Posted February 5, 2014 by Ben Lilliston   

Food JusticeBeyond the Farm BillMarketsFood AssistanceClimate ChangeFarm BillJustice

Used under creative commons license from Bread for the World.

Was it just exhaustion from two-plus years of negotiations that finally produced the Farm Bill that is expected to be signed by the President this week? Or, was it the sense that “it could have been a lot worse” when compared with a mean-spirited, destructive Farm Bill passed by the House of Representatives last year. For whatever reason, there is a sense that a deeply flawed Farm Bill—the terms of which were dictated largely by austerity fanatics from the start—is the best we’ll get under the current political environment.

That’s a problem for all of us. It’s definitely a problem for the growing number of working age Americans who rely on food stamps. This Farm Bill cuts food stamp benefits (about 80 percent of the Farm Bill costs) by $8.6 billion.

It’s a problem for the environment and the urgent need to help farmers shift toward more climate resilient production systems to deal with extreme weather events. The bill cuts about $6 billion from conservation programs, the first time conservation funding has been cut since it became part of the Farm Bill in 1985 (excellent analysis by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition). Those cuts reduce the number of acres for the Conservation Reserve Program (which takes sensitive land out of production to protect habitat and wildlife) from 32 million to 24 million acres. It also limits the new acres of enrollment into the Conservation Stewardship Program (which support conservation measures on working farms) to 10 million per year—a cut of 2.8 million acres per year over the next decade.

It’s also a problem for a host of other smaller Farm Bill programs, including the outreach focused on Disadvantaged and Minority Farmers, which was slashed in half from $20 million to $10 million.

Democratic decision-making and transparency saw major setbacks, too. Breaking a promise for an open public vote, the Farm Bill conference committee instead cut a deal in secret and unveiled a final bill early last week.

Like all Farm Bills, it is not all good or bad, and there was some good. Many advocates (including IATP) succeeded in beating back efforts by the meat industry to weaken Country of Origin Labeling and undermine enforcement of fair competition rules for poultry and hog producers. The bill relinks crop insurance programs with requirements for farmers to take conservations measures like wetlands protection and stops incentives to expand cropland into native grasslands. It also renews commitments to Beginning Farmer programs, local foods programs, requires the development of a whole farm insurance program (benefitting diversified farms) and improves options for insurance for organic producers. It expands organic research and provides mandatory funding to important energy programs like the Renewable Energy for America Program and the Biomass Crop Assistance Program.

While the champions of this Farm Bill tout an estimated $23 billion in savings over 10 years, we are skeptical. Much of the savings come from the elimination of direct payments to commodity crop farmers regardless of price, and a shift toward government-subsidized revenue insurance programs. The agricultural services (crop insurance) and crop production (i.e., Monsanto) industries spent more than 57.5 million lobbying the Farm Bill, according to Open Secrets, and they got what they wanted in these programs. But given the extreme price volatility of the agricultural marketplace (the price of corn saw the largest single year drop in 60 years last year), combined with a continued series of climate-related weather events, it’s quite possible that the new farm programs will cost more than the old ones in the end.

Just as important as what’s in this Farm Bill, is understanding what isn’t. In fact, many of the biggest challenges in agriculture and food are not currently addressed in this Farm Bill: 

  • Extreme price volatility in the marketplace that hurts farmers when prices plunge and consumers when prices skyrocket as they did in 2007-08.
  • Corporate concentration continues to tighten uncompetitive markets, making farmers, consumers and small food industry owners vulnerable to their growing sheer market power.
  • Climate change may be the most influential force in agriculture today. Last year’s Midwest drought has been replaced by this year’s California drought.
  • Worker rights in our food and agriculture system continue to be sidestepped in the policy arena, from the farm to the processing plant to the supermarket or restaurant.

We badly need strong food and farm policy if we’re going to take on these challenges, and that must include a reformed Farm Bill that is more true to its critical legacy of empowering farmers over agribusiness and protecting nature coming out of the New Deal. We don’t need to wait another five years for the next Farm Bill to get started; we can start now on the road to reform. More and more groups around the country are working on creative policy approaches to reform our food and farm system. New political alliances are being developed that not only focus on short-term battles but could pay dividends for the next Farm Bill. This is why we’ve launched Beyond the Farm Bill initiative. We’re engaging with policy experts around the country and highlighting the best policy approaches at the local, state and national level to bring about a fair, sustainable and healthy food and farm system. Join the conversation and stay informed at

Posted February 3, 2014 by Karen Hansen-Kuhn   

TradeFree trade agreementsNAFTA: North American Free Trade Agreement

More than 65,000 people rallied at Mexico’s Monument to the Revolution and marched to the historic Zocalo Square to demand a new economy that puts equality, justice and human rights first.

Farmers, union, environmental and women’s activists gathered in Mexico City last week to take stock of the lessons from NAFTA and plan strategies to confront the next big threat: the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). One of the earliest lessons from the NAFTA experience was that people and environments in all three countries were affected. The stories from Mexico, Canada and the U.S. were remarkably similar: environmental destruction, threats to union and community organizing, and, in all sectors, a marked increase in corporate concentration as companies gained new abilities to move different aspects of production across borders in search of lower costs and higher profits.

