Cooking the books

UPDATE: Washington State University reinstates freshman reading of ‘Omnivore’s Dilemma’ 40

odToo hot for freshmen?

EVEN MORE UPDATES: Now that the NYT has weighed in, I guess it’s fair to say this story broke through to the mainstream. I’ll spare you all the assurances from WSU that this Bill Marler-funded resolution proves that the driving issue really was financial. In my view, Marler graciously provided a fig-leaf to a university administration that was very much caught by surprise that anyone would have ever noticed what they’d done. There remain too many bits of evidence that the book was originally canceled due to political pressure. Indeed, Spokane’s newspaper even claims to have identified the culprit:

That political pressure apparently was brought to bear by a member of the board of regents, Harold Cochran, who disapproved of the author’s characterization of agribusiness. Cochran owns and operates a 5,500-acre farm near Walla Walla, is a founding stockholder in the Bank of the West in Walla Walla and is a member of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers.

There likely wasn’t a Big Ag conspiracy (althought what does this say about Walla Walla?). It was all caused by few people who thought they could fly under the radar and keep an irritating book out of circulation on campus. But reality, or rather the Internet, intervened. I leave you with none other than Pollan himself to put this whole scandale littéraire into perspective. Said he to the NYT:

Holding a common reading program “at a land grant university is especially important because we are in the midst of this national conversation about the future of food and agriculture, and land grant universities have a critical role to play,” he said. “That’s why this really mattered to me.

UPDATE 5/27 9PM EST: It’s official WSU announces that it “will reinstate the original plan for distribution of its Common Reading book, ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma,’ as a result of a private contribution to support the program.” Nothing like a little help from your friends.

UPDATE 5/27 8PM EST: The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting that WSU has taken up food safety lawyer and alumnus Bill Marler on his offer to pay the costs of bringing Michael Pollan to the WSU campus to speak about Omnivore’s Dilemma. Marler, on his own blog, also claims that all 4,000 books will be distributed as planned.

——-

So much for academic freedom—at least where books about our industrial food system are concerned. It’s hard to believe this really happened, but according to a report in the Chronicle of Higher Education, the president at Washington State University canceled a “common-reading” for all incoming freshman of Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma due to political pressure budgetary constraints. Really:

An explanation on the university’s Web site is vague and implies the withdrawal of the book was due to budget constraints. But some people on the campus say that the university, which has a prominent agriculture college, bowed to pressure from agribusiness interests.

They also question the budget argument, noting that the university has already purchased more than 4,000 copies of the book. ...

Many people connected with the common-reading program were evasive; either they did not return calls or insisted that they could not talk about the issue.

And while there were reports that Pollan was proving too expensive to bring as a speaker (thus implying his greed was a factor in the cancellation), others observed that there was never any money budgeted for events—the cost of the books were the only expense. In other words, all the money that was to be spent HAD BEEN spent (on the books).

And if you still have any doubts that it was political, I offer this passage:

In an e-mail message to The Chronicle, Patricia Freitag Ericsson, an assistant professor of rhetoric and professional writing who also sits on the implementation committee, said that in a meeting on May 4, an administrator told panel members that the common-reading program would be canceled, in large part because of political pressure arising from this year’s book choice. Members of the committee were upset. She says the committee was also told that potential books for next year’s common-reading program would be sent to the provost, who would make the selection.

Letting the provost dictate such details is an excellent idea. Best to let a grown-up, preferably one with a firm sense of which “political pressures” to bend to, decide what books are safe to read. University faculty do have an awful tendency toward a dangerous intellectual curiousity coupled with a suspicious openness to new ideas. We certainly wouldn’t want young minds to be overthrown by “revelations” about the world they inhabit. Oh, and did I mention that Washington State is a land grant institution? Personally, I’m going to take this as a harbinger of good rather than of doom. Book banning and censorship are a declaration of intellectual bankrutcy after all. If that’s what Big Ag thinks it needs to do to win, then they must be even more desperate than I thought.

UPDATE: Parke Wilde at US Food Policy gets the skinny from some WSU colleagues. And the Ethicurean points out that UC-Berkeley has assigned the Omnivore’s Dilemma for ITS incoming freshman.

Tom is a media and technology professional who thinks that wrecking the planet is a bad idea. He twitters madly and blogs here and at Beyond Green about food policy, alternative energy, climate science and politics as well as the multiple and various effects of living on a warming planet.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. jmm Posted 10:24 am
    21 May 2009

    WHICH university are we talking about here???  Headline says University of Washington; article refers to Washington State University.  

