How to feed 9 billion people? Try high-rise food production

Future of farming could be going vertical

By Don Gordon
Guest writer
Mankato Free Press
Saturday, January 1, 2011

I would estimate that most of the people reading today’s column will sit down to a holiday meal that contains more than enough calories to sustain them. Unfortunately, not so for the one billion residents of the world who are perpetually hungry and malnourished.

Despite some gains in reducing hunger in the past, we are faced with the reality of seeing the numbers increase each year. Each day we have 217,000 more people to feed, and that amounts to an increase of over 80 million a year. If this growth rate continues, the United Nations estimates that our population will increase from the nearly 7 billion today to 9.1 billion by 2050. To feed all these people, we will need to increase food production by 70 percent.

Since 1950 increases in food production have been largely due to the development of high yielding varieties (HYV), increased fertilizer use, and increased irrigation. Of the three, developing more HYVs seems to be our best option for increasing productivity because crops will only tolerate so much fertilizer and water tables are falling worldwide.

Farming more land is not given much credence because most of the economically viable land for growing crops is already being used; unless, of course, we decide to sacrifice diversity by clearing more (mostly tropical) wild lands.

Lester Brown, in his new book, World on the Edge, reminds us “as rapid population growth continues, cropland becomes scarce, wells go dry, forests disappear, soils erode, unemployment rises and hunger spreads.”

Compounding the hunger problem is the mass migration of people to cities. By 2050, the UN estimates that 70 percent of the world population will be living in urban areas. Getting food to cities means costly transportation costs and more fossil fuel use, thus adding to the global warming problem. Of course, there is the added loss of food due to spoilage. The journal Nature estimates that between one quarter and one-third of the food produced worldwide is lost or spoiled. Could there be a greener way?

There is no shortage of ideas concerning how to feed the world population.

Space does not permit listing all of these, but there is one being suggested that will be of interest to gardeners. This method is not going to solve the hunger problem, but it might help a bit in urban areas. This system is called vertical gardening (or farming), and it is really not new since forms of it have been practiced since the advent of agriculture.

When you run out of land in urban areas the answer is a no-brainer: go vertical, build upward. We have done it for housing, is it also possible for food production?

Just imagine, skyscrapers with multiple floors of fruit and vegetables. The latest issue of the Economists looks at the pros and cons of growing crops in vertical farms in urban areas. The biggest promoter of vertical farming is Dickson Despommier, professor of environmental science at Columbia University. In his new book, The Vertical Farm, Despommier points out that with this method pesticide, fungicide and herbicide use would be minimal.

Also, there would be no need to worry about soil erosion because the plants would be grown hydroponically. By recycling both water and mineral nutrients, there would no runoff pollution problems.

There are a number of designs for vertical farming in urban areas, but critics point out that without artificial light these designs will fail. Stacking plants limits the ability of natural light to reach all parts of the plant.

Peter Head, a British engineer, points out that “Light has to be very tightly controlled to get uniform production of very high-quality food.”

The cost of artificial light for growing plants is expensive. Here in Minnesota a number of indoor non-vertical hydroponic facilities have failed because of expensive energy costs associated with both light and heat.

The future for vertical farming in urban areas is unclear. Proponents say the light problem can be overcome by growing plants on just the sides of buildings sandwiched between glass and rotating on a conveyor belt. But, at this time construction of single story greenhouses on top of existing buildings seems more economically plausible. In 2011, an organization called Science Barge will open the world’s largest urban commercial hydroponic farm in Brooklyn. This is a 15,000 square foot facility that is expected to produce 30 tons of vegetables a year.

Vertical gardening, farming or growing plants in rooftop greenhouses may seem farfetched, but it is imperative that we investigate new and innovative methods of producing food.

To feed 9.1 billion we need another green revolution that is more successful than the first.

Don Gordon is professor emeritus of botany at Minnesota State University Mankato. Send questions concerning horticulture or the environment with a stamped, self-addressed, long envelope to 52794 Deerwood Trail, Mankato, MN 56001, or email him via this link. Posted by permission of the author.

Small ag targeted by law enforcement agencies

Raids are increasing on farms and private food-supply clubs

by David Gumpert 14 Jul 2010 10:32 AM
Grist

When the 20 agents arrived bearing a search warrant at her Ventura County farmhouse door at 7 a.m. on a Wednesday a couple weeks back, Sharon Palmer didn't know what to say. This was the third time she was being raided in 18 months, and she had thought she was on her way to resolving the problem over labeling of her goat cheese that prompted the other two raids. (In addition to producing goat's milk, she raises cattle, pigs, and chickens, and makes the meat available via a CSA.)

But her 12-year-old daughter, Jasmine, wasn't the least bit tongue-tied. "She started back-talking to them," recalls Palmer. "She said, 'If you take my computer again, I can't do my homework.' This would be the third computer we will have lost. I still haven't gotten the computers back that they took in the previous two raids."

