It is an excellent thing that the term “organic” was legally defined by the federal government in the U.S., protecting the consumer and food industry alike. Before the term was legally defined, producers had the freedom to place their own interpretation on the term, which might have been very different from what the consumer had in mind. Producers unknowingly (or not) could be selling a product as organic, when in reality it did not meet the true spirit of organics. With the legal definition, consumers have a much better idea what to expect from their purchases, and producers have guidelines to ensure proper farming and ranching practices.
Over the past three decades, scientific facts have steadily accumulated showing organic foods are more nutritious than conventionally grown food. Science is showing that the fruits and vegetables our parents ate when they were children are more nutritious than the ones we are serving our children today. Research has been done world-wide, and these findings are consistent.
For example, Donald R. Davis is a research associate employed by the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas. He recently analyzed data retrieved from the USDA that it had gathered in both 1950 and 1999 concerning the nutrient content of 43 fruit and vegetable crops. “He found that six out of 13 nutrients had declined in these crops over the 50-year period (the seven other nutrients showed no significant, reliable changes)” (NY Times). Phosphorous, iron, calcium, protein, riboflavin, and ascorbic acid declined 6% to 38%. "What all our data shows," says Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center and a former executive director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences, "is that whenever there's been a valid comparison between conventional and organic, organic is virtually never lower than conventional and, in a significant number of cases, it's higher. Sometimes it's significantly higher in several important nutrients." (NY Times). Sweden and Britain have also conducted studies with similar results.
Organic farming and ranching are environmentally friendly. Organic farming is based on the philosophy that any food produced is only going to be as good as the soil it is grown in. Organic food producers work in harmony with the ecosystems on the farms and ranches, utilizing techniques such as crop rotation, soil enrichment, natural pest management, composting and companion planting.
Organic farming is much more labor intensive than conventional farming, and this accounts in part for the general increased costs associated with purchasing organic products. Also, while organic farming and ranching can be managed on a larger scale, the certification requirements that come along with being “organic” are much more time consuming than traditional farming. Much more time is devoted to gathering information, planning, scouting for pests (since traditional pesticides are not allowed), and other related duties.
The interest of big business retailers such as Whole Foods could very well apply pressure for improved technologies that will fit the organic standard but reduce time and labor costs. Big business will also lend an air of legitimacy to the organic industry for staunch disbelievers.
Work Cited
"Organic Fruits and Vegetables Work Harder for Their Nutrients", Deborah K. Rich, Special to The San Francisco Chronicle, Saturday, March 25, 2006
Friday, June 27, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Biotechnology
One of the most virulent diseases to strike a papaya tree or shrub is “Papaya Ringspot Virus”. Once this virus secures a foothold in a field, it can lead to financial ruin and abandonment of the acreage in a matter of two growing seasons.
Figure A
Healthy papaya fields in the Puna District, Hawaii, 1992
Figure B
Severely PRV-infected abandoned papaya fields in the Puna District, Hawaii, 1994
Papaya ringspot is characterized by “. . . a yellowing and stunting of the crown of papaya trees, a mottling of the foliage. . ., shoe-stringing of younger leaves. . ., water-soaked streaking of the stalks. . ., and small darkened rings on the surface of fruit. . .” (State of Hawaii DOA). The leaf canopy of a papaya tree decreases as the disease gains a stronger foothold; as a result, the number, size, and quality of the papayas produced decreases.
By 1995, Hawaii’s papaya industry was faced with economic ruin due to the ringspot virus. 95% of the state’s papaya was grown in the Puna District, and the ringspot virus was decimating field after field. Fortunately, research had already begun in the direction of developing a papaya that was resistant to ringspot disease, as it had previously been detected on Oahu and Maui. By the time ringspot disease was discovered in the Puna District, a field trial of transgenic papaya had been established on Oahu (a transgenic papaya has had its genome altered by the transfer of a gene from another species; in this case, a ringspot resistant gene).
The success of the transgenic papaya was beyond any of the researchers’ wildest dreams.
