The infamous “secret farm bill,” negotiated by the leadership of the agriculture committees with little transparency and discussion, will not pass as part of the debt-reduction “supercommittee” recommendations, since discussions between Democrats and Republicans in the committee broke down. This means that the covert farm bill will not enjoy fast-track approval in Congress.
Now the new farm bill negotiations will be made public, and the new bill, expected to be based on the “secret” one, will probably face stiff opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. The contents of that farm bill, negotiated by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), are still a mystery. They did not release the full details of their negotiations, even to their own committee members.
The Hill reported that the secret bill eliminated lump sum direct payments to farmers (which in some cases meant that farmers who didn’t produce agricultural goods still received them) and replaced them with a “revenue based supplement to traditional crop insurance.” This type of insurance system would reduce the cost of farm bill programs when prices are sufficiently high. However, if prices fall below a certain threshold, taxpayers will pay for this insurance and costs can rise significantly. Ultimately, this program amounts to a privatization of gains (if prices are good, farmers keep all profits) and a socialization of losses (if crop prices are low, taxpayers are on the hook for federal insurance).
[click to continue…]
The Hill reports that a new “secret Farm Bill” will be included with the super committee’s debt deal. As The Hill points out, legislators are “using the super committee to avoid what would be a more public, election-year debate in 2012, when the current farm bill expires and new legislation would be scheduled for writing.”
As mentioned on OpenMarket before, this presents a big moral hazard problem. Legislators are using the secrecy and lack of accountability present in super committee deliberations and adding legislation beneficial only to narrow sectors of the economy. In the farm bill’s case, the super committee asked members of the Agriculture Committee to come up with $23 billion in cuts by November 1, and although the deadline has passed, the Agriculture Committee is still working on the proposal. Beyond these details, information is difficult to obtain.
Under “normal” farm bill negotiations, input from farmers, communities and advocacy groups would be accounted for, and negotiations would be made public. With the super committee, the bill is being negotiated behind closed doors, and would be passed as part of the debt reduction deal, not as a stand-alone bill.
[click to continue…]
Twenty-nine years ago tomorrow, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Eli Lilly’s and Genentech’s Humulin, making it the first ever fully approved product of recombinant DNA, or what we now call modern molecular biotechnology. Humulin was the first biosynthetic human insulin, produced by splicing the human gene that codes for insulin production into a harmless microbe. Previously, diabetics who needed supplemental insulin used bovine or porcine insulin that was purified from the pancreases of cows and pigs. They worked reasonably well, but were not perfect analogues of human insulin. With the introduction of Humulin they could now take actual human insulin, which improved the treatment’s safety and efficacy.
According to The New York Times, my friend and colleague “Dr. Henry Miller, the medical officer in charge of Humulin at the F.D.A., said the development was a major step forward in the ”scientific and commercial viability of’” recombinant DNA techniques. ”We have now come of age,” Dr. Miller said.”
Since 1982, biotechnology has revolutionized the practice of medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. Over the past 29 years, some 200 or so biotech medicines have been approved in the United States, with roughly 900 more now being developed to treat more than 100 diseases ranging from cancers and infectious diseases to autoimmune disorders and cardiovascular diseases.
Unfortunately, while food biotechnology has the same potential, it has not fared nearly as well. A broad scientific consensus has concluded that rDNA technology (known variously as gene splicing, genetic engineering, and genetic modification) is merely an extension, or refinement, of less-precise breeding techniques that scientists have long used for similar purposes, but it’s use has been hobbled by vast over-regulation in the U.S. and around the world — a phenomenon I have written about at length elsewhere. So, let’s celebrate the tremendous success of the medical biotechnology industry, but let us not forget how government has nearly strangled food biotechnology in its crib.
Recently, ActionAid USA and CEI filed a correction request under the Data Quality Act targeting misleading claims made by the EPA regarding the effects of ethanol mandates and subsidies, claims that have obscured how government policies have contributed to world hunger, malnutrition, disease, and death. This legal request, which was filed shortly before World Food Day, can be found here.
According to one recent study, ethanol diversion to fuel has caused nearly 200,000 excess deaths annually. Marie Brill, Senior Policy Analyst at ActionAid USA, stated: “High and volatile prices are already causing misery. The real price of a typical global food basket is up nearly 50% over the last year. With poor people in developing countries spending between 50-80% of their income on food, it is no surprise that 44 million people fell into extreme poverty from June 2010-February 2011 because of high food prices. The big surprise is that the EPA still fails to acknowledge the human impact of the Renewable Fuel Standard and still refuses to cite the plethora of reports that reveal the significant role of biofuels in global food price volatility.” According to Sam Kazman, CEI general counsel: “EPA’s refusal to address this issue has gone on long enough, and there isn’t a more appropriate time for the agency to change its approach than in the wake of World Food Day.”
