The Environmental Impact of rbst in Dairy Production

The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production Judith L. Capper,* Euridice Castañeda-Gutiérrez,*† Roger A. Cady,‡ and Dale E. Bauman* Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 July 15; 105(28): 9668–9673

"Meeting future U.S. milk requirements from cows supplemented with rbST conferred the lowest AP, EP, and GWP, with intermediate values for conventional management and the highest environmental impact resulting from organic production. Overall, rbST appears to represent a valuable management tool for use in dairy production to improve productive efficiency and to have less negative effects on the environment than conventional dairying."

Tweeps of Interest: Rent Seeking and Biotech

The following tweets from Anastasia Bodnar  @geneticmaize capture the essence of of rent seeking and the impacts on the the biotech sector.

geneticmaize Anastasia Bodnar

@farminthehood @AgEconomist Opposition to M has resulted in consumer and regulatory climate where only few big companies can do anything.

Jun 14, 8:51 AM via web

geneticmaize Anastasia Bodnar

@farminthehood @AgEconomist So to be honest we don't really know what small companies would do. They've all been quashed.

Jun 14, 8:52 AM via web

Excellent analysis on her part.

See also :

The Constitution, Democracy, and Public Choice

Biotech and Rent Seeking

Rent Seeking and Biotechnology

And this from the New York Times is almost verbatim the first tweet above:

"Yet today we have only a handful of genetically modified crops, primarily soybeans, corn, canola and cotton. All are commodity crops mainly used for feed or fiber and all were developed by big biotech companies. Only big companies can muster the money necessary to navigate the regulatory thicket woven by the government's three oversight agencies: the E.P.A., the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/opinion/genetically-engineered-food-for-all.html?_r=3

References Related to Cry1Ab Protein Toxicity and Absorption

The first article below circulated the web (largely among foodies) some tie ago. Despite its many flaws (involving something as simple as interpreting the coefficient of variation) it still resurfaces, and contributes to stoking misplaced fears about biotechnology and pregnant women. David Tribe has done an excellent job reviewing the related literature (see 

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2011/04/it-you-record-noise-you-dont-get-music.html ). 

Below are just some of the articles discussed. 

(1) Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol. 2011 Feb 18. [Epub ahead of print] 

(2) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (pTDL004 or pTDL008) in Event T303-3 or T304-40 cotton plants (006525) Experimental Use Permit Fact Regulating Biopesticides -Active Ingredient Index. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007 www.epa-gov/op00001/pesticide 

(3) Dent CE, Schilling GA . Studies on the Absorption of Proteins: the Amino-acid Pattern in the Portal Blood . Biochem. J. 1949; 34 : 318 -335 

(4) Mathews DM. Protein Absoprtion. J.clin Path. 1972; 24,Supp.5 : 29-40 

(5) Mathews DM, Adibi SA. Peptide absorption. Gastroenterology. 1976 Jul;71(1):151-61 

(6) Bowen R. Absoprtion of amino acids and peptides, 2008. www.colostate.edu 

(7) Wickham M, Faulks R, Mills C. In vitro digestion methods for assessing the effect of food structure on allergen breakdown. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2009 Aug;53(8):952-8 

(8) Untersmayr E, Jensen-Jarolim E. The role of protein digestibility and antacids on food allergy outcomes. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008; 121: 1301-8. 

(9) Paganelli R, Levinsky RJ. Solid phase radioimmunoassay for detection of circulating food protein antigens in human serum. J Immunol Methods. 1980; 37: 333-41. 

(10) Moreno FJ, Rubio LA, Olano A, Clemente A.. Uptake of 2S albumin allergens, Bere1 and Ses i 1, across human intestinal epithelial Caco-2 cell monolayers. J Agric Food Chem. 2006; 54: 8631-9. 

(11) Yamada C, Yamashita Y, Seki R, Izumi H, Matsuda T, Kato Y. Digestion and (gastroitestinal absorption of the 14-16-kDa rice allergens. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2006; 70: 1890-7. 

