From the Farm

For all that Minnesota suffers during its long and frigid winters, there is nothing more perfect than the typical Minnesota summer day. I am writing this post from my family farm in rural Minnesota. Although we are in great need of rain, it is hard not to celebrate the 75 degree temperature, the gentle breeze, and the clear blue sky. On breaks from my writing, I have helped with my sister's extensive vegetable gardens, shopped at a local farmer's market, and picked strawberries at the neighboring "pick-your-own" patch. There is no comparison between the strawberries shipped from California and the ones grown, picked, and eaten right here in Minnesota. I can hardly wait for the fresh tomatoes!

Agriculture's Embarrassment

I grew up on the farm that I still own and treasure. I have represented and advocated for farmers for all of my legal professional life. At this point, however, I am embarrassed of the industry that I love so dearly.

Steven Pearlstein's column For the Farm Lobby, Too Much Is Never Enough, in today's Washington Post explains why.

As Pearlstein begins his article, no industry has more to lose from global climate change than agriculture. Many times have I argued that agriculture is unique because of its dependency on the weather.

Those who still want to hold farmers in special regard reference Jefferson and agrarianism, arguing that farmers' dependency on land and nature gives them a special appreciation for the reconciliation of self interest and public good. See, e.g., William B. Browne, Jerry Skees, Louis Swanson, Paul Thompson, & Laurian Unneverhr, Never Assume that Agrarian Values Are Simple, Sacred Cows And Hot Potatoes: Agrarian Myths In Agricultural Policy 7 (Westview Press 1992).

Scratch that theory.

As Pearlstein points out, despite agriculture's role in contributing to global warming, in the current version of the climate change bill, the farm lobby fought hard and obtained exemptions from much of the regulation that is imposed on other industries, and it received other significant concessions.

Nevertheless, the article reports that

Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation and the self-proclaimed "voice of agriculture," yesterday urged all House members to vote against the climate-change bill, claiming it would "result in a net economic cost to farmers with little or no environmental benefit."

Not all groups are so opposed. National Farmers Union and American Farmland Trust support the current bill. But, most are actively working against passage. FarmPolicy.com posted a listing of positions this morning.

The agricultural community should stop to consider not only its own long range interest in climate protection, but to consider the public good that we all need keep in mind in order to address the issue of climate change. And, if it really wants to be selfish, it can also consider the backlash that may well be coming. Pearlman concludes his article with the following:

The next time the world's most selfish lobby comes to Washington demanding drought relief, someone ought to have the good sense to tell them to go pound sand.

An industry so wedded to government support and special treatment should pick its battles wisely.

It is time for the agricultural industry to grow up and acknowledge that there are environmental problems that EVERYONE needs to work together to address.

North Dakota District Court Upholds North Dakota Statutes Restricting Entity Use in Production Ag

The opinion can be accessed here.

I've not yet had the chance to parse the reasoning, but I'll try to in due course. My initial thought is that the trial court does not distinguish the Jones case's "facial discrimination" reasoning. North Dakota's language is different, but I don't think those differences would be relevant to the 8th Circuit, unless North Dakota can make some further arguments about the geographical implications of complying with its law. I explain this in an article that is forthcoming in the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law: Corporate Farming Restrictions in a Post-Jones World.

May and June Agricultural News Items from Nebraska

Food, Inc.

A new documentary, Food, Inc., takes aim at "our nation's food industry" with particular emphasis on "exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that has been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government's regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA."

In a New York Times column called "Lettuce from the garden, with worms," Nicholas D. Kristof comments on Food, Inc. and the agricultural system depicted in that film: "More broadly, it has become clear that the same factors that impelled me toward factory-produced meat and vegetables — cheap, predictable food — also resulted in a profoundly unhealthy American diet." In criticizing "America’s health care system," Kristof believes that "one reason for our health problems is our industrialized agriculture system."

Herewith the preview of a movie that berates "bigger-breasted chickens, the perfect pork chop, insecticide-resistant soybean seeds, even tomatoes that won't go bad" as part of a system that yields "new strains of E. coli" responsible for "illness for an estimated 73,000 Americans annually" and that is associated with "widespread obesity, particularly among children, and an epidemic level of diabetes among adults."

Agricultural Law authors on Twitter

Inspired by Susan Schneider's implementation of her Twitter account into her agricultural law LL.M. blog, I've blended Susan's Twitter updates with my own into an RSS feed called Agricultural Law Authors on Twitter. The result is a box in the sidebar of this blog that blends Twitter posts by — and about — AgLawLLM and J.C. Redbird.

For more information on Twitter and why you should take part in this social networking revolution, see The Cardinal Lawyer.