    Permalink

  2. Tom Laskawy's avatar

    Tom Laskawy Posted 10:51 am
    21 May 2009

    Thanks for noting the error. Fixed!!

    Permalink

  3. JMG's avatar

    JMG Posted 10:56 am
    21 May 2009

    I have a master's from WSU ... this is really sad.  Like Michigan State, Washington State is apparently more of a corporate research facility with some sports teams than a university.

    Permalink

  4. PermieWriter's avatar

    PermieWriter Posted 12:05 pm
    21 May 2009

    Good call. Much better to go with "Botany of Desire." It will help bring together the student body, which is really what the common reading is all about, as they talk about the coupling of human evolution with the plants and animals that have shaped us as we've shaped them.Economics students can compare the tulip market to our current real estate debacle while budding agriculturalists discuss the perils of monocrops ala the lumper and the Irish potato famine. BoD would certainly be a solid, non-contraversial choice.

    Permalink

  5. usfoodpolicy Posted 12:05 pm
    21 May 2009

    That's priceless.  I interviewed a couple colleagues at WSU about this by email today and they made some good observations.  For one thing, as a recent essay by WSU economist Trent Smith indicates, many people at that university are engaging with Pollan's ideas in different ways.

    Permalink

  6. twarner72 Posted 3:46 pm
    21 May 2009

    I just emailed WSU to inquire about buying a used copy of the book if it's not going to be used.

    Permalink

  7. WSUMember Posted 2:08 pm
    22 May 2009

    I teach at WSU.  I am intimately familiar with what happened 'behind the scenes'.  The university President and Provost have sent a letter round to faculty in the wake of the controversy, stating that (a) the rationale for the cancellation of the common reading program is budgetary and (b) that the book remains available to faculty to request for use in their courses.This is a post-hoc explanation.  Emails exist that show that there was indeed 'political' pressure brought to bear.  The budgetary savings cited pertain to programming for the common reading, not the use of the common reading itself.  Yet the university cancelled the distribution of the book to freshmen through the campus orientation (ALIVE) program, which costs nothing... the reading program committee had already decided NOT to invite Michael Pollan to campus for budgetary savings, and instead to program through FREE faculty lectures (last year, over 1,300 freshman - almost 50%) attended these free lectures).  In other words, no budget savings were accomplished, the book already having been bought.  President Floyd says that he never 'spoke to a regent' about the book - but thus avoids the sticky question of being contacted by email (which he was).Let me add something.  I do not believe that President Floyd or Provost Bayly are 'bad' people who are in the pocket of agribusiness.  They are both intelligent, rational, and generally honorable people who are trying to administer a land-grant university in difficult times.  I do believe that they made the wrong call - and the reasons why they made the wroong call (they see it as a 'compromise') tells us a lot about the way in which public universities and agribusiness uneasily coexist in lean budget times.  Sometimes decent people make the wrong call, for the wrong reasons.  I am, however, very disappointed at the attempt to cover it up.WSU does have many fine faculty, many in the College of Agriculture, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences.  The CAHNRS, by the way, endorsed the common reading choice.  But the bottom linbe is clear - no money is being saved, and a book that was already purchased with the intention of being distributed to all freshmen is not going to get into the hands of many of them.

    Permalink

  8. Avelhingst Posted 4:27 pm
    22 May 2009

    I was accosted at lunch today (beef, in fact - a rare treat) over this issue.  I shrugged and had not heard anything about it.  Thank you, Grist, for bringing this to the fore.As an alumnus of WSU, I am AMAZED that a bunch of whiney hand-wringing butt-kissing mealy-mouthed desk-sucking bureaucrats have managed to wave their hands around enough to get ANYTHING done, let alone protect their phoney-baloney behinds from some disapprovale from on high.  This is how academic integrity is compromised - NOT through actual flame-throwing, but through this impotent hand-flapping by those who should be protecting the institution.

