodale's 330 acre farm, the FST compares three systems for growing corn and soy, the first two organic and the third conventional: 1) one based on rotating feed crops with perennial forage crops for cows, and fertilizing with manure; 2) another based on rotating grains with cover crops, with fertility coming from nitrogen-fixing legumes; and 3) a system reliant on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.Rodale's researchers have been comparing crop yields and taking soil samples on these test plots for 27 years. Their latest findings? The three systems have produced equivalent corn yields over the years, while soybean yields were the same for the manure and conventional system and only slightly lower for the legume system.So the old canard about how organic ag produces dramatically less food than chemical ag has been debunked, yet again.Corn in the organic-legume (left) and conventional (right) system during the dry summer of 1995. Both were planted on the same day, with the same variety but only the conventional corn is showing signs of water stress. Organic corn yields that year were 29 percent higher than those of the conventional corn.Photo and caption: Rodale InstituteBut it gets more interesting. As the globe warms up, increased droughts are likely to reduce global crop yields. The ag-biotech industry is scrambling to come out with drought-resistant GMO crops. But organic ag might already have that covered: In 4 out of 5 years of moderate drought, the organic systems had significantly higher corn yields (31 percent higher) than the conventional system.Moreover, while conventional ag struggles with the superweed problem, brought on by Monsanto's herbicide-tolerant GMO crops, organic ag is showing it can coexist with weed pressure without sacrificing yield: Corn and soybean crops in the organic systems tolerated much higher levels of weed competition than their conventional counterparts, while producing equivalent yields. Meanwhile, herbicide use in the conventionally managed plot fouled groundwater:Herbicides were only detected in water samples collected from the conventional system. In years when the conventional rotation had corn following corn, during which atrazine was applied two years in a row, atrazine levels in the leachate sometimes exceeded 3 ppb, the maximum contaminant level set by EPA for drinking water. Atrazine concentrations in all conventional samples exceeded 0.1 ppb, a concentration that has been shown to produce deformities in frogs.In terms of building robust ag systems in an era of climate change, the results related to soil are probably the most interesting. It turns out, the organic outperformed conventional in both building organic matter and retaining soil nitrogen. In the past 15 years of the study, the organic systems have continued building soil carbon, while the conventional system actually lost carbon. (For more on the question of soil carbon and soil, see my piece from last year's special series on nitrogen.)The soil-carbon factor probably explains why organic outperforms conventional in drought years: carbon-rich soil tends to retain water better. And indeed, the results bear that out:Water volumes percolating through each system were 15-20% higher in the organic systems than the conventional system, indicating increased groundwater recharge and reduced runoff under organic management.Inevitably in the comments section below, someone will ask about the manure. How much land does it take to support sufficient cows to produce enough manure to replenish organic fields? But the Rodale results show that nitrogen-fixing legume crops can greatly reduce the contribution needed from livestock.And anyway, let me turn that question around. Where do industrial agriculturalists intend on getting the synthetic nitrogen for their system -- from what energy source? The main feedstock is natural gas; but the easy natural gas has been tapped in the United States. That leaves us reliant on geopolitically unstable foreign suppliers -- or on domestic shale gas, which relies on the water-fouling process of hydrofracturing. And where do they plan on getting phosphorous?In the end, organic ag looks like the robust and wise approach to responding to population growth and climate change, and chemical ag looks like the gambler's approach -- a luxury for the well-heeled folks who own shares in the agribiz industry.            Tom Philpott was Grist’s senior food writer until May 2011. He now writes for Mother Jones.Full Article ]]></isc:description>
<isc:productid><![CDATA[6]]></isc:productid>
<isc:author><![CDATA[Tom Philpott]]></isc:author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Pesticides Suck]]></title>
<link>http://www.econscious.net/Pesticides-Suck_b_5.html</link>
<pubDate>2011-05-12</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ Today I was following a bright yellow Smart Car on my way to work at the econscious office. When we came to a stop, I noticed a small sticker in the back window that simply said…”Pesticides Suck”. For some reason that really struck me as significant and my mind began to race. The simple eloquence of this shout-out brought me back to the crux of the issue with regard to organic agriculture and organic cotton…Pesticides Suck and we need to keep them from spilling into our eco-system and causing irrevocable harm. While there are other reasons why we choose to use organic cotton in our products, doing our part to reduce the amount of pesticide used in the world is the most important priority. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.econscious.net/Pesticides-Suck_b_5.html</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Today I was following a bright yellow Smart Car on my way to work at the econscious office. When we came to a stop, I noticed a small sticker in the back window that simply said…”Pesticides Suck”. For some reason that really struck me as significant and my mind began to race. The simple eloquence of this shout-out brought me back to the crux of the issue with regard to organic agriculture and organic cotton…Pesticides Suck and we need to keep them from spilling into our eco-system and causing irrevocable harm. While there are other reasons why we choose to use organic cotton in our products, doing our part to reduce the amount of pesticide used in the world is the most important priority.]]></content:encoded>
