Pollan's Folly in a Nutshell: "Food Inc.," "Fresh" and Beyond

by: Brad Wilson

Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 11:38:33 AM PST

I'm picking on Pollan here (ie. folly) in the spirit of Noam Chomsky, who often chooses the strongest opponent or argument to debunk.  Pollan clearly is doing a lot of things right.  That's a given for me which I rarely expand upon.  He almost gets this issue right.  Bottom line?  Pollan just ends up siding with Cargill and ADM (see quote below, and then my analysis) as a sort of default policy position.  He leads most others in the food movement, bringing a huge load of folks way up, almost to the peak of the mountain, . . . but then he fails to take the final step and, like Sisyphus, it all goes rolling back down to the valley and down into the depths of the dark canyon (as in food movement, mainline church, progressive positions on the 2008 farm bill) of inadvertent support for multi billions for the giant agribusiness beneficiaries.

Now, Pollan can often be quoted against himself.  The Omnivore's Dilemma is a 450 page book in which he talks briefly about the farm bill here and there, and here and there, and here and there.  He'll talk one way for a while and then say, well, actually that's not really true the way it sounds.  That's usually good.  These are dilemmas that are either reconciled fairly well (as I'm arguing here and elsewhere) or that digress into negantropic vicious circles, as in the 1996, 2002 and 2008 farm bills, or that do the latter in a "green" way, as also in those farm bills.

Actually I spoke to Pollan about this very matter when he was in Iowa City a year or two ago and I thought he was on board.  I must have been wrong, according to the evidence, (the quotes,) I've presented below.

Do you support the "Farm Coalition Group"

by: Brad Wilson

Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 10:55:09 AM PST

Did you support the Senate Bill?  House?  Kind/Flake?  Grassley/Dorgan?  Ok, what you supported, did it include supply management (production controls) for wheat and other grains?  None of the bills above included supply management for grain.  

Did you support farm bill principles from one group or another?  Did you write any letters?  Make any phone calls?  Was there anything about supply management?  

No?  Well, that's great, says the "Farm Coalition Group."  (You're for farms, right?)

Here's a vintage letter (also footnoted in Al Krebs book, The Corporate Reapers.

"*Farm Coalition Group
1750 K Street, NW #700, [oooops, they moved, probably to Crystal city?]

                                                                    October 24, 1985
Dear Senator:

For many months now, the organizations listed below have been working with Congress to develop a viable, long-term food and agriculture program for this Nation.

Given the current economic and credit situation within the farm community and its related industries, we recognize the necessity and importance of government involvement in the 1985 Farm Bill.  However,
we believe that a gradual transition toward a long-term market-
oriented agriculture program is in the best interests of all -- producers, suppliers, processors, consumers, and taxpayers.

It is for these reasons we urge your support in removing the mandatory wheat referendum provision in S. 1714, the Agriculture, Food, Trade and Conservation Act of 1985.  We are opposed to this provision because:

1) mandatory production controls weaken U.S. agriculture's ability to effectively compete for export markets while it encourages our competitors to increase their world market share; and,

2) higher domestic costs will exacerbate the current farm
income situation as the other segments in the food distribution chain (farm input industry, processors, livestock feeders, etc. all the way through to the consumer) modify their domestic purchases as a result.

We urge that you support the amendment to strike the referendum provision for mandatory government production controls.  We would also appreciate your opposition to any other amendments establishing such a referendum.

Sincerely,

American Bakers Association, National-American Wholesale Grocers Association, American Cotton Shippers Association, American Meat Institute, National Broiler Council, Biscuit & Cracker Manufacturers' Association of America, National Confectioners Association, Chamber of Commerce of the U. S., National Fertilizer Solutions Association, Chocolate Manufacturers Association, Farm & Industrial Equipment  Institute, National Food Processors Association
Florida Phosphate Council, National Pasta Association, Food marketing Institute, Potato Chip/Snack Food Association, Independent Bakers Association, Millers' National Federation, Ralston Purina Company, The Fertilizer Institute"

Which side were you on?  Did you advocate for supply management?

