Farm Bill Insider

Keith Good, editor at FarmPolicy.com, is a farm bill insider - trolling the media for any and all reports, pulling choice quotes from dispatches, and even posting audio from Congressional hearings and from his own interviews. It's wonky but fascinating.

I was especially interested in this comment Good highlighted from a Senate Ag Committee hearing. North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, who also chairs the Senate BudgetCommittee, complained bitterly about a series of Washington Post articles entitled ‘Harvesting Cash’ that have painted a highly critical picture of federal farm programs. (We've blogged on WaPo's reports, including one on how USDA loan payments are paying for resort town improvements, and highly recommend it).

“‘You know, one of the things that struck me about these articles - you don’t see much reference to the cost of food in this country - the lowest cost of food in this country of any country in the history of mankind,’ Conrad railed. ‘You don’t see much reference to a plentiful and healthy supply of food - you don’t see much reference to that. You don’t see much reference to the health of the agricultural sector in this country. You don’t see much reference to the fact that we are a major exporter for this nation - you don’t see much reference to that,’ he continued. ‘You don’t see much reference to what is the true status of most farm families, at least as I know it in my state.’”

Sen. Conrad's obviously not reading the same stuff we're reading about e. coli outbreaks, contaminated peanut butter, subsidies that enrich the richest farmers, including those who reside in Washington, D.C., the continued demise of smaller farmers, the depopulation of rural areas, the high rates of obesity linked to cheap processed food - the list goes on and on - much of it the result of subsidies too complex for most people to figure out, let alone care about.

To get behind the Post series - and what motivated it - check out this Mp3 audio interview Good had with Post series reporter Dan Morgan last year. "By and large, we've had a lot of positive feedback from farmers, and from the agriculture community who understand the series is not about beating up on farmers," Morgan says. "It's about trying to identify and spotlight flaws in the program, and ways that the money could be used better, to the benefit of farmers."

GM Crops Advance - Without Debate

By Stephanie Paige Ogburn

Genetically modified crops are taking root at a rate that may surprise those who don’t closely follow the acreage numbers.

Roughly 252 million acres, or 6.2 percent of the world’s total cropland, are planted with GM crops, according to 2006 figures. The growth is largely occurring in developing countries, which currently boast about 40 percent of total GM acreage.

Brazil, China, and India, leaders in many development statistics, are also the three major developing nations implementing GM crops. From 2005 to 2006, India’s GM crop acreage, mostly in cotton, increased 192 percent. But even Iran’s gotten in the game, introducing Bt rice, on somewhere between 25,000-50,000 acres. (The rice contains the genetic material of the soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, an insecticide.)

I found this out at a recent talk on the regulation GM crops given by Gregory Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It sponsored by the GM Plants Working Group, a subgroup of Yale University’s Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics.

Conko’s a leader in the field of GM regulation, and the stats above were less the object of his talk than talking points along the way as he introduced the need for a standardized regulatory system for genetically modified crops. Conko believes that GM crops, when properly regulated, are safe and can be highly beneficial to mankind and the environment, while at the same time making some people a lot of money. In other words, he backs up Monsanto in the current debate over GM crops.

While many don’t share his faith in the safety of GM plants, Conko made the point that the crops have allowed a sharp reduction in insecticide use. In the United States, insecticide use has fallen by 8 percent in field corn, 80 percent in sweet corn, 40 percent in cotton and 60 percent in potatoes. Developing countries have also seen similar reductions in insecticide use.

Herbicides are a different story. Since what’s generally being sold are herbicide-resistant crops, farmers who use GM soy or corn (Roundup Ready or Liberty Link, for example), are spraying large quantities of glyphosate (Roundup) or glufosinate ammonium (Liberty) herbicides. These herbicides kill everything but the herbicide-resistant crops. Conko’s spin on such herbicide-resistant crops ran along familiar lines: that these are some of the least persistent herbicides around, and a transition to them is better for soil health, since they allow conservation tillage, and human health, since they are less toxic than other herbicides.

But Conko’s talk glossed over many of the oft-cited concerns with GM crops. “Every known risk of bioengineered plants also occurs in non-engineered plants,” he claimed. While I won’t argue with his science (since I’m not a molecular biologist) the essential argument he made about regulation seems flawed, since it basically says: Since we don’t highly regulate these other seed types, we shouldn't regulate GM crops either.

