Policy
The Fertilizer Divide
Published July 01, 2009 @ 12:19PM PT
While plant breeding has done its part, and irrigation a lion's share, in bringing global crop productivity up over this last century, synthetic and mineral fertilizers sealed the deal.
Plants need more than nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (N-P-K), but an abundance of those three key, limiting nutrients will get them growing well, usually even if there are micronutrient deficiencies. So the prominent N-P-K listings on fertilizer bags are generally most crucial, and arguably the most critical of these is nitrogen.
While the Green Revolution is attributed in large part to hybrid crop varieties, these do poorly when not supplied with the abundant irrigation and nutrient resources provided through the industrial agriculture system. As much as the biotech industry claims to be overcoming these input requirements, they have yet to do so, and hope is not a plan.
Industrial agriculture uses fertilizer synthesized from natural gas, which is running into price and availability constraints similar to that found with other fossil fuels. Further, using nitrogen fertilizer in excess of what can be absorbed by plants and organisms residing in the soil are a significant source of water pollution and the formation of nitrous oxides, which are powerful greenhouse gases.
Now, a new study has quantified the global fertilizer use divide, with the not-too-surprising findings that industrialized countries use too much and African agriculture may be in need of a lot more. From the press release:
Total(ish) Recall
Published June 28, 2009 @ 11:55PM PT
ObamaFoodorama discusses the ineffectual food safety measure known as a voluntary recall. LaVidaLocavore has more on the food inspection details
The FDA can't even make food processing plants show them their customer complaint records, their pest control records, or their contamination control plans. Let's contrast that toothlessnes towards large corporations with the micromanagement the federal government is trying to impose on individual ranchers in the form of the National Animal ID System.
... Mr. [Jay Platt, the third-generation proprietor of Platt Ranch,] called the extra $2 cost of the electronic tags an onerous burden for a teetering industry and said he often moved horses and some of his 1,000 head of cattle among three ranches here and in Arizona. Small groups of cattle are often rounded up in distant spots and herded into a truck by a single person, who could not simultaneously wield the hand-held scanner needed to record individual animal identities, Mr. Platt said. And there is no Internet connection on the ranch for filing to a regional database.
... “My main beef is that these proposed rules were developed by people sitting in their offices with no real knowledge of animal husbandry and small farms,” said Genell Pridgen, an owner of Rainbow Meadow Farms in Snow Hill, N.C., which rotates sheep, cattle, pigs, turkeys and chickens among three properties and sells directly to consumers and co-ops.
“I feel these regulations are draconian,” Ms. Pridgen said, “and that lobbyists from corporate mega-agribusiness designed this program to destroy traditional small sustainable agriculture.” ...
Why would the FDA have virtually no power to compel the food production and distribution industries to prevent people from dying of E. coli contamination, all while it's on the verge of having draconian authority over every aspect of animal movement on small farms and ranches?
Consider it a map of public power - Nestlé has it, Platt and Pridgen don't. It's obvious whose side the government is on.
California's Drought Continues
Published June 26, 2009 @ 04:46AM PT
Bad news for the Central Valley:
... Farmer Bob Dietrich said he has planted 300 of his 1,100 acres because his single well isn't enough to water his entire farm. Shawn Coburn apologized for arriving late, saying the $750,000 well he drilled earlier this year "is sucking air" as aquifers shrink under increased pumping. ...
This has been your 'sustainability moment' for today, wherein it behooves one to wonder if we can possibly continue doing what we've been doing and not suffer a major crash.
We're going to have to stop using fossil fuel and fossil water one way or another this century. We can either plan ahead for it and find other alternatives, or we can be cut off abruptly, dramatically, with little in the way of time or resources to prepare.
It's up to us. For now.
Update: Link added.
Biotech On Trial
Published June 24, 2009 @ 11:56PM PT
So a court has once again ruled against GE/GMO alfalfa. Jill Richardson writes:
Two years ago, a district court ruled that the USDA did not do its homework before approving genetically engineered alfalfa. The USDA approved GE alfalfa without a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which the court ruled was a violation of U.S. law. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court upheld that decision and its resulting ban on GE alfalfa (pending a full EIS).
... Following that decision, Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics (who entered into the suit as Defendant-Intervenors) requested the appellate court to rehear the case. The news today is that the court denied their request and thus reaffirmed the earlier decision in full. ...
There were the findings in that first alfalfa case, as reported by the Center for Food Safety:
* The judge found that plaintiffs' concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate natural and organic alfalfa are valid, stating that USDA's opposing arguments were "not convincing" and do not demonstrate the "hard look" required by federal environmental laws. The ruling went on to note that "&For those farmers who choose to grow non-genetically engineered alfalfa, the possibility that their crops will be infected with the engineered gene is tantamount to the elimination of all alfalfa; they cannot grow their chosen crop."
* USDA argued that, based on a legal technicality, the agency did not have to address the economic risks to organic and conventional growers whose alfalfa crop could be contaminated by Monsanto's GE variety. But the judge found that USDA "overstates the law." ...
Shorter version: A federal judge ruled that crop contamination by genetically engineered foods is a serious problem and the pro-Monsanto USDA argued that it shouldn't matter.
