Waxman-Markey Passes Through House After Allowing “Big” Ag Amendments

On June 26th, the House of Representatives voted on the Waxman-Markey Bill to address climate change. It passed narrowly with 219 aye and 212 nay votes. The American Clean Energy Security Act (as it is otherwise known), sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), aims to cut emissions below the 2005 level by 80% in 2050. The bill is enormous, and is divided up into four sections; Clean Energy, Energy Efficiency, Reducing Global Warming Pollution, and Transitioning to a Clean Energy Economy. You can read more about the details of bill here from Grist and here from the NRDC.

While the original bill made little to no mention of agriculture, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) had urged representatives of big agriculture states to vote no on the bill unless changes that he favored were inserted. These changes included payment for certain carbon sequestration methods and definite exemption from the cap and trade limits, even though agriculture contributes between 18 to 20 percent of global warming gases - a higher level than transportation. As Tom Philpott of Grist reports (and he has reported very extensively on the bill), companies such as Monsanto, DuPont and Bayer have been working to create their own system of classifying these offsets, lending much suspicion to their credibility. They have also spent over $2 million lobbying around this bill.

Rep. Peterson was successful in pushing his agenda through. Sustainable Food News reported on June 29th that the climate bill will pay ranchers and farmers for carbon sequestration. It is undoubtedly true that farming does have the ability to curb carbon pollution. Reduction in nitrogen-rich fertilizers (which pollute water) may be eligible for offsets as well as switching animals to more natural feed such as grass which curbs methane production. Some of the other methods that the climate bill suggests are extremely suspect, however, an example being the Big Ag approach to pesticide and fertilizer-heavy “chemical no-till” farming.

In traditional farming, farmers till the soil to decrease weeds. They also add mulches, compost, and manure to help naturally fertilize and build organic matter in the soil. A 2008 Rodale study showed that a field using traditional organic farming had the potential to store up to 2000 lbs of carbon per annum. In some areas, too much tilling causes erosion, but institutes such as Rodale have been working on methods of organic no-till to prevent this problem.

“Chemical no-till”, on the other hand, depends on heavy herbicide use, which can be extremely toxic to both humans and the land. Few claims have been made that “no-till” methods sequester carbon, but there are many peer-reviewed studies which refute this. “No-till” may even release more nitrous oxide from the soil, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon. Companies such as Monsanto produce vast amounts of herbicides used in “chemical no-till” such as their Round-up product, so the bill, in rewarding farmers for using these methods, is indirectly supporting their bottom line.

The Waxman-Markey Bill truly has its ups and downs. It is the first United States bill that takes a stance on dramatically reducing global warming emissions. It also includes some measures that reward organic farmers. On the other hand, the bill is a shadow of its former self. It has been heavily watered down by Rep. Peterson’s amendments and gives many recessions to industrial farmers who heavily impact pollution. The amendments have taken power from the EPA and concentrated it with the USDA, which in the past has been heavily influenced by Big Ag. How the bill is perceived in the Senate and beyond is yet to be seen. Many government decisions and non-governmental influences will effect how it plays out in the real world; one can only hope that it will affect some positive change.

Americans: Declare Your Independence from Supermarkets!

Ask a child where their food comes from and they will probably tell you “the grocery store.” For most people, adults and children alike, the grocery store is the sole point of access to food. Little thought is put into its life beyond the shelves. Vegetables don’t come from the Earth; they come from the refrigerated truck that delivered them. Crackers, chips, and beans materialize magically and are presented, neatly packaged. Most of us don’t know a farmer, but we may know someone who stocks the shelves.

With less than two percent of U.S. residents employed in farming, and the vast majority of our food controlled by a few enormous companies, there is a great divide between the masses and the food they consume. That is why I believe we should declare our independence from grocery store chains. Shop at the farmers market, join a CSA, grow a garden! In doing so, we can reclaim our independence and choice concerning one of our most basic necessities.

In a 1785 letter to John Jay, who was then serving as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by the most lasting bonds. As long, therefore, as they can find employment in this line, I would not convert them into mariners, artisans or anything else.” But employment they lacked, and converted they have been. While some have been lured by the glitz and glam of urban life, many have simply been unable to sustain their farms against fierce competition from large, monopolizing businesses.

Our current condition does not reflect the agricultural and culinary habits of our past. When this fine nation was established, we were all farmers. Our founding fathers and mothers raised corn, beans, and many varieties of wheat and grain. Nearly everyone had a kitchen garden as there was no grocery store to drive on down to. In 1790, 90 percent of the U.S. work force was involved in agriculture. A century later, it had halved to just 43 percent. Today, less than 2 percent of the U.S. labor force farms for a living.

Granted, we have come a long way in agricultural production methods. I’m not speaking of chemical fertilizers and pesticides – which hardly represent progress – but it is obvious that we would have fewer farmers with the advent of tractors and modern irrigation. That said, many who wished to remain farmers have been forced out – not by mechanization – but by the competition of massive corporations subsidized with our tax dollars. Meanwhile, small independent farmers struggle to pay the bills and most work additional jobs off the farm to make ends meet.

