Senate Passes the Farm Bill

This Monday, the Senate passed its version of the Farm Bill by a vote of 66-27 (click here to see how your Senators voted). The bottom line of it is a mixed bag. Pressure to pass the bill intensified as key Senators hoped to shift attention to immigration reform, and unfortunately many critical and hugely beneficial programs and amendments were left out.

In fact, over 200 amendments were filed for debate for the Farm Bill—amendments supporting local food and rural development, conservation programs, organic farming, antitrust enforcement, support for public plant breeding, programs for minority farmers and important payout limits to insurance subsidies—but the Senate debated only 15 of them, and adopted just nine.

The good? The bill does manage to make sure that farmers receiving crop insurance are implementing important conservation practices on their farms. It also allows organic farmers to be covered under crop insurance at their retail, not conventional wholesale, prices—a critical reform that farmers have been asking for. It expands support for farmers markets and establishes some (but not enough) support initiatives for beginning farmers, specifically supports outreach to Veteran farmers, and, importantly, calls for an official hearing process to consider changes to the flawed current and proposed dairy programs.

The bad? Many farmers remain concerned that the bill is shifting an admittedly flawed safety net system of direct payments over to something that’s not much better—a corporate-controlled crop insurance payment program that will still fail to serve the great diversity of farmers on the land, without truly addressing the need for farmers to receive fair prices or for our agricultural system to become more resilient in the face of climate change and other volatile factors.

The House is expected to take up debate of the House Agriculture Committee’s draft farm bill the week of June 17. Stay tuned for opportunities to engage and support critical programs!

To keep track of the Farm Bill process, check out the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition’s nifty graphic outlining what lies ahead of us (click to enlarge).

And if that doesn’t float your boat, take a gander at this helpful, vintage little diddy from Schoolhouse Rock!

Toni’s Farm and Food Roundup

Climate change is a growing concern on a global scale, and scientists may have found a small way to combat rising temperatures—breeding cows that are free of flatulence (say that three times fast!). Some livestock, including cows, release a tremendous amount of the dangerous methane gas into the atmosphere every year through the (less than glamorous) natural functions of farting and burping. Experts from six different countries came together to find a solution, discovering to no one’s surprise that all animals release this gas. From that finding, the researchers hope that through selective breeding they can breed animals with incessantly lower methane levels.

Connecticut recently became the first state to pass a bill with guidelines requiring labeling of GMO products, but the news comes with a catch. Governor Dannel Malloy will only sign the bill into effect if four other states in the region, including one state that is bordering Connecticut, adopt similar labeling laws. With 20 other states already considering similar legislative moves, including the Northeastern states New York, Vermont and Maine, the clause seems a likely possibility. The four states must have an aggregated population of 20 million people, with the population of New York already exceeding 19 million. Though a GMO labeling law was recently defeated in the state, those behind the bill are determined to put a similar version up for vote soon. Hesitance about the law is two-fold: if Connecticut were the only state to enforce the law it could potentially impact the state’s food economy, and there is fear that agri-business corporations could sue the state.

In light of the recent GMO frenzy, the popular brand of ice cream Ben & Jerry’s has taken a stand on the issue with a new plan to take all genetically engineered ingredients out of its products by the end of this year. The company is already well on its way, as 80 percent of its ice cream in the US and Canada and 100 percent in Europe is already GMO free. Taking its stance one step further, the announcement on the company’s website explained it hopes all Ben & Jerry’s ingredients are also Fair Trade certified in the same timeframe. By the end of this year, all of its products will carry a label regarding any GMO component. The news comes shortly after Whole Foods announced all of its products containing genetically engineered ingredients will be labeled by 2018.

A sign of the new wave of technology influenced farming, a potato farmer from Tryon, North Carolina is trying to save his farm by Internet crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing is a popular new fundraising technique that allows people to tell their story and request funding support from the public. David Best, of Best Acre potato farm, chose to use the popular Indiegogo site for his campaign and was quickly able to raise $200,000 to save his farm. Campaigns such as these are popping up around the country, giving new light to a field often thought to be out of the scope of modern technology. Best resorted to crowdsourcing after lenders denied him a loan to plant a crop this year, the first year in his life that the farm could be void of potatoes. To help draw in support, Heather Best, David’s wife, offered secret recipes to anyone that gave a donation of at least $20. Though the outcome is still shaky, the ultimate goal for the Bests is simply to keep the family farm just that.