Jasmonic Acid Treatment on Seeds

The CleanTech Forum from Boston, Massachusetts recently reported on a new technology that may protect crops from pests. New UK Tech Protects Crops Without Genetic Modification, written by Emma Ritch reports that Becker Underwood has licensed a seed protection technology that involves dipping seeds in a substance called jasmonic acid. The article reports that :

The researchers found that dipping seeds in jasmonic acid would kickstart a plant's natural defenses against pests. Jasmonic acid, which is produced by plant leaves when attacked by insects, is known to help defend plants when it's sprayed on crops. However, spraying the acid tends to reduce plant growth, while dipping seeds in the acid doesn't create that side effect, the researchers said.

Early tests showed an 80 percent reduction in red spider mite attacks on tomato plants, 70 percent decrease in damage to sweet peppers by aphids, and 38 percent reduction in caterpillar attacks on maize. Becker then conducted large-scale trials in the U.S. that showed similar promise.

The technology is drawing attention in Europe in particular because it does not involve genetic modification.

Fat liver

"Animal-rights advocates have made a big deal about the way the ducks are force-fed to produce the enormously swollen livers from which the foie gras is made." And now Bob Herbert of the New York Times looks "at the plight of the underpaid, overworked and often gruesomely exploited farmworkers who feed and otherwise care for the ducks."

At issue is whether New York will award certain rights to farmworkers, "including the right to at least one day of rest per week and . . . the right to bargain collectively."

Grandma May Have Had it Right: Lard Returns to Favor

Slate Magazine recently published its Food Issue. Among an interesting collection of articles, is
Lard: After Decades Of Trying, Its Moment Is Finally Here, by Regina Schrambling.

The article points out that lard's fat is also mostly monounsaturated, has a higher smoking point than other fats, causing food to absorb less grease when fried in it, and it is minimally processed. Paraphrasing Michael Pollan’s mantra, “your great-grandmother surely cooked with it, so you should, too.”

And, the article notes, "add to that the new awareness that what you eat matters environmentally—if you are going to eat an animal on a planet at risk from too many humans raising too many animals to eat, you have to eat the whole thing. Lard is just about the last stop before the squeal when pork producers are extracting every savory bit from a pig."

Don't buy lard at the grocery store, though, as it is is likely to be hydrogenated. Try the farmers market or a specialty meat store.

My family's pie crust recipe always called for lard. Like many of my generation, I wrongly rejected that as unhealthy. However, the shortening that we switched to was full of trans-fats. And, my pie crust, not made with lard never tasted so good.

Rhubbarb is great on the farm this time of year, a plant that grandpa used to affectionately call the "pie plant." Maybe I'll just have to give it another try. . .

Bill Marler Addresses the WSU - Pollan Controversy

Here is an update to the previous blog post about Washington State University's decision to pull the Michael Pollan book, Omnivore's Dilemma from its mandatory freshman read.

It turns out that noted food safety lawyer Bill Marler is an alumnus of WSU. Anxious to provide his "Cougars" with a chance to do right by this issue, Mr. Marler publicly offered to pay to bring Michael Pollan to speak at the university. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that WSU accepted his generous offer. Looks like the students will have lots to talk about, with food and agriculture at the forefront of the discussion.

Pollan Book Selected, Dropped from WSU "Common Reading"

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that a faculty committee at Washington State University selected Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" as a common-reading text for freshmen next fall.

[F]aculty members effusively praised the award-winning book and hoped that people at the land-grant university were ready to have a serious debate about the practice of agriculture in America.

“Because this book deals with the food we eat today, it is likely to engender lively discussion and even disagreement,” wrote one professor who had recommended it to the committee. “But discussion and disagreement are the bread and butter of academic discourse.”

Well, nevermind. The book has been dropped as a mandatory read. According to the WSU website notice:

This year, given the circumstances currently facing our institution, changes must be made to the program. Instead of distributing the current selection, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, at the Alive! summer orientation sessions as was previously done, program staff will contact faculty to ascertain whether they wish to use the book in their classes, and then will arrange for distribution.

Some faculty suspect pressure from agribusiness interests.

Read about it at Washington State's Dilemma: How to Serve Up a Book Criticizing the Food Industry.

Post Script - just received an email from someone at Western Washington University. Omnivore's Dilemma is their selection for "Western Reads" and they are sticking with it!

Recent Headlines from Nebraska Department of Ag

Food, The Environment, and Civilization in Peril

We desperately need a new way of thinking, a new mind-set. The thinking that got us into this bind will not get us out. When Elizabeth Kolbert, a writer for the New Yorker, asked energy guru Amory Lovins about thinking outside the box, Lovins responded: "There is no box."

There is no box. That is the mind-set we need if civilization is to survive.

These are the concluding words of an essay Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization? published in the May 2009 Scientific American. The author, Lester Brown, heralded as "one of the world's most influential thinkers" is deeply concerned about the direction of our food, fuel and environmental policies. He writes that, "[o]ur continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines that are undermining the world food economy—most important, falling water tables, eroding soils and rising temperatures—forces me to conclude that such a collapse is possible."