Figure C
This picture shows a solid block of PRV-resistant Rainbow papaya growing well even though it was planted in the middle of a severely-infected field.
The positive impacts of the use of this biotechnology are the development of a PRV-resistant strain of papaya, the resulting continuation and growth of Hawaii’s papaya industry, and a safe and affordable product for consumers. Interestingly enough, the Hawaiian papaya industry has kept both transgenic and non-transgenic species of papaya in production. The transgenic papaya allows for planting in previously unusable infected acreage, and is sold both domestically and to countries where there are no restrictions against bio-engineered produce. The non-transgenic papaya market is a much smaller industry, but allows the Hawaiian Islands to continue to export their papayas to countries that restrict bio-engineered produce, most notably Japan. Japan accounts for 20% of Hawaii’s export market. On a side note, Canada accounts for 11% of Hawaii’s export market and approved the import of transgenic papaya in January 2003.
This biotechnology has been implemented since 1992 in the countries of Brazil, Jamaica, Thailand, Bangladesh, and several East African countries through a technology transfer program. “. . . [S]tudents or scientists [come] to the host institution (at that time, Cornell University) to develop a transgenic papaya that would be useful in their countries” (APS). As there are varying strains of papaya ringspot virus specific to different nations, this has allowed for development of a transgenic papaya (using papayas from the individual countries) that will be able to resist the particular strain of a particular country.
I could find no health concerns relating specifically to transgenic papaya, and only the concern of durability of the ringspot virus resistance (of which there has been no breakdown noted in transgenic papaya).
Works Cited
“Papaya Ringspot Virus”, State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture, New Pest Advisory No. 02-03, May 2002, http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/pi/ppc/npa-1/npa02-03_prvmaui.pdf
“Transgenic Virus Resistant Papaya: From Hope to Reality for Controlling Papaya Ringspot Virus in Hawaii, The American Phytopathological Society, APSnet, Feature Story July-August 2004, http://www.apsnet.org/ONLINE/FEATURE/RINGSPOT/
All pictures are copied from the aforementioned APSnet feature story
Figure A
Healthy papaya fields in the Puna District, Hawaii, 1992
Figure B
Severely PRV-infected abandoned papaya fields in the Puna District, Hawaii, 1994
Papaya ringspot is characterized by “. . . a yellowing and stunting of the crown of papaya trees, a mottling of the foliage. . ., shoe-stringing of younger leaves. . ., water-soaked streaking of the stalks. . ., and small darkened rings on the surface of fruit. . .” (State of Hawaii DOA). The leaf canopy of a papaya tree decreases as the disease gains a stronger foothold; as a result, the number, size, and quality of the papayas produced decreases.
By 1995, Hawaii’s papaya industry was faced with economic ruin due to the ringspot virus. 95% of the state’s papaya was grown in the Puna District, and the ringspot virus was decimating field after field. Fortunately, research had already begun in the direction of developing a papaya that was resistant to ringspot disease, as it had previously been detected on Oahu and Maui. By the time ringspot disease was discovered in the Puna District, a field trial of transgenic papaya had been established on Oahu (a transgenic papaya has had its genome altered by the transfer of a gene from another species; in this case, a ringspot resistant gene).
The success of the transgenic papaya was beyond any of the researchers’ wildest dreams.
Figure C
This picture shows a solid block of PRV-resistant Rainbow papaya growing well even though it was planted in the middle of a severely-infected field.
The positive impacts of the use of this biotechnology are the development of a PRV-resistant strain of papaya, the resulting continuation and growth of Hawaii’s papaya industry, and a safe and affordable product for consumers. Interestingly enough, the Hawaiian papaya industry has kept both transgenic and non-transgenic species of papaya in production. The transgenic papaya allows for planting in previously unusable infected acreage, and is sold both domestically and to countries where there are no restrictions against bio-engineered produce. The non-transgenic papaya market is a much smaller industry, but allows the Hawaiian Islands to continue to export their papayas to countries that restrict bio-engineered produce, most notably Japan. Japan accounts for 20% of Hawaii’s export market. On a side note, Canada accounts for 11% of Hawaii’s export market and approved the import of transgenic papaya in January 2003.
