Foreword
By Andrew Weil, MD

Developing a healthy lifestyle requires information and motivation to apply it. Your everyday choices about eating, physical activity and stress management, for example, all influence how you will feel tomorrow and your health risks later in life. It is our choices that individually and collectively determine how gracefully you will age.

Adopting healthy routines, and sticking to them, is key. A practical tip I often give is to spend more time in the company of people who have those routines down. If you want to improve your diet, eat with people who know about and are in the habit of making healthy food choices. Eating well is a foundation of good health. It can help you feel well, give you the energy you need, and cope with routine ailments, from colds to lack of sleep. Long term, it will reduce the risk and delay the onset of the chronic age-related diseases.

For years I have urged people to include several servings of fresh organic fruits and vegetables in their daily diets, and to choose produce that covers all parts of the color spectrum. The medical evidence linking fruits and vegetables to good health is overwhelming. And now, so too is the new evidence that organic fruits and vegetables deliver more nutrients per average serving, including the all-important protective phytonutrients like polyphenols and antioxidant pigments.

Getting in the habit of choosing organic food whenever you can will ensure that you and your family get the nutritional benefits nature provides. It is a cornerstone on which to structure a lifestyle that will promote and maintain health lifelong.

Andrew Weil, MD Board Member, The Organic Center Director of the Program in Integrative Medicine University of Arizona March 2008

Record numbers of people are now eating organic, and many of them are doing so because they feel intuitively that they are making a more natural and healthy choice. This report assesses the evidence behind that intuition.
Sir Albert Howard, whose research in the 1930s did much to inform the development of organic farming and inspired the foundation of the Soil Association, believed the health of the soil, plants, animals and people was ‘one and indivisible’. But how much evidence is there to validate the hypothesis that farming methods have an important effect on the nutritional quality of the food we eat?

This report examines over 400 published papers considering or comparing organic and non-organic foods in relation to key areas of food quality important to the promotion of good health – food safety, nutritional content and the observed health effects in those consuming food. It points out that organic standards specifically prohibit the use of certain additives and manufacturing processes linked to health concerns such as osteoporosis and heart disease, and argues that there are no grounds for complacency about the long-term effects of pesticides and additives on our health. It asserts that there is indicative evidence suggesting nutritional differences between organic and nonorganic food. More research is needed, it emphasises, but if the indications of the available evidence are confirmed there could be major implications for public health.

These conclusions are sure to be controversial. They contradict Sir John Krebs of the Food Standards Agency, who said in August 2000 that “there is not enough information available at present to be able to say that organic foods are significantly different in terms of their safety and nutritional content to those produced by conventional farming”. Sir John’s comments rather echo those of the critics of the mid-1980s who said there was no evidence to justify the Soil Association’s decision to ban animal protein from feed for organic livestock. Within a few years Britain’s non-organic herds were being ruined by BSE, and the scientific evidence linking the disease with feed was all too abundant.

It is almost as if consumers have become laboratory animals in the huge experiment that is industrialised agriculture, storing up untold health problems for the future. Chemicals such as DDT and lindane have been banned after the initial dismissal of safety concerns. Research in animal feeding trials has indicated that health effects often only reveal themselves over long time spans, sometimes even over successive generations. So the evidence presented in this report showing nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods should not be lightly dismissed. Nor should the food safety issues raised. The organic movement has repeatedly advocated the precautionary principle, questioning practices that violate the natural cycle and represent a potential threat to health.

It would be easy to criticise this report, as some surely will, on the grounds that the Soil Association is a partisan organisation. However in the midst of a distinctly illinformed debate, we have taken responsibility for bringing together the existing evidence and subjecting it to closer scrutiny than ever before. A number of scientists, organisations and experts in the fields of medicine, nutrition and organic research have endorsed our findings and recommendations and I urge you to read the report for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human Health complements the strong environmental arguments for going organic presented in our previous report, The Biodiversity Benefits of Organic Farming. It is a compelling and challenging contribution to an important debate, which I hope will help all food producers to deliver healthier food, and enable consumers and governments to make informed choices in this time of crisis for our agriculture.

Introduction

“We Are Not Faced With Two Separate Crises, One Environmental And The Other Social, But Rather, One Complex Crisis Which Is Both Social & Environmental.” – Pope Francis’ encyclical

Only a soil-centered farming system can meet human needs going forward. Food security, environmental sustainability and the global health crisis requires that we restore the microbial, fungal and mineral constituents to soil. The soil must be reconstructed in a precise way using all available scientific methods to create humus in the soil as plants grow.

