Tag: gmos
It’s Time To Put Food Policy Back On The Table

It’s Time To Put Food Policy Back On The Table

During the farm crisis of the 1980s, an Iowa farmer asked if I knew the difference between a family farmer and a pigeon. When I said no, he delighted in explaining: “A pigeon can still make a deposit on a new John Deere.”

That’s funny — except, it really wasn’t. Worse, the bitter reality of the tractor joke is still true: The farm crisis has not gone away, though hundreds of thousands of farm families have. The economic devastation in farm country continues unabated as agribusiness profiteers, Wall Street speculators, urban sprawlers, and corrupted political elites squeeze the life out of farmers and rural America.

Remember last year’s presidential debates? Trump and Clinton talked about the needs of hard-hit working-class families, veterans and coal miners among others. But, hellloooo, where were farmers? Indeed, where was the multitude of producers who toil on the lands and waters of this country to bring food to our tables? All went unmentioned, even though economic and emotional depression is spreading through their communities, thanks to bankruptcy-level prices paid by corporate middlemen. In the past three years, farm income has declined steadily, plummeting 12 percent in just the last year. But these crucial-but-endangered food producers were totally disappeared by the political cognoscenti.

Actually, the farmer has long been forgotten in America’s presidential discussion. In a New York Times op-ed, Professor A. Hope Jahren reported on the discovery she made when reading through transcripts of past debates: “Farm policy hasn’t come up even once in a presidential debate for the past 16 years.”

That’s Bush-Kerry, Obama-McCain, Obama-Romney, and Trump-Clinton! Not one of them mentioned the people who produce our food. Jahren notes that the monetary value of farm production alone is nearly eight times greater than coal mining, a declining industry whose voters Clinton and Trump avidly courted.

This disregard for farmers and food policy is not only irresponsible, but also politically inexplicable when you consider that food is far more than economics to people. Purchasing food has become a political act that takes into account cultural, ethical, environmental, and community values. This was confirmed last March in a national survey published by Consumer Reports showing that huge percentages of shoppers consider production issues important:

  • Supporting local farmers: 91 percent
  • Reducing exposure to pesticides in food: 89 percent
  • Protecting the environment from chemicals: 88 percent
  • Providing better living conditions for farm animals: 84 percent

Unfortunately, no matter what We the People want, most of the political class willingly surrenders farmers, and food itself, to industrial agribusiness. That would be that … except for one thing: You! Far from surrendering to the “inevitability” of a corporatized food future, the great majority of Americans continue to push forward with the alternative future of a local, sustainable, humane — and tasty — food system that benefits all.

The ongoing battle for our food future pits the agri-industrial model of huge-scale, corporate-run operations against the agri-cultural model of sustainable, community-based family farming. The big money is with the global goliaths of corporate ag, but the grip the giants once had on the marketplace has been slipping as consumers and farmers (especially younger producers) are making clear that they prefer non-industrial food. One measure of this is the contrasting fortunes of biotech vs. organic production.

The promised “miracle” of genetically altered crops, introduced in 1994 by Monsanto, turns out to have been ephemeral. The prices of corporate-altered seeds have skyrocketed, yields from those seeds have not met expectations, planting GMO crops has forced farmers to buy more pesticides, and consumers overwhelmingly oppose GMO Frankenfoods. Thus, fewer farmers are using the biotech industry’s product: US farmers cut their plantings of GMO crops by 5.4 million acres in 2015, and sales of GMO seeds fell by $400 million.

Not only does consumer demand for organically produced food keep going up, but such major producers as General Mills and Kellogg are switching to greater use of organic ingredients. As of last June, the number of America’s certified organic farms was 14,979 (up by more than 6 percent from a year earlier), and sales of organic products zoomed up by 11 percent to $43.3 billion in 2015, about four times more than the growth in conventional food sales. This rise would have gone even higher, but the demand for organic is now outstripping the supply! Consumers clearly want to buy more, thus creating good opportunities for new organic farmers — and a bright future for agri-culture.

To find out more about Jim Hightower, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

IMAGE: REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko

Battles Rage In Oregon, Colorado Over Genetically Modified Foods

Battles Rage In Oregon, Colorado Over Genetically Modified Foods

By Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times

Voters in two Western states are caught in fierce battles over whether consumers will know what is deep inside their food.

Oregon and Colorado on Nov. 4 will decide the fate of labeling laws for genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, the latest fronts in a battle over packaging. Measure 92 in Oregon and Proposition 105 in Colorado call for labeling food so that purchasers know whether they are buying products that contain materials that have been genetically engineered or modified.

The states could become the first to pass such a referendum; Washington and California rejected similar measures after expensive campaigns in 2013 and 2012, respectively. Vermont approved such labeling through the legislative process, but the issue is still being fought in the courts.

In its most basic terms, the ballot measures pit coalitions of foodies, organic farmers and nutrition activists against many of the nation’s leading manufacturers including the biotechnology company Monsanto, Kraft Foods, and Coca-Cola. The coalition fighting against labeling has also included large grocery chains and some farmers, and some of the labeling advocates are sizable companies in their own right.

Those who want the label contend that consumers are entitled to know whether their food contains GMOs so that they can make informed decisions about their purchase. Opponents fear labeling will stigmatize their products and will place an economic burden on consumers because of the higher costs associated with separating out modified products from others.

A GMO is any plant or animal that has been modified with outside DNA, a practice companies contend is useful as a way to increase yield or provide protection against some diseases.

Still, GMOs carry the stigma of past debates that centered on “Frankenfood,” and raise fear of good, scientific intentions running into unexpected consequences. That is an ungrounded fear, say scientists who have studied the issue. A 2008 report by scientists for the National Academy of Sciences found no health problems associated with using GMOs and well more than a majority of all commercial products have them.
The current battle in Colorado mirrors those positions.

“What California really did was wake up the country,” Larry Cooper, co-chairman of Right to Know Colorado, told the Los Angeles Times. Even though the California labeling proposition lost, Cooper said the effort helped raise awareness on the issue.

In Colorado, the supporters of the labeling campaign are heavily outweighed by their opponents: $700,000 to an estimated $12 million, Cooper said.

“It’s definitely a David-versus-Goliath thing,” Cooper said, adding he was proud of the grass-roots support his side had marshaled.

“If they are so proud of GMOs, why would they be opposed” to a measure that advertises them on the label? Cooper asked.

Opponents contend that labeling measures could hurt the people they were designed to help.

“We oppose state-by-state mandatory labeling laws like Measure 92 in Oregon and Proposition 105 in Colorado,” said Monsanto spokesman Thomas M. Helscher said in an email to the Los Angeles Times. “The reason we don’t support them is simple. They don’t provide any safety or nutrition information, and these measures will hurt, not help, consumers, taxpayers, and businesses. We support a federal approach which ensures food safety and consumer choice.”

In Oregon, the battle has become the costliest over a ballot measure in the state’s history.

As of the weekend, the two sides have raised $16.7 million, The Portland Tribune reported.

Monsanto has donated more than $4 million to defeat Measure 92, it was reported.

On the other side, the Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps company, which has supported similar labeling battles elsewhere, has given $1.15 million.

And in a clever public relations move, Ben & Jerry’s, the Vermont ice cream company and label supporter, renamed its popular Chocolate Fudge Brownie flavor to Food Fight Fudge Brownie to draw attention to the ballot initiatives.

Photo: CT Senate Democrats via Flickr

Want more national news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!