Rural Affairs
Ag in Africa: Foreign 'Feudal Lords' and 'Diabolical' Seed Companies
Published November 18, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
In looking at the world leaders gathered at this week's World Summit on Food Security in Rome, one does not except to see the eccentric Muammar Gaddafi as a beacon of logic in the storm. The unusual ruler, after all, spent part of his weekend in Italy's capital trying to convert 500 women he hired from an escort service to Islam — after, that is, he arrived in a white limo to speak to them, reports the UK's Mail Online.
He might not have persuaded very many of his female quarry to convert — "I thought we were going to a party - we didn't even get a glass of water or some salty snack," one woman reportedly said — but on the issue of global agriculture he was entirely convincing. He warned the other assembled leaders that foreign companies that are procuring massive tracts of farmland in Africa are becoming the continent's “new feudal lords," reports Reuters.
“In Africa, foreign investors buy farmland, transforming themselves into new feudal lords against whom we must fight,” Gaddafi said at the summit. Indeed many are calling the ominous development a massive "land grab," and the UK's Times Online went so far as to dub it "modern imperialism."
How You Can Help Women Get Land Rights
Published November 12, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Earlier this week I wrote about how women grow the majority of the world's food but own a tiny fraction of the world's land. This major imbalance makes women — and thus families — more insecure and effectively leaves a major segment of daily natural resource users out of our global conversations on issues such as global warming, sustainable agriculture and food crises.
Alert reader David Mastroianni asked what we can all do to help fix this situation. Here are some ideas.
Surprise! Farmers Grow Hearty Crops to Survive War
Published November 07, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Subsistence farmers in African war zones keep themselves alive in dangerous circumstances by leaning on intuition and age-old farming logic that goes like this: when in tough conditions, reuse whatever field you've got, grow the hardiest plants and when fleeing, take the hardiest seeds with you. Doing this allows farmers to create the crops best adapted to their needs; a surprise stroke of agricultural genius that apparently leaves scientists reeling.
A new study reports the unexpected emergence of hybrid rice in West African countries like Gambia, Ghana, Senegal and Togo, whose African and Asian rice varieties (Oryza glaberrima Steud and Oryza sativa L.) have only previously been interbred in a lab and there produced sterile offspring, according to SciDevNet.
The authors of the study, which appears in this month's issue of PLoS ONE, report that these two species of rice are interbreeding in the fields in part because of disruptions caused by war.
Global Warming's Evil Twin: Agricultural Land Use
Published November 06, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
The world is stuck on the tracks and there are trains coming in both directions. One headlight represents climate change. The other light is us, a booming global population that needs more and more food every year. One train demands that we preserve our forests, the other that we slash and burn them. One demands that we decrease pollution, the other that we add more and more fossil fuels to our soil.
At least unless we change things -- a lot of things -- very drastically. We are already yanking on the brake of the climate train, though not nearly hard enough. The other train, though, is barreling forward unfettered. Few of us realize the train is being driven by a madman. Few of us realize the massive crisis our global society's inattention to agricultural priorities promises to become unless something is done.
The problem, according to a new essay by Jonathan Foley, professor and director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, is that we will need to double or even triple our agricultural output over the next several decades unless we want a whole heck of a lot of starving people on our hands. But we have to do that without completely destroying our environment.
Bill Gates Enchanted by the GMO Idol
Published October 27, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
I wrote last week about the Gates Foundation's efforts to help improve agricultural systems in the developing world. Gates's conclusion: the Foundation's investment should empower poor farmers to grow more crops and get them to market, which will help them pull themselves out of poverty.
Sounds like a plan, right? Not so fast, says alert reader and fellow blogger Greg Plotkin, who pointed out an important thread underlying the story: "Gates is hoping to prompt a second Green Revolution and has shown very little concern about the potential negative impacts that [genetically modified (GM)] crops could bring."
This is a crucial point to bring to light, not least because the architect of the Gates Foundation's plans, Rajiv Shah, is now a part of the Obama Adminstration. In April, he became Under Secretary of Research, Education and Economics and Chief Scientist at the USDA, a position in which he can work to entrench this particular "green revolution" agenda into national policy priorities.