(12) Guimaraes V, Drumare MF, Lereclus D, Gohar M, Lamourette P, Nevers MC, Vaisanen-Tunkelrott ML, Bernard H, Guillon B, Créminon C, Wal JM, Adel-Patient K. In vitro digestion of Cry1Ab proteins and analysis of the impact on their immunoreactivity. J. Agric Food Chem . 2010; 21 : 3222-31 

(13) Adel-Patient K, Guimaraes VD, Paris A, Drumare M-F,Ah-Leung, S, Lamourette P, Nevers M-C,Canlet C, Molina J, Bernard H, Créminon C, Wal J-M. Immunological and metabolomic impacts of administration of Cry1Abprotein and MON 810 maize in mouse. PLoS One. 2011; 6: e16346 http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC3029317/ 

(14) Nakajima O, Teshima R, Takagi K, Okunuki H, Sawada J. ELISA method for monitoring human serum IgE specific for Cry1Ab introduced into genetically modified corn. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007; 47: 90-5. 

(15) Okunuki H, Teshima R, Shigeta T, Sakushima J, Akiyama H, Goda Y, Toyoda M, Sawada J. Source Increased digestibility of two products in genetically modified food (CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab) after preheating. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2002; 43: 68-73. 

(16) Chowdhury EH, Kuribara H, Hino A, Sultana P, Mikami O, Shimada N, Guruge KS, Saito M, Nakajima Y. Detection of corn intrinsic and recombinant DNA fragments and Cry1Ab protein in the gastrointestinal contents of pigs fed genetically modified corn Bt11. J Anim Sci. 2003; 81: 2546-51. 

(17) M. Saito and Y. Nakajima E. H. Chowdhury, H. Kuribara, A. Hino, P. Sultana, O. Mikami, N. Shimada, K. S. Guruge, Detection of corn intrinsic and recombinant DNA fragments and Cry1Ab protein in the gastrointestinal contents of pigs fed genetically modified corn Bt11 J Anim Sci, 2003; 81: 2546-2551 

(18) Chowdhury EH, Shimada N, Murata H, Mikami O, Sultana P, Miyazaki S,Yoshioka M, Yamanaka N, Hirai N, Nakajima Y.. Detection of Cry1Ab protein in gastrointestinal contents but not visceral organs of genetically modified Bt11-fed calves. Vet Hum Toxicol. 2003; 45: 72-5. 

(19) Paul V, Guertler P, Wiedemann S, Meyer HD. Degradation of Cry1Ab protein from genetically modified maize (MON810) in relation to total dietary feed proteins in dairy cow digestion. www.lfl.bayern.de/ite/rind/35021/linkurl_0_2_0_8.pdf 

(20) Lutz B, Wiedemann S, Einspanier R, Mayer J, Albrecht C-Degradation of Cry1Ab Protein from Genetically Modified Maize in the Bovine Gastrointestinal Tract .J. Agric. Food Chem., 2005; 53 : 1453–1456 

(21) P. Guertler, B. Lutz, R. Kuehn, H. H. D. Meyer, R. Einspanier, B. Killermann and C. Albrecht. Fate of recombinant DNA and Cry1Ab protein after ingestion and dispersal of genetically modified maize in comparison to rapeseed by fallow deer (Dama dama). Eur J Wildlife Res. 2008; 54 : 38-43j 

(22) Albrecht C, Lutz B, Wiedemann C. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Verbreitung von Transgenen durch Tiere über pflanzliche Verbreitungseinheiten  nach Magen-Darm-Passage und über horizontalen Gentransfer www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/service/skript225.pdf 

(23) JC Jennings, LD Albee, DC Kolwyck, JB Surber, ML Taylor, GF Hartnell, RP Lirette, and KC Glenn . Attempts to detect transgenic and endogenous plant DNA and transgenic protein in muscle from broilers fed YieldGard Corn Borer Corn .  Poultry Science, 2003; 82 : 371-380 

(24) Badea EM, Chelu F Lacatusu A.Results regarding the levels of Cry1Ab protein in transgenic corn tissue (MON810) and the fate of Bt protein in three soil types . Romanian Biotechnological Letters Vol. 15, No.1, Supplement, 2010. www.ebooks.unibuc.ro/biologie/RBL/rbl1vol15Supplement/7%20Elena%20MArcela%20Badea.pdf 

(25) Xu W, Cao S, He X, Luo Y, Guo X, Yuan Y, Huang K Safety assessment of Cry1Ab/Ac fusion protein. Food Chem Toxicol. 2009; 47: 1459-65. 

