|
|
March 12, 2010
Can the USDA Really Fight Industry Consolidation?$BlogItemTitle$>
 The first of the much anticipated agricultural competition workshops are underway right now in Iowa. Hosted jointly by the USDA and the Department of Justice, the workshops aim to explore the question of consolidation in agribusiness. The workshops themselves have already come under scrutiny for initially excluding actual farmers on the panels -- and have come in for continued criticism that the farmers who have been put on are more representatives of corporations than real farmers. It's hard not to be somewhat cynical about our government's claim that they're shocked, shocked to discover there's anti-competitive behavior in agriculture. On the other hand, for the last twenty or so years, consolidation has been -- in Washington at least -- the crime that dare not speak its name. So the fact that it's the USDA and DOJ running these workshops is nothing short of astonishing. And while the whole of the industry will get attention, much of the focus so far has been on Monsanto, which thanks to its aggressive practices -- along with support from the USDA -- now controls up to 90% of the seed business in some markets. It's to the point that in many parts of the country non-Monsanto (and thus non genetically engineered seed) are simply unavailable to farmers. The Justice Department is already investigating the company and it will undoubtedly get a lot of attention during these workshops. But knowing the Obama administration's support for biotechnology generally and reading between the lines in this NY Times article on the issues involved with Monsanto, I'm starting to get concerned. The way the article characterizes the debate, the goal appears to be to broaden access to Monsanto's intellectual property, i.e. the herbicide-tolerant genetic traits in its seeds, rather than to broaden access to conventional seeds: Monsanto sells its own branded seed varieties, like Dekalb in corn and Asgrow in soybeans, to farmers. But it has expanded its influence and profits by licensing those traits to hundreds of small seed companies, allowing them to incorporate the traits in the seeds they sell. It has also granted licenses to the other large trait developers, allowing them to create combinations of engineered traits in a process known as stacking. Monsanto says that its licensing shows it is the opposite of a monopolist, encouraging rather than hampering competition. But critics say the licenses give Monsanto excessive control. Seed company executives said the licenses were sometimes worded in a way that compelled them to sell Monsanto traits over those of its competitors. Mr. Quarles denied that, saying the contracts contain sales incentives typical of the industry.
The rest of the article focuses on the legal battles between Monsanto and Dupont, another biotech giant, over access to Monsanto's patents. It may very well be that the anti-competitive behavior the government punishes is that which prevents even greater adoption of biotech seeds -- the opposite of what many progressives want out of anti-trust enforcement. Until we can displace agricultural productivity as the only measure of success of government policy, even this new attention to anti-competitive practices is unlikely to lead to meaningful reform. To me the focus must be on finding ways to increase farmers' share of consumers' spending without threatening significant increases in food prices -- there is, after all, no government that likes to champion policies that increase the cost of food. Nothing puts a damper on electoral prospects like bread riots. Keep in mind that a mere 7 cents of the consumer's food dollar gets to the farmer, while 73 cents goes to distribution costs. The only way we can get to a win-win -- and not be forced to choose between higher farmer income or higher retail prices -- is to let the middleman, i.e. the processors and yes, the retailers -- take the hit. Sadly, I don't think Walmart, Safeway or Whole Foods are on the agenda at the moment, even though some experts believe the real squeeze on farmers comes from them. It's when we start having discussions like that and start recognizing that a relentless focus on agricultural production simply is not consistent with helping rural economies that I'll believe we might just be getting somewhere. Photo credit: Farm Aid
Labels: farming, food, politics
March 10, 2010
Spring Gleaning$BlogItemTitle$>
There's a nice article in USA Today about a new generation of public urban orchards, ripe for the picking: Fruit-picking opportunities... are becoming more common, as volunteers in cities including Boston, Detroit, Philadelphia and Madison, Wis., mobilize behind a goal of planting fruit trees on public land in city parks and neighborhoods. "This is part of what's obviously been an explosion in interest in locally grown and organic food," said Janet Parker, a founding member of a group called Madison Fruits and Nuts. "I think we're coming to realize more and more that it doesn't make any sense, at this late date with climate change being what it is, to truck in so much of our food from California, in the cases of apples, sometimes New Zealand." Free fruit also is available for picking in season on public land in Chicago, San Francisco, Austin, Minneapolis and New York, according to neighborhoodfruit.com, a site that helps people track down available fruit. One of the compelling points in Sharon Astyk's A Nation of Farmers involves her observation that we've been trained to see "free" food as having minimal actual value-- we're better off buying our fruit in the store than gleaning from what's available around us. But that's why this urban orchard movement is so compelling -- it's another way to bring the reality of food production closer to home for millions of urban residents. Also, note the shout-out the article gives to the Philadelphia Orchard Project, which has started 17 orchards in the Philly area in the last 3 years. Oh, and for the rest of you wanting to find your nearest gleaning opportunity, there's an app for that.
Photo credit: MuffetLabels: farming, food, local
March 9, 2010
Heirloom Apples to the Rescue!$BlogItemTitle$>
Here's another example of the power of diversity over monocultures in agriculture. Writer Gary Nabhan has a great piece at Grist on how heirloom apples may save US apple growers from the risks of climate change: Recent studies have suggested that orchard keepers face a new challenge to supplying a variety of apples to their customers. Shifts in weather patterns may be reducing the number of winter chill hours that apple and other trees require in order to bear abundant fruit. If trends continue as predicted, most California orchards are expected to receive less than 500 chill hours per winter by the end of the 21st century. Most apple varieties require 1,000 chill hours per winter to yield harvests large enough to keep orchards economically viable, although some require as little as 800 hours and a few can get by on just 500 chill hours. In its "high emissions scenario" for climate change, the Union of Concerned Scientists has predicted that orchards in southeastern Pennsylvania will receive 1,000 or more chill hours in just 50 to 60 percent of winters. Because Pennsylvania is the fourth-largest remaining producer of apples in this country, and because much of its $60 million annual crop comes from the southeastern region, these predictions have generated considerable anxiety among orchard keepers. But no one knows how many of the varieties currently being grown there can actually tolerate fewer than 1,000 chill hours -- the meteorological projections have not yet been tangibly related to the specific responses of particular varieties. And of course, no one knows for sure how much of the perceived weather shifts are due to global warming or to more localized urban heat-island effects of changing land uses.
As Gary mentions, this is of particular concern in Pennsylvania. But farmers like Nick Botner in Oregon are doing their part to fill in some of the blanks on which varieties will thrive in the new conditions. Botner may be in his eighties, but he's not slowing down -- he's testing 3,000 heirloom varieties to see which will grow best in our changing climate. Will apples disappear from store shelves? Not if we remember that there are plenty of apples in the sea tree.
Photo credit: Amanda "Bake it Pretty"Labels: farming, food, local
March 5, 2010
GMOs as Big Ag's Version of "Financial Innovation"$BlogItemTitle$>
(Photoillustration by Grist)Financial blogger Felix Salmon has an essay in Foreign Policy called "How Locavores Can Save the World" -- expanded, by the way, from a wonderful blog post he wrote after attending a panel discussion on world hunger at the Davos World Economic Forum in the company of Blue Hill Farm's Dan Barber. Salmon usually focuses on issues involving economic crises, monetary policy, complex derivatives, macro-economics and governmental oversight of the financial markets, but here he's talking monocultures, sustainable agriculture, and transgenic seeds. Tom Philpott has in the past opined on the similarities between financial and food crises, so I suppose this turn of events is not too surprising. But the bit I found most striking was how Salmon characterized Big Ag's claim that genetically modified organisms are an "answer" to the problem of world hunger: [It] is the agricultural equivalent of creating triple-A-rated mortgage bonds, fabricated precisely to prevent the problem of credit risk. It doesn't make the problem go away: It just makes the problem rarer and much more dangerous when it does occur because no one is -- or even can be -- prepared for such a high-impact, low-probability event. Well, hey. That's a new one. GMOs as CDOs...
