Farm Economics
World According to Monsanto, pt 3
Published June 18, 2009 @ 06:35AM PT
This segment starts out with a heavy emphasis on the safety angle. Monsanto's genetically engineered crops (and everyone else's genetically modified organisms) haven't been tested for safety, they were just declared to be safe.
We've been eating them for years, so they're safe. This is medically unsound, unscientific reasoning.
But Congress doesn't give a damn about safety until people are actually dropping dead from your product, so, on to the next thing. Biotech representatives will insist that depriving poor countries of biotech seeds is a hateful, possibly racist act, spawned of a lack of concern for the starving and poverty-stricken.
Erm, about that, from the Center for Food Safety:
Washington D.C., February 11, 2009 - A new report released today by the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth International warned that genetically modified (GM) crops are benefiting biotech food giants instead of the worldís hungry population, which is projected to increase to 1.2 billion by the year 2025 due to the global food crisis.
The report explains how biotech firms like Monsanto are exploiting the dramatic rise in world grain prices that are responsible for the global food crisis by sharply increasing the prices of GM seeds and chemicals they sell to farmers, even as hundreds of millions go hungry.
The findings of the report support a comprehensive United Nationsí assessment of world agriculture ñ the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) - which in 2008 concluded that GM crops have little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger in the world. IAASTD experts recommended instead low-cost, low-input agroecological farming methods.
... "GM seeds and the pesticides used with them are much too expensive for Africaís small farmers. Those who promote this technology in developing countries are completely out of touch with reality," he added.
"U.S. farmers are facing dramatic increases in the price of GM seeds and the chemicals used with them," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the US-based Center for Food Safety and co-author of the report. "Farmers in any developing country that welcomes Monsanto and other biotech companies can expect the same fate - sharply rising seed and pesticide costs, and a radical decline in the availability of conventional seeds," he added.
GM seeds cost from two to over four times as much as conventional, non-GM seeds, and the price disparity is increasing. From 80% to over 90% of the soybean, corn and cotton seeds planted in the U.S. are GM varieties. Thanks to GM trait fee increases, average U.S. seed prices for these crops have risen by over 50% in just the past two to three years. ...
The world's poor can't afford this. They need low cost solutions that have a chance at profitability even when the fertilizer budget runs low.
Agriculture Killing Climate (Bill)
Published June 12, 2009 @ 06:49PM PT
Speaker Pelosi has apparently personally contacted Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) to secure his support for the climate bill:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) placed a call Wednesday night to her Agriculture Committee chairman, hoping to find out why he is holding up a climate change bill that she wants passed this summer.
Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who has made known that he has enough votes to derail the Speaker’s priority legislation if agricultural provisions aren’t changed, said he spoke with Pelosi “for a while” and that it was “cordial.”
“She’s not putting any pressure on me,” Peterson said. “She knows where I’m coming from.” ...
Where he's coming from ... hmm, where could that be? Over at OpenLeft, Chris Bowers asks Peterson to just name a price and get to the haggling:
... If what members of the Agriculture Committee want in order to pass climate change legislation is more money for farmers, why don't we just start handing out cash to farmers? Cash would be better than these credits, since it both gives the farmers the money they want but doesn't exempt them from reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone wins.
Of course, in order to do this, the Agriculture Committee would first need to specific exactly how much cash they want directed to the farmer's in their districts. While it could be as high as $24 billion, that would still be a small price to pay for mitigating climate change. ...
As I've said before, I think it's less morally problematic than the bribes that are going to the coal companies for 'clean' coal research. Agriculture could, in theory, if not as commonly practiced, be a boon to the climate. Coal? Erm, no.
Peterson is at the least being honest, and not asking for something oxymoronic by nature. Still, as Tom Philpott notes, most of the money would go straight to Monsanto: by supporting chemical no-till farming made possible through the offices of their Roundup herbicide.
The best I'll say about the practice is that it may prevent erosion. Though again, slightly less problematic than paying off an industry that's steadily leveling the Appalachians.
Let the haggling begin, I suppose. The result is sure to be a mockery of science, as Peterson is allergic to the idea of independent EPA review of the carbon sequestration benefits of any approved practices, but science isn't the point. The Republican members of the committee don't even believe in that, Philpott says they used their time at the recent committee hearing mostly to deny anthropogenic global warming.
Why is it such a commonplace, acceptable thing for Congress to have whole committees packed with greedy, sometimes reprehensible, human beings? Who knows. But tell you what ...
Next time you want to ask for a raise, don't be embarassed to do it. Congress isn't.
(Photo credit: kimberlyfaye on Flickr.)
Global Land Grab Transparency
Published June 04, 2009 @ 11:59AM PT
Countries with limited agricultural land have been buying up the farm land of poorer countries as a hedge against future need. These contracts are going to start getting more attention:
... GRAIN is launching today a new website that offers the most comprehensive information tool on the global land grab for outsourced food production: http://farmlandgrab.org.