This has been especially true in agriculture. As part of the multisectoral forum, more than 100 members of ANEC, (the National Association of Rural Commercialization Enterprises, which brings together more than 60,000 Mexican small- and medium-scale farmers), organized a farmers’ forum with international allies. Alberto Arroyo, a longtime leader in the Mexican Action Network on Free Trade (RMALC), explained that Mexico’s dependency on food imports has increased dramatically since the agreement began, from 16 percent before NAFTA, to more than 42 percent today. That situation is even more alarming when we consider that today nearly half of Mexican families, even with two wage earners, can’t afford the “canasta basica” of basic necessities. Adding on to the devastation wreaked on the countryside by the influx of cheap corn under NAFTA, TPP would compel Mexican coffee farmers to compete with cheap Vietnamese robusta coffee.

Doug Peterson from the U.S. National Farmers’ Union echoed those concerns. None of us is against trade, he said, but how that happens, and what the rules are, really do matter. He highlighted intellectual property rights proposals in TPP that would grant enormous new rights over seeds and other inputs to already powerful transnational corporations. NFU is concerned that those rights would be extended to patents on animal husbandry, expanding Monsanto’s dominance over seeds to breeding rights. In general, he said, what we really need are stable public policies to balance innovations in agriculture with food justice.

Victor Suarez, the leader of ANEC, emphasized the importance of rebuilding ties among farmers and consumers, unions and environmentalists. The TPP negotiations are forcing Mexicans to fight some of the same battles that came up during the NAFTA debate. The privatization of the Mexican ejido system of communal land owning, which the government liberalized as a pre-condition for NAFTA, is once again on the table. The 1991 reforms allowed existing ejidos to remain under community control, but new agricultural reforms announced in January would put those farms on a “fast track” for privatization, expelling thousands of small-scale farmers from their lands. Investment rules in NAFTA support changes in laws on land and mineral rights, often carried out in the dead of night, that devastate communities’ rights to natural resources. Plans to carry out a “second green revolution” in Mexico will increase pressure to use GMO seeds, as well as chemical fertilizers that will poison the soil and water so that they will not support sustainable agriculture, Suarez told participants. People in all three countries, he said, need to work together to recover sovereignty over our food, seeds and land.

Those efforts are already underway, starting with a massive march against neoliberal reforms in Mexico that pushed back on reforms to labor, energy and education policies. We added our voices against the expansion of the NAFTA model in TPP to more than 65,000 people who rallied at Mexico’s Monument to the Revolution and marched to the historic Zocalo Square to demand a new economy that puts equality, justice and human rights first. We were joined by activists in more than 50 cities across the United States and Canada in an international day of action against TPP and Corporate Globalization. The next joint actions will take place on February 19, when Presidents Obama and Peña Nieto and Prime Minister Harper meet in Toluca, Mexico.

The fight against fast track is the urgent issue right now in the United States. But our experience with other trade debates (such as the failed negotiations for the Free Trade Area of the Americas), demonstrates the crucial importance of coordinated action among civil society groups in the countries involved. Together, this chorus of voices has real potential to stop trade talks based on expanding the NAFTA model and create new economic ties based on human rights and food sovereignty.

The final declaration from the NAFTA plus 20 conference is available in English, Spanish and French.

Visit Citizens Trade Campaign’s Action Center to learn more and to get involved with the campaign on fast track and TPP. 

Posted January 31, 2014 by Patrick Tsai   

TradeWTOFree trade agreementsWorld Trade Organization (WTO)

Used under creative commons license from world_trade_organization.

Michael Punke - Deputy USTR. Day 2 of the WTO's Ministerial Conference, Bali, 3 December 2013.

Food insecurity is a lucrative endeavor for U.S. agribusiness corporations. As a matter of course, hunger has taken a backseat to maintaining a dominant trade position when it comes to U.S. trade negotiations and domestic policy. As long as the U.S. holds its position as the world's largest agricultural exporter, and import-dependent countries continue to be bound by rules that exploit their vulnerability to volatile commodity markets, U.S. agribusiness will profit indefinitely at the expense of the most vulnerable.

In order to address global hunger effectively, the U.S. government will have to acknowledge the effect its current agricultural policy has on global food security and extend the same lenience to allow developing countries the reestablishment of sovereignty in their own food systems without threat of dispute settlement or retaliatory trade sanctions. As it stands, wealth, subsidy classification, export credits and food aid contribute to a system of subjugation and persisting power disparities.

Inequalities in power between nations exist before negotiations begin. Initial positions of wealth determine the degree to which countries can leverage the allowed subsidies outlined within international agricultural agreements to promote food security and rural development. Developed countries’ subsidies comprise the “lion’s share” of global spending supporting agriculture (though they are, in theory, bound by greater reduction commitments under trade agreements). This raises the question, “Given the inequality in initial positions, must [the situation]  inevitably result in inequality in outcomes?” (Matthews 2008, 82). Developing countries’ stagnant progress toward food security and rural development, compared to developed countries relative effectiveness, attests to the importance of economic wealth.

Power disparities are further exacerbated through exploitation of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). The AoA, a byproduct of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Uruguay Round (UR) negotiations, was agreed upon in 1994. The AoA guides agricultural trade for WTO member countries, and the text acts as the basis for the WTO’s agricultural subsidies categorization system. The categories signify the extent of trade distortion and what is allowable. For the most part, agricultural subsidies fall under one of three classifications:

    • Amber box or Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS): the most trade distorting and subject to limits and reductions
    • Blue box: subsidies dealing with production limiting criteria, as defined in Article 6.5 of AoA
    • Green box: subsidies said to have no or minimal trade- and production-distorting effects and are subject to no agreed upon limits or reductions, as defined in Annex 2 of AoA (Brink 2009, 4,5)

** In addition to these three subsidy classifications, developing countries may use the classification of "special and differential treatment" (found in Article 6.2) and all member countries may use “De minnimis” rules for spending on product specific support, developed countries 5 percent and developing countries 10 percent of value of production.

