For some people, climate change is a tough cause to rally ‘round—even those who understand that it’s happening and that it’s human-caused get distracted by things like eating, working, having sex, watching TV, or watching people on TV have sex.

While social scientists ponder the best ways to get the message out and motivate the masses—and since we’re gearing up to cover December’s climate talks in Copenhagen—we’ve devised a Grist list of good reasons to care about this global crisis. Got reasons of your own? Let us know in the comments section below.

25. Because supermodels are stripping for the cause. If these lovely ladies are getting hot and bothered, shouldn’t you? At least watch the video. Call it your good deed for the day.

24. Because you don’t want your insurance premiums to go up. The sea level rise, severe weather, flash floods, and windstorms attributable to climate change have all got the insurance industry on edge. Some firms in the U.S. have already raised premiums in coastal areas, and rates in the U.K. are on the rise as well.

Dirt moguls just aren’t the same.Photo: Shay Haas23. Because you like to ski. Listen up, snow bunny: you’ll soon be consigned to schussing in an indoor dome if climate chaos has its way. Shorter winters and decreased snowfall are forcing big ski areas to ramp up their snowmaking efforts (a questionable scheme in the face of global water shortages) and leading smaller ski areas to close.

22. Because you’re a raging hypochondriac. Warmer temperatures mean happy, thriving insects, which might mean increased risk of West Nile, encephalitis, malaria, dengue fever, and yellow fever. Do you really need more to worry about? Isn’t that weird spot on your inner thigh enough?

Nothing to see here, folks.Photo: andedam via flickr21. Because it’s a good excuse to learn weird things about animal sex. OK, you don’t care about the plight of the polar bears. But admit it, you’re curious about polar bear penises, aren’t you? And why they’re larger in snowier areas? That’s nothing compared to the lengths sea turtles go to for reproduction, and the flip-flopping gender of the hot bearded dragon lizard. Go on, check it out —you know you want to.

20. Because you hate oil. If your soul still wilts at the thought of all those people in slickers cleaning slick-covered birds in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, if you’d rather ride a bike than participate in the auto economy, then climate change is your issue, man. Fossil fuels got us here, and ending our reliance on them can get us out. But you don’t need us to tell you that.

19. Because you love oil. So maybe you didn’t mind the oily birds and you love driving your car? You should be worried too: according to a report from the U.S. government, the severe storms that are becoming more frequent due to climate change threaten our infrastructure and transportation networks, including the ports and freight lines used to transport oil. The oil-rich Gulf Coast is, as was made painfully clear in 2005, a particularly vulnerable area. Stop climate change in its tracks! Save the oil distribution network!

18. Because you eat rice. It’s a pleasant side dish to you, and for 750 million people, it’s a life-giving staple: rice. But this crucial crop stands to wither in the face of climate change, thanks to rising temperatures, increased flooding, and rats. Yeah, rats—they scurry in after major storms, eat all the rice, and nibble on people too. Care yet?

He speaks truth.Photo: Martin Crook17. Because Stephen Colbert does. Need we say more?

16. Because the Christian Coalition does. Need we pray more?

15. Because it will create jobs. Talk about your silver lining: In the midst of the deepest recession this country has seen in decades, attempts to forestall this global climate scourge could create new jobs in clean-energy industries, weatherization, and other areas. The feds are already steering money toward job training for green professions, and clean-energy legislation now before Congress could create jobs and boost the GDP of every U.S. state.

14.  Because you live near water. Sea levels could rise as much as a meter or more by 2100. That’s enough to put places like Miami, downtown Philadelphia, and parts of Manhattan underwater. How many people live in such vulnerable coastal areas? Oh, just 53 percent of the U.S. population.

13. Because Kardashians interest you more than Katrinas. Who can forget the powerful images beamed around the world when Hurricane Katrina hit: the faces of the forgotten, houses crumpled like paper cups, water washing over everything. And who can forget how they beamed in during your favorite show! So inconsiderate. If this sort of prime-time interruption irritates you, you may want to get involved in the climate fight. Because we’re going to see a lot more storms, and that means a lot more unhappy people beamed in your living room.

12. Because you like breathing. Got lungs? Got a healthy apprecation for fresh air? Well, take a deep breath: warming-induced increases in ground-level ozone and particulate matter are expected to increase respiratory disorders including asthma, and a recent study says more children will be hospitalized over the next decade due to such respiratory problems.

11. Because colorful coral jewelry completes most of your outfits. Prepare to adopt a new accessory, or wear a lot of white necklaces: climate change has led to massive coral bleaching and die-offs. The real problem is the disturbance of the delicate relationship between coral reefs and the teensy organisms that build them and give them color. It’s the foundation of a healthy ocean, which is the foundation of a healthy planet.

10. Because you won’t be able to hold up your end of a conversation with Obama, Lucy Lawless, Glenn Beck, Evander Holyfield, or the Pope if you don’t. You can probably fake it with Miley Cyrus, though.

Fading to black.Photo: burnblue9. Because colorful fall leaves are so pretty. But warmer autumns—and pests that enjoy warmer autumns—are messing with the trees. Duller leaves means less for you to look at, and translates into an economic hit for places like New England that rely on tourism generated by the annual phenomenon.

8. Because you don’t want to serve embarrassing champagne. Rising temperatures are altering the world’s finest champagnes, making the alcohol content “embarrassingly high,” says one British wine critic. How fun! Uh, we meant to say how terrible.

7. Because you like lights to come on when you flip a switch. Remember that blackout in 2003? The one that left 50 million people in the dark? That happened on a hot, hot day when lots of people wanted electricity. Guess what we’re in for more of? Hot, hot days. Guess how much our power grid has improved since then? Not much. For a little bit of Jazzercise for the brain, check out this academic paper on climate’s potential impacts on our power grids and national security—including, oh, crippling our society.

6.  Because: “insect feeding frenzy.” Shudder.

5. Because you support the recycled-soda-bottle fleece industry. What will become of those cozy fleece jackets made from recycled soda bottles? Such an incredible innovation, such a wonderful way forward—but if our northern climes turn temperate and our southern climes turn tropical, no one will wear fleece. And those soda bottles are going right back in the trash.

4. Because you think it’s depressing when old people die alone in hot apartments. Heat waves are the deadliest natural disaster in the U.S.—and the probability of severe heat waves is increasing along with temperatures. If emissions are not reduced, heat waves are projected to double in Los Angeles and quadruple in Chicago. With an aging boomer population, that’s a recipe for one hot mess.

3. Because you think it’s depressing when little kids die. It’s happening. Now. According to Save the Children, 9 million kids die before their fifth birthday each year from diseases that are occurring more frequently because of climate change, which is also affecting access to food and water. What are you, completely heartless?

2. Because everyone at Grist cares. We’re a bunch of (fairly) normal people, with pets and kids and money woes and Twitter obsessions—but we all think this is big. Like, bigger than Elvis. A survey shows that our reasons range from the practical (I live near the coast) to the dire (it’s going to kill my unborn grandbabies). But on one thing we agree: we need to do whatever we can to reverse this course.

1.  Because if we stop climate change, we can stop earnest lists like this. Seriously. We’d rather be doing other stuff too. Like maybe watching that supermodel video again?

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Learning how to count to 350

Paul Bakus in a ruined pumpkin patch.Photo: Wonk Room

Cross-posted from the Wonk Room.

Our increasingly extreme climate is devastating American agriculture. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, strengthened by global warming, caused $1.6 billion in agriculture damage in Louisiana alone. Now it appears that a Thanksgiving mainstay -- pumpkin pie -- is next on the global boiling hit list. On Tuesday, Nestle Baking, “which controls about 85 percent of the pumpkin crop for canning, issued a rare apology and said that rain appeared to have destroyed what remained of a small harvest this year and that it expected to stop shipping the holiday staple by Thanksgiving.” Paul Bakus, vice president and general manager of Nestle Baking, bemoaned the devastating rains that made it impossible to harvest the Morton, Illinois pumpkin crop used for Libby’s canned pumpkin:

If only we could have changed the weather. We hope Mother Nature is nicer to us next year, hopefully delivering less rain and more sunshine.

In addition, waffles are on the hit list, as supplies of Eggos are disappearing. “Heavy rains that soaked Atlanta last month knocked out Kellogg’s waffle operations,” ABC News reported on Tuesday. September’s epic flooding actually exacerbated a shutdown caused by an earlier virulent outbreak of the deadly bacteria Listeria monocytogenes. Kellogg’s initially only referred to the food poisoning threat as “equipment issues,” preferring to let global boiling take the blame.

Unfortunately, we have changed the weather.

“2009 continues to climb up the rainiest-years-ever chart” in Illinois. This year’s rainfall in Peoria of 49.34 inches -- 50 percent above normal -- has already exceeded the total of 2008, itself 25 percent above normal. With only six more inches of precipitation, 2009 will break the record rainfall set in 1990.

Similarly, the Sept. 21 flood in Atlanta, Ga. “was worse than what’s statistically projected to happen once every 100 years -- even worse than every 500 years.” It was “extremely rare”, “epic” and so “stunning,” the U.S. Geological Survey says the “flood has defied its attempts to define it.”