Fortunately for the "Farm Coalition Group," they don't have to worry about such things these days.  Supply management hasn't been in the farm bill since the 1990 farm bill!  Everybody is all worked up about farm subsidies instead.  No need to worry.

Ok, that was 1985. Krebs listed "Most Profitable US Consumer Food Companies, 1988," (chart p. 41, The Corporate Reapers, from Wall Street Journal, 11/7/88):   Kellogg, H.J Heinz, Hershey Foods, RJR Nabisco, Quaker Oats, General Mills, Borden, Pillsbury, Kraft, General Foods, Sara Lee.  More recently the National Farmers Union of Canada published "The Farm Crisis and Corporate Profits," http://www.nfu.ca/new/corporat...  Lots of record profits in 2004!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, yes!  "*Farm" Subsidies!

Subsidies vs Price Floors in Farm Bill History

by: Brad Wilson

Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 18:39:51 PM PST

Some Brief History of Subsidy Politics

The policies in the gray box (price floors etc.) came out of the New Deal, Roosevelt, evolving through several farm bills and the Steagall Amendment 1941 (banking committee) for farm parity as an economic stimulus (like we need today, instead of losing money on farm exports and driving down world prices, hurting wealth and jobs creation in farm areas including LDCs).

Prior to Roosevelt, for decades farm prices were usually low with many "panics." Coming from Hoover into Roosevelt in the Depression, my family saw 7¢ corn and lost the farm.  During the 1980s farm crisis my mother recalled this time (young teen then):  " My Uncle Clyde wasn't able to get my dad a job in the creamery or anywhere else.  This was the summer of 1932,  and the depression got even worse.  We couldn't pay the rent, so in the fall we had to move up to Aunt Alice's and move into their upstairs!  I felt terrible that we had to move in with relatives.  Now I realize how my folks must have felt!  The most humiliating thing of all was that my mother had to get Stewart to drive her over to Uncle Bill's and ask to borrow some money!  I imagine he said, 'I told you so!'"  

New Deal policies take it through Truman, with no commodity subsidies except a few on cotton in the early 30s.  We had 100% of parity in agriculture overall 1942-52.  Program costs in one estimate were about $13 million in the black, meaning that the government made money on the program through interest on price floor loans.  So with price floors and effective supply management, and with international implementation as advocated by the Africa Group at WTO (and by EU in the 80s) it can work.  So no subsidies were really needed.

Under Eisenhower price floors were lowered, however, lowering market prices, as the NFO rose up to oppose the drops.  Price floors were lowered further decade by decade (Under Republican and Democratic Presidents, but pushed more by Republicans in congress for big business) until they were ended (dropped to zero) in 1996.  One exception was the price spike during the 70s caused by the secret Russian grain deal ("The Great American Grain Robbery").  

Introducing Subsidies

But in the mean time, subsidies were added to quiet down angry farmers. Subsidies compensated for farmer losses (which is rarely mentioned in most recent subsidy discussions).  

Subsidy compensations were part of Nixon/Butz policy.  With the 70s price spike costs raced upward.  Farmers won a rise in price supports (Carter) to address skyrocketing costs, but not back up to parity and not enough to prevent the 80s farm crisis.  The rise of the devastating crisis, in hindsight, occurred under the better farm bill than we've seen since.

Reagan greatly increased subsidies, but lowered price floors even more.  Farmers got more from the government for a lowering of farm income.  Bush senior continued this.

Clinton slightly raised the price floor, and vetoed Freedom to Farm once before signing it in the Gingrich era.  FtoF called for new "decoupled" (Direct Payment) subsidies for a few years, declining and ending for a free market (Hooverism/think 7¢ corn).  This was quickly seen as a way to destroy farming, and bankers joined farmers to win 4 emergency farm bills which added a second kind of (counter cyclical) subsidy.  I think LDP (3rd kind) was an administrative option that Clinton implemented to address the crisis.  So farmers ended with another big increase in subsidies and a total reduction in farm income, since market prices with no price floors, fell even more.  This was massive dumping on LDC farmers, not caused by subsidies, but by zero price floors/supply management.  So CAFOs and processors got the hidden benefits.

