For years now, numerous commentators (myself included) have made comparisons of the food industry with Big Tobacco. The most recent example should become the poster child for how the most egregious tactics of tobacco companies are alive and well. Last month came the announcement that the American Beverage Association (the lobbying arm of soft drink companies) was donating $10 million to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Why Philadelphia? Could a proposal to place a tax on soft drinks have anything to do with it? Here’s how the Philadelphia Inquirer explains it:

When City Council was considering a soda tax last spring, doctors from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia testified about the dangers of sugar-sweetened drinks. On Wednesday, the hospital announced that it would expand its obesity program with the help of $10 million from the very industry that produces them.

What a coincidence. Maybe not. The paper continues:

The industry first made the offer last spring, when City Council members were debating Mayor Nutter’s proposed 2-cent tax on every ounce of sugar-sweetened beverages sold in the city. The tax was projected to bring in $20 million for obesity-prevention measures and more money for the general fund. The idea fizzled in May without going to a vote.

Can’t imagine why. At least industry followed through on its bribe. The paper also notes: “The three-year grant is the inaugural gift from the Foundation for a Healthy America, a nonprofit created by the American Beverage Association.”

The American Beverage Association, which represents powerful companies such as Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, has lobbied for years against such commonsense policies as getting soda out of schools. Now the policy debate has shifted to soda taxes, an issue that industry finds more threatening than any other. Ongoing sales of Coke and Pepsi rely almost entirely on the products’ cheapness. Companies hate any government meddling in their competitive price points.

So here’s the game plan: create a front group – the Foundation for a Healthy America (how touching) – and funnel corporate money into it. Out the other ends comes tax-deductible grants to anybody who gets in industry’s way. There’s a name for this: it’s called buying silence. And guess who championed it? Back in 2006, I interviewed Richard Daynard, law professor at Northeastern University School of Law and veteran of the tobacco wars. Here’s an excerpt worth revisiting:

Another tactic we are seeing from the food industry is philanthropy. For example, we have PepsiCo and Coca-Cola funding educational programs in schools. What parallels do you see here with tobacco companies?

It’s very interesting. Phillip Morris was a very active philanthropist. They particularly gave money to minority organizations, and basically bought silence. [Meaning that in exchange for donations, recipient groups would not speak critically of industry.] There have been a number of articles written about how the tobacco companies bought silence, particularly from black organizations. They also would advertise very heavily in minority media; one of the few national companies to do it. It resulted in the black organizations and the black media basically not getting the word out that they were among the principal victims of this industry. They also advertised in early feminist publications, such as Ms. Magazine when that was the leading feminist magazine. So they bought Gloria Steinem’s silence. They bought a lot of peoples’ silence by buying ads.

Sound familiar? A $10 million donation may be a lot of money for a children’s hospital, and some good will likely result from the funds. But it’s a drop in the bucket for the soft drink industry, a small cost of doing business and a worthy investment. Especially because the proposed beverage tax was projected to bring in $77 million in just one year, with $20 million specifically allocated to obesity prevention programs. And with no strings attached. Somehow I doubt we will see any research coming out of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia that could ruffle the feathers of the beverage lobby.

Mayor Nutter has said he won’t introduce the soda tax again this year, big surprise. Congratulations Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, you may now take your rightful place alongside Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds in the Corporate Hall of Shame.

Originally published on Appetite for Profit

Photo: Michael Tedesco via Flickr

Last month, the University of Minnesota caused a stir when it decided to postpone the release of a film that focuses on the effect agriculture is having on U.S. waterways from Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico. Troubled Waters–a film directed by Larkin McPhee for the University’s Bell Museum of Natural History, part of the College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences–was held up, according to University Relations (the university’s PR office) to “allow time for a review of the film’s scientific content.” Yet ace reporting by Molly Preismeyer at the Twin Cities Daily Planet revealed that the film’s team had already thoroughly fact-checked the film, and followed the review process utilized by the PBS science program NOVA. Attempts to get the university to outline a standard procedure for research-based films were not fruitful. Then the story shifted once again when Dean Allen Levine told Minnesota Public Radio that the film “vilifies agriculture.”

Even though the University caved under pressure and allowed the scheduled premiere of the film to take place on October 3 and on October 5 on a local television station, the story of Troubled Waters has developed into a debate on academic freedom and the role a university’s donors should play in its research priorities.

Farmers at the center of the solution

Upon watching the film, I was surprised by what I saw. This is because a large portion focuses on farmers introducing new techniques to their fields that are reducing run-off and increasing soil fertility on their land. Instead of “vilifying agriculture,” it seems the filmmakers worked hard to focus on farmer-based solutions–like those of brothers Dick and Jack Gerhardt, who createdutilize a tool that assesses how much nitrogen is needed in a given field by reading chlorophyll levels. The “GreenSeeker” allows them to apply one-third the amount of nitrogen as in previous years. Because farmers often apply excess nitrogen to insure yields, much of which ends up as run-off in local waterways, inventions like these have the potential to empower farmers to save money while reducing the environmental consequences of agriculture.

The film also gives a platform to farmers like Jack Hedin, who discusses using cover crops in winter on his vegetable farm to reduce soil erosion and run-off; Tony Thompson, who employs perennial grasses and wetlands that soak up run-off on his 4000-acre soybean and corn farm; and Dan Coughlin, who raises grass-fed cows instead of keeping them in confinement–which produces excess nitrogen-rich manure that often ends up in waterways.