This kind of extreme precipitation is part of the changes to our climate wrought by global warming, which increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold and changes circulation patterns. As the U.S. Global Change Program reported in June, 2009 on the impacts of climate change in the Midwest and the Southeast:

– In the Midwest, both summer and winter precipitation have been above average for the last three decades, the wettest period in a century. The Midwest has experienced two record-breaking floods in the past 15 years.

– According to climate models, precipitation in the Midwest is projected to increase in winter and spring, and to become more intense throughout the year.

– In the Southeast, average autumn precipitation has increased by 30 percent for the region since 1901. There has been an increase in heavy downpours in many parts of the region.

Update: LinkTV discusses the "fluke storm" in Georgia "that killed almost a dozen people." Scientists say "weather this extreme is becoming the norm, due to rising global temperatures":

Related Links:

A scientific hack job that won’t cripple climate talks

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Related Links:

Bill McKibben says time is running out on climate delays

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

Dearest readers,

OK, so bees might not be your primary concern these days, what with health care and jobs and foreclosures to worry about. But we depend on our buzzing buddies more than you might think: for one thing, they play a key role in producing a third of the food we eat.

So here's an easy way to show your love for the bees this week: tweet!

Through a campaign called Help the Honey Bees (#HelpHoneyBees), Haagen-Dazs is raising funds and awareness. As part of the campaign, from now through November 11, the company will donate $1 per tweet with the proper hashtag, up to 500 per day. The money will support honeybee research at UC Davis. Of course, they could just cough up the $3500 and be done with it ... but that wouldn't be viral and all that good stuff!

Show the world you're as viral as colony collapse disorder ... tweet for the bees today.

And check out my bee hugs video, below. It's one of my favorites. Spread the honey love!

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

HuffingtonPost has a piece up detailing the food lobby's full court press over a federal soda/sweetener tax:

During the first 9 months of 2009, the industry groups stepped up their lobbying in Congress. They have spent more than $24 million on the issue of a national excise tax on sweetened beverages and on other legislative and regulatory issues, according to an examination of lobbying reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records. The review shows that 21 companies and organizations reported that they lobbied specifically on the proposed tax on sugar-sweetened beverages -- which among other things would include sodas, juice drinks, and chocolate milk.

About $5 million of the money was spent on a national advertising campaign aimed at Capitol Hill lawmakers and promoting a newly formed coalition called Americans Against Food Taxes . The group bills itself on its website as a coalition of "responsible individuals, financially-strapped families, [and] small and large businesses" but its 400-plus membership list is dominated by industry heavyweights such as Burger King Corporation, Coca Cola, Pepsico and Domino's Pizza.

Sounds like they're just getting started. This is par for the course with taxes on the federal level, you can't even mention one without sending the affected industry's lobbyists into a frenzy -- and why we're in such a revenue pickle generally. Yet, some insiders suggest that the beverage folks have an ace in the hole -- "the sugar guys":

Jon Doggett, an [National Corn Growers Association] spokesman, said other factions of the sugar lobby pushed hard on Congress, but didn't describe their work on public filings as specific to the sweetened beverage tax. "They have kind of kept their heads down a little bit," Doggett said. "Nobody plays politics better than the sugar guys."

In other words, the sugar lobby, which is unique in the agricultural world for having maintained strict import quotas on foreign products despite living in a world devoted to "free trade," has kept their work against the soda tax off their paperwork and thus out of public sight. But its invisibility doesn't lessen its ferocity or, so far, its effectiveness.

And it certainly doesn't help that, as HuffPo, myself, and the New York Times have observed, any attempt to enact a soda tax in the Senate Finance Committee runs up against the reality that the committee's Chairman and Ranking Member are from Montana (sugar beet country) and Iowa (corn syrup country) respectively. But HuffPo's Christine Spoler and Joseph Eaton (with the Center for Public Integrity) go on to point out that, in fact, farm states are way over-represented on the Senate Finance Committee generally -- depending on how you count them more than half come from states with large agricultural interests that might not take kindly to food taxes of any type.

I remain struck by the shamelessness of the beverage lobby. In addition to their efforts on Capitol Hill, a representative for the notorious industry front group the Center for Consumer Freedom went before a meeting of the Obesity Society to declare that obesity was a personal matter that government had no role in addressing. Really:

Senior research analyst at CCF Justin Wilson said in the statement: “The public health community seems dead-set on ever more regulation of our lives. The push for taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages is just the latest example of the disdainful belief that when it comes to matters of personal choices, the regulators know best.

“Government taxation should not be a tool for social engineering. Nor should it be used to penalize individuals for their personal food choices.”

Nor, I suppose, should we "penalize" individuals for their personal liquor choice, their personal tobacco choice, or even their personal income choice for that matter. Libertarianism is the last refuge of the corporate flack -- when big business starts screaming about "freedom," it always means trouble ahead.

So will we get a soda tax? Well, betting against a tax making it through the Senate is a pretty safe wager. But perhaps Spoler and Eaton are right that the states will manage something -- New York's Gov. David Paterson apparently has revived his "proposed then dropped like a hot potato" soda tax bill. Nothing like dire financial straits to open your eyes to the dollars floating around in a can of Coke. But watch out, New York. "The sugar guys" are no doubt ready and waiting to take their show on the road.

Related Links:

More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar

Bring on all the water news—the good, the bad and the ugly

Clean energy opportunities

I'm sure many of you have seen the various petitions zipping around the Internet encouraging opposition to President Obama's nomination of pesticide lobbyist Islam "Isi" Siddiqui to the Office of the United State's Trade Representative. The argument against him goes something like this:

The White House has nominated Mr. Siddiqui for the position of chief agricultural negotiator in the office of the United States trade representative. He is presently a vice president at CropLife America, a coalition of the major industrial players in the pesticide industry, including Syngenta, Monsanto, Dow Chemical and DuPont. That job doesn’t seem to square with the Obama administration’s professed interest in more sustainable, less chemically dependent approaches to agriculture.

Nor does much of the rest of Mr. Siddiqui’s résumé. The White House has touted his role in the first phase of developing national organic standards. But those standards, as they first emerged in draft form in the Clinton years, were notoriously loose about allowing genetically engineered crops and the use of sewage-sludge fertilizers to be labeled as “organic.”

...Everyone wants a pesticide backup, much like an antibiotic when diseases get out of control. But there are other ways to control pests -- more diversity in crop production and rotation, for instance -- besides chemicals. The negotiator we need is someone who can represent a broad view of American agriculture.

The funny thing is I'm not quoting the text from any of the petitions, but rather from an editorial in today's New York Times. Getting a paper of record sounding all the right notes on this nomination is certainly music to my ears. As Tom Philpott noted, this campaign against Siddiqui has been surprising for its speed as well as for the traction it's gained. It will be interesting to see if any of this is brought up at Siddiqui's hearing before the Senate Finance Committee tomorrow or if it motivates any Senator, whether on the committee or not, to block the nomination entirely.

h/t La Vida Locavore

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Kirsten Gillibrand was in the midst of her second term in the U.S. House of Representatives, serving New York's 20th District, when Gov. David Paterson selected her to replace Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate. (Clinton, you'll recall, was chosen by Obama to serve as secretary of state.) Gillibrand will serve in the Senate at least until a special election in 2010 to serve out the remainder of Clinton's term, which ends in 2012. She's viewed as a strong favorite to win that election and, more generally, as a rising star in the Democratic Party.

As a member of both the Environment & Public Works Committee and the Agriculture Committee, Gillibrand will be heavily involved in the development of the Kerry-Boxer clean-energy bill. She is considered a likely "yes" vote, and her advocacy for the bill has had three notable features, each reflecting her state's interests:

We asked Sen. Gillibrand about these issues, and she was gracious enough to answer the questions via video (full transcript below):

Here's the full transcript:

-----

Hi, I'm Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New York. I'm pleased to be here today to answer some questions from Grist.org on climate change legislation.

Question #1: The first question asks: Do other senators share your support for EPA Clean Air Act authority? Will it survive the coming negotiations?

Absolutely. Other senators do share my view on this issue, but for a number of the senators who don't serve on the [Environment & Public Works] Committee they haven't been as engaged yet on this discussion, which is why they need to hear from constituents like you so that they know how important it is that they preserve the Clean Air Act. These protections, as you know, are critical to New York 'cause we are the ones that suffer from a lot of the air pollution that comes across the country from coal-fired plants. We suffer from acid rain, we suffer particularly in the Adirondacks increasing contamination in all of our rivers and streams. In New York you can only eat one fish a month because of the high mercury content in our waters. And we also have a growing asthma rate throughout our state, so for me this is a critical issue that I will continue to fight for.

Question #2: Second question. How are you working to persuade your Senate colleagues to support the creation of a carbon market involving many financial instruments?

