Archive for the ‘Agriculture’ Category

27 Jul

The Meatless Monday Debacle

Posted by Meghan in Agriculture, Food Policy, Nutrition. Tagged: , .

Meatless Monday(which I’ve spoken about before) has gotten quite a bit of unexpected press this week. On page three of an internal newsletter,  the USDA stated that “one simple way to reduce your environmental impact while dining at our cafeterias is to participate in the ‘Meatless Monday’ initiative.” The paragraph went on to discuss several of the environmental benefits of eating less meat.

One would expect nothing to come from this 214-word “endorsement” of Meatless Monday, right?

Nope. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association released a strongly-worded statement titled “NCBA Question’s USDA’s Commitment to US Cattlemen.” (The incorrect apostrophe in there is theirs, not mine.) They refer to Meatless Monday as “an animal rights extremist campaign to ultimately end meat consumption” and say that the “USDA does not understand the efforts being made in rural America to produce food and fiber for a growing global population.” The statement continues to say that this move “should be condemned by anyone who believes agriculture is fundamental to sustaining life on this planet” and “simply spout[ed] statistics and rhetoric generated by anti-animal agriculture organizations.” Lastly, NCBA President J.D. Alexander said that the “NCBA will not remain silent as USDA turns its back on cattlemen and consumers.” And according to AgWired, “This is animal activism in a government agency that should be supporting all of agriculture and it is unacceptable.”

First of all, I think we can all agree that the USDA mentioning Meatless Monday (intended to reduce consumption of meat on one day) does not mean that they’re “turning their back on cattlemen.” It was not widely publicized. There was no press release. The USDA did not drastically change their position of vigorously supporting the beef industry. They simply mentioned that their employees could consider taking a Meatless Monday and enjoy some of the non-meat items in their cafeteria. Meatless Monday is a campaign that’s active in 23 countries. Big companies like Toyota, dozens of hospitals and restaurants and schools, and a whole lot of other famous people use Meatless Monday.

So what did the USDA do? Hold strong to its original message against the force of the powerful beef lobby. No, of course not.

The USDA responded by tweeting: “USDA does not endorse Meatless Monday. Statement on USDA site posted w/o proper clearance. It has been removed.” (They tagged the American Farm Bureau in the tweet, which responded with “Thank you. Will share the info with concerned members.”) To quote Philip Bump on Grist, “Proper clearance presumably involves presenting internal newsletters to all major lobbying groups for sign-off before being issued internally.”

This whole debacle highlights a terrible problem with our food and food policy system. How is the USDA supposed to fulfill its often-contradicting goals of supporting all agriculture in this country and providing health information? I’d venture a guess that nearly all nutrition and environmental advocates would whole-heartedly agree that as a whole, we need to reduce our meat consumption. But the USDA can’t say the same thing.

When the 2010 Dietary Guidelines were in the works, many people hoped that “eat less meat” would be one of the key recommendations. But the Guidelines (published by the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services) made no such mention. The best they could do was recommend that we “consume less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fatty acids,” “consume less than 300 mg per day of dietary cholesterol,” and “reduce the intake of calories from solid fats.”

Since the UDSA cannot even “encourage” Meatless Monday in an internal newsletter without violent backlash from the industry, how can we expect them to recommend eating less meat in an official and very public document? And to extrapolate, how can we therefore expect them to provide unbiased scientific information about our health? There needs to be a division between the promotion of agriculture and the distribution of health information.

But there’s a silver lining: I’m glad Meatless Monday is getting so much press!

27 Jun

Farm Bill Amendment Update

Posted by Meghan in Agriculture, Food Policy. Tagged: .

As I mentioned on Monday, this year’s farm bill recently passed the Senate. But before the big vote last week, senators debated and then voted on amendments. The number of proposed amendments hovered in the 300 range. Many of those were cut and only 73 remained—here’s a selection. They range from seemingly unrelated (Coburn’s amendment “to reduce funding for the market access program and to prohibit the use of funds for reality television shows, wine tastings, animal spa products, and cat or dog food”) to important.

