Environmental group slams Iowa Farm Bureau bid to "harass and intimidate"

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 18:23:01 PM PDT

The Republican War on the EPA

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:35:13 AM PST

New House Ag Chair Speaks Out Against the EPA

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 00:45:03 AM PST

"I want to commend the Farm Bureau for taking a strong stance on one of the most significant issues facing American agriculture:  the hostile regulatory approach of the EPA.  As the new Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I pledge to hold vigorous oversight of the administration on a number of issues that threaten the livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers.

"I welcome the Farm Bureau's continued efforts to rein in the EPA's aggressive attempt to impose new regulations on agricultural production throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which has far reaching consequences for the entire U.S.  We all support the goal of achieving clean water, but EPA is moving forward with accelerated and questionable regulations without considering the consequences for farmers and rural communities or without considering the ongoing conservation measures our producers are using to improve water quality.

Food Movement Needed! Corporate Agribusiness Fights GIPSA

by: Brad Wilson

Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 21:43:45 PM PST

(For more on the American Meat Institute, see my diary here:  "Do you support the 'Farm Coalition Group.'" They've long been a cheap corn group.  Click on my name.)

This is a huge issue where we need the food movement do quickly mobilize 100,000 supporters.  

The REAL Food Police Cracks Down on San Diego

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 14:22:18 PM PDT

The reason? The light brown apple moth, or LBAM. It's an invasive pest from Australia that the CDFA and USDA have been going bonkers over for the past few years, despite assertions from entomologists specializing in invasive pests that the government is using science from the 1960's and its tactics are, more or less, stupid and worthless. To date, quarantines by the government have harmed farmers in our state much more than the pest itself has. I've posted the specific rules of the quarantine below. Here's what the Farm Bureau website says about the impending quarantine:

As feared, another light brown apple moth discovery has occurred in the county. Instead of just one moth as was found in Bonsall, this time four were found in one trap, which exceeds the quarantine trigger of two. The site is near the intersection of the 805 and 15 freeways in the City of San Diego. Additional traps have been set to determine the intensity of the infestation and those traps will be read on Thursday.

Sometime next week the state will set the boundaries of the State Interior Quarantine, which will extend out 1.5 miles from the find sites and at this point doesn't appear to capture any commercial producers. However, after the state quarantine is declared, there will be the declaration of a federal quarantine and the feds are leaning towards placing the entire county under quarantine. Timing on that declaration is still unknown. County, state, and federal officials are currently working through the situation. 35 additional inspectors are currently en route to San Diego from other parts of the state and country to assist with the project.

EPA Intern Advocates Vegetarianism, Pisses Off Farm Bureau

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 15:11:48 PM PDT

The EPA blogger concludes:

Regulations can be made to help prevent the effects of meat production, but the easiest way to lessen the environmental impacts is to become a vegetarian or vegan. The vegetarian/vegan alternative can be easily accomplished in today's markets and restaurants.

Then the blog post says:

About the author: Nicole Reising is an intern at the Office of Children's Health Protection. She is a sophomore studying non-profit management at Indiana University.

Editor's note: As stated on the "About" page, "The opinions and comments expressed in Greenversations are those of the authors alone and do not reflect an Agency policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy of the contents of the blog."

Why should this be controversial? The author, who is interning at a place called the Environmental Protection Agency, is advocating action that would protect the environment. Yet the Farm Bureau is all pissed off.

"While this is a position taken by an intern of the agency, EPA should control its blog space," said AFBP President Bob Stallman. "What is written on its blog comes across as its official position toward farmers and ranchers that it regulates and shows a terrible disregard for them and the agriculture industry."

Right. You're just pissed off that the way Big Ag makes money is inconsistent with the needs of human health and the planet and that ultimately you'll be forced to change - whether by the EPA or by Mother Nature.

Note that Stallman is someone who believes that "there is no generally agreed upon scientific assessment of the exact impact or extend of carbon emissions from human activities, their impact on past decades of warming or how they will affect future climate changes."

Below, you can see a few other quotes from a speech he gave in January. This guy's pretty disconnected from the realities of climate change, pollution, and even human health. He's not somebody who should be commanding newspaper headlines, nor should he receive credit for speaking for America's farmers.