Looking closely at the federal agriculture policies, the film specifically cites those promoting ethanol production as a large contributing factor to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. In particular, the 2007 Renewable Fuels Standard, which mandated that 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol be produced by 2022–therefore spurring farmers to grow more corn and use more nitrogen fertilizer. (Just yesterday, the EPA raised the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline from 10 percent to 15, showing there is still strong support for these policies.) The film notes that ethanol remains controversial partly because it is seen as a means to lower dependence on foreign oil, but requires oil to produce the fertilizer that goes into growing the corn needed to make this alternative fuel. One researcher notes that it takes eight gallons of fossil fuel to produce 10 gallons of ethanol. Indeed, the film raises tough questions–many of which are not new to the discussion. So what motivated the university to call out the dogs?

Funding versus research

Not long after the news broke that Troubled Waters was being held up, it came to light that Vice President of University Relations Karen Himle was behind the film’s purgatory. This information was notable because her husband John Himle is president of Himle Horner, a public relations firm that represents the Minnesota Agri-Growth Council, a group that promotes both ethanol production and industrial agriculture practices. More troubling, as El Dragón at Fair Food Fight points out, is the fact that Cargill–which is a key player in ethanol production–has its VP on the University of Minnesota’s board. And that the U of M also has a building on its St. Paul campus named for Cargill. In addition, the university has had funding put at risk by its research before, and so could be trigger-happy. Minnesota Public Radio reports:

In 2008, two Minnesota Soybean groups threatened to pull $1.5 million in funding after the U of M released a study that said using soybeans and other crops for bio-fuels could worsen global warming.

Where research funding originates has become a major issue for deciding what will be researched. Currently, as I’ve written before, matching funds from outside the government are required to get USDA research grants–which allows corporate interests to affect the research taken on. And when USDA has performed ground-breaking research that has the potential to change policy, it has often been played down by those in high places. This influence bought by agribusiness has particularly been a problem at land-grant universities, where a lot of the agricultural research is taking place.

Controversies around agriculture at universities are not new, but it has become more frequent in recent years, as the public becomes more aware of food production methods and industrial agriculture groups feel threatened by the pressure to change. Just last fall Michael Pollan was scheduled to give a solo lecture at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo when Harris Ranch Beef Company Chairman David E. Wood threatened to cut off $500,000 in funding to the university if he was allowed to do so. In response, the university changed its program to a panel discussion, which included industrial agriculture-friendly professor Gary Smith of Colorado State University and large-scale organic farmer Myra Goodman of Earthbound Farm. Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma was also the source of ire for industrial agriculture proponents when it was selected as “common reading” last summer for incoming freshmen at Washington State University.

All of this added controversy is doing one thing that cannot be denied: bringing more attention to the issues at hand by driving interest in reading the books and seeing the films at the eye of the storm. As for Troubled Waters, I highly recommend you take the opportunity to see it for yourself. It is unique in that it puts a face on the farmers at the heart of the discussion, gives a broader picture of the issues at hand, and outlines options–including one community’s thriving alternative to ethanol–for building a more sustainable food system.

The film can be purchased from The Bell Museum. Watch the intro here:

It has often been said that the reason television is called a medium is because it is neither rare nor well done.  For forty years, PBS has been defying that axiom, consistently providing some of the best television on television.  They also have the only serious nightly news show left.

Possibly the best thing they offer is POV, the easiest way to see serious documentaries by strong filmmakers unless you are a obsessive film junkie with scads of time on your hands and you live in New York or LA.  Even for a show as impressive as POV though, their plans for April 21^st are unique.

In conjunction with the showing of Robert Kenner’s Oscar-nominated film Food, Inc. (trailer) that day, POV is helping to organize potlucks in people’s homes all across the country.  The idea is to get groups to share a healthy, sustainably-sourced meal, watch the film, and discuss – thus helping to spread the gospel of real food.

For the convenience of those with scheduling troubles, these potlucks don’t even need to be that evening when the movie will be on PBS stations nationwide.  For one week afterward, it will be available free, streaming on their website.  The site points out that “Some of the scenes in Food, Inc. may be, shall we say, unappetizing to you and your guests,” so you should eat first, then watch.

Odds are that somebody somewhere is going to be upset about this though.  Like all the doc’s on POV, Food, Inc. takes a stand, and it’s a stand that is not particularly appreciated by Big Ag, least of all the folks just up the road from me here at the “Supermarket to the World.”  Archer Daniels Midland has been an underwriter of PBS for many years, often to the tune of $1M or more.

I will be very curious to see how they react.  Michael Pollan, a producer and narrator for the film, has been confronted numerous times at his public appearances by the Farm Bureau and other Industrial Ag proponents, in some cases threatening to get corporate funding pulled from colleges that invite him to speak.  This despite their lack of cooperation in making the film (Kenner invited many of them repeatedly to go on camera), and despite their inability to effectively refute even one of the facts laid out in the film.

