|
|
 
|
USDA criticized for helping 'industrialize' organic farming
(Monday, May 15, 2006 -- CropChoice news) --
1. WTO harvest would benefit the haves 1. WTO harvest would benefit the haves
by Paul Beingessner It would be unfair to declare the World Trade Organization talks dead, since the rotting
carcass occasionally twitches, apparently spontaneously. These sporadic hints of life
come even though the Doha round has failed to meet a succession of self-proclaimed drop
dead dates. Still, even optimists at the WTO are sounding a bit glum: " Having missed the
April 30 deadline, we have certainly had a disappointment but not a disaster," said
Stuart Harbinson, special adviser to WTO head Pascal Lamy.
Still extremely puzzling is the exact nature of the benefits a successful WTO is supposed
to confer on the world. Recently, the World Bank gave us a hint. A successful conclusion
to the talks, said a World Bank analyst, would add $96 billion to the world economy.
That might sound like a lot of money. But is it, when you consider that the benefits
would accrue all around the globe - population 6.6 billion souls?
Perhaps a few comparisons are in order. In 2005, for example, Canadians spent $25 billion
on prescription drugs. The province of BC grew $2 billion worth of marijuana. Americans
spent $34 billion on their pets. One American citizen, Bill Gates, was personally worth
$55 billion. The US government paid out $76 billion in Veterans' Benefits. And finally,
the value of music recorded in Mexico in 2001 was half a billion Canadian dollars.
Maybe $96 billion isn't all that much, despite the fuss being made over the WTO. Still,
$96 billion might be significant if it went to the right places. So, who should get it?
According to the Canadian Agri-food Trade Alliance, Canadian farmers should be in for a
pile. CAFTA, after all, is more than willing to give up the Canadian Wheat Board and the
benefits it brings to farmers, as well as supply management, the only profitable part of
Canadian agriculture, in return for a WTO agreement. Canadian needs could eat up a large
portion of that $96 billion. The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan
estimates the farm deficit in that province alone to be some $6 billion.
But the Doha round was sold to the world as the "development round". The primary
beneficiaries were to be poor countries, of which we clearly are not one. According to
oft-quoted WTO propaganda, "the Doha round was launched to boost the global economy with
the hope of lifting millions out of poverty."
Even a dirt-poor Canadian farmer should be able to see this goal as praiseworthy. But if
all $96 billion were to accrue to the world's poorest, would it be a big help?
Some 2.1 billion people live on less than $2 per day. If these poorest-of-the-poor got
all $96 billion (fat chance) each one would gain about 12 cents a day. This would be the
price of one-third of a bottle of Coca-Cola in Burkina Faso, one of the poorest countries
in the world.
Despite the WTO propaganda, we know the poor of the world will not be the major
beneficiaries of a successful Doha agreement. Estimates by the World Bank put developing
country gains at 17 percent of the total gains, while the rest will accrue to citizens of
the developed world.
Among developing countries, Brazil, by no means one of the poorest, stands to garner 23
percent of all gains coming to poor countries. Most of this is supposed to go to
Brazilian farmers, but the country as a whole will lose about the same amount due to
decreases in tariffs collected, losses from surrendering patents to rich countries, and
the cost of implementing the WTO.
In the rich countries, benefits will not generally come to farmers, despite what
governments are telling us. Even the World Bank, chief promoter of the WTO knows that. In
a November 2005 workshop, Will Martin, Lead Economist of the Development Research Group
for the World Bank said the big benefits from the WTO would be to consumers who would be
"able to benefit from lower prices for the goods they consume when protection is taken
away."
Consumers, not farmers, will reap the benefits because the elimination of various
protections will allow cheaper food to be imported into a country. This is exactly what
occurred with NAFTA in Mexico. Cheap American corn flooded in and put millions of peasant
farmers off the land.
But, which consumers? According to Uri Dadush, Director of Trade for the Development
Prospects Group at the World Bank, Japan "is a very big gainer". The price of rice in
Japan will fall as cheap imports put Japan's rice farmers out of business. This is good,
though, because according to Mr. Martin at the World Bank, "the benefits to consumers
will exceed the loss to producers". Translated, farmers will subsidize consumers even
more than they do today. Only, instead of it being your own farmers, it will perhaps be
farmers from some other country.
