• COVER STORY: Making Ag a Lean, Mean, Gene Machine—Is genetic engineering’s arrival in farm country the end of a successful marketing effort, or the beginning of a huge experiment?
• SIDEBARS: Bulk grain trade struggles with GMOs; Do GMOs mean more profit, fewer chemicals?; Groups call for curbs on genetic manipulation; Organic rules ban GMOs, but genetic drift still up in the air; LSP policy on genetic engineering in agriculture
• COMMENTARY: Anatomy of a factory farm fight—Guess what happened when some rural residents got organized
• LSP NEWS:Mandatory pork checkoff going to a vote; Factory farm declared hazard; LSP staff news; Dairy market future; National Campaign position opening; Third annual Community Food & Farm Festival; Market gardening & alternative marketing; Cure meeting; Stream Team; Alternative swine; Getting to know you…
• OFFICE UPDATES: Western Minnesota—Working on a durable fabric; Southeastern Minnesota—Putting our lands in more hands
• LSP LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
• BOOK REVIEWS: Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology, by Brewster Kneen; Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, by Paul Hawkens, Amory Lovins & L. Hunter Lovins
• OPPORTUNITIES/RESOURCES
• STEWARDSHIP CALENDAR

COVER STORY

Making Ag a Lean, Mean, Gene Machine

Is genetic engineering’s arrival in farm country the end of a successful marketing effort, or the beginning of a huge experiment?

By Brian DeVore

By mid-summer last year, life and death were running along parallel lines in many of the nation’s soybean fields. The life was represented by rows of thriving oilseed plants, stretched across the landscape like fat ropes of green velvet. Creeping between those rows was death: tangled weeds knocked greenless thanks to a herbicide manufactured by Monsanto called Roundup. Normally, that herbicide would have done a number on the soybeans as well. But more than half the soybeans planted in the U.S. in 1999 were armed with a gene that makes them impervious to Roundup.

This isn’t some quirk of nature; it’s the result of a methodical, human-driven effort that involves taking genes from one organism and putting them into other organisms. This effort is called genetic engineering, and it’s making possible agronomic tricks not even dreamed of with traditional plant and animal breeding. Besides "Roundup Ready" and other herbicide-resistant crops, farmers are now growing corn implanted with a gene derived from a soil microorganism called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). That makes the plant toxic to European corn borers, one of corn’s most damaging pests.

If you think soybeans that shrug off the effects of weed killer and corn that turns a bug’s guts to mush are something, just wait, say genetic engineering’s boosters.

"Bt Corn and Roundup Ready soybeans represent manipulation of a single gene," says Charles Muscoplat, who recently left a biotechnology company to take over as dean of the University of Minnesota’s agriculture college. "In the future we will be able to manipulate hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of genes."

Maybe so, but the jury is still out on whether even single-gene manipulation is a boon or bust to agriculture, the environment and the food system in general. Laboratory experiments and limited test plots are all well and good, but scientists say the only real way to determine the ultimate impacts of a technology is to see how it responds in the real world on a widespread basis. In a sense, all those fields full of herbicide resistant soybeans and Bt corn are a researcher’s dream come true: the Midwest is one giant test plot consisting of tens of millions of acres. After three years, this grand experiment is yielding results. Not all of them are positive.

Wild horses
In February, Greg Cuomo opened the 2000 meeting of the Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota by making a convincing argument for why research on genetically engineered crops needs to take place at land grant universities.

"It's our role as a land grant to do research on these products in a controlled environment so we can figure out the dangers and benefits before they get on the farm," said Cuomo, who is director of the University of Minnesota’s West Central Research and Outreach Center in Morris. "We need to be making those mistakes at the university."

But two of agricultural biotech’s hottest products — herbicide resistant soybeans and Bt corn — are already being grown on thousands of farms in a decidedly uncontrolled environment. Sure, these products underwent government scrutiny before getting approval for commercial release. But when news broke last year that genetically engineered Bt was toxic to monarch butterflies and lacewing caterpillars, some wondered if we had opened the barn door too early.

And the door is getting wider by the moment. Since they were approved for commercial use in the mid-1990s, sales of corn and soybeans containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have steadily climbed. GMO corn plantings grew from 5 million acres in 1996 to around 25 million acres in 1999. That means more than one-third of the corn in this country last year was genetically engineered. Roundup Ready soybean plantings have at least doubled since 1997. In total, more than one-fourth of U.S. cropland was planted with seeds containing GMOs in 1999. Almost all of that growth came within a three-year period. Some Midwestern grain elevators reported as much as three-quarters of the soybeans and over half of the corn they handled last fall were genetically modified. Such strong sales figures have occurred despite a weak farm economy and "technology fees" on GMO products that require a farmer to pay a significant premium for a bag of seed (see sidebar).