Anyone making the stupid argument that contamination doesn't happen? No. Because the discussion happened in a federal court and there, as opposed to the venue provided by the comments of this blog, you can go to jail for lying.
You may have noticed that the particular breed they were talking about was Roundup Ready, a spin off of their many popular Roundup/glyphosate-resistant crops. Glyphosate seems, according to data accepted by government regulators, to be safer for humans and animals than other pesticides.
However, as I noted not too long ago, pure glyphosate isn't sprayed on crops. It's mixed with ingredients that, because they aren't directly responsible for the desired effect of killing plants, don't have to be listed on the label because they can legally be described as inert, or in other words, as having no effect.
Glyphosate is supposed to be safer for aquatic organisms because it tends to settle out of water in its pure form, but it's commonly mixed with chemicals whose sole purpose is to make it more water soluble, in which case it appears to be a hazard to aquatic life. As for the effects of Roundup's 'inert' ingredients on humans:
Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But now researchers have found that one of Roundup's inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells. ...
Surprise!
Thank goodness there's at least one less Roundup Ready crop on the market to be spreading this plague farther still.
(Photo credit: daryl_mitchell on Flickr.)
World According To Monsanto, pt 7, Informed Consent
Published June 24, 2009 @ 07:24AM PT
Would it be all right with you if your parents, if you are an adult on your own recognizance, were still allowed to decide what cities or towns you could live in? Would your answer be any different if your parents were real estate agents and would probably make good decisions?
Would it be all right with you if the government made up a national menu and required you to eat only that food to conform? Would your answer be any different if the menu contained your favorite foods?
Well, I think I'd have to say no on both counts, and in case of both contingencies.
Believing in self-determination, free will and informed consent as I do, I couldn't approve of such policies. This is the level of choice that I see being removed from each of us when the government refuses to require the labeling of transgenic foods.
By way of self-reported studies and captive university research laboratories whose future grant funding depends on the favor of the biotech industry, the FDA has approved numerous transgenic crops that are processed in the regular food supply and sold to an unsuspecting marketplace.
They've been allowed to patent self-replicating, living organisms and release them into the wild without the public even having a chance to debate the implications.
'Oh,' the biotech folks will say, and have said in the comments at this blog, 'but you can buy organic food.'
First, it's as ridiculous that I should have to pay a premium to have food that wasn't sprayed with poison in the first as that I should have to pay a premium in order to know what I'm eating. Second, I can't be sure that I know what I'm eating, not even if I buy organics.
Collin Peterson, Congress in Denial
Published June 23, 2009 @ 02:24PM PT
Collin Peterson may be the only person in politics who believes in global warming and is thrilled about its prospects for agriculture. Ahem. That this suggests, as Brad Johnson points out over at the Wonkroom, that he doesn't actually believe in it must remain in the realm of conjecture for now.
But seriously, Peterson said, "We’ve just had the biggest floods and coldest winters we’ve ever had. They’re saying to us [that climate change is] going to be a big problem because it’s going to be warmer than it usually is; my farmers are going to say that’s a good thing since they’ll be able to grow more corn."
Are there actually any farmers who are pro-flood and drought? That question sort of answers itself. As further noted at the Wonkroom:
The report Peterson dismissed as being good news for farmers also shows that if no action is taken to halt global warming, the U.S. grain belt could see one to two months of heat waves over 100°F and two to three months of heat waves over 90°F by the end of the century. Corn, by the way, “will fail to reproduce at temperatures above 95°F.”
Chris Bowers amply described the political situation around Peterson's hold up of the climate bill, which got around 300 pages added to the still-fluid legislation.
Peterson's getting information in hearings and political backing from people like American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman, who thinks the only agricultural implications of climate change are higher energy costs.
Michelle Obama Linking Food and Health
Published June 20, 2009 @ 03:06PM PT
Via Obamafoodorama, the First Lady talks about food and health outcomes at the White House garden harvest celebration:
Michelle Obama: ... But unfortunately, for too many families, limited access to healthy fruits and vegetables is often a barrier to a healthier diet. In so many of our communities, particularly in poorer and more isolated communities, fresh, healthy food is simply out of reach. With few grocery stores in their neighborhoods, residents are forced to rely on convenience stores, fast food restaurants, liquor stores, drug stores and even gas stations for their groceries.
These food deserts leave too many families stranded and without enough choices when it comes to nourishing their loved ones. And sadly, this is the case in many large cities and rural communities all across this nation. So we need to do more to address the fact that so many of our citizens live in areas where access to healthy food, and thus a healthy future, is simply out of reach. ...
It's a resonant message, one that people across the country have been coming to independently, as evidenced by the spread of urban rooftop gardening and edible landscaping. (It's even spread beyond our borders, with Britain's Queen Elizabeth joining the kitchen garden movement.)
Even the American Medical Association, staunch opponents of serious health coverage reform otherwise, are saying that we need to reform food policy.
Indeed, money spent on good food policy now is far less expensive than treating diet-related diseases later.
We are what we eat, as much as we ever were. Why not take it seriously?