READ THE REST OF THIS POST ON GRIST.ORG Labels: farming, food, politics
February 26, 2010
In Philly? Come Chat with an Urban Farmer$BlogItemTitle$>
Snow got you down? Would you rather be talking about spring planting? Well, if you happen to be in Philly this weekend, you're in luck. Urban farmer extraordinaire Dave Zelov, fearless leader of the Weavers Way agricultural empire, will be at the Allen's Lane High Point Cafe at the R8 Allen's Lane train station in NW Philly giving a presentation and answering veggie gardening questions this Sunday, February 28 at 2pm. I can vouch for the fact that Dave is an amazing resource and a super nice guy. And yes, even in the middle of the snowiest winter in Philly history -- a winter which shows no sign of abating -- he's already harvesting chard, kale, bok choy, tatsoi, lettuce, arugula, pea shoots, and baby greens out of his hoop houses. But he's taking a break to help us all get a mental head start on the growing season. Anyway, if you're around and want to think and talk about something green, swing on by this Sunday. Tell him Tom sent you. Labels: farming, food, local
February 22, 2010
A Better Plastic?$BlogItemTitle$>
If you've been watching the Olympics, you might have seen an ad for Sun Chips that features its " compostable bag." The plastic in the bag is derived from GMO corn and made by Cargill. The ad neglects to mention those inconvenient truths, though it does claim that its bag will break down in home compost "under ideal conditions." Even worse, with the possible exception of the Sun Chips bag, corn plastic generally will not break down in home compost, even under ideal conditions -- it's only compostable in "industrial-scale" composting systems. So for those of you who live in San Francisco, which actually has municipal composting, that's all well and good, I guess. But for the rest of us, this stuff is still plain, old [genetically engineered] garbage. But now researchers in the UK may have just fixed all that: Scientists at Imperial College London are working on bioplastic packaging - made from trees and grass - that can break down in home composting bins.
The polymer developed by the scientists is made from sugars that come from the breakdown of fast-growing trees and grasses, or agricultural and food waste.
The scientists from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council purposely focused on non-food crops - many common bioplastics come from corn or sugar cane waste - and using low-energy and low-water processes. Very cool. Keep an eye on this stuff. It could really be the packaging of the future. Labels: energy, farming, food, health, pollution
February 19, 2010
Co-ops: for Farmers What's Old is New$BlogItemTitle$>
I love my food co-op. It's not a secret. Heck, I blog for it. And what works for consumers works for farmers like Sam Simon of upstate New York, too (via the NYT): He began his dairy operation in 1999, more as a labor of love than a business venture. But he soon realized that the economics were unsustainable: Farmers couldn't survive being paid roughly the same price for milk that they were in the 1970s. "This is nuts," he thought. So he looked for an alternative in which a farm could produce premium milk, process it and sell it on its own label. The farms he looked at that had tried it weren’t succeeding, so he came up with the idea of a nonprofit co-op selling premium-quality milk, without artificial hormones, traveling 80 or so miles instead of 1,200, to customers in the Northeast. The hope was that people would pay more for locally produced, higher-quality milk, and that the extra cost would be passed on directly to the farmers. He signed up eight family farms in Dutchess and Columbia Counties that produce 1.6 million pounds of milk a month, 200,000 of it sold through Hudson Valley Fresh. So far it's working. The farmers get paid a price, now $21 per hundredweight of milk, based on their cost of production, not on the fixed commodity price, now about $16, up from as low as $11 last year. That can be the difference between breaking even and not. Hudson Valley Fresh sells a third of it in New York City, in places like Whole Foods, and the rest in the Hudson Valley and Connecticut and on Long Island.
Milk is a troubled commodity, of course, but much of that trouble comes from the fact that, thanks to Ronald Reagan, its price is set on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, where large speculators can (and have) manipulated the price. Even though fluid milk is a perishable commodity, for some reason commodity traders get to determine the wholesale cost, which now has no relation to the actual cost of production. That's capitalism for you!
Meanwhile, the Philly area also has a great example of another kind of successful farmer co-op in Lancaster Farm Fresh, which joins fifty farmers into an entity that can efficiently distribute tons of produce into urban markets from New York City to Washington, DC. And small scale co-ops may even provide the way forward for ethanol as well -- not as a means to produce fuel for cars on a massive scale, but as an alternative to diesel fuel for farm equipment.
Co-ops have a long history in agriculture but have struggled since corporate consolidation became the watchword in Washington DC and state capitals nationwide. To this day, the USDA remains far more interested in low retail prices of commodities, irrespective of the impact it has on farmers themselves or rural communities. But with its new Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative, there seems to be a bit more momentum coming from the USDA for helping farmers establish co-ops. Hoping corporations behave benevolently is not a plan. Giving farmers the ability to act as a countervailing force to corporate control of agricultural markets? Now that's a plan.
Labels: farming, food, politics
January 12, 2010
It's Not Just TV. Desk Jobs Can Kill You, Too!$BlogItemTitle$>
This latest research confirms the worse fears of those who think Americans spend too much time in front of the idiot box: Couch potatoes beware: every hour of television watched per day may increase the risk of dying earlier from cardiovascular disease, according to research reported in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.
Australian researchers tracked the lifestyle habits of 8,800 adults and found that each hour spent in front of the television daily was associated with: > an 11 percent increased risk of death from all causes, > a 9 percent increased risk of cancer death; and > an 18 percent increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related death. But contra Kevin Drum, taking up blogging may not be the best idea: While the study focused specifically on television watching, the findings suggest that any prolonged sedentary behavior, such as sitting at a desk or in front of a computer, may pose a risk to one's health. The human body was designed to move, not sit for extended periods of time, said David Dunstan, Ph.D., the study's lead author and professor and Head of the Physical Activity Laboratory in the Division of Metabolism and Obesity at the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute in Victoria, Australia. "What has happened is that a lot of the normal activities of daily living that involved standing up and moving the muscles in the body have been converted to sitting," Dunstan said. "Technological, social, and economic changes mean that people don't move their muscles as much as they used to -- consequently the levels of energy expenditure as people go about their lives continue to shrink. For many people, on a daily basis they simply shift from one chair to another -- from the chair in the car to the chair in the office to the chair in front of the television."
This point was entirely ignored in the LA Times article linked by Drum. But it's a crucial point. Our society privileges and encourages desk work and frowns on activities that smack of manual labor -- you know, like farming. But that may ultimately prove to be a calamitous mistake.
Flickr photo: Ste3veLabels: farming, food, health
January 7, 2010
Pesticides and the Great Die-Offs$BlogItemTitle$>
Yale's Environment360 has a new must-read report by Sonia Shah linking pesticides to the high-profile die-offs among amphibians, bees and bats. What makes this news timely isn't necessarily the toxicity of the pesticides per se, it's the indirect effects on these animals of chronic, low-dose exposure to chemicals: In the past dozen years, no fewer than three never-before-seen diseases have decimated populations of amphibians, bees, and -- most recently -- bats. A growing body of evidence indicates that pesticide exposure may be playing an important role in the decline of the first two species, and scientists are investigating whether such exposures may be involved in the deaths of more than 1 million bats in the northeastern United States over the past several years. ...The recent spate of widespread die-offs began in amphibians. Scientists discovered the culprit — an aquatic fungus called Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, of a class of fungi called “chytrids” — in 1998. Its devastation, says amphibian expert Kevin Zippel, is “unlike anything we’ve seen since the extinction of the dinosaurs.” Over 1,800 species of amphibians currently face extinction.
It may be, as many experts believe, that the chytrid fungus is a novel pathogen, decimating species that have no armor against it, much as Europe’s smallpox and measles decimated Native Americans in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But “there is a really good plausible story of chemicals affecting the immune system and making animals more susceptible,” as well, says San Francisco State University conservation biologist Carlos Davidson.
Shah goes on to explain a mechanism whereby pesticides applied to fields in California's Central Valley drift into the Sierra Nevada mountains "where they settle in the air, snow, and surface waters, and inside the tissues of amphibians." A scientist who studied the matter "found a strong correlation between upwind pesticide use... and declining amphibian populations." Meanwhile, bees and bats have suffered a similar fate -- killed off by powerful pathogens that in theory could be novel but in practice seem to have taken advantage of animal populations immuno-compromised by pesticides. One of the most interesting aspects of the piece was the description of an Italian scientists unpublished research that suggests the "missing link" between neonicotinoids, a powerful pesticide already banned in Europe but still in use in the US, and bee colony collapse. It relates to the practices of using neonicotinoids-coated seeds planted by machines that kick up clouds of pesticide as they work... READ THE REST OF THIS POST ON GRIST.ORG Flickr photo: Paul L. Nettles
Labels: farming, food, health, politics
January 5, 2010
Can GMO Seeds Be "Sustainable"?$BlogItemTitle$>
The NYT has another piece encouraging a flare-up in the cage match between organic farmers and those in favor of genetic engineering as the solution to future food needs. This one is centered on the "unlikely" but happy marriage of a plant geneticist and an organic farmer: Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak have every reason not to get along. Ronald, a plant scientist, has spent her past two decades manipulating rice from her lab bench, bending the grain's DNA to her whim. Adamchak, meanwhile, is an organic farmer, teaching college students the best practices of an environmentally gentle agriculture at his California market garden. As Adamchak confesses, few have been more vociferously opposed to the genetic engineering practiced by Ronald than his organic movement, which has steadily grown in recent years to constitute an influential, if tiny, part of the U.S. farm system. So it can come as some surprise when Ronald and Adamchak let slip that they have been happily married for more than a decade. Such a union should not be shocking, the couple argues. And a more modest version -- sans marriage -- must be considered by any farmer or consumer hoping for a sustainable future for agriculture. Industrial farming, with its heavy use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizer and irrigation, is exhausting the environment, and with billions more mouths to feed in the upcoming decades, the problem will only worsen unless the efforts of organic farming and genetic engineering are combined, they say. ...To spread their message to two communities that rarely speak in measured terms, Ronald and Adamchak have written a book, "Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food," which came out in paperback last month. What Adamchak and Ronald pursue in the book is in essence a unified theory of farming. While critical of Western seed companies that have co-opted genetically modified (GM) crops for questionable business practices, the couple argues that both current and future generations of altered crops will, if responsibly managed, allow much of the world's hungry to be fed from land already degraded by the plow's slice and the tractor's compressing wheel.