When people think of agriculture, girl power doesn’t usually come to mind, but the USDA recently reported that female farm operators is a growing trend in US farming. With close to 1 million women operating farms in the country, a figure that doubled from 1982 until 2007, women now represent about 30 percent of total US farmers. Whether it is for health concerns, a love of dirt or dedication to community engagement, female farmers are taking on the practice with a fervent passion. In fact, there are already more women operating small farms in the country than men. Though there have been past movements of female farmers, like there was in the 1960s, some advocates feel the difference is in the respect women now receive from the farming community. To account for this, there has also been a rise in organizations supporting female farmers, like the National Women in Agriculture Association or the Women, Food and Agriculture Network.

Farm Aid Music Monday, Starring the Grateful Dead

Happy Music Monday, folks! This week, we’re taking you back to Farm Aid 1987 in Lincoln, Nebraska. The ‘87 show featured the likes of Steppenwolf, Vince Gill, Lyle Lovett, John Denver, Lou Reed and Kris Kristofferson, in addition to Farm Aid board artists Willie Nelson, Neil Young and John Mellencamp, all taking the stage to support family farmers! 

Also jammin’ in spirit, if not in person, that day was the Grateful Dead, who appeared on the Farm Aid stage via live satellite feed from their show at Madison Square Garden. Check out their performances of Bob Dylan’s "Maggie’s Farm" and "Black Peter" below.

As a little bonus, here's a new video we just posted with three songs from Farm Aid's 1986 concert, where the Dead also appeared via satellite from Buffalo, New York. Watch them perform "The Wheel," "I Need A Miracle" and "Uncle John’s Band."

For more videos of Farm Aid performances, visit our YouTube channel.

The Recent GE Supreme Court Case and Why It Matters

We'd like to welcome Kristina Hubbard as a guest blogger today. Kristina is the director of advocacy and communications for Organic Seed Alliance, and author of Out of Hand: Farmers Face the Consequences of a Consolidated Seed Industry. We're thankful for your expert analysis, Kiki!

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with Monsanto recently in a case that upheld the company's right to prohibit the replanting of patented seed. The court ruled that the doctrine of "patent exhaustion," which an Indiana farmer argued should apply after the first sale of patented seed, "does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission."

It's not surprising the court ruled in Monsanto's favor. Still, the case had merit: Bowman wasn't challenging Monsanto's claims that he knowingly planted seed with its protected genetics. Instead, he challenged the way patent law is currently applied to self-replicating products – a worthy effort, considering the injustices patents on seed have sown across America.

It's relatively well understood that simply using seed with patented genetics – especially widely planted genetically engineered varieties, such as Roundup Ready soybeans – enters the user into a restrictive licensing agreement. Farmers sign these agreements at the time of sale, which includes a prohibition on planting more than one crop. The seed packaging also states that simply opening the bag binds the user to the agreement.

Mr. Bowman thought that by purchasing soybean seed from a grain elevator he had found a legal way to plant seed from subsequent generations. He assumed the seed contained patented genetics but argued that the patent exhaustion doctrine allowed him to plant them anyway. The court said he was wrong. The Federal Circuit court ruled, and the Supreme Court agreed, that Mr. Bowman must pay Monsanto more than $80,000.

Needless to say, Mr. Bowman is not alone in his desire to use seed from subsequent generations. More than 150 farmers have been targets of patent infringement lawsuits filed by Monsanto. And legislative initiatives at the federal level also highlight the demand. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, of Ohio, introduced legislation in 2004 and again this year to establish a registration and fee system that would allow farmers to legally save patented seed. "Companies deserve a fair return, not an exorbitant return," Kaptur has said.

She's right. Should developers of new seed varieties earn returns on their research and development investments? Yes, absolutely. But patents on self-replicating seed – and any living organism, for that matter – are unethical and dangerous.

The law needs to change. In the meantime, there is an important role for the judicial system to play in teasing out the injustices of the current patent system. Indeed, the outcome of this Supreme Court case that challenges patents on human genes will be telling.

Whether the recent ruling leaves a door open to further challenge how patents are applied to seed remains to be seen. Justice Elena Kagan's comments suggest it does:

"Our holding today is limited – addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product," she wrote. "We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex and diverse."