Who’s planting those altered crops? People like Jim Miller, who farms 1,700 acres of corn and soybeans near Belden, in northeast Nebraska. Three years ago, while in search of better weed control on his no-till acres, he planted 80 acres of genetically modified soybeans as a test. No-till farming involves as little disturbance of the soil as possible. That cuts erosion levels dramatically, but can make it difficult to control weeds, particularly later in the season. Roundup Ready technology allows the farmer to spray when the weeds are tall and vulnerable. In addition, this "contact" type of herbicide (it kills the weed on contact, and then dissipates into the atmosphere) is considered more environmentally benign than "residual" chemicals that stay in soils for extended periods of time.

"I liked what I saw that first year, so I moved up to 50 percent of my soybean acres being planted to Roundup Ready seed," Miller says over the telephone just prior to the 2000 planting season. Miller also plants around 500 acres of Bt corn annually and is an avid follower of news on new biotech wonders just around the corner. "I’m pretty excited about what’s coming in the future."

Larry Brubaker is excited too. He farms 980 acres in southeast Minnesota and for two years has been planting Bt corn, including 50 acres of sweet corn for a local cannery. He recalls a corn borer outbreak before Bt technology was available, when aerial spraying during the summer kept children inside.

"We had to spray five to seven times, and that was in one month. I know those pesticides are bad," says Brubaker, noting that consumers who are worried about consuming food containing GMOs have their fears misplaced. "If I had to choose what to eat, I would choose something that wasn’t sprayed with pesticides."

So when Brubaker’s seed dealer told him about Bt corn, he tried a little of it. He liked the results and has been planting it ever since. This year, 80 percent of his corn acres will be genetically engineered.

"I think we have to go ahead with the technology we have," he says.

But one of the concerns emerging as we head into another brave new growing season consisting of GMO corn and soybeans is that these products are becoming too popular. That’s good news for companies like Monsanto and Novartis, but bad news as far as keeping insects and weed pests guessing.

"The more you use a product, the more potential for developing resistance to it," says Bob Hartzler, an extension weed specialist with Iowa State University.

Donald Duvick, who worked as a plant breeder with Pioneer Hybrids for 40 years, puts it even more bluntly: "If I was the president of Monsanto, I would lay awake at night worrying about Roundup-resistant weeds. This is a beautiful experiment where we are planting all these Roundup resistant soybeans."

Pest resistance — in insects as well as weeds — has been a fact of life since petroleum-based pesticides became popular in the middle of the century. In fact, 500 insect species have already developed resistance to pesticides over the years, according to the National Academy of Sciences. But now scientists are concerned that genetic engineering will accelerate resistance development, partly because just so much more of one product, say Roundup or Bt, will be used, rather than a diverse arsenal of chemicals.

Certain weeds, such as water hemp, are already naturally resistant to Roundup, and Hartzler has heard of cases around Iowa where farmers had to spray a second time to kill them. He thinks it’s only a matter of time before the Roundup Ready system will be supplemented with the spraying of other herbicides, including powerful residual ones that Roundup Ready was suppose to help avoid in the first place. In Australia, there have been at least two cases of weeds evolving a tolerance to Roundup.

Bye bye Bt
To some farmers who are trying to eliminate chemicals from their cropping operations, the presence of Bt corn in their neighborhoods is a death sentence for one of their favorite pest control practices. During the past several decades, the spraying of naturally occurring Bt has become a popular pest control measure among organic vegetable producers. Such use has always been on a limited basis, usually only when pests were evident on crops like cabbage, potatoes, sweet corn and broccoli. But genetic engineering is making Bt ubiquitous in farm country, and insect resistance is only a matter of time.

"As a commercial vegetable producer I’ve used Bt as needed, and at times it would save the crop," says southeast Minnesota farmer Jim Riddle. "The loss of Bt due to resistance is a very real concern."

A study published in the February issue of the Journal of Economic Entomology found partial resistance to the toxin developed by Bt corn was "quite common" in one population of Iowa corn borers. Regulatory agencies and industry have responded to concerns about resistance to Bt by recommending that farmers leave at least 20 percent of their corn acres GMO-free.

Indeed, farmers like Miller and Brubaker leave such a refuge on their farms. But researchers are starting to question whether such buffers actually work. The idea behind such a strategy is that Bt resistant insects will mingle and breed with nonresistant populations in the refuge, watering down the superbug’s resistant gene pool. Such a strategy relies on the superbug gene being recessive.

But a study in the May 7, 1999 issue of Science suggested that in the case of European corn borers, the Bt resistant gene is in fact dominant. Then, on August 5, the journal Nature tossed more fuel on the fire when it reported that pink bollworm moths that are resistant to cotton genetically engineered to contain Bt breed at a different time than non-resistant moths. It takes two to do the gene- mixing tango, and they can’t do it if they’re dancing to a different beat on different nights.

Another concern is that Bt corn is being planted year-after-year, no matter what the corn borer infestation level. Miller, for example, says he plants it every growing season "as insurance" against pests. At least with pesticides, say scientists, pests were often only exposed to them when infestations were at significantly high levels. With continuous plantings of Bt corn, pests have plenty of time to practice developing resistance.