I'm very concerned that we make sure we have a robust financial market that will fuel investments in carbon reductions. I think it's very important that we have proper oversight and accountability, good regulations that provide transparency, and also capital requirements. I think this kind of regulation will be a derivative market that will be regulated through the [Commodity Futures Trading Commission], and I think it's critical that we regulate this alongside the other derivatives legislation that we are going to do. We want to make sure that capital is available for investing in clean energy generation like large-scale wind and solar projects, so we have to make sure that we have the kind of products that are necessary to do this. I've been advocating for both standardized products and customized products with oversight and accountability and capital requirements for both.

Question #3: Third, What type of measures would you like added to the climate change bill to serve the interests of farmers?

Well, I think farmers can play a very important part in this climate change bill. We want to make sure that the agriculture section can achieve the overall parts of the bill or the overall goals of the bill which is to make sure there is verifiable reductions in carbon emissions, but there are so many opportunities for our farmers whether they're going to be part of wind energy or solar energy or whether they're going to be part of anaerobic digesters and cellulosic ethanol, they have a lot of opportunity to be part of the climate change bill and do those offsets by the things they can create throughout agriculture. We also want to make sure that our farmers have the resources and technical assistance available for smaller projects and working with aggregators who can connect for example multiple dairy farms for large methane digestive projects or make the project not just achieve reductions but also be economically feasible for those farms who are participating. So there is a lot of opportunity out there and I just want to make sure our farmers have a voice in this climate change bill.

Question #4: Fourth question: Which Senate Republicans do you think will support climate change legislation?

Answer: Well, I really think this issue is not about Democrats or Republicans, I think climate change is not going to wait for anybody so we need to bring colleagues together to actually achieve results. I think Senator Graham, Senator McCain have both spoken out in favor of climate change in the past, and I'm hopeful that they will join us in our efforts. But the bottom line is, as Chairman Boxer said, that this is something we all have to care about. It's the future of our country, its our national security, its our economic strength, and it's the one thing that's going to turn around global climate change, so I think we will have a lot of allies in this and my goal is that for all Americans we need to support these kinds of efforts to achieve energy independence, grow green jobs in a clean economy, and stop all of the threats of global climate change.

I want to thank Grist.org for giving me the opportunity to discuss these very important issues. The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act will lead to long-term economic prosperity, energy security, and the protection of our environment for generations to come.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Last week, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack gave a speech on the role of research at the USDA at the launch of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the research arm of that agency formerly referred to as the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES).

Vilsack had this to say in his kick-off speech:

The opportunity to truly transform a field of science happens at best once a generation. Right now, I am convinced, is USDA's opportunity to work with the Congress, the other science agencies, and with our partners in industry, academia, and the nonprofit sector, to bring about transformative change.

It is hard to reject the idea that our country needs more research on agriculture -- specifically, more science-based knowledge from which to make political and regulatory decisions around food. But as his speech continued, Vilsack placed the focus on technology as our aegis. And while technology is not a bad thing, there are still many questions left unanswered that USDA could and should be focusing on -- questions that the agribusiness lobby quite possibly doesn't want answered, as the outcomes could force the public and our politicians to take a harder look at just what it means to build a truly sustainable food system.

NIFA will be headed by a controversial choice, Roger Beachy -- formerly of the Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, Mo., which receives funding from Monsanto, and was part of the lobbying effort to create NIFA in the mold of the National Science Foundation. Beachy joins a team that already includes Rajiv Shah, formerly of the Gates Foundation. The re-branding of CSREES worries sustainable food advocates who fear U.S. research priorities could shift with the private sector's coaxing further towards a more biotechnology-oriented focus in an attempt to end world hunger, even though more viable solutions to hunger -- a problem of distribution and not yield -- exist on the ground that are both cost-effective and ready to implement now in the developing world.

The government's job is to to give unbiased science center stage, so that we can assess and make informed decisions about agriculture moving forward -- decisions that are in our collective interest as a nation, not just in the interest of one sector of our economy. To begin, the USDA must extend 100 percent funding to formula grants at land grant universities again, thereby replacing the current practice of "matching funds" [PDF] -- requiring these institutions to find a matching donor for between 50 percent to 100 percent of the grant from outside of the government -- which usually ends up being a private industry source. And what might the industry be interested in funding? Shareholders hope they will support things that have the potential to increase the bottom line, instead of research that investigates the way our food system is affecting us, which could detract from it. This is how the industry has controlled the types of research being conducted since matching funds were instituted in 1999 (as an amendment to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977).

Vilsack also stated in his speech that in creating NIFA, "we will be rebuilding our competitive grants program from the ground up to generate real results for the American people." In thinking about how to better focus the government's efforts on agricultural research in order to truly benefit the American people, I thought I'd reach out to some key thinkers on agriculture, and find out what they would like the USDA's new research body, NIFA, should be focusing on. Here were their answers:

Biologically focused organic agriculture -- which uses neither chemical fertilizer, pesticides, nor GMO crops -- provides broad ecological services while it sequesters carbon to fight global warming. We need research that documents the greenhouse-gas mitigation aspects of organics, conducted at the whole-farm level to capture the cascading biodiversity benefits of organic systems. This work should be focused on the three most appropriate, farmer-identified organic techniques per bioregion in the 10 most agriculturally significant areas of the U.S. Tied to this multi-disciplinary, 10-year study should be data collection on soil water-holding ability, biological diversity, and productive capacity, in order to qualify and quantify the corollary benefits that come with increases in soil organic matter.
Tim LaSalle, CEO, Rodale Institute

Since I just spent more time than I care to think about sitting through hearings on the proposed Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, I think I would say that USDA should be focusing its research more on scale appropriate food safety programs -- and exploring what we really know about risks posed by wildlife, the use of vegetated buffers, and other practices that some private food safety programs have targeted.  It seems like USDA could serve a useful role in finding ways for diversified, organic, and small farms to prove that their methods can coexist with food safety requirements.
Patty Lovera, assistant director, Food & Water Watch

We need to be studying how best to protect agriculture from the effects of climate changes, which is to say, how can we make farming more resilient? -- which is further to say, how can we successfully diversify our monocultures?
Michael Pollan, author of In Defense of Food and The Omnivore's Dilemma

There are both areas of research that USDA is neglecting as well as a lack of investment in research examining agricultural systems and practices that are critical to addressing the research challenges that Secretary Vilsack outlined in his speech at the NIFA event on Thursday.  On the former, areas of research that USDA is neglecting include long-term agroecosystem trials; the characteristics, barriers, and opportunities for the growth and development of local and regional food systems; public plant and animal breeding (all the non-biotech plant and animal research); organic agriculture; the sustainability of biofuel and bioenergy production; and rural development, just to name a few. While several of these have dedicated funding streams, they pale in comparison to other research programs and the overall research budget at USDA.

On the latter, the Administration on Thursday defined a surprisingly narrow approach to addressing the challenges to overcome with the help of agricultural research. Vilsack laid out significant challenges -- including ensuring global food security through productive and sustainable agricultural systems, mitigating and adapting to climate change, and improving public health and reducing childhood obesity -- and NIFA is structured into separate institutes around these challenges and others. But the tools that Vilsack, Research Undersecretary Shah, and NIFA Director Beachy identified as key to solving these problems were extremely limited to biotechnology, nanotechnology, and computer simulations. Without investing in the development of technologies and practices of sustainable and organic agricultural systems, USDA's research agenda will fall far short of meeting its objectives and will continue to support an agricultural system that contributes to -- rather than mitigating -- these challenges.
Ariane Lotti, who focuses on Agriculture Research Policy at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

Organic and sustainable -- systems agriculture is still woefully underfunded and misunderstood. Likewise, research and education directed towards regional food-system integration is still only getting a trickle of support. Good programs and projects do exist within the agency, but they are still marginal in the scheme of things. These commitments and investments by the research agencies have to be much more significant if alternative systems themselves are going to be scaled upward and outward.

The essential problem of the conventional wisdom is that ecosystem health and community/regional food systems are considered to be lifestyle amenities, not core requirements for sustainability and survival.
Mark Lipson, policy program director at the Organic Farming Research Foundation

I would like to see more research on the reasons for the general decline in nutrient levels in conventional foods, including the decline in protein levels in conventional corn and soybeans.

I would like to see more research done on the factors triggering proliferation in a cow's GI tract of E. coli 0157, as well as one management practices like grazing known to reduce the risk of this bacterium reaching dangerous levels.