Mr. Bowman's case reflected that complexity. He was not only trying to save money, he was challenging a relatively new paradigm in agriculture. It is only since another Supreme Court decision in 2001 that patent law – that is, the U.S. Patent Act governing utility patents, or "patents for inventions" – has applied to living organisms.

Think about it. In less than fifteen years, many commodity crop farmers went from saving and replanting a portion of their harvest to largely buying new seed each year. This has increased farmers' dependence on a highly consolidated and narrowly focused seed industry. The transition has also eroded farmers' self-sufficiency and financial security. And the trend is spreading across the globe.

Congress long opposed the inclusion of plants under the Patent Act. A 1966 congressional committee report states that while its members "acknowledge the valuable contribution of plant and seed breeders, it does not consider the patent system the proper vehicle for the protection of such subject matter."

Soon after, Congress passed the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA). The law, passed in 1970, represented a compromise between their hesitance to patent seed and mounting pressure to provide seed developers stronger intellectual property protections. Before the 2001 ruling, seed developers largely relied on protections afforded through "Certificates of Protection" under the PVPA, providing seed developers exclusive marketing rights of their new varieties for 20 years (like a patent). But the law includes two critical exemptions: farmers can save seed and breeders can use protected varieties to innovate, including the development of new varieties. The Patent Act provides no such exemptions, with devastating consequences.

Owners of utility patents enjoy far-reaching control over access and use of their protected products. A single patent, for example, can cover a plant, tissue cultures, seed, future generations, crosses with other varieties, and the methods used to produce it. Such broad claims are not possible under the PVPA. And, even more troubling, these broad patents cover traits that can also exist in nature, such as "heat tolerant broccoli" and "pleasant taste" in melons.

Patents have grave impacts on innovation, despite Monsanto's assertion to the contrary. Public researchers note the constraints of patents and the restrictive licensing agreements tied to them. These onerous agreements dictate what kind of research on patented seed can be conducted and published. The result is that patents effectively remove valuable seed varieties from the pool breeders rely on for improving our food crops.

That's why it was disconcerting to read the court's belief that if it didn't protect how patents on seed are applied, the result would be "less incentive for innovation than Congress wanted" under the Patent Act. But it's clear that the oligopolies fostered by patent law have hindered innovation and competition in the marketplace.

The profits earned from the exclusive ownership and licensing of patented seed products – bolstered by the right to restrict research and seed saving – has led to numerous buyouts. The Independent Professional Seed Association estimates the U.S. has lost at least 200 independent seed companies in the last 15 years. The seed industry is now one of the most concentrated in agriculture, where two chemical firms command more than 60 percent of the retail markets for both corn and soybeans. This level of concentration has left farmers with fewer choices and paying higher prices, and less control over what they plant.

The growing evidence that patents on seed are detrimental to the public good should raise eyebrows at the U.S. Department of Justice. And at the agency's first of five public hearings "to explore competition issues" affecting agriculture, held in Ankeny, Iowa, it appeared that it had. Assistant attorney general for the DOJ's Antitrust Division, Christine Varney, highlighted the problem of patents in her opening remarks: "Patents have in the past been used to maintain or extend monopolies, and that's illegal, and you can be sure, Secretary, that we are going to be looking very closely at any attempt to maintain or extend a monopoly through an abuse of patent laws."

But hope that meaningful action would follow was short-lived. Neither the DOJ, nor its investigative partner, USDA, have provided a meaningful response to the 18,000 public comments they received.

The agencies' inaction, combined with the court ruling, creates a situation in which our government protects corporate control over seed.

Make no mistake: While the DOJ may have focused its investigation on the GMO marketplace, patent and competition concerns in seed are much broader. Conventional (non-GMO) varieties of seed are also increasingly being patented. And with Monsanto's 2005 acquisition of the largest vegetable seed company, Seminis, the same contract that Mr. Bowman violated now appears on seed packets of vegetable varieties that are popular among backyard gardeners and farmers alike, including ‘Big Beef' tomato, a variety that, as far as we know, doesn't contain patented genetics.

And so we're left with another important question: If our regulatory agencies are unwilling to confront the misuse of patent law in the context of seed, then what recourse do we, the people, have to ensure access to, and innovation in, seed?

For starters, despite a lack of acknowledgement in the Supreme Court ruling, there are appropriate intellectual property protections already available, including the PVPA. Congress could amend the PVPA to clarify its purpose to provide an exclusive means of intellectual property protection for self-replicating plant varieties.