And GMO Bt may stick around long after the corn is harvested. On Dec. 2, a study was published in the journal Nature that showed how resilient genetically engineered Bt toxin can be even outside the corn plant itself. Researchers found that the toxin binds quickly to soil and stays active for at least seven months (that was the longest time studied; it could be even longer). In fact, it was active enough after all those months to kill horn-worm larvae. Scientists have expressed concern that such resilience may damage beneficial soil organisms, as well as promote the development of super-pests through long-term exposure.

The same, but not quite
All of these research results do more than point a smoking gun at a single GMO product like Bt corn. It calls into question the biotechnology industry’s argument that genetic engineering does not alter an organism’s basic makeup.

This is just human-intervention into processes we see in nature all the time, say biotechnologists. After all, when strawberries were experimentally implanted with a fish gene to ward off frost, the fruit didn’t sprout fins and start swimming through the soil. With the exception of that one, precisely placed gene, it was still a strawberry.

But the devil is in the DNA details. In synthetic Bt, for example, just the "toxin" part of it has been isolated, whereas in the natural state it is only half toxic.

"It’s similar, but it’s not the same," says University of Minnesota entomologist David Andow. "We can’t defend in any scientific area how genes express themselves in different organisms. We simply don’t understand it."

For example, an Illinois study found that a genetically altered mustard plant was 20 times more likely to cross-breed with other mustard plants. That mustard plant is still a mustard plant, but there’s something about genetic engineering that makes it a very aggressive pollinator. That’s not a good characteristic to have in a crowded agricultural world. Already, one Canadian farmer has sued Monsanto because he claims genetically engineered genes entered his canola crop through pollination. Organic canola producers in North Dakota are concerned that such cross-pollination will make it impossible to make sure their crop is GMO-free. And plant breeders are questioning whether in a few years it will be possible at all to raise GMO-free corn in the Midwest because of genetic drift.

Genetic drift is also of concern in terms of developing "super weeds" that result from cross-breeding between a crop and a wild cousin. This is of particular concern in Third World countries where wild cousins of cultivated crops often grow near farm fields.

There is no legal structure for dealing with this kind of pollution (herbicide drift laws do offer some guidance). Even the new organic rules being proposed by the USDA are fuzzy in this area (see sidebar). So genetic drift promises to be a major legal and environmental nightmare.

"If they want to use genetically modified seed, they better make damn sure it stays on their property." says Delano, Minn., organic farmer Greg Reynolds as he glances past the boundaries of his farm at nearby corn fields. "It’s a trespass issue."

Biotech bump in the road
Concerns like these are difficult to address when the technology in question is barreling forward. In fact, moratorium legislation is being considered on both state and federal levels. But what about biotech products that are already on the market, like Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans? In that case, a consumer-driven speed bump has emerged.

Farmer surveys and industry estimates indicate that for the first time since they hit the market, plantings of seeds for Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans may be flat or even down this year. One of Jim Miller’s neighbors is planting no GMO soybeans this year; last year all of his acres were Roundup Ready. And those 80 acres of sweet corn Larry Brubaker raises? When the farmer went to sign a contract with the cannery this winter, he was informed that GMO corn would not be accepted. So he’ll be raising conventional sweet corn.

What happened? Major international customers of American agriculture products are rejecting GMO crops left and right. Such restrictions have had a negative impact on U.S. corn exports to the tune of at least $200 million during the past two years. Canadian canola growers lost $30 million in export sales during 1998 because Europe refused to accept genetically modified canola oil. Japan, which buys more U.S. ag products than anyone, is clamping down hard on GMO imports. That country’s two biggest breweries are no longer using gene altered corn, and its tofu industry will shift to GMO-free soybeans by April 2001. Germany’s respected Deutsche Bank has advised the world’s largest investors to sell their shares in lending companies involved in developing GMOs. Genetic engineering has become "a liability to farmers," the bank announced in July.

Such concerns are seeping into the consuming public here. Manufacturers of everything from baby food to dog chow are rejecting GMO grains as news emerges that more than likely, we have all eaten food developed through genetic engineering. Because corn is used in so many different products, modifying it alone ensures that it’s present in a lot of food. A Consumer Reports survey using DNA testing last year found that GMOs are present in baby formulas, tortilla chips, drink mixes, taco shells, "veggie" burgers and muffin mix.

Whether all of this is just a pothole on the way to a genetically-enhanced future, or a major barrier, it has forced some within the agricultural community to confront the question, "Who will determine the future of GMOs in farming?"

"Not the farmer, not the elevator, not the herbicide company and probably not the environmental group," says Dave Peters, an elevator manager with La Salle Farmers Grain Company in Minnesota. "The consumer of the final food product will determine the final answer." p

Future LSLs will examine, among other issues, regulation of GMOs, the land grant university’s role in researching/biotechnology and whether a gene-altered food system is needed to "feed the world."