(26) Randhawa GJ, Singh M, Grover M. Bioinformatic analysis for allergenicity assessment of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry proteins expressed in insect-resistant food crops. Food Chem Toxicol. 2011; 49 ; 356-62. 

(27) Agdia Bt-Cry1Ab/1Ac ELISA Kit -ELISA for the detection of Bt-Cry1Ab/1Ac proteins Catalog number: PSP 06200 https://orders.agdia.com/Documents/m172.pdf_0 

(28) Furukawa K, Tengler R, de Weck AL, Maly FE. Simplified sulfidoleukotriene ELISA using LTD4-conjugated phosphatase for the study of allergen-induced leukotriene generation by isolated mononuclear cells and diluted whole blood. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 1994; 4:110-5. 

(29) Pino RM. Binding of Fab-horseradish peroxidase conjugates by charge and not by immunospecificity. J Histochem Cytochem. 1985 Jan;33(1):55-8. 

(30) Envirologix.QualiPlate™ Combo Kit for Cry1Ab & Cry3Bb1 -Catalog Number: AP 039. http://www.envirologix.com/artman/publish/article_232.shtml 

(31) Quantitative ELISA for Bt-Cry1Ab. Immunoassay for quantitative detection of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac proteins in transgenic crops. http://www.krishgen.com 

(32) Walschus U, Witt S, Wittmann C. Development of Monoclonal Antibodies Against Cry1Ab Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis and Their Application in an ELISA for Detection of Transgenic Bt-Maize . Food and Agricultural Immunology , 2002; 14 : 231-230 

(33) Paul V, Steinke K, Meyer HD. Development and validation of a sensitive enzyme immunoassay for surveillance of Cry1Ab toxin in bovine blood plasma of cows fed Btmaize(MON810). Analytica Chimica Acta, 2008; 607 : 106-113 

(34) Icoz I, Andow D, Zwahlen C, Stotzky G. Is the Cry1Ab protein from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) taken up by plants from soils previously planted with Bt corn and by carrot from hydroponic culture? Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2009; 83:48-58. 

(35) Crespo LB , Spencer ZA, Nekl E, Pusztai-Carey M, Moar WJ, Blair D, Siegfried W. Comparison and Validation of Methods To Quantify Cry1Ab Toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis for Standardization of Insect Bioassays. Applied Environmental Microbiology , 2008; 74 :130–135 

(36) Zhu X, Chen L, Shen P, Jia J, Zhang D, Yang L. High Sensitive Detection of Cry1Ab Protein Using a Quantum Dot-Based Fluorescence-Linked Immunosorbent Assay. J Agric Food Chemistry. 2011; 59 : 2184-9.. 

(37) Case JT, Ardans AA. Nonspecific reactions in an enzyme-l inked immunosorbent assay caused by binding of immunoglobulins in situ to egg-propagated infectious bronchitis virus. Avian Dis. 1986; 30: 149-53. 

(38) Kuntz M. OGM et « pesticides » dans le sang ; première scientifique ou dernière pollution de la littérature scientifique. 2011 http://www.marcel-kuntz-ogm.fr/article-aris-leblanc-72486593.html 

(39) Matsubara T, Aoki N, Honjoh T, Mizumachi K, Kurisaki J, Okamjima T, Nadano D, Matsuda T. Absorption, migration and kinetics on peipheral blood of orally administered ovalbumin in a mouse model. Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biochemistry, 2008; 72 : 2555-2565 

(40) Husby S., Jensenius J C, Svehag S-E . (1985), Passage of Undegraded Dietary Antigen into the Blood of Healthy Adults. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, 1985; 22: 83–92. 

