sideshow1979’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Well, I think that Obama probably doesn't spend too much time thinking about agriculture policy and isn't going to risk and serious political fights over the issue. Appointments like this are always viewed as throwing a bone to one interest group or another. Merrigan is a win for sustainable agriculture; this guy Beachy is a win for conventional agriculture. The really interesting part will be seeing where the 106 million for sustainable research actually ends up. If done right, it has enormous promise to reshape large parts of of the land grant university research landscape, encouraging more researchers to look at critical sustainability concerns. Once you start getting grad students doing that research, they'll stay on that path for the next 50 years. Keep up the good reporting.On Another Monsanto man in a key USDA post? Obama's ag policy's giving me whiplash posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago 20 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  We'll see if the nutrition lobby takes this up.  I doubt it.  They've never supported anything that might piss off big corporate ag in the past, and they certainly didn't get behind Obama's budget plan to limit farm payments and put the savings in nutrition programs.  Second Harvest (or whatever they've renamed themselves) sold their soul a long time ago.

  On Is ethanol's Congressional free ride coming to an end? posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  No offense to Dave Murphy, but he's just getting his information from the people who know the most about sustainable agriculture policy in the country, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.  Reading their Weekly Update (which you can sign up for on their website) is the best source for sustainable ag policy news, period.

  As for Obama, his main problem is and will continue to be the hypocrital Democratic Senators  who sell out their constituencies as the slightest hint of coporate protest.  Conrad, Pryor, Lincoln, Nelson to name a few.  They're the problem on farm subsidy reform, climate change, health care, card check, etc. 

  The New Deal supply management never effectively managed supply.  Yield increases always outpaced those policy efforts, which were pretty much half-hearted after the first few years anyway.  Supply management and a grain reserve also only supported the commodity crops that everyone deplores today.

  Federal commodity programs, in their current and past forms, are fatally flawed and should be destroyed, if only for the money savings.  Multifunctionality (anathema to just about anyone on the agriculture committees) is the only true way to structure farm programs in a way that benefits society and farmers.  But even that has issues, as the European experience demonstrates.  I have become ever more inclined to think all farm programs should just disappear, and farmers, small towns, and the rest of the country would be better for it.

  On Did Obama screw up ag subsidy reform? posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Oh yeah

  And that meat will come to the US, for sure.  The industry salivates at the prospect of growing grain in Brazil and shipping it to the Brazilian coast where they will build enormous CAFOs and packinghouses, which will no doubt be USDA inspected.  Tyson's already trying to pay USDA to put inspectors in Chinese poultry plants.  Then you can ship cut meat to the US, Mexico, etc.

  All they really need to do is improve Brazil's infrastructure to get grain from the interior regions to the coast.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Tyson et al get involved in financing road construction.On Don Tyson details plans to export the U.S. meat model to global south posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Huh?

  Quote:
  "Do agribusinesses win big under the current farm bill proposal? Yep. Would they win even bigger if we got a veto? It's entirely possible."

  Would it be more appropriate to ask this question:

  "Do family farms/sustainable ag win big under the current farm bill proposal?"  No.  Would they win if we got a veto?  Maybe".

  Calling for a farm bill veto on the basis of insufficient reform does nothing to advance a pro-WTO agenda.  And agreeing with Bush that a veto should occur is not in any way the same as supporting his reasons for a veto.  And besides, if Bush wants to predicate his opposition in a way that supports WTO, exactly how can those opposing the farm bill on other grounds do anything about that?

  And this farm bill does nothing- and I mean nothing- to slow down the WTO train. Possible exceptions are cotton storage payments and a sugar to ethanol program, both of which are designed to support very small numbers of very rich people.  If the overriding concern is getting the WTO out of agriculture, I don't see how you could possibly support this bill and remain true to your principles.  

  Quote:
  "For now: Even if you believe that subsidy reform would bring about substantial change in the food system, Bush's support for the veto has nothing to do with this goal. As my former boss might put it, he's got darker aspirations."

  How is Bush's support for a veto different from the support for the bill from various politicians and groups that have supported policy to screw family farmers for decades?  Somehow, I don't think the American Farm Bureau, Cotton Council, Saxby Chambliss, Thad Cochrane, Steve King, Collin Peterson, Kent Conrad, the National Corngrowers, and the US Rice Producers Association are the erstwhile allies sustainable ag and family farms need, and they sure as hell aren't going to fight for progressive reforms down the road- just like Bush isn't.  So what's the difference?On Why a Bush veto of the farm bill is bad for the food movement (and the world) posted 1 year, 6 months ago 3 Responses