Back to top

SIDEBARS
Bulk grain trade struggles with GMOs
At the cusp of the 1999 harvest season for corn and soybeans, it became clear that for the first time ever major grain companies were going to require their suppliers to separate out crops containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The reason? More customers at home and abroad were demanding a GMO-free product.

This desire for segregation put country elevators in an awkward position. These facilities are used to handling mass quantities of uniform commodities during a fast and furious period between September and November. Bumper harvests can make for lines of wagons and trucks that extend for miles. Transportation glitches and lack of storage means excess grain is often dumped right on the ground until it can be shipped.

"At harvest time, it's 'get out of the way,'" says Tom Trein, general manager of United Farmers Elevator in Murdoch, Minn. "Even though we say we are consumer-driven, every year we put our money into big loading and dumping facilities for mass quantities of grain."

Suddenly, portable GMO testing kits were being advertised in trade publications and elevator managers were asking farmers to segregate their crops on the farm. News that overseas customers required their grain to be at least 99 percent GMO-free, and that environmental groups often did tests right at points of entry, set even more nerves on end. Some elevators dealt with the logistical nightmare by setting up "GMO-free Saturdays" where farmers could bring in their conventionally produced corn and soybeans.

But in the end, many elevators ended up simply not segregating the crops they handled — apparently there were still plenty of customers who didn't care. A few did pay premiums for GMO-free crops that ranged from a few cents per bushel to 10 cents per bushel. But many elevator managers say unless much higher premiums are paid this year, they are not going to make any special efforts to segregate grain during the 2000 harvest season.

This is bad news for at least one sector of the local ag economy: farmers who are trying to produce meat and milk products that are GMO-free. At least one major firm that purchases "natural pork" from Midwestern farmers is demanding that the feed used be GMO-free. In addition, organic standards ban the use of GMO feed in certified organic livestock production. But just as importantly, consumers who buy meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products direct from farmers are starting to ask questions about GMO content.

Despite this, even medium-sized elevators say it is not worth the effort to supply feeds to sustainable livestock farmers.

"Good," says Ken Markham, owner of Zumbro Ag Source, a small feed mill in southeast Minnesota.

Markham sees the major elevators' refusal to cater to such farmers as a marketing opportunity for him. Because he handles certified organic feed, Markham's business already has to pay attention to purity. He only runs two feed trucks and has one employee, but that gives him a lot of flexibility larger operations don't have.

So this year, he started buying GMO-free corn from area farmers and processing it into feed, which he then sells to livestock producers. Most of his customers are dairy farmers, and Markham estimates he's now supplying GMO-free and/or organic feed to 2,500 head of dairy cows. He's putting up more bins and installing equipment so he can also process GMO-free soybeans into feed.

Markham has 25 to 30 local farmers supplying him with what he needs now through contracts. He says area farmers have found that raising GMO-free crops can be a good transition toward going organic. But a potentially big problem is emerging: finding enough GMO-free corn and soybeans to make into feed. The feed mill owner is concerned that by fall demand will outstrip supply as farmers raising everything from chickens to hogs call in search of GMO-free.

"We've had a lot of calls and we're getting more every day," says Markham breathlessly during a break between hauling loads of feed.

If you are offering GMO-free feed for sale to livestock producers, please contact the Land Stewardship Letter at 651-653-0618.

SIDEBAR
Do GMOs mean more profit, fewer chemicals?
Genetic engineering has done more than modify DNA. It's also changed agribusiness' view of insecticides and herbicides — or at least their public pronouncements on it. Suddenly, pesticide giants like Monsanto have found a way to profitably and gracefully step out of a chemical-intensive system that's increasingly running into regulatory and public perception problems.

There's a good, sound reason behind this new strategy. A poll taken in January by the American Farm Bureau Federation and food giant Phillip Morris found that nearly three-fourths of the 1,002 consumers who responded would support GMOs in food if it resulted in reduced pesticide use. And the British Medical Association announced last year that unless it can be proven that GMOs will not increase pesticide use, they should be considered "environmentally unacceptable."

In remarks given Feb. 9 to a group of seed dealers and farmers at a Minnesota casino, Ed Shonsey, the president and CEO of biotech giant Novartis seeds, summed up the industry mantra this way: "Biotechnology is about living longer. Biotechnology is about applying fewer [pesticides]. Biotechnology is about staying in business. I believe from my nose to my toes this is the most valuable science of our time."

But a study conducted for the Biotechnology Industry Organization found that genetically engineered Bt corn, which kills European corn borers without spraying, only results in slight reductions in pesticide use. Although 18 percent of U.S. corn planted in 1998 was of the Bt kind, insecticide use dropped on only 2.5 percent of corn acreage. The bottom line is that most corn insecticides are used on pests other than corn borers — usually at planting time.