I would like to see research on how to design the most energy-efficient and soil-building cropping systems in the Midwest involving (1) a traditional corn-soybean rotation, (2) C-S-small grains rotations, (3) C-S-Small grains-Alfalfa-Alfalfa rotations. The goal would be producing maximum animal feed energy and food value for minimal fertilizer and pesticide input.  I would like to see the same work done with the goal of maximizing soil carbon sequestration.  Then, a comparison of the two sets of experimental results, and the management practices and strategies deemed most effective in achieving these two goals, would be both fascinating and valuable in crafting the farming systems of the future.
Charles Benbrook, PhD, chief scientist at The Organic Center

A few research priorities from my perspective: the conversion to perennial agriculture; replacement sources for nitrogen fertilizers; detailed continent-wide soils and climate mapping to determine priority areas for cultivated crops versus grazing areas; productive yet resilient breeds of animals beside the Cornish Cross, White Leghorn, Holstein, Hyper Lean Pig, and Angus and Hereford beef cattle -- with regional emphasis immediately; and a detailed carbon analysis of pasture-raised versus grain fed livestock.
Dan Imhoff, president of the Wild Farm Alliance and author of Food Fight: The Citizen's Guide to a Food and Farm Bill

The need for independent research at all levels has never been greater. We are living through the failures of much of the corporate dominated research agenda -- whether on biotechnology, expanded production or the repercussions of a free trade model -- when in fact having research that addresses the underlying causes of the food crisis would be truly beneficial here in the U.S. and around the world. Here in the U.S., our taxpayer funds should not be subsidizing more of the same; but building on the succesful on the ground models -- whether focussed on reasons for reserve policies, community food approaches or on the ground conservation and sustainable agricultural practices. The recent results of the IASTAAD report should be reviewed and implemented by our USDA -- not ignored.
Kathy Ozer, policy director, National Family Farm Coalition

Related Links:

Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?

No to Obama’s agrichemical industry man, yes to Bed-Stuy Farm

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Check out the pitch on agribiz lobbying group American Farm Bureau's (AFB) new anti-climate bill website:

Activists claim there will be droughts, floods, loss of species, and more, if the Senate does not pass the Climate Change bill. But their bill wouldn't even help the climate ... The fact is politics is driving the need for passage -- not facts! The cap-and-trade bill does nothing for Climate Change -- it's simply a tax on U.S. energy that gives other countries a free pass. That's wrong. This is the kind of policy we ask you to stand against today.

It's at the heart of a new campaign the AFB is attempting to orchestrate against the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill. Kate Sheppard reports:

According to a memo emailed to Farm Bureau members and obtained by Mother Jones, they're also urging state bureaus to hand-deliver to their senators' in-state offices farmer-style hats -- or, if you prefer, "farmer caps" -- bearing a AFB sticker opposing the legislation. They're also sending starter kits for the campaign to their state affiliates by Nov. 6.

"Using the familiar farmer cap and the 'Don't CAP Our Future' message sticker to brand the cap with opposition to the issue, state Farm Bureaus can influence your Senators with a visual impact. The farmer caps plan is designed to be used in the state and multiple events."

In addition, the Bureau has created an "action center" that will be used to target specific senators, a petition that members can sign, and a form letter to send to senators ...

AFB President Bob Stallman has a lengthy history of climate denial and obstructionism -- it was his hymnbook from which House Ag Chairman Collin Peterson sang in Peterson's gleeful dismantling of the House's climate bill. But the AFB's new overtly denialist lobbying campaign takes it to another level. And best of all, it's called "Don't CAP Our Future." Get it? Cap-and-trade? Farmers like to wear caps? Wheee!

But like its friends at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, I wonder if the AFB has gone a bit too far. The other main agribiz group, the National Farmers Union, is on board with the idea of addressing climate change. Meanwhile, the USDA actively supports the measure and is on the verge of finalizing their climate bill impact estimates which show a net benefit to farmers. The possibility of bipartisan support has even been raised with GOP Sen. Lindsay Graham's full-throated endorsement of the Senate bill.

The data is certainly against it, despite the AFB's attempts to plug up its ears and let loose a loud "I'm not listening!!" The U.N. climate group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, just updated their latest estimates indicating that climate change is accelerating. Germany's climate advisory board has looked at the most recent evidence and has concluded we actually need to cut net carbon emissions worldwide to zero by 2050. And two new studies that look at climate change's effects on agriculture show severe disruptions to industrial agriculture in the near term and up to 80 percent reductions in U.S. corn and soy yields by the end of the century.

Obviously, the AFB already has an ace-in-the-hole in Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), new Chairman of the Senate Ag Committee -- there's no telling what kind of damage she can do if and when she gets her hands on the Kerry-Boxer bill. Indeed, she's already said she wants to kill it outright. And it's true that despite hopeful signs, passage of a climate bill remains uncertain at best. But the AFB has clearly thrown its cap in with the deniers and the do-nothings. If its member farmers do the same and succeed in killing the climate bill -- what exactly do they think they will have accomplished? Other than guaranteeing their children's and their grandchildren's suffering. Perhaps someone should put that on a cap, too.

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

Amanda Little on the farm.

If you pinned a map of the United States to a dartboard, Kansas would be the bull's-eye. Smack dab in the center of the country, the Sunflower State is one of America's most productive agricultural hotbeds -- the fifth-biggest producer of crops and livestock in the country. More than 90 percent of the state consists of farmland endowed thousands of years ago with rich glacial loam. This fertile topsoil is no longer as robust as it once was, having offered up its nutrients season after season, decade after decade, century after century, to produce great bounties of wheat, corn, soybeans, sorghum, hay, and sunflowers. I could almost sense the exhaustion of the land as I drove through the back roads of northeastern Kansas one chilly November morning -- past sagging wooden farmhouses silvered by age and weather, barbed-wire fences with listing wooden posts, general stores and swinging-door saloons, a Native American heritage museum commemorating the Kansa tribes that once roamed and tilled these prairies, and mile after desolate mile of denuded farmland.

It wasn't that this dormant soil was incapable of producing -- on the contrary, during the previous summer and fall it had yielded one of the most plentiful harvests in Kansas history, many times greater than the bounty of a century earlier, when the land was more inherently fertile. But now, like an aging bull receiving shots of testosterone, this well-worn ground reaps the benefits of modern chemistry -- and good old-fashioned fossil fuels.

That late fall morning, thousands of tractors combed the Kansas countryside, priming the soil for next spring's planting with a "booster shot" of nutrients that would turn the weary earth into some of the world's highest-producing farmland. That chemical nourishment, also known as fertilizer, has transformed America's economy over the last century, and expanded the global population, too, by vastly increasing the food supply.

Nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorous are the three most common nutrients in the fertilizers applied to American farmlands, nitrogen being by far the most prevalent. The main form of nitrogen fertilizer is known as anhydrous ammonia, and natural gas is its primary feedstock. Nitrogen fertilizers take many forms, ranging from the Miracle-Gro sold at your local Home Depot to the industrial-strength anhydrous ammonia that's used on tens of millions of acres of U.S. corn and wheat crops.  Each year, American farmers apply 6.2 billion pounds of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers to their croplands.

Ken McCauley's corn fields getting their booster shots.

To see fossil fuels in action on the farm, I paid a visit to Kansas corn grower Ken McCauley.  His vast tracts of land—rolling stretches of bone-colored soil—reminded me of nothing so much as the ocean with their sheer expanse.

To distribute his fertilizer, Ken hitched a 2.2-ton canister of nitrogen to the back of his apple-green John Deere tractor. A series of tubes and wires connected the tractor and fertilizer tank to a mechanism that looked like a giant rake spanning eight rows of corn. The dozens of prongs at the end of the rake were tipped with knifelike cutters that would pierce into the soil, opening it up so that hoses embedded within the blades could blast the chemical nutrients six inches into the ground. The liquid fertilizer freezes into golf ball–sized lumps in the wintertime that then thaw and release into the soil in the spring. It's best to inject the fertilizer in the late fall or early winter, Ken explained, so that the soil doesn't have to be opened up in the spring, which would release precious moisture.

I climbed up into a plush passenger seat in the tractor cab next to Ken's foreman, Nick James. Though the seats were mounted on shock absorbers, they still bounced and pitched as we trundled over the rough, hilly ground. I grabbed the dash to steady myself as we began to move slowly down the field.

Maneuvering a tractor throughout a cornfield is a little like steering a ship through waves -- it's hard to keep the vessel in a straight line on the sloping, bumpy earth and then to repeat that straight line exactly as you traverse the rest of the field, without overlapping any areas on which you've already sprayed nitrogen. Conventional tractors routinely overlap on fertilizer application, wasting precious resources. Ken is able to overcome this costly human error because his tractor drives itself. "See the GPS system?" Nick asked, pointing to a small round blinking device on the dashboard. That device was feeding signals to a satellite monitoring the position of the tractor on the field. The satellite was then automatically feeding those location coordinates into an autopilot system that steers the tractor on a precise course, never double-applying fertilizer to the same patch of soil.

This tractor is high-tech.

Ken's tractor is also outfitted with new computer software that enables him to vary the distribution of nutrients according to soil quality. Ken estimates that about 10 to 15 percent of the fertilizers applied on U.S. farms actually go to waste because they're blindly doused on areas of soil that in fact have sufficient levels of nitrogen. Other agriculture experts I interviewed put that number even higher, saying that up to 35 percent of the nitrogen typically sprayed on farmland goes to waste, draining out of the soil and polluting nearby bodies of water.

As natural gas and oil prices surged in recent years, the costs of fertilizers nearly quadrupled. In 2005, when natural gas prices were low, a 2.2-ton tank of anhydrous ammonia cost under $400. When gas prices shot up in 2008, that same tank of fertilizer cost nearly $2,000. To fertilize Ken's 4,000 acres, that added up to an expense of roughly $500,000 a year -- about 40 percent of his total operating costs of $1.2 million a year. Even with soaring costs, he explained, "fertilizer is the most economical thing we do because it gives you your production on the top end." In other words, while Ken spent nearly half a million dollars on fertilizers in 2008, these additives still created significantly more value in enhanced crop production.

