‘Time’ was right about cheap food—but forgot farmworkers 10

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   jonnypeace Posted 1:03 pm
   02 Sep 2009

   Sean,
   Excellent points, and the same thing struck me when I read Time's article: Where are the workers? In our seemingly relentless quest to expand the 99 cent menus at fast food joints, ag workers are often the biggest losers, whether they are picking the tomatoes or slaughtering the beef. Or, it turns out, milking the cows. Dairy workers face as many or more hazards than other ag workers each day on the job (they are working in what amount to milk factories equipped with big, living, unpredictable machines), yet the laws have mostly ignored them.High Country News recently ran an excellent piece exploring dairy work and its dangers. It can be found here:http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.15/the-dark-side-of-dairies

   Permalink

2. 

   foodprovider Posted 4:28 pm
   02 Sep 2009

   The article that Time ran was not even close to the truth.  The author admitted that he was airing his opinions.  Looks like big media is just trying to create readership.  Too bad Mr Walsh, and his editors, do not have the scruples to actually do research.  If this is the type of journalism you wish to read and beleive, no wonder our country is in such bad shape.  No one knows what is real anymore.  Nor do they seem to care as long as it doen not affect them negatively.  As for ag workers, ever wonder why there are immigrant workers in ag and other industries that require heavy labor?  It's because the american worker is LAZY!  That's right LAZY! Heck I'm lazy too.  I sit in my tractor and tend to my farm.  I certainly do not miss the good old days.  Unfortunately, the fresh vegetable market is highly dependent on manual labor.  So is the dairy industry, the building industry, and the landscaping industry.  I know I missed one or two there.  Heaven forbid you have to go out and do your own yard work, or even take care of your own kids.  You demand that agriculture return to the good old days of what you remember in books or what your parents or grandparents told you about their child hood.  Those days are over.  How many of you will hire a person asking $15/ hr to mow you rlawn or do your odd jobs, when an immigrant is asking for less than minimum wage and is willing to take cash so they can send it home to their families.  I am not condoning illegal workers, there are plenty of card carrying immigrants that will do what the fat lazy american refuses to do. As for Time Magazine....it makes some pretty good bedding in my cow pens.  And that is too good for that rag.

   Permalink

   1. 

      Sean Sellers Posted 6:33 am
      03 Sep 2009

      As a point of clarification, there actually are native-born, U.S. citizens who are agricultural workers. For example, consider that two of the slavery cases the CIW has helped uncovered have involved African Americans (U.S. vs. Lee, U.S. vs. Evans).

      Permalink

3. 

   amazingdrx Posted 11:04 pm
   02 Sep 2009

   There's only one cure for low wage exploitation of farm workers,  Robotics.  And it makes organic farming possible without a lot of human labor too.  And organic farming is a major part of stopping human GHG induced climate disaster.  Ag robots can run on renewable electricty and work 24/7, zipping up and down the rows tirelessly.So let's retire the "foodprovider" and his fossil fuelish tractor and his favorite chemicals and his GMO roundup ready seeds and fertilizer imported from russia.  Time for a well deserved vacation, his efforts have been appreciated in the past, but have been shown to result in over half of human caused GHG.Put the farm workers who are layed off back to work building, maintaing, and operating the robots.  at much higher wages, with much better working conditions.Foodprovider, in the words of your sainted angel from alaska, "tha(i)ks but no tha(i)nks".  We can't afford your bridge to climate disaster and chemically induced genetic mutation and antibiotic resistant disease.

   Permalink

   1. 

      foodprovider Posted 6:30 am
      03 Sep 2009

      so tell me, how does organic farming reduce GHG emmissions?  I am curious to know how you came up with that.The organic growers that I am working with use at least 3 times the fossil fuels that I am.  Instead of 1 trip to control weeds, they have to take in many cases 4 plus passes.  How does that reduce fossil fule ussage?  I take an average of 4 trips through a field per growing season.  An organic producer growing the same crop will make a minimum of 9 trips.  BTW  each trip requires fuel.  My yields are over 200 bu for corn and over 50 bu for soybeans.  The organic producers are tickled pinkt to get 25 bu soybeans and 120 bu corn.  You do the math!  Who is producing more GHG?  I won't even go into effiencies per unit if food produced. As I have stated in prvious posts, I am not anti organic, just anti ignorance in food production.  I bet you have never been on a real working farm.  Go out to an organic farm, the go out to a similar convention farm.  Get to know where your food begins.  Or would you rather have your food either imorted (like oil), even synthetically ptoduced. Check your resources on GHG emmisions.  If ag was resposible for 40% GHG, where does the other 60% come from? One volcano dumps more GHG into the air than the entire human race ever has.  Lets ban Volcanoes.  I'll throw a fact out on GHG (but I know you will discredit it but what the heck, my resources are reliable), modern agriculture is responsible for mor elike 12% of the GHG emissions  Not 40%.  One last item, Last time I checked, every human eats.