Update on the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture's director search

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Feb 13, 2010 at 06:35:33 AM PST

For about two months, Louws neither accepted nor declined the offer to head the Leopold Center. Meanwhile, ISU President Greg Geoffroy denied that he had been influenced by the Farm Bureau, saying he had followed "very strong advice" from Wintersteen and ISU's Executive Vice President and Provost Elizabeth Hoffman. In the sustainable agriculture community, many people believe industrial agriculture interests influenced Wintersteen's and Hoffman's recommendation.

In any event, Louws has declined ISU's job offer, the Ames Tribune reported yesterday. Wintersteen said North Carolina State University made him "a generous counter offer," and Louws decided not to uproot his family.

According to the Ames Tribune, Geoffroy "advised [Wintersteen] to call Salvador back for a second interview" after Louws turned down the Leopold Center job. That interview has not yet been scheduled.

Iowa State let Farm Bureau choose the head of the Leopold Center

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 08:19:17 AM PST

Iowa Farm Bureau made it known to ISU aggies that the leading candidate for the post, Ricardo Salvador, the program director for the Kellogg Foundation's Food, Health and Wellbeing program, was not its prime choice. It preferred Frank Louws, a plant pathologist at North Carolina State.

According to interview and program evaluations, Louws was a clear second to Salvador in almost every category commented on by evaluators. He had limited experience with Iowa commodities, no livestock experience, no "national or international reputation in sustainable agriculture," and a "lower scope of vision" for the Center than Salvador.

Despite these shortcomings, Iowa State President Gregory Geoffroy authorized ag Dean Wendy Wintersteen to offer Louws the job. Simultaneously, Wintersteen sent Salvador an email Dec. 2 that informed him he would not be Leopold director.

Why, asks Laura Jackson, a center advisory board member and a professor of biology at the University of Northern Iowa, was Salvador, "clearly the most qualified applicant interviewed," sent packing before Louws either accepted or declined the position?

Those who have seen the documentary King Corn might remember Salvador from a few scenes. He is highly regarded by sustainable agriculture experts inside and outside the U.S. and is an expert on one of Iowa's leading crops.

Guebert reports that Louws has neither accepted nor declined the position at the Leopold Center, so perhaps there is still a chance for Salvador to be offered the job. Either way, the episode doesn't reflect well on ISU, which already had a reputation for being less than welcoming to sustainable agriculture advocates.

When Fred Kirschenmann was hired as director of the Leopold Center in 2000, none of the agricultural science departments wanted him on their faculty for fear of angering corporate interests. So, Kirschenmann was appointed to the ISU Department of Religion and Philosophy. But at least the Farm Bureau was not allowed to veto his hiring. It's a sad day for a university when a corporate group can overrule the strong preference of a hiring committee.

The Palin/Biden Debate, Re-enacted

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 23:27:51 PM PDT

My goal tonight was a simple one: to come up here and at no point seem like a condescending, ego-maniacal bully. and I'll be honest: I think I nailed it. There were moments when I wanted to say, "This lady's a dummy!" But I didn't.

Michael Pollan nailed it too. This cute, cheerleadery, young girl spouted off every single Big Ag talking point in the book. (I kept expecting her to start winking, Sarah Palin-style.) The last thing he could do was pick a fight with a student. That would turn into an ugly incident that would make national headlines. The many Farm Bureau members in the audience would make sure of it. His response to the student was nothing short of brilliant.

(Just a caveat here: Maybe Pollan didn't think she was a dummy. I don't want to put my words in his mouth. He was incredibly respectful to her, and for all I know, he thought she had something valuable to say. Maybe he was impressed that a student had the courage to stand up to a national celebrity like himself.)

Who Really Speaks for Family Farmers

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 14:50:36 PM PDT

My family has farmed in Missouri for over a century and I currently raise livestock and grain on 800 acres in Howard County, Mo. But folks like me always seem to get drowned out in Washington, D.C, by commodity groups purporting to represent my interests. The American Farm Bureau bills itself as the "voice of agriculture." A seemingly innocent-sounding group called the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) calls itself "the only nationwide expression of dairy farmers." These organizations spend millions in lobbying and donating money to politicians. In the halls of Congress, in the federal agencies, and in presidential administrations, representatives from these groups exert undue control over the agenda for food and agriculture policy.  