What would happen if Ken cut out chemical fertilizers altogether? "If you don't put your fertilizer on," he told me, "you'll cut your yields by half or more. No farmer is going to stop using nitrogen altogether. Look at the poor countries -- when you travel to places that don't use the fertilizer you'll see they're raising a third of the yield." He boiled the issue down to six words: "Nitrogen is yield. Yield is nitrogen." And yield, he added, is everything. "Worst thing that can happen to a farmer is getting a reputation for having a low yield. It's like being a race car with a lawnmower engine or a newspaper that's always a week behind." 

Sustainable farming advocates such as author Michael Pollan put forth a different vision for agriculture in America: total reform of the food system, beginning with the dismantling of large single-crop farms and the end of fossil fuel–based inputs. They argue that farmland can be naturally replenished through farming practices including the application of animal manure, which is high in nitrogen. Pollan describes a virtuous cycle of nutrient recycling between crops and animals:

But, he maintains, simply removing fertilizers and other petrochemical additives from industrial farming is not the whole answer: "Only a fifth of the total energy used to feed us is consumed on the farm; the rest is spent processing the food and moving  it around," Pollan wrote in his book The Omnivore's Dilemma. For that reason, he added, the large-scale organic farms that produce most of the organic products in your grocery store are, just like conventional megafarms, "floating on a sinking sea of petroleum."

Reformers want to see a network of small and midsized organic farms that is organized into regional cooperatives. These aggregates would enable small farms to serve local markets but think like big farms, working together to make bulk purchases of equipment and aggregate distribution systems. They want to see crops and animals reintegrated into the same farms, naturally feeding and fertilizing one another, correcting the current system in which cattle, chickens, and pigs are concentrated on huge feedlots, producing an oversupply of nitrogen-rich manure far removed from croplands.  

On the other hand, most agronomists will tell you that we can't rapidly shift to growing food on a global level without chemical fertilizer and fossil fuel–powered machinery. The United Nations has predicted an increase in fertilizer use worldwide of roughly 35 percent by 2030. Jeffrey Sachs, the United Nations special advisor who wrote The End of Poverty, told me plainly that fertilizers will be necessary to human survival for the foreseeable future: "We will not feed 6.7 billion people on the planet without chemical fertilizers." On weathered tropical soils like those of farmlands in large portions of Africa, says Sachs, fertilizers will play a key role. "In all the world but Africa, farmers are using around 100 kilograms per hectare on average of fertilizer. In Africa it's essentially zero, which is one of the real reasons for the massive hunger there."

Perhaps the challenge, then, is not so much to go cold turkey on modern farming methods as it is to significantly improve methods for getting the greatest amount of food production using the least amount of fuel and fertilizer. With the world's population poised to hit 7 billion by 2012, we can't get started soon enough.

This piece was excerpted from Amanda Little's book Power Trip: From Oil Wells to Solar Cells—Our Ride to the Renewable Future.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

The new wave of urban farming (and fresh food from small spaces!)

Michael Pollan (left) and Tom Philpott talk food.Celebrated food and ag author Michael Pollan debunked some myths about organic agriculture Tuesday night at a Grist event in San Francisco, in a conversation with Grist food writer Tom Philpott and the audience.

In response to a question about whether we can really feed the world without industrialized ag (ah yes, a perennial), Pollan pointed out that we're not feeding the world with it now.  He said we wouldn't be doing developing nations a favor by exporting a fossil fuel–dependent ag system to them when it's clear that fossil fuels are only going to become more scarce and expensive.  And overproducing government-subsidized food in the U.S. is certainly not the way to solve world hunger -- it just exacerbates it by putting small-scale farmers in developing countries out of business.  Give people in the developing world the tools to do sophisticated organic ag and it will help solve many problems, including undocumented immigration, Pollan argues.

And yes, sophisticated organic ag does exist.  Pollan disputed the idea that organic techniques are anti-technology.  Philpott agreed, pointing out that renowned farmers Joel Salatin and Will Allen use advanced technology to produce organic food -- it's just not the type of technology that Big Ag promotes and profits from.

Asked what the Obama administration is thinking on ag -- sometimes veering in the direction of progressive change, other times whipping back toward the agrichemical status quo, as Philpott puts it -- Pollan said the admin appears to be playing both sides of the street. Pollan related an anecdote in which the president implied that there needs to be a popular political movement for sustainable food before he can make big change -- and suggested to his wife that this might be her issue.  

Where, asked Pollan, are the members of Congress who will take up this issue as their own?  For now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is letting Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and other Big Ag–oriented reps run the show on food and ag policy.  The recent farm-bill fight was a loss, but during the debate the sustainable food movement started to get its message heard in D.C. and rattle some of the vested interests.  The next fight on Capitol Hill will be over the school lunch program reauthorization, Pollan said.  

Though the sustainable food movement seems to be thriving in oases like the Bay Area, Philpott pointed out that still only 3 to 4 percent of food consumed in the U.S. is organic or local.  How do we grow that number and include more people?  Pollan said the movement, like many social movements, was started by elites, but is spreading to other parts of society.  He sees encouraging signs in the heartland and among young people.  But if in 20 years people are still talking about this as an elitist movement, we'll know we really screwed up.  

Grist offers a big thanks to Pollan, host Tony Conrad and the rest of our host committee, our caterer Dominique Salomon (the food was scrumptious!), and everyone who attended and helped to make the evening a success.  Let's keep the conversation rolling.

Related Links:

With GoodGuide scanner, PC food shopping goes point and click

Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?

Ecological farms: the only real way to feed an increasingly hungry world

Tom Philpott has been tracking the rise of so-called "superweeds" -- i.e. herbicide-resistant weeds -- for a while now. He's talked about the chemical treadmill -- "the situation wherein weeds and other pests develop resistance to poisons, demanding ever higher doses of old poisons and constant development of novel ones."

Due in part to its reliance on genetically modified crops that are designed to be doused with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, the South has to date faced the worst of this problem. And the struggle against these new superweeds, in particular against a new resistant form of pig weed, got the attention of ABC's World News Tonight recently. It's a struggle, by the way, that cotton farmers down there are losing:

Across the South, there's a weed that man can no longer kill. It's called the pig weed, and for decades farmers controlled it by spraying their fields with herbicides.

"I've never seen anything that had this major an impact on our agriculture in a short period of time," said Ken Smith, a weed scientist at the University of Arkansas.

This past summer, Pace Hindsely of Coffee Creek Farms and other farmers started noticing the chemicals they routinely used were no longer working.

"The last three years it's really just exploded. There is no rhyme or reason as to how we can control it," Hindsely said. "I am worried about the future or what these fields will look like next year and the year after if we don't control this weed."

The weeds have adapted, and this year they're choking more than a million acres of cotton and soybeans.

And, really for the first time, it appears that nothing in industrial ag's chemical arsenal can stop them. Most striking, however, was the reaction by Monsanto to this rapidly spreading failure of its cash cow combo Roundup Ready seed and Roundup herbicide: It's all the farmers fault!! Or as the news report put it, Monsanto "blame[s] their customers -- the farmers -- for overuse saying it was only a matter of time before Mother Nature came up with a workaround." Oh and don't worry. Monsanto's chemical solution to this problem is just around the corner. A Monsanto rep promises that an super-pig weed killer will be on the market by, oh, 2015 or so.

Now, Monsanto is certainly right about the overuse part. As an excellent Rodale Institute report on superweeds observes, annual agricultural use of Roundup in the U.S. went from 7.9 million pounds in 1994, the year before Roundup Ready crops were introduced, to 119 million pounds in 2005. Given that most corn, soy, and cotton seed planted in the U.S. is herbicide-tolerant and sold by Monsanto, it's kinda hard for them to blame the customer for this mess.

There's another interesting angle here, though. The development of herbicide-tolerant crops has played a role in the growth of megafarms of 10,000 plus acres. That amount of land can't be farmed unless you're doing it from atop a sprayer and a combine. But dealing with pig weed now involves putting workers out in the fields to pull weeds by hands -- pig weed is sturdy enough to "stop a combine in its track" according to the ABC News report. Handweeding isn't feasible for these massive farms, which is why thousands of acres of land devoted to commodity crops are being abandoned in the face of the superweed onslaught.

The Rodale article observes that mechanical cultivators -- once considered an old-fashioned and outmoded approach to weed control -- are making a comeback in the South as "steel in the field" becomes important again. Distributors sold out of them last year and have upped their orders for this year -- in fact cultivators are one of the few types of farm machinery with growing sales, due in large part to superweeds.