In this thought-provoking essay, Brown notes our inability to increase food production on par with increases in population and highlights the stress that this causes on societies that are already in turmoil. Demand for grain stocks for human food now competes with other less efficient uses - fuel and livestock feed for meat production. Water shortages, soil losses and rising temperatures from global warming are placing severe limits on food production, and they are getting worse. Brown advocates for urgent action to stem these three environmental emergencies before it is too late.

He lays out the framework for his plan - Plan B.

Similar in scale and urgency to the U.S. mobilization for World War II, Plan B has four components: a massive effort to cut carbon emissions by 80 percent from their 2006 levels by 2020; the stabilization of the world’s population at eight billion by 2040; the eradication of poverty; and the restoration of forests, soils and aquifers.

A significant agenda, no doubt. I encourage all to read this sobering assessment and to consider "there is no box."

Investing in Food Security - in Other Countries

Bloomberg news recently reported Japan's efforts to promote farm investment overseas to enhance food security.

Japan is considering providing loans from a government-owned bank for companies to purchase and lease farmland abroad, Munemitsu Hirano, counsellor at the international affairs department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, said. The government may also use foreign aid to improve infrastructure such as storage and port facilities in developing countries, he said. . . . Japan relies on imports for 60 percent of its food and last year purchased almost all its corn requirements from the U.S., the world’s largest exporter.

Grain imports are indispensable for Japan as we don’t have enough arable land to satisfy domestic needs,” Hirano said in an April 24 interview. “We also need to diversify supply sources as we are heavily dependent on imports from the U.S.

The article reported that the investments are likely to focus on Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Romania and Hungary as possible investment targets.

Japan's efforts are part of an increasing trend.


The map above is associated with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) report issued in April titled, Land-grabbing by Foreign Investors in Developing Countries. The report notes the risk of "second-generation colonialism" in such deals. The report concludes:

Foreign investment can provide key resources for agriculture, including development of needed infrastructure and expansion of livelihood options for local people. If large-scale land acquisitions cause land expropriation or unsustainable use, however, foreign investments in agricultural land can become politically unacceptable. It is therefore in the long-run interest of investors, host governments, and the local people involved to ensure that these arrangements are properly negotiated, practices are sustainable, and benefits are shared. Because of the transnational nature of such arrangements, no single institutional mechanism will ensure this outcome. Rather, a combination of international law, government policies, and the involvement of civil society, the media, and local communities is needed to minimize the threats and realize the benefits.

NY Times Graphics on Organic Farming

The May 2, 2009 New York Times includes an interesting article, Hot Spots for Organics on farming in America. Graphical maps depict the location of organic farms, overall farms, vegetable farms, orchards, and dairy farms.
The article notes that, "[o]rganic vegetables now account for 5 percent of all vegetable sales; organic dairies, which are the fastest-growing sector, now produce 1 percent of the nation's milk."

Postive Yield and Production Impacts

By clicking on the title to this post, readers may go the the briefing note (17 April 2009) of PG Economics Limited about the Union of Concerned Scientists report titled "Failure to Yield." PG Economics writes that "the public, policy makers, stakeholders and media need to be aware of its [the UCS report] misleading nature through a combination of inappropriate use of data and omission of representative, relevant analysis."

Readers may also use the link at the end of this paragraph to read the PG Economics Limited "Focus on yield," a four page document about biotech crops directly addressing yield, socio-economic impacts, and environmental effects from 1996-2006. http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/GM_Crop_yield_summary.pdf This four page document refers to a still lengthier PG Economics report published in a peer-reviewed journal, AgBioForum, from the University of Missouri.

Farmers are quite capable and knowledgeable about what occurs in their fields. Farmers would not grow or adopt biotech crops unless those crops provided agronomic, economic, and environmental benefits for the farmers. Millions of farmers around the world have grown transgenic crops on a cumulative total of 2 billion plus acres since 1996. Farmers can count and they count accurately. As the PG Economics documents show, the UCS report fails to count accurately. More importantly, the PG Economics documents provide the evidence of the positive yield and production impacts of biotech crops that farmers have experienced and are experiencing in 25 countries of the world.

http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/GM_crop_yield_arial.pdf

A Tribute to Craft Beers

Here's to a great American agricultural product - craft beer.
Despite the recession, craft beer sales have grown in most markets, developing a loyal following . American Craft Beer Continues Global Expansion: U.S. Craft Beer Exports Increase 25% in 2008. See also, MN Craft Beer Sales Boom.


Celebrating this bit of positive economic news, posted below is a new video, I Am A Craft Brewer. It was created by Greg Koch, CEO of the Stone Brewing Co. along with more than 35 other U.S. craft brewers.

