Agriculture
Chair: Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
- Max Baucus (D-MT)
- Michael Bennet (D-CO)
- Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
- Bob Casey (D-PA)
- Kent Conrad (D-ND)
- Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
- Tom Harkin (D-IA)
- Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
- Pat Leahy (D-VT)
- Ben Nelson (D-NE)
- Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
- Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
- Thad Cochran (R-MS)
- John Cornyn (R-TX)
- Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
- Mike Johanns (R-NE)
- Dick Lugar (R-IN)
- Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
- Pat Roberts (R-KS)
- John R. Thune (R-SD)
Appropriations
Chair: Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Ag Sub-Committee
Chair: Herb Kohl (D-WI)
- Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
- Dick Durbin (D-IL)
- Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
- Tom Harkin (D-IA)
- Tim Johnson (D-SD)
- Ben Nelson (D-NE)
- Jack Reed (D-RI)
- Robert Bennett (R-UT)
- Christopher Bond (R-MO)
- Sam Brownback (R-KS)
- Thad Cochran (R-MS)
- Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
- Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions
- Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Agriculture
Chair: B Collin Peterson (D-MN)
V. Chair: B Tim Holden (D-PA)
B Joe Baca (D-CA)
- John Boccieri (D-OH)
B* Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
- Bobby Bright (D-AL)
B* Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
- Travis Childers (D-MS)
B Jim Costa (D-CA)
- Henry Cuellar (D-TX)
- Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA)
B Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
- Debbie Halvorson (D-IL)
B Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)
- Steve Kagen (D-WI)
- Larry Kissell (D-NC)
B Frank Kratovil (D-MD)
- Betsy Markey (D-CO)
B Jim Marshall (D-GA)
P Eric Massa (D-NY)
B Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
- Walt Minnick (D-ID)
B Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
- Mark Schauer (D-MI)
- Kurt Schrader (D-OR)
B David Scott (D-GA)
B Zachary Space (D-OH)
- Timothy Walz (D-MN)
- Frank Lucas (R-OK)
- Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
- K. Michael Conaway (R-TX)
- Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
- Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
- Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
- Sam Graves (R-MO)
- Timothy Johnson (R-IL)
- Steve King (R-IA)
- Robert Latta (R-OH)
- Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)
- Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
- Jerry Moran (R-KS)
- Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
- Phil Roe (R-TN)
- Mike Rogers (R-AL)
- Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
- Adrian Smith (R-NE)
- Glenn Thompson (R-PA) *=House Organic Caucus member B=Blue Dog Democrat
Appropriations
Chair: Dave Obey (D-WI) Ag Sub-Committee
Chair: P Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
- Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
* Allen Boyd (D-FL)
- Lincoln Davis (D-TN)
*P Sam Farr (D-CA)
*P Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY)
P Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
P Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
- Jack Kingston (R-GA)
- Rodney Alexander (R-LA)
- Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
* Tom Latham (R-IA) *=House Organic Caucus member
P=Congressional Progressive Caucus
Education and Labor
P Chair: George Miller (D-CA)
- Jason Altmire (D-PA)
- Robert Andrews (D-NJ)
- Timothy Bishop (D-NY)
P Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
- Joe Courtney (D-CT)
- Susan Davis (D-CA)
P Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
P Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
P Phil Hare (D-IL)
- Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)
P Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
- Rush Holt (D-NJ)
- Dale Kildee (D-MI)
P Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
P Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
- Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
P Donald Payne (D-NJ)
- Jared Polis (D-CO)
- Robert Scott (D-VA)
- Joe Sestak (D-PA)
- Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
P John Tierney (D-MA)
- Dina Titus (D-NV)
- Paul Tonko (D-NY)
P Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
- David Wu (D-OR)
- Buck McKeon (R-CA)
- Judy Biggert (R-IL)
- Rob Bishop (R-UT)
- Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
- Michael Castle (R-DE)
- Vernon Ehlers (R-MI)
- Luis F Fortuno (R-PR)
- Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
- Peter Hoekstra (R-MI)
- Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA)
- John Kline (R-MN)
- Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
- Tom McClintock (R-CA)
- Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
- Thomas Petri (R-WI)
- Phil Roe (R-TN)
- Todd Russell Platts (R-PA)
- Tom Price (R-GA)
- Mark Souder (R-IN)
- GT Thompson (R-PA)
- Joe Wilson (R-SC) P=Congressional Progressive Caucus
At the start of this month, the U.S. unveiled new efforts by USAID to feed the world. Instead of merely providing food aid, now the U.S. plans to support developing nations with agricultural support so they can feed themselves. In theory, this is brilliant. In practice, I doubt it will be. The reason - which I've said before on this blog - is simple: the U.S. is following a plan that runs counter to the recommendations of 400 scientists from around the world (the IAASTD report).
This past week, USAID head Rajiv Shah gave a speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. This heavily corporate funded group came up with their own study to counter the IAASTD report findings and to say what the U.S. wanted to hear. In short, they recommend a continuation of industrial agriculture and an increase in biotechnology and genetic engineering and they do not address the harm free trade has on developing nations.