I work for Organic Seed Alliance. We and our partners are also exploring contracts that adhere to principles of an "open-source" seed model. We believe it is possible to receive fair returns on investments while fostering new research that addresses our most pressing agricultural needs. We also believe farmers have the right to save seed from their harvest.

The seed patent issue is not just about GMOs or Monsanto. It is a seed issue that impacts us all, regardless of our decisions on the farm or in the grocery store. Seed is as fundamental to life as the food and fiber it produces. By way of order, then, seed is more fundamental. And it belongs in the hands of the people, not the patent holder.

Toni’s Farm and Food Roundup

While no genetically engineered (GE) wheat is currently approved in any country, GE wheat was found growing in a field in Oregon this week. Monsanto produced the wheat so it would be resistant to its own Roundup herbicide but abandoned the project in 2005 before the wheat was commercially approved due to lack of interest in the market for GE wheat. Authorities are still unsure if the wheat made it to the food supply, but the lapse could impact grain exports. In 2012, US production made up over half of the global wheat supply, and 90 percent of the wheat grown in Oregon is exported. Countries such as Japan and Mexico that import large amounts of US wheat, were notified of the situation. The wheat was tested after the farmer attempted to kill the plants with Roundup, but a small portion of the crop did not die. The farmer brought samples of the plants to be tested through Oregon State University, which discovered the Roundup-resistant gene.

The Non-GMO Project is teaming up with US Department of Agriculture in an effort to determine the scope of the contamination through a “surveillance testing strategy,” as well as why it occurred. Wheat products retailed nationally will be tested, in addition to Oregon plant samples. With over 60 countries now mandating GMO labeling, testing has already begun with hopes of swiftly grasping the extent of the situation before sales, both domestic and foreign, are too gravely impacted.

In 2003, Monsanto commercially launched a new genetically engineered corn, Bt corn, which was resistant to rootworm. The Bt corn was marketed as allowing farmers to decrease pesticide use. A mere ten years later, American cornfields are filled with the GE corn and, now, increasing amounts of pesticides as rootworms quickly developed resistance to Bt corn. Aware of rootworms increasing resistance to the strain of corn, Monsanto announced the company plans to phase out Bt corn to manufacture seeds with a different type of rootworm resistance. Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency say that the rootworm will continue to adjust and, in turn, gain immunity once more. Many corporations, such as American Vanguard, have jumped at the opportunity to invest in insecticide companies over the past decade in anticipation of increased immunity to GE crops by pests such as rootworm.

These discoveries come just days after hundreds of thousands of protesters gathered in 436 cities in 52 different countries in what became known as the March Against Monsanto on May 25. The event began when Tami Canal created a Facebook page in February declaring the need for a rally against the company’s methods, though she had no idea the event would reach such a great magnitude. Considering the event a success, those involved plan to continue efforts against GMO products until Monsanto concedes to demand and changes its current practices. The rally came amidst a Senate vote that opted overwhelmingly against mandatory GMO-labeling. The grocery chain Whole Foods recently found a 15 to 30 percent sharp increase in sales of products with a non-GMO verified label, representing the public desire to know.

A new study published in Neurology found that exposure to pesticides or commercial weed killers increases a person’s risk of Parkinson’s disease by 33 to 80 percent. The study directly linked the length of time a person was exposed to the chemicals to the probability that person would develop the disease. The research behind the study compiled information on a global scale from 104 different studies investigating individual risk compared to exposure to various chemicals used in agriculture. Surprisingly, results yielded no link between DDT, a dangerous pesticide already banned in the US, and Parkinson’s disease. Rather, those exposed to the weed killer paraquat or the fungicides maneb or mancozeb were twice as likely to contract the disease. Though the study showed no differentiation between direct contact versus inhalation of the chemicals, results showed workers in agriculture were 33 percent more likely to develop Parkinson’s when compared to non-agricultural workers.

Just as we tip into the summer months typically embellished by burgers and barbeques, beef prices are on the rise as a result of the 2012 drought. The drought that plagued the Midwest has left the US cattle herd the smallest it’s been in about 60 years, falling to less than 90 million head. Prices for commercially sold beef already hit an all-time high last week and that expected to continue to increase. Prices of choice-grade beef, the most commonly purchased type, reached a retail price of $2.1137 per pound on May 24, surpassing the record-high price that was set in 2003 during an outbreak of mad-cow disease in Canada. Though sales of US beef climbed by nearly 5 percent in 2012, overall production declined. Some beef retailers are concerned consumers will switch to different types of meat, while others are hopeful demand will remain constant through the summer months.