The sustainable food movement as a whole has been getting the attention of the Food Barons a lot lately, such as Monsanto, Tyson, Smithfield, the Farm Bureau and the NRA (That’s Restaurant, not Rifle – it’s larger and to the right of that other NRA).  That’s because of films like Food, Inc., books like Omnivore’s Dilemma, TV shows like Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution, companies like Edible Communities, and organizations like Slow Food. As they take these issues out of the foodie fringe and into the mainstream, these moneyed special interests are beginning to fear for their bottom lines just a little bit.  But persistence overcomes all, and as Ghandi once said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

The ensuing shouts from Agri-Chemical companies and Big Beef notwithstanding, POV’s potluck idea is an innovative way to draw their viewers into the conversation while increasing awareness of the issues.  Participants will learn a little bit more about their food and their community simply by making a casserole or a salad or a pie from local, seasonal, sustainable ingredients.  Think of it as old-fashioned activism with a hot dish to share.

Hunger looks on the surface to be the most bipartisan policy issue on our collective plates. We can all agree that the fact that hunger persists today is a global tragedy and that something needs to be done about it. But from there the discussion diverges into two distinct schools of thought.

The thinking that has been dominant since Norman Borlaug was sent to Mexico with his hybrid wheat in the 1940s has been that hunger is related to a lack of food supply. Those who espouse this thinking believe that through research and technology taking place behind the closed doors of corporations, this crisis can be solved. But despite a lax regulatory environment, bucket loads of marketing that confuses the public on the issues, a revolving door bringing former private sector employees into positions of policy making, and control over the research of their techniques and products — corporations still have yet to find any long term solutions to our global hunger woes. In fact, more people are food insecure today than they were when Borlaug (who died just over a week ago) took up the hunger gauntlet, and the argument could be made that it was his work was a short term solution that directly contributed to growing the population, increasing and pushing off the inevitable suffering to the future.

The Global Harvest Initiative falls squarely into this first category. DuPont, Monsanto, ADM and John Deere realize the days of jaw-dropping profits are numbered if they don’t change tactics. So under the guise of humanitarianism, these giants have come together and invited receptive politicians like Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) with the distinct strategy of furthering their aims worldwide: to these corporations, the US has been conquered by industrial agriculture (it may be worth noting that 40 million US citizens are currently food insecure) — so now they must spread what isn’t working here abroad to continue to make ever larger profits.

The opposing ideology on creating food security in the world is to place the focus on equity — when food is first a right, not just a commodity, we stop thinking about it solely in economic terms. Therefore the focus shifts to creating the pathways for access to food — because right now there is enough food grown in the world to feed the world, it is just not getting into mouths.

By their own admission, these four companies are spending “$9 million a day in research and development.” After all the money that has been spent on shiny new technologies, we are still far from feeding the hungry. In addition, the USDA’s grants for research almost always require matching funds of 50% or more, meaning a grantee often goes knocking on the doors of the private sector, which is willing to invest in research that suits its interests. We must ask ourselves: has leaving research up to the big corporations historically resulted in an equal share of wealth?

A reliance on technology alone means that local, not-so-profitable means of addressing hunger are ignored. Most often, farmers in developing nations cite infrastructure, like new roads, and access to markets as the biggest barriers to food access. The Green Revolution assumed that genetically modified seed would save the day, but in fact it has only created the conditions that increased soil and environmental degradation, contributed to health issues in local populations, and produced more dependence on petroleum and corporate products. Is it fair for one country to come into another with the products of its economy and thereby create future dependence when there are more self-sufficient, locally adapted answers on the ground?

Lugar has been in the Senate for over 30 years, and serves as the ranking Republican member of the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Hunger, Nutrition and Family Farms, and is also a ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. In that time, he has become the go-to person on hunger issues. Everyone in the Senate defers to Lugar on hunger, and most have been unwilling to stand up to him, even when he is making a bad decision — like prioritizing GMO technology in the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security bill. (Check out Elanor Starmer’s take on the bill here.) Lugar is also a big recepient of agribusiness campaign donations — he received $376,000 from agribusiness (dwarfed only by the catagory ‘other’ $594K, finance $587K and lawyers & lobbyists $482K) between 2003-2008 according to OpenSecrets.org. And today, he will be the keynote speaker at the Global Harvest Initiative symposium, further displaying his support for the industrial agriculture complex.

Another speaker is Dan Glickman, former Secretary of Agriculture under Bill Clinton who originally signed off on GM seeds as “substantially equivalent” to other seeds, and who continues to be a GMO apologist a decade later. To that end, he will be giving a speech entitled, “The Politics of Agriculture: Breaking the Commercial Vs. Small-holder Myth.”

Also look out for former Gates Foundation ‘New Green Revolution’ pusher Rajiv Shah, who now serves as Under Secretary of Research, Education and Economics and as Chief Scientist at the USDA speaking about the role of technology in food security, and then stay tuned for what promises to be a boilerplate CEO panel discussion.

You can watch the meeting yourself on the live webcast, beginning at 9am today and going through 5pm. Then, contact your senators and tell them to take on Lugar’s status quo, agribusiness-as-saviour-for-starving-masses ideology.

Perhaps we should. Because the children of today represent the economy of tomorrow. Today’s parents and grandparents are raising the “think tanks” that are going to be the solutions to tomorrow’s problems . Today’s children will reinvent energy technology, redefine reform and regulations and enhance agricultural productivity in ways that we can not even begin to imagine. But only if we give them the tools with which to do it.

Obama insisting on school and education, with the support of Laura Bush, is a start. But more fundamentally, what about health? Today, 1 in 3 American children now has autism, allergies, ADHD or asthma. 90% of the worlds ADHD medications are prescribed to the American kids, while the US only represent 5% of the world’s population. According to MSNBC, sales of EpiPens are up, while test scores are down. And according to the Centers for Disease Control, 1 in 2 African American kids and 1 in 3 Caucasian kids born in the year 2000 (that is this year’s 4th Graders) will be insulin dependent by the time they reach adulthood.