As part of a five-hour-plus search of her barn and home, the agents -- from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, Los Angeles County Sheriff, Ventura County Sheriff, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture -- took the replacement computer, along with milk she feeds her chickens and pigs.

While no one will say officially what the purpose of this latest raid was, aside from being part of an investigation in progress, what is very clear is that government raids of producers, distributors, and even consumers of nutritionally dense foods appear to be happening ever more frequently. Sometimes they are meant to counter raw dairy production, other times to challenge private food organizations over whether they should be licensed as food retailers.

(More here.)

Atrazine: Banned in Europe, should it be banned in the U.S. as well?

EPA opens hearings on herbicide atrazine

by Bob Kelleher, Minnesota Public Radio
February 2, 2010

St. Paul, Minn. — The EPA has opened hearings on the safety of the farm herbicide atrazine and some Minnesota farmers are defending the product.

The Natural Resources Defense Council says atrazine is known to be harmful to wildlife and probably to humans. The herbicide is used primarily to kill grassy and broadleaf weeds in corn and soybean fields. Atrazine is the most commonly detected water pollutant in U.S. agricultural regions.

But Warren Formo with the Minnesota Agricultural Water Coalition, said the trend is improving.

"Educational efforts and best management practices developed by farmers and organizations have helped to reduce the concentrations of atrazine in our waters," Formo said.

Tim Dritz, vice president of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association, said atrazine already cleared exhaustive studies. He said the herbicide is a key component in modern farming practices intended to save fuel and conserve soil.

"I personally use atrazine once in a while," Dritz said. "We have switched to conservation tillage practices over the last couple of years including strip-till and no-till. And on those acres weed control is tougher to do than in conventional tillage. You're no longer wiping them out mechanically as a lot of people do."

(More here.)

Help your local economy: Buy local food

"If those people in southeastern Minnesota bought just 15 percent of their food from local sources, it would generate two-thirds as much income as all the region's farmers receive from subsidies."

The Economics of Local Food

Jane Black
All We Can Eat blog
Washington Post

You feel pretty virtuous when you buy local food. It's fresher, maybe even more nutritious, proponents say. Now advocates are pushing another selling point: Local food strengthens the economy. It keeps money in local communities and helps create jobs, which in turn can help reduce crime.

Wow. And you thought all you were getting was a really good peach.

Sarah DeWeerdt rounds up the facts about local food and economic development in a new, excellent article in World Watch. The money farmers earn goes in large part to buy seeds, animal feed and fertilizers from outside the region. In southeast Minnesota, farmers spend $996 million to grow $912 million worth of crops. Similar patterns are found in Iowa, Arizona and Washington.

Producing local food could change that, DeWeerdt reports. If those people in southeastern Minnesota bought just 15 percent of their food from local sources, it would generate two-thirds as much income as all the region's farmers receive from subsidies.

If the population in and around Seattle bought 20 percent of their food dollars at local businesses, it would inject an extra billion dollars each year into the local economy.

(More here.)

Calling for an end to 'business-as-usual' farming practices

Agriculture has degraded 35 percent of the world’s severely degraded land, and it will only get worse unless there’s a long-term shift to sustainable agriculture, a new study says.

International Commission Calls for ‘Paradigm Shift’ in Agriculture

by Ben Block, Worldwatch Institute

A commission of international agriculture experts unveiled a series of reports on Wednesday calling for an end to "business-as-usual" farming practices to avoid widespread environmental degradation and increasing food scarcity.

The group of more than 400 experts, known as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), concluded through its global and regional studies that governments and industries need to discontinue environmentally damaging farming methods. Farmers should have greater access to agricultural technology and science, especially in the developing world, to ensure productivity increases without further environmental degradation, the reports say.

The commission's conclusions come during one of the most severe food crises since the productivity boom of the Green Revolution. Rising prices for basic commodities such as rice, wheat, and corn have led to violent protests around the world, from Haiti to Egypt to the Philippines. Widespread environmental degradation and uneven distribution policies are contributing to shortages, especially in the developing world, the reports say.

(More here.)

More biofuels bad news

Not good news for those of us looking for easy solutions to the imminent challenge of food vs. fuel vs. the climate...

Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change

Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu TH

Abstract

Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.

The entire article is available from Science magazine.

The Farm Bill screws the little guy ... again

Growing locally, legislating nationally: Rules hinder Minnesota's specialty farmers

By KEVIN DIAZ, Star Tribune

March 23, 2008

WASHINGTON - Jack Hedin calls it forbidden fruit.

The organic fruits and vegetables that Hedin grows on his Featherstone Farm in southeastern Minnesota find eager buyers in co-ops all over the Twin Cities, frequented by urban dwellers hungry for fresh, locally grown food.

But in Congress, where lawmakers are rewriting federal farm policy for the next five years, much of what Hedin and other small-scale farmers grow in the Midwest falls under federal planting restrictions that add millions to the tab shoppers pay at the register.

Although the restrictions are facing more scrutiny this year in Congress, political handicappers -- including Minnesota Democrat Collin Peterson, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee -- say they're unlikely to go away soon.