This news gets the usual contrarian suspects cheering, of course. But to read the article, you'd think there are all these fantastic genetically engineering seeds just waiting to be planted if only the "powerful" organic lobby would let it happen. Only there aren't. Not a one. And while Ronald, the plant scientist, urges open-mindedness among sustainable agriculture folks, her own major plant breeding project on flood-tolerant rice uses advanced breeding techniques and not genetic engineering. It's worth revisiting a Newsweek article from the summer that talked about the "return" of conventional breeding as the favored technique for developing new crops: Part of the story is that conventional breeding can still do certain things extremely well—even better than genetic manipulation. What GM techniques are best at is isolating particularly useful bits of DNA in a prized plant, and transferring that single gene to another plant that is less well endowed. (In the best-known example, Monsanto spliced a gene from naturally herbicide-tolerant grass into soybeans, so farmers could apply the chemicals without killing their crops.) Conventional breeding still does better at building up qualities that require a complex suite of genes, such as the ability to fight off certain insects or to resist drought, which involves a host of genes that determine the way plants take up and manage water. Roland would surely agree. And the fact is that the challenges before us require more than dropping in a gene here or there. To date, genetic engineering techniques have simply not shown itself to be up to the task. The result is that the debate over GMOs as a sustainable solution remains entirely theoretical. The existing GMO seed lines require heavy doses of synthetic fertilizer and water (in the case of the Bt crops mentioned in the article) or heavy doses of synthetic pesticides, fertilizer and water (in the case of Roundup Ready crops, the only other GMO seed line), neither of which are consistent with organic -- or sustainable -- practices. In essence, this is an argument about federal research dollars not an argument about which seeds to plant. Wake me up when Monsanto invents a seed that can actually do all the things they've been promising us for the last couple of decades. In fact, don't. It's likely to be decades and decades before someone sees fit to rouse me. I could use the sleep
Photo by The Wandering Angel used under a CC licenseLabels: farming, food, politics
January 4, 2010
Winter Farmers Markets$BlogItemTitle$>
Yet another indication that the just-announced USDA hoop house study can't finish soon enough. Here in Philly we're going to get another year-round farmers market: While launching a farmers' market in the dead of winter may seem both counter-intuitive and turnip-friendly, market manager Kyle Perry explains the clever strategy behind this maneuver and promises you'll see more than a pile of potatoes to welcome you. ...Perry says to expect, of course, root vegetables, from the lineup of 20 vendors, but since some of the farmers do have greenhouses, there should be cucumbers, tomatoes and salad greens. There will also be grass-fed beef, naturally-raised pork, free-range chicken and lamb. One vendor, M & B Farview Farm, out of Berks County, will also be grilling their meats, so you can grab a grass-bed burger or a pork sausage while you shop. Salad greens? Tomatoes? In January? I'll be interested to find out how they heat those greenhouses (just compost, I hope) but I'm still excited. May the Teens be the decade in which "local winter veggies that aren't of the root variety" start to seem normal. The new market will be in the so-odd-it's-cool Piazza in the Northern Liberties starting January 16.
Labels: farming, food, local
December 29, 2009
Eating with the Seasons$BlogItemTitle$>
Ezra Klein sees this elegant image from Good that depicts seasonal eating and he snarkily (though accurately) observes that it merely proves why locavorism is best left to Californians. Me? I see this image and think: Boy, we sure could use more hoop houses and winter gardening in the rest of the country. And thanks to the USDA, we should soon find out how realistic a thought that is. My hope is that the USDA's study of hoop house growing will put to rest the persistent myth that a geographically diversified food production system is 1) impossible or 2) would require large-carbon-footprint greenhouses heated by anything other than sunlight or compost. We shall see... Labels: farming, food
December 16, 2009
GMOs -- Still Not Delivering$BlogItemTitle$>
Tom Philpott at Grist has a great post on Monsanto, its magic seeds and its monopoly status. In it, he reminds us that "climate change-ready" -- and non-existent -- drought tolerant GM seeds aren't the only false hopes currently being peddled by Monsanto: Meanwhile, there also recently came a cold slap to one of Monsanto's most hyped promises: that it will soon deliver genetically engineered corn, rice, and wheat strains that demand much less nitrogen fertilizer. Nitrogen fertilizer is a major ecological liability of industrial agriculture--synthetic nitrogen pollutes streams and blots out fish life, destroys soil organic matter, and enters the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon. In a recent report (PDF), the Union of Concerned Scientists' Doug Gurian-Sherman pointed out that thus far, the GM crop industry has had zero success at engineering crops with "complex traits" like improved nitrogen efficiency. Splicing in a gene that makes corn tolerate a certain herbicide is one thing; improving a highly complex, multi-gene, not-completely-understood process like nitrogen efficiency is completely different. Despite all the hype around nitrogen-efficient GM corn, the GM seed giants are conducting relatively few trials to test crops in the field, Gurian-Sherman reports. "Although a few genes that appear promising for improving NUE [nitrogen-use efficiency] have been identified in the public literature, they have yet to demonstrate that they can improve consistently in various environments, and without significant undesirable side effects that could harm our agriculture, environment, or public health," Gurian-Sherman writes. Meanwhile, other methods of reducing nitrogen use, like traditional breeding and ecosystem approaches, have proven track records.
So, all together now, traditional breeding paired with agro-ecological techniques work better than Monsanto's over-hyped, overpriced, over-sprayed products. That's better.
Labels: farming, food, politics
USDA Needs a New Climate Playbook$BlogItemTitle$>
Paula Crossfield has an excellent piece in Civil Eats on food, agriculture and climate change: Around one third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the way we produce, process, distribute and consume the food we eat according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Meanwhile, farmers the world over will be the most affected by climate change, as higher carbon in the atmosphere and higher temperatures increase erratic weather patterns, pests, and disease occurrence, while decreasing water availability, disrupting relationships with pollinators and lowering yield and the efficacy of herbicides like glyphosate (aka Round-Up) -- all detailed in a revealing new report from the USDA called The Effects of Climate Change on U.S. Ecosystems [pdf]. She then goes on to observe that, for all the benefits of having the USDA 100% behind climate mitigation, the techniques USDA Chief Tom Vilsack endorsed during his speech in Copenhagen can be deeply problematic if incorrectly implemented.