And while Kraft, Coca Cola and Wal-Mart formulate their products differently for children overseas (with reduced fat, salt and synthetic ingredient content), our National School Lunch Program continues to be a dumping ground for the remnants of the agrichemical corporations who are unable to dispose of their technology laced corn and soy in grocery stores, restaurants or to the livestock industry. And while we allocate $600 billion to the Pentagon in 2009, we only allocated $9 billion to the National School Lunch Program and a meager $2.4 billion to the FDA.

And we wonder why our children have earned the title “Generation Rx” or why our economy is heaving under the burden of health care costs.

According to the World Health Organization, the US ranks 37th out of 40 countries (on par with Slovenia) in terms of “health care”. According to the American Cancer Society, the US has the highest rate of cancer of any country in the world, with migration studies showing that if you are to move here from somewhere like Japan, your likelihood of developing cancer increases four-fold.

We’ve done a lousy job of preventing illness in our country. And while that’s been good for Big Pharma, the costs being born by the majority of American citizens now far outweigh the benefits being reaped by a few corporate ones.

As we watch family members suffer from diabetes, cancers and asthma, it begs the question: Why? Why are these conditions often referred to as “American epidemics” in international publications like The Economist? Why does health care spending consume over 16% of our economy here in the US, while its associated economic burden in France is closer to 8%? Why does Starbucks spend more on health care than it does on coffee?

The reasons? There are many. But perhaps the most differentiating is that in our country, sickness sells. With Money Driven Medicine, there is little incentive to prevent illness. Sickness is good for business. Disease enhances earnings. So if the processed food we buy in Aisle 9 contains ingredients linked to hyperactivity in children, then rather than ban the use of that synthetic ingredient and insist on the use of a more natural alternative, as countries around the world have done, we simply have to walk a few aisles over in the grocery store to pick up our ADHD medicines from Aisle 2.

And our economy hums along. Or does it?

In 1946, Harry Truman said, “A nation is only as healthy as its children”. And 50 years ago, we paid close heed, reaping the rewards of today’s Bill Gates and Meg Whitmans. Thirty years ago, we were still paying attention, as evidenced by today’s Mark Zuckerbergs and Sergey Brins.

But what about tomorrow? Given that our future productivity, economic viability and financial stability are contingent on the health of today’s children, perhaps we should pause and consider the seeds that we are sowing with “Generation Rx.”

And if you are inclined, you can Do Something about it and be part of the solution.

You may have noticed an uptick this year in news reporting that organic food isn’t really better for you, opinion pieces by conventional farmers saying that they are tired of being demonized by “agri-intellectuals”, and guilt-inducing ads by Monsanto in highbrow publications like the New Yorker touting the company’s ability to feed the world through technology.

Though all of this could be disturbing to those of us committed to sustainable agriculture and food that is fair to eaters, animals, workers and farmers, I’m choosing to see this as a good sign. I think it means we might be winning.

The turning point was when First Lady Michelle Obama planted an organic garden on the White House lawn only to receive a letter from The American CropLife Association telling her that they hoped she recognized the value of conventional agriculture in American life. The letter can be read here. Then, there were false allegations that the garden was contaminated with lead. In the face of all this, the first lady stuck with her commitment to keeping the garden organic.

Why is this happening now? For many years, organic food was a marginal market and the big players were content to let it either exist on the sidelines or hedge their bets and buy into it themselves.

But due to the excellent work by many writers and activists like Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, Marion Nestle, Robert Kenner and others too numerous to mention, more of us are starting to pay attention to where our food comes from and how it is produced. This market is now a force for change. And individuals and companies that benefit from the status quo don’t want change.

Let’s take a closer look at the people and ideology behind some of the more recent high profile examples of the attacks against sustainable food.

The aforementioned study by London’s School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine on the nutrient values of organic foods looked at various studies on the subject and compiled them to reach its conclusions. No new study was conducted. The meta review ignored some recent studies on nutrients, including one focused on antioxidants.

Not only that, the conductors of the survey only looked at a narrow set of very specific nutrients. They did not consider factors of taste, environmental impact, or pesticide residues in the food – all factors that most consumers I know consider when buying organic foods.

Beyond the obvious limitations of the subject matter, it’s instructive to take a closer look at how the study was covered in the media, who conducted the study and who funded it.

So let’s pull back the curtain, shall we?

Media Coverage: Though the study looked at only 8 different nutrients and concluded there was no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically- and conventionally-produced foodstuffs, it went on to say that there were other reasons to buy organic food. Headline writers like tension so all the headlines were some variation on “organic foods not really better for you” or worse yet, “the organic foods hoax”.

What is the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine? The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is a respected college within the University of London, so all would seem to be on the up and up. But, this is the same school that published a hateful and not at all scientifically-rigorous study blaming fat people for global warming. I’d love to get into the problems with this study but that’s another post.

Who Funded the Study? The study was commissioned by the UK’s Food Standards Agency. The agency is an independent part of government set up by Parliament in response to food contamination issues and the resulting lack of consumer confidence.

The FSA is supposed to serve consumers, and it does in many cases, but like our very own USDA and FDA, the agency can be influenced by the food industry. Their slogan says it all: “safer food, better business.” And a quick look at the profiles of FSA staffers reveals more than a few food industry folk.

