Comments Tom Laskawy has made

A good point. Consolidation leads to lower prices as the larger entity takes advantage of economies of scale -- that's the basic business theory that drives most of the thinking in government on agriculture. Obviously, as large entities are able to exert monopoly power and collude, etc., prices potentially rise. But in ag -- where most commodities are raw materials -- the monopolists (or rather the oligarchs) conspire to keep prices down. And there's enough competition for their end products (or gov't price regulation as in milk) so you don't see upward pressure on prices for the consumer. Ironic, no?

I took that quote as more of a question of who was willing to talk to a reporter. But I was still struck by the "jostling produce hounds" and the "urgent line" that the reporter described. It's all anecdote, for sure. I imagine it will be just as easy to find a cart with no crowd as one with a crowd. But my point remains that the carts are an easy way to provide access to fresh produce to neighborhoods that lack it. That part is unequivocal.

I would say it's 100% false that scientists have "ruled out genetically engineered crops, pesticides, and cell phones as a cause." It's true that industry researchers deny up and down their involvement in CCD, but that's not exactly the scientific mainstream. In fact, Europe has already banned certain pesticides implicated in bee deaths.

A recent Salon piece went over the lastest news. It looks like the pesticide imidacloprid is likely involved so you might want to update your lit review.

Also, as I understand it, Monsanto never tested RR crops on bees and to suggest that a lack of testing proves anything is somewhat disingenuous. We simply don't know the facts yet.

I should also point out that a "little snippet of DNA" can be all that distinguishes a healthy individual's DNA from that of a severely disabled one. Your observation is entirely beside the point and doesn't suggest a strong grasp of the science of genetics.

I did wonder if I was trying to be a bit too clever in the headline. It's a play on the question, "Would you like some sugar in your coffee?" Maybe "One GMO or two?" would have been better...

Thanks for noting the error. Fixed!!

Yes, as the SAME article clearly states:

"Scientists see two possible ways in which people may have helped assemble the building blocks of the new flu. In the first, a pig transmitted one virus to a person. That person crossed an ocean and gave it to a pig that was already infected with another one. The pig became a "mixing vessel" in which the two strains re- assorted to form the new virus.

Alternatively, a person who'd had contact with pigs on two continents picked up a virus in each place. That person, not a pig, was a mixing vessel."

But wait, that sort of undercuts your point, Former Ag Teacher...   Scenario 1: Pig -> Human -> Pig -> Human OR Scenario 2) Human -> Pig -> Human -> Pig... Any way you slice it, pigs are a crucial part of this. But, hey, whatever! Let's stuff thousands of animals in close quarters and keep rolling the dice. I mean, it's just people dying. The pigs are fine.

I came across numerous sources (such as this one) that explicitly indicated rBST was involved in the EU ban beef ban.

Check out Wired. They're in total agreement that the science is clear: CAFOs gave us this swine flu.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/swineflufarm/

"Scientists have traced the genetic lineage of the new H1N1 swine flu to a strain that emerged in 1998 in U.S. factory farms, where it spread and mutated at an alarming rate. Experts warned then that a pocket of the virus would someday evolve to infect humans, perhaps setting off a global pandemic.

The new findings challenge recent protests by pork industry leaders and U.S., Mexican and United Nations agriculture officials that industrial farms shouldn’t be implicated in the new swine flu, which has killed up to 176 people and on Thursday was declared an imminent pandemic by the World Health Organization.

...Experts contacted by Wired.com agreed with Rabadan’s analysis. For researchers who track the evolution of influenza viruses, the news was chilling.

...Diseases travel rapidly through such immunologically stressed populations, and travel with the animals as they are shuttled throughout the United States between birth and slaughter. That provides ample opportunity for strains to mingle and recombine. An ever-escalating array of industry-developed vaccines confer short-term protection, but at the expense of provoking flu to evolve in unpredictable ways."

The cat is totally out of the bag on this one. Now the question is what we do about it.