It is believed that countries subject to AMS reductions and limits, such as the U.S., exploit the system through “box shifting,” the practice of re-categorizing trade-distorting amber box subsidies into the blue or green box without making any substantive reform to subsidy programs (ICTSD 2007 2). Box shifting best characterizes the changes in U.S. agricultural policy stemming from the 1996 Farm Bill in order to conform to the newly implemented AoA. Domestic food security programs, seen as minimally trade distorting by the WTO, have historically comprised a large portion of U.S. agricultural subsidies and after the 2007-08 financial crisis these allocations grew even more. The degree to which the U.S. leverages and continues to grow green box subsidies is apparent in the following slides from WTO economist Diwakar Dixit (Figure 1) and ICTSD (Figure 2).

Figure 1 – US Green Box and AMS spending from 1995 to 2010

Figure 2 – US subsidy spending from 1995 to 2010

Subsidies are critical for helping producers adequately address risk and in helping achieve higher levels of food security. In 2010, the U.S. allocated $120.5 billion  to green box subsidies, $94.9 billion of which went to domestic food aid (WTO 2012 G/AG/N/USA/89). Though the U.S. takes full advantage of green box subsidies to provide food security to its own people, the World Bank reports 5 percent of the U.S. population is undernourished (~15.6 million people1). At the recent Bali ministerial, the U.S. actively denied developing countries, such as India which experiences 18 percent undernourishment (~219.8 million people undernourished2), from taking measures to subsidize further development of food security programs. India allocates about one-ninth the amount of money to food security programs5 while managing a population approximately 4 times the size3 and suffering 14 times the amount of hunger4 as the U.S. The G-33, a “coalition” of developing countries facing similar trade and economic issues (including India), proposed three amendments to the AoA at the Bali WTO ministerial.  The G-33 proposal allows more leeway in terms of how money can be used for food reserves and how AMS is calculated (see also, ICTSD 2013). Adoption of the G-33 proposal could result in greater food security for countries able to leverage the revised language by establishing stockholdings that reduce price volatility in domestic markets and provide a source of emergency food relief.

The U.S. argues that the G-33 proposal centers on trade-distorting supply-management structures. The argument is predicated on free market ideology, the tenets of which the U.S. circumvents through misidentified subsidies and its own trade-distorting green box subsidies. The U.S. decoupled subsidy payments under the 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement Reform Act (FAIR) to follow Green box criteria, however ICTSD points out that the OECD (OECD 2001), World Bank (de Gorter 2003, 5) and USDA ERS (USDA 2002, 12) have found decoupled payments trade distorting. (ICTSD 2007 25,26) For many, the laissez-faire economic paradigm is seen to perpetuate hunger by reducing sovereignty in the agricultural sector of developing countries through reductions in government support, removal of protectionist policies and opening markets to increased imports of cheap and below production cost commodities (ActionAid, 7, IATP/UNCTAD, Food First).

Timothy Wise of Tufts University aptly describes the U.S. position on the G-33 proposal as hypocritical and an “attack on the right to food.” Some may argue that the U.S. position on the G-33 proposal comes as no surprise due to the fact the U.S. has not accepted the right to food under the human rights framework (IFPRI 2007 1, the Nation, Righting Food) and was the only dissenting country, out of 181, to vote against a 2008 U.N. “resolution on the right to food, by which the assembly would ‘consider it intolerable’ […] that the number of undernourished people had grown to about 923 million worldwide, at the same time that the planet could produce enough food to feed 12 billion people, or twice the world’s present population. (See Annex III)” (GA/SHC/3941). Indeed the U.S. continues to adhere to a course guided by infamous precedent.

Figure 3 – Projections for reaching WFS and MGD hunger goals

It is true that U.S. food aid has saved lives, however the net effect is arguably detrimental. U.S. food aid and hunger relief programs have been associated with undermining local food systems resulting in vulnerability and dependence on world markets (Clapp 2004, Hansen-Kuhn 2012, OECD 2000). The failing trajectory for both international goals to halve hunger (Figure 3), the World Food Summit (WFS) and Millennium Development Goals (MDG), warrants sincere consideration of food aid critique. Two notable areas of controversy in U.S. policy, said to address hunger, are the export credit guarantee program (GSM-102) outlined in the current Farm Bill (PL 110-246 section 3101) and Public Law 480 (PL 480), the 1954 Agricultural Trade and Development Assistance Act otherwise known as Food for Peace. The latter institutionalizes the dumping of U.S. overproduction on vulnerable countries feigned as food aid (Weis 2007, 67).

While appearing charitable, the use of export credits takes advantage of poor nations’ vulnerability to high prices and the need to feed their large populations on small budgets. Officially supported export credits are characterized by below market interest rates, longer repayment schedules, reduced/no fees and government guaranteed repayment of loans (OECD 2000, 8,Clapp 2004, 1441). These attributes result in lower purchasing prices for importers, effectively subsidizing exporter goods. (OECD 2000, 8) The current Farm Bill outlays 5.5 billion dollars a year for the program, though not always used in its entirety (FY 2013 $3 Billion). The OECD determined that due to the immense size of outlays and the excessive use, US export credits have a much greater trade distorting effect on world markets than any other country. The OECD also found that historically the US extends a very small proportion of overall export credits to countries most in need, least developed countries (LDC) and net food importing developing countries (NFIDC) (Clapp 2004, 1442). In addition to trade distortion, the burden of export credit debt acts to retard progress in developing countries by diverting funds for social programs to debt repayment (Eurodad, 2011).