This new site is an improved version of the site initiated by GRAIN last year, which provides an open, up-to-date and easy to search library of over 800 articles, interviews and reports on farm land grabs around the world published since the outbreak of the food crisis in 2008.
The global trend to buy up or lease farmlands abroad as a strategy to secure basic food supplies, or simply to get rich, is not slowing down -- it is getting worse. The scale is becoming more apparent now, with researchers counting some 20 million hectares of good cropland already signed off to foreign investors, or soon to be, worldwide. More countries and corporations are getting involved, from Sri Lanka to Congo or Hyundai to Varun. Farmers' organisations, human rights groups and other social movements are agitating against this obscene approach to feeding their countries, while at least one government – the Ravalomanana regime in Madagascar -- has been brought down because of its involvement in such a deal. ...
The site will have wiki-like features, respect the anonymity of whistleblowing contributors who don't want to be identified, and attempt to bring as much information about these deals as possible into the public domain.
Recent postings to the site include a report on statements by an EU official comparing the trend to a neocolonialism that may harm poorer countries and this one examining farm land outsourcing in Africa, with a focus on Saudi Arabia's purchases.
Forces of Counter-Revolution
Published June 03, 2009 @ 09:13AM PT
The anti-Green Revolution is on:
Indian farmer Amarjit Sharma grows wheat and other crops on five acres in the heart of the region known as "the breadbasket of India," the fertile fields of Punjab.
Until four years ago, he was the kind of farmer whom government leaders and agricultural scientists hailed as a model in the developing world.
But now, he has gone organic and is part of a quiet but growing rebellion, which could affect the world's food crisis. ...
The article notes that Sharma initially profited from Green Revolution methods. Until the pesticides stopped working and the soil was stripped so badly that without ever-increasing quantities of fertilizer, he couldn't grow a good crop.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Yet though the article portrays Sharma's story in some detail, including the diversified cropping, nutrient and pest management steps he's taken, I have some quibbles. Such as uncritical inclusion of the statement by "Monsanto's India spokesman, Christopher Samuel, [who] says the company's advances will double the yields of major crops over the next 20 years, while reducing the amount of land, water, fertilizer and pesticides needed."
Because the question that needs to be asked when they make assertions like that is, 'Will they, really?' How do they know that? I'm sure they'd like to, but it isn't clear that they can. Yield gains often come at the price of other essential features of plant chemistry and physiology.
Can they actually produce nutritionally sound crops with doubled yields, from plants that need less water, less nutrients, less pest protection?
No one knows the answer to this question. It's a goal, not a certainty.
7 Years, 428 Percent Profits
Published May 29, 2009 @ 08:47AM PT
This week, Steph continues her series on a critical piece of social infrastructure necessary for growing the small-scale farming sector, or any other part of a more localized economy that depends on small businesses: making a public healthcare option available to everyone.
Farmers and ranchers know all too well about the problems that occur when a marketplace has too few competitors. When corporations consolidate, the resulting bigger business squeezes out the smaller businesses that compete against it. With less competition, there is nothing stopping the consolidated business from later raising retail prices for consumers or, in the case of farmers, lowering the price paid to farmers for livestock or grain.
A lack of competition is a problem for a functioning market, regardless of whether you're buying grain, livestock, thing-a-ma-jigs or ... health care (pdf).
With health insurance costs rising much higher than wages, Health Care for America Now! began a study to see whether lack of competition could be one of the reasons. They found that in the past 13 years, there have been more than 400 corporate mergers involving health insurers. These days a small number of companies dominate local markets, but the promises of increased efficiencies and lowered costs have not materialized.
The most staggering statistic for me was that from 2000 to 2007, profits at the top 10 publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428%. Talk about beating the stock market...
This lack of competition is especially bad for small non-profit organizations or people who are self-employed or own small businesses. In a consolidated market, an insurance company can set prices as high as they want, and small groups or individuals don't have the ability to purchase policies "in bulk", so it's like they're paying retail for something larger businesses and organizations can buy wholesale.
Small businesses, entrepreneurs and self-employed workers are the lifeblood of rural communities. Without health reform that works for them, the economies of our rural communities will continue to suffer. Yet our rural states are some of the most consolidated in the country.
In Vermont (pdf) for example, where 62% of the population lives in rural communities, two companies control 90% of the market share of health insurance. Montana's (pdf) rural population is 46% of its total population, and one insurance company has 75% of the market. Iowa (pdf) has 1.1 million people in rural areas, and 80% of the insurance market is controlled by the top 2 insurers.
Of the list of top 10 most consolidated health insurance states, only two - Hawaii and Rhode Island - have a rural population of less than 30% of their total population.
