Posted August 26, 2015 by Dale Wiehoff
If predictions are correct that another round of avian flu will hit this fall, we need to quickly step back and take a hard look at how last spring’s avian influenza disaster played out. A question that is getting little attention is what happened to the almost 50 million dead birds and the risks associated with their disposal?
The first reports in December of 2014 didn’t hint at the tsunami of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) that was about to come crashing down on the U.S. poultry industry. Backyard flocks in Oregon and Washington set off the alarm bells. On December 19 it was confirmed that a backyard flock in Douglas County, Oregon was infected with HPAI H5N8, a strain of avian flu that was raging through Europe, infecting poultry from Italy to Holland.
The Douglas County flock was incinerated on December 21, 2014. By July 31 of 2015, the USDA reported that close to 48.1 million birds in the US died from the H5N2 strain. Most of the confirmed infections occurred in April and May with Minnesota and Iowa the hardest hit states. After “depopulating” (killing) the infected flocks, there remained the issue of how to dispose of at least 100,000 tons of dead birds without spreading the virus through the air, dust or water.
The USDA’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has just launched a review of carcass disposal as it prepares recommendations for the next round of Avian Influenza expected this fall. In July, when Dr. John Clifford of APHIS testified before Congress on the response plans to halt the spread of infection, he said, “Our experience in the Midwest showed that the biggest roadblock to efficient depopulation (which is key to reducing the spread of the virus) is the lack of ready sites to receive and process dead birds.” The startling takeaway message from APHIS is that the poultry industry needs to build into their business model the disposal of millions of birds.
In the past, Avian Influenza outbreaks occurred periodically and affected particular regions of the world, but more recently it has gone global. According to Food and Chemical News, at the June 2015 conference of the Global Alliance for Research on Avian Disease (GARAD), Professor Ian Brown, director of the EU/FAO/OIE Reference Library for Avian Influenza, stated that avian flu will remain a threat to global food security for many years to come, “Strains of H5 highly pathogenic avian flu have become ‘truly panzootic,’ affecting poultry and wild birds globally," Brown told delegates.
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza outbreaks 2005 - 2013
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza outbreaks 2013 - 2015
At the first signs of infections, a white feathered curtain descended around the industrial poultry operations. Strict bio-security measures and response plans were put in place. The protocols are designed to stop the spread of the disease, but they did little to protect the more than nine million birds that were lost in Minnesota or birds in 21 other states. In just a few months, three percent of the U.S. annual turkey production and ten percent of its egg-laying population was wiped out.
The USDA and state agencies responsible for protecting livestock health blame migrating wild birds. In Minnesota, an investigation of this theory by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) failed to find strong evidence to support it. The next culprit accused of spreading the flu was the wind. It is still unclear how the virus entered so many bio-secure facilities, but every effort possible was made to keep the public from seeing the massive carnage that was taking place.
Few images were made public and little to no information on the actual location of the infected flocks was given out. Even today, with some barns already restocking, the Minnesota Board of Animal Health is not allowed to provide information on where the H5N2 outbreaks in Minnesota occurred because “the information is private/non-public pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.643.subd. 6.” The USDA provided a list of counties across the country with the dates of confirmed infections, depopulation and restocking, but the public is prevented from knowing exactly where these facilities are and where the carcasses were disposed. This effort to keep agricultural information from the public is part of a larger effort to establish “ag gag” laws across the country designed to protect agribusiness against charges of animal cruelty.
The preferred depopulation method by the USDA for on-floor flocks is a water-based foam used by fire departments, which smothers the birds. Minnesota state veterinarian Bill Harmann is looking into the Canadian use of carbon dioxide gas to asphyxiate poultry. APHIS has proposed another method: shutting off the ventilation system and letting the birds die from their own heat. This is controversial because of the pain it would cause the birds, but Dr. Clifford defends it:
“You can only take out about 100,000-plus birds a day out of one house and carbon dioxide those,” he said, when there are farms with millions of birds that have to be euthanized. “We need to allow all tools to be used in the toolbox. Any delay in putting birds down puts more virus into the environment.”
