Where does President-elect Obama stand on food policy -- with the interests of Big Food and its Congressional water-carriers, or with the budding sustainable-food/food-justice movement?
I guess the first substantial indicator will come when he names his secretary of agriculture. Until that time, we've got some data points to consider.
• On the scary side, check out this recent account of remarks by Collin Peterson (D-Big Ag), chair of the House Ag Committee.
Peterson, tireless champion of corn-based ethanol that he is, wants Congress to boost the required ethanol-to-gas blend in the national fuel supply from its current 10 percent to 15 percent, "to avert an ethanol surplus."
This is hardly surprising in and of itself. Hardcore ethanol boosters have long known that the real solutions to ethanol's many problems lie not in the lab or the farm field, but rather the halls of Congress. (Interestingly, Peterson is bluntly skeptical of the viability of cellulosic ethanol; he's not boosting corn-based ethanol as a bridge to a cellulosic future, but rather as the future. Oh dear.)
But get this: Peterson added that Obama "will be supportive of whatever we (Congress) come up with." Ouch. Really? Let's hope his confidence in Obama's fealty to Big Corn is misplaced. (Chillingly, Peterson's name is being bandied about as a possible USDA pick.)
• Another data point, not to be misunderestimated -- to use the argot of the outgoing regime -- is Obama's lucid recent summary of Michael Pollan's big article on food policy and the next president. Obama's statement shows he understands some key issues around food policy, public health, energy, and climate.
The Des Moines Register reports, though, that industrial farming interests immediately shrieked on reading Obama's comments, forcing the campaign to issue a "clarification." Obama's remarks on Pollan stand "in conflict with what he's been saying about agriculture, no question about it," the president of the National Corn Growers Association groused.
• In terms of fund raising, Obama raised about $1.9 million from agribiz interests during the campaign -- a robust take, but significantly less than his opponent's $3.1 million haul.
• Then there's his policy platform -- discussed in a recent Victual Reality column -- which contains many encouraging points.
It seems clear to me that Obama will face tremendous pressure to maintain some semblance of current farm/food policy. Ag policy folks whom I trust tell me that Obama will quite likely pick a conventional corn man to lead USDA.
Pressure in the other direction will come from below -- from grassroots sustainable-ag/food-justice activists. The time to organize is now.
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?
Comments
View as Flat
erich Posted 10:13 am
11 Nov 2008
Despite the snub, it looks like the article created enough of a buzz that it made it into Obama's stack of pre-election reading material...
In an interview with Joe Klein, Obama refers to the article, explaining how Pollan's ideas fit into the concept of a new energy economy.
Obama's analysis of Pollan's message:
" There is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy. I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it's creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they're contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That's just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is true on how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board."
This article prompted me to send M. Pollan another update on biochar research and genteel pleading to include Biochar technology in his next agriculture policy directive to the president;
"Dear Michael,
I can just see the bread crumb trail I believe/hope you are laying out in the NPR interview. Biochar will be the 8001th word, the grand finally of solutions?
The path your work has taken me on in human / plant interactions, the pleasurable and problematic seem solved by diversity and land management practices. We know that means food web/SOM management. The arguments for sustainability you put forward, if embraced, will lead to the biochar bread.
President Obama has already done so much to de-mystified, de-politicize and de-stigmatize the word black, I feel that "A Black Revolution in Agriculture" (as a recent article titled a biochar story), would be quite consistent with this achievement.
I spoke today with Dr. Johannes Lehmann 607 254 1236 , he is more than willing to layout all the new work to you.
Last year there were no biochar studies at the American Chemical Society (ACS) conference, this year several dozen.
Biochar at ACS;
Most all this work corroborates char dynamics we have seen so far in biochar soils. The soil GHG emissions work showing increased CO2 , also speculates that this CO2 has to get through the hungry plants above before becoming a GHG.
The SOM, MYC & Microbes, N2O (soil structure), CH4 , nutrient holding , Nitrogen shock, humic compound conditioning, absorbing of herbicides all pretty much what we expected to hear.
Biochar Studies at ACS Huston meeting;
578-I: http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session42 ...
579-II http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session44 ...
665 - III. http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session44 ...
666-IV http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session44 ...
Total CO2 Equivalence:
Even before the total CO2 equivalent credits are validated they should be on the product label. Once a commercial bagged soil amendment product, every suburban household can do it,
The label can tell them of their contribution, a 40# bag = 150# CO2 = 160 bags / year to cover my personal CO2 emissions.( 20,000 #/yr , 1/2 average)
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator ...
Full carbon credit validation should easily follow the path that has gained carbon credits for no-till practices.
But that is just the Carbon!
I have yet to find a total CO2 equivalent number taking consideration against some average field N2O & CH4 emissions. The New Zealand work shows 10X reductions.
If biochar also proves to be effective at reducing nutrient run-off from agricultural soils, then there will also be a reduction in downstream N2O emissions .
This ACS study implicates soil structure / N2O connection;
http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Paper4195 ...
Counting on the 8001th word
Erich
540 289 9750
Forward
Michael Pollan
to me
Reply
Thanks-- look forward to digesting all this.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:42 pm
11 Nov 2008
Permalink