So who needs competition? Clearly it helps us all, but rural states look to be especially hurt by the consolidation of the health insurance industry. The next question must then be: What will you do about it?
Here's something to do: Urge your Senators to stand up for rural voters in your state. If you live in Nebraska, Iowa, Montana, or western Wisconsin click on your state to see where to send a letter. If you don't live in one of those states, click here to find your members of Congress and be sure to send to their offices in your state to avoid security delays. When you write, consider including the following talking points:
- Health care coverage must be affordable, accessible, and available to everyone
- A public plan option - one that consumers can choose if they want to - is necessary to guarantee competition among insurers
- Reform that includes meaningful options for small business and the self-employed will bolster entrepreneurship
- Talk about your own experience with health care, or the importance of health care reform to your community
It's the role of government to protect citizens from abuse by big corporations. It's time we raise our voices and demand equality in health care.
Update: Over at DailyKos, McJoan writes about growing support for a public option in Montana, where the government describes the healthcare market as 'highly concentrated.' - Natasha
Agriculture Hold Up To Climate Bill
Published May 24, 2009 @ 07:55AM PT
So, the agriculture committee, and the industrial food interests they represent, still want the EPA to stop doing its job and they aren't happy at all with the Waxman-Markey climate bill.
These are their beefs, as laid out in the New York Times:
... Democrats and Republicans on the Agriculture Committee have a long list of grievances against the bill, and leaders of the panel are looking for ways to alter the legislation or slow it down before a full House vote. They want to see more offsets for farmers, a greater role for the Agriculture Department and changes in the bill's requirements for renewable fuels. ...
Translation: They would like an industry that's a net emitter of carbon to, without having to do anything differently, get credits for being a net carbon sink. Also, they would like to get paid for biofuels without their production of them having to be regulated.
Shorter translation: Where's our bribe?
As Tom Philpott gleaned recently, House Ag Chair, Rep. Collin Peterson, wants full veto power over the climate bill, particularly if this bill which was never intended to regulate their industry doesn't turn into a new revenue stream for subsidizing corn.
I have, as you might imagine, a lot of problems with bribing industrial agriculture for the sake of getting an already watered-down climate bill through Congress. But all things are relative.
For example, the bill is already loaded down with bribes to the coal industry, fossil energy producers and major polluters in general. As loathsome as Big Corn may be, it's not more loathsome in my estimation than Big Coal, and is probably, on net, slightly less bad.
(Though one of these days, maybe the agriculture industry will realize that climate change is a serious threat to their livelihoods and start acting like it instead of mouthing platitudes about it. It's crazy talk, I know, I'm funny like that.)
For everyone who wants a piece of this without providing some real climate benefit or actually new, actually sustainable job opportunities, the amount that goes to beneficial activities is diminished. I don't like that at all, but it's how business is done and I suppose the hope is that sustainable businesses will still be able to take off in spite of the overwhelming force of their more heavily subsidized opposition.
That's the hope, anyway. Shorter me: if there's a straw that breaks my back for support of Waxman-Markey (1Sky), a compromise with the notoriously retrograde House agriculture committee probably won't be it.
(Photo credit: twoblueday on Flickr.)
Saturday Brunch: No Breakfast for Old Hens
Published May 23, 2009 @ 06:36AM PT
Raiding the internet fridge for your intellectual delectation ...
- OpenLeft: The one type of claim to global warming skepticism that you will ever see me approvingly link to.
- Civil Eats: Ethical eating means care for the people who grow and harvest our food as much as it means care for how that food was produced. Also, is organic farming a form of activism without land reform?
- The Green Fork: What's the difference between a pigeon and an investment banker? A look at Food and Water Watch's guide to sustainable seafood (go, tilapia!)
- ObamaFoodorama: While California's first lady, Maria Shriver, followed Michelle Obama's lead in starting a garden in Sacramento on state grounds, it isn't organic, which must please some people no end. The USDA hires Rajiv Shah, yet another biotech booster.
- LaVidaLocavore: Vilsack may be pro-biotech, but at least he also likes small-scale, organic farming. The CropLife jagoffs are back at it, with a letter writing campaign encouraging people to tell Mrs. Obama that pesticides are yummy. McDonald's caught McGreenwashing. About not being anti-farmer.
PS - Dear The People Who Run Entertainment Companies: When you disable YouTube embedding of your artists' original videos and live performances, you are preventing me from advertising the music in your catalog for free on my website. A service which, I might point out, is even more valuable to you for music that's older and rarely played on the radio anymore. (Seriously, does anyone profit by my not showing people how cool the Eurythmics were, and hey, maybe they should grab one of their albums or some iTunes for old times' sake? Same for mini-clips from movies that aren't in theaters anymore.) This is moronic and self-defeating. Learn how to use advertising embeds and grow the f* up already. Kissy the face, n.
