Comments on: The Farm Bureau: Denying Climate Change, Undermining Labor and Losing Relevancy in 2010

By: Garlic Man

Garlic Man — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:24:23 +0000

You go girl! Very well researched and written.

I grow organic garlic in a small town in Texas. I listen to classical music on my solar powered radio. I dump 100 to 300 pounds of coffee grounds into my compost “mountain” every week(thanks to Starbuck’s Grounds for Gardeners program).

I’m 62 yrs old and the locals accept me, but can’t figure me out. Sometimes I learn from them and sometimes they learn from me. We can both win.

Thank you for your excellent articles!

Sincerely,
A Former Brooklyn Boy

By: caheidelberger

caheidelberger — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:00:16 +0000

Break up the corporate farms, put more people to work on the land — I love it! If it were smart, the Farm Bureau would be all about bringing more independent farmers and ranchers into the industry. But you’ll never hear that line from the corporate propagandists. Keep up the good work!

By: Soi Disant

Soi Disant — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:26:06 +0000

Of course, phrases like: “…extremists who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule…” aren’t “emotional”!

By: Link Break 1/13/10 « Meeting Lunch

Link Break 1/13/10 « Meeting Lunch — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:52:39 +0000

[...] Civil Eats responds to the Farm Bureau’s denial of climate change – Civil Eats [...]

By: farmerdoc

farmerdoc — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:08:46 +0000

Interesting piece, but polemic with lots of questionable assertions. Check out Russ Parson’s article in the January 6 edition of the LA Times “The Facts About Food and Farming.” It’s excellent and offers a starting point for a rational dialogue between the two poles of the food and farming debate.

By: Annelies

Annelies — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:41:24 +0000

Stallman’s speech is blatantly defensive openly seeks to further polarize the increasingly tense debate over agricultural development. I cannot fathom why he sees the only solution to the impending increase in demands on our food supply to be further centralization rather than radical localization! He dismisses the idea out of hand- not even acknowledging that it could work in some places if not everywhere. If, as he asserts, we’ll soon need 70% more food isn’t one solution to have more people growing food? To have more gardens and fewer lawns, for example?

In his speech he says, “the hard facts are, that for parts of the world, we cannot improve the depth of topsoil, create rainfall, make the climate more temperate, or ensure economic and social justice for farmers.” No, that’s absolutely true. U.S. farmers can’t control the climate (at least not directly…) All the more reason for individuals to care for their own topsoil by growing bioregion-appropriate crops that will help to feed and sustain small farmers, their families and their local communities.

By: Ted Thieman

Ted Thieman — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:40:48 +0000

“6 million member farm group”? Depending on the definition of a “farm” there are less than two million farms in the U.S. EPA statistics show about 960,000 persons in the U.S. claim farming as their principal occupation, less than one million. Sorry, Farm Bureau is a far cry from a 6 million member farm group, more like a large insurance company disguising itself as a farm group for the purpose of industrializing agriculture – factory farming. That’s their bread and butter.
Great article! …Ted

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:07:52 +0000

The AFBF position seems to be one steeped in economic desperation. When your policy becomes getting aggressive with your consumers, that is the beginning of the last leg of the decline.

I do not believe the climate-denying position of the AFBF is one based on an actual disbelief in the science of climate change, or the truth of it, which lays in the fields the AFBF oversees with the lost crops and low yields. Instead, it is an economic and tactical decision to deny climate change.

Though the 40-acres-and-a-mule reference does leave me questioning the AFBF’s competence regarding American history.