<isc:description><![CDATA[Today I was following a bright yellow Smart Car on my way to work at the econscious office. When we came to a stop, I noticed a small sticker in the back window that simply said…”Pesticides Suck”. For some reason that really struck me as significant and my mind began to race. The simple eloquence of this shout-out brought me back to the crux of the issue with regard to organic agriculture and organic cotton…Pesticides Suck and we need to keep them from spilling into our eco-system and causing irrevocable harm. While there are other reasons why we choose to use organic cotton in our products, doing our part to reduce the amount of pesticide used in the world is the most important priority.If you’d like to gain additional understanding of these issues check out the Pesticide Action Network website: http://www.panna.org/]]></isc:description>
<isc:productid><![CDATA[5]]></isc:productid>
<isc:author><![CDATA[Dale Denkensohn]]></isc:author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Welcome to Econscious' Blog]]></title>
<link>http://www.econscious.net/Welcome-to-Econscious-Blog_b_4.html</link>
<pubDate>2011-03-04</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ Welcome to the econscious blog - for information, news &amp; discussion relevant to all matters econscious.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.econscious.net/Welcome-to-Econscious-Blog_b_4.html</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Welcome to the econscious blog - for information, news &amp; discussion relevant to all matters econscious. ]]></content:encoded>
<isc:description><![CDATA[Welcome to the first econscious blog post! It’s about time, right? We’ve already been around for 5 years and a public dialog with our friends and customers is long overdue. While we’ve been busy building the econscious B2B brand, much has happened and continues to happen in the realm we call sustainability, sustainable textiles, sustainable fashion, eco textiles, eco fashion, etc. By creating this venue we are opening a dialog that’s intended to be informative, educational, inquisitive and perhaps even controversial from time to time. Econscious, as the name is meant to imply, is focused on producing the best quality products that have the least negative environmental impact possible while at the same time treating ethically the many workers involved in the process of bringing our products to market. This is a complex undertaking since the process of making apparel and accessories involves many stages of production, and many hands from the beginning to completion of a finished product. Oh, and let’s not forget the impacts of consumer care and post-consumer disposal once products have out lived their useful life; as herein lies a higher percentage of the total environmental impact than do the all the stages that come before it. What I’m trying to emphasize is that we are engaged in a highly complex process that even the best Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) have trouble accurately assessing. We endeavor to offer our customers the best alternatives within the confines of our business model, and, although our products and production methods are not perfect, judging from the number of you who repeatedly come back to us for econscious products I would venture to say we’re doing many things right. Within the purview of the designing, producing, selling and using econscious products, there are many topics that we should discuss. For example, organic cotton is the main fiber that we use to make our products because it’s the most comfortable and preferred fiber for our tee shirts, sweatshirts, hats and bags. But what about the following?: What’s the impact we’re having on the farmers? What’s the importance of, and the method that the fiber is certified, tracked and traced? How are the fabrics produced and the garments made?. These are all important issues that impact the environment as well as the health, safety and human rights of textile workers. And, let’s not leave out very important issues such as cotton prices and their impact on consumer goods prices. We can go on and on. What about the impacts of decorating econscious products, especially screen printing? What are the best choices we can make to create and produce quality products that satisfy customer requirements while also having the least harmful effects on the environment? All these topics are open for discussion.As this blog evolves, I hope to exchange incite, comments, and questions on many of the subjects that affect all of us as we strive to be econscious. All are welcome to post. ]]></isc:description>
<isc:productid><![CDATA[4]]></isc:productid>
<isc:author><![CDATA[Dale Denkensohn]]></isc:author>
</item>
</channel></rss>