    Permalink

  9. couggrad Posted 12:52 am
    24 May 2009

    Ok, Obviously none of you know what is going on based on what was written in this article.  I know the people involved.  The WSU regent involved does want people to know where food comes from, he just wants it to come from an accurate source. We often talk about how people don't realize how difficult it is to succcessfully raise a crop due to rodents, weeds, mildew and many other pests.  I think a "Common Book" at WSU is a very good idea.  However, Michael Pollan does not have a scientific background and is not an accurate source of information.  He makes some very important points about our food system.  Food is very important to our national security.  But he suggests that us farmers are putting chemicals on your food made in former WWII nerve gas factories.  He has no evidence to back this up. I think WSU should pick a book written by someone who is knowledgable about our food system and what it takes to feed over 6 billion people on Earth.  His solutions to our food system are unrealistic both economically, and scientifically.  I have written to Mr. Pollan several times to ask him where he has found this information, and I haven't heard from him.  I would like to know if any of you know very much about "Organic" farming and how healthy it is for you. Take a look at USDA's Organic website.  It lists all of the tasty ingredients which are allowed under the USDA Certified Organic program.  Just because you payed twice as much for your organic food doesn't mean it's very organic.  See for yourself.On that note, if any of you could point me to some info on this, that would be great, I will check back on this site.

    Permalink

  10. WSUMember Posted 7:19 am
    24 May 2009

    Fascinating.  Parsing Couggrad's post, I get the following out of it:1.  The book was indeed censored (This is not the official university line at all, but we all know it...)2.  The decision was taken in secret by a small group of individuals (since I am very closely connected with the program and the selection process, I can only assume this is what Couggrad means when he/she states that 'no-one knows what is going on' and 'I know the people involved'.  No-one I know seems to know him/her, or the Regent for that matter).3.  Couggrad has clearly not read the book.  Since Pollan is very critical of 'Organic' farming, and points out the very same point that Couggrad makes, you would think that Couggrad would be very pleased to have people read it.4.  Only the Regents know what is accurate and what is not.  Thank goodness we have them, so that they can correct the inane biases of the hundreds of scientists and social scientists working round the clock in their labs and offices at the university.

    Permalink

  11. Bud Dingler's avatar

    Bud Dingler Posted 4:13 pm
    26 May 2009

     Couggrad is out of touch. the remnants of nerve gas factories now produce organophosphate insecticides. this is well known. as a small farmer I don't think much of Pollans ideas. its pie in the sky stuff. when he came to our metro area it was either $80 a ticket or when it was a free book signing it was in the most expensive suburb in the metro. he is an elitist and less relevant than he might appear.   

    Permalink

  12. Marler's avatar

    Marler Posted 10:42 pm
    26 May 2009

    This might be helpful: http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/05/articles/lawyer-oped/washington-state-university-say-it-isnt-so-hey-michael-pollan-ill-pay-your-way-to-pullman/

    Permalink

  13. couggrad Posted 10:44 pm
    26 May 2009

    I would like to know where some of these factories exist.  I once saw a documentary about vinyl factories in the south .  I am curious about how these factories work and would like to learn more about them.

    Permalink

  14. couggrad Posted 7:26 am
    27 May 2009

    No I have not read the book.  I am too busy farming.  But I did read the article.  They main issue this this particular article is written by someone who read another poorly written article (in the Spokesman Review) and skipped the fact checking before regurgitating all of it on this blog.  I don't get how a FAMILY FARMER is representing "Big-Ag".  I don't see how stating a negative opinion about this book is "censorship".  WSU is not banning this book!  Stop your whining.  If you want to read it go read it.  "Censorship!"  "Corporate Greed!"  "Nerve gas on your food!"  "Big Agriculture!"  "Loud Noises!"  Have fun with that.

    Permalink

  15. Bart Anderson's avatar

    Bart Anderson Posted 11:13 am
    27 May 2009

    You know that Pollan has hit a nerve when his book is censored and the trolls come out to play.Bart / EB

    Permalink

  16. Bud Dingler's avatar

    Bud Dingler Posted 11:36 am
    27 May 2009

    Dear Bart based on the comments here, yours is the only one that I would define as a troll since you offered no real insight to the discussion. 

    Permalink

  17. couggrad Posted 12:16 pm
    27 May 2009

    @ Bart:  The book is not being censored.  No one has changed its content.  Anyone can purchase it on Amazon.com or at their local book store, or check it out at a library. This book has hit a nerve because it should be labeled as fiction.  It is not scientifically accurate and does not include references to his bogus claims.   @ Everyone else:  By the way, on the topic of farmers using pesticides produced in old nerve gas factories, I am still waiting to find out the names and/or locations of these facilities.  I have googled "pesticide nerve gas factory" and "herbicide nerve gas" and I have come up with scientific names of chemicals but not the company that makes them or where they are located?  Any ideas?