All this begs the question: why are we so concerned about Doha? It's simply because our
governments tell us we should be. They do this for two reasons. First, the global
corporations that will be the real gainers from increased trade tell them it is true.
Second, they can think of no other solutions to the real problems of agriculture and
world poverty.
In this instance, we can't expect leadership from governments. We need, instead, to
develop and implement our own solutions while we try to control the harm they are doing.
(c) Paul Beingessner (306) 868-4734 phone 868-2009 fax beingessner@sasktel.net
2. Wal-Mart is going organic, and brand names get in line
By MELANIE WARNER Starting this summer, there will be a lot more organic food on
supermarket shelves, and it should cost a lot less.
Most of the nation's major food producers are hard at work developing
organic versions of their best-selling products, like Kellogg's
Rice
Krispies and Kraft's macaroni and cheese.
Why the sudden activity? In large part because Wal-Mart
wants to sell more organic food - and because of its size and power,
Wal-Mart usually gets what it wants.
As the nation's largest grocery retailer, Wal-Mart has decided that
offering more organic food will help modernize its image and broaden its
appeal to urban and other upscale consumers. It has asked its large
suppliers to help.
Wal-Mart's interest is expected to change organic food production in
substantial ways.
Some organic food advocates applaud the development, saying Wal-Mart's
efforts will help expand the amount of land that is farmed organically
and the quantities of organic food available to the public.
But others say the initiative will ultimately hurt organic farmers, will
lower standards for the production of organic food and will undercut the
environmental benefits of organic farming. And some nutritionists
question the health benefits of the new organic products. "It's better
for the planet, but not from a nutritional standpoint," said Marion
Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public
health at New York University. "It's a ploy to be able to
charge more for junk food."
Shoppers who have been buying organic food in steadily greater
quantities consider it healthier and better for the environment. Organic
food - whether produce, meat or grain - must be grown without
pesticides, chemical fertilizers and antibiotics. Then, before it is
sold, the food cannot be treated with artificial preservatives, flavors
or colors, among other things.
When Wal-Mart sells organic food on a much broader scale, it will have
to meet the same Agriculture Department requirements. But nutritionists
say the health benefits of many of these new offerings are negligible.
Wal-Mart says it wants to democratize organic food, making products
affordable for those who are reluctant to pay premiums of 20 percent to
30 percent. At a recent conference, John Fleming, Wal-Mart's chief
marketing officer, said the company intended to sell organic products
for just 10 percent more than their conventional equivalents.
Food industry analysts say that with its 2,000 supercenters and lower
prices, Wal-Mart could soon be the nation's largest seller of organic
products, surpassing Whole Foods. Already, it is the biggest seller of
organic milk.
While organic food is still just 2.4 percent of the overall food
industry, it has been growing at least 15 percent a year for the last 10
years. Currently valued at $14 billion, the organic food business is
expected to grow to $23 billion over the next three years, though that
figure could rise further with Wal-Mart's push.
Harvey Hartman, president of the Hartman Group, a consulting firm in
Seattle that is working with Wal-Mart on its organic food initiatives,
asserted: "What Wal-Mart has done is legitimized the market. All these
companies who thought organics was a niche product now realize that it
has an opportunity to become a big business."
Kellogg and Kraft say they began working on organic Rice Krispies and
organic macaroni and cheese before having conversations with Wal-Mart.
But David Mackay, chief operating officer at Kellogg, says it was
helpful knowing that a big customer like Wal-Mart was enthusiastic about
the product.
In July, Kellogg is planning to introduce organic Raisin Bran and
organic Frosted Mini Wheats, with packages featuring the word 'organic'
at the top in giant letters.
Other food companies say they are working on products at Wal-Mart's
direction. General Mills and
Pepsi say they plan to introduce new organic versions of some of their
well-known brands late in 2006. These products are expected to appear in
Wal-Mart first and then at other major retailers.
Officials at General Mills, the producer of Cheerios, Yoplait yogurt and
Green Giant vegetables, among other things, and PepsiCo,
which owns the Tropicana and Quaker brands, declined to identify those
products.
DeDe Priest, senior vice president for dry groceries at Wal-Mart, said
the company had been urging food suppliers for the last year to embrace
organic foods. At a recent conference in Rogers, Ark., near the
company's headquarters in Bentonville, she said, "Once we let the
companies know we were serious about this and that they needed to take
it seriously, they moved pretty fast."