(41) Tsume Y; Taki Y; Sakane T; Nadai I; Sesake I, Watabe K, Kohno T, Yamashita S. Quantitative evaluation of the gastrointestinal absorption of protein into the blood and lymph circulation. Biological & pharmaceutical bulletin, 1996; 19 : 1332-1337 

(42) Veillerette P. Toutes les études scientifiques sur les pesticides. Pesticide Action Network. http://www.mdrgf.org 

HT: David Tribe (GMO Pundit)

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2011/04/it-you-record-noise-you-dont-get-music.html

Monsantophobia Explained

Monsantophobia: A schizophrenic bi-polar like condition characterized by an irrational fear of modern science and technology as it relates to food production in general, and in many cases specifically related to Monsanto Corporation.  Monsantophobia is prevalent throughout the population, including those with either left or right wing political tendencies.

Monsantophobia is NOT TO BE CONFUSED with a general concern for food safety, or even general criticism of biotechnology, or refusal to consume, grow, or market GMO products. Where criticism and fear of biotechnology crosses the line is when one attempts to project their personal preferences related to biotechnology onto others through petitioning the government for laws, regulations, or other restrictions that override or limit other people's preferences about biotechnology and food production. This obsession to limit the freedoms of others, and control their day to day personal choices from gate to plate is the most egregious aspect of what can be characterized as monsantophobia.

Examples of Monsantophobic Behavior:

Many (largely left leaning)critics of biotechnology are concerned that giant agribusinesses (like Monsanto) have too much market power and control over the food supply.  Some on the right often have the same concern, but believe Monsanto to simply be another wing of government oppression.  Thus, we have both anticapitalist and antigovernment activists in the same camp. Yet, in spite of the large body of scientific evidence supporting the safety of biotechnology, they support the existing outdated excessive regulatory framework (administered by not one but many regulatory agencies including the FDA, EPA, and USDA) that creates barriers to entry and economies of scale that promote and encourage larger corporations at the expense of small startups and public research. In addition, disregarding the science to the contrary, they also want to add to the regulatory burden by petitioning for unscientific labeling laws. 

Many left leaning critics are also very supportive of subsidies and regulations to promote environmental sustainability, yet, reject the evidence showing that through the price and profit motive almost all family farmers have adopted GMOs and created environmental benefits outweighing the impacts all subsidies and bureacratic edicts and government interventions. 

In addition, many of these same critics while rejecting the science supporting biotechnology are critical of those on the right for rejecting the evidence related to climate change.

Many on the right often promote free markets and capitalism, yet when it comes to biotechnology (which is the synergy of science, technology, and capitalism) many want more restrictions and even call for labeling. Instead of allowing family farms to choose the technologies best suited to meet their needs, we often can find some on the right supporting anit-GMO anti-capitalist and interventionist ideals.

This irrational fear of biotechnology that characterizes monsantophobia leads to policy preferences that are diametrically at odds and inconsistent. This fear in its extreme isn't that different from other conspiracy theories ( 'truther' theories about 911, etc.). When the government pulls experts from industry and academia that have experience in biotechnology, its viewed as putting 'Monsanto people' in charge of our food supply.  Take for instance the following article Obama Moves To Crush Poland After Global Genetic Disaster Revealed from the European Union Times:

"To what the Americans will do to protect themselves from the “mad scientists” unleashed by the Obama regime against them there appears to be nothing as, and as always, their mainstream propaganda media organs will not let them know the truth, while at the same time they refuse to listen to any others."

Solutions to  Monsantophobia

Perhaps the best approach is education. Borrowing a quote from Jonathan Foley, "Sometimes we need to differentiate popular environmentalism (a collection of beliefs) from environmental science (a body of evidence)." Sharing knowledge about modern agriculture with others becomes a challenge when popular media figures such as Oprah and Dr. Oz work to perpetuate the mythology surrounding the dangers of biotechnology. Sometimes it takes a little outreach from the farm, as this one farmer sent an open invitation to Oprah Winfrey to 'come to my farm and see why biotechnology makes sense.'