This biotechnology has been implemented since 1992 in the countries of Brazil, Jamaica, Thailand, Bangladesh, and several East African countries through a technology transfer program. “. . . [S]tudents or scientists [come] to the host institution (at that time, Cornell University) to develop a transgenic papaya that would be useful in their countries” (APS). As there are varying strains of papaya ringspot virus specific to different nations, this has allowed for development of a transgenic papaya (using papayas from the individual countries) that will be able to resist the particular strain of a particular country.
I could find no health concerns relating specifically to transgenic papaya, and only the concern of durability of the ringspot virus resistance (of which there has been no breakdown noted in transgenic papaya).
Works Cited
“Papaya Ringspot Virus”, State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture, New Pest Advisory No. 02-03, May 2002, http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/pi/ppc/npa-1/npa02-03_prvmaui.pdf
“Transgenic Virus Resistant Papaya: From Hope to Reality for Controlling Papaya Ringspot Virus in Hawaii, The American Phytopathological Society, APSnet, Feature Story July-August 2004, http://www.apsnet.org/ONLINE/FEATURE/RINGSPOT/
All pictures are copied from the aforementioned APSnet feature story
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Green Revolution
New technology is necessary to increase food production. There is a finite ability within the DNA of any given plant to reproduce. To increase this reproduction ability, the DNA must be genetically altered through cross breeding or genetic engineering. Otherwise, the plant will be unable to exceed its original production capability. There are downfalls to depending on technology to increase food production. Plant pathogens are consistently evolving to allow themselves to invade resistant plants. “These genetic interactions between host and parasite constantly occur in the natural environment” (Plants & Society). It is a never ending battle for plant pathologists and breeders to stay ahead of the mutations that could conceivably destroy a major part of the world’s food supply. Also, crossbreeding is generally limited to the “big three” of the world’s food supply – wheat, rice and corn. This has drastically reduced crop plant diversity, increased pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, and removed water from underground sources so rapidly that nature cannot replenish it, and huge sinkholes have resulted in various parts of the country as the earth collapses into what was once a water-filled aquifer.
There is a growing awareness of the problems due to the effects of the “Green Revolution”. As wonderful as the increased food production was in many countries, the dependence on fertilizers and pesticides, irrigation, and machinery has pushed many small and/or poor farmers out of the industry. The reliance on machinery and pesticides has become more and more expensive as the cost of petroleum has increased. The environmental damage due to the “. . . dramatic increase in fertilizer use over the past several decades has also caused serious environmental problems” (Plants & Society). This, coupled with pesticide use, has created numerous environmental and health issues worldwide.
Critics looking at the problems created by the Green Revolution believe that modeling agriculture after natural systems will help restore local environments, health and economies. A move towards perennial plants that would be harvested at different times of the year and would need replanting only after several years of production would yield many benefits. Soil erosion would be decreased, and dependence on fertilizers and pesticides would be minimized.
Works Cited
"Feeding a Hungry World", Plants and Society, 5th Edition, Levetin and McMahon,
pg 239 for both sources
There is a growing awareness of the problems due to the effects of the “Green Revolution”. As wonderful as the increased food production was in many countries, the dependence on fertilizers and pesticides, irrigation, and machinery has pushed many small and/or poor farmers out of the industry. The reliance on machinery and pesticides has become more and more expensive as the cost of petroleum has increased. The environmental damage due to the “. . . dramatic increase in fertilizer use over the past several decades has also caused serious environmental problems” (Plants & Society). This, coupled with pesticide use, has created numerous environmental and health issues worldwide.
Critics looking at the problems created by the Green Revolution believe that modeling agriculture after natural systems will help restore local environments, health and economies. A move towards perennial plants that would be harvested at different times of the year and would need replanting only after several years of production would yield many benefits. Soil erosion would be decreased, and dependence on fertilizers and pesticides would be minimized.