Yesterday I wrote about a study that proved organic CAN feed the world using the current amount of land already dedicated to agriculture - and organic agriculture can even feed a population higher than the current one without increasing the landbase. Also, there isn't a nitrogen shortage to fertilize the crops grown on that land if we were to feed the entire world using organic methods. Some people pointed out that we'd need more labor if we were to go all-organic. Well, OK. Let's put that another way: organic farming provides jobs. The point is, we aren't going to starve to death due to lack of yield if we all go organic. We'll still need to find a way to fix the other problems in our world (war, poverty, education, women's rights, AIDS) but we WILL have enough food to eat.
Who doesn't want us to believe that organics can feed the world? All the people who would lose money if we went organic: oil companies, biotech companies, pesticide companies, and fertilizer companies. And who funds The Chicago Council on Global Affairs? Archer Daniels Midland, Kraft Foods, Monsanto, Caterpillar, BP, McDonalds... you get it.
The Chicago Council released a report funded by the Gates Foundation that outlined a plan to feed the world. They then presented that report in testimony at a Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing earlier this year. In a Washington Times op ed (where I always get my news), they summarize the findings of the report, calling for a Second Green Revolution. On their side is Dick Lugar, who co-authored another Washington Times op-ed with Norman Borlaug (father of the first Green Revolution) who say we need higher yields and GMOs in the developing world if we are to fight hunger. Lugar has co-sponsored a bill that the Chicago Council sees as a vehicle to enact their plan, but now it seems that a new effort is afoot and Hillary Clinton is leading it (as her department will be the ones carrying out the bill).
Meanwhile, our government is entirely ignoring an alternative viewpoint to feeding the world, one presented by the IAASTD report (from the World Bank and UN), which specifically rejects GMOs as tools to help the developing world, saying they are poorly suited to meet the needs of poor and subsistence farmers. They call for agroecological approaches to farming as the best tool to feed the world. And, because the crop inputs used in the developed world are so expensive and thus often unavailable to poor farmers - the very people we are trying to help - those farmers achieve higher yields using organic (agroecological) methods.
A few guys from Monsanto found this blog and commented the other day. As they rightly pointed out, to the best of my knowledge, Monsanto is NOT directly behind S.384, the bill that seeks to start a second Green Revolution (i.e. introducing unsustainable agricultural techniques to the developing world in the name of helping the hungry). Fair enough. So I figured it might be worthwhile to identify who IS behind such an effort. And - while it's mostly the Gates Foundation - Monsanto's not uninvolved.
Also - about the question the Monsanto employees raised about how their company stood to profit from this bill. While the bill specifically does not SAY that any money will go to Monsanto, the Chicago Council's plan calls for USAID to take the lead on global hunger and mentions public-private partnerships. Monsanto is already involved in one such public-private partnership with USAID in Kenya. So it's not too much of a stretch to imagine they would be included in whatever may come of this bill.
Recently, I've been ranting about the bill S.384, which Organic Consumers Association calls the REAL Monsanto bill. [UPDATE: To clarify, I do not believe Monsanto is behind the bill. If any one group could take credit for the bill, it would be the Gates Foundation.] Two of the people who testified in the bill's hearing (Bertini and Glickman) were from a group called the Chicago Council. The Chicago Council published a report on helping global hunger, and they were advocating for it. The others who testified on the same panel also agreed with the plan. It was pretty clear from the hearing that the plan called for a Green Revolution redux, but I figured - what the hell, better read the report.
As predicted, the executive summary began by calling for a second Green Revolution. (If you're unfamiliar with the first Green Revolution, it was the export of our pesticides, fertilizer, and unsustainable agriculture techniques to the developing world... nothing "green" about it.)
The source of these problems is not fluctuating food prices on the world market, but low productivity on the farm. The production growth needed will have to come from improved farm policies, technologies, and techniques, including those that address the effects of climate change. - Chicago Council report, p. 16
If you read that paragraph you will see that the Chicago Council's overall plan will all aim to increase crop yields in the developing world. I DO agree that helping poor farmers improve agricultural techniques is a good idea. I DON'T agree that pesticides & fertilizers are the way to do it. I don't know enough about Africa to know whether or not their problem is truly crop yields.
I also think that more besides increased yields is needed. Think about all of the support our society & government provides here in the U.S. We have paved roads all over the country, everyone can be plugged into the electric grid, phone lines, and internet. We have a working court system. We have police and fire departments. Everyone can have a free education K-12. We have clean water. We're not living in a war zone either, and while our government is corrupt in some ways, it's pretty darn good in comparison to places like Sudan. I'm not suggesting that the solution for poor African farmers is broadband internet, but I do think it's important to take into account what kind of support structures developing countries' governments can put into place to help their people.
Buy an autographed copy of Recipe for America LVL Gear
"Too Big to Fail" T-Shirt
(details)
Support La Vida Locavore
Subscribe for $10/month:
One-Time Gift:
