So What’s Wrong With the Green Revolution?
Apr/103
When I was a poli-sci major back at the University of Missouri, I took some courses on international political economy, and ended up intrigued by the subject of agricultural economic development in Asian countries. In particular I read a lot of Robert Paarlberg, and at that superficial undergraduate level, his analysis of the benefits of modern agricultural development–the agronomic details of which I didn’t really understand–was convincing. That magical term “The Green Revolution” conjured images of innovation and empowerment for Third World populations.
Twenty years later, I understand better the details, and the legacy, of the Green Revolution, which was essentially the importation and imposition of American-style chemical- and fossil fuel-dependent agricultural production methods in the Third World. An NPR series last year investigated the state of agriculture in India’s breadbasket, the state of Punjab, four decades after the launch of that Revolution (find links to the articles and audio here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102893816; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102944731; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103569390; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104708731). The picture that emerges today is one that the theory of sustainable agriculture would predict: While chemical agriculture produced significant yield improvements over a period of years, the party has not lasted. Increasing off-farm inputs has increased farmer debt loads, increased pest resistance to pesticides, and increased farmers’ dependence on volatile world commodity markets for hydrocarbons and ag products, while reducing soil fertility and water tables, and driving farmers off the land. Disturbingly, new evidence is also showing a correlation between chemical-ag and increased in cancer in rural areas.
And if you didn’t read the headline of this post, you would be forgiven for thinking that the last three sentences were referring to the plight of American farmers and rural communities today.
As Ben Hewitt puts it in The Town That Food Saved, whether in America or India, chemical-petroleum agriculture “outfarmed the sun”, and slashed the labor input required in agriculture, over the 20th Century. And it’s left us desperately exposed because hydrocarbon is a finite resource that will run out. We are on a crash course toward the day when one farmer will no longer be able to feed 140 people, with the 139 others of us lacking the know how to feed ourselves.
In Western agriculture, the 2d Green Revolution has been claimed in the form of genetically modified crops. And that revolution is today being touted by the Agro-Industrial Complex as the next antidote to the last medicine’s problems in the Third World, even though we are seeing already in the West the consequences predicted by GM opponents: higher costs and debt for farmers and increased pest resistance.
Michael Pollan and Joel Salatin ably describe the Agro-Industrial paradigm in Food, Inc. as the pursuit of greater and greater technical innovation in order to resolve the negative impacts of the previous innovation, without inquiry as to whether the system of innovation itself is in fact achieving all the necessary goals of an agriculture. We depend on technicians and managers who do not live side-by-side with the consequences of their work, and who are employed by corporations with an overriding interest in short term profit and a limited incentive to preserve resources for future generations.
Now the answer is not that we “go backward” to organic farming and allow billions to starve, as corporate ag alarmists allege. Modern organic farming is indeed showing that it can meet the world’s food needs (see, for example, the Rodale Institute’s paper on the organic green revolution), and the improvements have occurred with only a tiny fraction of the investment in organic systems research that we have made in hydrocarbon-GM agriculture.
The Agro-Industrial Complex fears this direction because it reduces farmers’ dependence on the off-farm inputs that create profits for the Complex. The rest of us should welcome the rise of a system that protects farmers, replenishes natural resources, and provides us and future generations healthy, wholesome food.
Liveblogging UNC-TV’s Food Inc. Panel
Apr/106
I am watching the post-Food Inc panel on WUNC-TV tonight, and it is excruciating. The moderator has missed the central point of the film, and allowed representatives of the big hog and poultry industries to state repeatedly that industry is just responding to the demands of the market. The reality that the film illuminates is that food and agriculture in NC and the US is not a free market. Agriculture is subsidized here, and globally, very heavily. Farmers are responding to, and victimized by, a subsidy structure that benefits large corporations. Free markets have little to do with it.
10:59: Lobb just reinforced the point Salatin makes in the film–corporate headquarters make the decisions on managing animals, not farmers. Farmers are robbed of the power to manage their farms.
11:01: Messr. Lane and Lobb are now spewing the standard industry claptrap that its good for animals and for the environment for animals to be indoors. Maybe so, if you insist on having thousands of head in a small space. We are now vering into the realm of UNC-TV keeping industry sponsors happy by giving them softball questions to justify CAFOs.
11:05: Great job Nancy attempting to get a dialog going instead of ping-pong between moderator and panelists.
11:06: Zering reinforces the b.s. industry argument that consumers want cheap and big ag is efficient. It is only efficient if you forget about policies and subsidies that shift the price of food from the checkout counter to the tax bill and the environment.
11:11: The access issue: AT LAST–Nancy reminds us that we don’t have a free market in agriculture, and that is what drives consumer access to healthy food, not alleged “inefficiencies” in organic production.
11:13: Is that a smile onDr. Zering’s face when he notes the fact that Big Food has been acquiring the natural food companies?
11:14: Lie from Lobb–He claims that organics sales have gone down in the recession. Organic sales were up again in 2008. Another lie–organic products “essentially the same” as conventional. As much ag big ag would like that to be the case, it is not true. But he was truthful when he said corporate “free range” chickens don’t actually spend much time outside.