Works Cited
"Feeding a Hungry World", Plants and Society, 5th Edition, Levetin and McMahon,
pg 239 for both sources
Friday, June 13, 2008
Population Growth and Food
Malthus is correct in his theory that the world’s population growth will be kept in check, but it will be more because of the death rates from infectious diseases than insufficient food supply. At this time there is enough food in the world to nourish its population, but people die of starvation and starvation-related diseases each year because of inequities in the food distribution system. Unless political and logistical obstacles to food distribution are resolved, this situation will continue. At this point in time, I believe that the decreasing supply of fresh, unpolluted drinking water will be the world’s “population policing” system. At the present time, “less than 1% of the Earth’s water is fit and available for human consumption” (Sustainability). The amount of fresh water available for human consumption is constant. Consequently, as population increases, the supply of fresh water per person declines. This results in an ever-decreasing amount of water available per person. Polluted water causes sickness and disease, and water is a major carrier of disease causing germs. Already, nearly half a billion people around the world face water shortages, and the problem will only grow worse.
This ties directly into one of the secondary impacts of increasing food production. Increased agriculture production means increased fertilizer use, which translates directly into increased pollutants contaminating the world’s watershed. In addition, increased agricultural production means more water being diverted for irrigation purposes. Also, increasing food production alone will not solve the inequities of distribution.
The best population control method available worldwide is the education of women. Educated women have a broader view of what their capabilities are and what opportunities are open to them economically. This allows women to make child-bearing decisions based at least in part on what they see in their future.
Studies have shown that “as much as 90% of the reason that women have families of a particular size is simply because that is the number of children they want. Where women gained education and rights, birth rates fell” (Horrid History).
Works Cited
“Horrid History”, from The Economist print edition, May 22, 2008, http://www.economist.com/books
“We Have Passed Our Sustainability”, Mark R Elsis, May 1, 2000, http://overpopulation.net/
This ties directly into one of the secondary impacts of increasing food production. Increased agriculture production means increased fertilizer use, which translates directly into increased pollutants contaminating the world’s watershed. In addition, increased agricultural production means more water being diverted for irrigation purposes. Also, increasing food production alone will not solve the inequities of distribution.
The best population control method available worldwide is the education of women. Educated women have a broader view of what their capabilities are and what opportunities are open to them economically. This allows women to make child-bearing decisions based at least in part on what they see in their future.
Studies have shown that “as much as 90% of the reason that women have families of a particular size is simply because that is the number of children they want. Where women gained education and rights, birth rates fell” (Horrid History).
Works Cited
“Horrid History”, from The Economist print edition, May 22, 2008, http://www.economist.com/books
“We Have Passed Our Sustainability”, Mark R Elsis, May 1, 2000, http://overpopulation.net/
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Federal Lands Grazing
The sheer increase in the nation’s population and the resulting varied interests has resulted in a high-stakes competition regarding public land use. Changing social values with regard to the protection and conservation of the environment and natural resources have demanded a greater balance between livestock grazing and “other legitimate uses of public lands, such as recreation, wildlife habitat, riparian management, endangered species management, mining, hunting, cultural resource protection, wilderness, and a wide variety of other uses” (History of Grazing). One area that has been under the magnifying glass is the subject of fees charged to ranchers for grazing permits. To non-ranching citizens of the United States, the fees seem exorbitantly low. “In 2007, the grazing fee on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and most Forest Service lands is $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM; a measure of the amount of forage necessary to sustain a cow and calf for one month)” (Federal Grazing Fees). The Government Accountability Office had determined that low grazing fees resulted in a cost to American taxpayers of at least $132.5 million in FY 2004. This seems tantamount to providing welfare to some of the richest ranching corporations in the nation.
However, there are some very logical arguments for keeping grazing fees low and for strengthening restrictions and environmental protections at the same time. When grazing fees are kept at a low level, ranchers are able to keep more capital on hand. This makes grazing permits very valuable and increases the incentive to comply with regulations and stipulations attached to the permits. To make compliance even more motivating to ranchers, strict penalties need to be enacted for those caught grazing illegally or out of compliance. The penalties need to go beyond the revocation of the permit and reach deep into the ranchers’ pockets in order to make cheating a less profitable venture. To enforce restrictions and protections, there needs to be random monitoring across the nation at any given time. This will prevent ranchers from figuring out where the next area to be inspected is located. All of these regulations leading to greater compliance will at the same time result in less degradation of the grazing lands and increased restoration of the environment.