Conko notably omitted a discussion of the wider social and ecological impacts of widespread use of GM crops. And while the negative health and ecological impacts of GM crops may be debatable, it's irrefutable that they’ve spread to non-GM corn in Mexico, non-GMO rice in the U.S, and organic crops in Spain, at a cost to farmers. Plus, weeds are developing glyphosate herbicide resistance (see this link for a list). GM crops may not be “Frankenfoods," but these issues warrant serious discussion about how they're regulated.

Coming away from this talk, I want to make several points:

• We need a public conversation about how GM crops in this country should be dealt with. If more than 6 percent of the world’s crops are currently genetically modified - over 135 million U.S. acres - and we’ve still not had a good debate about how to regulate this industry, something is wrong.
• As GM crops spread, there should be discussion on whether research should focus on producing more Roundup Ready corn, or whether it should focus on crafting crops adapted to poor agricultural conditions such as drought areas or specific soil types.
• If GM crops can have positive environmental outcomes, then they are worth real exploration. As long as they are decried but not addressed in the public sphere, the private sector will control the way these crops are developed.

It’s a tragedy that GM crops have become so mainstreamed without any serious discussion. Two hundred fifty-two million acres of GM crops is a lot of land, and this transformation has largely happened out of the public eye. This fact alone makes biotech seem sneaky and underhanded, and naturally leaves one less inclined to trust the soothing assurances of the biotech advocates.

Stephanie Paige Ogburn is a graduate student at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies

Senate Hearing Abuzz on Bees

By Samuel Fromartz

The Senate Agriculture Committee held another in its series of hearings on the farm bill Tuesday, with the focus on specialty crops. But it was a beekeeper from Waxahachie, Texas, that caught my ear.

Mark Brady, who has raised bees for 30 years, told the panel about the recent and sharp decline in bee populations - so-called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) - and mentioned some chilling figures:

• that a third of all food crops rely on bees for pollination;
• that California almonds - 80 percent of the global crop - require more than 1 million bee hives for pollination.
• that the American honey bee population has dropped 30 percent over the past two decades;
• that domestically produced honey accounts for only 31 percent of all sales, a figure that has been steadily declining.

The question, of course, is why have the bees been disappearing?

Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, asked whether cells phones might be a cause.

"On the cell phone issue, we took all the phones away from the bees," Brady quipped. But he quickly turned serious and mentioned concerns about "cumulative low-dose pesticides" that sit on pollen and nectar and which bees bring back to their hives. He noted that the EPA has studied pesticides that kill bees immediately, but it hasn't looked at low-dose toxicity.

"One of the things we're looking really hard at is the cumulative effect of pesticides," said Brady, who was representing the American Honey Producers Association. As bees work during the summer, they pick up pollen and nectar and store it in the hive. When the weather turns colder, the bees consume what's in the hive. "That's one of our big concerns - that there may be pesticides in that pollen," Brady said. "We're beginning to wonder now if that's causing a delayed effect on some of these colonies dying."

The New York Times had a report on the issue Tuesday, delving into a number of potential causal factors, including pesticides.

Among other theories, Brady also mentioned "stress" as a cause, since bee colonies are transported across the nation to pollinate crops in California; the introduction of foreign bees for the first time in 85 years (to make up for population declines); or a combination of factors leading to a tipping point.

Brady made clear that there is no definitive answer to the question, which is why he was appealing to the panel to increase USDA funding on bee research by $1 million. It seems a small price to pay when the pollination of apples, avocados, oranges, melons, broccoli, tangerines, cranberries, strawberries, alfalfa, soybeans, sunflower, cotton - in all, some 90 food and fiber crops - are at stake.

Wal-Mart Tinkers with Organic

It's not easy to maneuver a battleship to hit a floating cork, but that appears to be what Wal-Mart is doing in the organic market. On that score, I just came across this Reuters interview with a Wal-Mart executive about its experience in the organic market. It was published on Friday. (See what happens when I miss one day of reading Ethicurean's news digest?). Here are some choice bits from a chat with Ron McCormick, Wal-Mart vicepresident of produce and floral. He's talking about problems with getting supply:

"The growers were straining to meet our volume, which I think also pushes you into an unenviable position in produce," he said.