And then there’s Missouri farmer, Blake Hurst, in his article for The American Enterprise Institute. He attacks Pollan and other “agri-intellectuals” and city folk in general for making all kinds of assumptions about farmers and for presuming that they know the “messy, dirty” business of farming much better than farmers.

Throughout the piece Hurst erodes his credibility by making his own unfounded assumptions about his opponents, including the guy on the plane behind him, with whom he opens the story. He also says that he won’t change until the consumer forces his hand, ignoring the real lack of consumer power inherent in a food system that uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize the production of commodity crops that are then used to produce the unhealthy foods that fill the shelves of our grocery stores.

Foods (or food products) whose sheer volume and variety of brightly-colored packaging, flavors, colors and sizes are supposed to convince us of the abundance of our choices as consumers, when in fact all we’re really buying is agricultural surplus dressed up with chemicals, technology and marketing.

Then he brilliantly skewers his own argument by using a false urban (or rural?) legend about a flock of turkeys so stupid they drowned themselves in a rainstorm to make his point that conventional farmers who pack the sentient beings we raise for food into crowded, filthy sheds are really protecting the animals from their own stupidity.

Oh, and by the way, what is this American Enterprise Institute that published Hurst’s article?

I’m glad you asked. The AEI is a neoconservative think tank devoted to free enterprise capitalism. According to Sourcewatch, AEI has funded studies that debunk climate change research, refutes studies showing the social costs of tobacco use, and has even worked to promote the Iraq war. The AEI staff listing includes Lynne Cheney, Newt Gingrich and Richard Perle.

As for Monsanto’s advertisements attempting to influence the very people who are most likely to read writers like Michael Pollan, don’t be fooled. We’ve done enough work here, here, and here that gets to the truth about Monsanto. And here’s an excellent piece from Grist detailing exactly why those specific ads are so bogus.

According to a recent survey, consumers are confused about and skeptical of green marketing claims, and misinformed about terms like natural and organic. That’s exactly how some would like it to be.

But there’s another side to this story: The status-quoers will eventually have to acknowledge that the system as it stands now will not serve anyone’s needs much longer, even theirs. As global warming accelerates and fuel costs rise, we need to figure out how to produce food differently. Maybe consumer power won’t ever be enough to force farmers like Blake Hurst to start to look at farming differently but the limiting characteristics of our unsustainable system will.

Until then, I won’t allow myself to be swayed by the propaganda of the resisters; I’ll put my money where the facts are – with the visionary, hopeful, innovative farmers who are doing things differently. Because, even though small-scale organic farming may not be the only answer, it can be part of a whole systemic change toward feeding ourselves without ruining the planet. And it tastes a lot better!

Originally published on EcoSalon

In the next sentences, she gives a clue about what “tools” she might be referring to by praising the Green Revolution — without noting the depleted water table, reduced soil fertility, massive farmer debts and increased rates of farmer suicides left in the wake of the failed experiment in India.

The Green Revolution was a product of a biotechnological approach to feeding people, the thinking being that we could create ways of tricking nature in a lab: ridding ourselves of pests and weeds, increasing yields and efficiency. Unfortunately pests and weeds have become more virulent in these systems, as they evolve to withstand higher and higher doses of chemicals. These “monocultures” — field plantings of a single crop, usually corn, cotton or soy — have relied heavily on oil and resource inputs the third world can’t afford. Furthermore, these systems have yet to actually improve yields. Efficiency has been the greatest achievement of biotechnology; however, as Michael Pollan and others point out, redundancy, though counter-intuitive, is the only way to ensure food safety. But biotechnology companies like Monsanto have a huge lobbying presence in Washington, and corporate shills like Nina Federoff have the ear of Secretary Clinton. So its no surprise that in the name of philanthropy, the US has begun to adopt the “feeding the world” mantra of Big Ag.

The focus has been mostly on Africa, where a third of the population is malnourished, and where groups like the Gates Foundation are among the newcomers trying to renew the idea of creating a “Green Revolution for Africa,” using many of the same methods that have been so bad for India.

Meanwhile, here in the US, 36 million people are food insecure, and yet we are one of the biggest agricultural producers in the world. Given the fact that these commodity crops cannot be eaten until processed, it turns out that what Big Ag is feeding us is not nourishing us. So it seems that hunger is not just a function of yield, but involves distribution, concentrations of power, and policy.

At the end of the day, do we actually seek to feed these hungry people, or to feed our bottom line? Because in this instance, we can’t do both.

Raj Patel put it succinctly in a recent email exchange:

Everyone agrees that African farmers need support. But this story is like the vacuum cleaner salesman who dumps dirt on your floor to show you how his product can pick some of it up. In Africa’s case, the dirt was dumped in the 1980s, when US-led economic policy from the World Bank actively prevented African governments from investing in their farmers. The results were, the Bank now admits, a disaster. Into this disaster now steps biotechnology, offering to fix the problem. Actually, it’s a bad metaphor. This makes it sound as if GE crops can actually increase yields. The problem of hunger in Africa today has very little to do with seed quality, and a great deal to do with poverty, chronic underinvestment in agriculture, and an active stamping-out of the agroecological alternatives that have proved so successful in fighting hunger. Why are these alternatives being suppressed in US government policy? Because they’re not profitable for the US biotech industry, and the US government has, since Vice President Dan Quayle shepherded legislation in the US to support the industry, been an aggressive supporter of genetic engineering.