In Response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" Part 2
Published August 28, 2009 @ 02:45PM PT
(This is the second in a two-part response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" article written by Blake Hurst, a self-admitted "industrial" farmer from Missouri, a few weeks back for The Journal of American Enterprise Institute. The first part of my response can be found here.)
To continue my critique of Hurt's article, I'd like to now discuss the way he characterizes the acute need for the continuation of industrial animal agriculture. I purposely chose not to deal with this topic in my first post as I knew it would require its own space and time.
Part of the problem with agriculture today, as Nicholas Kristof points out in his recent New York Times Op-Ed, is that the profession has largely lost its soul over the past several decades as industrial farming practices have taken hold. This is not to say that there aren't any family farming operations in this country--in fact, there are many--but the way that we view the production of food has changed dramatically. There is no place where this is more true than in animal agriculture.
It's quite clear from Hurst's article that he is no animal rights activist. In his view, animals are commodities that are to be raised in a manner that maximizes the financial return for farmers with very little (legitimate) concern paid to the environmental and food safety costs incurred by this kind of production.
This is part of the lost soul of American agriculture. Where once farmers treated animals well in order to ensure a long, healthy and productive life, now many farmers choose to treat their animals as badly as possible while still turning a profit. We have lost respect for the key role animals have played (and always will play) in the history of our agricultural progression.
Inventing Controversy
Published July 10, 2009 @ 11:34AM PT
There's nothing the media loves more than a good horse race. A little controversy - or a lot of it - sparks readers' interest and drives up sales. In the absence of actual controversy, though, the media sometimes has to invent some.
The debate over health care reform is a great example.
72% of Americans support a public health insurance option that competes with private insurers, according to a recent poll done by New York Times/CBS News. The poll was taken in mid-June and showed that people of all political stripes support health reform that, in the words of President Obama, "keep[s] insurance companies honest." Almost half of people identifying as Republicans supported the idea of a public health insurance option, as well as over 70% of independents and nearly 90% of Democrats.
Another recent survey of small business owners in Nebraska and Iowa found strikingly similar numbers. Done by the Small Business Majority, 69% of Iowa small business owners and 70% of Nebraska small business owners support the choice of a private or public health insurance plan.
I would hardly call this controversy.
It appears that the Democratic leadership in the Senate, where it's likely much of this debate will take place, is beginning to think that those numbers don't really constitute much controversy either. In an article from the newspaper Roll Call, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) that he should stop trying to put forward a bill that doesn't include a public health insurance option or that taxes health benefits, because doing so could lose the votes of 10 to 15 Senate Democrats.
So why, then, is there the appearance of controversy? Ezra Klein puts it well:
Every interview with members of the administration involved in health-care reform goes the same way: A reporter asks if they support the public plan. They do. Then the intrepid reporters asks if it's non-negotiable. And, like everything else in health-care reform "except for success," the public plan turns out to be negotiable. And that's the headline.
In the U.S. Senate, however, there seems to be actual controversy over whether the average American should have the choice of a public health insurance plan. When asked about the New York Times/CBS News poll showing such overwhelming support of a public health insurance option, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) quipped, "Poll numbers, as you know, are here today and gone tomorrow. What's going to decide what passes here are votes [of Senators]."
One only needs to follow the money to see where the appearance of controversy in the Senate might be coming from - the $1.4 million dollars per day that the health care industry is spending on lobbying Congress. And it's not enough to have just anyone lobbying for the industry on Capitol Hill - the Washington Post reports:
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records...Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa)...At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.)
When a legislator is hearing from scores more well-heeled and well-funded lobbyists than constituents, they may start to think that there is controversy where there largely isn't.
That's why your members of Congress need to hear from you. Right now.
You are the expert in the reasons why you need affordable health insurance, your community needs access to quality medical care, and why a public health insurance option creates competition that will help keep the health insurance companies from exploiting the elderly, the sick, and the self-employed.
Even if you've called before, even if your members of Congress have spoken in support of a public health insurance option before, they need to hear it again. We need to remind members of Congress what rural Americans need. Hearing from you helps them do the right thing and stand up against health industry lobbyists.
We may not have millions of dollars, but rural Americans know how to make a racket. Let's remind Congress who they represent and what we need: Health reform that works for all of us.
