Hidden Health Science

Posts Tagged ‘Agriculture’

by Stefano R. Mugnaini, Mises

Any conversation about the superfluity of the federal government or her legion of agencies will invariably turn to this question: “Who will keep our food safe?” It is as sure as Godwin’s law — except in this case, the fascists have, inexplicably, become the good guys.

Apparently, the FDA and the USDA have a stellar and unblemished track record of keeping the populace safe from tainted foodand dangerous medicines. It is a measure of the success of state propaganda that such a glaring untruth is so commonly seen as axiomatic and beyond question.

One of the great challenges for advocates of a truly free society is to present their vision of how certain functions of government would be replaced by the free market and voluntary cooperation. We are no less presumptuous than advocates of central planning if we dogmatically claim a comprehensive vision of how things will be in our “libertopia.”

As Murray Rothbard pointed out, the libertarian’s primary task is to

offer a few guidelines on how markets might develop where they are now prevented or restricted from developing; but he can do little more than point the way toward freedom, to call for government to get out of the way of the productive and ever-inventive energies of the public as expressed in voluntary market activity.

While we cannot be about the business of substituting one group of central planners for “our sort” of central planners, the nature of our argument behooves us to offer a vision of freedom — not what it must be, but what it could be.

As it pertains to the role of agencies like the FDA and USDA, we need look no further than the sustainable- and organic-food movement to see how the free market makes up for government failures; and it is no great leap to imagine the same market forces supplanting the public option altogether.

Perhaps ironically, it is luminaries of the modern movement toward “sustainable” food, generally confirmed statists, who furnish the crux of our argument.

There is a general consensus among those who are deeply devoted to such things that the USDA Certified Organic sticker is, at best, a limited indicator of the agricultural practices involved in the production of various foodstuffs. The USDA program is, like any government agency, bloated, inefficient, and inconsistent. It is rife with corruption and requires expenditures of time and money that preclude many small farmers from participating.

As a result, many small producers are eschewing the USDA label as simply not worth it. Michael Pollan, an icon in the sustainable-food movement, consistently encourages people to forgo Certified Organic produce for local, reasoning that

It often is organic, even if not certified, and you can always ask the farmer. The cost of organic certification can also become burdensome for a small grower.

The farm that runs the CSA (community-supported agriculture) to which I belong is explicit in their disclosure of their growing methods, all the while explaining that they have not received “official” organic certification. In short, there seems to be a general consensus among advocates of organic and sustainable agriculture that the government seal of approval is limited in its value.

But simply buying everything from a local producer is a difficult proposition for the majority of us; time and geographic concerns preclude this as a viable option. How, then, can the average consumer be assured that they are buying food products that have been produced in a manner that is consistent with their ideals? In the face of the failure of the government’s program, as usual, the free market has provided a solution. And it is in this free-market solution that we see the germ of an idea that could totally supplant the government’s role in the inspection and regulation of agriculture and medicine — and do it more cheaply, efficiently, and with far greater accountability.

In the absence of a reliable government organic-food regulatory agency, the market has provided several voluntary options. The Certified Naturally Grown program offers “a non-profit organization offering certification tailored for small-scale, direct-market farmers and beekeepers using natural methods.” They rely on voluntary participation and a peer-review system that is less expensive, less paperwork intensive, and more efficient than the USDA program.

Whole Foods Market has developed their own alternative for certifying certain production techniques for livestock and poultry, through a partnership with an animal-welfare nonprofit.

These are two options, but there are several others. All share a focus on voluntary cooperation between food producers and certifiers, and greater accountability to the consumer, as they can’t hide their flaws behind the veil of government immunity. These programs, and others like them, are infinitely scalable, completely voluntary, and represent a real challenge to the notion that “only the government can …”

The same organizational structure that has rendered the Certified Organic label obsolete could immediately step in to fill the void left by the absence of the FDA and USDA. Private, third-party certifiers could inspect livestock and produce and affix their seal of approval only when certain standards are met. That the reputations of the inspectors and the farmers are truly on the line would preclude much of the graft and inefficiency that is a constant feature of the current system. Certified, inspected produce would compete with uninspected produce for shelf space and consumer demand. I’ve focused on the grocery side of the equation, but the same general principles would apply to drug development and regulation.

As Rothbard continues,

No one can predict the number of firms, the size of each firm, the pricing policies, etc., of any future market in any service or commodity. We just know — by economic theory and by historical insight — that such a free market will do the job infinitely better than the compulsory monopoly of bureaucratic government.

by Ken Cook, Environmental Working Group

When Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) spoke to the Organic Trade Association’sWashington Policy Conference the other day, her talk had two parts: the part where she left the distinct impression that she had no idea whom she was talking to, and the part where it seemed she didn’t care.

Schmidt chairs the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition and Horticulture, which has jurisdiction over organic agriculture programs. Early in her speech the congresswoman explained why “organic agriculture” had to be stripped from the subcommittee’s name: it made it too long. The result, consistent with the reigning fashion to shrink the federal government wherever possible, is that Schmidt now proudly chairs the agriculture subcommittee with the shortest title:

•    Nutrition and Horticulture

•    Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry

•    Conservation, Energy, and Forestry

•    Department Operations, Oversight, and Credit

•    General Farm Commodities and Risk Management

•    Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture

At another point, she borrowed a page from the playbook of Rep. Darryl Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government reform, and invited the audience to let her know of any ways in which the government might be interfering with or harming their business. Bewildered organic farmers and food company executives turned to one another around the room, wondering if they’d heard right. Having pushed for decades for rigorous federal regulation in order to distinguish their explosively growing segment of the market, the organic industry does indeed have a high-profile complaint about the government these days: the headlong deregulation of genetically engineered crops that now dominate mainstream chemical agriculture. Organic farmers and food companies eschew them, and they’re worried that pollen drifting from genetically engineered crops will contaminate organic fields, threatening the most valuable – and most happily regulated – market in the food system.