    Permalink

  18. WSUMember Posted 1:11 pm
    27 May 2009

    As far as I can tell, this whole flap that Couggrad brings up stems from the statement by Pollan on page 23 of the book that the Muscle Shoals (AL) munitions plant was converted in 1947 to fertilizer production.  I know of no statements in the book - although I stand to be corrected - that make any link between fertilizer and nerve gas production.  Pollan is careful to discuss the reason why the process (invented by Haber) is common to fertilizer and explosives.  So the importance is not any implication that nerve gases may be somehow contaminating our fertilizer production, but that the addition of nitrogen has a common root in both fertilizer and explosive production.Now, it appears that Muscle Shoals (AL) was converted after World War I (1923, to be exact).  Whether it reverted to explosive production in 1941 (and thus back in 1947), I do not know - perhaps someone else does.  Pollan may have indeed got the dates wrong, if the essential story is right.  But it is important to ask questions based upon what has actually been written, not what we think has been written.  Which is perhaps, Couggrad, why reading the book before engagnig in polemic about it might be useful.

    Permalink

  19. WSUMember Posted 1:23 pm
    27 May 2009

    OK. A little more research produces a now unclassified document that shows that the US government built a phosphate production plant in Muscle Shoals AFTER WWII, which was run by the Chemical Corps Material Command. The phosphate was intended for use in nerve gas agents. The document can be found at fas.org:
    http://www.fas.org/cw/cwc_archive/CW_history/1954_Majorevents&problems;.pdf

    OK, Couggrad?

    Permalink

  20. Bud Dingler's avatar

    Bud Dingler Posted 4:01 pm
    27 May 2009

    From a scientific view its the chemistry of producing nerve gas that a so called new found use was made. Wether its the actual plant(s) used or not is a moot point in my opinion. The point is organophosphates are poison and originated from the production of nerve gas..

    Permalink

  21. T. Allen Posted 4:34 pm
    27 May 2009

    Just as an FYI, at my school, Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, a student group I am a part of worked with the common reading selection committee last semester and Omnivore's Dilemma is now on the final list of books to be considered for 2010-2011 academic year.

    Permalink

  22. Bart Anderson's avatar

    Bart Anderson Posted 4:48 pm
    27 May 2009

    If the shoe fits ...The point about censorship is that industry groups intervened to prevent discussion of an important book in a publicly funded university. In this case, their move will backfire.As far as whether the book is based on science, puh-lease Mr. Couggrad!  Mr. Pollard has ample credentials, and the work is well known among university researchers.  I am in touch with Ag Extension programs, and the smart ones there know all about his arguments.  Truth to tell, they aren't especially controversial.The farming of the future will look a lot more like Mr. Pollard's vision than the present model of industrial agriculture, which is dependent on petrochemicals and subsidies. Bart / EB

    Permalink

  23. couggrad Posted 5:16 pm
    27 May 2009

    I would like to know what industry is getting involved.  From what I understand this is among faculty and students at my alma mater, WSU.  I have searched several articles and would like to learn about this supposed outside influence on this book choice.  And yes I hope in the future, we wont have to rely on expensive oil to run our machines, no doubt about that.  That would definitely call for more man hours and higher food prices, which I could probably live with.  When I can afford to buy a house someday I plan on planting a garden so I can reduce the amount of fuel needed to ship my food to my grocery store.  I am not saying all of Mr. Pollan's arguments are wrong.  But there are several of his solutions that would never work on my farm because of our marginal land and low rainfall.  This is what I am talking about when I say it is not scientifically accurate.  Cow's cannot fertilize our fields as efficiently as anhydrous ammonia.  I really wish we could use more natural methods (I HATE loading anhydrous ammonia) but with our current technology, we cannot.  We are getting closer, since a professor at WSU is working on putting a nitrogen fixing gene from legumes into grasses such as wheat, corn and barley, reducing or possibly eliminating the need for synthetic, petrolium based nitrogen.Thanks,Miss Couggrad

    Permalink

  24. couggrad Posted 5:30 pm
    27 May 2009

    Thanks, I will study that link!  No I have not had time to read this particular book between my real job and farming on the weekends.  I have heard him on the radio several times and read his essays on his website.  I really hope that "Omnivore's Dillema" is nothing like what I have previously heard and read from him.  I plan on going to the library to check out this book after work is done this fall so I can understand his intentions and learn more about how other crops are grown. 