Bruce Peterson, head of perishable food at Wal-Mart, said that it aimed
to change the way people think about the retailer.
"Consumers that gravitate to organic products don't always think of
Wal-Mart as a top-of-mind destination to pick up those products," Mr.
Peterson said. "We want to let customers know, 'Hey, we're in that
business.' "
The strategy of working with food brands to tie in organic products with
well-known brands represents a departure from the approach many of
Wal-Mart's competitors are taking. Safeway,
Kroger and SuperValu, which is set to acquire Albertsons, have private
label organic lines with names like Nature's Best and O that they offer
at a discount to brand organic products.
Mr. Peterson said he thought that Wal-Mart's method would be more
effective in appealing to customers because it relies on powerful brand
names that have million of dollars in advertising backing them up.
But Wal-Mart's new push worries Ronnie Cummins, national director of the
Organic Consumers Association, an advocacy group that lobbies for strict
standards and the preservation of small organic farms. He said Wal-Mart
did not care about the principles behind organic agriculture and would
ultimately drive down prices and squeeze organic farmers.
"This model of one-size-fits-all and lowest prices possible doesn't work
in organic," Mr. Cummins said. "Their business model is going to wreck
organic the way it's wrecking retail stores, driving out all
competitors."
Part of the problem, Mr. Cummins said, is that Wal-Mart is making a push
into organics at a time there is already heavy demand and not enough
supply.
"They're going to end up outsourcing from overseas and places like
China," he said, " where you've got very dubious organic standards and
labor conditions that are contrary to what any organic consumer would
consider equitable."
Currently, some 10 percent of the organic food consumed in the United States is imported, according to the Agriculture Department. Kelly
Strzelecki, an agricultural economist there, said she expected that
share to increase.
Mr. Peterson, the Wal-Mart executive, says Wal-Mart is not now getting
any of its organic products from overseas, but cannot predict if that
will change. And he says Wal-Mart does not pay organic farmers less than
others do, in part because the demand is so high. He said the lower
prices offered to consumers were made possible by Wal-Mart's enormous
volume and by having efficient distribution and inventory systems.
Some organic food advocates also fear that large-scale organic farming
will not use the crop rotation practices of the small farms, hurting the
fields and reducing the health benefits of organic food.
Mr. Peterson's view of organic agriculture is markedly different from
many of those involved in the field.
"Organic agriculture is just another method of agriculture - not better,
not worse," he said. "This is like any other merchandising scheme we
have, which is providing customers what they want. For those customers
looking for an organic alternative in things like Rice Krispies, we now
have an alternative for them."
Organic agriculture arose in the 1970's as a reaction to large-scale
farms that confined animals and the increased use of pesticides and
chemical fertilizers on crops. Many advocates of organic produce
consider conventional agriculture to be harmful to the environment and
to human health.
But Wal-Mart and some other large food manufacturers are careful not to
position their organic versions as superior to the original. "We have no
intent to send a message that the standard Rice Krispies are somehow not
great brands," Mr. Mackay of Kellogg said.
Organic Rice Krispies are made with cane juice instead of high-fructose
corn syrup and without the artificial preservative BHT.
Mr. Hartman, the Seattle consultant, said organic now means different
things to different people. "It's a multifaceted symbol representing
everything from quality to health to ideology, and everything in
between," he said. "It's something that lets people feel even better
about their choices."
With processed products like organic Rice Krispies and organic macaroni
and cheese soon to appear on store shelves, the organic movement seems
to be fitting itself more into the wide variety of food available to
Americans.
"People want you to offer them organic and natural," said David
Driscoll, a food analyst at Citigroup. "But
sometimes, they just want to eat a Pop-Tart."
3. Administration’s plans to import ethanol
too expensive for farmers, taxpayers and consumers
NEWS FROM THE AMERICAN CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION WASHINGTON, May 11, 2006 Importation of ethanol into the United States will be very costly to U.S. farmers, taxpayers and consumers according to the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA).
“We are very alarmed by recent announcements from the Bush administration that they want to suspend the current import tariff on ethanol and are looking for ways to increase ethanol imports to the United States,” declared Larry Mitchell, ACGA’s Chief Executive. “Importing ethanol is not the proper course to treat what the President diagnosed as an ‘addiction to imported oil.”