There's little doubt more Roundup and similar "contact" herbicides are being used than ever before, thanks to genetically modified crops that are tolerant to such chemicals. But farmers and agronomists point out that such herbicides are safer for the environment than older "residual" herbicides that stick around for quite awhile after application.

Still, using more of a relatively benign pesticide may be like eating twice as much low-fat ice cream: after awhile the advantages are lost.

"Roundup is one of the safer chemicals," says Lake City, Minn., farmer Dennis Rabe. "But using it in the vast amounts we do today is scary."

Altered bottom line
But does genetic engineering pencil out down on the farm? Not always, say recent studies. For example, the Biotechnology Industry Organization study found that Bt corn gained farmers $72 million in 1997 when compared with conventional varieties. But in 1998, when corn borer levels were low, farmers lost $26 million — even though three times more acreage was planted to Bt corn that year.

A group of Iowa farmers found no significant profit advantage to using genetically engineered crops in 1998, according to Mike Duffy, an Iowa State University agricultural economist. Based on personal interviews with approximately 800 farmers, Duffy's study found that Roundup Ready soybeans produced identical profits as GMO-free soybeans (GMO soybean seed costs on average $26.42 per acre to plant, compared to $18.89 per acre for non-GMO varieties). Duffy found that in 1998 the farmers he surveyed on average applied insecticides on Bt fields at a cost of $17.56 per acre. The average pesticide cost for non-Bt fields was $14.94 per acre. The overwhelming majority of farmers, 77 percent, said they planted Bt corn to increase yields. Only seven percent said they did to decrease pesticide costs.

SIDEBAR
Organic rules ban GMOs, but genetic drift still up in the air
Genetically modified organisms will not be allowed in certified organic food, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's new proposed national organic standards, issued in March. That's a vast improvement from the original proposed rules, which were issued in late 1997 amidst a firestorm of controversy.

Along with genetic engineering, irradiation and sewage sludge would have been considered acceptable for organic production, according to those original rules. The public had different ideas: More than 275,600 people sent in comments to the USDA expressing outrage at these and other allowances that were seen as an outright gutting of what organics is all about. The government went back to the drawing board, and has come back with something much better, says Jim Riddle, an organic certifier based out of Winona, Minn. Riddle has long been involved with developing national rules for organic food.

"Overall, both my reaction and the reaction in general is cautiously optimistic," he says. "But there are several significant details that need to be changed."

One of those details relates to "genetic drift." As the rules are written now, they don't prohibit a plant from being certified organic if it has been contaminated by genetically engineered plants through pollen drift, etc. In short, Riddle says, the rules need to define genetically modified organisms as "prohibited substances" in order for genetic drift to be covered. Right now, such altered genes fall under "excluded methods," which does not cover genetic drift.

A few more glitches
Other details that need to be fixed in the proposed rules, include:

• The proposed rules require dairy farmers to feed their herds 100 percent organic feed for an entire year before they are eligible to be certified organic. Riddle says this is too strict, in particular for smaller farmers.
  "That's a huge investment to make when you don't even know if you'll be successful at getting certified," he says.
  Many in the organic community are recommending an adoption of what is the norm among most private organic certifying agencies: a transition period consisting of nine months of 80 percent organic feed and three months of 100 percent organic feed.
• The rules would not allow a farmer who belongs to a certifying organization, or has any connection to it for that matter, to be certified organic by that organization. Riddle says such a restriction is intended to prevent conflicts of interest, but it "goes to the extreme." Most certifying organizations already deal well with possible conflict of interest issues by building a firewall between those who are doing the certifying and the farmers, he says.
• The proposed rules would ban organic certifiers from having labels that feature stricter requirements than the USDA's rules.
  "This would prevent private certifiers from improving standards over time," says Riddle.

Contact USDA before June 12
The USDA is taking comments on the proposed rules until June 12. Officials have said they want as much input as possible before the rules are finalized, probably by the beginning of 2001.

To relay your comments, contact: Keith Jones, Program Manager, National Organic Program, USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, Rm. 2945-South, Ag Stop 0275, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456. You can also fax your comments to: 703-365-0760. The comments can be e-mailed through the USDA Web site, which has a copy of the rules available to look at: http://www.ams.usda.gov

If you are commenting on the transition period for organic dairy farmers, Riddle recommends sending a copy of your comments to the National Organic Standards Board, which advises top USDA officials on the parameters of the organic rules. To do that, just replace Keith Jones' name with "NOSB" and keep the rest of the address the same.

When commenting, make it clear you are referring to Docket Number TMD-00-02-PR2.

SIDEBAR
Groups call for curbs on genetic manipulation
The Land Stewardship project has joined nine other member-groups of the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (MSAWG) in calling for mandatory labeling of foods containing ingredients from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). MSAWG is also calling for assignment of legal liability for damages resulting from GMOs to the companies that patent them, as well as other steps to protect consumer and farmer choice in the marketplace. The position paper on genetic engineering includes specific recommendations for policy makers to deal with the rapid spread of GMOs.

