As America’s Industrial Ag. megalith continues to pump out lousy food and toxic chemicals into our bodies, the natural response to use local farming is growing like there’s no tomorrow.

From a USA Today news article here.

“The “local” movement — buying and eating food produced locally rather than shipped from thousands of miles away — has been gaining steam with the steady growth of farmers markets and a phenomenon called community-supported agriculture. CSA members purchase shares of a farmer’s crop for the season. The government doesn’t track the numbers, but Local Harvest, a nationwide directory of small farms, farmers markets and other local food sources, estimates that tens of thousands of American families belong to CSAs, and supply trails demand. The number registered with Local Harvest alone indicates how quickly CSAs have multiplied over the past decade: The directory’s listing has increased from 374 farms in 2000 to 3,660 today.”

Additionally, the Farmer’s Market phenomenon where urban areas set up local farm bazaars, normally once a week, is also growing.  From the USDA this:

For approximately 30 years, from 1946 until the mid 1970s, full employment was a national policy goal.  During those years the nation did not suffer any financial meltdowns.

For a variety of reasons full employment was dropped from the policy goal list during the 1970s.  Since then the nation has suffered seven financial meltdowns of varying severity, the most recent one the most severe.

But that isn’t the only comparison one should make between the two periods.  Unemployment was lower between 1946 and 1976, for example, than it’s been between 1976 and today.  Annual gross domestic product grew more between 1946 and 1976 than it’s grown since.  Deficits were not the norm between 1946 and 1976, but they have been the norm since.

Maybe we should return to concentrating on full employment.  To rephrase Stalin “One unemployed person is a tragedy.  A million unemployed people is a statistic.”

The simple truth is that people who work produce something.  So putting people to work should be a national goal.  Right now it’s painfully obvious millions of people aren’t working.  Which means a great deal of production isn’t happening.

This may sound too simplistic, but failing at this most simple and, therefore, basic level is to commit a fundamental error.  Nonetheless.

It’s not that we don’t have many projects before us as a nation, either.  There’s plenty of work that needs doing.

Infrastructure is just one glaring example.  The nation’s civil engineers have identified $2.2 trillion in projects that need doing for the next five years.  Public school classrooms are crowded across the nation.  We need more teachers.

Our food is polluted to the point of toxicity.  We need more organic farms which enrich and replenish our soil.

We need sustainable, non polluting, energy to replace fossil fuels.  We need a more diverse and robust transportation system, not so reliant on gasoline powered trucks and cars.

Make your own list of things that need doing.  If we made full employment a goal then we would logically go about accomplishing these projects.

Why we don’t do this is statistically significant, but more fundamentally, it’s a personal tragedy.

Most if not all of our economic advancement comes from extraction.  We take from nature that which we have found useful.  This simple model has managed to elevate billions of people out of poverty.

Unfortunately this model contains the seeds of its own destruction.  It may take a while to destroy, but the fundamental fact is that much of what we extract is of finite supply.  And mother nature can’t make more fast enough for our extraction model.

Even organic farming, one of the few industries that adds to nature, still depends upon machinery.  Base energy production could eventually become close to sustainable as it moves away from the extraction model.  But here again, it takes machinery.

So even if we become less dependent on extraction for energy, and more organic farming adds nutrients to the soil, we still need to extract from the earth material we cannot replenish.

Nature does show us how to extend the life of our extraction model, however.  Nature recycles everything.  So must we.  

Here’s a brief article explaining how Europe is approaching this opportunity.  It’s from the European Commission.

“The EU is aiming for a significant cut in the amount of rubbish generated, through new waste prevention initiatives, better use of resources, and encouraging a shift to more sustainable consumption patterns.