Large-scale specialty crop growers in the South and West, particularly California, have successfully fought efforts in the farm bill to open up more Midwest farmland to fruit and vegetable production.

More here. Jack Hedin's op-ed piece on this subject published earlier this month in the New York Times is here. The irony, of course, is that the Farm Bill, which has been crafted and re-crafted since the 1930s ostensibly to help small family farms, has become just another means of corporate welfare for rich farmers and farm land investors, many of whom don't even know the the hitch end from the blade end of a plow.

A second irony is that this issue crosses party lines. While the Republican White House strongly advocates lowering farm subsidy payments, they find themselves doing battle against a coalition of southern, southwestern and western politicians who are mostly Republican in league with Midwesterners from both parties.

File under FOLLOW THE MONEY (Senate) and FOLLOW THE MONEY (House).

Can bee deaths be traced to 'frankenseeds'?

GMO Crops and the Decline of Bee Colonies in North America

By Brit Amos, Global Research, March 25, 2008

"Commercial beehives pollinate over a third of [North] America’s crops and that web of nourishment encompasses everything from fruits like peaches, apples, cherries, strawberries and more, to nuts like California almonds, 90 percent of which are helped along by the honeybees. Without this pollination, you could kiss those crops goodbye, to say nothing of the honey bees produce or the flowers they also fertilize." — Scott Thill

This essay will discuss the arguments and seriousness pertaining to the massive deaths and the decline of Bee colonies in North America. As well, it will shed light on a worldwide hunger issue that will have an economical and ecological impact in the very near future.

There are many reasons given to the decline in Bees, but one argument that matters most is the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and "Terminator Seeds" that are presently being endorsed by governments and forcefully utilized as our primary agricultural needs of survival. I will argue what is publicized and covered by the media is in actuality masking the real forces at work, namely the impact of genetically modified seeds on the reproduction of bee colonies across North America

Genetically modified seeds are produced and distributed by powerful biotech conglomerates. The latter manipulate government agricultural policy with a view to supporting their agenda of dominance in the agricultural industry. American conglomerates such as Monsanto, Pioneer HiBred and others, have created seeds that reproduce only under certain conditions, often linked to the use of their own brands of fertilizer and/or insecticide.

The genetic modification of the plant leads to the concurrent genetic modification of the flower pollen. When the flower pollen becomes genetically modified or sterile, the bees will potentially go malnourished and die of illness due to the lack of nutrients and the interruption of the digestive capacity of what they feed on through the summer and over the winter hibernation process.

I will argue that the media reports tend to distract public opinion from the true cause which underlies the destruction of bee colonies. As such, outlined are four major arguments which the biotech conglomerates (which produce and market GMO seeds) have used to mislead the public regarding the demise of the bees. These arguments include Varroa mites, parasites, cell phones, and terminator seeds.

(The rest is here.)

Forget the free market: U.S. government endorses genetically modified corn

Farmers can save on crop insurance with GMO corn
by Dan Gunderson, Minnesota Public Radio

For the first time, the federal government is endorsing a specific genetically modified crop. Minnesota is one of four states taking part in the pilot program. Farmers who plant a Monsanto corn variety can get a price break on their crop insurance premiums. But many farmers are skeptical.

Moorhead, MN — Corn gets a lot of attention from biotechnology companies and as a result, has had a number of genetic modifications which make corn plants resistant to insects, disease and specific herbicides.

Monsanto put all the genetic modifications in a single plant, a process that's called stacking genetic traits.

The federal government says the triple stack genetic technology is less risky to grow so farmers should pay less to insure that specific variety.

Federal Risk Management Agency Administrator Eldon Gould says the goal is to save farmers and taxpayers money.

"The premium that the farmer is going to pay is subsidized by the taxpayer so by the fact the farmer is paying less on his portion of the premium, the taxpayer is paying less on the taxpayer portion of the premium so there is in fact a savings to the taxpayer," says Gould.

More at MPR. What is left out here is the potential downside — and societal costs — of GM crops. For example, monoculture, which GM-based agriculture promotes, requires more fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides, all of which can have severe environmentally negative impacts. These become indirect costs to the nation's taxpayers, both financially and in terms of human health impact.

A second downside is that the GM corn seed of just one producer, Monsanto, is currently approved for the insurance discount. Free market advocates should be screaming bloody murder.

More on the effects of the GM corn monoculture:

• "Corn-based ethanol could worsen 'dead zone'" (Reuters)
• "Do higher corn prices mean less adherence to ecological principles?" (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
• "GE [genetic engineering] and Pesticide Use" (Cornell University Cooperative Extension)
• "Genetically Engineered Crops Use More Pesticide" (Union of Concerned Scientists)
• "Genetically Engineered Crops May Produce Herbicide Inside Our Intestines" (Organic Consumers Association"

The Genetically Modified Food Gamble

“Who Benefits from GM Crops?”

Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose

by Robert Weissman, Common Dreams

There have been few experiments as reckless, overhyped and with as little potential upside as the rapid rollout of genetically modified crops.

Last month, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a pro-biotech nonprofit, released a report highlighting the proliferation of genetically modified crops. According to ISAAA, biotech crop area grew 12 percent, or 12. 3 million hectares, to reach 114. 3 million hectares in 2007, the second highest area increase in the past five years.

For the biotech backers, this is cause to celebrate. They claim that biotech helps farmers. They say it promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries.”If we are to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of cutting hunger and poverty in half by 2015,” says Clive James, ISAAA founder and the author the just-released report, “biotech crops must play an even bigger role in the next decade.”

In fact, existing genetically modified crops are hurting small farmers and failing to deliver increased food supply — and posing enormous, largely unknown risks to people and the planet.

For all of the industry hype around biotech products, virtually all planted genetically modified seed is for only four products — soy, corn, cotton and canola — with just two engineered traits. Most of the crops are engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide sold by Monsanto under the brand-name Round-up (these biotech seeds are known as RoundUp-Ready). Others are engineered to include a naturally occurring pesticide, Bt.

(The rest is here.)

"How Pigs Saved Our Bacon" ... and How Taxpayers Picked Up the Tab

Leigh Pomeroy

Daniel Gross in NEWSWEEK (March 17, 2008) promotes the strength of the U.S. export market, thanks in part to our farming community. In "How Pigs Saved Our Bacon," he writes:

Jim Robbins's 3,000-acre family farm in Peotone, Ill., may not seem like a vital cog in the global economy. And yet Robbins, a fourth-generation corn and soybean farmer, exports 90 percent of his crops. Each year they either roll on trains to the Pacific Northwest or float on barges down the Illinois River, the first leg of their journey to Asia. "The containers that are bringing everything from China and Taiwan, we're shipping them back with corn, soybeans and soybean meal," he says.

What Gross neglects to mention is that Mr. Robbins's success is due in a large part to generous federal subsidies to corn and soybean farmers. In Mr. Robbins's case those subsidies totaled $197,214 for 2003-2005, an average of $65,738 per year, according to the Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database.

Clearly, $65,738 of annual government subsidies is a lot of money by most Americans' estimates. After all, the median family income in the U.S. in 2006 was $48,201, about 73 percent of what Mr. Robbins received in government payments.

So the lesson here is a little more complex than what Mr. Gross leads us to believe: The U.S. government's commitment to farm subsidies has had a lot to do with Mr. Robbins's success.

Please! Do not interpret this as a critique of Mr. Robbins's taking advantage of a federal government windfall. Mr. Robbins, who undoubtedly works hard to farm his 3,000 acres, is simply playing by the rules laid down over seven decades of convoluted farm policy. What the government is offering, he is accepting. And who can blame him for that?

If blame be laid it should be elsewhere:

• First, on the politicians who have devised such a complex and increasingly ill-advised and incomprehensible system.
• Second, on the self-proclaimed free marketeers who promote international free trade, when in fact the international market for many goods is highly impacted by government interference, such as farm subsidies.
• Third, on journalists such as Daniel Gross and publications such as NEWSWEEK which fail to reveal the entire story.

Farm subsidies in the U.S. were established in the 1930s to help small family farms struggling to raise a diversity of crops and usually a complement of farm animals. In those days, farming was done with more sweat than mechanization, with more hands-on working of the land than the blanket application of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.

It is ironic — indeed more than that: it is sad — that the vast sums of taxpayer-funded farm subsidies today go to large agricultural enterprises raising a mono- or duo-culture of genetically altered plants, the success of which is dependent upon giant chemical manufacturers.

Meanwhile, small organic family farmers — the true descendants of the American farmers of the 1930s — struggle to make ends meet without much of a nod or a notice from the federal government, and certainly without its help.

Perhaps someday change will come. But it won't be easy, especially when there are those who are gleaning — all legally — millions of dollars from the current system. As long as politicians continue to receive campaign contributions from those benefiting from the government dole, it appears that change won't come soon.

Chemical companies and food: We are what we eat

New movie damns Monsanto's deadly sins

A new movie has dealt yet another severe blow to the credibility of US based Monsanto, one of the biggest chemical companies in the world and the provider of the seed technology for 90 percent of the world’s genetically engineered (GE) crops.

The French documentary, called “The world according to Monsanto” and directed by independent filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, paints a grim picture of a company with a long track record of environmental crimes and health scandals.

The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the “revolving door”. One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company’s vice president for public policy.

Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted GE foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety. Not coincidentally, Monsanto supplies 90 percent of the GE seeds used by the US market.

Monsanto’s long arm stretched so far that, in the early nineties, the US Food and Drugs Agency even ignored warnings of their own scientists, who were cautioning that GE crops could cause negative health effects. Other tactics the company uses to stifle concerns about their products include misleading advertising, bribery and concealing scientific evidence.

(More here. The U.S. government ignoring scientific evidence? So what else is new?)