While much attention has focused on European consumers' rejection of foods made with GMOs, polling data point to a significant number of U.S. consumers requesting foods that are not the product of artificial genetic manipulation. A large number of U.S. companies are working to meet that demand, but a shrinking supply of non-GMO seed for farmers and the lack of effective labeling and separation of normal and GMO crops undermine these initiatives. Genetic drift — a process by which pollen from GMO crops pollinates non-GMO crops — and other negative environmental and economic impacts are becoming apparent with the spread of transgenic crops. The MSAWG position paper includes 11 recommendations. The full text of the report is available on the Web at http://www.cfra.org
LSP is a founding member of MSAWG, which is a network of nonprofit farm, food, environmental, religious and rural organizations.

Want to know more?
The Successful Farming web site features a "calculator" for crunching the numbers on whether GMO crops make sense financially. Go to: http://www.agriculture.com/sfonline Another good Web site to check out is http://www.rafi.org Also, see if your local library carries the journal Science. The Nov. 26, 1999 issue features an excellent overview article on GMOs.

SIDEBAR
Land Stewardship Project policy on genetic engineering in agriculture
Approved by the LSP Board of Directors March 2000
To foster an ethic of stewardship for America's farmland, The Land Stewardship Project works for a food system that protects soil, water and wildlife resources, promotes fairness and economic opportunities for family-sized farms and rural communities, and provides safe and healthful food for all people.

The Land Stewardship Project concludes that present genetic engineering technology as it is being applied in agriculture threatens these stewardship goals and must be challenged. Genetic engineering creates new environmental problems, which can result in unanticipated or unmitigable negative effects. Patenting of seeds and widespread sales of genetically engineered crops restricts opportunities and economic viability for family-sized farms throughout the world, reinforces corporate control of food production and distribution and threatens local and international food security. The safety and healthfulness of genetically engineered food for humans and other animals has not been proven or ensured.

Therefore, the Land Stewardship Project supports:

1) a moratorium on further releases of genetically engineered crops, animal feed products and food, until such time as the technology can be applied in way that promotes long-term sustainability and its detrimental effects are identified and mitigated;

2) the labeling of all genetically engineered foodstuffs in a clear and consistent manner to enable identification and traceability of all genetically engineered food products;

3) the transfer of funding in the universities, departments of agriculture and mandatory commodity checkoff funds, from promotion and research on genetic engineering technologies to research on technologies that will benefit environmentally sound, family-sized farms, and the evaluation of the impacts of widespread adoption of genetic engineering technologies.

Back to top

COMMENTARY

Anatomy of a factory farm fight
Guess what happened when some rural residents got organized

By Bobby King

On Feb. 8, officials in southeast Minnesota’s Winona County denied a permit for a 2,000 hog confinement facility. This is a significant event that goes beyond the placement of one factory livestock facility in one rural community. Although the county commissioners and members of the planning commission who vetoed this project deserve our thanks, they didn’t act alone. Their decision was influenced by several concerned and active citizens in the area. Their hard work and the important information they gathered played a critical role in making this decision. These residents, many of whom are Land Stewardship Project members, did everything from make sure hearings were packed with other concerned citizens (there were 60 to 100 people at each of six hearings) to conduct research on the environmental and economic hazards of factory farming. The defeat of this facility serves as a prime example of what happens when people get organized and mobilized.

A done deal?
The odds were stacked against these citizens from the start. By the time the proposal came before the county for approval, it had already received a permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which has never seen a livestock factory proposal it didn’t like. The facility would have produced about 6,000 pigs a year, resulting in 750,000 gallons of liquid hog manure being stored in an area full of sinkholes and Swiss cheese-like karst limestone geology. An Amish school is in the area, as well as a processing plant that services small-scale poultry producers. The site is about three miles as the crow flies from the town of Utica, which about 250 people call home. The pigs would have been raised by Rick Anderson on contract with Holden Farms, the 25th largest hog producer in the country, according to Successful Farming magazine. In recent years, Holden, which is based in Northfield, Minn., has climbed high on the magazine’s pork power list by dramatically expanding its production base — often over the objections of local rural residents.

But these concerned citizens were undeterred and knew they had to do more than complain if they were to win this fight. They needed documentation. For example, Louis Kieffer, who lives near the site, made up a well survey form and circulated it among his neighbors. This survey documented that many wells are not dug deep enough to escape being polluted by leaking liquid manure. In fact, 17 out of the 33 wells in the area that Kieffer surveyed were between 28 feet and 140 feet deep. In addition, it came to light that there was an abandoned well on the property where the facility was proposed that was not indicated on the application permit.