Works Cited
“Federal Grazing Fees”, www.sagebrushsea.org/mn_grazing fees_.htm
“History of Grazing”, Nevada Bureau of Land Management, Rangeland Management, http://www.nv.blm.gov/rangelands/range.htm
However, there are some very logical arguments for keeping grazing fees low and for strengthening restrictions and environmental protections at the same time. When grazing fees are kept at a low level, ranchers are able to keep more capital on hand. This makes grazing permits very valuable and increases the incentive to comply with regulations and stipulations attached to the permits. To make compliance even more motivating to ranchers, strict penalties need to be enacted for those caught grazing illegally or out of compliance. The penalties need to go beyond the revocation of the permit and reach deep into the ranchers’ pockets in order to make cheating a less profitable venture. To enforce restrictions and protections, there needs to be random monitoring across the nation at any given time. This will prevent ranchers from figuring out where the next area to be inspected is located. All of these regulations leading to greater compliance will at the same time result in less degradation of the grazing lands and increased restoration of the environment.
Works Cited
“Federal Grazing Fees”, www.sagebrushsea.org/mn_grazing fees_.htm
“History of Grazing”, Nevada Bureau of Land Management, Rangeland Management, http://www.nv.blm.gov/rangelands/range.htm
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Contributions of Animals to Society
There are some very harsh facts worthy of consideration to help a consumer decide if they want to continue supporting the veal industry:
Veal comes from male calves born to dairy cows. Dairy cows are bred once a year, for the express purpose of keeping their milk supply flowing. Their gestation period is 9 months long, like humans, and they continue being used for human milk production 7 out of those 9 months. After approximately 60 days and shortly after giving birth, the milk cow returns to the production line. "Both male and female offspring of dairy cows are normally removed from cows soon after giving birth. This separation allows dairy cows to return to the herd and produce milk for human consumption" (The Veal Farm). The baby calves are then separated based on gender, with the females being raised to replace older (3-4 years old), less productive milk cows. The male calves are chained in individual crates or stalls that measure only 22 inches by 58 inches to minimize movement and that is where they live for their entire lives. The calves endure physical and psychological stress from their confinement. From a production standpoint, when a calf's movements are restricted to laying down and getting up, very little muscle mass is developed. Weak muscles are tender muscles.
Borderline anemic muscles are very tender, very light pink muscles. The calves are fed a milk based diet with as little iron as possible to reduce the level of myoglobin (iron content) in the muscle. Myoglobin produces the red pigment that colors the meat of an adult cow. The reduced iron content (and subsequent borderline anemia) in a calf's muscle translates into tender, light pink meat.
There has been much outcry by animal rights groups regarding the conditions veal calves endure. In a nod to the animal rights groups, the American Veal Association passed a resolution calling for the veal industry to phase out the use of individual crates and stalls. "The American Veal Association's recommended ten-year phaseout is a long time, especially considering that the nation's largest veal producers have already committed to a two-year phaseout, but it is a step in the right direction that further makes the writing on the wall clear: Veal crates are too cruel and inhumane even for the veal industry to continue defending"(HSUS 2007).
An excellent way for consumers to let the veal industry (and all animal industries) know inhumane practices will not be tolerated is with their dollars. If a consumer cannot give up their veal, a shift towards buying locally instead of supporting huge farming corporations is a good start.