The European Union’s approach to waste management is based on three principles:

1. Waste prevention:  This is a key factor in any waste management strategy. If we can reduce the amount of waste generated in the first place and reduce its hazardousness by reducing the presence of dangerous substances in products, then disposing of it will automatically become simpler. Waste prevention is closely linked with improving manufacturing methods and influencing consumers to demand greener products and less packaging.
2. Recycling and reuse: If waste cannot be prevented, as many of the materials as possible should be recovered, preferably by recycling. The European Commission has defined several specific ‘waste streams’ for priority attention, the aim being to reduce their overall environmental impact. This includes packaging waste, end-of-life vehicles, batteries, electrical and electronic waste. EU directives now require Member States to introduce legislation on waste collection, reuse, recycling and disposal of these waste streams. Several EU countries are already managing to recycle over 50% of packaging waste.
3. Improving final disposal and monitoring: Where possible, waste that cannot be recycled or reused should be safely incinerated, with landfill only used as a last resort. Both these methods need close monitoring because of their potential for causing severe environmental damage. The EU has recently approved a directive setting strict guidelines for landfill management. It bans certain types of waste, such as used tyres, and sets targets for reducing quantities of biodegradable rubbish. Another recent directive lays down tough limits on emission levels from incinerators. The Union also wants to reduce emissions of dioxins and acid gases such as nitrogen oxides (NO_x), sulphur dioxides (SO₂), and hydrogen chlorides (HCL), which can be harmful to human health.”

Beezer here:  This train of thought came directly from a post at economist’s view, which highlighted an article by Paul Collier, entitled “Toward a New Ethics of Nature” that appeared in the Financial Times.

One of the commentators to this article was someone writing under the handle “Organic George.”   Here’s organic george’s take on the subject.

Yes us romantics created organic farming; a bunch of back the land hippies with degrees in English Lit were able to create a $24 billion dollar US industry in 2 decades without support, in fact over the objections of the US government, Land Grant Universities, and Ag industrial.

Yep, we created a new workable, long-term sustainable, world-wide industry without the help of econometric modeling.

In organic Ag we build soil for the next generation, we do not use synthetic pesticides, fertilizers or misuse raw manure, all of which are responsible for the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf Hypoxia), death of the Chesapeake bay, polluted ground water, pesticide laden rain in the Midwest, etc. Conventionally grown food does not include the down stream cost of chemical farming, if it did conventionally grown food would be more expensive than organic.

Us romantic environmentalist have long understood intrinsic value of nature; it’s the econometric models that show extraction from nature is better than working with nature.

These economic models tell us that treating farm animals as widgets of industrial production is good business. Animals standing in their own filth 24/7, in confinement spaces so small it’s difficult for the animal to do anything but stand in one place to eat and sleep. Econ models lack any humanity, it’s all about the lowest-dollar-cost at all cost.

This is why the US middle class is disappearing so quickly, these extraction models have created a form modern day colonialism. Look at the history of colonialism around the world and you will find the same pattern of wealth extraction to the detriment of the local populations. The multiplier effect for US Ag dollars, once as high as 7 to 1 now is at best 1 to 1, resulting in little or no money flows to the rural economies, leading to their continued decline as money transfers from rural areas into corporate coffers.

Couple this with industrial Ag’s dependence on taxpayer dollars to support commodity farmers, which keeps the cost of raw Ag commodities artificially low, coupled with the taxpayers $150,000,000.00+ dollar bailout last year of the corporate hog producers and you can easily see the flaws in the industrial Ag models.

Organic farming is about respect; for the earth, the people working the land and the consumers who buy our products. Organics may not meet the current definition of economic efficiency, but we are sustainable.

What is needed is less dependence on mathematical models and more dependence on humanity.”

Beezer again.  It’s posts and commentary like this which have made economist’s view one of the most popular economics oriented blogsites on the internet.  The blog’s host, professor Mark Thoma, has created a huge aggregation of economic oriented thought which is as timely as it is voluminous.  Whatever is news of the day, becomes dissected almost as quickly at economist’s view.  It’s a must visit site.

No one can confidently predict future events but everyone can confidently predict how to prepare for future events.

For example, we know that anywhere from 82 to 93 cents of our food dollar goes to marketing and distribution, leaving 7 to 18 cents for the farmer.  We also know that energy cost increases impact the food industry just like any other industry.

