Bionutrient Food Association promotes the Real Food Campaign
The Real Food Campaign, a new non-profit supporting sustainably grown local food, is seeking to raise $300,000 by the end of 2011. Real Food is part of the Bionutrient Food Association, which looks not only at organic practices but also at nutrient density.
The funds will support outreach and workshops in growing bionutrient rich food for both homesteaders and commercial growers.
Recent studies have indicated that farming practices developed since WWII that rely heavily on nitrogen and on fast crop production have resulted in foods with dramatically lower crop nutrient value. In other words, a squash grown in 1915, with traditional practices, without chemical fertilizers and without pesticides has 50% more nutrient value without the trace pesticides (and is likely to taste better, too) than squash found in the chain grocery store today.
Now, with seed monopolies and genetically engineered seeds designed to map to pesticides and fertilizers sold by the same corporate interests, the American farming industry, outside of the organic and sustainable movement, is producing crops about 50% lower in nutrients on average.
Why? A tomato that grows and develops slowly in natural sunlight, and in nutrient rich soil, will retain those nutrients. That tomato, when eaten, provides the consumer with almost twice the nutrient value than tomatoes grown for rapid production using today’s commercial fertilizers and pesticides.
We are relying on chemicals to enrich our soils, instead of working with good soils and their inherent minerality. Similar concerns are addressed by wine growers, although vintners focus on taste, not nutrient value when discussing the “minerality” or “terroir” related to a specific vintage. Wine growers know that the inherent qualities of soil matter in taste.
For healthy food, good soil is foundational—farmers pre WWII knew that intimately and many were frustrated to see the “best farms” – those with good drainage and soils, become housing developments. Today, most farmers who follow industrial practices rely on chemicals to improve their soils—not sustainable practice. Those in opposition to modern industrial practices point to the increasing health concerns as a related factor.
We don’t know the causal factor, now, of the dramatic increase in Alzheimer’s or Aspberger’s syndrome, or why food and gluten allergies have increased exponentially in the last two decades, but many point the finger at industrialized food production. Health is one of the major concerns of a sustainable food movement that seems to be gaining ground (no pun intended) in the Northeastern states.
This time, unlike the counter culture movement of the 60s that resulted in the initial organic food movement, there is much more scientific understanding about the relationship between soil and nutrient quality.
Will the Sustainable Food Movement have the same lasting impact as the counterculture movement of the 1960s? Only time will tell.