In Mexico, 100,000 protest NAFTA

But in the U.S., who cares?

The following article is over two weeks old, but the fact that it has just come to our attention indicates how poorly the U.S. media is doing at covering substantial issues in our neighboring country to the south. If there were a protest attracting 100,000 people in the U.S., it would be breaking news on all the major networks and splashed across the front page of every newspaper in the country.

While this article states that over 100,000 Mexican citizens participated in this protest, others indicate the number could be as high as 300,000 while the Mexican police says the figure was only 20-25,000.

Thousands in Mexico Urge Government to Renegotiate NAFTA

By Julieta Mendoza, International Business Times
Posted 02 February 2008 @ 10:25 pm EST

Tens of thousands of agricultural workers and their union representatives gathered at Mexico City's downtown plaza, the Zocalo, on Thursday to complain about the agriculture provisions in the North America Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Agricultural workers with tractors, cows and banners — estimated over 100,000 by media reports — came together, urging the Mexican government to renegotiate the rules in the agricultural part of the Agreement that do away with customs tariffs for corn, beans, sugar and milk starting in 2008.

"We have lost our way as a nation. We have given up sovereignty over food and energy," said Cruz Lopez, the speaker of the National Agricultural workers Confederation (CNC for its acronym in Spanish) according to Spain daily ABC.

Different organizations representing land workers said rules in NAFTA will diminish competition in Mexico, mainly affecting farmers. They also asserted that the U.S. has better agricultural financial assistance than Mexico.

The rest is here. Yes, the protest was mentioned on CNN and AP, but it was more widely covered in France, the UK, China, Iran and Cuba. Not that all U.S. media outlets totally ignored the story. One that featured it was the North Platte, Neb., Bulletin.

Thanks to Minnesota Central for the tip.

Crop losses put more pressure on Palestinian woes

Farmers hit by prolonged frost in January

HEBRON, WEST BANK (IRIN) - A recent cold snap with sub-zero temperatures has caused farmers in the West Bank to incur losses of nearly US$14.5 million, according to initial estimates by the Palestinian ministry of agriculture (MoA) set out in a 6 February joint "fact sheet" with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The winter cash crop is the most profitable and "[as] a direct result of the frost, thousands of farmers have lost their main source of income for the next [few] months," the "fact sheet", which was emailed to IRIN, said.

Between 70 and 100 percent of crops planted in the open - mainly zucchinis, aubergines, beans, tomatoes, peppers and fruit trees - have either been lost or damaged.

(Continued here.)

Genetically Modified Crops 'Increase Pesticide Use'

Friends of the Earth International via OneWorld.net

In 2007 GM crops still failed to tackle hunger and poverty in developing countries

BRUSSELS (BELGIUM), LAGOS (NIGERIA), KUALA LUMPUR (MALAYSIA) -- February 13, 2008 -- A new report released on February 13th shows that planting genetically modified (GM) crops is causing an increased use of harmful pesticides in major biotech crop producing countries.

The 2008 edition of the Friends of the Earth International “Who Benefits from GM crops?” report series is titled “The Rise in Pesticide Use” and concludes that GM crops on the market today have on the whole caused an increase rather than a decrease in toxic pesticides use, and have failed to tackle hunger and poverty.

After more than a decade of GM crop cultivation, more than 70% of the area cultivated with biotech crops is still concentrated in only two countries: the US and Argentina.

To date, GM crops have done nothing to alleviate hunger or poverty in Africa or elsewhere.

“The biotech industry is telling Africans that we need GM crops to tackle the food needs of our population. But how can we believe such statements when the majority of GM crops are used to feed the animals of rich countries, produce industrial products like agrofuels, and overall don’t yield more than conventional crops?”, said Nnimmo Bassey of Friends of the Earth Nigeria/ERA.

"GM crops still fail to deliver the long-promised benefits. They are not good for the environment, as they are increasing pesticide use. In addition, they do not benefit small farmers or consumers in terms of quality or price," added Bassey.

(More here.)

We agree with George Will — again!

U.S. farm subsidies need to be reexamined

Twice in a week we've found something we like from the sometime blowhard George Will. Time was when you could expect Mr. Will to say something reasonable on a regular basis. Then George Bush II ascended to the throne of government and Mr. Will became for the most part another pseudo-conservative — meaning "not a real conservative" — mouthpiece for the man who has become both court jester and president at the same time.

(My apologies to the honorable and well-respected profession of court jesting.)

At any rate, Mr. Will may be returning to his old self, and we welcome that!

Reweaving the safety net for American farms

It's far past time to end price supports for specific crops. The well-qualified Sen. Richard Luger has a plan.

By George F. Will, Washington Post

... America's prodigiously productive farmers are never more so than when a minority of them are cultivating Capitol Hill. Their lobbyists have toiled to preserve the New Deal approach. They stress the romance of the family farm, but their fog of sentimentality obscures pertinent facts:

Fifty-seven percent of farms receive no payments and two-thirds of those that do receive less than $10,000. The largest 8 percent of farms receive 58 percent of the payments. Farms with revenues of $250,000 or more receive payments averaging $70,000. Lugar wants to redirect the flow of federal funds, from subsidizing favored crops to rural development, because fewer than 14 percent of residents in rural areas work on farms.