Schmidt then gave an example of the kind government intrusion she wants to hear about: “those crazy spray rules” for pesticides coming out of the EPA. She was referring to a proposed rule that would require pesticide applicators to get simple, straightforward Clean Water Act permits in order to protect rivers and streams that are seriously polluted with agricultural weed and bug killers. The EPA proposal has inspired outrage and litigation from chemical farming interests, who caricature it as yet another government sledgehammer poised to crush jobs and drive farmers out of business. When that talking point fell flat on an audience that, by regulation, doesn’t use pesticides, Schmidt seemed not to notice.

“These things go right over [EPA Administrator] Lisa Jackson’s head,” she said, underscoring her disdain by throwing her hand over her own.  (Over her career, the League of Conservation Voters has scored Schmidt’s environmental voting record in the range of 0 percent to 13 percent.)

“A business idea,” she abruptly offered toward the end, noting that she was about to depart from her prepared remarks. “Organic cooking.”

Eyes widened yet again around a room that included executives from companies with annual organic sales in the hundreds of millions of dollars, as Schmidt described how the cakes her daughter bakes with organic sugar and flour don’t taste as good as regular cakes. Then, with some difficulty, she stumbled through a recipe from memory.

In thanking everyone at the end, she congratulated the organic industry on its impressive growth, “6 to 26. . .”

Some listeners thought they heard her say “million,” but after a brief pause she landed the point.

“Billion.”

Then Schmidt took questions. In response to the first, she was unable to say how much money currently is allocated for the federal organic agriculture programs her committee oversees.  It is a pitifully small amount, in fact – perennially far short of the support a highly popular $26 billion industry might claim.  Many in the room would be lobbying Capitol Hill to preserve or expand those organic programs over the next two days. What Schmidt was certain of, however, is that organic funding will be cut.

“Everything is on the table,” she concluded.

It’s what politicians are telling everyone who comes to Washington in this frenzied season of budget cutting. But when the politician doesn’t know or care about the people they’re saying it to, it’s more than a talking point. It’s an omen.

Published on NaturalNews 07/09/10

Ask any knowledgeable gardener to tell you what kinds of plants are easiest to grow and care for and they’ll tell you: perennials. As opposed to one-season wonders, perennial crops grow deeper roots, stronger bonds with the soil, are easier to care for, and are better for the ecosystem around and under them then their single-season counterparts.

Scientists around the world are working towards replacing one of humanity’s largest staple crops (grains) with perennial alternatives. A paper published in the June 25th issue of Science, penned by more than two dozen authors including scientists, plant breeders, and geneticists, calls for more work to be done towards creating breeds of grain crops that grow perennially.¹

These plants, say the paper’s authors, have the great benefits of all perennials: lower need for water, fertilizers, and more. In addition, these hardier plants will grow better in more marginal soils, which means they can be grown in areas of Africa and Asia where food security is non-existent.

Because their roots go much deeper (up to 12 feet in some experimental strains), these grains would aid in mitigating soil erosion, are better able to capture nutrients and water, and are thus more drought tolerant than current popular grain strains. They also require fewer passes from farm equipment (less work) and for industrial farming would mean less herbicide and much less fertilization – especially nitrates. Organic farmers would also find it easier to care for and build the soil around perennial grains.

Annual grains can lose five times as much water as perennial crops and more than 35 times as much nitrate, says the paper. Less nitrogen use means less runoff into rivers and streams and less pollution – nitrogen runoff being the largest contributor to bay water “dead zones” in the world today.

Perennial grain research and breeding is taking place in Argentina, Australia, China, India, Sweden, and the United States. The lead author on the study, soil scientist and Regents Professor John Reganold of Washington State University, says that the use of perennials would also mean more sustainable agricultural methods due to the lower need for equipment and manpower as well as additives and other negatives associated with today’s mono-cropping.

“People talk about food security,” says Reganold. “That’s only half the issue. We need to talk about both food and ecosystem security.”

Most of the work in regards to perennial grains involves one of two approaches. Many breeders are attempting to take current, modern breeds and cross-breed with or selectively choose for perennial mutation. The other approach is to take wild grain perennials and breed them towards crop production, repeating the steps of humankind’s ancestors who first began agriculture ten thousand years ago.

Both approaches are promising, but the study’s authors are in agreement that it will take at least two decades to get to commercial perennial grains at the current pace. More funding and initiative is needed to speed up the process.

Resources:
1 – Increased Food and Ecosystem Security via Perennial Grains by J.D. Glover, J.P. Reganold, et al, Science, June 25, 2010

2 – Journal “Science”: Agriculture’s Next Revolution “Perennial Grain” Within Sight, by Eric Sorensen, Washington State University URAI

3 – The Sustainability Factor by Aaron Turpen