In the food industry we know that the processing part is most vulnerable to energy cost increases, seven times more vulnerable than the farmer himself.  Consuming fewer processed foods would make overall food costs less vulnerable to energy price increases, in other words.

We also know that many foods travel thousands of miles going from the farm to the consumer.  Shorter supply chains, therefore, would diminish the impact of energy price hikes.  One way to shorten supply chains is to encourage local farming, particularly if the farming can be located around urban areas.

Producing synthetic fertilizers is energy intensive.  Using compost or other natural means of fertilizing soil would reduce negative impacts on food prices caused by rising energy prices. 

Shorter supply lines, less use of synthetic fertilizers, less consumption of processed foods:  What this describes is organic farming.  Which as it happens is currently the fastest growing segment of the food industry.

The primary argument against organic farming is that conventional farming is more efficient–that larger farms, larger processing facilities, more use of fertilizers and other artificial inputs like growth hormones, produces more food in total at less cost. 

Two points here.  The first involves this article’s first sentence and its emphasis on preparedness.  Smaller, more plentiful and diverse farms, whether purely organic or not, may be a food system more resilient against unforeseen shocks.  Industry models built on the traditional manufacturing definition of “efficiency” through mass production may be wringing out the food system’s ability to survive unforeseen, negative shocks.

The second point involves recent research that directly challenges the claim that the industrial model is more efficient, even when using the classic efficiency metrics that don’t consider the costs incurred by unforeseen negative shocks.  Studies are showing that modern organic farming techniques have increased production efficiencies that, with many base grains and other foods, surpass those of conventional farms.

The question is are there government policies that can encourage a more diverse farming system, one more resilient to unforeseen shocks, and be efficient too?  And would it be wise to experiment with these types of policies, even if there aren’t any shocks, unforeseen or not?

Why not?  We already do this for conventional, monoculture farming.  Right now we subsidize corn farming to the tune of between $4-$7 billion per year.  From the measurement of increasing production, this subsidy has been wildly successful.  Because of the subsidy, corn production is at historic highs, surging even when the farmers aren’t making money.

Why not do the same thing for organic farming?  If such a subsidy has a similar impact on organic farming that it has had on corn farming, could that be considered a bad result?

Would it be a bad thing to have more nutritious, diverse, non processed foods produced by more numerous, smaller farms closer to consumers?  Of course not.  It would be a tremendously good thing.

That we don’t do this as a country shows that we have not yet learned, despite a number of unforeseen shocks to our economic system, the value of preparedness.  In economics the price of not being prepared is called a “tail risk.”  The most recent meltdown of our financial system was a classic example of underestimating not only the probability of unforeseen shocks, but of underestimating the damage of such shocks.  As a result the nation lost trillions in wealth and millions of jobs.

If you think that was bad, consider the impact if the meltdown had come in the food industry.  We may not be able to predict the future, but we can understand the impact of an unforeseen negative event and be prepared.

So subsidize organic farming.  We need a more resilient food system than we have now.  We need to be better prepared.

About $4-$7 billion in annual corn subsidies will expire at the end of the year unless they are extended by Congress.  There is already a bill in Congress to extend the subsidies for another five years, and it could come to the floor as early as next month, according to CNBC reporter Jane Wells in a report this morning.

Beezer has written several times about the ill effects of this subsidy on the nation’s health, here,  here and here.  If you want a full list, just go to the search box to the right and type in “corn subsidies.”

To make a long story shorter, the subsidies have basically destroyed our small farms and thus our food diversity, engendered the mass production of less nutritious food and, in the case of beef and chicken in particular, resulted in food that’s laced with hormones and antibiotics.  The results of this is proving to be incredibly expensive as we’re having an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. 

It’s also enriched the big corporations in what is commonly referred to as “Industrial Ag.” Industrial ag is yet another big corporation dominated industry–a classic oligopoly which seeks to use government power to inhibit competition and thus fatten profits.