  • Paul’s amendment that would prohibit farm bill payments from going to farmers with an income over $250,000 was defeated 84-15. However, Coburn’s amendment to limit subsidies for millionaires passed 62-37.
  • Toomey’s amendment, which eliminates a program to help farmers with the (very high) cost of organic certification, was defeated 57-42. Not good for the organic industry!
  • Gillebrand’s amendment to restore food stamp funding and increase funding for fruits and vegetables was defeated 66-33. The Environmental Working Group’s statement on this is here.
  • McCain’s amendment to get rid of a catfish inspection program passed with a voice vote.
  • Sanders proposed an amendment that would give states the opportunity to require the labeling of genetically-modified ingredients. This would be a great step forward for full disclosure. EU countries have a much more stringent inspection process and require labeling. This amendment failed 73-26.
  • Cantwell’s amendment to get more lentils and beans into school meals passed 58-41.
  • Brown’s amendment, which would enact programs to support local farmers, passed 55-44.

So what’s next for the farm bill? It’s in the hands of the House now but has been delayed, so it may be a while before we get more updates.

25 Jun

Why We All Need to Care About the Farm Bill

Posted by Meghan in Agriculture, Food Policy. Tagged: .

The Senate passed this year’s farm bill last week with a 64-35 vote. Many people hear the word “farm” and tune out automatically—after all, less than one percent of Americans identify themselves as farmers (according to the EPA). But the farm bill is a lot more important that you probably think. Why?

It’s not just about farms
The farm bill, this year called the “Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act,” comes around (roughly) every five years and encompasses many areas of food and agriculture policy. It includes everything from crop insurance to price supports to food stamps to conservation programs to farm loans to research to energy. Plus the obligatory amendments—the Senate voted on 73 of them last week, and I’ll have a post on some of the significant ones on Wednesday.

There’s a lot of money involved
The bill, which at over 1,000 pages is incredibly complex, will dictate close to $1 trillion in federal spending over the next ten years. (The Senate did manage to cut some of the money out of the bill—particularly direct payments—but it only amounted to about two percent of the bill.) So why is this bill so expensive? Starting in the 1930s during the New Deal, the government established a precedent of helping farmers. Over time, this has included paying farmers not to grow crops in order to control the market, subsidizing certain crops, issuing crop insurance, and basically just ensuring that our farmers are supported and that we have enough food. But many people think that these subsidies are getting out of control and aren’t ending up in the right hands. According to the Environmental Working Group, subsidies totaled over $15 billion in 2010 alone.

It dictates the price of the foods you buy
A result of all these subsidies is that certain crops, particularly corn and soy, are remarkably inexpensive. Therefore, their derivatives—of which there are dozens, high-fructose corn syrup being a main one—make up the building blocks of processed food. Pick up anything that comes in a package in the grocery store, and chances are it has a corn and/or soy derivative in it. Food manufacturers do this because these ingredients are cheap, and then consumers will buy more. And since the vast majority of subsidies go to those crops instead of fruits, vegetables, and dairy, these can seem comparatively more expensive. The price of fast food is also related to farm subsidies. Because corn is such an inexpensive crop, it’s being used as food for animals in CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) and increasingly for farmed fish.

It affects the health of our country—in more ways than one
We’re all aware of the problem: 36% of adults in this country are obese, and fewer than five percent of adults eat the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables. There are so many reasons for this, but a big one is certainly that these unhealthy processed foods are so inexpensive. In a survey last year a vast majority of Americans (78 percent) think that improving the affordability and accessibility of healthy foods should be a major part of the farm bill.

There’s also the problem of antibiotic resistance. Corn is now the basis of the diet for livestock (particularly cows) and since cows were not designed to live off of corn, it causes health problems and leads to widespread antibiotic use. Check out this great video about why antibiotic resistance is increasing.

So these are the reasons why I think we all need to care about the farm bill. What do you think? Leave a comment or let me know on Twitter.

31 Dec

Food System Problem #1: Local Food

Posted by Meghan in Agriculture, Food Policy, Nutrition. Tagged: , , .