      Permalink

   2. 

      foodprovider Posted 6:44 am
      03 Sep 2009

      Also,  ( I know I said 1 last thing, but I ramble), I would love to be able to afford robots.  Who do you think will be able to afford robots?  Only the largest producers.  We have robotic milkers in dairies in the area.  The smallest is a 400 cow dairy and the cost just for the robots is over $1.2 M.  That's $300,000 per milker!  And each milker is equipted to milk upto 60 cows.  THat is $5000/cow!  THe manufacturing process of these robots will release GHG.  Also, how is electricity produced?  Yes we need "green energy" alternatives.  I will not dispute that.  And if you really want to stop GHG, redo our transportation system, get China and india to do the same.  Let me ask you this?  What were the so-called GHG levels in 1320? or 1776? or even 500BC? 

      Permalink

4. 

   Food Alliance Posted 2:56 pm
   03 Sep 2009

   Great article, too often agricultural and food facility workers are left out of the conversation about where our food comes from and how it's produced.Food Alliance is a nonprofit organization that certifies farms, ranches, food processors and distributors for sustainable agricultural and facility management practices. By choosing Food Alliance Certified products, consumers and commercial food buyers support safe and fair working conditions, humane treatment of animals, and good environmental stewardship.Improved practices in Food Alliance Certified agricultural operations and food handling facilities have led to better conditions for thousands of workers, more humane treatment of hundreds of thousands of animals, reduced use of toxic and hazardous materials, and healthier soils, cleaner water, and enhanced wildlife habitat on millions of acres of range and farmland.When buyers see the Food Alliance Certified seal, they know the people behind the product are dedicated to continual improvement of social, environmental and economic outcomes.Learn more about Food Alliance: http://www.foodalliance.org

   Permalink

5. 

   bioagengineering Posted 5:35 pm
   05 Sep 2009

   The book "agricultural Medicine" (Donham and Thelin, 2006) shows the accident hazards in agriculture as higher than most professions. It also reports the negative health effects of synthetics (pesticides, fertilziers), on human health.As an agricultural engineer I am interested in making ecological agriculture (organic famring) more practical and less labor-intensive. This is an agricultural practices that uses low inputs for high quality food, and does not use synthetics (pesticides, synthetci fertilizers..) because of their non-target effects. Non-target means when farm worker get cancer, birth defects due to pesticides, or when surface waters like the Gulf become anoxic (low on oxygen), becuase of the fertilziers that leached into them and caused an algae flush at the surface. As a result aquatic life was almost anhilated in this region. Organic farming, as defined by the UN's FAO, is also a socially responsible practcie which rejects teh inhumane treatment of animals. Organically grown animals are necessarily free-range. If organic farming became main stream, it will result in healthier environment on and around the farms, and healthier produce. Intensive labor however is a requirement fo organic famring, that some in the field of agriculture are working on eliminating, through the use of automation. Like some of you mentioned, no agricultural production should be based on the downluck of any social class or ethnicity. Engineers can innovative organic farming, through automation, software, alternative cultural practcies, so there's no need to resort to inhumane factory farms. You can read more on applying engineering to organic farming, and the definition of organic farming at http://www.bioagengineering.net

   Permalink

   1. 