PL 480 Title I is controversial for many of the same reasons as export credits. The title outlines policy on food aid sold under concessional terms, “grace periods of five years, repayment periods of up to 30 years, and below market interest rates” (Clapp 2004, 1442). Furthering the controversy, Title I has the explicit purpose to “improve commercial markets abroad,” (Clapp 2004, 1442) and therefore is not necessarily a tool dedicated to relief, but rather a title used to promote the U.S.’s own trade interests. Titles II and III of PL 480 pertain to U.S. in-kind food aid. Most U.S. food aid is purchased from U.S. producers (at least 75 percent by law) and shipped as in-kind donations to countries in need (Hansen-Kuhn 2012, 1). In-kind food aid sales are seen to “distort international trade by displacing commercial trade,” and are inefficient compared to other forms of assistance (Clapp 2004, 1442). Alternatively, food aid programs focused on local and regional procurement offer monetary donations that stimulate local economies by providing means for local purchases from farmers in the afflicted country or region. There are also less costs due to reduced distances of travel (Hansen-Kuhn 2012, 1; Murphy 2005, 12). The current U.S. food aid titles have addressed hunger to some extent, however it can be argued that their usage has, to a greater extent, amplified power asymmetries by undermining sovereignty and local food systems, making these nations more reliant on imports and subservient through debt.

Sadly, agricultural trade has become an art of identifying loopholes and re-categorizing subsidies that curtail risk to profits at home while perpetuating hunger abroad. Trade dominance amounts to how well a country can leverage subsidies exempt from World Trade Organization (WTO) limits and reduction commitments, and maintain programs that create and expand markets in vulnerable regions. Developing countries suffer under the brunt of these actions in the form of food insecurity. The issue of hunger has found a blind spot in the purview of developed country trade negotiations, which are focused more on maintaining powerful trade positions than ceding any control that might bring about food security and food sovereignty to developing countries.

Advocating rules that obstruct a country's ability to feed its hungry is an act of subjugation. By leveraging trade agreements and perverting the intentions of trade rules, the U.S. is negotiating the terms of global oppression where it could be genuinely helping others.

1 U.S. pop. 311.6 million (2011 World Bank) X 0.05 (2011 World Bank) ~ 15.6 million

2 India pop. 1.221 billion (2011 World Bank) X 0.18 (2011 World Bank) ~219.8 million

3 World Bank numbers 1.221 billion (India pop.) / 311.6 million (US pop.) ~ 4

4 219.8 million / 15.6 million ~ 14

5 India’s GAIN 2009/10 stockholding numbers compared to US WTO domestic food aid notification for year 2010 G/AG/N/USA/89

Posted January 29, 2014 by Tara Ritter   

The second Rural Climate Network newsletter was released last week, featuring updates on how rural America is responding to the climate challenge. Since the first newsletter, the network has welcomed five new member organizations that represent the diversity of climate work across the country and display how climate change impacts sectors ranging from fisheries to forestry to meat production. The member spotlight this month is Organic Valley, and a featured interview with Sustainability Program Manager Jonathan Reinbold outlines the organization’s views on climate change. Policy that incentivizes this kind of on-the-ground work is critical in supporting the growing rural movement to adapt to and mitigate climate change.

This edition of the newsletter also features a brief interview with Renata Brillinger of the California Climate and Agriculture Network (CalCAN) to better understand how California farmers and ranchers are handling the drought that is currently underway in California. According to Brillinger, “mandated cutbacks in water distributions, along with depletions in available surface water and groundwater, are forcing farmers to dig deeper into their pockets while making tough decisions about crop planting and livestock management.” Some farmers have resorted to pumping groundwater to compensate for the lack of water elsewhere, but that is not a sustainable strategy in the long term should the drought persist and other ideas are needed.

Certain agricultural practices work to increase soil resiliency and keep the raindrop where it falls more effectively than others. For instance, crop rotation and crop diversification encourage increased water-holding capacity in soils and reduce the amount of runoff that occurs from monocropped soils. Particular crops are also less water-intensive than others, and farmers would benefit from increasing the amount of hardy crops grown on their land.

However, Brillinger is right on point when she says, “while there are actions individual growers can take to cope with drought and other climate change impacts, this is not just a farmer’s problem.” In order to encourage an agricultural system that remains resilient in the face of extreme weather events, farmers need technical and financial assistance to build soil health and water efficiency. With today’s stalled farm policy, it is more important than ever to advocate for policies that will incentivize sustainable, robust farm operations.

Sign up for future editions of the Rural Climate Network newsletter and learn more about what member organizations are doing regarding climate change in their communities at If you are involved with an organization that would be a good fit for the network or would like to add your voice to this growing movement in another way, please email

Posted January 28, 2014 by Karen Hansen-Kuhn   Ben Lilliston   

TradeFood safetyFree trade agreementsNAFTA: North American Free Trade Agreement

Used under creative commons license from Caelie_Frampton.