Under the continuing New Deal approach, five commodities -- corn, soybeans, cotton, rice and wheat -- got about 90 percent of last year's $19 billion in subsidies. This is a perverse incentive for overproduction of the five, which depresses prices, which triggers federal supports.

Lugar, who proposes capping annual farm assistance at $30,000 per recipient, is attempting reform at a time when federal energy policy is making matters worse. By subsidizing corn-based ethanol, the government is making the "crop specific" approach to subsidies increasingly irrational: Ethanol enthusiasm has produced a one-year increase of 12 percent in acres planted in corn, the price of which has risen 20 percent in a year. So farmers are planting fewer acres in soybeans, which therefore also are being made more expensive by federal policy. Furthermore, U.S. agriculture subsidies, which have the World Trade Organization properly frowning, are becoming major impediments to further liberalization of global trade, and hence to the huge potential growth of U.S. farmers' incomes from exports....

Agriculture policy -- another manifestation of the welfare state, another contributor to another faction's entitlement mentality -- involves a perennial conundrum of welfare, corporate as well as individual: How do you break an addiction to government without breaking the addicted?

The entire article is here.

Farm Bill: Friend or foe?

by Leigh Pomeroy

The Farm Bill is highly complex, and few Americans have any idea how much it impacts them and our country — in fact, the world.

In any complexity within our society — e.g., taxes, the law, the military, government itself — those who know the subject best are the ones who make the decisions. This is a double-edged sword, because knowledge can be employed to advance the common good, or it can be used, like money, to benefit primarily a few.

Unfortunately, farm subsidies, while introduced with good intention, are like a foreign species introduced into an ecosystem to combat one pest, but which has grown to become a new pest itself.

For those looking to educate themselves more on the subject, A Bluestem Prairie has recently posted some excellent analysis. As well as the sources she cites — the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Grist magazine, the Blog for Rural America — everyone who has any interest in this subject should be aware of the Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database.

The Farm Bill is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue, but a who's-getting-rich-from-subsidies vs. a hey-wait-a-minute!-something's-wrong-here issue. For many wealthy landowners and large agricultural producers, subsidies have become an entitlement. Ironically, many of these are the same folks who rail at cocktail parties about other government entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.

The Farm Bill needs to be dismembered, put into parts, and examined closely to determine as to which program really supports a safe, sustainable, environmentally positive and economically fair food production system, and which is simply a multi-million dollar entitlement system for large landowners, producers and agribusinesses.

There are many good programs in the current Farm Bill. We need to build on those but say "good riddance" to the rest.

Farm Subsidies and Political Contributions

Giving to your congressman does pay off, but measuring the results is not that simple

by Leigh Pomeroy

It stands to reason that those politicians whose districts most benefit from agriculture receive the most political contributions from the agribusiness sector. But how can we prove that?

Thanks to the Environmental Working Group and opensecrets.org, Vox Verax and Minnesota Monitor have been able to draw a few cautious conclusions. What we found indicate that political contributions to representatives of districts that rely heavily on agriculture do yield farm subsidies returned to those districts. But it's not that simple.

Minnesota has eight congressional districts. Two are mostly urban (4 and 5), three mostly suburban (2, 3 and 6), and three mostly rural (1, 7 and 8). Districts 3, 4 and 5 have virtually no agriculture. Districts 2, 6 & 8 have some agriculture. And districts 1 and 7 have strong agricultural based economies, with district 7 relying almost entirely on agriculture for its economic base.

From table below it is clear that districts 1 and 7 receive by far the lion's share of agricultural subsidies, commanding fully $8.1 billion of the $9.3 billion doled out to Minnesota farmers between 1995 and 2005 — some 88 percent of all Minnesota farm subsidies.

It also shows that the U.S. representatives in those districts received the most campaign contributions from the agribusiness sector, and that agribusiness donations to those representatives yielded the best return if measured by farm subsidies — at $4,779 (Peterson) and $4,747 (Gutknecht) per dollar of donation.

Member	District	Total subsidies 1995-2005, in millions	Subsidies per farm (1995-2005)	Total agribusiness donations	Agribusiness donations as % of total donations	Amount of subsidy per $ of agribusiness donation (adjusted for years in donation sample)	Years in donation sample
Collin Peterson	D-Minn. 7	$4,810.0	$147,415	$1,006,407	22.2%	$4,779	1989-2006
Gil Gutknecht	R-Minn. 1	$3,310.0	$154,789	$697,277	10.6%	$4,747	1989-2006
John Kline	R-Minn. 2	$613.0	$90,360	$286,794	4.5%	$2,137	1989-2006
Jim Oberstar	D-Minn. 8	$244.0	$19,336	$200,200	3.1%	$1,219	1989-2006
Mark Kennedy	R-Minn. 2 (2000-02), 6 (2002-06)	$280.0	$41,847	$362,416	6.8%	$1,031	1989-2004
Jim Ramstad	R-Minn. 3	$19.5	$32,500	$299,967	3.8%	$65	1989-2006
Betty McCollum	D-Minn. 4	$1.8	$16,216	$53,409	1.7%	$34	1989-2006
Martin Sabo	D-Minn. 5	$0.7	$33,333	$129,300	3.5%	$5	1989-2004

In tabulating our results we included only those representatives who were in office through 2006. We did not include any of the legislators who took office in 2007: Reps. Michele Bachmann, Keith Ellison or Tim Walz.