Vilsack talked up no-till farming, carbon markets, genetically engineered crops and ethanol. All of these techniques are either of questionable value as climate mitigators or come with serious negative consequences for soil and water quality. Sadly, the USDA continues to ignore agro-ecological techniques for addressing climate change -- techniques with a proven ability to build soil quality and sequester carbon and which places like the Rodale Institute have spent decades perfecting and studying. Agribusiness has a stranglehold on the USDA for sure. But they don't have a stranglehold on the facts. It would be nice if Vilsack and other members of the administration finally recognized that. Labels: climate, farming, food
December 11, 2009
Is Walmart the Future of Local Food?$BlogItemTitle$>
One of the most important historic developments in the food economy is embodied in this statistic: in 1900, 40 percent of every dollar spent on food went to the farmer or rancher while the rest was split between inputs and distribution. Now? 7 cents on the dollar goes to the producer and 73 cents goes just to distribution. That's worth keeping in mind when you read things like this: ... Walmart, now the nation's largest supermarket chain as well as retailer, has gotten into the local scene, embarking on an effort to procure more of its produce from local growers. Uh, oh. Now, there is an intriguing (and concerning) wrinkle to all this. As the St Louis Dispatch piece linked above observes (and as Tom Philpott and I have observed many times before), one of the big obstacles to expanding local food systems is the collapse of local distribution infrastructure. There are often no wholesalers to buy and store, and no delivery infrastructure to move, produce locally. Conveniently, Walmart has its own regional distribution system that rivals anything that ever existed before -- why reinvent the wheel (again). So, it's only natural for them jump in. READ THE REST OF THIS POST ON GRIST.ORGPhoto by Koonisutra used under a CC licenseLabels: farming, food, politics
November 30, 2009
Do Diesel-based Farmers Dream of Electric Tractors?$BlogItemTitle$>
Writer George Monbiot's recent Peak Oil article entitled "If Nothing Else, Save Farming" included this comment: There are no obvious barriers to the mass production of electric tractors and combine harvesters: the weight of the batteries and an electric vehicle's low-end torque are both advantages for tractors. I read this and immediately tweeted the question "Where are the electric tractors?" Well, scientist-turned-farmer John Hewson has responded to Monbiot's assertion with an explanation that lacks Monbiot's, shall we say, sanguinary spirit: [T]o anyone who has worked with farm machinery, especially on smaller and poorer farms, the idea of electric tractors will seem ridiculous. So far, electric traction has been developed only for transport, and most successfully in railway trains. The development of batteries and control systems has been directed at the needs of passenger cars, which do not have to pull heavy loads at low speeds for long periods. Electric tractors do exist, but are light machines similar to ride-on lawn mowers, with power outputs of around 40kW. Typical farm tractors have outputs of 100kW-200kW, and no currently available batteries could provide anything like this amount of energy, or anything approaching the working life of a diesel engine. The best lithium-ion electric car batteries and motors work at high voltages (500V for example). As an engineer, I would blench at the idea of maintaining a 100KW, 500V system in a damp and muddy farmyard, let alone carrying out running repairs in the middle of a 50-hectare field, in the rain. As far as I know, electric traction for farm machines has not yet been even considered as an option. If it ever reaches the stage of production, it will be very expensive indeed -- far beyond the budgets of even large farms. But here's the good news. Hewson appears to be, to a large extent, wrong! READ THE REST OF THIS POST ON GRIST.ORG
Labels: energy, farming, transport
Will Whole Foods New Initiative Squeeze Small Farmers?$BlogItemTitle$>
Jennifer Hashley processes a chicken on her Massachusetts farm. Massachusetts poultry farmer Jennifer Hashley has a problem. From the moment she started raising pastured chickens outside Concord, Mass. in 2002, there was, as she put it "nowhere to go to get them processed." While she had the option of slaughtering her chickens in her own backyard, Hashley knew that selling her chickens would be easier if she used a licensed slaughterhouse. Nor is she alone in her troubles. Despite growing demand for local, pasture-raised chickens, small poultry producers throughout Massachusetts, Connecticut, and even New York can't or won't expand for lack of processing capacity. It isn't only small producers who are feeling the pinch -- a widespread lack of processing infrastructure appropriate for small farmers has caused supply chain problems for the big retailers as well. Whole Foods -- the world's largest natural-foods supermarket -- wants to aggressively expand its local meat sourcing, according to its head meat buyer, Theo Weening. But it faces the same limitation as Hashley. Most regions of the country have "lots of agriculture but nowhere to process," Weening told me, adding that the phenomenon is most acute in the northeast. Whole Foods wants to change all that. In a move that has national implications, the retail giant has confirmed to Grist that it is working with the USDA as well as state authorities to establish a fleet of top-of-the-line "mobile slaughterhouses" for chicken. Starting with a single unit serving Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Hudson Valley, N.Y. area, Whole Foods hopes to offer small farmers an affordable way to process chickens as well as to vastly increase the amount of locally-sourced chicken it sells. If successful, this program could be expanded to any region of the country with similar infrastructure shortages. READ THE REST OF THIS POST ON GRIST.ORG
Labels: farming, food, health, infrastructure
November 16, 2009
A Bad Year for Northeast Farms$BlogItemTitle$>
The NYT has the lousy news for local farmers: Plagued with inclement weather, disease and complications from both, farms throughout Connecticut, New Jersey and New York generally suffered one of the worst, if not the worst, growing season in memory. By the time the heat and sun finally arrived, in August, mid- to late-season fruits, especially blueberries, cranberries and apples, swollen by the rains, were the only crops that benefited. Mr. Botticello estimated his overall crop loss this year at about 45 percent.It takes a 30 percent loss of any single crop in a county to trigger a disaster request from the federal Farm Service Agency office in an affected state. Losses are still being tallied, but most counties in New York and New Jersey have been declared agricultural disaster areas, and Connecticut is awaiting word from the federal government on the same declaration for nearly all of its counties.
"This year is one of our exceptionally bad years," said Marsha Jette, who has been with the agency for 39 years, becoming Connecticut executive director this year. In 2008 Connecticut’s farm cash receipts totaled $600 million, New York's were $4.7 billion, and New Jersey's were $1.1 billion. All are expected to be substantially lower this year. The rain and chilly weather that began in May never let up until mid-July. Rainfall totals reported by the National Weather Service for the region's airports were generally twice the monthly average, sometimes three times the average -- like the more than 11 inches that fell on Bradley airport in Windsor Locks, Conn., in July. Some areas also suffered from hailstorms and the occasional tornado. The effects cascaded so that when the weather finally stabilized, most farms did not have enough time to recover. Even a later-than-usual frost did not help. The bummer is that heavier precipitation in the northeastern US may become the norm thanks to climate change. So, while the growing season extends due to warmer temperatures, the risks of molds and rots get higher, too. And the increase in extreme weather means hail and tornadoes may become routine as well. I guess *not* addressing climate change is worse than the alternative after all.
Labels: farming, food
November 13, 2009
Save Bed-Stuy Farm!$BlogItemTitle$>
This is no good. New York City has been supporting an effort to build housing on top of what was once a garbage dump but is now a thriving urban farm. As Kerry Trueman of The Green Fork reported back in August: [T]he Bed-Stuy Farm is a stellar example of urban agriculture that produces 7,000 pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables annually. Tomorrow? If the developer has its way, the Bed-Stuy Farm may soon be plowed under and paved over. "The intent was always to do affordable housing on this site," Housing Preservation and Development Department official Margaret Sheffer told the New York Daily News last week. "The garden had essentially come in as a squatter." The HPD wants to sell the lot in order to pay off a debt of roughly $275,000 incurred by the developer, Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development/Direct Building Management. Sadly, the city is still intent on this. There's a petition circulating to help save it. To inspire you, here's a short video about it. Speaking as someone who's lucky enough to get veggies from an urban farm for more than six months of the year, I can tell you that the thought of a successful one being bulldozed is just miserable.
Labels: farming, food, politics
October 29, 2009
The Market Speaks But Collin Peterson Isn't Listening$BlogItemTitle$>
Speaking of techno-fixes, I wonder how things are going on the next-generation, cellulosic ethanol front. According to the Des Moines Register, not well: The Obama administration has issued just two conditional commitments for such guarantees, one for $80 million and another for $25 million. "Very few credit providers even with loan guarantees are willing to take much risk at all," Dallas Tonsager, the Agriculture Department's under secretary for rural development, told the House Agriculture Committee. Plants that would make fuel from crop residue and other sources of plant cellulose will cost far more to build than conventional corn ethanol plants. The capital costs on a traditional ethanol plant run about $2 to $2.50 per gallon of production capacity, while cellulosic facilities will cost "several multiples of that. You're taking larger risk on larger projects," said Tonsager. The chairman of the committee, Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said that criticism of corn ethanol and its impact on food supplies and greenhouse gas emissions is discouraging investment in next-generation fuels. "It's no damn wonder that nobody's investing," Peterson said. "I wouldn't put money in with all this that's going on."
Wait, what? Cellulosic ethanol is so lame that even Collin Peterson wouldn't invest in it? Oh, the irony! Actually, I think he was really just cursing those meddling kids for ruining a good time.
Looks, here's how it works, Collin, my boy. Capital flows along the path of quickest profits for the lowest risk. Having stuck with a ten year time horizon for bringing cellulosic ethanol to market -- for the last twenty years, mind you -- the industry has done a pretty good job of scaring away potential investors. It might be different if anyone had actually managed to produce cellulosic ethanol on any scale. But, no. Nothing yet. Check back in five years!
I wonder if now would be the time to point out that hitching farmers' wagons to ethanol may have worked for a while but really wasn't such a good idea for the long term. In the event that ethanol really starts to founder (not that I'm holding my breath, of course), we can turn our attention to helping farmers truly adapt to climate change and even, dare I say it, reforming ag subsidies?