Congress is quietly considering legislation that would speed the passage of two mega trade agreements, and seeks to specifically eliminate government programs that favor “localization.” The bill would give the Obama Administration what is known as “fast track” authority—meaning Congress would surrender its constitutional authority to shape trade agreements negotiated by the president and instead can only vote up or down on the deal.

Why should those working for a fair, sustainable food system care? Perhaps no area of policy has undermined local food systems around the world more than the slew of trade agreements passed over the last several decades. These trade rules cover everything from tariffs, food safety and intellectual property to enshrining corporate rights. They place restrictions on what is allowed in national policies, like the Farm Bill, as well as the state and local level. These deals have heavily tilted the playing field from farmers and consumers toward global agribusiness and food giants like Cargill, Monsanto and Wal-Mart.

Because these trade deals, like NAFTA and CAFTA, have been so blatantly negotiated on behalf of multinational corporations and have contributed to growing income inequality, they’ve been extremely unpopular. This is why the Obama Administration has decided to negotiate these two new trade agreements in secret. That’s right, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (including more than a dozen countries) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (with our biggest trading partner, the EU) is being negotiated entirely behind closed doors. The negotiating text has not been made public, and, amazingly, even many members of Congress are in the dark about what’s happening.

Aside from putting these secret trade deals on a fast track, the bill introduced by Senators Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch and Representative Dave Camp includes a new negotiating priority objective to eliminate what it calls “localization barriers.” Local content requirements have been a stated target of the U.S. Trade Representative in other countries like India. But of course, any agreement to undermine local content rules in another country would also apply to U.S. programs that give preference to locally sourced food or energy.

Here are 5 issues on the negotiating table in these trade agreements that local food activists should be worried about:

  1. Procurement policies and local foods: A variety of policies at the municipal, state and federal level give purchasing preferences to local farmers, including U.S. Farm to School programs. Other procurement requirements like “Buy American” or preferences to small or mid-sized companies could also be affected.
  2. Labeling (genetically engineered foods and country-of-origin): Both the U.S. and EU are using trade rules to strike back against consumers right to know about their food. The USTR recently pressured Peru over their mandatory labeling of GE foods, and has consistently attacked EU regulations of GE crops through the World Trade Organization. The EU supported a WTO ruling striking down country-of-origin labeling (COOL) in the U.S. Fortunately, the USDA has since revised the rule, and that version will face another challenge at the WTO. Rules on labeling established in these trade agreements will affect both national and state-level efforts for more consumer information about their food.
  3. Food safety: Food safety standards have been the subject of trade disputes between the U.S. and EU for years. The U.S. has targeted strong EU restrictions on GE crops, growth hormones, such as ractopamine and chlorinated rinses of poultry carcasses. The EU, for its part, is seeking to overturn U.S. limits on EU beef related to controls to prevent Mad Cow Disease. The EU also is concerned about elements of the recently passed U.S. Food Modernization Act. Food safety rules established under these trade agreements will again limit what additional steps can be taken at the national and state level to protect consumers.
  4. Chemical policy reforms: Trade rules on the use of potentially toxic chemicals, which often find their way into the food supply, could undermine the EU’s Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), a process firmly grounded in the Precautionary Principle. USTR has been pushing back against REACH since its inception. But, like food safety, a trade agreement could also block efforts at the state and national level in the U.S. to strengthen regulation of toxic chemicals.
  5. Investor-state dispute resolutions: Finally, proposals in TPP and TTIP create a private “dispute resolution mechanism” that would allow corporations to challenge any public “measure”—including food safety laws and court rulings—that threaten their future bottom line by bringing national governments to court. A government that lost before a tribunal of three trade lawyers would either have to change the offending “measure” or pay the plaintiff corporation lost anticipated revenues. Yes, it’s as incredible as it seems. Phillip Morris has used this provision to challenging cigarette health warnings. Cargill has used it to challenge trading regulations on high fructose corn syrup. Chevron to gain access to oil deposits. These corporate rights provisions, known as investor-state dispute resolution (ISDR), are a hallmark of U.S. trade agreements.

There is too much at stake for Congress to pass fast track and open the door for the speedy passage of mega trade deals that threaten to undermine much of the important work being done to build more sustainable, healthy and fair food systems. The good news is that we can prevent this from happening. There is growing opposition to Fast Track in Congress. More than 150 House members have expressed their opposition to the bill. Now is the time for the local and sustainable food community needs to tell their member of Congress to oppose fast track. IATP is a member of the Citizens Trade Campaign, go to their action center and let your member of Congress know your concerns.

Posted January 28, 2014 by Shefali Sharma   

Industrialized Meat

Over 13 years ago, IATP documented the transformation of U.S. hog production in The Price We Pay for Corporate Hogs. In a period of 30 years (1950–1980), the number of U.S. hog farms declined by nearly 80 percent, while the average farm size increased six-fold. Whereas in 1950, 2.1 million independent farmers raised pigs outdoors or indoors with bedded straw or hay (raising 31 pigs a year); at the end of the 90s, a total of 105 farms accounted for 40 percent of U.S. production (50,000 pigs each). By 1999, 50 percent or more of the farmers were under some sort of contractual arrangement and four companies (including Smithfield) controlled 20 percent of the production. In the last decade, this process has only intensified. By 2007, four companies controlled 66 percent of the production, all at great cost to U.S. farmers, consumers, the environment and public health.