Another trend here is that many farm state Democrats continued to advocate for New Deal style programs over the decades of decline.  During the 1980s when farmers were again activated in a large number of groups such a farm bill was formulated and won quite a few votes in congress.  It was known variously as the Farm Policy Reform Act, The Save the Family Farm Act, and the Harkin-Gephardt Farm Bill (Harkin in Senate, Gephardt in House, both Democrats).  Today it continues as the National Family Farm Coalition's "Food from Family Farms Act."  The main groups supporting this bill or similar concepts include the National Family Farm Coalition and its members, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Food and Water Watch, the American Corn Growers Association (not the National Corn Growers Association), the American Agriculture Movement, and the National Farmers Organization.  

In 2002 when Tom Harkin became chairman of the Senate Ag Committee he switched sides.  He stopped advocating for price floors and supported a greened up version of the worst Republican Farm Bill since Hoover, a green Freedom to Farm.  That goes for 2002 and 2008 farm bills.  In 1996, however, Harkin and the other Democrats (ie. Gephardt, Daschle, Wellstone) totally rejected this kind of a farm bill.  But all of them followed Harkin in a Green Freedom to Farm.

During the 1980s mainline churches also supported this kind of farm bill.  Today they support some version of a Greened up version of the Republican Freedom to Farm, as do most other progressive groups including the food movement, environmental movement and sustainable agriculture movement.

Sustainable and Organic farmers are a special case.  During the 1990s in trying to stop Freedom to Farm, the family farm movement worked hard to bring in sustainable and organic farm coalitions (SAWGs, NCSA, SAC) but failed and they have consistently supported some version of Green Freedom to Farm (big subsidies, no price floors or supply management).  Their policies provide or would continue multibillion dollar below cost gains for CAFOs and even bigger gains for Cargill (beyond billion in CAFO gains) and ADM.  Sustainable/organic folks have won greener subsidies like organic EQIP and CSP, but at those costs.  Likewise, when Michael Pollan, in Food Inc. and Fresh, speaks of cheap junk foods, Green Freedom to Farm Policies, with no price floors, do not raise the prices on corn, etc.  So when Pollan speaks of "subsidized corn" it's misleading.  The low/no price floors caused the low prices and the cheaper high fructose cory syrup and corn/soy transfats, as can be seen historically.  The subsidies prevent the destruction of farmers.  The bigger the farm, the bigger the losses to be compensated by subsidies.  Again, this is rarely mentioned when bashing farm subsidies.  Of course there are some economies of scale with larger farms, which changes their need somewhat.

So ending, greening, and/or capping subsidies are not policies that address the biggest CAFO benefits, processor benefits, ethanol benefits, exporter benefits against LDC farmers.  By the way, "family farm" advocates and their friends (ie. La Via Campesina with 200 million members) lost over and over on the price floor issue (without much food/consumer/environmentalist/organic help, and still today without help).  So some of them invested in ethanol to try to raise prices (and end processor below cost gains, dumping on LDC farmers).  So they lose money on corn, but then make it on ethanol, or in 2008, made money on corn but lost in on ethanol.  No where have I seen this understood in the progressive community outside of NFFC related groups.

(Least Developed Countries are 70% rural.  The US  has long had huge export market shares of some commodities, bigger than the middle East in Oil, but our leaders tried to get low world prices, not high world prices with it's clout, (clout of well above 50% export market share for corn and soybeans, for example, or up to +80%, but less each decade).

Subsidies vs Price Floors for the 2008 Farm Bill

Today these issues appear to be almost totally unknown outside of NFFC and its friends.  EWG listed 477 mainstream media articles supporting their position in support of a Green version of the Republican Freedom to Farm Act.  The Kind Flake Amendment and probably all others amount to the same.

Sometimes Republicans support Hooverism instead of what we have had  since 1996, which is Hooverism (free markets and free trade) with subsidy protection for farmers in rich countries.  Low subsidy caps are a way to force large farms out of business or to force them to break up.  It would probably be a kind of land reform, like forcibly running them out of business or making them illegal.  Note that in the 90s we had a $50,000 cap and called for $25,000, while well meaning progressives have recently called $200,000 cap a good step.  But these measures have nothing to do with price floors, and do not solve any of the big problems.  