Labels: climate, energy, farming, food, politics
October 13, 2009
Vilsack Thinks Weavers Way is Awesome$BlogItemTitle$>
How do I know this? Well, Ag Sec Vilsack spoke today at the annual Community Food Security Conference in Des Moines, IA. The WHO Farm attended and twittered the following: Vilsack: a Philly grocer helped local schoolkids grow tomatoes in school garden, then sold them @ grocery store. Economic stimulus! I confirmed with the WHO Farm that Vilsack was indeed talking about Weavers Way school garden project with Martin Luther King Jr High School. As soon as I have exact quotes, I'll post them -- and I'd point out to Vilsack that the MLK garden project is very much in the present tense Of course, I've been happily buying the fruits of their collective labor for a while -- but its nice to see the co-op's urban farming/school garden efforts getting attention from the nation's agriculture chief. Labels: farming, food, local, politics
October 7, 2009
The Superweeds are Winning and Monsanto Blames Farmers$BlogItemTitle$>
 Tom Philpott has been tracking the rise of so-called "superweeds" -- i.e. herbicide-resistant weeds -- for a while now. He's talked about the chemical treadmill -- "the situation wherein weeds and other pests develop resistance to poisons, demanding ever higher doses of old poisons and constant development of novel ones." Due in part to its reliance on genetically modified crops that are designed to be doused with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, the South has to date faced the worst of this problem. And the struggle against these new superweeds, in particular against a new resistant form of pig weed, got the attention of ABC's World News Tonight recently. It's a struggle, by the way, that cotton farmers down there are losing: Across the South, there's a weed that man can no longer kill. It's called the pig weed, and for decades farmers controlled it by spraying their fields with herbicides. "I've never seen anything that had this major an impact on our agriculture in a short period of time," said Ken Smith, a weed scientist at the University of Arkansas. This past summer, Pace Hindsely of Coffee Creek Farms and other farmers started noticing the chemicals they routinely used were no longer working. "The last three years it's really just exploded. There is no rhyme or reason as to how we can control it," Hindsely said. "I am worried about the future or what these fields will look like next year and the year after if we don't control this weed." The weeds have adapted, and this year they're choking more than a million acres of cotton and soybeans. And, really for the first time, it appears that nothing in industrial ag's chemical arsenal can stop them. Most striking, however, was the reaction by Monsanto to this rapidly spreading failure of its cash cow combo Roundup Ready seed and Roundup herbicide: It's all the farmers fault!! ...READ THE REST OF THIS POST ON GRIST.ORG
Labels: farming, health
Can the USDA really keep our food safe?$BlogItemTitle$>
Having read and listened to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's attempts at ground beef-related damage control in the wake of the recent food safety revelations, I'm left to wonder if the USDA simply needs to get out of the food safety business entirely. Vilsack himself -- in a Minnesota NPR radio interview where he defended the USDA's dual role as a marketing service and a food safety regulator, its recent shift towards more aggressive testing, and its ability to inspect foreign meat importers -- all but admitted that the USDA has fundamentally failed in its mission. How so? The interviewer asked him one final question: Q: Can you assure ... our listeners that ground beef is safe? A: I can assure you that we are doing everything we possibly can to make sure that that product is safe through our testing, through our inspectors ... I will say also that there is still work to be done to continue to improve what we do and until we get the number of food-borne illnesses down to zero and the number of hospitalizations down to zero and the number of death down to zero, we'll still have work to do. Please note that he did not say "Yes, I can." ...READ THE REST OF THIS POST ON GRIST.ORG
Labels: farming, food, health, politics
October 5, 2009
Ag Sec Vilsack on the E. coli Crisis$BlogItemTitle$>
In the wake of the devastating NYT piece on E. coli in ground beef, USDA Chief put out a statement this evening: "The story we learned about over the weekend is unacceptable and tragic. We all know we can and should do more to protect the safety of the American people and the story in this weekend's paper will continue to spur our efforts to reduce the incidence of E. coli O157:H7. Over the last eight months since President Obama took office, USDA has been aggressive in its efforts to improve food safety, and has been an active partner in establishing and contributing to President Obama's Food Safety Working Group. Bah, humbug. What's your plan, Tom? - Launched an initiative to cut down E. Coli contamination (including in particular contamination from E. Coli O157:H7) and as part of that initiative, stepped-up meat facility inspections involving greater use of sampling to monitor the products going into ground beef.
- Appointed a chief medical officer within USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service to reaffirm its role as a public health agency.
- Issued draft guidelines for industry to further reduce the risk of O157 contamination.
- Started testing additional components of ground beef, including bench trim, and issuing new instructions to our employees asking that they verify that plants follow sanitary practices in processing beef carcasses.
- Designed the Public Health Information System (PHIS) in response to lessons learned in past outbreaks.
"USDA is also looking at ways to enhance traceback methods and will initiate a rulemaking in the near future to require all grinders, including establishments and retail stores, to keep accurate records of the sources of each lot of ground beef."
Double "Bah, humbug." As I said on Twitter just now, this is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic sort of stuff. As long as the industry is able to set the terms of its own regulations and do things like maintain bizarro "trade secrets" protections on key elements of our food safety system (not to mention base their business on corn rather than grass), real reform is impossible. Back to the drawing board, Tom.
h/t Bill Marler Labels: farming, food, health, politics
Warning: This product may cause sickness, paralysis, and death$BlogItemTitle$>
It's hard to draw any other conclusion from Michael Moss's New York Times blockbuster investigative piece on E. coli in industrial beef, which is centered on the plight of Stephanie Smith, a young dance instructor left comatose, near death and now paralyzed from eating a single Cargill hamburger. Of course, a "single hamburger" can include meat from hundreds, some would say thousands, of animals. As Moss puts it: Ground beef is usually not simply a chunk of meat run through a grinder. Instead, records and interviews show, a single portion of hamburger meat is often an amalgam of various grades of meat from different parts of cows and even from different slaughterhouses. These cuts of meat are particularly vulnerable to E. coli contamination, food experts and officials say. Despite this, there is no federal requirement for grinders to test their ingredients for the pathogen. This is why a food safety expert who helped develop tracking systems for E. coli in meat can declare that, "Ground beef is not a completely safe product." No kidding. The problem, however, is not with E. coli in general. The problem is that the particular strain of E. coli which infected Smith -- known as E. coli O157:H7 -- is virulent, deadly, persistent and endemic in industrial beef. How virulent, deadly and persistent? This much: Food scientists have registered increasing concern about the virulence of this pathogen since only a few stray cells can make someone sick, and they warn that federal guidance to cook meat thoroughly and to wash up afterward is not sufficient. A test by The Times found that the safe handling instructions are not enough to prevent the bacteria from spreading in the kitchen. In other words, if a piece of infected meat ends up in your kitchen, you are almost guaranteed exposure to it no matter how carefully you handle it.