In the end it may not be agri-intellectuals like Michael Pollan (or Tom Philpott for that matter) who are the ones "forcing farmers to turn back the clock" as Big Ag partisans have claimed. Indeed, there's some quote about sowing seeds of one's own destruction that might be appropriate about now but I'll resist. Instead, I'll observe that the answer will, of course, require a move to the latest, most sophisticated 21st century agroecological techniques such as those pioneered by the Rodale Institute. As Rodale's article says:

Agriculturalists around the world are looking for better answers than have come so far from herbicide-focused efforts. They seek productive systems based on evolving local farmer wisdom. These deal with all pests -- weeds included -- as part of an approach integrating soil health, biodiversity, advanced understandings of biological interactions, and just enough steel to give crops the edge they need.

That sounds about right.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

Veteran wins groundbreaking claim for Agent Orange exposure at Georgia military base

Having read and listened to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's attempts at ground beef-related damage control in the wake of the recent food safety revelations, I'm left to wonder if the USDA simply needs to get out of the food safety business entirely.

Vilsack himself -- in a Minnesota NPR radio interview where he defended the USDA's dual role as a marketing service and a food safety regulator, its recent shift towards more aggressive testing, and its ability to inspect foreign meat importers -- all but admitted that the USDA has fundamentally failed in its mission. How so? The interviewer asked him one final question:

Q: Can you assure ... our listeners that ground beef is safe?

A: I can assure you that we are doing everything we possibly can to make sure that that product is safe through our testing, through our inspectors ... I will say also that there is still work to be done to continue to improve what we do and until we get the number of food-borne illnesses down to zero and the number of hospitalizations down to zero and the number of death down to zero, we’ll still have work to do.

Please note that he did not say "Yes, I can."

And if you look at the proposals Vilsack highlighted in yesterday's late evening statement, they're mostly focused on increased vigilance, testing, and tracking systems to find the hundreds of thousands of pounds of infected beef the industrial food system produces. Given the ability of the meat industry to use its influence, access, and power within the USDA to scale back any attempts to affect core issues like livestock farming methods, slaughterhouse line speed, and processors' procurement practices, it's hard to deny that its role as an industry cheerleader has left it hopelessly compromised.

Which is just how the meat industry likes it. It was only a few months ago that Big Meat used its allies on the House Ag Committee to beat back an attempt to include greater FDA oversight of meat, eggs, and poultry in the food safety legislation pending before Congress. The argument at the time was that the FDA didn't have the "expertise" to assess food safety practices regarding livestock -- but it was clearly all about the industry maintaining its firm grip on its regulator of choice, the USDA. With any luck, this argument will ring a bit hollow when the Senate takes up food safety legislation (assuming it ever does -- there is no Senate food safety bill at the moment).

But it's not just the meat industry that is using the USDA to shield itself from more rigorous FDA oversight. The current food safety disaster in ground beef is on the verge of being replayed over our vegetables. Elanor Starmer at the Ethicurean has a must-read three-part report (1, 2, 3) on hearings in California on a proposal by largescale industrial growers for a so-called "National Leafy Green Marketing Agreement." Ostensibly, the proposal is designed to cut down on the potential for E. coli contamination of leafy greens. But, in addition to documenting the proposals many flaws (including the fact that the NLGMA appears to ignore the true source of E. coli contamination of vegetables, i.e. industrial livestock farming practices), critics are asking what does a USDA Marketing Agreement -- something normally used to guarantee product qualities like taste, texture, color, or shape -- have anything to do with food safety?

The answer is simple and all too familiar.  As one industry rep explicitly admitted, it's all about avoiding FDA regulation over leafy greens -- and to short circuit the bills before Congress that would mandate it. The FDA won't, it seems, "put industry at the table" quite the way the USDA will.

And Starmer provides plenty of evidence of USDA cheerleading over this issue; the USDA representative leading the government's questioning was one of the strongest backers of the NLGMA at the hearing. So much for impartiality.

The fact is, Tom Vilsack is unable to face down Big Meat -- even if he wanted do, he's surrounded by an institution built to protect it. In effect, Big Ag was left in charge of food safety -- and it's been an unmitigated disaster. Who in Washington has the will or the power to change that?

Anyone? Anyone?

Related Links:

More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

It's hard to draw any other conclusion from Michael Moss's New York Times blockbuster investigative piece on E. coli in industrial beef, which is centered on the plight of Stephanie Smith, a young dance instructor left comatose, near death and now paralyzed from eating a single Cargill hamburger. Of course, a "single hamburger" can include meat from hundreds, some would say thousands, of animals. As Moss puts it:

Ground beef is usually not simply a chunk of meat run through a grinder. Instead, records and interviews show, a single portion of hamburger meat is often an amalgam of various grades of meat from different parts of cows and even from different slaughterhouses. These cuts of meat are particularly vulnerable to E. coli contamination, food experts and officials say. Despite this, there is no federal requirement for grinders to test their ingredients for the pathogen.

This is why a food safety expert who helped develop tracking systems for E. coli in meat can declare that, “Ground beef is not a completely safe product." No kidding. The problem, however, is not with E. coli in general. The problem is that the particular strain of E. coli which infected Smith -- known as E. coli O157:H7 -- is virulent, deadly, persistent and endemic in industrial beef. How virulent, deadly and persistent? This much:

Food scientists have registered increasing concern about the virulence of this pathogen since only a few stray cells can make someone sick, and they warn that federal guidance to cook meat thoroughly and to wash up afterward is not sufficient. A test by The Times found that the safe handling instructions are not enough to prevent the bacteria from spreading in the kitchen.

In other words, if a piece of infected meat ends up in your kitchen, you are almost guaranteed exposure to it no matter how carefully you handle it. And how endemic? This year alone almost half a million pounds of E. coli infected ground beef have been recalled nationwide (and that doesn't include the 800,000 pounds of Cargill beef recalled for contamination with antibiotic-resistant salmonella). Indeed, if Moss's work proves anything, it's that the safety systems in industrial beef processing are both barely functioning and almost fully opaque. And while the government is able to peek behind the curtain at these massive slaughterhouses and processing facilities, it seems far more concerned with protecting companies' intellectual property than with the public health:

The meat industry treats much of its practices and the ingredients in ground beef as trade secrets. While the Department of Agriculture has inspectors posted in plants and has access to production records, it also guards those secrets. Federal records released by the department through the Freedom of Information Act blacked out details of Cargill’s grinding operation that could be learned only through copies of the documents obtained from other sources. Those documents illustrate the restrained approach to enforcement by a department whose missions include ensuring meat safety and promoting agriculture markets.

In one of the most chilling, and I thought devastating, quotes in the entire piece, a top official at the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service observed that his options were somewhat limited since he had to "look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health." Note the fact that his phrasing sets the meat industry's needs at odds with ours -- the two can't be reconciled in his eyes. What does that say about the government's ability to ensure a safe food supply? No matter how you structure it, the industry now appears too big and too powerful to be regulated. What other explanation is there for the fact that the top food safety job at the USDA remains unfilled if not regulatory paralysis -- the meat industry seems to have veto power over its regulators and hasn't found a federal overseer to its liking.

One area that Moss does not cover is how E. coli O157 got into industrial beef in the first place. In fact it's there because of the meat industry's insistence on feeding cows corn -- something they cannot easily digest -- instead of grass. Among other things, corn feeding requires cows to be fed a steady dose of antibiotics, which has led to the rise of antibiotic resistance among various pathogens. But more importantly, it has caused very real changes in the cow's gut which has allowed this toxic strain of E. coli to take hold, a strain that research suggests cannot survive in the gut of cows that eat only grass.

In short, E. coli didn't just "happen" to the meat industry -- it's a consequence of industrial practices. But nowhere in the article (or in the halls of the USDA or the largescale beef producers for that matter) is the possibility of moving away from this corn-based system raised as a solution for the industrial system. Surprisingly, the article includes virtually no proposed solutions for this crisis -- just vague assurances that the USDA isn't "standing still" on the issue. In reality, the industry focuses exclusively on "managing" the ongoing presence of E. coli O157 though the development of an E. coli vaccine for cows, and irradiation or chemical washes for the meat. All of which are attempts to mask the risks of a failed system and represent an institutionalizing of the underlying failures. And none of which make me ever want to touch industrial meat again.

Indeed, if there ever was a powerful argument for eating only grass-fed beef from small producers, this article is it. The only conclusion worth drawing from this expose is that industrial ground beef simply isn't worth the risk. And without wholesale industry and regulatory reform -- neither of which appears likely or even possible, it may never be.

Related Links:

More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

Must we be dosed daily with antobiotics? According to the meat industry, the debate over legislation pending in the House that would ban the use of sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics comes down to a simple "fact": hog-farming on any scale without sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics is impossible. The National Pork Producers Council says so. The American Veterinary Medical Association says so. Heck, even GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa says so.

For the record, these folks also say that livestock producers don't really use 70% of all antibiotics distributed in the US as the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates. And you know what, we have no idea if they're right. What many people don't realize is that antibiotic use by American livestock producers is one of the best kept secrets on the planet. The UCS had to deduce that number based on US sales of antibiotics combined with data from a country that does publish figures on antibiotics use in livestock: Canada. That's right. No one in the US, not the government, not industry -- no one -- has any responsibility to tell Americans how much antibiotics is actually in their meat. We're just to supposed to Take Industry's Word For It that everything's peachy.