By the end of last year, the United States imported 4.1 billion pounds of food products from China, according to the Agriculture Department. And it seems China plans to expand its reach into the food system, with the announced purchase of Smithfield Foods, one of the biggest and oldest pork producers in the United States, by one of China’s largest meat processors. What will it mean for the U.S.? Here's what the National Farmers Union has to say to answer that question: “Consolidation in agricultural markets makes it easier for interests in other countries to control large portions of our food supply. Further study and understanding of concentration of markets is needed, along with enhanced enforcement of anti-trust laws. Independent family farmers and ranchers cannot succeed in the absence of protection from unfair, anti-competitive business practices by those who control the marketplace.”

Saying goodbye to Jame Boastick

Jame Boastick passed away on Tuesday, May 28, 2013, in Urbana, Illinois, surrounded by his family.

In 1985, Jame attended the inaugural Farm Aid concert in Champaign, IL, his hometown. Farm Aid captured Jame's imagination, and in the next 28 years he missed only one concert event. Jame loved Willie Nelson and the music of Farm Aid and faithfully made the trip each year.

Jame became Farm Aid's most faithful donor.  He regularly called the office, sent newspaper clippings and a steady stream of donations. For a time he even worked an extra job so that he could increase his donations.

One day in the early 1990s, Jame walked into the Farm Aid office in Cambridge, MA, along with his mother Marilyn Boastick, and announced, "Hi, I'm Jame Boastick!," much to our delight.  No one had ever met Jame, although staff members had talked with him on the phone many times.

Jame's passion for Farm Aid and for family farms inspired the entire Farm Aid family. All of us at Farm Aid admired his unwavering enthusiasm and constant support. We will miss Jame, and we send our sincere condolences to his family and friends.

Rest in peace, one-of-a-kind, Jame Boastick.

Glenda and the Farm Aid staff

Confessions of a Former Farmer

I didn’t come up with the title myself; partly because I am never really convinced that I won’t go back to farming one day. A more truthful title may be, “Confessions of a Farmer Working in an Office”. Not quite as catchy, though.

I have stepped out of the field and into a classroom, office, or lab at least a few times since I first started farming. It always surprises me when I am putting together my resume and it looks as if I had the whole thing worked out. That I was on some natural trajectory from farm internship to graduate school to Extension research to starting and managing a family farm is far from the truth. It may not have been the direct route to Farm Aid, but it feels like the perfect fit.

I started at Farm Aid this past April—a month that I usually associated with spending more time outside than inside. After weeks of seeding 1000s of flats of scallions, broccoli, spinach, beets, and more in the greenhouse, the focus would move outside and the endless hours of field prep would start. Spring was always a time of energy and optimism. And, although I am now inside, I am invigorated by my work as the new Farmer Resource Specialist. Instead of growing fruits and veggies, I am cultivating new ideas, projects, and relationships with the goal for expanding the impacts and reach of the Farmer Resource Network. Sustainability and viability are still at the heart of my work.

I still check the weather every day. When it rains, I can’t help but think about the top corner of the main field that would flood. When it’s the first warm, sunny spring day, I remember how my arms would feel after what would have been a long day of hula hoeing an acre of brassicas and lettuces. It may have been a faster job with the tractor, but not nearly as enjoyable as the camaraderie of kicking out that first big weeding job together with the new field crew.

I know that my work at Farm Aid will allow me to help other farmers achieve their goals. I will be able to impact the farming communities that I have learned from, shared ideas with, celebrated success, and shook off defeat. I will join new farming networks as well as the resource organizations that are here to help. Spring is still energizing and full of optimism!

I will always identify myself as a farmer. But, come August when the temperature hits 95 and the humidity’s holding steady at 75% and tomato harvest is peaking, you won’t hear me complaining about working in the air-conditioned office. But I will be thinking of all my fellow farmers out there and doing the best I can to help you succeed and thrive.

Feel free to contact me if you have ideas. Or just need to commiserate about squash bugs and powdery mildew.

Happy Spring!
Jessie

You can reach Jessie at jessie@farmaid.org and learn more about the Farmer Resource Network at www.farmaid.org/ideas.