Our diets used to reflect the seasons: fresh asparagus in the spring, abundant zucchini in the summer, tart apples in the fall, and long-lasting root vegetables in the winter. But now with the practice of transporting produce, you can find mushy, flavorless tomatoes (along with any other fruit or vegetable) on the grocery store shelves all year long. In fact, the United States is a net importer of fruits and vegetables.

What are the benefits of eating locally?

  1. Buying produce with fewer “food miles” (the distance food is transported from producer to consumer) helps the environment by reducing pollution levels. Taking a look around the produce section of your grocery store is good geography practice for kids, but it also represents an alarming total of carbon emissions.
  2. Local food tends to be healthier. Certain nutrients degrade over time, so getting fresher food ensures you’re getting all the bang for your buck. A study from UC Davis found that levels of vitamin C and some B vitamins begin to decrease immediately after harvest.
  3. Local food boosts the economy (by creating jobs and keeping more money within the community) and supports local farmers. According to Kathleen Merrigan of the USDA, "Studies show that farmers who sell locally and regionally employ 13 full-time workers per $1 million revenue earned. Farmers who don’t sell locally or regionally employ three workers for every $1 million in revenue earned." And by taking out a portion of the costs for transportation, packaging, and processing, more money goes to local farmers so they can supply more markets and more people with fresh food.

There are positive signs regarding the investment into local food on a national level. First of all, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, formerly known as food stamps, can now be used at farmers’ markets, and that practice is growing in popularity. This is a great step forward, since those who are economically disadvantaged can have a tough time meeting fruit and vegetable recommendations due to accessibility and cost. There’s also the Farm to School program, which links farms to local schools in an effort to increase the quality of school lunches.

But what else can be done? CSA (community supported agriculture) groups and farmers’ markets would benefit from more promotion. Communities need to recognize the benefits of these groups and devote more resources to them. And according to the USDA, the U.S. would have to double the acreage currently devoted to fruits and vegetables in order for everyone to meet the recommended daily requirements. Perhaps some of the land devoted to corn (the U.S. is the world’s largest producer, and most of it is either used as feed for livestock or highly processed into unhealthy food) would be better used grow fruits and vegetables.

To read more, check out Barbara Kingslover’s  Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, which chronicles her family’s efforts to grow all of their own food for one year. It’s a fantastic book that’s worth the purchase if just for the passages on the mating patterns of turkeys.

30 Jan

Critical USDA Decision

Posted by Meghan in Agriculture, Food Policy. Tagged: , , , .

The biggest news in the food policy world this week was the USDA’s decision to fully deregulate Monsanto’s genetically engineered alfalfa. This particular strain of alfalfa—a hay which is used to feed cattle and horses and represents America’s fourth-largest crop by acreage—is resistant to Roundup, Monsanto’s herbicide. The USDA had three options regarding the alfalfa: fully deregulate, maintain the regulatory status, or limit the areas for planting genetically engineered seeds.

So why is this decision such a big deal? Basically, it will make it harder to distinguish GE alfalfa from regular alfalfa.  Many people—particularly organic farmers—don’t want their alfalfa contaminated by Monsanto’s DNA, which will be likely to happen given the ease of pollination. There are very stringent federal regulations by which farmers have to abide in order to obtain and preserve organic status, and genetically engineered crops are banned.

Also, Monsanto has a patent on this special seed, which means they technically own the strain of GE alfalfa. In the past, they have not shied away from suing farmers if there’s evidence that their patented DNA is being used, even if it were by accidental contamination.

The USDA did say they are developing a facility in Idado to preserve GE-free alfalfa, and there will be two new committees forming: the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture, and the National Genetic Resources Advisory Committee. This decision pits two of agriculture’s biggest industries—organics and biotech companies—against each other, and it will be interesting to unearth the repercussions of this decision and its precedents.

If you want to read more about the GE v. organic crop debate, check out this great piece by NPR on beet farmers (unfortunately not including Dwight from The Office) in the Williamette Valley. And here is a great letter from Gary Hirshberg, the President of Stonyfield, a major organic yogurt company.

Sources

USDA

The Cornucopia Institute

Forbes

Wall Street Journal

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.