Which is why the Danes insistence on being a part of this debate is so important. Denmark is the largest hog producer in Europe and, realizing the threat to public health posed by routinely feeding healthy livestock antibiotics, they stopped doing it. Over a decade ago. To listen to the AVMA and Chuck Grassley describe Denmark's experience, you'd think that Denmark's hog industry went the way of New York Harbor's oyster beds -- a happy, productive industry destroyed by mismanagement. Except, insist the Danes, that just isn't so. And they keep saying it. First they testified at hearings in the House. They said things like this:

[T]he discontinuation of non-therapeutic antibiotic use has not negatively impacted long-term swine productivity in Denmark. The facts outlined show that long-term swine production in Denmark has not been negatively impacted by the ban on non-therapeutic antibiotic use.

And so as not to be misconstrued, they said every thing was fine twice. But pages of testimony along these lines were apparently not enough to stop people from lying about the Danish record. The Danes, being a hot-headed people, couldn't stand it any longer. Recently, they met with a Congressional delegation to show them a blistering PowerPoint presentation that set the record straight. And then, as reported by Phil Brasher in the Des Moines Register, they wrote a letter [PDF]. This time, to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

We know that various rumours and sometimes “creative” interpretations of what has taken place in Denmark have been circulated to members of the US Congress, and we are grateful for having been given this opportunity to correct some of these stories.

Take that, Chuck Grassley! Attached to the letter was a 20 page report documenting the success of Denmark's ban on sub-therapeutic dosing of livestock. The Danes, understanding full well their audience, used a simple bulleted list to declare the following (I bolded some things for even more clarity):

•The Danish swine production has increased from 18.4 millions in 1992 to 27.1 millions in 2008; a 47% increase.
• Productivity increased continuously before and after NTA (Non-Therapeutic Antibiotics) stop
• Weaner [young pig] mortality increased before and a few years after NTA stop – the rate seemed unaffected, except the first year after the ban. Mortality has improved considerably in recent years (management)
• Weaner average daily gain decreased until and increased after NTA stop (continuously during a decade).
• Finisher [mature pig] mortality increased before and after NTA stop, similar rate. (mortality decreased first year)
• Finisher average daily gain increased before and after NTA stop
• Total antimicrobial consumption has fluctuated over time, but has in summary decreased from 100.4 to 48.9 mg/Kg pork produced; a 51% reduction.
• Major reductions in resistance among animal pathogens, indicator bacteria and zoonotic bacteria

That last bit is the crucial point -- end excessive antibiotics use and end increases in resistance among pathogens. Period. This is not theory -- this is what actually happened.

So, really. The Danish experiment worked. Congress needs to pass House Rep. Louise Slaughter's bill -- aka PAMTA, ban sub-therapeutic antibiotic use and our hog production will be just fine. In the end, though, this is about human health and the strong indication from Denmark is that a ban will indeed significantly reduce the odds of a superbug arising out of a hog farm. That's the goal. Are we clear on this? No more lies, please. We wouldn't want to make the Danes any angrier, would we?

Related Links:

More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Once again, topics covered at length in the pixels of Grist are slowly percolating out into the wider media world. Newsweek over the weekend posted an article by Jeneen Interlandi about the grave effects of climate change on agriculture, summed up as the triple threat of "droughts, bugs and big storms." And once again, we learn the future is now:

Farmers on both coasts are already starting to reap some of what the nation's fossil-fuel addiction has sown. Crops in those regions (cranberries in the East and almonds in the West) require a certain number of colder days, or "winter chill" before they break dormancy and begin flowering. Too few cold days disrupts the plants' flowering schedule which in turn affects pollination and hurts yield. A UC Davis study found that winter chill has already declined by 30 percent in California's Central Valley, and almond growers report that yields are down 20 percent from last year. Shorter winters have had a similar effect on cranberry yields in Massachusetts and New Jersey.

As usual, we see the initial effects of a largescale phenomenon on the margins. As Nathanaiel Green of the NRDC puts it, "it hasn't really hit the breadbasket yet," which is why Big Ag, focused as it is on grains and commodity crops grown in the Midwest and South, can so easily dismiss it. So it's nice to see Interlandi ably handling the science while neatly dismissing Big Ag's mostly specious counter-arguments.

There's even a swift, effective takedown of Big Ag's favorite climate mitigation technique (the one for which they expect to be paid millions in carbon credits) -- chemical no-till farming:

...a practice in which farmers control weeds with pesticides instead of tilling (tilling releases CO2 from the soil into the atmosphere). But numerous studies, including ones conducted by the Department of Agriculture, show that in some soils, no-till farming increases emissions of nitrous oxide—a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent—so much so that it's actually worse for the environment.

See. That wasn't so hard. Again, this isn't news to Grist readers, but it is likely the first time most readers of Newsweek have heard of no-till farming -- and Interlandi associates it with environmental damage. Neat!

Also, well played was the observation that plants are not necessarily flawless carbon capture machines, as many friends of Big Ag try to convince us:

As Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss put it, "Every farmer in America that goes out and plants a field of corn, cotton, soybeans or produce captures greenhouse gases." This is only theoretically true. Photosynthesis takes place in a plant's leaves. The rest of a plant—its stems, roots, and the soil around it—all respire; that is, they consume oxygen and produce CO2, just like all other living things.

The fact is, scientists have no firm understanding of whether or how much traditional row crops in and of themselves sequester carbon -- so basing one's entire approach to mitigation on them is pretty much useless.

But the capper was, no doubt, American Farm Bureau chief Bob Stallman's comments on climate change. Stallman is Big Ag's point person in the fight against the federal climate bill and it's the AFB's talking points that echo throughout the halls of Congress thanks to Big Ag allies like Rep. Collin Peterson, Sen. Blanche Lincoln and most of their colleagues on the House and Senate Ag Committees.

Stallman clearly believes that farmers' demand for fossil fuels is -- as the economists would say -- perfectly inelastic in that no matter how high the price for oil, farmers will use exactly the same amount as they did at a lower price. As a result, he likes to go on about how cap-and-trade will do nothing but increase costs for farmers, since they won't change their use of fuel, fertilizer or pesticides. But Interlandi then asked a follow-up:

What about all those studies showing that climate change could cost farms even more in the long run? Stallman says most farmers aren't worried. "We are used to dealing with extreme weather variation," he says, pointing out that his Texas farm has seen 20 inches of rain in a single day, in the middle of a drought. "We've learned to roll with those extremes. If it gets a little more extreme down the road, we can deal with it."

Bob Stallman, meet denial. Perhaps he should familiarize himself with the fascinating work former USDA economist Michael Roberts has been doing on the actual effects cilmate change will have on commodity crop yields:

When we use the estimated relationship to predict yield outcomes under projected climate change scenarios, we find that between 2070 and 2099 nationwide average yields on corn, soybeans, and cotton are projected to fall 30–46% under the slowest Hadley III warming scenario and 63–82% under the fastest Hadley III warming scenario. Predicted declines are substantial even in the more immediate future (2020–2049).

Talk about an inconvenient truth -- business as usual emissions will lead to cuts in yields up to 80%. How, Bob, do you propose to "deal" with that? Of course -- and I'm trying to put this delicately -- the average age of American farmers is 57 and, according to the 2007 USDA census, the fastest growing farmer age demographic is 65+. Perhaps the AFB and folks like Bob Stallman just figure it's simply not their problem. Bob Stallman grew up well after the game "Kick the Can" was a favorite pastime for kids. But apparently, and much to our societal detriment, it's all the rage at the AFB.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care

Agribiz: flying high ... or comiing down? If you run a globe-spanning, U.S.-centered agribusiness firm, you're probably not sure whether to cry in your Krug or toast with it this week.*

The bad news for the GMO/fertilizer/pesticide set: A federal court in San Francisco rebuked the USDA for greenlighting genetically modified sugar beets without rigorous testing of the novel crop's environmental impact. And that could have a major impact on the GMO seed industry, because there's never been a real reckoning among federal agencies about the impact of GMOs.

Want to know who came with the official rationale that GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to conventional crops--and this worthy of a regulatory free ride? It was that noted beautiful minder Dan Quayle, sitting on an Bush I's Council on Competitiveness in the early '90s.

The sugar beet ruling, coming on the heels of a similar one on GMO alfafa, may mark the beginning of the end of that free ride.

Fully 30 percent of the globe's refined sugar comes from beets--and the U.S. is a major producer. In 2005, the USDA ruled that the use of Monsanto's new line of Roundup Ready sugar beets--genetically rigged to withstand application of Monsanto's flagship herbicide--had "no significant impact" on the environment.

Trouble is, the agency did so without issuing a detailed "environmental impact statement," as it's arguably required to under the National Environmental Protection Act--and that's why the Center for Food Safety and other sustainable-food NGOs sued the USDA.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White ruled (PDF here) in favor of the Center for Food Safety argument.