11:20: Wrapping up. Lobb “organic food is twice as much”–wrong in most food products. But yes, it is correct with livestock products–meat should not be cheap.
Lane: Organic/sustainable is going back fifty years. He needs to visit CEFS, Nancy can set him straight on this. Today’s sustainable ag is highly advanced from 50 years ago–see the Rodale Institute.
Zering: Subsidies have “disappeared”–what on earth is he talking about? Government payments make up a major portion of national farm income.
Oh here we go–the old “how will we feed the world” canard. Nancy steps up–conventional ag is not feeding the world now. Take it to ‘em. Starving Ethiopians are not being handed Smithfield hams.
Lobb touts the Green Revolution–you need to catch up on the modern reality Mr. Lobb, the Green Revolution is drying up. “We have to find better ways to use the land available”–how about using it to grow healthy food instead of overproduce animals so much as to force the price down?
Dr. Reich touts the need for us all to become farmers and gardeners and reconnect with ag. I appreciate hearing this from the Dept. of Agriculture.
Well, that’s the end. Go to the Sustainable Local Food Advisory Council meeting April 22 if you can, great way to celebrate Earth Day. In the Martin Building at the State Fairgrounds, 1 to 4 pm.
Roland
Inching Closer to a Healthy Food Safety Bill
Apr/101
After months of work behind the scenes and strong grassroots pressure, we are seeing a light at the end of the tunnel in the fight for sensible protections for local food systems in new federal food safety law. And it’s not a train. CFSA has been out front on this issue for more than a year, and that work is bearing fruit.
The Status of the Legislation
Negotiations are still ongoing, but so far sustainable agriculture has won agreements from the bill managers that:
1. FDA will be able to exempt low-risk farms and food businesses from the onerous paperwork burdens and compliance costs imposed on high-risk operations. In other words, FDA will have to prove that local food producers are a food safety risk before dictating food safety practices for them.
2. FDA will have to actively minimize compliance burdens for small farms and businesses. In other words, it will not be able to impose regulations that local food producers cannot afford.
3. Any FDA safety standards for growing produce must be compatible with the National Organic Program and USDA resource conservation programs. In other words, FDA will not be able to prohibit organic practices such as manure-based fertilizers and vegetative buffers around production fields.
4. FDA will have to prove the actual risk of pathogen transfer from wild animals and livestock to produce crops before regulating animal controls on farms. In other words, diversified farms will be protected, working dogs will be protected, and no farm will have to put walls and ceilings around their fields to keep out wildlife.
5. FDA and USDA will establish and fund a food safety training program for small farms and businesses. In other words, producers will have access to the latest scientific evidence on best management practices to take care of their customers.
Additionally, we are pushing for a provision on food traceability that would exclude products directly marketed by farms and products where the identity of the farm that grew a food product is preserved all the way to the end consumer (farm-identity preserved products). This issue is still being negotiated as I write.
Together We’ve Made a Difference
These are important victories, and Carolina farmers have helped us get this far. NC Senator Richard Burr’s staff has been actively involved in re-writing the bill, and I met with those staffers last week, along with NC farmers John Vollmer and Chris Hardin. We shared information about how healthy local food systems are providing jobs, increasing farm incomes, saving farms, and providing nutritious, safe food for Carolina consumers. CFSA’s Campaign for Truly Safe Food has organized grassroots action on S.510 at more than 20 farmers markets across the state. Thousands of citizens have contacted Senators Burr and Hagan to demand they protect local organic food from bad regulations.
All this information has helped convince Sen. Burr to fight for the improvements listed above. We are grateful for this support, and encourage you to thank Sen. Burr’s staff for working on behalf of sustainable agriculture. We’re also grateful for the efforts of Senators Bernie Sanders (VT), Michael Bennet (CO), Debbie Stabenow (MI) and Barbara Boxer (CA) to champion these changes.
Call’s to Sen. Hagan’s office are still needed to encourage her support for these changes. Her staff have not fully understood the potential negative impacts on small farms and local food from the original version of S.510.
CFSA also supports Sen. John Tester’s Amendment to S.510, which would exclude farms and food businesses with revenues below $500,000 from the new produce standards and preventive controls in the bill. These entities would continue to be regulated under existing local, state and federal law. We are hopeful the amendment will succeed in a floor vote, as it will provide insurance against one-size-fits-all rules.
What’s Next in Washington
It now looks like the bill might come up for a vote as early as next week, or it may be pushed back another week or two—the Senate has decided to fight over Wall Street reform next week, which may delay them from moving to the bipartisan issue of food safety. Any delay gives an opening to those who oppose our commonsense reforms:
- Rep. Rosa DeLauro yesterday complained at an Organic Trade Association meeting that the Senate is “watering down” the bill, even though she has not apparently read the new language.
- Consumer groups, who have intransigently opposed accommodations for small food producers in their push for tough regulation, have made a big ad buy in the Charlotte area promoting S.510. I’ll be posting to this blog later on the top mistakes, misstatements and misdirections in the consumer group campaign to prevent pro-local food amendments to S.510.