It would seem to be a no brainer that if we’re going to subsidize farms, we should use the subsidy to encourage growing healthy food, and growing a wide variety of healthy food.  It would seem obvious that having a healthier population being fed nutritious food is excellent policy.

As we’ve already witnessed in health care reform, are witnessing in finance reform and will no doubt witness in this corn subsidy battle, getting good things done in Congress (particularly in the Senate) is incredibly difficult when the opponents are entrenched oligopolists who dominate the industry.

This isn’t really about just one vegetable, corn.  This is about our entire food supply.  Mono cultures never survive.  And we are rapidly being turned into a mono culture.

Consider this paragraph in a March Newsweek article that touches on the upcoming battle.

“Of course, none of these efforts will change a thing if we don’t overhaul what we eat (too much fat, sugar, and salt) and how we eat it (supersized portions). Take one highly publicized ingredient, high-fructose corn syrup, which is derived from corn and has made its way into a multitude of the foods and drinks we consume—ketchup, sodas, and even the presumably good stuff like salad dressing and yogurt. A formidable contingent of nutritionists believe that agricultural subsidies for corn and other crops have contributed to the obesity crisis by making fattening foods cheap and ubiquitous. They want the subsidies expunged. Others, including USDA economists, argue that the effect is small and that eliminating them won’t solve the problem. It’s unlikely, given the outsize power of farm states in the Senate, and of Iowa in choosing presidential nominees, that the subsidies will be axed. But you’re certain to hear a lot more about this in the run-up to the 2012 farm bill. In the meantime, here’s something to chew on: a new study out of Princeton University found that rats who consumed high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than rats who ate plain old table sugar—even when they took in the same number of calories. Sign them up to testify on the Hill.”

All the internet blogs in all the world plus all the votes in this country may not be enough to bring common sense to America.

But we can try.  Subsidize healthy food, not just corn.  First Lady Michelle Obama, your organic White House garden, and the nation’s health, awaits you.

Incredibly, Obama has appointed an Industrial Ag apologist, Islam “Isi” Siddiqui, as the chief agricultural negotiator at the US Trade Office.

Obama made the appointements while Congress was in recess.  He did so because the Republican Senators have pretty much put a “hold” on all appointments.  But during recess, a President can make appointments without Senate approval.

Siddiqui may have been the only appointment that both Democrats and Republicans oppose.

He’s been a lobbyist for a group called CropLife America, which is a front for all the chemical companies that make synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, growth hormones and genetically modified seeds.  Think Monsanto.  Born in India, this chemist and naturalized US citizen has a very impressive academic and work experience resume.  If there’s one thing this guy knows it’s how to poison things, including our food.

CropLife was the outfit that criticized Michelle Obama for not using pesticides in the White House garden, instead deciding to keep it organic. 

From that letter writing campaign to the First Lady by CropLife this:

“As you go about planning and planting the White House garden, we respectfully encourage you to recognize the role conventional agriculture plays in the U.S in feeding the ever-increasing population, contributing to the U.S. economy and providing a safe and economical food supply. America’s farmers understand crop protection technologies are supported by sound scientific research and innovation.”

There’s certainly no question chemists can concoct products that efficiently kill pesky bugs, or pesky people for that matter.  But the unintended consequences of these skills have proven to be immense.

Take Monsanto’s super killer pesticide RoundUp.  Monsanto genetically modifies seeds that resist RoundUp.  Much of the corn and soy we grow in the US is so modified.  But seeds are small and can be dispersed in the air.  Genetically modified seeds can infiltrate another farm using non modified seeds.  Incredibly, the US courts have ruled that the company owns whatever and wherever the seeds grow.  It is ruining our food diversity and if it continues it will destroy our ability to eat healthier, organically grown food.

There’s pushback, for certain.  A court case is now before the Supreme Court which goes to the heart of this problem.  Monsanto has modified an alfalfa seed to resist RoundUp and wants to start selling it without regulation.  Organic and environmental groups won an appeal against Monsanto, arguing that if allowed this seed will do to organic farming what other modified seeds have done to traditional farming all across America:  Wipe it out.