After the birds are dead, they’re disposed of by incineration, burial in landfills or composting. While the protocols and response plans are all very specific and detailed, actual experience in the U.S. with HPAI disposal of millions of birds with highly infectious diseases is still relatively new. Both burial in landfills and incineration have the drawback of needing to transport the carcasses off site, with the risk of spreading disease. Landfills, in addition to transportation risks, have the added disadvantage of the possibility of disease and waste leaching into the soil and water. Despite the risks, in this most recent outbreak of H5N2, incineration or burial in landfills were used almost exclusively with egg laying chickens and backyard flocks. Egg laying barns are full of cages and water and waste handling equipment that would have made in barn composting difficult.
Early experiments with composting as a disposal method for AI infected poultry go back as far as 1984, but composting didn’t come into its own until 2002, with broilers in the Del Marva Peninsula. In 2007, a little more than a million pounds of turkey carcasses infected with Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza (LPAI) H5N2 were composted. Composting works best in barns where the birds are kept on the floor and where the dead can be moved with a front end loader into piles and layered with wood chips, creating large rounded windrows where the birds decompose and the heat generated destroys the virus. It is safest to build the compost piles inside the barn to minimize the risk of spreading the disease while moving carcasses out of doors.
After a set period of time with the compost piles heating up, being turned and tested, the final step is to spread the finished compost on fields as fertilizer rich in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (N-P-K.)
The task of removing thousands of tons of dead birds is left to the operators of the poultry barns. The federal government has spent $191 million to help with the disposal of poultry carcasses in what is described as indemnification. In mid-April, Dr. Clifford reported that the USDA had already spent $15 million in Minnesota alone. How much of this money goes to poultry barn operators is not clear. In an industry dominated by four major chicken processors (Tyson, Pilgrims, Sanderson and Perdue) the farmers who contract with them are at a distinct disadvantage (note: strong language). Hormel is the turkey processor that owned most of the turkeys that died in Minnesota.
As we face the prospect of millions more birds dying from HPAI we need to ask what is the best way to get rid of all the dead birds. Is spreading thousands of tons of composted diseased birds on open fields safe for animals and humans? What if all the virus isn’t destroyed in the compost piles? What will happen when the disease strikes again? Who is looking out for the health and welfare of the farm operators who have to clean up after the disease? What happens if the virus mutates and crosses the species barrier and infects humans? And the biggest question of all, why are we continuing to raise poultry in a way that creates all this waste, suffering and risk to human health?
Posted August 17, 2015 by Ben Lilliston
When it comes to climate change, money can’t solve everything, but it can help. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is one of the most promising new vehicles to finance climate initiatives in developing countries already particularly hard hit by extreme weather. The GCF is gearing up to announce its initial round of approved projects prior to the global climate talks in Paris this December. But the GCF’s success, and whether it can break from past failures of other multilateral banks, will depend not only on the amount of money it’s able to raise from donor countries but also on the type of projects it supports.
A new report by the Institute for Policy Studies and Friends of the Earth U.S. provides a roadmap for future GCF funding. The report, with contributions from many organizations including IATP, highlights 22 energy and agricultural projects from developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
IATP helped to feature agroecology projects in Mexico, India, Malawi and Tanzania. The Deccan Development Society in India works in 75 villages with 5,000 women members on building greater autonomy in food production, successfully converting over 10,000 acres of degraded agricultural land into active cultivation. The Soil, Food and Health Communities project in Malawi focuses on agroecology and farmer-led research to improve food security, soil fertility and child nutrition. The National Association of Rural Commercialization Enterprises (ANEC) works with 10 regional networks of small and medium-sized farmers of basic grains to build a new model that is climate-resilient, profitable, grounded in gender and generational equity, and is peasant-driven. And the Chololo EcoVillage in Tanzania works with communities on climate adaptation innovations in agriculture, livestock, water, energy and forestry.
What makes the report a must-read for the GCF is not only the projects featured but the common characteristics that contributed to these initiatives’ success:
These characteristics are consistent with many of the pillars and principles of agroecology outlined in the landmark Nyeleni Declaration earlier this year. The profile of agroecology is rising. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) hosted an international symposium on agroecology last year and is holding a series of three regional meetings (including one last month in Brazil) this year. A growing number of scientists have come out in support of agroecology’s ability to “produce food in ecologically sustainable and socially just ways.”