    Permalink

  25. Bart Anderson's avatar

    Bart Anderson Posted 7:09 pm
    27 May 2009

    Thank you Miss Couggrad (sorry about the "Mr." - the internet doesn't show gender).  Well, now, this is a much more interesting discussion to have.  I'd be very eager  to hear about your experiences and your criticisms about specific things that Pollard says.I am not saying all of Mr. Pollan's arguments are wrong.  But there are
    several of his solutions that would never work on my farm because of
    our marginal land and low rainfall.  This is what I am talking about
    when I say it is not scientifically accurate.  Cow's cannot
    fertilize our fields as efficiently as anhydrous ammonia.  I really
    wish we could use more natural methods (I HATE loading anhydrous
    ammonia) but with our current technology, we cannot.Yes, no doubt about it, anhydrous ammonia is a fast way to put a lot of N on a crop. Also, it's true that different areas require different approaches.  I don't think Pollard would say any different.What he and the alternative ag people are criticizing is an automatic set of answers (chemicals and machinery). They are saying - changes are coming (for example, new demands by consumers and higher prices for oil and fertilizers).  Some of these changes will require some very new answers.  For example, last year in Australia, some farmers started turning to animal power and compost because the prices of fuel and fertilizers made it economic to do so.Pollard is not anti-farmer. He (and I) would like farmers to get more respect and be more rewarded.All best,
    Bart / EB

    Permalink

  26. Avelhingst Posted 7:36 pm
    27 May 2009

    A farmer's work is never done, I'm afraid.  I'll tell you all a secret to getting a lot of reading done whilst simultaneously working all the time: set up a reading station near the toilet.  Works wonders!Studying how other crops are grown can, hopefully, synthesize into developing novel - and, one hopes, profitable - ways of managing your farm.  That's what I have found, anyhow.  I would say that reading and researching is, in fact, a vital farm work function.In a reply to your earlier post, I wonder what kind of soils and what kind of rainfall regime could cause crops to grow less well with cow manure than with anhydrous? In all my experiences, cow manure increases the organic matter of the soil, causing skyrocketing populations of soil biota.  This increase allows for greater water infiltration, aeriation, soil particle retention (resistance to erosion), and more sturdy stalks of plants grown.  I will not quibble with your statement that anhydrous ammonia is more efficient than cow manure, but I do want to know what metrics you use to measure.Happy tilling.

    Permalink

  27. couggrad Posted 10:35 pm
    27 May 2009

    We (my parents and grandparents) don't actually live at our farm, we commute there 40 miles each way on work days.  We don't have a well because ground water is over 1,000 feet deep making digging a well too expensive, and we get around 10" of rainfall each year.  In the past, my great grandparents hauled water to their house from the lower Snake River 3 miles away using a water cart pulled by mules or horses.  And there wasn't much water in that river before the dams went in during the 30's.  Now we only have a barn with no running water, so, uhhh.....there is no toilet :P  But we do have time to read while waiting in the wheat trucks for an hour or two during harvest!We are unable to irrigate our crops because of the lack of water and even if we had water, our fields are two steep and irregularly shaped to use sprinklers.  After we harvest our wheat, there is not enough plant life to feed that many cattle. If we planted the native grasses, they would leave less moisture behind for the next wheat crop.  Even if we till it in, still less moisture.  We tried, it's so frustrating and depressing.The number of cattle it would take to produce as much nitrogen as a single application of anhydrous ammonia would cause our fields to be crowded and we would have to truck in water and extra alfalfa or corn feed to support them, burning more fuel.  I wish it wasn't like that, if we had more water we could pasture raise beef at the same time saving money, and stabilizing soil!  Water is such a limiting factor in crop production all over the world.  We are really hoping that a professor at WSU can isolate the nitrogen fixing gene in legumes and transfer it to wheat and corn.  That way the wheat gets all of its nitrogen from the air around it, with no effort on our part!  (Come on Farm Bill Ag Research $$!!)But it isn't all bad!  The upside to this is that few insects, mildews, or diseases can survive the dry climate and destroy our wheat! :D That's a good thing because herbicides are less harmful than insecticides and fungicides.  Round Up is the cheapest and least harmful and we use it to kill all plants before planting a new crop.  But once the wheat grows more more weeds come up.  To kill broadleaf like starthistle (a non-native weed) we spray stronger stuff like 2,4,D, and to kill cheat grass (A monocot very similar to wheat, also non-native) we use stuff life maverick.  Herbicide resistant wheat allows us to spray our wheat with only cheaper and less harmful RoundUp (or non-Monsanto glyphosate alternative).  Unfortunately that raises the risk of weed populations building up resistance.  Everything about our farm is so counter-intuitive, and every farm is so different.And to make it even more confusing we are a corporate farm!  (for various tax, land and family purposes)  I am the fourth generation on that same land (well, not until next month, I am walking away from a biotech lab job in a large city to join the farm permanently).  We very rarely hire outside people and are 100% family owned an operated (My father and grandfather).  I don't want my parents and grandparents to be temped with money from a non-family owned Agbusiness to sell off our farm.  I am about to be one of the youngest American farmers (I am 25).  As rural schools and hospitals across our country degrade and close down, fewer of my peers are going to want to return to their farms and raise families. 
    There are a ton of issues that affect every farm, big or small, across our country.  At the same time every farm, big or small, has it's own unique challenges based on family structure, climate, local pests, and most of all water!  No matter who opposed this book or whether or not they distribute it I hope the freshman can all take a really wide approach in changing our food system from both the farmer and consumer sides and have a safe mix of organic and high tech methods to keep American agriculture profitable and our communities and environment cleaner. 