The ruling hinged on the argument that GMO sugar beets can cross-pollinate with and genetically contaminate non-GMO beets--and even with related species like Swiss chard and table beets. (In Willamette County, Ore., epicenter of industrial sugar-beet production, these other beet types are grown commonly, too.)

"In light of the large distances pollen can travel by wind and the context that seed for sugar beets, Swiss chard, and table beets are primarily grown in one valley in Oregon, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that deregulation [of GMO sugar beets] may significantly effect the environment," the Judge White declared.

So now he's ordering a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) from the USDA on GMO sugar beets. But any rigorous EIS will include not only the cross-contamination problem, but also the  growing specter of Roundup-tolerant "superweeds," which are already rampant in many parts of the country where Roundup Ready seeds are commonly used.

The agency might even have to reckon with the recent study that showed that so-called "inert" ingredients in Roundup quite actively damage human cells.

In other words, this ruling--if it stands up under an imminent round of appeals--could be a slippery slope for Monsanto. Investors, for their part, seem a bit concerned--since the ruling was announced Tuesday, the company's shares are down about 2 percent.

Now for the good news for the great masters of the corn field: President Obama has nominated one of their own as the chief agricultural negotiator at the U.S. Trade Office.

To take the post, Islam "Isi" Siddiqui will have to leave his current perch as vice president for agricultural biotechnology and trade at CropLife America, the trade group representing the U.S. agrichemical industry (member list here). Its mission: to hip the public (and the government)  to the ""benefits of pesticides and crop-protection chemicals."

This is the crew that chided Michelle Obama for daring to opt not to use "crop protection" (i.e., toxic pesticides) in the White House Garden.

Once the Senate's conservative stalwarts recover from the shock of supporting a man named Islam, they'll surely wave Siddiqui right through.

As the Doha round of global trade talks lurches on, Siddiqui's position will be an important one. Southerm-hemisphere nations like India and Brazil are pushing for lower U.S. crop subsidies, while the U.S. is demanding wide-open markets for U.S. goods--everything from foodstuffs like industrial corn to agrichemicals. Siddiqui can be counted on to push that agenda hard.

Another critical ag-related trade issue is GMOs. Many nations have opted to ban GMOs on the precautionary principle. The few companies who dominate the GMO seed market--Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, and BASF, all Croplife America--find that attitude abhorrent. Siddiqui can be expected to play hardball in using trade talks as a blunt instrument to knock those precautions down.

* Since I'm an acolyte of the wine writer Alice Feiring, you should read my casual assumption that agribiz execs quaff Krug, an insipid status-brand Champagne, as a stinging insult.

Related Links:

Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

The food movement is slowly waking up to the fact that it has long treated the workers who plant and pick our food as if they were invisible. So it was with great anticipation that I read The Nation's food issue, sure that a magazine with such a solid commitment to worker dignity would drive home the message that human and labor rights are integral to true sustainability.

Instead, I found the same tired recipe of chefs, celebrity analysts, and pro forma discussions of family farms and urban food access. This simply makes no sense in light of the well-documented human rights crisis in our country's fields. Over three million farmworkers toil at the base of our food system under abysmal conditions. As U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders explains, "The norm is a disaster; the extreme is slavery." Yet despite this brutal reality in the fields where our fruits and vegetables are picked, workers were again absent in the discussion of our food system. Not one farmworker, or meatpacking worker for that matter, was given an opportunity to speak to the exploitation behind the food we eat.

And that's a shame because those same workers are forging innovative solutions to the exploitation they face daily. For example, the Florida-based Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) is spearheading a remarkably successful campaign to boost thousands of tomato pickers' wages by promoting socially responsible purchasing in the retail food industry. These changes are putting millions of dollars back into one of the poorest worker communities in the U.S. and institutionalizing a voice for labor in an industry that has traditionally viewed its employees as disposable tools or worse.

This is certainly a story worth telling, and it is disappointing that The Nation missed a golden opportunity to do so.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is so fired up about local food economies that it's coughing up $65 million for a new program called "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food."

My first reaction: $65 million?!  That's all?!

At 3:45 central time a top USDA official is speaking at the event I'm at in Chicago. I plan to "live Tweet" that speech, so check my Twitter feed (@tomphilpott) or come back to this page.  The event I'm at, btw, is the Chefs Collaborative national summit.

In the meantime, here's Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack's recorded video remarks about the program.  The USDA press release is pasted underneath.

USDA Launches 'Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food' Initiative to Connect Consumers with Local Producers to Create New Economic Opportunities for Communities

WASHINGTON, September 15, 2009 - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan today announced a new initiative - 'Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food' - to begin a national conversation to help develop local and regional food systems and spur economic opportunity. To launch the initiative, Secretary Vilsack recorded a video to invite Americans to join the discussion and share their ideas for ways to support local agriculture. The video, one of many means by which USDA will engage in this conversation, can be viewed at USDA's YouTube channel, www.youtube.com/usda . Producers and consumers can comment on the 'Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food' YouTube playlist, as well as submit videos or provide comments on this initiative by e-mailing KnowYourFarmer@usda.gov.

"An American people that is more engaged with their food supply will create new income opportunities for American agriculture," said Vilsack. "Reconnecting consumers and institutions with local producers will stimulate economies in rural communities, improve access to healthy, nutritious food for our families, and decrease the amount of resources to transport our food."

The 'Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food' initiative, chaired by Deputy Secretary Merrigan, is the focus of a task force with representatives from agencies across USDA who will help better align the Department's efforts to build stronger local and regional food systems. This week alone, USDA will announce approximately $65 million in funding for 'Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food' initiatives.

"Americans are more interested in food and agriculture than at any other time since most families left the farm," said Merrigan. "'Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food' seeks to focus that conversation on supporting local and regional food systems to strengthen American agriculture by promoting sustainable agricultural practices and spurring economic opportunity in rural communities."

In the months to come, cross-cutting efforts at USDA will seek to use existing USDA programs to break down structural barriers that have inhibited local food systems from thriving. Today, USDA announced a small initial group of moves that seek to connect local production and consumption and promote local-scale sustainable operations:

* USDA's Risk Management Agency announced $3.4 million in funding for collaborative outreach and assistance programs to socially disadvantaged and underserved farmers. These programs will support 'Know You Farmer' goals by helping producers adopt new and direct marketing practices. For example, nearly $10,000 in funding for the University of Minnesota will bring together experts on food safety and regulations for a discussion of marketing to institutions like K-12 schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and other health care facilities.

* USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service proposed regulations to implement a new voluntary cooperative program under which select state-inspected establishments will be eligible to ship meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. The new program was created in the 2008 Farm Bill and will provide new economic opportunities for small meat and poultry establishments, whose markets are currently limited.

* USDA's Rural Development announced $4.4 million in grants to help 23 local business cooperatives in 19 states. The member-driven and member-owned cooperative business model has been successful for rural enterprises, and bring rural communities closer to the process of moving from production-to-consumption as they work to improve their products and expand their appeal in the marketplace.

* USDA's Rural Development will also announce a Rural Business Opportunity Grant in the amount of $150,000 to the Northwest Food Processors Association. The grant will strengthen the relationship between local food processors and customers in parts of Idaho, Oregon and Washington, and will also help the group reduce energy consumption, a major cost for food processors.

As the 'Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food' initiative evolves, USDA will continue to build on the momentum and ideas from the 2008 Farm Bill and target its existing programs and develop new ones to pursue sustainable agriculture and support for local and regional food systems.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care

Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Brazilian firm JBS--the globe's largest beef processor--was on the verge of buying U.S. chicken giant Pilgrim's Pride. Although the companies have since remained mum on the tie-up, rumors of an imminent deal continue to swirl.

While we await and announcement, it's worth considering what the U.S. meat industry would look like if JBS swallowed Pilgrim's Pride. Essentially, it would look like this: four giants (JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and Smithfield) lumbering across the landscape, towering over and stepping on their farmer suppliers.

As it stands today, JBS processes 10 percent of the beef consumed worldwide. If the Pilgrim's deal goes through, it will have large positions in the U.S. beef, pork, and chicken markets.

The move seems like a play to go toe-to-toe with Tyson, the only other company with large positions in those three commodities. As one industry observer put it on the AgWeb blog, wielding such large positions across commodities gives Tyson leverage with big retailers for shelf space. He writes:

I know that Tyson's multi-meat capabilities give them an advantage over competitors who lack their diversified market exposure and can't offer big retailers a full line of meat case products.

JBS's move, if it goes through, augurs fierce competition between the few remaining meat processors--which means severe downward pressure on the prices received by farmers, fewer and yet larger factory animal farms, and yet more incentives to take short cuts and compromise worker safety and public health.

It's too early to say whether the Obama Justice Department is serious about reigning in the unchecked market power of our few remaining meat processors. If JBS and Pilgrim's Pride finalize this deal, we'll have our first real test.

*

More info:
-- Brazilians Bid for U.S. Meat Titan, The Wall Street Journal
-- U.S. seen approving a JBS-Pilgrim's Pride deal, Reuters
-- Concentration of Agriculture Markets, April 2007 [PDF], by Mary Hendrickson and William Heffernan

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Martha Stewart serves up blistering critique of meat industry in Thanksgiving show