The Green Climate Fund appears on the surface to be a good match for supporting agroecology in developing countries. The Fund is meant to be innovative, and to support country-driven responses that result in a paradigm shift toward low-emission, highly adaptive systems. GCF projects should also provide broad environmental and social benefits–including a gender-sensitive approach. At least 50 percent of the GCF’s projects must focus on climate adaptation–what is most needed by developing countries.
Yet, there are concerns about the GCF. Last month, the GCF approved Deutsche Bank as an accredited entity to channel GCF funds into programs and projects in developing countries. Friends of the Earth’s Karen Orenstein and Action Aid’s Brandon Wu point out that Deutsche Bank has a dark history as a top coal financier and recent legal issues around money laundering and tax evasion. It’s still an open question whether the GCF will repeat the mistakes of the World Bank and other multilateral banks by catering to the needs of wealthy countries and corporate interests.
Thus far, more than $10 billion has been pledged to the GCF by 36 countries. More than 120 project ideas have been submitted and the GCF hopes to approve an initial round of projects worth $500 million before the Paris meeting in December.
The Obama Administration has committed $3 billion to the GCF, including a first installment of $500 million in its 2016 budget proposal making its way through Congress. The House of Representatives has attempted to block the proposed GCF funding. The Senate has shown more support. The future of the Obama Administration’s proposed GCF funding will be tied to much bigger, long-term funding battles in Congress which could extend into the holidays.
In the coming months, we’ll learn a lot more about the future of the GCF and whether it will support a paradigm shift toward agroecology that is so badly needed to address our climate challenge.
Posted August 13, 2015 by Dr. Steve Suppan
Analyzing agriculture in trade negotiations as they occur is a little like playing blind man’s bluff. However, in a negotiations “game” with myriad consequences for the domestic regulations that protect public and environmental health and worker safety, among other public interests, the public is blind-folded throughout the negotiations. The other players are industry lobby groups and governments jockeying to achieve commercial advantage, often by removing regulatory “irritants” to trade through their privileged access to the negotiations process.
And the U.S. mainstream media are happy to play along with the game, as long as they get an occasional sneak peek at negotiations texts that the Obama administration denies to the public. For example, of the latest Transpacific Partnership (TPP) negotiating sessions, the New York Times writes, “A copy of the still incomplete intellectual property chapter, viewed by the New York Times, shows just how isolated the United States’ position is."
A Times editorial in June noted complacently, “[b]ecause trade agreements are understandably secret while they are being negotiated, it is hard to determine who is right,” the TPP proponents or critics. This editorial support for the Obama administration policy of denying public access to draft negotiations texts allows the Times to both have privileged access to the negotiations text and yet not be obliged to determine which claims about the TPP are right.
Recent leaks of the TPP intellectual property chapter uncover perhaps the most contentious chapter for the non-U.S. TPP negotiator–patent enforced pricing that blocks access to essential medicines. However, completion of the TPP negotiations is also blocked by serious disputes over agricultural market access opportunity offers. Some of the traditional forces of opposition to the demands of agribusiness exporters, such as the Japanese farmer cooperatives, reportedly have lost political and economic influence to defend their rice and beef markets. At this point, the agriculture market access fight is focusing on U.S. sugar and Canadian dairy import quotas. Import quotas are crucial features of U.S. de facto and Canadian de jure supply management.
Trading off agricultural access opportunity offers
Traditionally, trade negotiations consist of trade-offs, usually within the same economic sector. In the TPP negotiations, Australia says that it will offer market access for U.S. beef exports, if the U.S. increases market access for Australian sugar (“Angling for Sugar Access, Australia Allows Imports of Some U.S. Beef,” Inside U.S. Trade, July 16, 2015, subscription required). The U.S. sugar industry lobbies the U.S. Trade Representative to not allow increased market access and USTR Michael Froman has promised the TPP negotiations “won’t undermine the sugar program” (Cited in “USTR Stands Strong with U.S. Sugar Producers,” American Sugar Alliance, July 2015, www.sugaralliance.org).