“Our analysis of the issues reveals that every billion gallons of ethanol imported displaces approximately 357 million bushels of U.S. raised corn,” explained Mitchell. “The Department of Agriculture is already projecting a huge surplus of corn for this year as it is. The current projected surplus, estimated at almost 2 billion bushels (or about almost 20 percent of one year’s crop), is already suppressing cash prices for corn paid to our farm families. The addition of 357 million bushels to the surplus will reduce corn prices another 6 cents per bushel or about $666 million out of the pockets of our farmers.”
“Under the current farm program, taxpayers will be asked to pay for most of the $666 million in farm income loss due to every billion gallons of ethanol imported,” added Mitchell. “Such federal spending will further deepen the national debt, and will further threaten the political sustainability of current farm programs.”
Mitchell also explained that the cost of importing ethanol goes well beyond the cost to farmers and the farm program. “The president also wants to suspend or eliminate the 54-cent per gallon import tariff on ethanol and pay the 51-cent per gallon blenders tax credit to gasoline distributors on the imported ethanol. In all, we figure that the President’s plan will cost the taxpayers approximately $1.7 billion for every billion gallons of imported ethanol. That is $1.70 per gallon to be paid by the taxpayers PLUS consumers will still have to pay the gasoline companies for the fuel at the pump at today’s high prices. The total cost could exceed $5 per gallon!”
ACGA opposes the President’s plan to suspend or eliminate the ethanol import tariff and further recommends the following changes be made to current federal laws to guarantee that Congress’s original objectives for the nation’s biofuel industry are met;
The American Corn Growers Association represents 14,000 members in 35 states. See www.acga.org .
-30-
4. USDA criticized for helping 'industrialize' organic farming
05/10/06
OMAHA (DTN) -- According to a PRWeb release, proposed new federal
organic
livestock regulations are coming under sharp criticism for failing to
close
critical loopholes that are allowing a handful of factory-scale dairy
farms in
western states to continue bringing into their milk herd new animals
raised
with antibiotics, hormones, and genetically engineered feed produced
with toxic
pesticides.
The new rules ignore recommendations endorsed by the USDA's own expert
advisory panel, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). In 2002
and 2003,
the
NOSB unanimously passed recommendations that all animals being brought
onto
an existing organic dairy farm had to be under organic management
starting no
later than the last three months of pregnancy.
"Bringing in nonorganic animals is an unethical management practice
that
violates the trust of consumers," said Mark Kastel of The Cornucopia
Institute,
a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group.
According to opinion research, consumers are willing, in part, to pay
premium prices for organic dairy products because they believe that
USDA
regulations prohibit the use of antibiotics, hormones, and genetically
engineered feed
on organic farms.
"In the study that we released last month, Maintaining the Integrity of
Organic Milk, which rates the country's organic dairy brands,
(http://www.cornucopia.org/), we found that the majority of organic
dairy
producers are able to
replenish their herds, on an ongoing basis, through on-farm
reproduction,"
said Kastel. "These large factory dairies, which are an anathema to
organic
consumers and farmers alike, push their cows for such high
productivity that
their ill health and short life spans require constantly bringing
replacement
animals into the milk herd -- this is not organic!"
A federal lawsuit (Civil Case #02-216-P-H in the U.S. District Court
for the
District of Maine), successfully brought by Maine blueberry farmer and
organic purist Arthur Harvey, has required the USDA to correct certain
language
in
their organic regulations. Industry analysts assumed that since the
NOSB was
on record in favor of closing the replacement animal loopholes, that
they
would simultaneously take the opportunity to do so. Instead, it
appears that
the Department might be following the lead of the industry's dominant
milk
marketer, Dean Foods, and the Organic Trade Association, an industry
lobby
group,
that have suggested postponing action on this issue for up to an
additional
two years.
"Some of these large factory farms, including one operated by Dean
Foods
that is selling milk under their Horizon label, are gaming the
system," said
Kastel. Dean has admitted to shareholder groups that in order to
maximize
profits, they sell all of the calves born on their 4000-head farm,
allowing
them to
save on providing expensive organic feed to animals for the first year
of
their life. They then purchase one-year-old animals that have been
administered
drugs and been fed nonorganic feed to replenish their herd.