    Permalink

  28. Marler's avatar

    Marler Posted 10:39 pm
    27 May 2009

    All is well in Cougarville - Pollan is coming and 4,000 of his books will be distributed.  Go Cougs.

    Permalink

  29. Javaman Posted 7:13 am
    28 May 2009

    even though the book will be distributed, this is far from over. I bet you the big ag will offer up their own version of reality to counter Pollan's book.wait for it, it will happen. the monsantos of the world don't give up that easy.

    Permalink

  30. Sellen Posted 11:27 am
    28 May 2009

    Last week when the Common Reading situation at WSU looked pretty bleak, some of us at WSU created a facebook site:  "WSU wants to have a serious discussion about food . . . . no, really": http://www.facebook.com/pages/WSU-wants-to-have-a-serious-discussion-about-food-no-really/101079583956?ref=mf Now, things have brightened and the program has been resurrected (although reasons for its temporary demise are still cloudy).  The Facebook site can now take on a more important role of engaging participants with the food issues raised by Michael Pollan in his very thoughtful book.  The site is not just for the WSU community:  feel free to join the discussion.
    Jeff Sellen

    Permalink

  31. couggrad Posted 1:16 pm
    28 May 2009

    @ JavamanWOULD SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION, HOW IS BIG AG INVOLVED IN THIS SITUATION???????????????????????????And for a book selection, I think "Grapes of Wrath" would be excellent. @ The author, Mr. Laskawy:Guess what, Walla Walla is mostly family farms.  Google it.  You know, fact checking gets overlooked these days....Ok, Monsanto is a completely different issue.  That is another issue I wish Mr. Pollan knew about.  Monsanto plays a very small role in "Big-Ag".  I know, I know, you must think I am crazy.  Using the term Monsanto synonymously with "Corporate greed" and "Big-ag" isn't completely accurate.  Last weekend as we were cleaning out our barn, 90% of the herbicide containers we threw out were not Monsanto (Nope, the EPA won't let us recycle plastic containers with pesticide residue, they say they are safer if we throw them in the landfill, we already checked). And this big fuss about how Monsanto is going to force farmers of the world to use their roundup ready seed and force us to use their chemicals and that Monsanto will sue us when their seed drifts into another field and grows on its own is totally false.  We are already using pesticide resistant seed.  Guess what, BASF and Syngenta (10 times bigger than Monsanto!) have been selling this type of seed and corresponding products for years.  It is out in our field right now.  Monsanto products like these are not available in our area.  We had to sign a contract that we would not resell our crop as seed, and that we cannot save the seed to replant the following year.  Guess what, every seed we have ever bought has had the same type of contract. I know that people on organic and environmental blogs like to jump in and pair Monsanto with these "new" contracts that have been around for years.  We never save our own seed these days because it is too full of weed seeds.  In the past we did save our own seed but a machine had to be brought out to clean the weeds out of it.  One year all of our wheat froze out 2 months after we planted it.  The seed plant where we buy our seed (owned by our neighbors, also family farmers) was closed for the winter so we just pulled wheat out of our grainbins from the harvest before and planted that.  Nobody came to our farm to make us sign a contract or take samples for a lawsuit.  We have the freedom to plant seed from anywhere we want.   Focusing this whole mess on Monsanto is taking away our time and effort from facing the real problems, like improving rural social services to bring children back to their farms when they graduate college.  To move subsidies from non-family owned corporations back to the family owned and operated farms.  That's a big change that would allow families to live on their farms and keep the biodiversity strong.  Everytime someone whines about corporate farms getting heavily subsidized, we get hit the hardest.  A $10,000 loss in subsidies to a publicly traded company like ADM or Kelloggs is a drop in the bucket, but a very big problem for us!To anyone here under the age of 58, there are big opportunities in agriculture if you can stand it.  In the next 10 years so many of the farmers in Walla Walla county are retiring and have approached me asking if I could lease out their land some day (almost all of my peers have left the farm).  If I leased their land we could finally afford to buy a new tractor (yep, over $100,000).  But once I get to that point, I am no better than any of the big guys taking over several family farms.  Hey young'uns, I can't do it alone!  Please come join me!!!