The U.S. quotas for sugar imports perform a supply management function without the mandatory production restrictions that would be part of a statutory supply management program. The American Sugar Alliance, which represents farmers, explains on their website that “unneeded sugar from a TPP agreement could swamp the domestic market and trigger a taxpayer cost to U.S. sugar policy, which is projected to run at no cost over the life of the 2014 Farm Bill.” The National Confectioners’ Association (candy companies and other sweetener users) is lobbying hard to have the TPP remove U.S. sugar import quotas, which will trigger Farm Bill payments to sugar cane and sugar beet farmers, as the price of sugar collapses.
The USTR defense of the de facto sugar supply management program does not preclude it from attacking Canada’s dairy supply management program. Canadian import barriers are one part of a supply management program that has kept Canadian dairy prices, high, stable and above the cost of production. The National Farmers Union of Canada testified to its Senate in June that grain and cattle farmers and ranchers without supply management had suffered under Canadian trade agreements. Included in that testimony, however, were more positive comments: “ Canada’s supply management system is a success story for farmers, consumers, processors and governments. Canadian dairy producers obtain their income from the marketplace, not from government subsidies as occurs in most other countries. Canadian consumers have a reliable supply of wholesome milk, chicken, eggs and turkey. Processors have the predictability that allows them to operate at near full-capacity and avoid the cost of idled plant space that is common in other jurisdictions.”The debate over supply management is likely to figure prominently in the that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called for in October.
In July, on the eve of what had been billed as the concluding round of the TPP, the Democratic and Republican heads of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee wrote to the U.S. Ambassador to Canada with an ultimatum: "In fact, our support for a final TPP agreement that includes Canada is contingent on Canada's ability to meet the TPP's high standards" (“Hatch, Wyden Pressure Canada for ‘Significant’ Ag Market Access in TPP,” Inside U.S. Trade, July 24, 2015).
The “high standards” in question, write Senators Orrin Hatch and Ron Wyden, concern dismantling Canada’s dairy supplement management program to enable more U.S. dairy exports. Indeed, dismantling Canadian dairy supply would be a U.S. prerequisite for allowing dairy imports from any TPP member, above all from New Zealand, which exports milk protein concentrate (MPC), a dry powder containing 40-90 percent of the protein of milk. U.S. dairy importers use MPC, as it is cheaper than using U.S. milk or milk powder, for “cheese products.” New Zealand has dismissed the U.S. dairy import offer as not serious. (“Lawmakers, Dairy Groups Say TPP Export Gains Needed If U.S. To Open Its Market,” Inside U.S. Trade, April 6, 2015, subscription required.) New Zealand and the U.S. have dismissed the latest Canadian market access offer as insufficient (“Canada Offers Several TPP-wide TRQs [tariff rates quotas] On Dairy Products, Poultry,” Inside U.S. Trade, August 6, 2015. Subscription required).
The U.S. Dairy Export Council, the National Milk Producers Federation and the International Dairy Foods Association have sent a joint letter with New Zealand and Australian dairy export associations to their trade officials demanding an “ambitious” TPP. The result of the ambition would be to import cheap MPC and export more expensive “cheese” and other dairy products to TPP members.
Ben Burkett, a Mississippi farmer and president of the U.S. National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) summarized the threat that MPC imports represent to U.S. dairy farmers: “With just under 50,000 dairy farmers left in the U.S., they deserve to have sensible policies enacted on a domestic level, not to be crushed by unfair trade deals that threaten their ability to recover their costs of production. It makes no sense for our nation's dairy farmers to compete against dairy farmers in New Zealand and Australia, the lowest-cost producers in the world,” said Burkett. “We are also anxious about the expanded imports of milk substitutes, such as Milk Protein Concentrate, which could be substituted in many products without being labeled clearly for customers.” The NFFC lobbied for a dairy supply management program in the 2014 Farm Bill.
Some costs of export agriculture without supply management
The lack of U.S. dairy supply management results in chaotic dairy production and plunging prices. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2015, dairies in Michigan and the Northeastern U.S. dumped 30 million gallons of milk into waste disposal systems, because they didn’t have the capacity to process the milk. A 30 percent fall in liquid milk prices in 2015 has been offset partly by lower cattle feed costs. But an anticipated further drop in milk prices next year, due in part to imports, will return U.S. dairy farmers to a too familiar situation—selling milk to U.S. dairy processors at below the cost of production.