A couple of days ago, Talking Points Memo’s Jim Kozubek reported that the Food and Drug Administration had finally decided to approve AquaBounty’s genetically engineered salmon for human consumption, and that the “evaluation is now under review at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.” I’d seen the TPM article, but didn’t write about it at the time because premature reports of FDA being on the brink of approval have been filtering out through the media for several years now. (I filmed a TV interview for Fox News’s “Your World With Neil Cavuto” way back in 2005, when it looked like an approval was right around the corner, for example. And I talked about it again on John Stossel’s show last year.) But a friend of mine asked today why an FDA approval decision would have to get a second look from the White House, so I thought that would be worth discussing.
As the TPM article mentions, the AquaBounty salmon has been hugely controversial. Wild Atlantic salmon grow to full adult size in about three years, in part because they only grow six or seven months per year. As water temperatures decline in the late autumn months, a genetic switch turns turns off the gene that produces growth hormone, so the salmon can conserve energy through the winter. Energy conservation isn’t as big a problem for farmed fish, though, because they have easy access to food all year and little exposure to predators. So, AquaBounty engineered Atlantic salmon with a promoter (the genetic switch) from an Arctic fish called the ocean pout, attached to the growth hormone gene from Pacific Chinook salmon. And, voila! The engineered salmon grows year round and reaches normal adult size in about 18 months, lowering the cost of raising them and lowering the price of fish in grocery stores. Here’s the packet of scientific information FDA prepared for its scientific advisory committee last year.
Environmentalists don’t like it, of course. In part because ocean pen-raised farmed fish are known to occasionally escape into the wild, meaning the AquaBounty salmon could theoretically interbreed with wild salmon, with potential impacts on the wild gene pool. And in part because they just don’t like biotechnology. To address the arguably legitimate concerns, the AquaBounty salmon will only be raised in contained, inland pools, not open water pens, and they”ll be farmed only in Panama, where, if they do escape, the ambient water temperatures will be too high for them to survive. AquaBounty also uses two other breeding techniques that, with a 98 percent degree of certainty, produces only female fish that have been rendered infertile. So, even if they were to escape and survive, nearly all of them would be incapable of successfully mating with wild fish. Also, because the AquaBounty fish will be searching for food during the early spring months when wild Atlantic salmon are breeding, it turns out that the engineered fish have an extraordinarily low mating instinct. (Insert ribald, ex-wife joke here.)
[click to continue…]
The Environmental Working Group seems to exist for no other reason than to scare consumers away from the products of modern technology — and to advertise on behalf of the organic food and natural products industries. Since 1993, the group has been terrorizing America about everything from apples to the zinc-oxide used in some sunscreens, and practically everything in between. And since 1995, it’s been publishing an annual “Dirty Dozen” list of fruits and vegetables the organization claims have dangerously high levels of pesticides.
When this year’s Dirty Dozen list was published in June, EWG president Ken Cook wrote that:
“Though buying organic is always the best choice, we know that sometimes people do not have access to that produce or cannot afford it.” … “Our guide helps consumers concerned about pesticides to make better choices among conventional produce, and lets them know which fruits and vegetables they may want to buy organic.”
And when last year’s study was published, an EWG press release claimed that “consumers can lower their pesticide consumption by nearly four-fifths by avoiding conventionally grown varieties of the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables.”
The fact of the matter is, the mere presence of a substance doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s present at a dangerous level. Because farmers the world over use pesticides to increase their productivity, there’s going to be trace levels of pesticides in the food we eat. And, frankly, since we don’t live in a Lake Wobegon world, where everything is better than average, some product or another has to measure highest in pesticide residues. Cleverly, EWG rarely says directly that the levels of pesticides they measure are dangerous, but they know they can count on most consumers and the media to infer that conclusion. [click to continue…]
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal article highlights another reason why farm subsidies need to be put to rest.
Land prices are way up and so are bank deposits, as high corn and soybean prices mean local farmers are making the most money in their lives. At Sloan Implement, which sells John Deere tractors, “This could be our best year ever,” says chief executive Tom Sloan.
CEI has blogged about the archaic subsidy program before. With the budget crisis looming, Congress had a reason to cut the tax squandering program. It looks like the current economic outlook for the farming industry simply adds fuel to the fire.
What’s the reason for agriculture’s new found fortune?