Our process was to look at total farm subsidies from 1995 to 2005. From that we figured the total number of subsidies per farm over the same period of time. Then we took the total amount of donations from the agribusiness sector for each representative from 1989 to the present day (or the end of their careers in Congress) and figured the percentage that those donations made up of the total donations. Finally, we tabulated the amount of money returned to each district in farm subsidies per donation dollar.

While this chart gives an indication of where agribusiness money is going and what results it achieves, it is hardly conclusive. For one thing, political money in support of agriculture can come from many sectors, not just agribusiness. Examples include transportation (e.g. railroads), other business (e.g. food wholesalers), and finance, insurance and real estate (e.g. insurance companies and banks that specialize in farm business). These figures are not included in the results.

Further, agribusiness interests may give campaign contributions to representatives of primarily urban areas for other reasons. For example, production, warehousing and shipping facilities, as well as corporate headquarters, may be located in those districts.

Nevertheless, the figures indicate that agribusiness donations yield results if measured by farm subsidies.

The farm bill of 2006 will be a highly complex, book-length tome covering issues much broader that what happens on America's farms. It will be a challenge to understand for even those who know the issues involved. As for the majority of Americans whose only knowledge of the farm extends to shrink-wrapped packages of meat, displays of fresh produce under misting nozzles and the occasional news story of contaminated food, they have little option but to trust what their representatives in Congress will decide.

Who's Benefiting from Farm Subsidies? A Primer

by Leigh Pomeroy

In the coming weeks Vox Verax and Minnesota Monitor will be looking at farm policy. We will attempt -- and this is a grand challenge -- to make this information understandable for regular folks living in the city whose knowledge of these issues extends not much further than the produce section of their local Lunds, Byerly's, Cub, Rainbow, co-op, or other grocery store.

Minnesota Monitor will be learning along the way as well, for this is an incredibly complex issue involving not just agriculture but issues of environment, energy, trade, rural economies, social responsibility, quality of life and much more. Put simply: Farms can exist without cities, but cities cannot exist without farms.

I'd like to say that we're going to approach this subject in a logical, step-by-step fashion. But since farm policy is not set up that way, to try to put it in such a neat progression is very difficult, if not pure folly.

In many ways, farm policy resembles health care policy in the United States. It is built upon a makeshift system that worked at one time but has since become obsolete. But it is embedded into the fabric of our society, and thus changing it is akin to performing surgery — a painful process even with generous amounts of anesthesia.

Is this any different from any other country in the world? No. For all countries are struggling with 19th and 20th century farm policies while facing 21st century problems and needs.

Whereas once farm policy in the U.S. affected primarily those within its borders, today U.S. farm policy impacts every corner of the globe. Thus, when we make our farm policy decisions this year and in the future, we must be cognizant of their impact on the planet for generations to come.

Americans take for granted cheap food. For example, wholesale pork and beef prices have declined over 50 percent since 1970, adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile, energy costs, which are a huge factor in food production and shipping to market, have nearly doubled.

There are several reasons for the decreasing price of food. These include new technologies, hybridization, chemical and fertilizer advancements, larger farms (creating economies of scale), lower trade barriers and farm subsidies. While many of these are advancements, they also create costs that, while not apparent in the price of food, emerge elsewhere in societal balance sheets. For example, farm chemicals and fertilizers create huge environmental costs; lower trade barriers can undermine third world country economies; and farm subsidies can create an artificial domestic economy, rewarding accounting proficiency and but also farm inefficiency.

Today we will deal with something basic to U.S. farming in the 21st century: subsidies.

Farm subsidies arose in the 1930s when farmers were truly desperate. The farm economy was collapsing along with much of the rest of the country. In order to keep the U.S. economy going, Congress and President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted a broad spectrum of programs. These included encouraging farmers to stay on their farms.

Some 70 years later, as grist magazine has pointed out, subsidies have become a "Short-Term Solution That Stuck."

Like any welfare program, subsidies can lead to entitlement, even addiction. In Minnesota and South Dakota, for example, we recently witnessed the effrontery that agricultural interests felt when the Federal Railroad Administration turned down a proposed $2.3 billion taxpayer-subsidized loan for the DM&E railroad.