"It is unconscionable that this $11 billion company, the nation's
largest
conventional and organic milk processor, is deceiving consumers by
suggesting
that their animals are not raised using antibiotics, hormones, and
other
banned substances," testified Ronnie Cummins, Executive Director of
the Organic
Consumers Association. "We are particularly concerned that their
calves may
have very well ingested BSE (mad cow) risk materials that are allowed
in
conventional farming but have been banned in organics as a safeguard
and
firewall
against the spread of the disease," added Cummins.
"While other 'legitimate' organic farmers are providing the same
quality
organic milk to their calves as consumers would pick up at the store,
Horizon's
factory farm in Idaho is selling $700,000 to $1,000.000 in additional
milk
that they should instead be feeding to their young calves and future
replacement animals. This puts ethical family-scale producers at a
huge
competitive
disadvantage," stated Kastel, Cornucopia's Senior Farm Policy Analyst.
"Not addressing these loopholes after the organic community has worked
so
hard to come to agreement is disappointing," stated James Riddle,
University Of
Minnesota Organic Outreach Coordinator and the immediate past NOSB
chairman.
"The NOSB has solicited public input from the industry and promulgated
recommendations on this and a myriad of other pressing issues that the
USDA has
failed to act on," Riddle lamented.
Some industry observers, and longtime critics of the USDA, have
suggested
that federal regulators have become too cozy with giant agribusiness
concerns,
like Dean Foods. Many big companies have heavily invested in organic
brands
through the acquisition of smaller companies and organic labels while
the
organic industry has grown from a small niche into a booming $15
billion market
category.
The Cornucopia Institute, which acts as an organic industry watchdog,
has
also sent a letter to USDA Secretary Mike Johanns requesting that he
order
bureaucrats in the National Organic Program to extend the current 15
day public
comment period by a minimum of an additional 60 days to allow
interested
stakeholders in the organic industry to have a voice in the matter.
Comments
are
currently due by May 12th.
The uncharacteristically short opportunity for public input comes right
as
some farmers are working 15 to 18 hours per day in the rush of spring
planting. An additional conflict is the fact that the industry's
premier trade
show,
All Things Organic, just ended in Chicago. Many organic business
leaders were
tied up for as long as a week because of the conference.
"During the last five years USDA inaction has allowed a handful of
mega-farms, in the arid West, milking 2000 to 10,000 cows, to grab a
growing
share of
the organic milk market," Kastel said. "Our study found that over 80
percent
of the name-brand organic dairy products are produced with high
integrity. We
cannot allow a few bad actors to economically injure our nation's
family
farmers and put the reputation of the organic label at risk," Kastel added.
Subscribers can see more on this topic in DTN Ag Daily News.
5. Calls for farm-policy change get broad support
By SHEARON ROBERTS WASHINGTON -- U.S. farm policy is outdated and needs to be overhauled
in
light of emerging global markets and tighter federal budgets, according
to a
large farming organization that has the endorsement of two former
agriculture secretaries.
The American Farmland Trust, a Washington organization that represents
farmers and ranchers interested in environmentally sound farming
practices,
in a report expected to be released today, will call on Congress to
revamp
the nation's agriculture programs rather than extend the 2002 Farm Bill
before it expires next year. It will propose providing a new safety net
for
commodity-crop programs to replace certain subsidy and loan programs.
It
aims to encourage environmental stewardship by rewarding farmers and it
would seek to build stronger markets abroad and increase the
competitiveness
of U.S. farmers and ranchers through research and improved
transportation
and handling of products. "The later we wait to make adjustments in
farm
policy, the more abrupt and disruptive it will be," said Ralph Grossi,
president of American Farmland Trust.
Farm policy in the U.S. was originally designed to address agricultural
needs during the Great Depression.
The Farmland Trust estimates $26 billion goes to subsidize commodity
crops.
While it believes $1 billion in grants could be set aside for new
agricultural ventures, markets and regional food programs, it didn't
put a
cap on how much money could be shifted to specialty crops. The
organization
suggests that market risk could be better distributed among the
farmers,
private insurers and the government, reducing federal spending that
could be
directed to environmentally friendly farming and stimulating renewable
energy practices.
"AFT's new policy framework is the right formula for converting a
potential
policy train wreck into an unprecedented opportunity for a new
generation of
farmers and ranchers," said Dan Glickman, former secretary of
agriculture
during the Clinton administration, endorsing the group's proposal.