Sir Albert Howard, the father of the organic farming movement, saw nature as “the supreme farmer.” He encouraged farmers to follow nature’s model. Nature’s farm is the forest; it is planted intensively, is high-yielding and nutrient-dense. This is possible because the forest makes its own humus. Everything that goes into making the forest returns to the soil over time.
He further observed that in nature, the presence of pests indicates low soil fertility or other unhealthy conditions in the soil. He found that when the undesirable soil conditions were corrected the crops were virtually immune to disease and insect attack and the health of grazing livestock was greatly improved.

Healthy soil will also increase yields by more than double those of our farming methods now. Additionally, sound soil will require only half the water and fertilizer to produce higher yields and the food will be nutrient dense, containing more than enough vitamins and minerals to sustain human health.
Farmers must be informed, supported, and empowered to bring their soil back to its balanced biological mineral-rich baseline. Only an ecological agricultural system can produce this result in the soil and the food, yet it must be economically sound for growers. The good news is that this soil-centered model also helps farmers realize higher profits since plants grow faster and the yield per plant is significantly higher. To support the transition to the soil-centered model, farmers must realize higher profits.

Our grower consulting programs, based on 30 years of our own organic farm research, will assist farmers in restoring the essential minerals, organic material and biological lifeforms to depleted soils and result in increased production and nutrient-dense food. We will facilitate the introduction and implementation of advanced organic soil science technology to stop the loss of topsoil, restore and remediate the soil, and assure growers’ ability to produce high value nutrient-dense food.

SOIL—it’s easy to miss when our attention naturally goes to the awesome plants it produces (like those gorgeous spring tulips). Yet when we give soil our attention, we learn that it
tells a riveting tale.

Soil is the skin of our planet, which grows our trees and plants. It’s what makes our fruits and veggies so healthy—
and tasty. Soil provides a rich habitat for most of the living creatures on Earth and helps slow climate change by storing carbon. Ultimately, soil is the source of all terrestrial life.
Soil is vital for the health of the planet and its inhabitants—it
deserves our care. A growing number of farmers, scientists, consumers, chefs and even world leaders are giving it just that. They are championing methods to restore nutrients to the soil and highlighting soil’s role in climate change. Chefs are working directly with farmers, or farming themselves.
Home gardeners are composting and opting out of chemicals. The United Nations even designated 2015 the International Year of Soils.

Organic Connections has been a soil advocate from its first publication in 2007. We hope you join us and give soil a few minutes of your attention by digging into this eBook that celebrates this life-giving resource.

After decades of population loss, job loss and disinvestment, parts of Philadelphia are on the rise again. Our population is experiencing slow but steady growth, our housing market and unemployment rate are showing signs of improvement, and new high-end development projects are transforming Center City and University City. Growth and development are reaching some of our neighborhoods too, with Northern Liberties, Francisville, Point Breeze, Passyunk Square and other areas seeing an explosion in new market-rate home construction, and opening up of new shops and restaurants.

As much as we need to celebrate and encourage redevelopment, the enthusiasm about this renewed Philadelphia can feel like it’s about a different city if you are one of the many Philadelphians still struggling, or live in a neighborhood fighting decline. Some moderate-income neighborhoods that have been stable for decades are seeing decreasing homeownership rates, property values flattening or declining, and properties that are staying vacant for too long. OpOther neighborhoods are still reeling from decades of devastation where poverty rates are persistently high, and low wages means too many Philadelphians are paying an unsustainably high percentage of their income on housing. Crumbling buildings and empty lots can be found in every neighborhood, and are magnets for garbage and crime. Vacant storefronts and poor property conditions on our commercial corridors frustrate small businesses that work hard to contribute to the local economy. Long time homeowners and renters live in properties that are becoming uninhabitable due to inadequate maintenance.

It’s imperative that Philadelphia nurtures new market-rate development and investment in order to strengthen our tax base, turn vacant properties into vibrant spaces, and make our city a world-class destination. But we must also recognize that the new private investment transforming some of our neighborhoods does not automatically “trickle down” and benefit those who are most economically disadvantaged or struggling to remain in the middle class. We must build the pipes and direct resources toward our neighbors and communities who have historically been hurt most when our city declined, and left out when things have improved. Without such a strategy, we will deepen the already inexcusable inequalities and economic segregation that exist today, and we’ll hamper the economic stability of our city and region for generations to come.