The global grain markets shifted in 2006 when Washington began to require that the oil industry mix billions of gallons of corn-derived ethanol with gasoline annually. Around the same time, rising numbers of middle-class consumers in emerging economies such as China began seeking more grain-fed meat and milk, boosting demand for soybeans, pork and, most recently, corn from the U.S.
[click to continue…]
Finally. After several years of persistence, it looks like the movement to reform the agriculture direct payments system is finally gaining some momentum. It seems that nothing short of a potential budget crisis was enough of an incentive for Congress to seriously reconsider which federal programs are truly supported by the taxpayer. Seizing upon Congress’ brief lapse into austerity, last week Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) introduced the “Reducing the Deficit through Eliminating Agriculture Direct Payment Subsidies Act of 2011” or “REAPS.”
The direct payments program has been recognized as a vehicle for government waste for some time. Direct payments are subsidies given to landowners whose property has been historically used to grow crops such as wheat, corn, and rice. However, landowners are under no obligation to actually produce crops in order to receive the subsidy. In 2006, The Washington Post ran an article which claimed that the program pays $1.3 billion to people who don’t farm at all. These sentences in particular highlight the federal government’s squandering of taxpayer money:
Some of them collect hundreds of thousands of dollars without planting a seed. Mary Anna Hudson, 87, from the River Oaks neighborhood in Houston, has received $191,000 over the past decade. For Houston surgeon Jimmy Frank Howell, the total was $490,709.
Adding insult to injury, the article was written before the 2008 Farm Bill was passed. That bill actually increased the number of subsidies to farmers by nearly $300 billion.
With a preliminary estimate of nearly $28 billion in savings, REAP is definitely a step in the right direction. The bill still has a long way to go, but it’s good to see that Congress is finally attempting to rein in the agriculture handouts. Here’s hoping that Congress not only flirts with austerity but takes some real steps to cut wasteful programs.
Over at the Scientific American magazine blogs, science writer Christie Wilcox takes on some of the mythology surrounding organic foods, including the belief (Myth #1) that organic farms don’t use pesticides and (Myth #3) that organic farming is better for the environment. I’ve been covering a lot of the same territory over the years (here and here, for example), but it’s nice to see this in a more “mainstream” publication.
A couple of highlights:
What makes organic farming different, then? It’s not the use of pesticides, it’s the origin of the pesticides used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn’t true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be potential – or serious – health risks. … Not only are organic pesticides not safe, they might actually be worse than the ones used by the conventional agriculture industry.
And this:
Even if the organic food you’re eating is from a farm which uses little to no pesticides at all, there is another problem: getting rid of pesticides doesn’t mean you’re food that is free from harmful things. Between 1990 and 2001, over 10,000 people fell ill due to foods contaminated with pathogens like E. coli, and many have organic foods to blame. That’s because organic foods tend to have higher levels of potential pathogens. One study, for example, found E. coli in produce from almost 10% of organic farms samples, but only 2% of conventional ones. The same study also found Salmonella only in samples from organic farms, though at a low prevalence rate. The reason for the higher pathogen prevalence is likely due to the use of manure instead of artificial fertilizers, as many pathogens are spread through fecal contamination.
[click to continue…]
In a letter to the Washington Post over this past weekend, a “food safety consultant” in northern Virginia named Thomas L. Schwarz lambastes the Post for a documentary movie review that “trivialized the 15 or more potentially deadly organisms that can be found in raw milk.”
Among other topics, the movie “Farmageddon” raises questions about the appropriateness of our federal government spending many millions of taxpayer dollars cracking down on small farmers who dare to sell a product that consumers want and are willing to pay for. The movie, while high on emotionalism, is rather light on accuracy. But it does make an important point about heavy-handed government getting between willing buyers and sellers.
Admittedly, most of of the consumers of raw milk are unwilling to acknowledge the risks associated with consuming raw milk — but that’s not because the information is unavailable. It is unfortunate that so many raw milk advocates are unwilling to face facts. After all, pasteurization was seen as a remarkable scientific breakthrough and public health miracle for a reason: raw milk can harbor any number of nasty bacteria — including S. typhimurium, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria, Campylobacter, and Brucella.
That said, there’s no good reason why consenting adults should not be able to buy and consume raw milk.
That’s why it irked me so much when Mr. Schwartz, the Post‘s correspondent, wrote that “Filmmaker Kristin Canty has a lot of gall to substitute her beliefs for the scientific expertise of food safety experts and disregard the deadly historical record of raw milk and raw milk products.” On the contrary, Mr. Schwartz, it is you who have a lot of gall to substitute your choice for that of others.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 