Disclosure: The term 'monsantophobia' is not my own. I think that I first came across the term at the very well written Eat Drink Better blog post entitled 'Monsantophobia: Sustainability Concern or Wealthy Convenience'. Referring to people that are critical of biotechnology as monsantophobes probably isn't the best approach when communicating with them. However, recognizing the inconsistencies in policies and positions related to biotechnology (that we might characterize as 'monsantophobic') may be a useful exercise for determining an effective approach to communicating to critics the benefits of modern sustainable agriculture.

Portlandia: True Food Democracy-Voting with Your Fork

Whatever the true intentions of this humorous scene from the IFC series Portlandia, one thing it illustrates (with a little embellishment) is how well market forces respond to the wide array of consumer preferences that exist.  Many people may  feel that so called 'corporate industrial agriculture' has dominated the food supply, and that only by democratizing the food supply can we get the politically correct form of agriculture (as in local, free range, organic, natural etc.) that we should want and deserve.

As discussed before, markets ( in a sense voting with your fork), provide a much better way to express food preferences than voting schemes. In a food democracy, the vast array of options the people in the video are after, and what most 'foodies' desire, would be limited to only reflect the limited knowledge and preferences of a few voters or bureaucrats. Instead of allowing the multitudes to express their food preferences as often and intensely as they desire through the market, input about food options would be limited to the untimely occasion of a blunt vote, with intense lobbying, protesting, and letter writing (to elected officials, newspapers etc.) in the interim. With food democracy we move away from a system that continuously captures everyone's input via the price system (perhaps imperfectly) to one that simply samples (even more imperfectly) it in the voting booth.  Of course some advocates of food democracy could argue that they are not advocating every calorie be put to a vote, but simply democratically setting some ground rules about how food is produced, processed, marketed, regulated, labeled, etc. and letting the market take over from there.

The analysis is still the same. Instead of allowing the multitudes to express their food preferences (in relation to about how food is produced, processed, marketed, regulated, labeled, etc.) as often and intensely as they desire through the market, input about these options would be limited to the untimely occasion of a blunt vote, with intense lobbying, protesting, and letter writing (to elected officials, newspapers etc.). The principle still holds that whenever we move away from allocating resources based on prices that reflect the knowledge and preferences of multitudes of free people, to democratically allocating resources, we shrink the pool of knowledge we are willing to consider in making these choices. The information we throw out is often the most personal and meaningful (unless of course your preferences exactly match those that get the most votes!)

Food Democracy *Not* Now or Ever

Are food choices something that should be determined by democratic decision making?  To understand this, it is important to understand the fundamental problem of economics known as the knowledge problem. The problem facing all forms of government including democracies is that centralized decision makers never have enough information or proper incentives to act on the information at hand. As Economist F.A. Hayek (1945) described it:

'the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form, but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all separate individuals possess'

The price system allows us to channel the imperfect knowledge of multitudes of imperfect people with imperfect incentives and utilize it to coordinate decisions. Democratic decision making on the other hand, allocates resources using command and control based on the more limited knowledge and preferences of a few voters, elected officials, or appointed bureaucrats. So, when we move from market based food choices to democratically based choices we are drastically reducing the amount of information we are willing to consider in making these decisions.

Many people complain about phone and cable bundling packages. Voting is the ultimate form of bundling, only worse, the voter often doesn't get to even choose the 'service.' As explained in article 'The Public Choice Revolution'  (Regulation, Fall 2004):

 "In our democracies, voters do not decide most issues directly. In some instances, they vote for representatives who reach decisions in parliamentary assemblies or committees. In other instances, they elect representatives who hire bureaucrats to make decisions. The complexity of the system and the incentives of its actors do not necessarily make collective choices more representative of the citizens’ preferences."

Voting also fails to capture the intensity of our preferences. When we vote, its just one vote, no matter how intensely we may care about an issue. With a price system, we can express our interests penny by penny and minute by minute (as we toil to earn an income).

Does that mean that we should leave the country or start a dictatorship? Of course not. We should however, limit democratic decision making and government involvement to as few areas of our lives as possible, which is what our founders had in mind when they created our Constitutional Republic.

So what does that mean for food choices? Food is an extremely personal and detailed consumption product. Of all areas of our life, food is an area where we would hope our choices can be expressed as precisely and intensely as possible, based on our own private knowledge, tastes, and preferences; not bundled with the preferences of others or subject to how some stranger may 'vote' about it or some politician or bureaucrat may dictate (Sorry Mayor Bloomberg).

