This isn't exactly top news. I had to search to find it on NY Times. And frankly, I wouldn't have even known about it, had it not been mentioned on NPR. Given the global food crisis and the debate about ethanol (not to mention to local food movement) I think this is an important bill to pay attention to.
Farm subsidies (actual money paid to farmers) have a direct impact on what we eat. If farmers get paid to grow corn, they'll grow corn. If they get paid more for growing more, they'll grow more. In the 1970's the Sec of Agriculture began rewarding farmers who grew single crops (usually corn) in larger and larger amounts. This led to a huge surplus of corn and lower prices. With a plentiful and cheap supply of corn, American innovators kicked into gear and started thinking of new, exciting things they could do with it. Two of the Big Ideas were to process it into High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and to feed livestock with grain (instead of grass). As I understand it, this is where we are now. A huge amount of the corn grown in this country goes to feed livestock, make ethanol and make HFCS. We are producing more than we ever have, and larger amounts are going to non-nutritional outlets.
The Farm Bill passed yesterday (318-106) in the House with strong bi-partisan support. And Bush seems determined to veto. Typically, if Bush wants to veto the bill, it must be a good bill. But it's hard to unpack this one. For example, Bush's stated reason for the veto is that the subsidies benefit the wealthiest farmers. (Well, gee, I think I agree with Bush on that one.) He also said the bill "resorts to a variety of gimmicks". By this I think he means a $10 billion increase in nutrition programs.
And this is where it gets tricky.
There seem to be a lot of good things in this bill. A good chunk of it goes to feeding the poor through food stamps and other programs. There are rural development and land conservation programs. Overall, it's probably a good bill. But it doesn't appear to change the subsidy system. While I think farmers absolutely should get assistance from the government, I think we can be a little smarter about it.
From Michael Pollan's cleverly titled article last fall:
"Americans have begun to ask why the farm bill is subsidizing high-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils at a time when rates of diabetes and obesity among children are soaring, or why the farm bill is underwriting factory farming (with subsidized grain) when feedlot wastes are polluting the countryside and, all too often, the meat supply. For the first time, the public health community has raised its voice in support of overturning farm policies that subsidize precisely the wrong kind of calories (added fat and added sugar), helping to make Twinkies cheaper than carrots and Coca-Cola competitive with water." It's no coincidence that fast food and junk food are so cheap. Nutrition programs are necessary only because the government subsidies make the unhealthiest foods the most affordable. So, we're providing economic incentives to produce unhealthy foods and then creating programs to help people to eat healthier. Why not just stop enabling companies to make unhealthy food in the first place? Instead, direct more subsidies to smaller farmers growing diverse crops. Subsidize food that's good for us! Let's be a leaner, meaner and, while we're at it, greener nation!
Same with money for conservation programs. Pollan asks:
"Why does the farm bill pay feedlots to install waste treatment systems rather than simply pay ranchers to keep their animals on grass, where the soil would be only too happy to treat their waste at no cost?"(There's almost too much to say in response to this. First, cows are not meant to eat corn. If they eat corn, they get sick. And die. That's why we pump them full of antibiotics. So they don't get sick from eating the stuff ranchers feed them. When animals graze, they are also walking around all day. They don't get as fat. If they're in feedlots, they eat and eat and eat and do not move. They get fat faster. They get to market faster. And they get slaughtered before the corn diet kills them. It's economics. And it's bad for us.)
So while there are some good things, I don't think this bill does much to address our food culture/crisis. We expect food to be cheap and easy, but we're not so concerned about quality. Programs aren't what we need. Re-thinking (or, plain old
thinking about) the way we eat and produce food is called for.
So, what to do?
Say no to High Fructose Corn Syrup! It'll be hard because it's in everything. Start looking at labels; it's unbelievable.
Say yes to locally-grown, fresh vegetables! They taste better. They use less fossil fuels to produce and ship. It helps smaller farmers.
If you must eat meat,
say yes to grass-fed beef! Bill Kurtis does! Or take the not-so-radical step of reducing your meat intake by 20%. It's the environmental equivalent of driving a
Prius. Seems hard?
You can do it.After all, you are what you eat.
[ Steps down from soapbox...]
In other news, I'm getting my camera back today. Keep an eye out for photos of garden and dog!