This thesis explores the gentrification process in Church Hill, one of the oldest neighborhoods in Richmond, Virginia. After World War II, Richmond residents knew Church Hill mostly for its crime rate and dilapidated housing. The white, middle-class flight to the
suburbs left the remaining residents, mostly African American, to experience decades of disinvestment. Church Hill was considered a neighborhood to avoid for much of the late twentieth century. Yet, Church Hill is currently one of the most desired neighborhoods in Richmond, particularly for young professionals. This thesis seeks to explain the reasons why there has been such a dramatic change in the perception of Church Hill and whether revitalization can occur without causing gentrification. Chapter 1 explores the top-down efforts of the Historic Richmond Foundation, a non-profit organization, and the Model Neighborhood Program, a federal program. Chapter 2 explores revitalization efforts by various non-profits
organizations as each tried to work with community members. Chapter 3 explores the reasons why young professionals are moving into Church Hill and the impact of gentrification on the neighborhood.

Communities across the country want to protect their water quality while also getting the greatest possible benefit out of every investment they make. Many are conserving, restoring, or enhancing natural areas while incorporating trees, rain gardens, vegetated roofs, and other practices that mimic natural systems into developed areas to manage rainwater where it falls. These types of approaches, known as “green infrastructure,” are an integral component of sustainable communities primarily because they can help communities protect the environment and human health while providing other social and economic benefits, allowing communities to achieve more for their money. Using green infrastructure strategies to reduce stormwater runoff can strengthen efforts to preserve open space and natural areas and encourage development in existing communities. Green infrastructure elements help make neighborhood streets and greenways pleasant and safe for walking and biking and reinforce a sense of place. Integrating green infrastructure and sustainable communities encourages collaboration in development decisions and promotes green building practices.

Engaging the entire community creates a vision for the future based on people’s and businesses’ needs, desires, and aspirations. This vision guides the plan and ultimately implementation. A sustainable communities and green infrastructure plan will touch nearly every aspect of a community’s design. Involving a wide range of community members in developing both the vision and the plan creates broad support and encourages multiple champions to emerge to handle different aspects of implementation. Such broad-based involvement also helps ensure people from all walks of life, including vulnerable and disadvantaged populations, can share in the benefits that come from implementing a green infrastructure plan.

Successful plans include clear goals, an assessment of assets and opportunities, a comprehensive look at how to achieve implementation, a means for funding implementation, a way to monitor and measure progress toward achieving the community’s goals, and a strategy for long-term operations and maintenance. With such a plan in place, a community will be well on its way to improving quality of life, protecting the environment, improving public health, becoming economically stronger, and preparing for climate change impacts.

Environmental institutions have been working on diversity
efforts for the better part of five decades. This report discusses
the findings of a study of three types of environmental
institutions: 191 conservation and preservation organizations,
74 government environmental agencies, and 28 environmental
grantmaking foundations. It also reports the findings of
interviews conducted with 21 environmental professionals
who were asked to reflect on the state of diversity in
environmental institutions. The study focuses primarily
on gender, racial, and class diversity in these institutions as
it pertains to the demographic characteristics of their boards
and staff. It examines the recruitment and hiring of new
workers as well as the types of diversity initiatives undertaken
by the organizations. The report also discusses other kinds of
diversities such as cultural, sexual orientation, intergenerational,
and rural-urban.

Urban agriculture has become a popular topic for metropolitan areas to engage in on a program and policy level. It is touted as a means of promoting public health and economic development, building social capital, and repurposing unused land. Food policy councils and other groups that seek to position urban agriculture to policy makers often struggle with how to frame the benefits of and potential problems with urban agriculture. In some cases, the enthusiasm is ahead of the evidence. This review provides an overview of the documented sociocultural, health, environmental, and economic development outcomes of urban agriculture. Demonstrated and potential benefits, as well as risks and limitations, of this growing field will be discussed. We also offer recommendations for further research to strengthen the scholarship on urban agriculture.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/110JyrHUp61FPXT-B9Wdk0DPKXQhf-RVz/preview?usp=drivesdk” title=”urban-ag-literature-review.pdf