The United States dismantled the last vestiges of its supply management programs, with the notable exception of the sugar program, in the 1996 Farm Bill. Not surprisingly, prices for dairy and other commodities collapsed well below the cost of production , triggering billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to save export driven agriculture from another market failure. Currently, farmers in Minnesota planting GM corn are projected to lose an average of $244 per acre, due to low prices on the futures markets and record high costs of production. It is not unusual for a Minnesota corn and soybean farm to be 1,000 acres or larger, meaning a $250,000 per farm operator loss in 2015.
In the absence of programs to sensibly manage supply, U.S. taxpayer funded revenue insurance and other forms of what the World Trade Organization calls Aggregate Measures of Support (AMS) will rise to about $12.4 billion in 2015, partially offsetting a projected U.S. farmer income loss in row crop and livestock sales of about $25.8 billion. The United States has demanded that AMS payment definitions and levels not be negotiated in the Doha Round (D. Ravi Kanth, “Azevedo pursuing his controversial ideas to help the U.S., other ICs [Industrialized Countries],” South North Development Monitor (SUNS email edition), #8074, August 3, 2015. Subscription required). AMS payments are not discussed in the TPP.
Whether or not the U.S. AMS payments, calculated with reference to out of date 1986-88 prices, comply with its WTO commitments, U.S. agribusiness will be exporting grains and oilseeds, and meat and dairy products fed with those grains and oilseeds, at below the cost of production, transportation and insurance. In other words, U.S. agribusiness will resume the export dumping that IATP documented for row crops from 1996 to 2005. The United States is zealous in pursuing anti-dumping cases in other industrial sectors, e.g. China’s solar energy industry. But dump corn or soy into Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Mexico or other prospective TPP members? No problem with the WTO or if the TPP is concluded.
In light of the success of the sole U.S. supply management program for sugar in preventing taxpayer subsidies, why do the Senators wish to export U.S. dairy products at prices that will again trigger more taxpayer-funded subsidies to farmers deprived of supply management by law? Why do the Senators wish to allow a flood of MPC imports from New Zealand’s dairy monopoly, Fonterra, further depressing liquid milk prices? A simple answer is that dismantling Canadian dairy supply management benefits the U.S. dairy processing industry that is advocating for the end to Canadian dairy import quotas as the pre-condition for its support of TPP. Furthermore, the demands of the sugar processing industry to dismantle the sugar program are threatening to win in the TPP what the processing lobby could not win in the Farm Bill.
The more complicated answer concerns two U.S. tacit trade objectives: 1) to continue to export agricultural commodities at below the cost of production (export dumping) while degrading the capacity of other TPP members to do so; 2) to eliminate state intervention in agriculture and other industrial sectors while maintaining massive taxpayer subsidies, direct and indirect to U.S. headquartered transnational corporations.
The broader issue of what subsidies are for, as well as the role of State Owned Enterprises (such as agricultural marketing boards that use supply management), deserves a fuller debate. But in the TPP, the subordination of all agricultural policy to increasing market access is very unlikely to produce trade-offs that will benefit farmers, ranchers or rural communities.
Posted August 12, 2015 by Tara Ritter
Last week, President Obama announced the Clean Power Plan, the United States’ strongest climate policy to date. The plan aims to reduce coal-fired power plant emissions by allowing states to devise their own plans to reach federally-mandated emissions reduction targets. This choose-your-own-adventure policy could send states down very different paths, some worse for the environment and community resilience than others.
A bragging point for the Clean Power Plan is its flexibility; all currently identified low-carbon energy sources can play a role in state plans, including natural gas, nuclear, hydropower and other renewables. But despite the low-carbon nature these energy technologies share, they differ greatly in overall community and environmental benefit. Natural gas is abundantly available today due to controversial fracking technology (most of which occurs near rural communities); hydropower requires dam construction (sometimes on massive scales); and nuclear power comes with the risk of disastrous accidents, issues around extraction and long-term storage problems.
