Young Farmers

A great piece today in USA Today about an influx of new, young farmers. It's an interesting read and makes me think there is hope yet for a more regional, sustainable system of agriculture in the United States. I liked this quote in particular, from a 27-year-old farmer in upstate New York:

"The America that I want to live in will support people who are willing to work their asses off, who want to do good things for their community. We're patriots of place. Here I am, I'm planting my trees."

This influx of young farmers is needed. As the writer, Elizabeth Weise, explains, the average age of an American farmer is 57.

Not so interesting, and actually rather infuriating (to the point that I want to personally damage a wall with my head, or at least a fist), are some of the thoughts posted in the "comments" section that follows the article. Usually it's easy enough to laugh off such comments:

"We are moving backwards into a peasant existence where you need to grow your own food to survive. This is progress?"

OR

"I wonder how long it will be before the enviromentalists zero in on these common peole like they have the bigger farmers and put them out of buisness?"

OR, my favorite

This article makes me laugh. Urban liberals / progressives constantly berate and belittle any "gun lovin' redneck" any chance they get, yet it is those exact red-state / red-county rural types who live minimalist, organic lives by hunting and farming their own food. Liberals will read about such a lifestyle in $5 glossy magazines but it is that "good 'ole hillbilly" who is actually living the life.

... but in this case I can't even chuckle. These are people who are mired so deeply in their ideology, misconceptions, and grossly distorted view of reality that they can find fault in young adults who are brave enough -- 'cause I'm sure as hell not -- to jump into one of the most difficult trades that exists based on an honest belief that what they are doing will make things better.

These are not people who are trying to get rich, they aren't trying to fleece anybody, and they are willing to work their "asses off" -- at the great risk of failure and economic ruin -- because that belief is so strong. And these commenters read something like this and respond with misinformed cliches about "urban liberals" or those crazy environmentalists who just hate everything and want to do something bad, although what has never been adequately explained.

Then again, these are probably the same people who still believe there are WMDs in Iraq.

The most evil company in the world

Wal-Mart? Close. Well, not really. I mean, don't get me wrong. I really don't like Wal-Mart and think it's generally a very sleazy company. But the good ol' Walton family enterprise is nothing compared to Monsanto.

And I'm not even talking about that old milk-labeling thing (shameless self promotion alert). And I'm not even talking about the thing where they hire people to go around harassing family farmers in middle America, falsely accusing them of using their genetically modified seeds without paying for them, with nothing more as their motive than putting out of business all farms that don't use Monsanto's genetically modified seeds.

I'm talking about the 1,500 dead farmers in India. They all committed suicide. You'd think that, even with all of the other messed things going on in the world, that might make a blip on the big broadcast and cable networks.

The agricultural state of Chattisgarh was hit by falling water levels.

"The water level has gone down below 250 feet here. It used to be at 40 feet a few years ago," Shatrughan Sahu, a villager in one of the districts, told Down To Earth magazine

"Most of the farmers here are indebted and only God can save the ones who do not have a bore well."

Mr Sahu lives in a district that recorded 206 farmer suicides last year. Police records for the district add that many deaths occur due to debt and economic distress.

Ah, but see, if you just read this, or some of the other articles about all of these dead farmers, you'd think it was just about water -- which in and of itself is a huge issue in many developing countries, if not the biggest one -- and dirt-poor farmers. But it's also about that really motherf@#$ing evil company, don't ya' know...

Shankara, respected farmer, loving husband and father, had taken his own life. Less than 24 hours earlier, facing the loss of his land due to debt, he drank a cupful of chemical insecticide.

Unable to pay back the equivalent of two years' earnings, he was in despair. He could see no way out. ...

Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional seeds to planting GM seeds instead.

Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds. But when the harvests failed, he was left with spiralling debts - and no income.

So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.

Read the whole story. Really, it's disgusting beyond belief. You'll learn that these farmers were, in the end, nearly forced to use the genetically modified seeds instead of traditional seeds. That the GM seeds require twice as much water. And that while they've been genetically modified to resist certain pests, the few crops they produced were devastated by others. And that the 1,500 farmers are just a pebble in a barren cropfield of 125,000 dead in what has been dubbed India's "suicide belt."

Two other important things to note here. One I hope to look into further. One needs no further investigation, and that is this: genetically modified crops don't have superior yields to traditional crop varieties. Shocking, I know.

[Union of Concerned Scientists'] Doug Gurian-Sherman searched the scientific literature for side-by-side comparisons of conventional and genetically engineered lines of corn and soybeans. He found that in almost all cases, genetically engineered crops did not produce larger harvests. The one exception was insect-resistant Bt corn, which produced higher yields only when neighboring plots of conventional corn suffered infestations of a worm called the European corn borer. Crop yields have increased significantly over the past decade, he says, but almost all of that increase was due to traditional plant breeding or other agricultural practices.

Pssst. Don't tell many of the ag researchers at our state's premier land grant university, Penn State. They love them their bioengineered food stuffs.

There's also this little nugget that, on its face, sounds all well and good:

In London after the G-20 summit yesterday, President Barack Obama called for Congress to double U.S. agricultural aid to developing countries in 2010 to $1 billion. ...

Some U.S. senators are already moving in this direction. This week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a bill called S. 384 that would increase the authorized funding levels for U.S. foreign aid to $750 million in 2010, reaching $2.5 billion in 2014. Authorizations for university partnerships and international agricultural research centers would also rise.

It's that last little bit that makes my little tinfoil ears get all buzzy.

So then I go to the bill itself, S. 384. And right at the very top, what do we see?

Section 103A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a-1) is amended in the first sentence--

(1) by striking `, and (3) make' and inserting `, (3) make'; and

(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and (4) include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology.'.

Monsanto didn't double it's federal lobbying outlay from 2007 to 2008 (from ~$4 million to ~$8 million) for nothing, ya' know.