PS Your questions remain unanswered purely because Smithfield has severley limited access to the facility. That said, it's as established fact regarding CAFO pigs' immune systems. Indeed, SMITHFIELD'S CEO HIMSELF DECLARED THAT CAFO PIGS ARE IMMUNO-COMPROMISED in his CNBC interview: "I'm concerned about you contaminating the pigs."

PPS A desire to provide pigs a bit of shade does not inexorably lead to stuffing hundreds of thousands of caged, immuno-compromised animals into a "sealed" facility.

"Urban" isn't the same as "settled." There's not way around the fact that a lot of that abandoned land has been built on. And that doesn't account for Australia...  :)

Boy, you sure do like your corn ethanol. As to that Stanford study, they just looked at former ag land -- and didn't seem to care why it was abandoned (eroded soils) or what was on it now.  Look at this winning graph from the study:

"The abandoned crop areas from HYDE and SAGE data had the highest concentrations over the Eastern United States, as a result of the relocation of cropland from the Eastern to the Midwestern region of North America.

The most extensive area of abandoned pasture was over the Midwestern region of North America, where HYDE data indicate that cropland has replaced pasture land. Australia, where pasture areas peaked in the mid-1970s and have since steadily declined, also had high levels of pasture abandonment in the data. We found that 99% of the land abandonment occurred during the past 100 years."

So your idea (and the idea of the ethanol industry presumably) is to bulldoze houses and shopping malls in the Eastern and Midwestern US and return that "abandoned agricultural land" to cultivation? That and farm more in Austrialia. The Australia that's currently seeing massive crop failures due to persistent drought and high temps (you know, from global warming)? Now that's a realistic policy proposal. As I said in my post, if you look at WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING in the world (which is what the Woods Hole researchers did) rather than what a Stanford computer model says, you will see that in the last few years Brazilian rainforest was destroyed as a result of pressure from increased corn production for ethanol in the US.

And the idea that gasoline will suddenly be outlawed or something in California in 2011 is just silly. The total reduction in carbon required by the LCFS is only 10% by 2020 -- in 2011 car engines still won't be able to handle more than 10% ethanol in the gas anyway. I should point out, O friend of corn ethanol, that even President Obama and USDA chief Tom Vilsack want to get us to second-gen (i.e. non-food based) biofuels ASAP. Besides, in 2011 our best engine option will likely be hybrid or ideally plug-in hybrids. The fuel effeciency gains will far outweigh any effect of the LCFS by then. Nice try, though.

Amen! All hail the mighty sardine!

This is important stuff. But one point I made is that I'm not convinced leaving out methane management (or rice farming or nitrogen runoff) necessarily means that they've been exempted. It's not a promising sign that they're not specifically mentioned in the bill, but usually you need an explicit exemption.  My reading would be that methane-producing ag activities other than enteric fermentation would ultimately fall under the laws regulatory structure along with the other currently uncapped activities...

Ending ag subsidies?

This is probably a reference to the current rulemaking going on regarding subsidy eligibility.  The 2008 Farm Bill reduced the amount farmers could make and still receive subsidies - the USDA has to write the new regulations. I don't expect this represents any new proposals.On Obama puts climate and energy atop his priorities list in his first address to Congress posted 9 months, 1 week ago 8 Responses

HSR vs. Air Travel

Absolutely! In fact, while I totally agree with Gar that freight rail improvements are crucial, I think true HSR is also needed as a realistic alternative to air travel, which is becoming more problematic by the day.

As for LA-LV, I just meant that we need to understand what the market is - will it take people out of cars or off planes? Without understanding things like that, you could build the thing and still see traffic jams leaving Las Vegas.  As I said, if it gets through the TIGER process, I have no problem with that link getting funding.  But at some point, these route systems will be considered for a greenlight of construction - and it will likely be only one. It's hard for me to believe that LA-LV should be the top priority in that case.On The stimulus bill provides serious money for high-speed rail posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 13 Responses

What about this...

...the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission which Jon Rynn blogged about right here on Grist? I'm sure they'll be working the phones.