The final Clean Power Plan rule does emphasize renewable energy and energy efficiency over natural gas; a “Clean Energy Incentive Program” provides credits that can be traded later as part of emissions trading systems to states that expand wind, solar and energy efficiency efforts in the two years before state implementation plans take effect. However, shifting from coal to natural gas is one of the three building blocks EPA used in calculating state goals, so states are still permitted to emphasize natural gas in their implementation plans, even if it’s not incentivized. Shifting from one fossil fuel to another is not a sustainable energy future for any state, even if it slightly reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
The autonomy that the Clean Power Plan gives to the states can and will be used in different ways. While some states may choose to make up for coal reductions by shifting to natural gas, others may embrace the opportunity to develop and grow localized renewable energy policies based on wind and solar. The benefits of such localized policies are numerous: in addition to being carbon-free, renewables such as wind and solar have fewer negative environmental impacts, create jobs and boost local economies.
The Made in Minnesota Solar Incentive Program is a success story of one such localized renewable energy policy. The program started in 2013 to incentivize customers to install photovoltaic and solar thermal systems using products certified as manufactured in Minnesota. Customers are paid based on the production of their renewable energy system. Each year, customers receive a check based on the amount of kilowatt hours of energy their system produced. This year, over 500 businesses, homeowners and nonprofits entered a lottery for Made in Minnesota funding, far exceeding the program’s resources. If the program had the capacity to fund all the applications, Minnesota would have doubled its solar capacity in one year.
The program’s budget is $15 million over 10 years, and is funded in large part by public electric utilities’ Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) budgets. CIP budgets, mandated by the state of Minnesota, require public electric utilities to invest 1.5% of their state revenues in energy efficiency or renewable energy projects. Made in Minnesota customers are hooked up to the grid, so the incentive program helps the public electric utilities reach their current state-mandated goal of producing 1.5% of their electricity using solar by 2020. This percentage may increase once Minnesota crafts its implementation plan for the Clean Power Plan.
“I guarantee that most clients would never have installed a solar system without a little help from the government,” said John Kramer, CEO of Sundial Solar, a Minnesota-based company that consults on and performs solar panel installations. “The purpose of these programs is to demonstrate that solar is worth it. This is a technology that can be beneficial for everybody.”
So what’s stopping states from doubling down on localized renewable energy programs in their Clean Power Plan state implementation plans? Kramer thinks it’s partially ideological. “Some people think [solar incentives] milk taxpayers,” he said, “but they don’t realize all the subsidies that big gas and oil get.”
This is a valid point - a 2015 International Monetary Fund analysis estimated that oil and gas subsidies will amount to $5.3 trillion worldwide in 2015. That’s greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments. And some critics think that figure is underestimated because it doesn’t account for the costs that climate change will incur as a direct result of burning fossil fuel. On the other hand, subsidies for renewable energy are estimated at $120 billion for 2015. That means that renewable energy subsidies will amount to just over 2% of the money spent on fossil fuel subsidies this year.
It’s not only fossil fuel subsidies that cause other energy technologies to win out over renewables such as solar. Fracking has led to an abundance of natural gas and the technology has gotten cheaper in recent years. But even though natural gas is cheap and burns cleaner than coal, fracking has a long list of negative impacts. Rural communities are disproportionately hit by these negative impacts, which include water contamination, earthquakes, land grabbing and methane pollution.
Even certain renewables pose large risks to the environment, human health and community well-being, despite clean energy generation and cost effectiveness. Hydropower is widely used, cost effective and will play a large part in many state implementation plans. Hydropower accounted for 68.75% of Washington’s total electricity generation in 2013, and many northern states, including Minnesota, have the opportunity to import large amounts of hydropower from Canada. However, dam construction can pose considerable threats to biodiversity and habitat, and can increase some vector-borne diseases that threaten human health. Perhaps more importantly, the dams that fuel hydropower imports from Canada are already displacing tribes and altering their native lands, and will continue to do so if renewable energy standards in the United States permit for more imported hydropower.