It is offered as "a collaborative video representing the camaraderie, character and integrity of the American Craft Brewing movement" at the 2009 Craft Brewers Conference as an introduction to Greg's Keynote Speech entitled "Be Remarkable: Collaboration Ethics Camaraderie Passion."

Who knew that brewing could be such a social inspiration?


I Am A Craft Brewer from I Am A Craft Brewer on Vimeo.

Failure to Yield

While technology is often promoted as the key to increased production, a recent report highlights the risk in relying upon genetic modification as the technological enhancement that will solve global food needs.

The Union of Concerned Scientists recently released a report, Failure to Yield on the use of genetically engineered crops as a means for achieving higher production yields. The report concludes that "[d]epsite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields." Instead, yield increases are largely due to traditional plant breeding and improvements in agricultural practices."

From the USC press release:

The UCS report comes at a time when food price spikes and localized shortages worldwide have prompted calls to boost agricultural productivity, or yield -- the amount of a crop produced per unit of land over a specified amount of time. Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is essential to meeting this goal. Monsanto, for example, is currently running an advertising campaign warning of an exploding world population and claiming that its “advanced seeds… significantly increase crop yields…” The UCS report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future.

The report recommends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state agricultural agencies, and universities increase research and development for proven approaches to boost crop yields. Those approaches should include modern conventional plant breeding methods, sustainable and organic farming, and other sophisticated farming practices that do not require farmers to pay significant upfront costs. The report also recommends that U.S. food aid organizations make these more promising and affordable alternatives available to farmers in developing countries.

“If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields,” said Gurian-Sherman. “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”

G8 Agricultural Ministerial

Secretary Vilsack and other government agricultural leaders can be commended for the recent Group of Eight (G8) Agricultural Ministers Meeting in Italy. Vilsack noted in his press release that "This meeting, the first of its kind in the G8's history, underscores the important role that agriculture will play in the coming months and years, as we look for ways to improve global food security."

The importance of sustainable development in food security appears throughout the final declaration achieved at the meeting.

Ensuring access to adequate food and water is essential for sustainable development and for our future. . . .

We underline the importance of increasing public and private investment in sustainable agriculture, rural development and environmental protection in cooperation with international organisations. It is essential to tackle climate change impacts and ensure sustainable management of water, forests and other natural resources, while considering demographic growth.

We call for enhanced support including investments in agricultural science, research, technology, education, extension services, and innovation. We also commit ourselves to increasingly share technology, processes and ideas with other countries in the interest of increasing the capacity of national and regional institutions and governments, as well as promoting food security. These efforts are vital to increasing sustainable agricultural productivity and rural development in each country, in accordance with various agricultural conditions, respecting biodiversity and improving peoples’ access to food, social and economic development and prosperity.

Recognizing the importance of global food security, it is critical for world leaders to work together to promote the careful use of limited natural resources while also increasing food production.

Several issues come to mind -

• Secretary Vilsack recognizes global food security and battling world hunger as critical to our national security. How can this be reconciled with energy policy that relies on corn-based ethanol?
• Moreover, in a hungry world, why do we support an agricultural policy that promotes the production of corn for high fructose corn syrup, industrial uses, and cheap feed for livestock?
• Which technologies can aid world wide food production and which produce only illusory gains? This last issue will be the basis of future post. Stay tuned . . .

Arugula nation

Unlike Bill Clinton, Barack Obama seems more attuned to slow food than to fast food. Perhaps nothing symbolizes this subtle shift in the attitude of the White House toward food than arugula. Maureen Dowd explains in a column featuring the the legendary Alice Waters.

King Corn

I watched the film King Corn again yesterday, this time with our LL.M. Agricultural Perspectives class. I was once again struck by the odd and unsustainable path our food and agricultural systems have taken.

We often hear farmers proudly and very sincerely proclaiming that their job is “to feed the world.” And, the productivity of American agriculture has been touted as the model for the rest of the hungry world.

But, as King Corn illustrates in such an entertaining and yet serious fashion, American farmers and consumers are caught in a system that makes little or no sense; one that is disconnected from any constructive food, farm, or environmental policy.

According to the USDA ERS Corn Briefing Room, "corn is the most widely produced feed grain in the United States, accounting for more than 90 percent of total value and production of feed grains." The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service reports that corn production rose markedly in 2007 to over 93 million acres and is estimated to total approximately 85 billion acres in 2009.

As King Corn accurately evidences, however, farmers grow corn even when it is not profitable to do so. This is because government farm programs subsidize its production. According to the farm subsidy database provided by the Environmental Working Group with numbers provided by the USDA, “over the past twelve years, taxpayers have spent $56 billion on corn subsidies paid to over 1.5 million recipients, making it the top crop for federal assistance.”

The environmental impact of corn production is surprisingly absent in King Corn, but it is well worth mentioning. Because of the nutrient requirements associated with our intensive cropping systems, nitrogen and phosphorus run off is an increasing problem. Adding additional corn acres generally means 1) less crop rotation or 2) taking land out out of conservation use, both of which exacerbate the environmental problems. See, e.g., U.S. Corn Production Feeds Expanding Gulf Dead Zone. U.S. corn production requires significant fertilization, significant pesticide application, and in many areas, irrigation. It is by all accounts a resource consumptive crop.

Okay, back to feeding the world - that is why we want farmers to grow it, right?

The huge corn crop that we produce is not a variety of corn that can be eaten “as is” by humans. In order to make it into food, it has to either be fed to animals or processed, most often through an energy-consumptive industrial process, in order to make it edible. And, even farther removed from a hungry world, we are growing increasing amounts of corn for ethanol fuel production.

What are we feeding to the world with our corn? Let's put aside corn based meat production for another post and focus on the primary industrialized food product that comes most directly from U.S. corn production - high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). This is hardly the product that is needed by a hungry world. According to the PBS website that accompanies King Corn, American consumption of sweeteners in food has risen by 19 percent since 1970. In 2003, the USDA estimated that Americans ate 79 pounds of corn sweetener per year—a four-fold increase from 1970.

Couldn't we develop a food and agricultural system that would encourage farmers to "feed the world" a crop that was good for them, a crop that could be produced and consumed without degrading the environment? Isn't that the kind of crop that the government should subsidize?

According to the USDA’s corn briefing room - "Research is continuing to expand the various industrial uses for corn and corn byproducts." The circular madness continues. We are developing more ways to use the crop that we are paying farmers to over produce at great harm to the environment. Let's shift the government research dollars that support this work over to developing a more sustainable food and agricultural system.

Ag Headlines from Nebraska

I seem to have let these pile up.

Swinging for the sweet spot

And now there are four. The FDA's approval of rebaudioside A, a derivative of Stevia rebaudiana bertoni, as a food additive brings the total number of low-calorie sugar substitutes to four: saccharin (Sweet ’N Low), aspartame (Equal), sucralose (Splenda), and stevia (Truvia, Rebiana, and PureVia). What stevia holds over its rivals is this: because it is derived directly from the sweetleaf plant, it can be lawfully marketed as a "natural sweetener."

The New York Times' Kim Severson discusses the takeaway lessons  of the emergence of stevia.

Livestock Waste Management

Nebraska's Livestock Waste Management Act is currently the focus of a bill in our legislature. Read about it here. Personally, I question the wisdom of allowing livestock facilities to structure their businesses with multiple entities to avoid non-compliance. And when combined with a 5-strikes-and-you-are-out rule, it would appear Nebraska's law is fairly toothless. But further study may reveal something that I've missed.

In any event, I don't think it wise to base this decision on a need to aid the young farmer (as the post reports). Rules that seek to avoid environmental harms do impose costs on producers (while at the same time relieving the public of costs that it is bears in the form of environmental damage). If that, in itself, is a barrier to young farmers, then the argument is really an argument for non-regulation. I'd thought we had outgrown that. But perhaps I was wrong. The young farmer and the family farm live on in some settings as justifications for all types of policy. But why should it matter that a large livestock facility is owned by a family or a youngster? As Susan has suggested, it should be very difficult for industrialized agriculture (and, I think, all agriculture) to avoid industry-like regulation that responds to the dangers it poses.

Food Policy and Health Symposium at Stanford

I have recently had the opportunity to work with Stanford Law student Loren A. Crary, Articles Editor for the Stanford Law & Policy Review. Recognizing the significance of current issues of agricultural law and food policy, the Review is planning a Food Policy and Health Symposium. I am pleased to post the following call for submissions -

The Stanford Law & Policy Review seeks articles or short essays for publication in the Stanford Law & Policy Review’s upcoming symposium on “Food Policy and Health.”

The Stanford Law & Policy Review is an academic journal at Stanford Law School that explores current issues at the nexus of law and public policy. For each issue we solicit articles from prominent professors, judges, lawyers, political leaders, regulators, economists, and other experts (past contributors include then Governor Bill Clinton, Senator John McCain, and Governor Jeb Bush).

Through this symposium, we would like to explore the many ways United States policies directly and indirectly related to food have consequences for national health, broadly-defined. We hope to address all stages of the supply chain, including production, processing, transportation, sales and consumption. We would particularly like to highlight the ways agricultural production and the environment may be connected to health through food policy.

We welcome submissions on any subject relating to United States food policy and health including, but not limited to:

• Structure and health-related effects of US agricultural subsidies, and other provisions of the Farm Bill.
• Regulations of food production relating to the environment, including pesticides, agricultural water use, etc. and effects on health, and other agricultural laws related to health, for example regulation of antibiotic use.
• Food safety regulation at all stages of supply chain.
• Policy approaches towards nutrition, including school lunches and measures aimed at obesity.
• Marketing law, including marketing to children; labeling law, including Country of Origin Labeling; and private labeling standards.
• Regulation affecting food security and development of local and sustainable food systems including zoning law and other regulation related to urban agriculture.

Additionally, authors will be invited to present their articles at a live symposium at Stanford Law School during the 2009 – 2010 academic year. We will begin evaluating submissions for next year’s volume on June 15, 2009, so please submit your article by that date if you are interested in contributing. Articles should be between ten and forty double-spaced pages, not including notes and citations. Please contact us at your earliest convenience to discuss your submission. To submit an article, please e-mail it to slpr.foodpolicy@gmail.com.

Questions can be directed to Loren at lacrary@stanford.edu.

Reaction to NY Times Op Ed on Pork Production

My father used to tease me that I would sometimes get "worked up" if I thought something was not right. I guess this post would be a good example. This one's for you, Dad -

James E. McWilliams’ published an editorial, Free-Range Trichinosis in yesterday's New York Times. It provokes a response both because of its inaccuracies and its omissions. McWilliams cites a preliminary study of only 600 hogs as the sole basis for his assertion that “free range” production produces pork that is less safe than industrialized production, and he promotes concern about the dangers of infection found in the natural environment. He did not reveal that the National Pork Board funded the study.

While food safety should be the concern of all producers regardless of method of production, McWilliams' attempt to evoke public health fear as a reason for preferring industrialized animal production over "free range" production is profoundly misleading.

Contrary to the tone of McWilliam's analysis, today's free range production is not a new system that was invented by chefs who seek the taste of wild game. Rather, it is a system of production that has been used by farmers worldwide for generations. Getting back to my father, that is how he raised hogs on our farm. Free range is not “an arbitrary point between the wild and the domesticated.” It is system of production that acknowledges that animals are living creatures with natural tendencies and that recognizes that they do better when the most basic of these tendencies are respected. In the words of the designer of livestock handling facilities and Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University, Dr. Temple Grandin in her article, Animals are not Things, "There is a fundamental difference between cows and screwdrivers." The same could be said for pigs.

In contrast, industrialized animal agriculture, i.e., raising very large numbers of animals in extremely close confinement, is an experiment that has been with us for about fifty years. It arose not because of safety concerns (as McWilliams implies) but because of the economic efficiencies it provided to meat processors. While for processors, it has been extremely efficient, the externalities associated with it are overwhelming. It is now recognized as contributing to serious public health problems never before associated with American agricultural production.

• Workers in confined hog operations have long been known to have serious health problems associated with their employment. Public health research over the last decade has now revealed similar health problems associated with living within a few miles of an industrialized swine facility. For example, an increase in diarrheal and respiratory illnesses including asthma is well documented in public health studies. See, e.g. on the CDC website, Neighbor Health and Large-scale Swine Production
  

• Contrary to the sterile image of industrialized agriculture that is portrayed in the article, animals raised in such close confinement are under constant stress and must be given an almost continuous stream of antibiotics in order to prevent disease. It is estimated that 70% of all antibiotics produced in the United States are fed to animals in industrialized production, causing many in the health community to blame industrialized animal production as one of the leading causes for the rise in antibiotic resistant infections. See, e.g., The Pew Commission on Industrialized Animal Agriculture.

• A recent University of Iowa pilot study found the deadly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in 49% of tested animals and 45% of tested workers.

• MRSA has been found in supermarket pork in a variety of U.S. and Canadian locations.

• Because of their intense generation of urine and feces, industrialized hog facilities have been associated with the contamination of groundwater with nitrate as well as the contamination of our streams and rivers.

Thus, McWilliams' efforts to scare consumers away from "free range" in favor of industrialized production is rather absurd. He fails to provide credible documentation for his concerns about free range pork, and he fails to acknowledge any of the well documented problems with industrialized production.

Public safety concerns demand alternatives to intense industrialized production as it is practiced today. Free range is one such alternative. Does free range mean safe? No, perhaps not. But, at the very least it provides a starting point in that it does not generate public health problems just through its production. We can work with the rest of it.

For some other thoughtful blogging on the op-ed, check out Paula Crossfield's post on the Huffington Post, April 11, 2009.

Food law academy in Puglia

Alberto Alemanno left an invitation by way of commentary on an Agricultual Law post. I'm happy to reprint that invitation here in the main body of this blog:

Dear food law colleagues,

I am pleased to invite you to the 1st EFFL Summer Academy in Food Law & Policy. The academy will be held on 20-24 July at the beautiful XVII century Masseria Chiancone, a farmhouse immersed in an oasis of natural beauty, archetypically Mediterranean, along the coast of Puglia, Italy.