"Whenever growers are straining to meet your volume it means they're forced almost into selling you something that would not be their best crop because they're desperate to get you something to meet your demand."

McCormick said Wal-Mart continues to fiddle with its organic strategy, trying to figure out the premium that its shoppers will pay for organic produce. It is also focused on developing a consistent supply of products.

"We're now trying to build a network of good suppliers that will be able to grow with us and be consistent. Our ideal supplier is one that has a passion for what they're doing and also has the ability to grow as we grow, so you don't have thousands and thousands of suppliers," he said.

I found that last point particularly interesting, since it underscores the point that Wal-Mart will source from larger growers rather than "thousands of suppliers." That's not necessarily bad, since it means other competing retailers can differentiate by sourcing from smaller, local growers in the market - and succeed.

Happy Earth Day

Spring Arugula

Coffee Organizers

The article I wrote in Salon, highlighting a recent USDA decision that raises costs severely for smaller organic growers in the Third World, has continued to gain attention. Several petition campaigns are going, including one on Equal Exchange, the organic and fair trade coffee company.

They have also posted several letters at their Web site explaining the issue, including this from a growers co-operative in Chiapas, Mexico.

From CIRSA in Mexico

We were very surprised to hear about US government’s decision [to disallow group organic certification]. Honestly, it will mean a huge challenge that we as small-scale producers will now have to face; precisely because our philosophy as small-scale producers is to work together in groups in an organized and just manner.

Individual certification would truly place an obstacle on group processes, on our way of working with the grassroots, on all our efforts to strengthen our organization. A system in which many would be forced to start to work in an individual fashion and to sustain themselves in this way would change our entire way of working.

We do not agree with these decisions or with the bias of the National Organic Program, which appears to lean towards strengthening the big farmers, the big estate and plantation owners and would only serve to make us, cooperatives of small scale producers, to make our lives more difficult and costly.

We wholeheartedly support Equal Exchange’s letter to NOP opposing this decision; we must add to and join more forces from the grassroots, from the organized communities to make the system work and to resist all these types of challenges, especially given the circumstances and governmental policies which currently prevail in your country and that each day are turning more and more into cumbersome and complicated decisions and laws.

… from the southeast of Mexico, the indigenous and marginalized communities of Chiapas, we send cordial greetings to the Equal Exchange team. May God continue to give us strength in our struggle.

Filiberto M.

The National Organic Coalition - an umbrella of various sustainable agriculture groups - was behind the letter and petition effort. On the following page, I am posting a link to their letter to the USDA, as well as links to more documents on this issue.

- Samuel Fromartz

For a copy of this letter with its attachments:
http://www.agmatters.net/Organic/Short_ltr_to_Johanns21.doc

USDA/NOP Recent Decision:
http://www.agmatters.net/Organic/RECENTGGC_DECISION_BY_USDA.doc or go to the USDA website:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Compliance/AppealsSummaries/Sept05-Mar07.pdf

The NOSB - a citizens advisory panel to the USDA considered the matter of grower groups in 2002 and made a recommendation to the USDA - it was never acted upon. National Organic Standards Board 2002 Grower Group Recommendation:
http://www.agmatters.net/attachments/f2002_NOSB_GGC_Recommendation.doc

More Information on the National Organic Coalition:
http://www.agmatters.net/Organic/NOC_Public_MissionJan07.doc

Buzzing around

This story about the possible role of mobile phones in the collapse of bee colonies has been buzzing around and finally got my attention. (Thanks Lisa for the link). The Independent in the UK reports:

The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.

The article points out that "German research has long shown that bees' behaviour changes near power lines."

Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause.

Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real."

Exception to Organic Shortages: Coming Glut in Milk

I should have made clear in the previous post that there is no shortage of organic milk, or there won't be soon. A record number of farmers started to transition last year to organic production and will be done within a year, producing a glut. The Burlington Free Press had the story last Saturday and the New York Times caught up with it today.