What do the United States and China have in common when it comes to pigs today? The answer is not just Smithfield, now part of the world’s largest pork producing corporation owned by Shuanghui—China’s largest pork processor. The process that neared its end in the 80s in the United States began in China during that same period. Literally, millions of small-scale farmers raising a small number of pigs, chickens and cows have disappeared in the last 30 years. Those who continue to survive and further scale-up have become “specialized farmers”—part of a brutal cost-cutting supply chain dictated by intense competition between meat companies who increasingly double up as feed companies and vice versa. In the midst of these changes, China is grappling with environmental pollution, public health risks, and recurrent and rampant food safety concerns—again, very similar to the concerns that have arisen in the United States.  

In February, IATP will launch four reports on China’s feed, pork, dairy and poultry supply chains. It is an endeavor to understand and share how China’s transformation toward a U.S. model is both a common story of industrial meat production anywhere (be it the United States or Germany) and also specific to China. It is also an attempt to show how China’s story, like the U.S.’s, is a global one, with global links and global impacts. Understanding how Chinese companies are “going out” to develop their supply chains, and how major U.S. and other international livestock and dairy companies are “going in” to China, better prepares us to address the global nature of this industrial complex and its impacts both domestically and globally. It can help us to get beyond big headlines in the paper about China’s growing meat consumption and dig deeper into how and why it is taking place and imagine a different pathway toward fairness, nutrition, public health, and environmental protection in food production—lessons that are readily available from the U.S. experience. 

The global trend points to ever greater consolidation of fewer and more powerful corporations controlling ever scarcer water and land resources to feed millions of animals in confined spaces to produce more cheap meat. How citizens and governments deal with the externalities of this sector and its endemic global ramifications merit careful thought. China—as the largest producer of pork, the second largest producer of poultry, the largest feed importer in the world and the fourth largest dairy producer—is a critical piece of this global puzzle.

Financiers such as Morgan Stanley, Rabobank, Goldman Sachs have a great stake in China’s increased and unquestioned meat consumption growth. Meanwhile, Chinese consumers are increasingly concerned about growing food safety problems in their meat and food supply. Food safety concerns have the potential to be game changers in China’s consumption trends. Currently, these threats are used to further industrialize the meat and dairy sectors, but if lessons are learned from the U.S. experience, this needn’t be a fait accompli.  

IATP’s forthcoming reports help understand these production and consumption trends and map some of these critical issues in order to gain more insight into China’s role in the Global Industrial Meat Complex and the global industry’s role in China. 

Sign up now to be the first to recieve IATP's forthcoming reports on industrialized meat in China. Learn more at

Posted January 24, 2014 by Karen Hansen-Kuhn   

TradeFood securityFree trade agreements

On a slightly chilly morning last Saturday in Berlin, more than 30,000 people marched through the city to raise their voices against industrial agriculture and for good food and good farming. This was the fourth year for the Wir Haben Agrarindustrie Satt (We’re Fed Up with Agribusiness) march, and the biggest so far. The day started off with a breakfast led by family farmers from around Germany and the region. They led the march with a caravan of tractors, followed by slow food, animal rights, environmental, trade, development and other activists in a joyous celebration of food justice and local democracy.

The march was the culmination of a series of events during Green Week. We started with a public forum on agriculture and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“TTIP: No We Can’t!”) organized by Martin Haüsling, a Green Party Member of the European Parliament. The German government held its annual Global Forum for Food and Agriculture, which included informative sessions organized by NGOs, academics and corporations on the future of the food system. All great events, but hard to beat the Snippledisco (Disco Soup), where hundreds of people chopped vegetables deemed not quite good enough for the supermarket to pounding music, at once protesting food waste, preparing soup for the demo the next day and just having a great time.

Our colleagues at ARC2020, a broad coalition pushing for reforms in EU agricultural policies, were among the leaders of the week’s events. ARC (and IATP board member) Hannes Lorenzen guided me through the march explaining the groups organized against GMOs (a hot topic, since the European Commission is considering approval of a new variety of GMO corn), factory farming, and TTIP. We stopped for a while to join Benny Haerlin, also from ARC2020 (and the Future of Farming Foundation) to raise our voices for local seeds, leading hundreds of marchers chanting “Freiheit fur die Vielfalt!” (Freedom for Diversity!).

And at the end of the march, I had the honor of following Slow Foods movement leader Carlo Petrini in a short speech to the crowd. We in the U.S. haven’t yet made the enormous strides of the EU in fixing our broken food system, but we haven’t been sitting still either. I told them of the state level campaigns all across the U.S. to label GMOs and get toxics out of our food and environments, and the Farm to School and other local foods initiatives that bring farmers and consumers together in ways that are fair, healthy and sustainable. And of the waves of activism all across the country to oppose fast track, TTIP and other trade deals that put those fragile gains at risk.

It was an inspiring event, all about rebuilding the food system from the ground up and changing the rules that result in corporate concentration, unfair prices for farmers, and unhealthy diets. A tough act to follow, but wouldn’t it be great to try?


See more videos from the demonstrations and events in Berlin.


Posted January 10, 2014 by Karen Hansen-Kuhn   

TradeFree trade agendaDevelopment

Used under creative commons license from glynlowe.

The U.S. trade debate shifted into high gear yesterday with the introduction of Congressional bills to fast track trade deals. If approved, this would give the administration the authority to negotiate trade deals behind closed doors and then submit the resulting agreements to Congress for an up or down vote, with very limited debate and no possibility of amendments. Unions, environmental organizations and many other civil society groups immediately denounced the bill as undemocratic and out of date. Some 151 Democrats issued a letter last week expressing opposition to the bill, so its passage is far from assured.