Whether or not your sympathies lie with small farmers, our self-interest is firmly at stake in the massive takeover of agriculture. Large corporate farms making over $250,000 a year make up only nine percent of the nation’s total number of farms – yet produce 63 percent of the nation’s food. That leaves us, as consumers, little choice over what foods are produced and how they are raised – in essence, big agribusiness has a stranglehold on our food supply.

Large chain grocery stores - vast, impersonal warehouses filled with chemical-laden food - have been a force in pushing farmers off their land. But they weren’t always this way. At one point, each small, local store carried a specific group of items. There was a store for baked goods, another for cheese, a butcher, a fish monger and a green grocer. In many parts of the world, this is still the case. However, the United States, unfortunately, has been a leader in the quest for faster, cheaper, factory-produced food – a trend that continues to spread throughout the developed and developing world, although not without resistance from some communities.

Today most grocers search far and wide for the cheapest product possible, whether it comes from right down the street or from thousands of miles away. In Barbara Kingsolver’s tremendous book, “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle” she recounts the story of a group of tomato farmers in Virginia who worked for several years to produce an organic crop for a grocery store chain, only to have the order cancelled when the tomatoes were harvested, packaged and ready to ship. The grocery left the farmers with tons of beautiful, quickly rotting fruit – they had arranged to buy cheaper tomatoes from California.

Many grocery chains have developed methods of seducing customers into buying more products than they actually need. Think about the many winding rows involved in getting to the necessities such as eggs and cheese. The most expensive items are placed at eye level while the cheaper goods are hidden at your feet and above your head. Sugar laden children’s cereals are placed at their eye level where they will be more inclined to see the happy characters hawking the brand. Many stores pipe in canned smells in order to make you hungry and persuade you to buy more. Other sales-increasing techniques include manipulating lighting and music.

While grocery store chains seem to offer a wide variety of food, the options are actually quiet limited. Since fruit and vegetables generally travel a long way, they have been bred to be tough and sturdy, not tasty and nutritious. Farmers who want to sell to big distributors are forced to grow these inferior products, which markets value due to their long “shelf life.” Forcing farmers to grow just one or two varieties that travel well not only cuts down on consumer choice, it results in higher use of harmful chemicals and fertilizers because large swaths of land growing only one or two plants are more vulnerable to destructive pests. Shopping at a farmer’s market and buying the heirloom varieties many small independent farmers are growing today encourages them to grow more, preserving the biodiversity and wonderful flavors that are everyone’s rightful heritage, while eliminating the middleman, and leaving more of a profit for the farmer.

This country was founded on the idea of free choice and independence, but our most common activity, eating, is shackled to big business today. It’s time to reclaim our food democracy, reclaim more choice in what we eat, and get back in touch with America’s original profession, farming, so that we can start to close the divide between the American consumer and the farm.

Cross-posted from me at Sustainable Table's blog, The Daily Table...

Kids and nutrition has been a very popular topic in the news. The Bancroft Elementary School students have been helping Michelle Obama in the White House organic garden, and the first lady has been very vocal about getting more healthy foods into the USDA’s Child Nutrition programs. Sites such as School Lunch Talk and Better School Food are spreading the word about the unhealthy food kids are served in school and what action can be taken. Slow Food USA just launched the “Time For Lunch: National Day of Action” campaign to fight for “real food” in schools. On top of all this, a new movie, “What’s On Your Plate” explores food, nutrition, and our modern food system from two eleven year old girls’ points of view.

On a summer vacation to Ohio, Sadie and Safiyah taste the best cherry tomato of their young lives, which leads them to ask, “Where did this come from”? Sadie’s mother, the film’s director, asks them if they want to meet the farmer who grew it, and so their journey begins. Back home in New York, they question the processed food they see in grocery stores and try to figure out “What exactly is a Funyun”? They join a CSA, visit farmers’ markets and speak with friends about their dietary habits and what can be done to improve their health.

Along the way, the two girls meet up with food activists, chefs, authors and teachers to explore the depths of America’s food system. The advisory council to the film reads like a roster of major players in the sustainable food movement: Anna Lappé, Dan Barber, Raj Patel, Alice Waters, Michael Pollan, plus many more. The girls meet with food activist Kate Adamick, who takes them to the supermarket where they take a look at the ingredients labels on supposedly “healthy food.”

According to director Catherine Gund, “Kids need to know the full benefits of local food: more energy-efficient production, more prosperous farmers, healthier communities, longer lasting and better tasting fruits and veggies. Kids need to know that their food doesn’t only come from the supermarket or the factory, but from nearby farms, trees and the ground. Adults need to be empowered to share this information with the next generation.”

If you feel this way too, take your kids to a screening! For New Yorkers, there is a free screening in Brooklyn’s Fort Greene Park this Saturday, June 27th as well as one at the BAM cinemas on July 7th.

For other screenings around the country, check out the fabulous “What’s On Your Plate” site. They have an interactive map, animation clips, information on the advisory board and much more. You can watch the trailer there, or click here.