The Times story makes clear that the rush of dairy farmers to transition to organic was largely the result of a lawsuit brought by Arthur Harvey, a Maine blueberry farmer. (He won the suit for stricter dairy regulations that will take effect this June). In the article, Nancy Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farm called the jump in organic milk supplies "a gift from above." Considering how much the organic industry spent to fight Harvey and his lawsuit, which I discuss in my book, Organic Inc., I found this quote highly ironic, to say the least. But the fact is, Stonyfield and others needed milk. At one point last year, Stonyfield CEO Gary Hirshberg said he could increase output of organic yogurt by 100 percent if he could get the milk. (As it turns out, Stonyfield is now buying 48 percent more organic milk this spring).

What neither story mentions is that this farm conversion is going to lead to a severe shortage of organic livestock feed in the fall of 2007 and into 2008 -- so any farmers out there might want to investigate this issue. Organic Valley is suggesting farmers take land out of conservation reserves (where it has not been cultivated) and putting it into organic production immediately. A press released issued by Organic Valley and the grain co-op OFARM states:

The growth of organic livestock across the country over the last two years has been estimated to be 50 percent, while organic feed acres have increased by only 8-10 percent. This rate of growth, combined with the increase in conventional grain prices, has meant that on farm prices for organic goods have continued to stay strong.

"For those farmers new to organic methods, taking land coming out of CRP (the Conservation Reserve Program) and putting it into certified organic production is an easy way to enter the organic marketplace," said Organic Valley CIEIO Geoge Siemon. He noted that land must be free of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers for a three year transition period in order to be certified organic. CRP land usually qualifies immediately and provides the organic premium to the grower in the first year of production.

Next winter, after all, the newly converted cows will need to eat and the lush pasture grasses they graze upon during the growing season won't come up until the spring.

- Samuel Fromartz

US House Told of Organic Shortages

By Samuel Fromartz

The first-ever US House hearing on organic agriculture convened on Wednesday with the focus squarely on shortages of organic goods and how federal agriculture programs could be designed to help farmers transition to organic farming and increase supplies.

Across the board at the hearing, farmers and processors reported that demand for organic food is swamping supply, because US farmers are not converting to organic agriculture at a fast enough pace. Organic food now represents about 3 percent of retail food sales, but only 0.5 percent of all farm land is organic.

Caren Wilcox, executive director of the Organic Trade Association, told the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture that more than half of those members polled in a recent survey said that they would increase production if they could locate more organic ingredients.

To meet consumer demand in the $15 billion industry, imported organic goods have increased - an issue raised repeatedly by Subcommittee Chairman Dennis Cardoza, a Democrat from the Central Valley of California. "I'm concerned about imported organic products, especially from China," Cardoza said.

Livestock farmers appearing on the panel mentioned that organic feed was in tight supply and expected overseas sources to rise later this year and into 2008. One egg producer mentioned that organic soybean feed from China now costs 25 percent less than feed from the Midwest.

The lawmakers zeroed in on a number of policy issues, most critically, the costs to farmers of transitioning to organic methods. To become certified organic, farmers must refrain from using chemical pesticides and fertilizers for three years, but during that window they cannot sell any products from those fields as "organic." After three years, they qualify for the organic label and usually get a market premium.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat, asked if there were any funds specifically available to help farmers through the transition period.  He was told there were not, although this is something the organic food industry is seeking in the current round of the farm bill.

Research also came under discussion, since Mark Lipson of the Organic Farming Research Foundation pointed out that it could help farmers in many ways. Organic agricultural research gets about $18 million, compared with $2 billion for conventional agriculture.

The lack of research was also creating impediments to national organic regulations, since the USDA does not have enough science-based studies to back up its decisions. This was especially evident in establishing a minimum grazing standard for organic livestock, Lipson said.

Plus, the panel was told repeatedly, the USDA's National Organic Program is sorely understaffed, with a half-dozen staff responsible for everything from writing regulations to enforcing certification standards in China.

Overall, the lawmakers appeared receptive to organic agriculture – a vast change from 1990, when the Organic Foods Production Act that governs the industry was first passed amid heated opposition in the House. What's changed is that many of these lawmakers now have organic farmers in their home districts.

Cardoza even mentioned that he belongs to an organic CSA in California and requires his kids to finish the box of food they get from the farmer each week. "That's how we get them to eat fruits and vegetables," he said.

For testimony, see the House Agriculture Committee web site.

Ethanol and Biotech: Into the Future

By Lisa M. Hamilton

Ethanol’s future seems to go hand-in-hand with biotech, as evidenced by reports including a recent article by AP’s Paul Elias. But within all the news, there’s a worthwhile distinction to be made about what’s being genetically engineered.