It is near impossible to convince D.C. politicians that these corporate interests do not represent the interests of family farmers. Until now. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently concluded 13 listening sessions to hear farmers' input on the despised National Animal Identification System (NAIS) that calls for us to electronically tag and track the movements of every one of our animals. Factory farms, however, are allowed one group lot ID for their thousands of animals. Over $130 million of taxpayer money has been wasted on this radical, corporate-driven bureaucracy that originated from the National Institute for Animal Agriculture, a group comprised of - surprise, surprise - the Farm Bureau, National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), NMPF and agribusinesses such as Cargill. Only a gigantic outcry from farmers has stopped NAIS from becoming mandatory by its proposed 2009 date.

Keep reading at the link...

Funny Food Videos

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 12:31:01 PM PDT

From The Colbert Report, Colbert gives a tip of the hat to Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis who said that needy kids shouldn't be fed because hunger can be a motivating factor

From The Daily Show, here's an appearance by Food Inc director Robert Kenner

And, for something un-funny, here's a 60 Minutes segment about the Farm Bureau, posted by the National Family Farm Coalition:

Farm Bureau confident climate change bill going nowhere

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 10:02:54 AM PDT

Mary Kay Thatcher, AFBF director of public policy, tells Agriculture Online that Farm Bureau doesn't anticipate the massive climate change bill passed by the House last week to pass the Senate this year.

And the New York Times reported Tuesday that opposition from Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups threatens to kill the bill in the Senate. The Times reports that groups such as AFBF wield greater clout in the Senate, because members there must be protective of an entire state, rather than a small congressional district.

Here are the links to the Agriculture Online piece and the New York Times article.

You may recall that the Farm Bureau Federation lobbied members of the U.S. House to vote for Collin Peterson's lousy amendments to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act but against the bill intended to address climate change.

I have my own problems with the ACES bill, especially the deals made to appease the coal industry and Peterson's colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee. That said, the objections big agribusiness and their Congressional allies have raised against the cap-and-trade approach are off-base and short-sighted.

It wouldn't surprise me if Farm Bureau's vote-counter is correct and the Senate rejects the Waxman-Markey bill for the wrong reasons. Frankly, that might be better than letting senators like Claire McCaskill make this flawed bill even worse.

Farm Bureau: Yes on Peterson's amendment, no on Waxman-Markey

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 11:29:41 AM PDT

In a letter sent today to all 435 members of the House, AFBF President Bob Stallman said H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, will "unquestionably impose enormous costs on the American economy, including agriculture."

An AFBF economic analysis shows that at a minimum, net farm income will decline by $5 billion annually by the year 2020, if H.R. 2454 is passed.

"The $5 billion impact is under the most optimistic set of assumptions," Stallman said. "Those estimates do not begin to tell the story of what will happen when the program mandated by this legislation fully takes hold." [...]

Stallman praised Peterson's effort to improve the bill and urged passage of his amendment because it incorporates provisions that are critical to American agriculture.

"The Peterson amendment establishes an agricultural offset program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture; provides for a list of eligible agricultural offsets; corrects the misuse of indirect land use calculations in evaluating the use of biofuels; and alters the definition of biomass," Stallman explained.

I have a lot of trouble supporting the ACES bill myself, because as written it seems more like a pretend solution to a problem than a real effort to combat climate change. That said, Farm Bureau is taking the worst possible position: supporting an amendment that undermines the bill without supporting the overall goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

More Free Press For Food, Inc. - This Time From the Farm Bureau

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

The latest anti-Food Inc outburst comes from the American Farm Bureau. And while their name sounds quite farm-y, the organization tends to be on the wrong side of just about every single issue - wrong for farmers AND wrong for consumers. So it's quite funny how an organization that I view as anti-farmer is calling out Food Inc as anti-farmer.

(Hat tip to Naomi Starkman for sending this website my way.)

Feingold Makes a Statement on Dairy Bill

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 22:47:26 PM PDT

A bill to allow modified bloc voting by cooperative associations of milk producers in connection with a referendum on Federal milk marketing order reform.

What I do know is that dairy is heavily influenced by a big, bad cooperative. It seems the Feingold bill S.665 allows individual members within cooperatives to vote on issues separately from the cooperative if they wish.

He also introduced S.666 to prohibit products with ultrafiltered milk, milk protein concentrate (MPC), or casein from being labeled as "domestic natural cheese" (great bill!) and S.667, which is about milk pricing.

Meanwhile, Tom Vilsack plans to make a "major dairy announcement" tomorrow (Thursday). While I've been generally happy with Vilsack, he's making the announcement before the IL Farm Bureau, and that worries me.