    Permalink

  32. Storm Dragon Posted 1:28 pm
    28 May 2009

    In response to Couggrad's last posting, it is an over-simplification to say that herbicides, as a whole, are less harmful than insecticides or fungicides.  True, Roundup is probably less dangerous than an organophosphate insecticide such as malathion.  However, paraquat and, yes, 2,4,D, are much more toxic and harmful than Dipel (Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterial insecticide).

    Permalink

  33. couggrad Posted 6:00 pm
    28 May 2009

    I brought up that issue because someone once told me after reading Michael Pollan's books that Round Up ready wheat/corn/soybeans allows farmers to spray MORE chemicals on our food.  I am guessing that the books didn't explain the alternative, farmers spray Round Up once and then 2,4 D over and over.  Farmers don't apply more chemicals in this case, just different chemicals.  I am going to try and check out this book from the library if I can get there before it closes.  I need to figure out where these people are getting the ideas.  I am glad all of you on this discussion board aren't a naive as some of his other readers, sheesh! I once saw a bumper sticker a few days ago that read "I am not against you Jesus, it's your fan club I am starting to worry about"  It got me wondering....

    Permalink

  34. premiumshlock Posted 10:15 am
    29 May 2009

    Yeah, much as I like Michael Pollan - he is a damn good writer - I'm starting to view him as the Bush administration of eco-foodies. He never explicitly lies about certain issues - indeed, he'll make sure to note when pressed that, no, there aren't really any significant health risks involved with HFCS, for example - but we leave riled up about the state of agriculture, where our food comes from and what's in it. And then we learn or realize that, oh wait, it's not actually that bad, or we initially just assume that the alternatives are therefore superior and later learn they of course aren't. Take HFCS vs. sugar. Two recent Slate pieces debunked both the eco and health claims of both, suggesting that really one's not better or worse than the other in terms of healthfulness and cultivating sugar cane/beets is actually very water-intensive, just as its processing is energy-intensive, and as I've mentioned this to other people, they note that this industry has helped destroy the Everglades. So, it just seems, well crap, that everything is bad.I agree with an earlier commenter - perhaps Grapes of Wrath might have been a better pick; safer, but just as if not more instructive. Or even Marion Nestle's wonderful What to Eat, which is even endorsed by Pollan and Eric Schlosser, though she's much less polemical and simplistic than they tend to be (or are at least, inadvertantly or not, perceived). She doesn't have much of an agenda except eat more fruits and vegetables.