Works Cited
"Industry Information, Frequently Asked Questions", The Veal Farm,
2004 Cattlemen's Beef Board, www.vealfarm.com
"Say No to Veal", A Farm Sanctuary Campaign, www.noveal.org
"Statement on American Veal Association's Veal Crate Announcement", The Human Society of the United States, August 6, 2007,
www.hsus.com/press_and_publications/press_releases
Veal comes from male calves born to dairy cows. Dairy cows are bred once a year, for the express purpose of keeping their milk supply flowing. Their gestation period is 9 months long, like humans, and they continue being used for human milk production 7 out of those 9 months. After approximately 60 days and shortly after giving birth, the milk cow returns to the production line. "Both male and female offspring of dairy cows are normally removed from cows soon after giving birth. This separation allows dairy cows to return to the herd and produce milk for human consumption" (The Veal Farm). The baby calves are then separated based on gender, with the females being raised to replace older (3-4 years old), less productive milk cows. The male calves are chained in individual crates or stalls that measure only 22 inches by 58 inches to minimize movement and that is where they live for their entire lives. The calves endure physical and psychological stress from their confinement. From a production standpoint, when a calf's movements are restricted to laying down and getting up, very little muscle mass is developed. Weak muscles are tender muscles.
Borderline anemic muscles are very tender, very light pink muscles. The calves are fed a milk based diet with as little iron as possible to reduce the level of myoglobin (iron content) in the muscle. Myoglobin produces the red pigment that colors the meat of an adult cow. The reduced iron content (and subsequent borderline anemia) in a calf's muscle translates into tender, light pink meat.
There has been much outcry by animal rights groups regarding the conditions veal calves endure. In a nod to the animal rights groups, the American Veal Association passed a resolution calling for the veal industry to phase out the use of individual crates and stalls. "The American Veal Association's recommended ten-year phaseout is a long time, especially considering that the nation's largest veal producers have already committed to a two-year phaseout, but it is a step in the right direction that further makes the writing on the wall clear: Veal crates are too cruel and inhumane even for the veal industry to continue defending"(HSUS 2007).
An excellent way for consumers to let the veal industry (and all animal industries) know inhumane practices will not be tolerated is with their dollars. If a consumer cannot give up their veal, a shift towards buying locally instead of supporting huge farming corporations is a good start.
Works Cited
"Industry Information, Frequently Asked Questions", The Veal Farm,
2004 Cattlemen's Beef Board, www.vealfarm.com
"Say No to Veal", A Farm Sanctuary Campaign, www.noveal.org
"Statement on American Veal Association's Veal Crate Announcement", The Human Society of the United States, August 6, 2007,
www.hsus.com/press_and_publications/press_releases
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Farm Subsidies
Farm subsidies are necessary, but they desperately need to be reformed. What worked after the Great Depression of the 1930s has turned into a money-sucking, unmanageable monster that gobbles billions of tax dollars every year.
A revised farm bill is created by the House of Representatives and presented for Congressional vote every five years. Congress has made steps in the right direction in the matter of farm bill reform with their newest version, which was passed with veto-proof margins of 318-106 in the House and 81-15 in the Senate (nytimes.com). This historic vote occurred in May 2008 and is an excellent example of the bipartisan support that farm bills have historically garnered. President Bush promptly vetoed the bill when it was received at the White House, and the House of Representatives and Senate just as promptly voted to override Bush’s veto when the bill returned to Congress. The United States of America is now the proud parent of “The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008”. Farm bills have come a long way since their conception in the 30s.
Although this legislation “is universally known as the farm bill, it actually directs far more money to feeding the poor than it does to helping farmers – about $209 billion for nutrition programs ….. compared with $35 billion for agricultural commodity programs” (nytimes.com). Important improvements contained in this bill that supporters enthusiastically point to are increased food stamp benefits, child care costs deductions, big increases for food banks and other organizations that support communities in times of food emergencies, increased funding for foreign food aid, creation of a healthy-snack program for schools, increased spending on land conservation and rural development, and even a provision that benefits endangered species.