Even beyond the undemocratic nature of the fast-track mechanism, the bill includes negotiating objectives that should raise alarms for advocates of food sovereignty and international development. It would direct the office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to eliminate “localization barriers to trade.” Rather than celebrating the emergence of strong local economies, that provision would direct USTR to "eliminate and prevent measures that require United States producers and service providers to locate facilities, intellectual property, or other assets in a country as a market access or investment condition, including indigenous innovation measures." That kind of measure, if enacted in a trade agreement, could easily boomerang back to the U.S. to undermine local content requirements for job creation or even perhaps local foods programs.

The legislation also calls on USTR to make food safety and other Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures “fully enforceable” in trade deals. That could mean that corporate complaints over restrictions on GMOs or dubious food additives become subject to the loathsome Investor-State Dispute Resolution mechanism, which gives corporations the right to sue governments over public laws or regulations that undermine their expected profits. Using that mechanism, Phillip Morris has brought suits against the governments of Uruguay and Australia over new rules on cigarette labels. Could GMO or country-of-origin labels be next?

These issues are all subject to heated debate in negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Those talks, like the debate on fast track itself, need to emerge from the shadows. As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka says, “Rather than focusing on empowering multinational corporations, we should be working to support domestic manufacturing jobs, fix our crumbling infrastructure, and rebuild a strong middle class. This fast track bill will do the opposite.”

Take action to call on Congress to reject fast track at

Posted January 9, 2014 by Shefali Sharma   

Food and HealthIndustrialized Meat

Author Shefali Sharma stands inside an industrial pig operation near Muenster, Germany.

One of Berlin’s big newspapers, the Berlin Zeitung, flashed images of little piglets today and of mass produced turkeys. This is part of a bigger build up towards a major demonstration on January 18 in which over 20,000 citizens are expected in Berlin to protest against industrial farming in the country—mass meat production being the vivid centerpiece for why it is so bad for people and the environment.

I have been in Germany for the last few weeks and am struck by how hot this topic is becoming—capturing media attention and putting the Green Party into elected positions in different states where animal factory farms have become a major problem. A slow movement is building, garnering ever increasing consumer support towards direct farmer-to-consumer marketing of organic, small-scale, locally produced, humane agriculture products.  

The campaign that is organizing events and the demonstration during Germany’s “Green Week” is called "Meine Landwirtschaft" or “My Agriculture,” building a message to put back agriculture into the hands of better stewards who can respect soil, water and integrate human and animal health into good food for the people and the planet. This year’s theme for the campaign demonstration is "Wir Haben Agrarindustrie Satt!" or "We’re fed up with industrial agriculture!" The poster child: a big pig face.

Speaking of pigs, just after the New Year I visited a sow-raising industrial pig farm near Muenster (about a 4-hour train ride Southwest of Berlin)—the farmer had started out with 400 sows and is now in the business of feeding and impregnating over 1,200 of them. He has them delivered by a company when they have just come of age and hands them off to another contract farmer just as they are about to give birth. The delivery of piglets is more risky.

Many of the people actively working on problems with industrial meat production were surprised that I managed to get access to such a farm—and it’s true, without connections of a friend of a friend, I would not have been able to see such an operation. It is also nearly impossible to visit such operations in the U.S. I got lucky, I guess.

The visit shocked my senses; The extreme smell of ammonia and methane saturated my pores and clothes and the extremely cruel conditions these poor animals are in made me anxious to get out within minutes of entering. We were made to wear boots and these astronaut-like suits/coveralls that would keep our clothes from smelling and would hopefully prevent infection (both human to pig and pig to human). 

The producer spoke at length about his operations—his mechanized feeding process, the breeds, the way that each sow is inseminated. The details he failed to mention are just as important, like the excessive use of hormones in the industry so that sows are fertile and give birth to piglets at the same time. This is efficient for producers so that no gestation crate is empty at any given time during the year. The faster the turnover, the more uniform the sows and piglets, the greater the number of piglets born, the more profitable the business.

These crates are so narrow that these poor animals can only stand and face their feeding troughs, unable even to turn around. German rules mandate that after 35 days of being pregnant, these sows must be able to have more space for some hours during the day until they give birth. I saw these more “spacious” stalls where about 5–6 sows sit, indoors with cement floors and gaps that allow for urine and manure to pass through (which generate all the smell and pollution).

Incidentally, the headlines in today’s paper are also about hormone use in sows and how the danger to human health. BUND, Friends of the Earth Germany, released a high-profile report yesterday on the excessive use of hormones with sows in the German pork industry. This is likely no different than sow rearing in the U.S.

I spoke at length last evening with Reinhild Benning, BUND’s agriculture expert, and she told me that Germany’s data on hormone use in the animal industry is ten years old. The evidence they have gathered based on this old data indicates that these hormones contaminate groundwater and end up in drinking water sources. Excessive hormones, such as steroids that are used in industrial pork production, can be carcinogenic, leading to higher rates of prostate and breast cancer, infertility and even early puberty in youth. She told me that she did 12 radio interviews yesterday on the subject. Their press conference was also well-attended followed by interviews by several newspapers. Several other colleagues across Berlin were interviewed on their take of the issue.