In fact, the market does a pretty good job of providing consumers a variety of food choices, from non GMO organic, to local, to an array of modern sustainable choices made possible by companies like Cargill, ADM, and Monsanto. Food in a democracy should be food that we choose to consume, not food that we vote to consume. 

References:

'The Public Choice Revolution', Regulation Fall 2004. ( link ).

The Use of Knowledge in Society
F.A. Hayek
The American Economic Review Vol 35 No 4 (Sept 1945) p. 519-530

Hybrid Corn vs. Hybrid Cars

Which is better for the environment, hybrid corn (with biotech traits) or hybrid cars? Which is most easily adaptable and consumable on a scale large enough to have any meaningful impact on the environment? Which can be achieved most easily through social cooperation vs. manipulation and coercion?  I’ll answer these questions and more below. 

According to research from PG Economics, in 2009 alone,  greenhouse gas reductions associated with biotechnology were equivalent to removing 7.8 million cars from the road. I like to contrast this with the stats related to the much beloved hybrid car. Worldwide there have been only about 1.6 million hybrid cars sold as of 2009.  As far as cars on the road, the US and Japan have about 600,000.  And, I understand that the Obama Administration is calling for  1 million plug in hybrids on the highway by 2015. 

 So with hybrids we are talking a few million cars at most, that  are still on the road, and still one way or another require electricity, coal, or gasoline, which still creates pollution.  And there is all of this hype and interest in government setting mandates or creating subsidies to coerce consumers into buying hybrids. 

 Of course, if we all drove hybrids the impact might dwarf the 7.8 million figure above, but we would still have to net out the effects of driving hybrids.  It would take more than 7.8 million hybrids to match the green impact of biotech!  And it might take a lot of coercion and incentivization by government. We don't have to make a huge change in our lifestyle to consume biotech foods! 

That's not counting the positive impact of biotech and pharmaceutical technologies in beef and dairy  production.

" the carbon footprint for a gallon of milk produced in 2007 was only 37 percent of that produced in 1944. Improved efficiency has enabled the U.S. dairy industry to produce 186 billion pounds of milk from 9.2 million cows in 2007, compared to only 117 billion pounds of milk from 25.6 million cows in 1944. This has resulted in a 41 percent decrease in the total carbon footprint for U.S. milk production." 

And

“Grain feeding combined with growth promotants also results in a nearly 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) per pound of beef compared to grass feeding (excluding nitrous oxides), with growth promotants accounting for fully 25 percent of the emissions reductions”

References:

GM crops: global socio-economicand environmental impacts 1996-2009. Brookes and Barfoot.

http://www.tech-faq.com/hybrid-cars.html

http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/How_Many_Hybrid_Cars_Are_on_the_Road

The Environmental Safety and Benefits of Growth Enhancing Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production. By Alex Avery and Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute, Centre for Global Food Issues.

Organic, Natural and Grass-Fed Beef: Profitability and constraints to Production in the Midwestern U.S. Nicolas Acevedo John D. Lawrence Margaret Smith August, 2006. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture)

The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science,Capper, J. L., Cady, R. A., Bauman, D. E. 2009; 87 (6): 2160 DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-1781

Food Quiz

Refer to the images above labeled 'A' and 'B.'

#1 Correctly label each product:

A _____________________________________________________
B _____________________________________________________

 #2 Which statement below is most correct.

a. Product A is typically identified on food labels
b. Product B is typically identified on food labels
c. Both product A and product B are typically identified on food labels
d. none of the above

Ans: See comments

Farm Bill Fallacies

In a recent Mother Jones article,  I found some pretty common misconceptions related to agricultural policy.  The concluding paragraph sums up much of the article:

“At a time when the public is increasingly demanding a more sustainable and healthy food production system, Congress is in the process of enshrining agribusiness as usual—pinching the pennies that go to sustainable food programs while propping up destructive agriculture tailored to the profit needs of agrichemical companies like Monsanto.”