Critics decry the “direct payment” program left intact from the previous bill that pays qualified land owners based on acreage, regardless if the land is farmed. They point fingers at a tax break for racehorse owners that was inserted by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Also, subsidy payments to wealthy farmers or owners of farmland have not been slashed enough, according to opponents of the bill.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi does concede that “while more change is needed, the bill made important improvements to farm policy” (nytimes.com). Of particular interest is “ACRE”, the new Average Crop Revenue Election program. This program is more market oriented, pays farmers only when they face a real loss in revenue, requires farmers to be responsible for the first portion of revenue loss, cuts the Marketing Loan Program rates by 30% (addressing a concern that has triggered WTO trade disputes), and cuts “direct payments” by 20% (farmland.org). These improvements are concrete steps in the reformation of the farm bill and should be applauded because:
Making the farm bill more market oriented is important because it helps the farming industry become more in tune with domestic and/or international consumers’ desires. Consumers will send a message to agricultural producers with their dollars as to what products are the most important to them. As a result, farmers will plant crops based on actual forecasts instead of planting for the greatest benefit from a subsidy. This could result in a greater variety and higher quality of crops planted. At the very least, it will create agricultural production more in tune with the economy.
Requiring farmers to substantiate a financial loss before receiving government commodity payments will result in savings to the government and restores the true meaning of a “safety net” for producers.
Requiring producers to be responsible for the first 10% of any revenue loss will result in increased governmental savings. It will also create more of a ”partnership” between government and producers, replacing the welfare-like status of previous bills.
Reducing the Marketing Loan Program rates will go a long way in improving international relations. As a result of this benefit being reduced for America’s producers, other countries will have a more level playing field in the area of agricultural exporting.
Reducing direct payments creates revenue to pay for the new programs included in the 2008 farm bill.
It is of particular importance that the United States acts with moral and ethical responsibility regarding farm subsidies. The more US production of agriculture is subsidized, the deeper in poverty poorer countries become mired. And like it or not, their well-being is tied to ours. It is a proven economic fact that suppressing imports ultimately suppresses exports for any country (Economics Today). Exorbitant subsidies create a very difficult environment for foreign producers by creating a glut that lowers world prices for commodities, thereby creating a very difficult environment for foreign producers to compete and ultimately reducing imports.
The plight of West African cotton farmers is a good example of the damaging effects of US commodity subsidies. The majority of the farming families live on less than $1 a day. Any reduction in the world market cotton prices “directly [affects] the prices that farmers in poor countries receive for their crops” (Oxfam). They have no “cushion” to absorb the blow of reduced prices, and millions of families can be reduced to starvation by a slight reduction of income. On the flip side, any increase of world market prices, even the most modest gains, eventually translates into an improved standard of living for these families.
In conclusion, well thought-out farm subsidies are important as a safety net for US producers, but need continuing reformation to reverse long-standing negative effects on the international economy and the US deficit.
Works Cited
American Farmland Trust: News – Press Releases, “Setting the Record Straight on ACRE: A Statement of American Farmland Trust and the National Corn Growers Association”, Jimmy Daukas and Jennifer Morrill, May 20, 2008, www.farmland.org
Economics Today – the Macro View, Roger LeRoy Miller, 14th Edition, pg 842
New York Times, “House Passes Farm Bill Veto by a Veto-Proof Margin”, David M. Herszenhorn, May 15, 2008, www.nytimes.com
New York Times, “Reaching Well Beyond the Farm”, David M. Herszenhorn, May 20, 2008, www.nytimes.com
Oxfam America, “Paying the Price”, key findings from Julian M Alston, Daniel A Sumner and Henrich Brunke, 2007, www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications
A revised farm bill is created by the House of Representatives and presented for Congressional vote every five years. Congress has made steps in the right direction in the matter of farm bill reform with their newest version, which was passed with veto-proof margins of 318-106 in the House and 81-15 in the Senate (nytimes.com). This historic vote occurred in May 2008 and is an excellent example of the bipartisan support that farm bills have historically garnered. President Bush promptly vetoed the bill when it was received at the White House, and the House of Representatives and Senate just as promptly voted to override Bush’s veto when the bill returned to Congress. The United States of America is now the proud parent of “The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008”. Farm bills have come a long way since their conception in the 30s.