READ THE REST OF THIS POST ON GRIST.ORG Photo by ILoveButter used under a CC licenseLabels: farming, food, health, politics
October 1, 2009
Believe the Danes -- Our Hogs Will Be Fine$BlogItemTitle$>
According to the meat industry, the debate over legislation pending in the House that would ban the use of sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics comes down to a simple "fact": hog-farming on any scale without sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics is impossible. The National Pork Producers Council says so. The American Veterinary Medical Associate says so. Heck, even GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa says so. For the record, these folks also say that livestock producers don't really use 70% of all antibiotics distributed in the US as the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates. And you know what, we have no idea if they're right. What many people don't realize is that antibiotic use by American livestock producers is one of the best kept secrets on the planet. The UCS had to deduce that number based on US sales of antibiotics combined with data from a country that does publish figures on antibiotics use in livestock: Canada. That's right. No one in the US, not the government, not industry -- no one -- has any responsibility to tell Americans how much antibiotics is actually in their meat. We're just to supposed to Take Industry's Word For It that everything's peachy. Which is why the Danes insistence on being a part of this debate is so important. Denmark is the largest hog producer in Europe and, realizing the threat to public health posed by routinely feeding healthy livestock antibiotics, they stopped doing it. Over a decade ago. To listen to the AVMA and Chuck Grassley describe Denmark's experience, you'd think that Denmark's hog industry went the way of New York Harbor's oyster beds -- a happy, productive industry destroyed by mismanagement. Except, insist the Danes, that just isn't so. READ THE REST OF THIS POST AT GRIST.ORG Photo by The Pug Father used under a CC license
Labels: farming, food, health, politics
September 29, 2009
Women in Agriculture: A Farmer's Perspective$BlogItemTitle$>
This post was written by Nicole Sugerman who farms at the "Henry Got Crops" CSA, a joint project of the Weavers Way Co-op Farm and Philadelphia's W. B. Saul High School of Agricultural Sciences and one of the first high school-based CSAs in the country. The article originally appeared in the Weavers Way Shuttle. It feels kind of like the elephant in the room. It's not that we don't talk or think about it around here -- indeed, we do both, rather frequently. But rarely do we discuss it with others. For some reason, it's not the kind of subject that is discussed all that openly. Instead, it's alluded to subtly, in a manner that just confuses me at first, until I remember that this is a little unusual. "You don't look like a farmer," people say when I tell them my profession. "What do you mean?" I reply, never able to let an issue go, "Oh, I don't know," they reply. "You're just little. You don't look like you ride a tractor." It still takes me a minute to put it together. (Why do you have to be "big" to ride a tractor? Why do you have to ride a tractor all the time to be a farmer? What does it mean to not "look" like someone who does ride a tractor?) Until I realize, oh, they mean because I am a young woman. At this point, I never know quite what to say. "I ride a tractor sometimes," or, "Yep, well, I am." The subject changes. But I am constantly reminded that to be a female farmer is something a little out-of-the-ordinary, to work at a farm site staffed almost entirely by women, even more so. So I decided to express my thoughts about some of the intricacies of women in agriculture. Lately, I hear a lot about female farmers as a "new trend." According to the 2007 census, one or two out of ten farms is now operated by a woman. However, the "trend" part is hard to track, and seems to me to obscure some history of women who have always been involved in farming. Female farmers have been historically under-reported and under-recognized. The U.S. census records only one operator per farm, the deed holder. As the majority of land is officially owned by men, this renders invisible all female partners who manage farms with their husbands or families. As I learned from this episode of the radio series Making Contact, worldwide, between 65 and 75 percent of all food is grown by women, who own only one percent of the world's land. Mainly operating as subsistence growers, this food production is often conceptualized as "domestic work," obscuring recognition of these female farmers worldwide. Still, the visibility of female farmers, at least within the U.S., is growing. For all its limitations, the census has recorded a more than doubling of farms operated by women between 1978 and 2005, from 100,000 to 250,000. As the country's farmers age, a new "back to the land" movement, fueled partly by desires to put personal politics into action and an increasing disillusionment with the job market and traditional concept of careerism for young people, is encouraging a new crop of farmers, many of them women. We new farmers often farm under nontraditional arrangements -- co-farmers are often platonic managing partners instead of the heterosexual husband-wife team of the past -- meaning women are more often recognized as farm owners or principle managers. Additionally, as farmers age, their land is more often being taken over by wives, daughters, or other female family members. Interestingly, as making a living as a farmer becomes ever more difficult, it becomes women's work. At a farmer's market I frequent, one of the farms is a hundred-acre conventional New Jersey farm that sells corn, tomatoes, squash, and tree fruit. The farm is run by two middle-aged sisters who recently took over management of the farm from their 80-year-old father. I was excited to see a farm run by women of a slightly older generation, so I asked them their thoughts. "Most of the time, other farmers treat us okay," they told me, "although if we do something wrong, it's, 'oh those girls.' We bring along [our brother] to market sometimes; he doesn't know a thing about farming, but people just want to talk to 'the man in charge.'" They took over the farm, they told me, because their husbands and brothers had to get "better" jobs that brought in more money. Without the expectation of being primary breadwinners, they were left as the ones who could keep the family farm alive. In both conversation and personal thought about females and farming, I want to be careful to avoid gender essentialism. I do not want to make generalizations like, "women make good farmers because they like to nurture the earth," or, "men are better with machines." Gender expression, I believe, is a complex combination of socialization, culture, and genetics. Not being able to divorce these things from each other, I find it frustrating and counterproductive to base ideas or logic on what men or women are "naturally" like or good at doing. That said, I acknowledge my shortcomings, like a lack of confidence with machines and power tools. Part of this is completely personal, gender aside; I happen to not be good with power tools, whereas I know many women who are. However, there is a gendered aspect to power-tool-confidence. My sister recently visited me in Philadelphia, and came to work with me on the farm. When I asked her what she wanted to work on, she replied, "anything with power tools," explaining that she recently volunteered recycling old doors for a green-deconstruction non-profit with a male friend of hers. When the staff person trained them, he offered a power drill to help, but spoke about it and handed it only to my sister's male friend. Finally, the friend asked my sister if she, too, would like to use the power drill. My sister did, and had a great time. My insecurity with machines and tools has several layers. I am not good at them, I suspect, because I was never encouraged to use them, so I never gained comfort or ability through practice. Now, I am afraid to practice because I am not good, and I do not want other people to notice and use their observations of my fumbling to further whatever ingrained ideas they have of women being bad with power tools. It gets rather angsty. I do not want to speak for all female-bodied farmers, but I think many of us feel like we have something to prove. I have to remind myself sometimes that just because I can't shovel compost as fast or carry a wheelbarrow quite as full of watermelons, doesn't mean that I am not strong or not a good farmer. We work together. And anyway, we all can handle wheelbarrows that are pretty darn full. We never intentionally created a female dominated farm here at Henry Got Crops. Most of our applicants for internships and apprentices just happened to be female, and most of those qualified ended up being women. We have three female apprentices, two female interns, and one male intern. (We now have another -- a big welcome to Ed, who is newly working with us this fall!) I am glad, though, to be able to offer a positive view of women as strong, hard, workers to the students here at Saul; I want the female students to know that they can be farmers if they want, or anything else they aspire toward. One of our Saul summer interns brought her boyfriend out to work with her one morning. "How did he like it?" I asked her the next day. "I brought him out so he would see how hard I work," she replied. "He said it was fun, but really hard. He said he couldn't do this every day." I have to admit, I was pretty proud. Labels: farming, food, local
September 28, 2009
Big Ag on Climate Change: "What, me worry?"$BlogItemTitle$>
Once again, topics covered at length in the pixels of Grist are slowly percolating out into the wider media world. Newsweek over the weekend posted an article by Jeneen Interlandi about the grave effects of climate change on agriculture, summed up as the triple threat of "droughts, bugs and big storms." And once again, we learn the future is now: Farmers on both coasts are already starting to reap some of what the nation's fossil-fuel addiction has sown. Crops in those regions (cranberries in the East and almonds in the West) require a certain number of colder days, or "winter chill" before they break dormancy and begin flowering. Too few cold days disrupts the plants' flowering schedule which in turn affects pollination and hurts yield. A UC Davis study found that winter chill has already declined by 30 percent in California's Central Valley, and almond growers report that yields are down 20 percent from last year. Shorter winters have had a similar effect on cranberry yields in Massachusetts and New Jersey. As usual, we see the initial effects of a largescale phenomenon on the margins. As Nathanaiel Green of the NRDC puts it, "it hasn't really hit the breadbasket yet," which is why Big Ag, focused as it is on grains and commodity crops grown in the Midwest and South, can so easily dismiss it. READ THE REST OF THIS POST ON GRIST
Labels: climate, farming, food, politics
September 15, 2009
The Blanche Lincoln Hits Just Keep Coming$BlogItemTitle$>
Not to be All Blanche Lincoln, All the Time but this is really something. In a speech to the National Cattleman's Beef Association, one of the main agribusiness industry groups, your Senate Ag Committee Chairman double dipped in spectacular anti-environmental fashion. First up -- as reported in National Journal ($ub req'd) -- the climate bill: ...Lincoln she said does not support the House-passed climate-change bill because it "picks winners and losers" and "places a disproportionate share of the burden" on her home state of Arkansas in particular and rural and poor America in general. Lincoln said she will not support a climate change bill in the Senate if it is similar to the House-passed bill. I'd point out that opposing climate change is also about picking winners and losers, Senator. And if we listen to you, Blanche, we all lose. Lincoln strongly supports putting Max Baucus, Senate Finance Commitee chair, in charge of the Senate's version of climate change. Did I mention that he's also on the Ag Committee? Must've slipped my mind. But Lincoln publicly harshing all over climate change isn't necessarily anything new. Lincoln publicly harshing all over clean water regulations? That's new. Lincoln said a provision in the Clean Water Restoration Act passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that covers "the waters of the United States" rather than "navigable" waters needs to be amended so EPA does not interpret it to cover all waters."We've seen in the past where the imagination can be stretched," Lincoln said. "We don't need the imagination to be stretched right now." Of course, the NYT just informed us that our imaginations regarding the danger posed to us by our nation's drinking water have failed us -- stretching them, along with the EPA's power over safe drinking water is exactly what we need. I think I'm going to be sick. Keep in mind that Lincoln's opposition to EPA jurisdiction over "all waters" has nothing, in her mind, to do with drinking water. What she and her ag industry allies do have in mind is keeping the EPA well away from livestock factory farm manure lagoons. Is it her problem that they have an awful tendency to overflow into the water supply? As does raw liquid manure sprayed on fields. As does excess nitrogen fertilizer. As do pesticides and weedkillers like Roundup and atrazine. And if she has anything to do with it, none of that will be Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods or the American Farm Bureau's problem either. Wow. I didn't think you could do worse than House Ag Chair Rep. Collin Peterson in the -- for lack of a better term -- asshattery department. Apparently, I was mistaken.