I don't doubt that map has been around for a while - high speed rail almost had a heyday back when the Acela was born.  But when your President insists on spending $8B on it, I think it's fair to say that it's now more than wishful thinking.

And christophersj, I know there's a case for Vegas-LA. I recall it was at one point "slated" to be the first maglev train in the US. And Matt Yglesias is on board with the general idea. But I'd really need to see a market study to be convinced it should be any kind of prority.  Remember that HSR isn't going to be a cheap ticket - it's not commuter rail.  The LV-LA sort of intercity rail seems like it would compete with air travel rather than car travel - in that way the route is more like BOS-DC than NYC-PHL. Anyway, I'm not categorically opposed - if they can get past LaHood's TIGER on the merits, then they deserve some money, too. But I'd like to see a Chicago based HSR system or SF-LA way before they break ground on the fast train to Caesars (sorry, I can't help myself).On The stimulus bill provides serious money for high-speed rail posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 13 Responses

No one's on record yet

So it's hard to know.  You're probably right that he would win a majority vote in committee (which would be made easier assuming Al Franken gets Norm Coleman's spot on the committee which would give the Dems a 12-9 advantage).  But who knows if Hassebrook is perceived as crossing a line that Vilsack, who has a history of working with Big Ag, didn't.  Also I always keep in mind the fact that a single senator can hold up a piece of Senate business anonymously.  Minority or not, one GOP Senator could put the kaibosh on Hassebrook if so inspired...On USDA deputy secretary pick a key barometer of Obama's policy direction posted 10 months, 1 week ago 4 Responses

I've been looking at this issue, too

Here are some tidbits.  First, everyone should read the great article on BPA in Fast Company.  They cover a lot of this ground as regards chemical testing.  As it explains, the EPA's involvement in chemical testing has been problematic for years due to "deep flaws in the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act," according to Andy Ingrejas at Pew, who's quoted in the article.  It was only under Clinton that the EPA was given explicit authority to test endocrine-interfering chemicals - and they didn't exactly jump at the opportunity.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg introduced legislation to fix the process called the KidSafe Chemical Act that would force companies to test chemicals BEFORE they are release into the wild - the Environmental Working Group is involved in this big time.  But the Fast Company article also describes at length the "shadowy network" of so-called "product defense" firms made up of scientists who have gone over to the dark side to produce reports designed to throw into doubt any harmful claims surrounding chemicals (the rat study you refer to was conducted by one of these firms).  It's really a mess that even new legislation won't necessarily fix since the product-defense industry isn't going anywhere.  But getting the EPA riding herd on the issue should help a lot.

I also discuss plastics a bit here.On GAO: EPA's chemical oversight system is broken posted 10 months, 1 week ago 3 Responses

Other interesting tidbits in that article

I noticed, too, that Vilsack confirmed (without giving specifics) that he'll be conducting a review of recent USDA rules (which might include the "naturally raised" standard, GE corn for fuel, GE animal product labeling) as directed by President Obama. I also read in a Gannett article that the public comment period for the new USDA rules on more stringent requirements to qualify for ag subsides is ending on Jan. 28th.  Vilsack will have an opportunity to put his imprint on those rules immediately.

And note that a big concern over Hassebrook is getting him through the Senate Ag Committee (remember that deputy sec'ys need Senate confirmation) - his hostility to the current subsidy regime is well-known.  Should he be nominated, we all will have an important role in reaching out to those Senators on the committee to communicate our support (crucial in that effort will be calls from voters whose home state Senators are on the Ag Committte - the list is here).On USDA deputy secretary pick a key barometer of Obama's policy direction posted 10 months, 1 week ago 4 Responses

Senate to the rescue

The administration's stimulus plan may be light on mass transit.  But Chris Bowers reports that a number of Senators, including Chuck Schumer, are already saying they intend to add a pile of money to transit spending in the stimulus bill.  I'd be loath to pre-judge the plan in advance of congressional haggling...On Bills for highways, no change for transit posted 10 months, 1 week ago 10 Responses