Although this legislation “is universally known as the farm bill, it actually directs far more money to feeding the poor than it does to helping farmers – about $209 billion for nutrition programs ….. compared with $35 billion for agricultural commodity programs” (nytimes.com). Important improvements contained in this bill that supporters enthusiastically point to are increased food stamp benefits, child care costs deductions, big increases for food banks and other organizations that support communities in times of food emergencies, increased funding for foreign food aid, creation of a healthy-snack program for schools, increased spending on land conservation and rural development, and even a provision that benefits endangered species.
Critics decry the “direct payment” program left intact from the previous bill that pays qualified land owners based on acreage, regardless if the land is farmed. They point fingers at a tax break for racehorse owners that was inserted by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Also, subsidy payments to wealthy farmers or owners of farmland have not been slashed enough, according to opponents of the bill.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi does concede that “while more change is needed, the bill made important improvements to farm policy” (nytimes.com). Of particular interest is “ACRE”, the new Average Crop Revenue Election program. This program is more market oriented, pays farmers only when they face a real loss in revenue, requires farmers to be responsible for the first portion of revenue loss, cuts the Marketing Loan Program rates by 30% (addressing a concern that has triggered WTO trade disputes), and cuts “direct payments” by 20% (farmland.org). These improvements are concrete steps in the reformation of the farm bill and should be applauded because:
Making the farm bill more market oriented is important because it helps the farming industry become more in tune with domestic and/or international consumers’ desires. Consumers will send a message to agricultural producers with their dollars as to what products are the most important to them. As a result, farmers will plant crops based on actual forecasts instead of planting for the greatest benefit from a subsidy. This could result in a greater variety and higher quality of crops planted. At the very least, it will create agricultural production more in tune with the economy.
Requiring farmers to substantiate a financial loss before receiving government commodity payments will result in savings to the government and restores the true meaning of a “safety net” for producers.
Requiring producers to be responsible for the first 10% of any revenue loss will result in increased governmental savings. It will also create more of a ”partnership” between government and producers, replacing the welfare-like status of previous bills.
Reducing the Marketing Loan Program rates will go a long way in improving international relations. As a result of this benefit being reduced for America’s producers, other countries will have a more level playing field in the area of agricultural exporting.
Reducing direct payments creates revenue to pay for the new programs included in the 2008 farm bill.
It is of particular importance that the United States acts with moral and ethical responsibility regarding farm subsidies. The more US production of agriculture is subsidized, the deeper in poverty poorer countries become mired. And like it or not, their well-being is tied to ours. It is a proven economic fact that suppressing imports ultimately suppresses exports for any country (Economics Today). Exorbitant subsidies create a very difficult environment for foreign producers by creating a glut that lowers world prices for commodities, thereby creating a very difficult environment for foreign producers to compete and ultimately reducing imports.
The plight of West African cotton farmers is a good example of the damaging effects of US commodity subsidies. The majority of the farming families live on less than $1 a day. Any reduction in the world market cotton prices “directly [affects] the prices that farmers in poor countries receive for their crops” (Oxfam). They have no “cushion” to absorb the blow of reduced prices, and millions of families can be reduced to starvation by a slight reduction of income. On the flip side, any increase of world market prices, even the most modest gains, eventually translates into an improved standard of living for these families.
In conclusion, well thought-out farm subsidies are important as a safety net for US producers, but need continuing reformation to reverse long-standing negative effects on the international economy and the US deficit.
Works Cited
American Farmland Trust: News – Press Releases, “Setting the Record Straight on ACRE: A Statement of American Farmland Trust and the National Corn Growers Association”, Jimmy Daukas and Jennifer Morrill, May 20, 2008, www.farmland.org
Economics Today – the Macro View, Roger LeRoy Miller, 14th Edition, pg 842
New York Times, “House Passes Farm Bill Veto by a Veto-Proof Margin”, David M. Herszenhorn, May 15, 2008, www.nytimes.com
New York Times, “Reaching Well Beyond the Farm”, David M. Herszenhorn, May 20, 2008, www.nytimes.com
Oxfam America, “Paying the Price”, key findings from Julian M Alston, Daniel A Sumner and Henrich Brunke, 2007, www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