Labels: farming, food, health, politics
September 14, 2009
Blanche Lincoln: Lobbyist Fantasy$BlogItemTitle$>
As suspected, agribusiness is indeed turning cartwheels over the news that Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln is now chairman of the Senate Ag Committee. The public policy director for the retrograde American Farm Bureau told The Hill, "We couldn’t have handpicked a chairman better than this." The giant sucking sound you're hearing is agricultural reform rushing down the drain. The headline of The Hill's piece tells you all you need to know: "K Street welcomes Lincoln as the new head of Ag committee" -- K Street being the center of the lobbying biz. If you read on, however, you'll discover all sorts of lovely little Lincolnian tidbits. Did you know that in 2007 Lincoln tried to exempt agribusiness from toxic waste lawsuits? The fact that Tyson Foods, the nation's largest chicken (and chickensh*t) producer, is based in Arkansas and is a major campaign contributor to her is, of course, a total coincidence. Oh, and all that oil and gas money she gets is entirely unrelated to her strident opposition to climate change legislation -- opposition that is so strong, The Hill speculated she could single-handedly derail it. READ THE REST OF THIS POST AT GRIST
Labels: farming, food, health, politics
September 11, 2009
Food, Meet Income$BlogItemTitle$>
Where the deals are.First came the news that anti-reformer Sen. Blanche Lincoln has taken over the Senate Agriculture Committee. Now, from the US Census Bureau we get even more bad news for those hoping for serious reform of our food system: the Census Bureau announced to day that middle class income is diving. Real median household income fell 3.6 percent between 2007 and 2008, from $52,163 to $50,303. As Felix Salmon of Reuters points out, that $1,800 drop is real money. Oh and I did I mention that the poverty rate is up, too? Salmon also directed attention to David Leonhardt at the NYT who observed that "the typical American household made less money last year than the typical household made a full decade ago." [Emphasis mine] And if you look more closely at the data, it now appears that most middle- and working-class Americans saw their inflation-adjusted incomes drop over the last ten years. American dream, indeed. What does this have to do with food system reform? As both Tom Philpott and I have argued repeatedly: everything. READ THE REST OF THIS POST AT GRIST
Labels: farming, food, politics
July 17, 2009
Blight of the Tomatoes$BlogItemTitle$>
 First peanuts. Then pork. Then ground beef. And now: tomato plants. Sadly, I have not just described the menu at the annual Beyond Green BBQ. Rather, each of the above have been implicated in a recent infectious disease outbreaks. And each outbreak has been exacerbated, if not explicitly caused, by the "big-box" economic mentality -- national distribution networks that aggregate huge numbers of products in confined spaces and then move them across long distances to many destinations in a short time. Experts have repeatedly warned of the dangers inherent in a food system that does this. Now we learn that even the garden centers of large retailers like Home Depot and Wal-mart can put agriculture at risk. The NYT is reporting that these retailers have helped spread a vicious outbreak of "late blight" in tomatoes -- the same plant disease that caused Ireland's Potato Famine: A highly contagious fungus that destroys tomato plants has quickly spread to nearly every state in the Northeast and the mid-Atlantic, and the weather over the next week may determine whether the outbreak abates or whether tomato crops are ruined, according to federal and state agriculture officials.
...William Fry, a professor of plant pathology at Cornell, said, "I've never seen this on such a wide scale."
Professor Fry, who is genetically tracking the blight, said the outbreak spread in part from the hundreds of thousands of tomato plants bought by home gardeners at Wal-Mart, Lowe's, Home Depot and Kmart stores starting in April. The wholesale gardening company Bonnie Plants, based in Alabama, had supplied most of the seedlings and recalled all remaining plants starting on June 26. Now it's important to keep in mind that the fungus that causes late blight is ubiquitous and wasn't "imported" into the Northeast and mid-Atlantic by these infected garden center plants. But what these plants did do is introduce active infections -- and with them instantly airborne spores -- which could quickly spark an outbreak. At the same time, if not for the unusually wet, cool weather, the blight was unlikely to have taken hold. And taken hold it has. But what's shocking is how quickly the blight jumped from home gardens to commercial operations -- both home gardeners and professional farmers from NY and PA are already destroying infected plants. The real possibility of a near-total loss of the region's tomato crop exists. So what to do? Well, for one thing, in the future we should all stick to locally-grown seedlings -- smaller producers can't spread infections regionally or nationally. For another, root for some heat: Hot, sunny weather, which can kill late blight, could dramatically slow or eliminate the fungus's spread over the next week, experts said. Speaking of which, I wish there was some ray of sunlight that I could pass on regarding the issue as a whole. But big-box stores and national distribution networks aren't going anywhere. I wonder what other pleasant side-effect they'll give us next. Photo courtesy Meg McGrath/Reuters/ NYTLabels: farming, food, local
Milk Monopolists$BlogItemTitle$>
Earlier this year, the Obama adiministration's top antitrust enforcer, Christine Varney, announced a new effort to crack down on monopolist practices in industry. Some of us were particularly interested to observe that Varney's first speech specifically mentioned agribusiness as a top target. This is understandable since, from fertilizer to meatpacking to seeds, four companies or fewer control up to 80% of each of these markets. But right now nowhere are the oligolopolists doing more damage than in the dairy industry, where prices have fallen faster and deeper than any time since the Great Depression. And, joining ranks with tens of thousands of desperately struggling dairy farmers, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has had enough -- he has called on the Justice Department to investigate the dairy giant Dean Foods as a monopolist. READ THE REST OF THIS POST ON GRIST.ORGLabels: farming, food, politics
June 23, 2009
Collin Peterson is Not Killing the Planet$BlogItemTitle$>
Not yet, anyway. I agree with Tom Philpott that Peterson's meddling in the Waxman/Markey climate bill is far more than a distraction. Weakening the bill out of spite is pretty much the extreme opposite of statesmanship. And I decried Peterson's clearly implied climate denial just the other day. But I'm a bit leery of going quite as far as Philpott did today: In short, if Peterson wins this battle, our nation's first significant climate legislation will likely end up at worst rewarding, and at best not penalizing, chemical-intensive, greenhouse-gas-spewing agriculture. We will have bungled a major opportunity for positive change. President Obama has yet to intervene in this battle. Now's the time. Given that he's a farm-state politician himself, am I being naive to hope that he comes down against the agribusiness interests intent on hijacking this bill?
I'm reading about similar pleas regarding the health care bill; pleas which lose sight of the fact that the road for ambitious legislation is ever a long and bumpy one. While Collin Peterson can force exemptions for the agricultural sector in Waxman/Markey and he can threaten to withhold his committee votes -- I seriously doubt that he can truly kill the bill. Yes, he's going to see some of his demands met -- Kate Sheppard is reporting that Peterson's demand for permits to be given away to rural utilities has already been approved. And as for Peterson's hissy fit over the EPA's ethanol/indirect land use ruling, I'd be willing to bet that he'll get some face-saving provision that will allow him to declare victory and go home. I say all this not because I think Henry Waxman will throw up his hands and allow the bill to be weakened beyond all use. I say this because Henry Waxman understands that the House vote on the bill is only one small step in the process. The Senate doesn't just "receive" the House bill and vote on it. They're working on their own version. And we can thank our lucky stars that Peterson doesn't get to put on a different suit and show up for work as Sen. Collin Peterson. Certainly, the Senate has perhaps even more obstacles to passage than the House (oh, that filibuster!). But it also has a more enlightened Chairman of its Agriculture Committee -- Sen. Tom Harkin. Harkin will certainly have a say in the Senate's climate bill and his comments on the fracas in the House are tellingly moderate ( via the Hill): Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said he has followed that debate and agrees with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) that the legislative language in that bill needs to be more equitable, considering the interests of large urban areas and more rural states. But he acknowledged those places have competing interests. While he hasn't had to take a stand yet, Harkin doesn't exactly sound like the kind of guy who is ready to drive his tractor over the climate. The point is that the Senate bill is likely to look quite different from the House bill -- there's no guarantee that any of Peterson's adulterations will be replicated there. And assuming it gets past a Senate filibuster, it then goes into conference commitee where all those differences have to be ironed out. A lot can happen in conference. Bills can indeed be completely transformed. It's often when "the grownups" get together to clean up the mess left by all the little children (if the House and Senate leadership are smart about the conferrees, that is). And Collin Peterson, though he might volunteer for duty, doesn't get an automatic seat at the table. It's up to House Speak Nancy Pelosi to decide. And I don't think she's feeling particularly charitable to ol' Collin these days. Once the bill moves out of conference, the House and Senate will have to vote AGAIN on the bill. It's that vote -- which is likely months away -- when the rubber meets the road. And it's in the run up to that vote when you'll probably see Obama go into full barnstorming sales mode -- and when, I imagine, many a blustering farm-state representative will indeed quail. We've been promised by White House Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley that Obama is going to push for passage. But we're a long way from that moment. The bill will have several near-death experiences before then (although the possibility of the bill's actual death in the Senate is ever-present). Ezra Klein wrote today about the timing of Obama's public (and private) push on the health care bill. He said the President should stay out of it, despite recent, early declarations that health care reform was dead. You don't need to change much in Klein's analysis -- which invokes the Clinton health care crash-and-burn of 1994 -- to apply it to the climate bill: In 1994, President Bill Clinton exhausted his political capital guiding the development of the legislation. Barack Obama, by contrast, has saved his to push for its passage... [T]here's no reason to rush that moment. For now, the White House should have as little to do as possible with the various legislative products. Let the committees absorb the blows of the bad weeks. Let the early coalitions present themselves. Let the Republicans show their strategy in the mark-up sessions. Let the CBO score all the different options. Let the legislature familiarize itself with different revenue options. Wait. Wait and wait and wait. Wait until Congress has pushed this as far upfield as it's able. Then open up the White House. Then have Obama on TV. Then have Rahm on the phone with legislators. Then take Olympia Snowe for a ride on Marine One. The White House can exert explosive force on a piece of legislation, but it can only do so effectively for a short period of time. That was the mistake Clinton White House made in 1994. By the time their legislation was near reality, administration officials were so deeply involved that they couldn't add external momentum. It is not a mistake that Rahm Emmanuel, who watched it all happen firsthand, means to repeat.