Patel is co-author, with Eric Holt-Giménez, of the forthcoming book, Food Rebellions: Crisis and the Hunger for Justice, which outlines the conditions which led to the global food crisis of 2008, and some of the many steps we can take to solve hunger. The book ties the issue of hunger to a growing dependence on our imports:

The profits and concentration of market power in the industrial North mirror the import dependence, food deficits and the loss of control over food systems in the global South. Fifty years ago, developing countries had yearly agricultural trade surpluses of $1 billion. Today, after decades of development and the global expansion of the industrial agrifoods complex, the Southern food deficit has ballooned to U.S.$11 billion/year (FAO 2004). The cereal import bill for Low Income Food Deficit Countries reaching over U.S.$ 38 billion in 2007/2008 (De Schutter 2008). The FAO predicts it will grow to $50 billion by 2030.

Instead of teaching poor countries to fish, so to speak, we are selling them the fish with the hook still in its mouth.

That hook infers dependence, but there is also another catch: depleted resources. Biotechnology as it is used right now cannot be sustainable. It relies heavily on three things that are waning: surplus water, cheap oil and a stable climate. As much as biotech proponents claim their technologies could be used for sustainable aims, we don’t have decades to wait while the technology is perfected. And what if it is never perfected? In addition, in putting all of our eggs in one basket with biotech, the problem is misrepresented, and solutions that are already out there are being ignored.

It seems, therefore, that the only real solution to hunger is to transform the food system from the ground up. In Africa, 80% of the population is rural, and there are 33 million small farms (those farming less than 2 hectares), which produce 90% of the continent’s food (Patel and Giménez, 2009). Why don’t we, then, instead of promoting an intensive agriculture that is ruining our environment, our health and is lining the pockets of a few corporations, increase aid to agriculture? There is plenty of fertile land in Africa, much of which is being snatched up in massive land grabs by the Chinese and other countries foreseeing their own imminent food insecurity. Perhaps its time to invest in agriculture for Africans, before it’s too late.

This was the recommendation of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science, and Technology for Development, or IAASTD, which was a joint project of the World Bank, FAO and UNDP that determined in 2008 that a complete overhaul of the food system was necessary. 61 countries signed onto the findings of the panel. Patel and Gimenez sum up the IAASTD thusly:

IAASTD’s four-year analytical exercise started with a collective framing of the core problems of hunger and environmental destruction. Scientists then identified and evaluated the most appropriate actions and solutions to these problems, locally, nationally and internationally.

The IAASTD team found that the limiting factors to production, equitable distribution and environmental sustainability were overwhelmingly social, rather than technological in nature. Further, many proven agroecological practices for sustainable production increases were already widespread across the global South, but unable to scale up because they lacked a supportive trade, policy, and institutional environment. This is why IAASTD recommends improving the conditions for sustainable agriculture, rather than just coming up with technological fixes.

Somehow this gets swept under the rug of policy in the US. But if we are committed to actually helping, it would behoove Secretary Clinton, and others in this administration, to read the findings of the IAASTD and consider it before making policy.

Again, from Patel and Giménez:

Who improves African agriculture, how, under what agreements and by what means, will determine whether the efforts to end hunger in Africa succeed or fail. Lack of attention to these issues runs the risk that the long-overdue support to African agriculture will be used as prop for a flawed global food system when what is needed is a thorough transformation of agriculture.

Will Africans be a cog in our capitalist machine, or will we follow through with our promises to end hunger?

Last week, The New York Times reported that this administration has said it will take a harder line on anti-trust legislation, in diverse sectors of the economy including agriculture.  Perhaps its premature to tell what this will look like, but enforcing the laws that we already have on the books would be a great start to building a better food system.

This is because the largest sectors of the agribusiness world (grain, meatpacking, biotechnology, etc) are monopolizing food from seed to supermarket shelf and thereby deciding what we can (and can’t) buy and eat across this country, and by extension, the world.

These are the companies that are trying to efficiently process tens of thousands of cows per day — cows that have been lined up in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and fed grain (more efficient than using land to feed them their natural diet of grass), pumped with hormones and other antibiotics to keep them from dying, which means a glut on the market of cheap (anti-biotic-filled) beef. And these are the companies that are creating the seeds — those seeds that the farmer can’t even save for fear of litigation — to grow the crops that require the use of their pesticides, and which produce a proliferation of fast food.

Yes, efficiency is the bottom line in our current agricultural system. Not safety, not health, or least of all taste; no, for a corporation that is beholden first to it’s shareholders, its all about the quickest way to get to the bottom line. Besides exacerbating obesity, heart disease and diabetes cases, this kind of thinking can only be limited in its long term ability to maintain itself, because it refuses to take a holistic approach to creating goods for the common good. In other words, we know it can’t be sustained, and therefore it is not sustainable.

But these mega-companies aren’t fully to blame, because this is what our economic system has been set up to do for thirty years or more: build a conflagration of trusts.

Will Obama pull a Teddy Roosevelt and begin a new era of trust-busting? Here’s hoping he will, and that he begins with Big Ag.