Cargill and DAM (and to a lesser degree, Tyson and Smithfield) are the huge beneficiaries of all the diversionary talk about subsidies, with no mention of price floors.  What they've bought in Congress is policy that blames farmers and leads to no mention that the policies are designed primarily to benefit them, even at the expense of America losing money on farm exports of the major commodities virtually every year for a quarter century.  If you look at the EWG 477 editorials, you'll probably find hundreds of criticisms of farmers (who are merely partially compensated for losses caused by the lack of price floors) for every criticism of these real beneficiaries.  Not also that Cargill, DAM, (processors and exporters) Tyson and Smithfield (poultry hog CAFOs) and the others (ie. Kelloggs).

You can find footnotes for much of this in my Zspace blog articles, as well as many links to online sources.  I am also one place that explores this movement crisis online.  I've seen NO other place online that writes much on these issues, especially in reference to mainline churches, hunger groups (Bread for the World and Oxfam are among the worst on the Commodity Title issues I raise), sustainable agriculture, and the food movement.  (I link a few things from IATP on myths and APAC's Daryll Ray on some media/etc. misunderstandings, however.)  

Further Reading and Links

From my blog see especially my "foodie" and food movement pieces, such as my comparison of the National Corn Growers Association with so called progressives that supposedly hold radically different views:  http://www.zmag.org/blog/view/...

My "Farm Bill FACTs: Commodity Title: A Family Farm View" briefly goes right down a list of the main things I hear in the food movement and among the other groups I see as similarly missing the real issue, and then proves them wrong with online links:  http://www.zmag.org/blog/view/...

If you look around at (http://www.zmag.org/zspace/bradwilson) you'll see where I have footnoted pieces.

Help Food Democracy Now! advocate for the change we need

by: desmoinesdem

Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 07:19:50 AM PST

Food Democracy Now! is a grassroots movement initiated by farmers, writers, chefs, eaters and policy advocates who recognize the profound sense of urgency in creating a new food system that is capable of meeting the changing needs of American society as it relates to food, health, animal welfare and the environment.

As such, we are dedicated to advancing the dialogue on food, family farm, environmental and sustainability issues at the legislative and policy level. We understand the dynamic interplay between today's industrialized agricultural system and its impacts on human health and well-being, health care costs, rural communities and the environment. We advocate for policies that encourage sustainable, humane, organic and natural food systems.

We seek to transform today's system by advancing best practices in food production, animal husbandry, conservation of natural resources, renewable energy and soil preservation. Through these efforts we hope to stimulate local food systems, promote rural economic development, encourage a new generation of farmers and respond to the growing public demand for wholesome, fairly-produced food. We will also support candidates who advance this vision and who embrace common sense policies that respect our nation's air, water, soil, livestock, food workers, consumers and family farmers.

Click here and scroll down the page for background on the people who founded Food Democracy Now! Click here to view the list of the petition's 90 original signers.

Next week Food Democracy Now! plans to deliver the petition to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, so they are pushing to reach a goal of 100,000 signatures.

If you haven't done so already, go sign the petition, then ask a few of your friends to sign too.

Obama's Food Policy

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 15:29:08 PM PST

Can a community organizer from Chicago support community supported agriculture? First, he must display the courage to defend what the likes of Michael Pollan have to say, without apology.

Another article, this one by Christopher Cook, author of Diet for a Dead Planet, specifically calls for Obama to put a number of objectives on his food policy to-do list. In A Food Agenda for Obama, Cook calls for:

1. New public investments targeting sustainable agriculture, defined as organic, small- to mid-sized, diversified farming.

2. New investments in local/regional food networks and foodsheds - to help build up the connections between farmers and consumers, to open up and expand new markets for organic farmers and those considering the transition; for more farmer's markets and food stores that feature local produce.

3. A moratorium on agribusiness mergers, and strenuous antitrust provisions and enforcement to protect what little is left of diversity in the food economy.