      foodprovider Posted 12:34 pm
      06 Sep 2009

       "If organic farming became main stream, it will result in healthier environment on and around the farms, and healthier produce"Could you please help me to understand this statement?  From what I have witnessed in organic farming, it would put ag production back to the era of the 50's and 60's type of farming.  Are you sayin the having a herd of cattle out in pasture is environmently safer than today's practices?  I remeber those days.  Cows wondering down to the creek to get a drink of water, then releiving themselves in the creek.  The cow paths leading to the streams are a direct path for erosion and run off for their feces.  The streams used to run brown with even the sligtest rains.  THe fish habitat was non-exhitent.  Erosion was tremendous.  FArmers lost their productive topsoil by 10's of tons per year.  Today the manure collected form the animals is highly regulated.  You cannot just thro it anywhere.  You have to have permits and plans on what you are going to do with the animal waste.  The streams are cleaner, the erosion has decreased from 10's of tons to maybe a ton per yr or less.  Most pesticides used by modern ag today are very specific on what they affect.  The days of non-selective pesticides are over.  In our seed we can even select which pest we want to control while not harming a beneficial insect.  Tell me how going back to the practyices of old will accomplish that?  I do assume that you do eat.  Organic is a choice, a choice that you may wish to follow.  You may have the monetary means to purchase any food you wish without any negative effect on your lifestyle.  Many do not have that luxury.  Forcing organic producting will only suppress food production, which will put the lower classed citizens in severe hardship.  You have a choice, and you chose Organic.  Do not force someone to starve becuase of your opinions.

      Permalink

6. 

   bioagengineering Posted 7:14 am
   07 Sep 2009

   Certainly, I'll be glad to explain. "Organic" is misconstrued as rustic due to brainwash and lack of education on the subject. As you can read on here http://www.bioagengineering.net robotics and other advanced technologies do fit the requirements of an organic system. These technologies are also an ecologically sound substitute to synthetic fertilziers and pesticides. Google [denmark + organic + robots + farming] and you will read how this leading country is making roganic farming a convenient and modern option.I am an engineer, and the moderator of a session in a professional engineering association's yearly conference "ASABE" on "Innovative Technologies for Organic Famring". The technologies presented by researchers from all over the world at this session (they're also included at http://www.bioagengineering.net) reduce labor requirements. This reduces production cost and increases adoption rate of organic farming. Consequently the end-price of the produce you complain about in your comment. It's a simple law of supply and demand.You fear starving, but that's what dependence on fossil fuel and overexploitation will lead to, and what organic famring will prevent. This is why european governments such as Germany have a national goal to make 25% of their arable land organic by 2025. I'll explain: Soil biological activity, which means its fertility, its ability to nourish plants, is destroyed by teh use of salts (=synthetic fertilizers) and some pesticides. These synthetic products destroy the microbes (ususally by osmotic drought) that produce the carbs which aggregate soil particles together, and create the air-filled pores needed for healthy planst roots. These destroyed microbes also mineralize plant nutrients form organic matter at a rate in synch with plant needs, which was scientifically demonctrated (as the "organic matter effect") to produce plants higher in protein content relative to the nutrient flushes in the form of synthetic fertilizers. Synthetic fertilizers produce planst higher in water and starch content, and lower in nutritional value and flavor (expressed in scientific studies as flavinoids and amino acids concentration). In an article published in Science, Mader (2002) demontrated through a 20 years study that organic farming results in a 95% cut in inputs relative to conventional famring, and only a 25% yield decrease. It also sustains soil fauna: earthworms and microbes needed to recycle biodegradable material in to organic fertilizerThis is exactly what we need to not "starve" or pay too much for produce. Organic system are more efficient at using inputs to produce plants, and therefore require less of these inputs. We need to not depend on high inputs, fertilizers and pesticides which will starting costing us not only in cancer rates, but in dollars, as oil prices increase. We also cannot depend on mined nutrients like phosphate, because phosphate mines around the world and about to run dry. We need to not over use fresh water which we're depleting at more alarming rates that oil. Organic matter-rich soil retains water more efficiently than other soil types. In conventional farms, soil compaction and synthetics application have depleted the organic matter layer, and water retention is poor.Today's prices and technologies are not set in stone, but conventional agro-industries are set in their ways, and they're leading us over a cliff with an agriculture that depends on fossil fuels, and almost depleted mines of phosphate, and sources of fresh water. This not to mention the pandemic flu viruses bred in factory farms that suppress the animals immune system due to an unhealthy living environment.I am Hala on http://www.bioagengineering.net , and I'm published and cited on the subject, in peer reviewed studies. You can find on the website above a link to my publications, including a paper listing modern technologies available for organic farmers, such as weeding robots (as of yet not adopted by mainstream agro-industry).

   Permalink