This is perhaps the most exciting aspect of these developments: German media and its readers are interested in knowing about these issues and are beginning to demand change.  I would love to see such an interest in the U.S. For instance, wouldn’t it be great to imagine 20,000 Americans demonstrating against this industrial production model after news broke out in October that antibiotic-resistant salmonella was found in several Foster Farm poultry products, sickening over 16,000 people.

The Henrich Boell Foundation in Berlin is launching its second annual “Meat Atlas: Facts and Figures about the animals we eat” with another press conference. IATP is one of the 26 contributors to this atlas. Stay tuned for more blogs on these issues and on IATP’s own upcoming publications on industrial meat production in China. Sign up to receive IATP's latest work in this area, including the forthcoming reports, at

Posted January 8, 2014 by Dr. M. Jahi Chappell   

Food and HealthFood JusticeFoodFood securityJustice

Used under creative commons license from cafemama.

The illusion of choice takes away from our ability to get to a just, sustainable food system, meaning we’ll have to “Vote with our Vote.” We can’t afford to just “Vote with our Fork.”

We’ve been told that we in the U.S. have the best, safest food system in the world. Without getting bogged down in endless debate, let’s get some context: the U.S. has 6 percent of households with very low food security and almost 9 percent more who are not sure they’ll have enough money or resources for food (at the same time, our average food availability is equal to 3,800 calories per person per day, much more than the recommended 1900 to 2500 calories/person/day); we throw away and waste 30 to 50 percent of our food; our food system is rated as fourth in food safety; we’re first (among industrialized countries) in overweight and obesity and tied with Greece for second in terms of the number of people who can’t reliably afford adequate food. That’s right: despite having some of the world’s cheapest food, we have one of the highest levels among wealthy countries of people not being able to reliably afford it.

The Economist Magazine does rank the U.S. #1 in its Global Food Security Index, but given the above, all I’m saying is that being #1 leaves a lot to be desired. So let’s not get too comfortable, whatever our ranking.

So, how is one of the most politically and economically powerful countries on earth also the second worst among its peers in terms of food security? There are many ways to answer that question, but one way I’d answer it is to say that we’ve been focusing too much on “voting with our fork,” when what we should be doing is “voting with our vote.” That is to say, the U.S. food system has become incredibly concentrated, with most of the control in the hands of very few firms

  • 83.5% of beef packing in the U.S. is controlled by four firms
  • 48% of U.S. food retailing is controlled by five firms
  • 71% of soybeans in the world go through three soybean crushing firms
  • 66% of all pork is packed by four firms
  • ~90% of the global trade in grains is controlled by three firms
  • 60% of U.S. corn seed market is controlled by two firms

(Figures are from Food Rebellions! by Holt-Gimémenz and Patel, and sources therein, particularly researchers Mary Hendrickson and William Heffernan.)

And on and on it goes. Things aren’t much better in the organic food industry. Why does it matter? Well, if we were voting with our forks, it means we’re doing so with three tines behind our back—it’d be like a U.S. Senate where the top three senators got a total of 70 votes, and 97 other senators would have share the other 30 between them. (And you thought things in the legislature were bad now!)

We’re in a system like the old saw by Henry Ford, “You can have any color car, as long as that color is black.” When I was in the bodywash business, the saying went “we want to sell consumers as much water [as part of the bodywash] as possible”—because water is cheap. Well, salt, fat, and sugar are cheap too, and even better than water, they’re hard to resist! All of these firms want to sell us more, more, more of everything, and the fact that some people can’t afford enough doesn’t matter as long as others can afford too much! “By concentrating fat, salt and sugar in products formulated for maximum ‘bliss,’ Big Food has spent almost a century distorting the American diet in favor of calorie-dense products,” Scott Mowbray summarized in his New York Times review of the book Salt Sugar Fat. What’s more, it’s more profitable for companies to sell us heavily processed foods rather than the whole and healthy ones we know we should eat. To make matters even worse yet, processed foods may have more calories than the whole foods they came from, meaning we might get less full while getting more calories from processed forms of the same foods.

It is just not as profitable or to the advantage of major food companies to sell us food that is healthier and less processed (indeed, processing is part of “adding value” in industry-speak). Most supermarket food is designed to trigger our pleasure centers to want even more, while it bypasses the triggers in our bodies making us feel “full.” The big food companies spend millions on advertising to make sure their food is “what we crave” (and like it or not, advertising works—why else would they pay for it?). They do this knowing that if we change our minds, our choices are the nearly identical products from their one or two major competitors. Echoing Henry Ford: we can have any kind of food we want in the U.S., for some of the lowest prices in the world, as long as we don’t mind choosing from only a couple companies, don’t mind it being unhealthy, and don’t mind the profits going to food processors and retailers, not farmers.

This is the way it goes when we vote only with our fork. 60,000—that’s the number of products supposedly found in the U.S.’s largest supermarkets. But when these 60,000 come from a handful of companies, how much choice do we really have? 57 kinds of processed, sugary breakfast cereals are still all processed, sugary breakfast cereals.

One of the things I’ll be doing here at IATP as the new director for agroecology and agriculture policy is continuing our long-standing work to build a new narrative of the food system. That is, the story we tell ourselves around our food system, what it does and what’s possible. This piece is the first of many that my colleagues and I will be writing around this theme over the next year. Tune in to IATP’s Think Forward blog and in the coming weeks and months to see!

       Sign up for our free newsletter!