Last week on The Leonard Lopate Show, when he was asked how taking a harder line on anti-trust law could effect the food industry, Michael Pollan responded:

“It’s very significant, actually, because you have more concentration in the food industry than in just about any other industry. Most anti-trust experts say that if 4 [or fewer] companies control 40% or more of a marketplace, it’s not competitive. And in food we have that in meatpacking, [where] there are 4 companies that control 85% of the beef, [and in] seed production, fertilizer production… there is this tight little hourglass in the food industry, [which means] lots of farmers, very few buyers, which forces farmers to take prices, they have no control over prices at all. So if indeed we were to push an anti-trust agenda in the food industry, it would be the best thing for farmers and the best thing for consumers.”

In other words, there are only a handful of people pulling the strings of our food system. And something as fundamental as food should not be so minimally represented, for food safety and health reasons, but because it also violates our human rights.

To this I ask, is this food system not an oligopoly, a market form most at risk for collusion? all the more reason to investigate the mega-firms that form through the process of mergers.

That “hourglass” concept Pollan mentioned comes from William Heffernan and Mary Hendrickson’s report Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System (1999) [PDF], which revealed the “food chain clusters” forming through constant mergers within the food system, and also gave the first comprehensive data on concentration ratios of each firm in the food sector. (An updated version from 2007 is here [PDF].)

One of the biggest fall-outs of this phenomenon has been the price paid in rural America. From Heffernan and Hendrickson’s report:

“In the past when family businesses were the predominant system in rural communities, researchers talked of multiplier effects of three or four. Newly generated dollars in the agricultural sector would circulate in the community, changing hands from one entrepreneurial family to another three or four times before leaving the rural community.  This greatly enhanced the economic viability of the community.

Large non-local corporations… see labor as just another input cost to be purchased as cheaply as possible.  The “profits” then are allocated to return on management and capital and are usually taken from the rural community.  They go to the company’s headquarters and are then sent to all corners of the globe to be reinvested in the food system.  One can ask the question, why were agriculturally based rural communities, with an ample natural resource base, more economically viable than mining based rural communities which also had an ample natural resource base?  The answer lies primarily with the economic structure of the major economic base.  Increasingly, our agriculturally based communities, like regions with major poultry operations, are looking like mining communities.”

Having an hourglass of production power also means the creation of giant facilities to produce our food as fast as possible. E coli bacteria present in a giant shared sink with thousands of servings of spinach has the potential to do more harm than a similar, isolated incident on a small farm would. In creating factory-like facilities to process and package our food, we are exponentially increasing the risks of food contamination. This is the single best argument for decentralizing the food system.

But yes, there is yet still another reason to bust up these trusts: agribusiness has had excessive influence on our government. Represented by a billion dollar lobby in Washington, agribusinesses have maintained a revolving door bringing lobbyists, lawyers and board members into powerful public positions. One of the other problems that arises when mega-companies begin to influence government in this way is that they then become “too big to fail,” when we should be asking ourselves (to quote Mike Lux) if they were “too big to exist” in the first place.

However it happened, the facts are clear: Cargill, ADM, Monsanto, Tyson and Smithfield are probably breaking the law, and that law needs to be enforced. It may be that the government for too long has been complicit in creating predatory pricing via billions of dollars in subsidies handed out to the factory farmers of mostly genetically modified corn and soy, but I would like our new administration to take a good look at possible price fixing; aggressive marketing, especially to children; intimidation practices, including Monsanto’s intimidation of farmers who have been found to have GMO contamination in their fields, also their intimidation of seed cleaners, and of previous governments; barriers to entry, for example, the assumption of massive amounts of debt on the part of the farmer to build CAFO facilities and thus getting trapped in a contractual agreement with Smithfield, Tyson, etc; and tying, for instance, Round-Up Ready seeds require the use of Round-Up herbicides, meaning that both markets are cornered by Monsanto.

It’s time to admit that hyper-efficiency is not working. It may seem counter-intuitive, but being a little less efficient creates room for checks and balances. We need redundancy, and some fostered competition. It is the only way to assure the health of our nation and the safety of our food supply.

The ringleader of these attacks is an industry PR front group deceitfully named the “Center for Consumer Freedom,” led by DC lobbyist Rick Berman. Started with a $600,000 grant from Phillip Morris, CCF is also funded by alcohol, restaurant, and agribusiness interests. It campaigns against groups as varied as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Cancer Institute. The editorial boards of USA Today and the Washington Post have condemned CCF for misleading the public. ABC News has also exposed the organization as a front group.

When it comes to campaigning, CCF isn’t exactly known for its fidelity to the truth. So it should come as no surprise that CCF spokesperson David Martosko recently made their strategy of smearing the messenger quite explicit. As he explained it to agribusiness cheerleader Trent Loos, rather than discussing the issues at hand, just destroy the reputation of your critics. Martosko concluded to Loos: “You can either lose pretty or win ugly.”

(Note: Trent Loos criticizes HSUS so religiously that even when HSUS helped expose the notorious Michael Vick dogfighting ring, Loos wrote that Vick—who admitted to drowning, hanging, and electrocuting dogs—generated outcry because he “has not been treating his dog like a kid.”)

This scorched earth strategy is of course the tactic of an industry that must not believe it can win in the marketplace of ideas. And indeed, that’s the predicament of those who defend confining farm animals in cages so small they can’t even turn around or extend their limbs.

Poll after poll—whether conducted by animal welfare groups, independent firms, or agribusiness groups—find that Americans oppose battery cages for laying hens, along with gestation and veal crates for pigs and calves. And the science confirms what common sense already knew: these extreme confinement systems are inherently detrimental to the animals’ welfare.