And as a further corollary to those insights, Klein also predicts a "weak" bill will ultimately be passed which, despite meaningful provisions, will still disappoint progressives. And the same will likely apply to the climate bill. Indeed, what if the bill comes through as weak tea? Well, as I argued the other day, there's nothing wrong with that! If the bill establishes a basic legal framework for dealing with climate change, it's a win and must be passed. As an example, I give you the Clean Air Act. Though landmark legislation, it was relatively weak when it was originally enacted in 1970 -- it exempted major contributors to pollution like smog and acid rain. Granted, we don't have the 20 years it took Rep. Henry Waxman to fix that law. But legislation often improves by accretion. Enviros need to keep that in mind when "deciding" whether or not to bail on Waxman/Markey. The fact is that the climate bill isn't dead and Collin Peterson didn't murder it.
Photo courtesy Grist.orgLabels: climate, farming, politics
June 21, 2009
Organic ≠ Elitist$BlogItemTitle$>
I've been thinking about a post specifically addressing the issue of "are organics elitist" for a little while. But then Marion Nestle wrote it for me -- in the form of a Q&A with the SF Chronicle:
Q: Aren't organics elitist? People can't buy organic foods if they aren't available at an affordable price. A: I once heard Eric Schlosser answer a similar question aimed at his book, "Fast Food Nation." He pointed out that social movements have to begin somewhere and that several began with elites but ended up helping the poor and disenfranchised - the civil rights, environmental and women's movements, for example. I would add the organic movement to this list. It has already forced mainstream food producers to start cutting down on pesticides and to raise farm animals more humanely. As the supply of organic foods increases, and the Wal-Marts of the world sell more of them, organics should become more democratic. But please don't blame organic producers for the high prices. Until the latest farm bill, which has a small provision for promotion of organic agriculture, organic farmers received not one break from the federal government. In contrast, the producers of corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton continue to get $20 billion or so a year in farm subsidies. Industrial agriculture also benefits from federally administered marketing programs and from cozy relationships with congressional committees and the USDA. In contrast, the USDA considers fruits and vegetables "specialty crops." This kind of food politics shows up as higher prices in the grocery store. Dealing with the elitism implied by the higher cost of organics means doing something about income inequities. If we want elected representatives to care more about public health than corporate health, let's work to remove the corruption from election campaign contributions. If Congress were less beholden to corporations, we might be able to create a system that paid farmers and farm workers decently and sold organic foods at prices that everyone could afford.
Word up, Marion.
h/t Naomi Starkman via twitterLabels: farming, food, health, politics
June 18, 2009
Fundamentally Unserious$BlogItemTitle$>
While Tom Philpott at Grist has been following the cage match between the House Ag Committee and its chairman Rep Collin Peterson, and Rep. Henry Waxman, author of the Waxman/Markey climate bill currently before Congress, the latest doings seem to have broken through to the broader blogosphere. Maybe it's because the prospect that a handful of farm state representatives might really be able to kill our chance to address climate change. Or maybe it was because Peterson declared today that global warming is, all things considered, fine by him. After all, as he told the WSJ, all that warm weather will let farmers grow a whole lot more corn! He's not exactly sounding like a guy about to cut a deal. Brad Plumer at TNR's the Vine detailed some of the Ag Committee's demands (which Natasha Chart has referred to as simple bribery). All of which is useful analysis. But what this is really about is that a good chunk of congressmen and women are fundamentally unserious about addressing climate change. And why shouldn't they be? A good chunk of the media, of Americans, of everybody really (perhaps excepting Pacific Islanders) is fundamentally unserious about it. The Obama adminstration released a horrifying new climate change report yesterday and it had the impact on the newscycle of a wet noodle. Obama's science team all but announced the world as we know it was scheduled to end by 2090. Shrug. The tree fell. Nobody heard it. Moving on. This is the part where some might be tempted to use the boiled frog metaphor. Sadly, it's patently false. Apparently, frogs are smarter than we are. Unlike us, they will act when presented with a slowly warming environment. The term I'm supposed to use (or so Wikipedia tells me) is "creeping normalcy" which: refers to the way a major change can be accepted as normality if it happens slowly, in unnoticed increments, when it would be regarded as objectionable if it took place in a single step or short period. Yeah, that's Collin Peterson all over. He doesn't really think farmers will grow more corn -- he's just tweaking enviros' noses with that comment. Collin Peterson simply doesn't believe in global warming -- or doesn't notice it anyway, which ends up being the same thing. Nor does anyone who calls Waxman/Markey an overblown "energy tax" or complains about how it's going to hurt coal-using regions. Let's face it, if you look at climate change legislation as just another regulatory reform then the big picture implications simply aren't scaring you. Here's a counter example: If NASA announced that the planet-killer asteroid was on its way and we had less than 5 years to do something before it hit, I guarantee you that our response would be pretty energetic (with or without Bruce Willis in charge). But climate change isn't like that -- and it's certainly not like that in the developed West, so we feel free to treat Waxman/Markey the way we treat health care reform. There will be winners and losers and the trick will be how to make sure you're in the right spot under the money tree when Congress starts shaking it. But I'm not despairing. Not yet. While cap-and-trade doesn't need to pass this year, if we can get it passed in any form, frankly, before Obama leaves office, we'll have the framework we need to start reducing carbon emissions. It can be sucky and remain a solid basis for reform. If we have a cap, we can make it lower. If we need to pay people to shut up and stop mining coal, we can. Let Collin and friends screw around with it a bit more. It's worth remembering that the "nuclear option" of the EPA's unilaterally capping carbon emissions is still on the table. Collin may not be thinking about that, but I guarantee you that Obama and Waxman are. And as for that Henry Waxman -- the legislative architect of the climate bill, he is, as the Washington Monthly put it in their recent cover story on him, "the right man for the job." This is the guy whose opening acts involved taking down the tobacco companies, single-handedly stopping Ronald Reagan from gutting the Clean Air Act and then managing to expand the act to address smog and acid rain (read the WM piece for more details). As the article summarizes it: If we are lucky--and it's a frighteningly large "if"--Waxman's fight on climate change is nearing its endgame, requiring not a decade of low-boil persistence but, rather, a couple of years of tenacious negotiating. Passing his energy bill into law will be harder than getting pollution legislation on the books twenty years ago, but it will also be similar--and a chance for Waxman to prove that, even after fifteen years in the wilderness, he still knows not only how to make a deal, but how to make the right one. "Waxman is a very skilled legislator," a former Dingell committee staffer says. "Ultimately, I don't think he would sacrifice his fundamental principles just for the sake of getting a bill. I think he would prefer no bill to a bad bill." So if Waxman hasn't given up yet -- and he hasn't -- then neither have I. And note that we may be in for "a couple of years of tenacious negotiating." It will be excruciating but, with Congress and corporate America full of Collin Petersons -- not skeptics exactly, but certainly nonchalant about the whole climate change thing, it will be necessary. Creeping normalcy may yet do us in. The term pretty much defines the Senate, especially the creep part. But given that we don't seem inclined to put the frogs in charge, we better figure out soon when to jump. Labels: carbon, climate, farming, politics
|
 |
|
|
|