Bob and Marilyn Christie, who farm near the site, attended hearing after hearing and gave passionate testimony about the effects such a facility would have on them and their neighbors. This proved particularly effective when an attorney representing Anderson used a flawed University of Minnesota study as evidence in favor of such facilities. This study, which was released in 1996, concluded that confinement hog facilities raise property values. These conclusions have since been called into question, in particular in light of an Iowa study that showed just the opposite. The Christies and others pointed this out during testimony. They also questioned who was going to take responsibility for any clean-up of manure-related pollution.

"It appears the integrated hog industry has devised a very nice plan," Robert testified. "First they find someone who has to absorb the anger of all their neighbors to establish their hog site. Then they let the county assume the financial burden for closure and clean-up for the greatest risk involved — the millions of gallons of waste."

Bill Davis, the mayor of Utica, requested that a groundwater specialist from the state Department of Natural Resources review domestic well information for the area, as well as take a look at the Winona County Geological Atlas in regard to the potential impacts such a facility could have. The hydrologist’s analysis proved to be particularly damning. In a letter that was presented to Winona County officials, he concluded: "…there is a high degree of risk for groundwater contamination due to sinkholes compromising the integrity of the manure storage system and from manure runoff entering sinkholes and other points where water disappears under the ground." The DNR expert also expressed concerns that manure contamination would eventually reach Utica’s municipal wells.

Economic concerns
Supporters of factory farms often make the argument that the risks posed by these facilities are worth it in light of the "economic development" they bring into a community. That’s why it was particularly satisfying to see the other side of the rural development picture presented during debate over this issue. For the past four years, Burts Hilltop Poultry has been providing a valuable service to farmers who are raising chickens for direct sales and the natural foods market. Members of the Burt family testified that if their processing facility became contaminated with odors from a hog factory’s manure lagoon, the U.S. Department of Agriculture could shut them down. The county’s Environmental Health Director backed up this charge.

Mike Rupprecht is a Winona County farmer who raises 1,300 chickens on pasture annually. He sells them locally to consumers who want quality food produced in an environmentally sound manner. During one of the hearings, Rupprecht made it clear that farm-related rural development doesn’t have to involve mega-farms that are producing for international markets. He said closing down the Burt facility would have a dramatic impact on his chicken enterprise, threatening his ability to make a living.

"Our community would benefit greater from more small and mid-sized farms," he said.

Davis, the local mayor, also made a strong economic argument in opposition to the facility. He is president of a small Utica company that manufactures cloth products for operating rooms. Davis submitted a letter to county officials making it clear that odors from a mega-manure lagoon would force his ultra-clean processing facility to relocate, taking 13 jobs with it.

A town makes a statement
Perhaps the capstone to all this was the City of Utica’s adoption of a resolution opposing the construction of contract hog facilities in the area. This resolution addressed not only environmental concerns, but economic and quality of life issues as well.

Not everything went smoothly. Some of these citizens had to put up with criticisms and outright personal attacks during this entire process. At one hearing, a brother-in-law to Anderson called opponents "pseudo environmentalists … a small group of people with a narrow agenda" who were "vindictive and jealous," and whose words were "mindless rhetoric and endless innuendo."

And it should also be pointed out that this grassroots campaign against the facility might not have even gotten off the ground if it hadn’t been for the fact that Winona County’s zoning ordinance requires a conditional use permit and public hearing for feedlots this big. It also requires disclosure of the owners of a proposed facility’s livestock, something we need on a statewide and national basis.

Neighbors to these proposed feedlots often know more about the area than anyone else. This knowledge is gained through a lifetime of living and farming in the area. For officials not to seek out their opinion doesn’t make sense. And just as important, the neighbors of a proposed mega-feedlot will have to live with the decision that’s made for the rest of their lives. They deserve a voice in the process.

In this case the public hearing process brought to light information necessary to make an informed decision. Besides the abandoned well, it was documented that two neighbors have serious health problems that would be worsened by a large livestock facility nearby.

LSP NEWS

Mandatory pork checkoff going to a vote
Campaign for Family Farms succeeds in nationwide drive

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman announced Feb. 28 that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will conduct a referendum of the nation’s hog farmers to determine whether the mandatory pork checkoff will continue. In a memorandum to USDA officials, Glickman ordered the vote to take place "as soon as possible" and to be paid for by USDA.

"The checkoff derives its legitimacy from the support of producers, and pork producers have endured dramatic changes in their industry since the checkoff was established," wrote Glickman in the memorandum. "In addition to the bedrock democratic principles of ensuring the right to vote, then, it is appropriate and necessary to determine whether a majority of pork producers do in fact continue to support the checkoff."

"This is a victory for family farmers, and for democracy in our nation," says Olivia, Minn., hog farmer and Land Stewardship Project member Monica Kahout. "The mandatory pork checkoff tax does not work for us, and we are exercising our right to repeal it."

The USDA has had the signatures of 20 percent (19,043) of America’s hog farmers since May 24, 1999, on officially approved petitions calling for a referendum to end the mandatory checkoff. By law, signatures of 15 percent of American hog farmers require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a nationwide referendum on the pork checkoff. The signatures were turned into USDA by the Campaign for Family Farms, a multi-state coalition of farm groups. LSP is a member-organization of the Campaign.