The group said the overhaul is needed in the face of budget deficits
that
will further reduce federal farm spending, international trade laws
that
restrict subsidies, unfair distribution of farm bill benefits, poor
investment in infrastructure and a greater need for emphasis in
conservation
and renewable energy practices. "The alternative is to risk World Trade
Organization challenges that may impose reforms on us that we would
prefer
to avoid -- like the reforms that have already occurred in cotton,"
said
Clayton Yeutter, a former secretary of agriculture during the George H.
W.
Bush administration and U.S. Trade Representative during the Reagan
administration, who also endorses the Farmland Trust proposals.
Congress is being guided by the outcome of global market-policy debates
and
is taking its lead from its own in-house agriculture committee hearings
to
gauge how effective the current policies are.
"If you're going to write a new farm bill for 2007 you want to know as
best
as you can what the market climate is going to be," said Keith
Williams,
spokesman for the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Write to Shearon Roberts at shearon.roberts@wsj.com1
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114705366685646348.html
6. We must honor Earth's limits
By Pete Letheby If you check out an atlas of California, you'll notice that Owens Lake
is filled
in with white, not blue. That's because Los Angeles sucked it dry
decades ago.
Las Vegas is considering similar plunder of groundwater elsewhere in
Nevada.
And there are many other cities -- Denver, Phoenix, Houston, Tampa, to
name a
few -- that have chosen to push nature's limits.
Closer to my Nebraska home, I watch the continuing plunder of the Great
Plains'
Ogallala Aquifer, the largest underground reservoir in the United
States and
one of the largest on the planet. It once held as much water as Lake
Huron. It
is a treasure that took millennia to accumulate. Remarkably, it could
cease to
be a water source within another generation.
And for what? To provide water to irrigators who grow surplus,
subsidized corn
-- the thirstiest of grain crops. Much of this overproduction is in
semiarid
Nebraska west of the 98th meridian.
Nebraska's Ogallala drawdowns aren't yet as dramatic as elsewhere in
the Plains
-- as much as 200 feet in the Texas Panhandle, according to the U.S.
Geological
Survey. But Nebraska is pumping hard to catch up. And it is important
to
remember, as a 2001 Kansas State University study points out, that only
15
percent of this vast underground ocean is physically and economically
feasible
to bring to the surface.
Other big losers in this heartland water grab are rivers and streams
fed by the
Ogallala. The Arkansas River, the United States' fifth longest, once
began its
healthy flow near Leadville, Colo. Now a majority of the time there is
no flow
in the river at Dodge City, Kan., nearly 450 miles downstream. The
river's
effective headwater is another 85 miles eastward, in Great Bend. The
historic
Platte River, which guided explorers and settlers westward in the 18th
and 19th
centuries, has effectively dried up in central Nebraska the past five
summers.
I would object less if the groundwater-irrigated acres in my state
produced
valuable crops that can't be grown elsewhere. But this country needs
more corn
like an alcoholic needs a happy hour. Our flawed federal farm policy is
partially liable. The government's price guarantee for corn encourages
overproduction, which further drives down the crop's price, which
further
increases subsidy payments.
Tragically, many of those who have been chugging so much water out of
the ground
for so long, and those who have sat idly by and watched it happen, seem
most
adept at blaming and justifying. The drought that has plagued much of
the
western, southern and central Plains since 2000 gets most of the blame.
It's
easier to fault something beyond our control than those who actually
use the
water.
Nebraska's featured solution is this: Drill 550 wells in the fragile
Sandhills
-- the nation's largest dune grassland, almost as big as West Virginia
--
siphon out 450,000 acre-feet of water a year, and send it by canal to
corn
growers.
Sounds like happy hour to me.
Proposed legislation introduced earlier this year in Nebraska would tax
water
consumption. Those who use the most would pay the most tax. More than
90
percent of the aquifer's water is used for crop irrigation, according
to the
Geological Survey. The bill never made it out of committee.
There are other options toward some semblance of sustainability --
retiring
cropland, prohibiting the drilling of new wells, purchasing groundwater
rights,
shifting federal subsidies from crop overproduction to environmental
stewardship.
Whatever we do, it must be substantial. Once the Ogallala is drawn down
beyond
repair -- and we are nearing that point, some hydrologists and
geologists say
-- the exodus from America's rural heartland shifts from second to
third gear.
Communities dependent on groundwater for consumption, development and
recreation will wither and die.
We will be left with yet another illustration of an all-too-common
American
mindset: short on vision, mired in denial and unable to comprehend
nature's
limits.