- Big agribusiness lobbyists like David Acheson, who, while head of FDA under the Bush Administration called for “zero tolerance” of pathogens in all foods, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, are insisting that all producers meet the same standards, regardless of size, market, or risk. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/04/farmers-make-gains-in-senate-battle/
So this campaign is not over, and we all must stay engaged.
Heroes in the Fight
I want to single out Chris Hardin, John Vollmer, Harry Hamil and Debbie Hamrick for thanks for their work on this issue.
· Chris wrote an excellent opinion documenting the compliance costs of S.510 for a small producer (it’s in Appendix II of CFSA’s report “Hurting NC’s Local Food Harvest: The Unintended Consequences of Federal Food Safety Legislation on North Carolina’s Small Agricultural Enterprises”, on our website here).
· John’s voice as a past-President-of-the-NC-Tobacco-Growers-Association-turned-organic-farmer carried tremendous weight with Senate staff.
· Harry’s research and advocacy have exposed the dangers of S.510 to thousands of influence-makers across the country.
· Debbie’s tireless criss-crossing of North Carolina to solicit small farmers’ views on reasonable food safety practices has provided crucial data for regulators.
Work Left to Do
Here’s what still needs to be done:
1. Keep up the pressure on the Senate. Call NC Senators Burr and Hagan, and SC Senators DeMint and Graham to tell them you support the Sanders, Bennet, Boxer, Stabenow and Tester amendments to S.510. Thank Sen. Burr for supporting the Sanders, Bennet, Boxer and Stabenow amendments and for supporting local food producers on the traceability issue. Here are the phone numbers:
Sen. Burr (NC): (202) 224-3154 Sen. Hagan (NC): (202)-224-6342
Sen. DeMint (SC): (202) 224-6121 Sen. Graham (SC): (202) 224-5972
2. Call your U.S. House Representative to tell them that S.510 is far superior to HR.2749, the food safety bill the House passed last year. Ask them to support the Senate Bill in negotiations between the two chambers. Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard, (202) 224-3121, to be connected with your Representative’s office.
3. If you see articles and statements claiming that “special interests” are watering down the bill with “exemptions for small farms,” set the record straight. Make comments, blog, tweet, Facebook (is that a verb?)… whatever channels you use to connect with your community, help us get the healthy food story out there.
4. Share CFSA’s report, Hurting NC’s Local Food Harvest, with media and decision makers in your community, to let them know how much is at stake in the fight for commonsense food safety rules.
As with the 2008 Farm Bill, the sustainable agriculture movement is elbowing its way to the table to protect and promote healthy food and farming for all. Your support is what makes these successes possible. Thank you.
Roland
4/30/10 UPDATE: Sen. Hagan has now endorsed the Tester proposals! Thanks to Sen. Hagan for stepping up on this important issue, despite the complaints of Big Ag.
Hurting NC’s Local Food Harvest
Apr/100
CFSA is publishing today a new report, “Hurting NC’s Local Food Harvest,” that looks at the negative impacts that one-size-fits-all food safety legislation will have on healthy local food in North Carolina. Among our findings:
Fueled by overwhelming consumer demand for healthy, local food, North Carolina has experienced significant growth in small-scale value-added agriculture over the last decade. The state has made this sector an economic development priority, and through its tobacco Master Settlement Agreement funds and other programs, North Carolina has invested at least $42 million since 2000 in local food and value-added agriculture.
S.510, The Food Safety Modernization Act, clearly increases FDA authority over small-scale value-added agriculture businesses. The potential impact of that oversight may be considerable, even though small businesses are not the source of the vast majority of illnesses that S.510 targets:
1. Costs to comply for North Carolina small businesses could exceed 150 hours in labor and as much as $20,000 in consulting and testing expenses per year. These and other costs for complying with one-size-fits-all food safety rules could force many small farms and food businesses to abandon value-added markets.
2. Farms that do some food processing on the farm contribute almost 8,500 full-time and seasonal jobs to NC’s economy. FDA regulation of these entities will result in lost jobs and continued losses of farmland.
3. NC has seven government-supported shared-used food processing facilities in operation or development that will lose most or all of their clients under new FDA regulations. These facilities create millions of dollars in sales of NC-grown agricultural products—$3 million-worth of annual sales in Asheville alone.
To avoid this outcome for NC agriculture and rural communities, it is vital for the legislation to include sensible protections for these small value-added businesses. Those protections must include: (a) requirements for FDA to develop safety-related rules specifically tailored to small farms and food businesses that reflect the lower risk profiles of those operations; (b) creation of a USDA training program for those lower risk businesses to enhance their capacity to protect customers.
During April the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association’s Campaign for Truly Safe Food is mobilizing customers at farmers markets across the state to ask for their support of commonsense protections for local farms and food producers. For more information on the threat to local food from federal food safety legislation and the changes to S.510 that the Association supports, visit www.carolinafarmstewards.org, or find us on Facebook.