    Permalink

  35. Avelhingst Posted 11:02 am
    29 May 2009

    Easier said than done, Couggrad.  Much more easily said than done (in re: young folks taking over the farm) - many many many issues are at work when it comes to integrating younger folks into farm management (not the least of which could be the attitudes of the farm owners).As far as 'Big Ag' goes - I think the 'Big Ag' tent is a large structure that incorporates the Evil Empire, Syngenta, Du Pont, Cargill, ArcherDanielsMidland, CaseIH, and a whole host of vertically intergrated 'farms' and agricultural technology suppliers.  In fact, of all the billions and billions of dollars circulating in the 'Big Ag' tent, almost all of it is in the hands of the suppliers.  If people are referring to 'Big Ag' as 'farms with over $500,000 in gross revenue' then they need someone to explain things to them.And hey! If you and your family practice no-till cultivation - I am a true believer, personally - then RoundUp is probably a key part of your farm strategy.  RoundUp is also one of the most benign pesticides out there; I wouldn't bathe in it, but one COULD without real danger of harm.  It also breaks down into benign residues after two weeks - what's not to love?  Monsanto also benefits - by patenting plant varieties engineered to resist RoundUp, it could continue to sell massive quantities of glyphosate and also these lovely new spendy seeds.  Monsanto, however, took a different approach to variety development than BASF - whereas BASF worked with mutagenesis, Monsanto actually went into the dark room of direct genetic splicing/patenting.  This may be why everyone hates the smiling Evil Empire. Unfortuneately for Monsanto, direct transmission of entire gene cassettes is known and does regularly occur between plants and soil bacteria - especially agrobacteria species - and then from soil bacteria into plants - also a speciality of agrobacteria.  Already, the development of roundup resistant superweeds is not a question of if, but when - weeds that did not develop this resistance over time but through the pollution of an artificial genome.  This scares people - despite the fact that whole tracts of western australia's wheat belt has been abandoned due to the presence of grasses with evolved resistance to multiple herbicides, it is the escape of these artificial genes that evokes a science-fiction nightmare future over which WE HAVE NO CONTROL.  That scares me, too.I hope the rains are good for your family this year. 

    Permalink

  36. couggrad Posted 6:00 pm
    29 May 2009

    Whether or not this book gets cancelled and whether or not it was caused by big ag or monsanto or whoever, I am going to try and return to visit WSU sometimes and try and work out a plan to give students tours of the greenhouses, organic farm and research plots.  The reason there is so much corn and wheat grown is that it can be mechanized and harvested easily (until your combine wheel falls off) compared to some vegetables that need to be planted and harvested by hand.  I think this difference in plant form could be part of the reason more corn and soybeans are grown, instead of broccoli or spinach.  I hope students can see the Avacado tree in the greenhouse, and other vegetables on the organic farm, and the simple wheat plant.  I hope there will be some students, (and maybe some future engineers!) who can see what their lunch looks like in plant form, and help design new techniques to streamline vegetable harvest, making veggies a more profitable choice for struggling farmers.  During one of my 400 level crop science class field trips to the test plots to view the plants, a few students kept looking over at a wheat combine and said "What's that do?"  I started explaining it to them (including some orchardists) and how it works, and pretty soon the whole class was over then listeing to me.  The teacher called us back over to our original assignment, and that's when we all realized that plant morphology and mechanical engineering go hand in hand. And in response to the post above me, you are right the water usage is definitely a big problem.  A lot of unusable farm land has been put into production with increasing irrigation technology.  This does become a problem eventually when too much water is moved hundreds of miles to a desert veggie field, disrupting the ecosystems of both sides.  Hopefully a plant tour will allow students to learn about different plant needs and help us make better use of each, unique field on our farms.

    Permalink

  37. couggrad Posted 8:38 pm
    29 May 2009

    In my last post I didn't necessarily mean increasing mechanization, I meant inventing more efficient machinery or more efficient transportation and storage that doesn't require electricity to benefit developing countries.

    Permalink

  38. walla2butterfly Posted 1:34 pm
    30 May 2009

    "Cochran .... is a founding stockholder in the Bank of the West in Walla Walla" Wow that bank name hasnt been around for close to 10 years, havent thought of it in yearsAnyway, Nice debate to read

    Permalink

  39. Storm Dragon Posted 1:49 pm
    30 May 2009

    Regarding the question of whether high-fructose corn syrup is worse for your health than sugar, what I have been hearing indicates that the question is by no means settled.  It seems to me, however, that this debate has a tendency to obscure the bigger issue-namely, that the American diet is too high in processed, refined sweeteners

    Permalink

  40. premiumshlock Posted 1:55 pm
    30 May 2009

    Right, I guess my point is just that despite our proclamations otherwise, we tend to focus on and villanize one thing, thinking that if we rid ourselves and our society of it, we'll all be better off, which is an extremely black-and-white way of looking at the issue, to say nothing of the fact that, again, the alternatives are not necessarily better at all (or that there are no benefits to any segment of the population of the thing being deplored).

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement