Archive for the ‘Genetic Modification’ Category

New Ag Secretary’s New Attitude on small farms

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

Thanks to Trading Post Paul for calling our attention to this. Comments, as always, welcome. -bg

New Secretary of Agriculture Reveals New Attitude Towards Small Family Farm Sustainability, Civil Rights, and Rural Development with Address to the Federation of Southern Cooperatives
http://www.ssawg.org/Newsletters/SSAWGnewsMarch2009.html

The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund hosted U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on February 21, 2009, as he addressed more than 300 farmers and agriculture professionals at the Federation’s conference, held annually in Albany, Georgia. “When our first African-American president raised his hand and took the oath of office, wemade a huge step in this country. It’s now our job at the USDA to take the next step,” Vilsack stated. He said that if President Abraham Lincoln, who established the USDA in 1862, came back and wondered how the department is doing in supporting farmers, he would learn that “some folks refer to USDA as the last plantation, and it has a pretty poor history of taking care of people of color,” adding that he chose the conference as the place to make his first speech outside of Washington because he wants to send the message that they are serious about civil rights.

Vilsack took the opportunity to acknowledge the fact that the conference program began with sustainable agriculture topics, saying that it is a very important topic, and it’s going to be increasingly important. After acknowledging other topics that he considers key, such as food assistance programs that are included in President Obama’s stimulus package, he spoke
about the trends in agriculture that they see at the USDA.

“The first thing that popped out to me was the dramatic growth in the number of small farms–small income farms,” he said, referring to the recently released results from the Census of Agriculture. “In the last five years there have been 108,000 new farms started with sales of less than $1,000. These are very, very, very small operations. But that is a significant start for people in agriculture and a significant connection to the land–108,000.” He described the other end of the spectrum where the trend is the very large income farms that generate $500,000 or more, which grew by about 41,000 farms. The third trend, which he identified as the challenge, is that the farms in the middle, making more than $10,000 but less than $500,000, have decreased by 80,000. He pointed out two more trends: Sixty percent of all farms have less than $10,000 in sales, with 900,000 of 2,200,000 farmers having to work off-farm over 200 days per year to make it. The last trend that he brought into the picture is the fact that the average age of farmers has increased over the last five years from 55 to 57.

“Small farming increases; large farm increases; farms in the middle decreasing; aging farmers; farmers having to work off the farm,” he summarized. “So what does the USDA do about this? What should it be doing in the next four years?”

The Secretary said that the President has been very specific with him about renewing and replenishing rural areas across the country. Vilsack noted a number of things that need to be done to make that happen, including the development of strategies to make the small income farms into mid-income farms and become more profitable, as well as to maintain the existing mid-sized farms.

One of the ways he sees this happening is through a major push to focus on nutrition, including “fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts, things that are good for you. And it can start this year with the reauthorization of the school lunch and school breakfast programs.” Vilsack sees this as creating real opportunities to produce fresh vegetables and fruit and get them into schools and institutions locally. He also stressed that we need to develop regional distribution systems to encourage the growth.

In addition to strengthening the infrastructure for local and regional
mid-scale production, he talked about other rural development issues,
including new crops for biofuels, resources for bio-refineries, and
conservation stewardship.

Vilsack’s closing remarks focused on his commitment to seeing that the civil rights issues of the USDA will be addressed and  put in the past, andto making sure that all of the offices are “fair to black farmers, and fair to women farmers, and fair to Hispanic farmers, and fair to people from all walks of life who want to get into farming. We have 108,000 new farmers with less than $1,000 in sales. That’s a lot of people who want the opportunity to work the land and we want to give them that opportunity.”

Canada Farmers’ Union: Seed Modernization At What Cost?

Friday, March 13th, 2009

Excerpt from a recent presentation made by farmer Maureen Bostock, a National Farmer’s Union member from Ontario. A version of this presentation appeared in the Union Farmer (Spring 2009).

Seed Modernization At What Cost?

[The system (see *below)] which has served growers very well is to be dismantled in the government’s determination to replace protecting farmers with protecting corporate profits.

CFIA’s decision to make these changes to the Varietal Registration Framework is not a stand-alone policy; it is part of an economic strategy which has changed the world food order over the past few decades. It began with consolidation of the retail sector, vertically integrating the food chain from transportation, processing and retailing. Pesticide corporations followed suit and began to look for ways to control the agricultural production chain. They focused their attention on seeds when they realized that proprietary control of seeds and genetics could increase their profits. By attaching identity preservation, the value of seeds could be greatly increased. GE Terminator Technology has been developed to prevent unauthorized use of IP seeds. Seed and pesticide corporations began to lobby for governments to get out of seed production.

The Canadian government meanwhile has been pursuing its own agenda of privatization: the three D’s – downsizing, downloading and deregulation with the intention to free up the marketplace perfectly dovetails with industry’s goal to stop public breeding programs from competing with private industry.

The road to greater corporate profits requires both these fundamental changes –the elimination of competition from public breeding programs as well as the introduction of production contracts to secure profits.

For farmers, a future when contractual potato production becomes the norm, means both increased seed costs and the loss of the right to save potato seed year to year to replant.

Can farmers make a living if the cost of seed skyrockets? Let’s take a quick look at Canadian statistics:

While gross farm receipts have grown from $15,000 in 1926 to $150,000 in 2006, net incomes have dropped to $20,000 in the red. The cause of this disaster is the profits multinational corporations have given themselves permission to take in exchange for machinery, seed, feed, fuel, fertilizers, energy costs and bank interest. The combined profits of Agrium, Mosaic, Terra, Potash Corp and CF Industries rose from $100 million in 2002 to $1.2 billion in 2007. Potato prices have risen all of $18.05 per tonne since 1999. This is Canadian agriculture, where farmers lose money and corporations get richer.

There are other consequences to farmers if potatoes leave the arena of “public goods”. As potato seed increasingly becomes the property of corporations, the genetic diversity of potatoes may be threatened. With profit being the driving force rather than public interest, there is the potential for unconscionable disposal of genetic resources, such as the example of the corporation which sent to the landfill all but the most profitable seed in its warehouse upon the takeover of an international seed house.

Plant breeding was described by W.T. Bradnock, the director of Seeds Division of Ag Canada in the 1980s as resembling “the creation of a mosaic with contributions from different sources needed to complete the design.” Modern breeding programs tend to seek a single gene to provide resistance to disease. These products of vertical breeding have been found to convey short term resistance when compared to horizontal breeding programs, such as the work of the Loo family of PEI who selected Island Sunshine from varietal crosses which survived exposure to Late Blight. As we move closer to the day when IP potato varieties dominate the registry, we sacrifice the possibility of a broader genetic diversity.

To sum up then, it is suspect that a 30,000 ha seed crop such as potatoes is being accorded no more protection than the 10 ha of sunflowers. The loss of merit assessment combined with easing of deregistration will result in high-cost IP potatoes replacing older, proven varieties. Corporations achieve the cessation of public breeding programs competing with private while the federal government furthers its privatization initiative by moving closer to getting out of crop research and development altogether. When we ask who will benefit from the loss of pre-registration testing and merit assessment, it is all too clear that it will not be farmers.

* Canada’s public seed support consists of . . .19 experimental stations in Canada, one of which is the Potato Research Centre, employing 19 scientists and a total staff of 97. The Potato Research Centre has 18 potato releases in production across Canada and internationally, with the first commercial potato variety released in 1950. The Potato Research Centre conducts field trials on new potato varieties, collaborates with the International Potato Centre in Peru and other national breeding programs, conducts potato production studies in co-operation with provincial depts., universities & industry; and produces studies on erosion control, soil & water quality and land use on potato farms; as well as operates the Potato Gene Bank. As well, every January the Potato Research Centre offers 5 to 10 new varieties to growers of all size operations for the opportunity to do their own evaluations. (bolding mine-b).