###
Pete Letheby is a newspaper editor and columnist in Grand Island, Neb.
He wrote
this comment for the Land Institute's Prairie Writers Circle, Salina,
Kan.
7. It took them four hundred years to find us
by Paul Beingessner About six or seven year ago I met with a group of farmers in
Gravelbourg, a
mainly French
community in southwest Saskatchewan. The small talk before the formal
gathering
turned to
the sorry state of the farm economy at the time. An older farmer shook
his head
in
disgust at the situation facing farmers. "My ancestors came from France
in the
1600s to
get away from the rich and powerful people who were exploiting them.
Now, after
all these
years, look what we've come to!"
There was a moment's silence. Then one of the other farmers turned to
the fellow
and
remarked, "Well, it just took them 400 years to find you again."
Everyone laughed, but it was an uneasy laugh. That simple but profound
event has
stayed
with me. And as the farm economy has gone from bad to worse since then,
I've
thought
about it a lot. Viewing some statistics put together by the National
Farmers
Union
reminded me again.
The figures were the profits generated by businesses related to
agriculture in
2004. It
was striking to see how good a year 2004 was for agribusiness. A
partial list
of the
companies that made record profits that year includes Imperial Oil,
Saskferco,
Pfizer,
Novartis, Deere and Company, Bank of Nova Scotia, Cargill, Tyson Foods,
Anheuser-Busch,
Canadian National Railway, ConAgra, General Mills, Kellogg Co., Maple
Leaf
Foods, J.M.
Smucker Co. (Robin Hood), Prairie Malting, Bunge Ltd., Molson Coors
Brewing,
Sun-Rype
Products, Saputo Inc., Loblaws, and McDonalds.
Profits for these companies ranged from $12 billion for Kraft Foods and
$14
billion for
Pfizer, to a mere $1.3 billion for CN. Return on equity ran from 83
percent for
Anheuser-Busch to only 18 percent for ConAgra.
Canadian farmers had a different sort of year in 2004. Collectively,
they lost
$7.7
billion, and saw their return to equity at negative 5.09 percent. It
would
appear that
they have indeed found us again.
All led me to think about the beginnings of agriculture. Agriculture
began in
what is now
Iraq - the Fertile Crescent - about 10,000 years ago. At that time,
people who
had always
been hunters and gatherers settled down in villages and began to
cultivate the
soil and
tend crops.
Ten thousand years might seem like a long time. But if you put it in
terms of
generations, and a generation being about 30 years, that represents
about 300
generations
of farmers. Between my father, my grandfather, and myself we represent
3
generations. So
if you look back in time in a straight line, you could say that I've
known one
percent of
all the generations that have ever farmed. One percent. That is an
amazing
number.
And what did farmers do in those 300 generations? Well, they developed
modern
crops. By
careful selection, they turned tiny seeds of grasses and small wild
fruits into
grains
and vegetables and fruits, many of which we still grow and eat today.
They
developed
hundreds of breeds of cattle, sheep, goats and other animals suited to
the wide
range of
climates around the globe. And they did all this before the discovery
of the
science of
genetics, which is just a bit over 100 years old.
You can see that farmers in those 300 generations were very busy.
Imagine the
amount of
progress that had to be made in each generation! That knowledge, both
explicit
and
implicit, was passed from parent to child 300 times. The explicit
knowledge
concerned how
to choose the best seeds for next year, how to tend animals, oversee
their
birthing, when
to harvest crops, how to store them, a million pieces of knowledge
passed by
word and
example. And the implicit knowledge was also shared. It contained the
genetic
storehouse
developed generation by generation, carrying the germplasm of superior
plants
and the
genes of superior animals.
For 300 generations, ten thousand years, farmers kept this knowledge
and passed
it on.
And now, in our generation, the chain is being broken. Farmers are
leaving the
land in
droves. Why? Because we gave up our control over that knowledge. As
modern
science
evolved, we gave it to the universities. But they were publicly owned,
and as
they
improved on that knowledge, they gave it back to us, freely.
Then, about 20 years ago, there was a dramatic shift. Governments
decided that
knowledge
should no longer be free. They brought in plant breeders' rights and
patents on
living
things. Now, by adding one tiny jot to the information that came from
300
generations of
farmers, private companies and even the universities themselves could
own the
knowledge
built up over 10,000 years. And once they had it, they began to sell it
back to
us, to
use, not to own. Now farmers are forbidden from saving their own seeds
and
giving them to
their neighbours, as they did for millenia.