4. A moratorium on all new genetically modified (GMO) products, and an expansion of existing ones, and appointment of a blue-ribbon panel/commission to assess the impact of GMO foods on our environment and our health.

5. A moratorium on - and gradual phasing out of - concentrated animal feeding operations, aka factory farms, which are among the nation's top polluters of water and air, and breeders of widespread and virulent bacterial strains.

6. Dramatically expanded regulatory enforcement and staffing in the US Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration to protect food safety and meat industry labor and environmental practices.

7. Slowing the hazardously fast meatpacking (and poultry) assembly line, to protect workers and consumers.

8. Incentives for small-scale urban, suburban, and rural farming ventures oriented toward diversified local food systems.

9. Bold public investment in a raft of public awareness campaigns that build support, and expand markets and demand, for sustainable alternatives such as urban agriculture and gardening, and reducing fast-food consumption.

More below...

More reaction to Vilsack's nomination and good ideas on food policy

by: desmoinesdem

Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:05:41 AM PST

A few days ago I posted a Vilsack reaction linkfest at the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland, but the hits just keep on coming.

Follow me after the jump for more.

Organic Consumers Association against Vilsack for Ag Secretary

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 22:23:58 PM PST

Click through to read the whole case against Vilsack. Among other things, they don't like his advocacy of genetically-engineered crops for food or pharmaceuticals, his tendency to travel in Monsanto's jet, and his support of biofuels.

I can't recall anything Vilsack did as governor to address pollution from conventional farming or to promote sustainable agriculture.

I would much rather see Vilsack in a different post, such as secretary of education. He is very smart, understands policy and works hard, so he would be an asset to the cabinet--just not as agriculture secretary, in my opinion.

Now your food will get a label just like your shirt

by: kacie

Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:38:39 AM PDT

COOL was first passed in the 2002 Farm Bill and again in the 2008 Farm Bill (the bill comes up every 5 years). However, even if a measure is passed in legislation, sometimes it gets watered down, has its purpose altered, doesn't get funded, or for some reason or other, just doesn't happen. This is what has happened with COOL and why it's taken so many years and so much effort on the part of advocacy groups to finally see it carried out. On a side note, this part of the policy process is referred to as "implementation," and requires the watchful eye and efforts of advocates to make sure those policy gains actually come to fruition. Anyways, the implementation of COOL took quite a bit of time and effort, as it will finally materialize this month - almost six years after it was first passed.

However, speaking again to the challenges of implementation, there's a pretty big loophole in this labeling system - processed foods aren't included. So this pretty much leaves out the whole middle section of the grocery store. For example - those big bags of peanuts still in their shells will sport a label bearing their home country's name while that small bag of sugary, roasted peanuts in the snack aisle won't have any addition to its shiny plastic bag.

There's another part of this new regulatory system that some producers aren't pleased with either. Meat or poultry that is born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the U.S. will get a U.S. sticker - seems pretty simple. However, with our industrialized food system, products are commonly shipped to different countries for various stages of processing and the end product can contain parts from different origins. For this, there are mixed labels. However, the mixed label can create advantages and disadvantages for producers of different sizes while at the same time creating confusion for consumers.

Yet another complication here is funding (or "appropriations" in Washington-speak). There is currently $1 million marked towards COOL labeling, which is just how much it would cost for the fish and shellfish component (which has been in effect since 2004). Now that they're finally getting around to adding meat, nuts, and produce (both fresh and frozen), the USDA Undersecretary for Marketing and Regulatory programs said that it will take close to an additional $10 million to enforce the labeling. So this money would have to be found through agriculture appropriations, which is money distributed to all programs with discretionary funding (as opposed to mandatory money, which is already included in the allotted money for the bill, like the $280 billion or so in the case of the Farm Bill) that the Ag committee doles out.

So the end of the story here is that you will be seeing country-of-origin labeling coming soon to a grocery store near you. But, geez, did whoever was responsible (maybe the Undersecretary of Marketing and Regulatory Systems for Garments, Footwear, and other Accessories?) for getting the country of manufacture onto the tag of your shirt have such a difficult time, too? Probably.

For more info on COOL, check out this USA Today article:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/...