The academy will offer scientific reflection and discourse on key legal and policy issues in European and World food law by following an innovative and interdisciplinary approach. This will be achieved through a dynamic, informal and highly interactive five-day program, which includes lectures, presentations, discussion groups and social activities. The faculty of the academy consists of food experts coming from relevant authorities, European and U.S. institutions and agencies, academia, industry and legal practice. Scholarships will be available.

To find out more, please visit the academy's home page. I look forward to seeing some of you in beautiful Puglia this summer!

Alberto Alemanno
Academic Director — 1st EFFL Summer Academy in Food Law & Policy
Associate Professor of Law
HEC Paris
1 rue de la Libération — Jouy en Josas Cédex
+ 33 1 39 67 75 20
SSRN Author Page

Opportunities in Food & Agriculture

The Graduate Program in Agricultural Law at the University of Arkansas School of Law offers the nation's only advanced LL.M. degree in agricultural law. With courses in food law, environmental law, and all other aspects of agricultural law, we take pride in offering a curriculum that covers the full spectrum of law and policy. We study the law from the perspective of the farmer, the consumer, and whoever may be involved in between.

We have already admitted a number of candidates for Fall 2009. We still have places available and will be able to offer merit-based graduate assistantships to a limited number of those admitted. These assistantships provide a tuition waiver plus a small stipend.

Our nine month course of study attracts attorneys from throughout the United States and from abroad. While many of our students are recent law school graduates, others enter the program as experienced practitioners. Our alumni are among the leaders in the agricultural law and food law communities, many working in policy positions as well as in practice.

Interested students are encouraged to apply to the Program as soon as possible. Visit our website for more information and to obtain an application form. You are welcome to send me an e-mail at sas.susan@gmail.com with questions. And, you can call the LL.M. Program Office at 479-575-3706.

From Humans to Livestock, Red River Flooding Impacts All

I usually write about the intersection between energy law and agricultural law, but this post has nothing to do with energy. As a professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law, I have been experiencing my first real flood threat in Grand Forks. Grand Forks had a catastrophic flood in 1997, and as a result, now has a dike system in place to help protect against future disasters.

Fargo and areas all the way up near Grand Forks that are not protected by the dikes, on the other hand, remain extremely vulnerable, and the efforts of the people in the region have been nothing short of amazing. And it is not just people who remain vulnerable.


Heavy overland flooding has caused significant problems for livestock, as well:

Brian Zimprich, extension agent for North Dakota’s Ransom County, said the county has suffered heavy overland flooding. That’s bad news for county residents, but even worse news for beef cattle producers, who are in the middle of calving.

“We have 50 head of cattle that have been lost due to flood, and there are various unofficial reports of livestock loss, rumored to have died due to flood or bad weather,” Zimprich said.

Seventy-five to 100 calves have been lost, many to pneumonia, he said.

“Some of them were newborns and some probably a week or 2 weeks old that have come down with pneumonia or illnesses due to the extreme temperature changes and the wet conditions,” he said. “It’s just not the best situation for calving right now.”

While the state has made clear that “[l]ivestock rescue and carcass recovery efforts are secondary to the protection of human life,” significant efforts are underway.



It will be at least a week before anyone can truly breathe easy, and even if major crisis is averted, significant losses have been suffered on farms and in the cities. Hopefully, the dikes will hold and the heroic efforts of people all over North Dakota and Minnesota, those suffering flooding on the other side of the Red River, will have minimized (though certainly not eliminated) the losses. No matter what, I have witnessed an incredible display of community spirit and dedication, and I'm proud to live to in North Dakota.

Groundbreaking

Although I love the "Rabbit's Vegetable Garden" photo in my previous post on this issue, this one is pretty cool, too. I have to admit that I do not look this good when I garden. That said, Mrs. Obama is good with a shovel. And, she was great with the kids.

The concept of gardening with school children and of adding food and gardening in to the school curriculum is one that is showing up all over the country with very positive results. Consider that while the Edible Schoolyard was mentioned in the Alice Waters post, on the opposite coast, the South Carolina Department of Agriculture is sponsoring the School Gardens Program directed by Beth Crocker, an alumnus of our LL.M. in Agricultural Law program.

Connecting children to good food, and developing an understanding of and appreciation for the natural processes involved raising our food is a hopeful sign for our future food system.

White House Garden Confirmed

Along with a number of other media sources anxious to report the big news, Marion Burros of the New York Times reported that “Michelle Obama will begin digging up a patch of the South Lawn on Friday to plant a vegetable garden, the first at the White House since Eleanor Roosevelt’s victory garden in World War II.”

The garden will grow vegetables to be used by the White House chefs in the preparation of food for the President, his family and guests, but Mrs. Obama also plans to use the garden to as an educational experience for children on the benefits of fresh food and good nutrition.

“My hope,” the first lady said in an interview in her East Wing office, “is that through children, they will begin to educate their families and that will, in turn, begin to educate our communities.”

It is reported that twenty-three fifth graders from Bancroft Elementary School in Washington will help her dig up the soil for the 1,100-square-foot plot. Having done quite a bit of gardening myself, and having also worked with children as Montessori teacher in my pre-law life, I find that prospect refreshing, but also rather amusing. I hope they have a back up tiller on stand-by.

In any case, given the convergence of the obesity epidemic and the recession, the White House garden comes at a near perfect time. Not only does gardening provide an opportunity to improve our diets by adding fresh produce, it also provides an excellent source of exercise. And, a recent AP story, Dollars From Dirt, evidences the financial advantages to "growing your own."

The National Gardening Association estimates that a well-maintained vegetable garden yields a $500 average return per year. A study by Burpee Seeds claims that $50 spent on gardening supplies can multiply into $1,250 worth of produce annually.

Good gardening to the Obamas, and congratulations to all who advanced the return of the Victory Garden!

Changing the Way We Eat: Alice Waters Interview

Leslie Stahl began her Sixty Minutes interview with Alice Waters last night by acknowledging that Waters "has done more to change how we Americans eat, cook and think about food than anyone since Julia Child."

Through the course of the interview, Waters discusses the importance of access to fresh food and her work with the slow food movement. They visit with the children in her Edible Schoolyard Program, and Waters again makes a pitch for a White House vegetable garden.

Alice Waters is one of America's most famous Chefs and an influential advocate for local and organic foods. Waters is the co-owner of Chez Panisse, the original "California Cuisine" restaurant in Berkeley, California and informal Café Fanny in West Berkeley. She advocates gardening and cooking opportunities at schools across the country as a natural way to get children interested in good food. It is a delightful interview that just may convince you to either get started on that backyard garden or at least make a trip to the local farmers' market.


Watch CBS Videos Online

"Reversing a Troubling Trend in Food Safety"

Food safety was the topic of today's Presidential message. In it, President Obama declared -

We are a nation built on the strength of individual initiative. But there are certain things that we can't do on our own. There are certain things that only a government can do. And one of those things is ensuring that the foods we eat, and the medicines we take, are safe and don't cause us harm.

The President announced the appointments of Dr. Margaret Hamburg as Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Dr. Joshua Sharfstein as the Principal Deputy Commissioner. In addition, he announced the creation of a new Food Safety Working chaired by the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. This group will work with other agencies and senior officials "to advise the President on improving coordination throughout the government, examining and upgrading food safety laws, and enforcing laws that will keep the American people safe."

The President's recognition of food safety as "one of the most fundamental responsibilities government has" is refreshing and inspiring. We can do much better, and to recognize that government has to take the lead is critical. It is my hope, however, that government leadership is not limited to increased regulation and inspection. As with any problem, it is most efficient and most effective to look to the source. What aspects of our food and agricultural policies have helped to create the problems that we now need to regulate to correct? What inherent weaknesses are there in our food system? It will be critical that the President has people appointed to the Food Safety Working Group that can ask these difficult questions and guide the FDA, the USDA, and the President toward sustainable solutions.

Recent News from Nebraska Dept. of Ag.

Ethanol: The Cycle Continues?

The New York Times reported on Friday that ethanol producers are lobbying the federal government to increase the 10% cap on ethanol in most gasoline blends to as much as 15%.

Ethanol producers also argue that without higher blend levels, there will be no room for the development of advanced biofuels, like ethanol made from wood chips or biological waste. Congress has set a target of using 21 billion gallons of that type of ethanol and other biofuels by the year 2022.

As I have discussed previously, the renewable fuel standard (RFS) that is the source of the 2022 target is flawed and provides incentives primarily (if not exclusively) for the worst kind of ethanol – that which is derived from food-related sources like corn. The claim that a higher ethanol blend today would in any way influence development of ethanol from wood chips or biological waste, much less next-generation sources like cellulosic or algae-derived ethanol, is dubious at best.

An increase in the current permissible ethanol ratio in gasoline blends would simply increase the amount of corn-based ethanol produced. Some ethanol plants are closing (again) across the country and other ethanol producers are at or near bankruptcy. An increase in the amount of ethanol that can be used in gasoline blends may help some of these companies, but in no way will it have a significant impact on next-generation ethanol research.

An increase in the amount of ethanol that can be permitted in current gasoline blends would be a repeat of the mistake made with the initial RFS – it would create further incentives for corn-based ethanol, which adversely affects food markets directly and indirectly. If ethanol is going to be a viable and valuable alternative to fossil fuels, technological advancements are necessary. Any incentives to promote ethanol production should thus be targeted at advanced biofuels, not ethanol that comes from current production processes. Otherwise, the tactics don't match the strategy.