But we did all this for a reason, right? We did it because science and
the
privatization
of knowledge were going to give us better crops, make us better off,
and allow
us to feed
the expanding global population.
Strangely, 400 million people still die of hunger each year, while a
billion
have
inadequate diets. Farmers all over the globe are in trouble, fleeing to
overcrowded
cities and abandoning the practices of 300 generations. Canadian
farmers reach
new record
losses while agri-business thrives off our work. As the NFU noted,
"Farmers are
the
hamsters in the wheel that runs the agribusiness empire. The solution
to the
farm crisis
is for the hamsters to run faster."
So we look for solutions. Ethanol, bio-diesel, WTO, hog barns, higher
yielding
crops. All
these might be good, but until we realize that they've found us, all
these
things will
only add to their wealth, as we run faster to try to catch up.
(c) Paul Beingessner (306) 868-4734 phone 868-2009 fax
beingessner@sasktel.net
8. Wind pioneer deflated
by Eric Dowd Toronto - The first MPP to suggest wind power could help solve Ontario's
energy shortage was almost laughed out of the legislature.
This is hard to believe now, when turbines to harness wind are sprouting up
faster than corn in many areas of the province and generally acknowledged to
be a useful part of future electricity resources.
But a powerful, entrenched and comfortable Progressive Conservative
government scoffed at the idea when it was proposed by a little-known New
Democrat backbencher in the early 1970s.
Fred Burr could not have received a less friendly reception if he had urged
the Tories bottle all the hot air they generate in the legislature and use
it to light residents' homes.
This is worth recalling because Burr died recently aged 95 and it is a
supreme example of how a lone opposition back bencher took on all the brains
and resources of government and proved it wrong.
Burr was the NDP's environment critic, a teacher in his sixties, frail and
unimpressive-looking in his shiny dark suits, and the Conservatives' energy
minister was Darcy McKeough, a former finance minister, young, highly
influential, considered by many to be heir-apparent to premier William
Davis, but something of a know-all.
Davis had put McKeough in energy because it was suddenly a key area with the
province running out of new sites for water power, its old reliable, and
oil-producing countries boosting their prices.
Burr read about alternative energy sources and tried to get McKeough
interested, but the minister repeatedly shrugged him off.
Burr asked McKeough if he would attend or send observers to a conference on
wind in Quebec and McKeough replied sarcastically he could not reply on such
an issue lightly and would have to ask Davis and management board of cabinet
if he or a representative could leave the province for a day.
McKeough as a senior minister would not need to ask anyone for permission
and Burr said it would be easy for him to send and McKeough then stonewalled
the matter had not yet been decided.
The Conservatives should have known Burr would not give up easily, because
he ran unsuccessfully in six elections, federal and provincial, before
finally getting in the legislature.
Burr kept asking and McKeough eventually answered the province would not
send participants or observers, because the day of wind energy had not yet
arrived.
McKeough said Ontario should not spend public money on something not yet
proven suitable for it.
Burr asked McKeough if he knew of a study unveiled before the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission in New York State, which claimed a wind turbine system
near Lake Ontario could generate wind power equivalent to a generating
station, and McKeough said he had never heard of it.
This reporter remembers the scene vividly when Burr asked McKeough if he
would look into it and Conservative ministers and MPPs felt it was so absurd
they almost fell out of their seats laughing and jeering `get all those
windmills going, Darcy` and `the NDP has enough wind to heat the whole
province.'
Liberals, although rivals, interceded to say the government should give Burr
a chance to be heard. Liberal Jim Bullbrook, an admired orator, complained
`this is sickening' and NDP leader Stephen Lewis predicted Burr would be
proven right in the end.
McKeough eventually said he would follow the U.S. hearings with great
interest, but in a tone that suggested he never wanted to hear any more on
the issue, and he never spoke about it again.
Burr had the last laugh, because he lived to see wind power gain acceptance
by later governments of all parties. Ontario now has 200 wind turbines and
eventually wind will supply at least 10 per cent of its electricity.
But Ontario still is behind some other jurisdictions, particularly Quebec,
in using wind power and one lesson is don't put all your trust in the smart,
young, confident-sounding guys in government - they don't know everything. | |