Most economists agree that in order to reach true economic balance in the world, the fewer trade barriers we have the better off we will be. Yet moving from a system that is highly impacted by government policy can be very painful for those who have done well by that system. And dismantling trade barriers does not just mean eliminating duties, taxes and allocations. It means doing away with internal economic incentives as well.

Such change cannot be achieved overnight -- nor should it be. A balancing of agricultural production and trade needs to take place over years, perhaps decades, perhaps even generations. Short-term solutions will not do.

That said, I will close with a simple table showing which congressional districts in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota are receiving the most farm subsidies. Keep in mind that the current officeholders in those districts are not necessarily responsible for this largesse, as these subsidies have come about over many decades. Thus, current legislators should not be blamed for these policies; rather, they should be encouraged to explore ways to make U.S. farm policy beneficial not only to Americans but citizens worldwide.

Member	District	Total subsidies 1995-2005, in millions	Subsidies per capita (1995-2005)	Number of farms (2002)	Subsidies per farm (1995-2005)
Earl Pomeroy*	D-N.D. at-large	$7,040.0	$11,548	30,619	$229,923
Stephanie Herseth*	D-S.D. at-large	$5,560.0	$7,453	31,736	$175,195
Collin Peterson*	D-Minn. 7	$4,810.0	$8,014	32,629	$147,415
Tim Walz*	D-Minn. 1	$3,310.0	$5,473	21,384	$154,789
John Kline	R-Minn. 2	$613.0	$889	6,784	$90,360
Michele Bachmann	R-Minn. 6	$280.0	$405	6,691	$41,847
Jim Oberstar	D-Minn. 8	$244.0	$390	12,619	$19,336
Jim Ramstad	R-Minn. 3	$19.5	$31	600	$32,500
Betty McCollum	D-Minn. 4	$1.8	$3	111	$16,216
Keith Ellison	D-Minn. 5	$.7	$1	21	$33,333

*Indicates member of House Agricultural Committee. Rep. Peterson is chair of that committee. Sources: Environmental Working Group and USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Coming up: Who's getting the big subsidies and how much are they investing in their congressmen and senators?

Ag interests cry "foul" over DM&E loan rejection

by Leigh Pomeroy

The wailing and gnashing-of-teeth reaction to the Federal Railroad Administration's rejection of a proposed $2.3 billion loan for the DM&E railroad has strangely not come from Powder River Basin coal interests or coal-fired utilities in the nation's midsection, both of whom would have the most to gain had the loan been approved. No, the loudest hue and cry has come from agricultural interests along the route that were sucked into supporting the proposed loan on the premise that the PRB expansion was the only way the DM&E could upgrade its service for them.

The DM&E's request for a zero collateral, low interest, taxpayer guaranteed loan is sort of like a baseball team owner asking taxpayers to build him a stadium on the premise that it will generate economic benefits and increase tax revenues. As we have come to learn, the jury is very much out on that argument.

Supporters of the loan have pointed out that massive amounts of state and federal dollars have built this nation's interstate highway system. True. Fortunately, the American people as represented by the state and federal governments have retained ownership in that system. In other words, they have something tangible for their tax dollar investment.

If a bank wants to loan money to a business or a homeowner, it understandably expects collateral in return. That's called good business. The same rules should apply to the government, which represents its investors, the people whom it serves. A government loan, like a bank loan, must make good business sense.

Agricultural interests are notorious for being collectors at the public trough. According to the Environmental Working Group, farm subsides reached $164.7 billion for the period 1995-2005. Of that amount, $5.6 billion went to farmers in South Dakota and $9.5 billion went to farmers in Minnesota — the states that would most benefit from the DM&E loan — over that same period of time. For many farmers and groups that represent farmers, these subsidies have become an entitlement.

It is ironic that all too often those who champion "free market economics" are the first in line with their hands out looking for government money. One of the arguments that the DM&E put forward for the loan was that it would allow the railroad to "compete" for hauling Powder River Basin coal. Who would they compete against? Two other railroads. Does this mean that in order to set up a level playing field (per stadiums — no pun intended) the government would have to give the other two railroads low interest, taxpayer guaranteed loans of $2.3 billion each?

The DM&E has already received one $233 million loan. While it used some of that money to improve its infrastructure and upgrade service to existing rural and agricultural markets, it spent a certain amount on legal fees, public relations and other development costs for the PRB expansion, and towards paying off the purchase of the IC&E railroad, which it had acquired less than a year earlier.

Maybe if the DM&E had put more of the loan it already has toward improving service to Minnesota and South Dakota markets, its second loan application, ten times the size of its first, would have looked better to the FRA.

The DM&E's CEO Kevin Schieffer, like a good baseball manager, has very cleverly used ag interests to carry his water on the proposed $2.3 billion loan issue. One of these days these ag interests are going to wake up and realize they've been manipulated. While they've been thinking all along they're in the lineup, in fact they're not even on the roster. Instead, they've just been a bunch of rabid fans fueled by six-packs, overpriced hot dogs and the thought of winning a pennant.

Thanks to Patrick Dempsey for his input on this article.