One strain of research aims to make corn more compatible with fuel production. For instance Syngenta has genetically modified corn plants to include the alpha amylase enzyme, which performs the first step in the process of turning kernels into fuel. With this corn, ethanol plants would require one less additive, and therefore one less cost.

Of course this corn carries the issues that come with genetically modifying crops used for food. But it could also extend corn’s life as an ethanol source by making it more efficient—something that will matter a lot to corn farmers as better, non-corn sources like switchgrass rapidly displace corn as the preferred feedstock over the next decade. 

Other research focuses on bio-engineering the non-feedstock components of the ethanol process, to make them, in part, less expensive. Elias reports that with much of the research, “The idea is to genetically engineer microscopic bugs such as bacteria and fungus to spit out enzymes that will break down just about every imaginable crop into ethanol.”

This “inside” approach to genetic engineering, so called because it deals with components used inside the ethanol-producing plant, could dramatically change the ethanol-farm economy. When enzymes and other additives for the processing of cellulosic ethanol become affordable, corn will fall out of sight as a feedstock—and corn farmers know it. Whether the inside approach is safer in terms of unintended consequences to the food system and beyond?  That remains to be seen.

Ethanol Fuels Boom in GM Corn

Chews Wise welcomes Lisa M. Hamilton, a California-based writer who is working on a book about American farmers.

By Lisa M. Hamilton

The current generation of corn-based ethanol involves familiar players, particularly Monsanto’s Roundup Ready and Bt corn, which are genetically modified. It remains to be seen what effect this year’s planting boom has had on the adoption of biotech varieties (the USDA’s Economic Research Service will release the numbers in July), but I haven’t found a person yet who doesn’t foresee an increase.

Possible early evidence is found in Monsanto’s Q2 report, released on April 4, which showed record profits attributed to “the strong demand that we've seen for our higher-yielding corn seeds and our higher-margin, triple-trait corn technology.” Indeed, their sales of corn seed and traits (patented GMO traits such as Roundup Ready-ness) increased 46% over the second quarter last year. As the report states, “Monsanto technology trait acres were up across the board, with triple-trait corn technology expected to be grown on an estimated 16 million acres, or up more than 160 percent when compared with the 6 million acres the technology was planted on in 2006.”

As an extension agent at University of Wisconsin explained, one reason could be that many of those extra 12 million acres will be planted “corn on corn” instead of being rotated with soybeans. “Putting pressure on the rotation like that means more pest pressure,” he said, “and transgenic corn will be a better tool for farmers to deal with that.”

An increase in GMO adoption could also stem from the fact that selling corn for ethanol releases any export-related pressure for the crop to be GMO-free. It could also simply be that in an economy of $4/bushel corn, the extra expense of transgenics is worth it. 

For some, however, the growth might be a matter of what seed was available. Last fall, foreseeing an ethanol-induced planting boom, seed companies sent their hottest seedstocks (likely the majority of them with GMO traits) to South America to grow out even more seed for this season. Even so, this spring seed dealers across the Midwest literally sold out of corn, meaning in many cases farmers bought—and plan to plant—whatever they could get their hands on.

Energy Sucking Birds

Kudos to Ethicurean for taking a close look into whether organic chicken farms use more energy than conventional farms. They might, but before the cheerleaders of confined chicken production gloat, all sources point out that chickens are the one exception to the rule that organic farms use far less energy overall than their conventional counterparts. As Ethicurean quotes from one report:

Organic field crops and animal products generally consume less primary energy than non-organic counterparts owing to the use of legumes to fix [nitrogen] rather than fuel to make synthetic fertilisers. Poultry meat and eggs are exceptions, resulting from the very high efficiency of feed conversion in the non-organic sector.

Centralized chicken farming, however, is one of the reasons for pollution in places like the Chesapeake Bay in the mid-Atlantic region. Nitrogenous waste seeps from these chicken factories and into the bay, leading to algae blooms and dead zones. Essentially, sea life is choked off.

Truly organic chickens, out on pasture, do not produce as much waste in one locale simply because they are not massively concentrated. In other words, considering the energy quotient alone without regard to other issues only muddies the water further.