In this article, the concept of “Big Ag” is referenced at least 4 times.  When I hear the term ‘big ag’ I have to read on to see if they are confusing 'big ag', 'factory farming' or 'industrial agriculture' with the complex network of modern family farms, biotechnology companies, food processors, and retailers that cooperate to bring healthy and sustainable food to your table. It seems to be the case in this instance.

One of the major concerns with the farm bill, as presented in the article, is that budget cuts will lead to decreased funding for ‘progressive’  food and ag programs while continuing to promote more ‘regressive’ ‘Big-Ag’ friendly areas of agriculture:

“All of that, of course, is manna to the companies that supply inputs to industrial-scale farmers: seed and pesticide companies like Monsanto and Syngenta; and to the companies that buy corn and soy and transform them into a range of low-quality, profitable foods.”

 So lets look at the inherent claims made here and above. 

Are we pinching pennies from sustainable food programs and propping up ‘destructive’  agriculture tailored to the needs of agrichemical companies and industrial-scale producers? 

You might claim that if there are cuts to funding for marketing foods to farmers markets or financing transitions to organic farming, that we are defunding sustainability in the farm bill. However, many of the green technologies (herbicide and pest resistant GMO crops, pharmaceuticals) used by modern farmers dwarf the impact of other consumer green technologies like hybrid cars.  These technologies certainly profit companies like Monsanto, but shouldn’t we expect companies to profit to the extent that they improve the lives of others? It should also be emphasized that these technologies are largely scale neutral, and aren’t used exclusively by the largest or ‘industrial-scale farms.’ In fact, globally, the single largest growing demographic of GMO adopters are small land holders in developing countries.  

When you actually follow the money, it may appear that it all goes to ‘Big Ag’ in terms of large producers that then in turn buy inputs from companies like Monsanto. In reality, subsidies make up a very small percent of the budget of the largest farms and likely don’t impact input or cropping decisions.  They actually make the largest difference in terms of budget to the smaller producers.  
Among those most lagging in green technology adoption are organic producers, which have zero tolerance for GMOs, (although fully embracing more volatile methods utilizing nuclear radiation to breed better plants). So, its not entirely clear cut that taking funds from local and organic programs would have a net negative impact on the environment, or that it promotes ‘destructive’ agriculture. 

Do subsidies largely favor the consumption of low quality foods as opposed to healthy fruits and vegetables? Are we propping up the companies that process corn and soy? 

Some people have the impression that healthy supplements in our diets, like fruits and vegetables, are more expensive than processed foods containing staples like corn and soybeans because corn and soybeans are subsidized more heavily than fruits and vegetables. This couldn't be further from the truth. The agronomics, labor, risk, economies of scale, and capital costs associated with fruit and vegetable production make those crops much more expensive than commodities, and have a much larger role on their prices than subsidies.  Eliminating commodity programs would have an insignificant impact at the retail level on staple food prices relative to fruits and vegetables. 

In fact, most of the research indicates that completely eliminating corn subsidies would reduce corn based food consumption by less than ½ of 1% .

Never mind  the fact that soy is one of the healthiest food products that you can eat, and a large amount of corn ultimately goes to producing healthy, sustainable, and nutritious meat products like lean beef!

The overall impact of completely eliminating U.S. commodity protection and subsidies at the commodity level in terms of total acres produced and commodity prices would also be minimal, as reported by researchers at UC Davis:

Eliminating or restructuring the farm bill is not an issue of sustainability or healthy food production. At best it is a size and scope of government debate.  Regardless, if we completely eliminate commodity related programs and subsidies, corn is still king and Monsanto will still continue to sell Roundup and GMO soy as long as the 98% of all U.S. farms that are family farms embrace the benefits of modern sustainable agriculture. At a time when the public is increasingly demanding a more sustainable and healthy food production system, ‘Big Ag’ is delivering.

REFERENCES: 

See also links tagged subsidies. 

Farm Subsidies and Obesity in the United States

Julian M. Alston, Daniel A. Sumner, and Stephen A. Vosti

Agricultural Resource Economics Update

V. 11 no. Nov/Dec 007

U.C. Davis