Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] An ‘agri-intellectual’ talks back

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] An ‘agri-intellectual’ talks back
  • Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:30:41 -0600


An ‘agri-intellectual’ talks back
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-14-corn-agri-intellectual/
Posted 2:24 PM on 14 Aug 2009
by Tom Philpott

A lot of folks have asked what I think of the essay “The Omnivore’s Delusion:
Against the Agri-intellectuals,” by Missouri corn/soy farmer Blake Hurst,
published in The American, the journal of the right-wing American Enterprise
Institute.

My first reaction is that I’m thrilled this debate is taking place. The
sustainable-food movement needs to step up and start grappling with big
questions. I’ve said for a while that I see three big challenges for the
sustainable-food movement as it scales up: 1) soil fertility—in the absence
of synthesized nitrogen and mined phosphorous and potassium, how are we to
build soil fertility on a larger scale?; 2) labor—sustainable farming
requires more hands on the ground; who’s going to work our farm fields, and
at what wages?; and 3) access—in an economy built on long-term wage
stagnation, how can we make sustainably grown food accessible to everyone?

Hurst’s essay begins to engage these questions—sort of. I don’t have the time
or energy right now to take it on point by point. But I will say that the
discussion would be much richer if he acknowledged a few serious questions
about the industrial-farming model he champions.

For example, he barely acknowledges climate change. The EPA reckons [PDF]
that half of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture come from
fertilizer-related nitrous oxide—a greenhouse gas some 300 times more potent
than carbon. The Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist, has
concluded [PDF] that the EPA is dramatically underestimating the amount of
nitrous oxide produced by industrial farming. Given that reality and the
looming climate emergency, how long can U.S. farmers keep churning out
titanic corn harvests? Hurst never goes there. Of course, he’s vice president
of his state’s branch of the American Farm Bureau Federation, which has both
been vigorously fighting climate legislation (on the grounds that climate
change is a myth) [PDF] and campaigning to make sure that any bill that gets
though Congress has plenty of goodies for agribusiness. So maybe be doesn’t
consider nitrous oxide emissions a problem?

Another limiting factor is petroleum scarcity. According to Hurst’s byline at
the bottom of the article, “In a few days he will spend the next six weeks on
a combine.” A combine is a massive, diesel-sucking machine. How long does
Hurst expect to be able to casually spend six weeks burning gallon after
gallon of diesel amid limited global petroleum supplies (not to mention
climate impacts)? Again, no mention of energy scarcity. (Cue “drill, baby,
drill” plea from the Farm Bureau?)

Then there’s the whole problem of ecological blowback. Hurst venerates
large-scale confinement livestock operations—but he doesn’t mention that
these facilities rely on a prodigious cocktail of antibiotics to keep animals
alive and growing. Now we’re getting outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant
salmonella and staph (MRSA) directly linked to factory animal farms. There’s
the distinct possibility that the latest novel swine flu strain emerged from
the fecal mire of a vast hog operation. How long does Hurst think we can
control these potentially deadly diseases? Also on the topic of ecological
pushback, Hurst champions the practice known as chemical no-till—planting
herbicide-tolerant GM seeds and then dousing the field with weed killer.
There’s little evidence that this practice sequesters carbon in the soil (see
here and here)—but plenty of evidence that it’s generating
herbicide-resistant “superweeds.” Again, what’s the plan—just a steady
rollout of new poison-tolerant seed combos to clean up the messes of the
previous ones?

Finally—and this may be the most egregious omission, given that he’s writing
for a Cheneyite rag—Hurst fails to acknowledge that his farming style depends
on a steady stream of government aid. I personally believe that our society
should support farmers, and that our commodity-subsidy system could be
re-jiggered to support sustainable farming. Indeed, for the reasons given
above, I believe sustainable farming will remain forever a niche unless that
happens. Yet if I were writing for a think tank that’s devoted itself for
decades to dismantling state spending (except for on military adventures and
hardware), I might feel obliged to defend or at least acknowledge this
position. Yet Hurst is silent.

Let’s have a look—shall we not?—at the Environmental Working Group’s
commodity-subsidy database. it’s the black book of right-wing Farm Bureau
types. According to his bio, Hurst farms in Atchison County, Mo. EWG informs
us that farmers in Atchison drew in a cool $131 million in government
commodity payments between 1995 and 2006. That’s good enough for 11th place
among Missouri’s 50 counties. Drilling down, we find that Hurst himself took
home $242,600 in that period; and three close relations took in $400,000,
$388,000, and $347,000, respectively. That’s a cool $1.4 million in U.S.
treasury cash for the family over 12 years.

Now, hold your howls of outrage. These are corn and soy farmers. They buy
tremendous amounts of fertilizers and poisons; they buy pricey GMO seeds from
Monsanto; they’re paying huge notes on those combines, which they have to
maintain and supply with diesel; and they’re selling their produce into a
grain market largely controlled by two companies (Cargill and Archer Daniels
Midland) that for most of those years paid them less than the price of
production. In other words, your $1.4 million payment to the Hursts didn’t
likely stay long in family bank accounts. More likely, it quickly passed into
the coffers of Monsanto, John Deere, Mosaic (the fertilizer giant two-thirds
owned by Cargill), and other input suppliers. (Of course, in the past couple
of years, corn/soy farmers have seen lower subsidies and higher grain
prices—borne up by another government program, corn ethanol.)

You see, while their friends at the American Enterprise Institute might mock
them as such, it’s not the Hursts who are “welfare queens” here. It’s their
agribusiness suppliers and buyers. And we can’t really debate the food system
until we acknowledge their massive vested interest in it—and their vast
political power, which they’re not shy about using to maintain their income
streams.

I look forward to participating in this debate as it plays out.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page