With more states continuing to pass modest reforms aimed at easing the suffering of farm animals—Maine just banned gestation crates and veal crates—you can rest assured that Big Ag and its paid attack dogs like CCF will only increase both the frequency and vitriol of their smears. While you may not be able to believe much of what they say, I think we can take them at their word that such attacks will be quite ugly. For the sake of animals, consumers, and the planet, let’s make sure they’re not successful.

Here is a quote from her blog, in a recent post discussing the “frenzy” being furthered by the media over the swine flu:

If people were a bit more connected to knowing where their food comes from, our society might not believe all of the hyperbole associated with these types of outbreaks.

Ok, I’m all for people knowing where their food comes from. Pull back the veil, let us see what really goes on at CAFOs in the U.S. Oh, but wait there’s more:

Hogs of today are kept in a closed environment with strict biosecurity standards, which requires showering in and out of facilities… Of course, some are trying to point fingers at the larger farms, know [sic] as CAFOs (an example of terminology that ag should have never agreed to!). Look no further than http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-25-swine-flu-smithfield/ for an example of finger pointing. Can we again emphasize that humans can’t get this from hogs? And I’m not here to promote one side of ag over the other, but the reality is that larger operations typically have to to adhere to stricter regulations. You can read Smithfield’s response to the accusations here; their people are healthy, the hogs vaccinated and the proper protocol followed. What more can we ask for?

Well, let’s start by asking for an unbiased source testing those pigs. Second, honestly, could she be “not trying to promote one side of ag over the other?” It doesn’t seem possible. Look, some of us may be city slickers, but we know our ag policy, and we recognize the names on her client list. She is just spinning the stories she is paid to spin. (Check out some of the great sustainable advocates on her blog, under the header “Anti-Agriculture Groups,” like Consumers Union, Food & Water Watch, and “King Corn Movie“)

But I didn’t just want to write about Ms. Payn-Knoper in this post. I’d rather focus on the agchat itself. You see, I found the format quite interesting, a public conversation on Twitter, between people with similar interests located anywhere. This ‘conventional agchat’ got started with the following questions, written, I assume, by Ms. Payn-Knoper:

Q1: What are differences between the 2 main types of ag production – local & nat./int?. Advantages & disadvantages?
Q2: Family farmers vs. ind. ag, how can you distinguish between 2 approaches (family vs. big) & validate need for both?
Q3: How can we share positive msg about all ag practices, incl organic, even as some claim one is better than another?
Q4: NYC held a food conf. Disagreements aside, they’re interestd [sic] in farming. How do we engage & find common ground?
Q5: What other groups can we collaborate with outside of agriculture strengthen our voice & overcome adversaries messages?

I thought I’d print these, not only because I do agree that in an ideal world, I’d love to openly discuss issues of farming with all “farm advocates,” but also because you finally get the kernel of truth in that last question: how to “overcome adversaries messages?” In other words, we are all inclusive here, as long as you are riding on the Big Ag train.

This talk involved mostly people trying to protect their interests, like Monsanto representatives, PR reps and lobbyists, and only a handful of producers. They were so surprised to be joined by my Twitter friend and sustainable food advocate @meredithmo, that they took to tossing her questions, mostly with that old tattered staple, “How can sustainable ag feed the world?”

I initially got involved when I saw this question posed to @meredithmo (Sorry if the Twitter-ology is not your thing, look here for a video tutorial):

@mpaynknoper: @meredithmo Could you please tell us more about how sustainable food production that doesn’t involve technology can feed world?

I immediately thought, ok, here was an opportunity to share some ideas.  To “engage” and see what happens. This was before I checked on any of the attendees affiliations. Admittedly, I did jump on board late and didn’t at first announce myself. Eventually I did so, and I made some observations:

@civileater: @mpaynknoper Small ag can feed everyone, its community building. people cannot rely on only one crop, or bags from the sky.

@civileater: @mpaynknoper Not using pesticides and building diverse systems means healthier soil and nutrient filled food…

@civileater: @mpaynknoper growing one crop to trade or sell means you have to buy all your other food, along with pesticide and annual seed.

This was really hard to do in 140 characters. Even harder when I later got heckled for saying there are farmers within cities — Imagine what Will Allen would say to that! — and was called a “spammer” in a blog I will not deign to link.

What irked me most about this chat was their misconceptions of our movement. The fact is that sustainable ag-tivists are fundamentally most interested in what is best for farmers. We are not just “foodies,” as I was referred to in the chat. We have a vested interest in making sure America has better food to eat, that farmer’s work is valued, and that they have land and health insurance, that kids know where there food comes from, that everyone has access to healthy food, and that our food system is safe and our land and our environment are taken care of. The supporters of conventional agriculture, unfortunately, have shareholders interests at heart first and foremost, and cajole farmers into thinking they are doing what is best for them by hiring chipper PR hacks from their endless pockets of cash who spin a shitstorm of mis-information and distribute it via Twitter and the Internet.

So, as I will never be allowed in another ag chat again, I am hereby consecrating #sustagchat… a sustainable ag chat beginning this Sunday, details to be announced via Twitter (If you aren’t following me, you can here). The hope is to have a regular hour-long chat, which I’ll be happily moderating for now. I hope you will join us and discuss the issues facing our food system. I will post more information, and a question or two for the Sunday’s chat on Civil Eats tomorrow.

Follow @sustagchat for more information on topics and the #sustagchat!