And these modified seeds have not been very welcome outside the US.   In Europe they are banned.  Japan has a ban on growing GMOs, and requires extensive labeling for GMO imported food.  India and South Africa are having issues with GMOs as well.

CropLife is also a big fan of using growth hormones and, no surprise, almost all the meat Americans eat is ladled full of hormones.  That’s how you get beef from a cow that’s only been alive one year.  Stuffed with growth hormones, the poor beast grows at exponential speed (normal growth would be 3-4 years).  It may barely be able to walk without help, but who cares anyway, right?

Here again, Europe bans using these hormones, citing evidence they can cause cancer, and water runoff containing these synthetic hormones can materially and negatively affect fish and other water based life.

Here’s what Siddiqui thinks about Europe’s ban.

“In 1999, for instance, he derided the European Union’s ban on hormone-treated beef. According to Reuters, when the French agriculture minister expressed concern that the hormones could cause cancer in 20 to 30 years, Siddiqui reportedly said of the minister, “He wanted assurances that 30 years from now, nothing would happen. No one in the scientific community can give you that kind of decision.”

And from Politico this:

“That same year, Reuters reported that Siddiqui, then-special assistant for trade to the U.S. agriculture secretary, “expressed concern about possible [genetically modified organism] labeling requirements by Japan when he met senior officials of the Agriculture Ministry in Tokyo. ‘We do not believe that obligatory GMO labeling is necessary, because it would suggest a health risk where there is none. Mandatory labeling could mislead consumers about the safety of these products.’” 

While Siddiqui was at CropLife, the company took part in closed-door negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Management and Budget to find ways to permit pesticide testing in children. The firm also was instrumental in securing an exemption for American farmers from the 2006 worldwide ban of the highly controversial chemical methyl bromide, a pesticide that depletes the ozone layer.”

CropLife members include the world’s largest fertilizer manufacturers.  These chemical fertilizers are the main cause of huge “deadzones” around the world, with one of the largest being in the Gulf of Mexico directly beyond the mouth of the Mississippi.  Deprived of sufficient oxygen depleted by fertilizer pollution these deadzones are empty of all fish and most other aquatic plant life.  The Gulf deadzone is more than 8,500 sq. miles in size.

As America’s chief ag negotiator for trade, a main selling point Siddique will badger our trading partners with is that using all these pesticides, genetically modified seeds, synthetic fertilizers and hormones will increase efficiency in producing food.  The food may not be healthy, but we can grow a lot of it.  Cheap.

Whoa now.  Maybe Siddique’s been eating too much RoundUp residue.

This from an article in The Journal of Young Investigators, a journal of undergraduate, peer reviewed research.

“05 July 2005 – Organic farms produce the same yields of soybeans & corn as do conventional farms while consuming 30% less energy, according to a 22-year farming systems trial study conducted by the Rodale Institute. Published in the July issue of Bioscience, the study is the longest running comparison of organic vs. conventional farming in the United States.

“Organic farming offers real advantages for such crops as corn and soybeans,” says David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agriculture and lead author of the study. “Organic farming approaches for these crops not only use an average of 30 percent less fossil energy but also conserve more water in the soil, induce less erosion, maintain soil quality and conserve more biological resources than conventional farming does.”

Given the pushback these industries are facing around the world, and are beginning to face even in the US as more and more evidence surfaces about the negative effects caused by all these synthetic additives to our food system, and thus to ourselves, this appointment is going to cause a lot of difficulty for Obama.  And Obama is all about strengthening our image around the world.

The approach Siddique is going to push will weaken, not strengthen, America’s image.

If you want to piss off a country, next to bombing the place, the best way is to go after its agriculture industry with products a mounting pile of evidence shows results in unhealthy food, and a worsened environment.

Put this guy out to pasture, Mr. President.  And while you’re at it, try putting our cattle out to pasture as well.  They like grass.  It’s what they were designed by nature to eat.  Not GMO corn.  Pasture fed cattle produce healthy protein.  That would be nice, for a change.  And probably politically popular as well.