Nuclear power is another contender for inclusion in state implementation plans. The United States generates over 30% of the world’s nuclear generation of electricity and new reactors are still being built. Nuclear plants have a comparatively long life (60 years versus the 30 years for a natural gas plant) and they do not emit carbon dioxide. But nuclear power’s problems start at the source and continue throughout the energy production process. Uranium mining, most of which has occurred on tribal lands in the southwestern United States, produces toxic mining waste that contaminates water and increases radiation levels. To make things worse, mining often occurs without the tribes’ consent. In addition, nuclear plants are not immune to human error and natural disasters, and a nuclear accident can release radiation that lingers in the environment for years. It’s clear that states must consider more than cost and emissions reductions when designing their implementation plans over the next one to three years.
Successful localized renewable energy programs, like Made in Minnesota, demonstrate the feasibility of expanding technologies like wind and solar that do more than lower greenhouse gas emissions. Now is the time for states to look at the whole picture and move down a path of sustainability that includes economics and carbon accounting, but values environmental quality, human health and community resilience as well.
Posted August 5, 2015 by Ben Lilliston
Farmers are no different from any buyer – they want to know what they’re buying, how much it costs and its expected performance. But in the brave new world of agricultural seeds, where multiple traits and technology are stacked like Microsoft’s operating system, it’s becoming more and more difficult for farmers to separate out what is really needed and discover how much each piece is costing them. In the case of neonicotinoid (neonic) seed coatings used as a pesticide, both the effectiveness and costs are somewhat of a mystery, according to a new paper published by IATP today.
As farm income is expected to drop more than 30 percent from last year, farmers are carefully examining all input costs to see where they can save. With their financial cost and actual effectiveness unclear, neonic seed coatings may be one of those places to cut costs. But the real cost of neonics likely goes well beyond the input price. A growing body of science directly implicates neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides as a contributor to the significant decline of bees and other pollinators. Neonics are applied in multiple ways in agriculture and horticulture but are most prevalent as a seed coating material for commodity crops like corn and soybeans. Based on convincing and mounting evidence, beekeepers, scientists and other individuals concerned about pollinators are working together to spur regulatory action and shifts in the marketplace to reduce the use of neonics.
In May 2015, the White House issued an interagency National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and other Pollinators. The strategy focuses on efforts to restore honey bee loss, increase monarch butterfly populations and restore pollinator habitats. But the White House plan virtually ignores the on-the-ground farm economics that directly contribute to rising neonic use in seed coatings – specifically the role of a few large companies that have a stranglehold on the seed market. This concentrated market power in the seed industry has allowed a few multi-billion dollar companies like Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto to significantly limit U.S. farmers’ choices around seed coating.
In most cases the seed is coated with neonics whether wanted or not and our paper found that this lack of choice has made it difficult for farmers and their advisors to assess the actual value of these pesticides in crop production, or to understand their true financial and environmental costs. Most farmers understand the value of pollinators to plant growth and the food system and would not intentionally harm them. However, without credible information on the risks or the freedom to choose their seed coating, farmers are left with little choice but to accept what their seed company delivers.
The good news is that there are independent seed companies and dealers able today to provide farmers with information and choice around seed coatings. Representing a small segment of a highly consolidated industry, independent seed producers and dealers are able and willing to respond to market changes and farmer preferences associated with not only neonics, but also other areas of market interest, such as non-genetically modified organisms (GMOs), certified organic, cover and specialty crops. But a farmer’s ability to choose what kind of seed coatings they want as part of their crop management system should be the rule, not the exception, in the seed market.
One of the most basic and necessary aspects of a free market is available and accurate information about products and their efficacy, cost and benefits. It should go without saying, then, that in a competitive marketplace, farmers should receive accurate, up-to-date information from researchers and other farmers at field days about the costs and benefits of neonics and other seed coatings related to both crop production and the environment, including pollinators. Yet, this isn’t happening with neonics or other seed coating ingredients today. We need credible, farmer-led field trials that compare different seed coatings and traits, and that information should be shared with other farmers. And those findings should be compared with the effectiveness and costs of other pest control approaches, such as integrated pest management (IPM), that have proven benefits and economic returns. Only with complete information and choice – about neonics and other crop management tools – can farmers make smart choices that allow them to produce crops and take care of pollinators and the environment.
You can read the full paper: Unknown Benefits, Hidden Costs: Neonicotinoid seed coatings, crop yields and pollinators.