Hog farmers who led the effort to force a referendum on the pork checkoff said it took a lot of work.

"Without hundreds, maybe thousands of hog farmers contacting USDA and calling for this vote, and without all the hog farmers who helped gather signatures, wrote letters to the editor, or just talked to their neighbors about it, we never would have won the right to vote on the pork checkoff," says Rodney Skalbeck, a hog farmer near Sacred Heart, Minn. "The entire way the checkoff law was written by NPPC and their allies makes it extremely difficult for hog farmers to have a say. We also need to thank Senator Paul Wellstone, Senator Russ Feingold, and Representative Jim Oberstar. They wrote good, honest letters to Secretary Glickman saying the best thing to do would be to hold the vote, given the number of hog farmer signatures that were sent in."

Members of the Campaign for Family Farms made their case repeatedly to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the USDA, and eventually to Glickman. This included analysis by four leading rural social science experts, who, after reviewing the process used by AMS to verify the signatures, and the results they received, concluded in their professional opinion that the vote should be held.

The Campaign for Family Farms’ efforts are now focused on making sure the voting process is fair to the producers that called for the vote.

"Every hog farmer who was eligible to sign this petition should be eligible to vote," says hog farmer and LSP organizer Paul Sobocinski. "A lot of farmers got out of hogs when they hit eight cents per pound but want to start raising them again when there is some money to be made. The NPPC has already begun lobbying AMS and Congress to not allow these farmers to vote because these producers know that their checkoff dollars were used to promote the over-expansion of large scale hog production."

The Campaign also wants the checkoff voting ballots to be mailed out to farmers. Mailing out ballots is the best way to ensure all hog farmers get a chance to vote, says Skalbeck.

"Making farmers drive 30 miles to a FSA office to vote doesn’t make sense. FSA is set up to mail out ballots and farmers are familiar with that system."

At this writing, USDA officials had not announced when the referendum vote would take place. The Campaign is demanding that the vote be held in July or August 2000, and not during fall harvest which is the busiest time of year for Midwest farmers.

Working Assets funding nomination
If you use Working Assets for your credit card, long distance, or on-line service, you have an opportunity to support the work of LSP and the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment. Working Assets donates a portion of its revenue to 60 national or international groups each year.

The Campaign is the national group LSP helped form in 1995 that has effectively confronted corporate-backed factory farms and organized thousands of farmers and rural people to work for economic justice and environmental protection.

If you are a Working Assets customer, please nominate the Campaign to receive Working Assets funding in 2001. LSP would receive a portion of the funds donated to the Campaign. For more information, call 612-722-6377 or e-mail marks@landstewardshipproject.org


Factory farm declared hazard
It’s official: A hog factory in Minnesota’s Renville County is a threat to human health. On Feb. 15, the Minnesota Department of Health issued a memo to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency declaring one ValAdCo facility "a potential threat to human health."

The Department of Health memo recommended that "without delay, action should be taken to reduce the emissions of hydrogen sulfide and bring the hydrogen sulfide emissions back in compliance with Minnesota rules…"

In 1996, citizen monitoring conducted with the help of the Land Stewardship Project showed several lagoons in the county were exceeding state standards for hydrogen sulfide emissions.


LSP staff news
Katie Zerebeski has joined the Land Stewardship Project as its new Development Associate. Zerebeski has a bachelor of arts degree in anthropology from Hamline University. She has worked as a researcher with the Leech Lake Indian Reservation Collaborative Research Project and was employed as a college admissions representative.

Zerebeski is based in LSP’s Twin Cities office, where she is organizing and expanding a program to solicit individual major donors.

Ron Rengel is LSP’s new Manager of Administration and Finance. Rengel has an extensive background in accounting and financial management, and has worked for the Sustainable Resources Center and William M. Mercer, Inc. He has a degree in business administration from the University ofkMinnesota andjjserved in the U.S. Army. Rengel is based in LSP’s Twin Cities office.

Heidi Benke is working as an office assistant in LSP’s southeast Minnesota office. She is a senior at Lewiston High School and has been "invaluable" during the past several months, says LSP organizer Marsha Neff.


LSP internship
Do grazing issues, libraries, writing, field events and a paid internship this summer sound interesting to you? We’re looking for a self-directed team player for this three-month position. Call Caroline van Schaik at 651-653-0618.


Third annual Community Food & Farm Festival
Consumers had an opportunity to meet local farmers who are direct marketing sustainable food at the third annual Community Food and Farm Festival on April 9 at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn. The festival, which was sponsored by the Land Stewardship Project, the CSA Guild and the Minnesota Food Association, featured farmers who will be marketing fruits and vegetables this year via Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). In addition, farmers who are direct-marketing naturally produced meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs and other food items were on hand. New immigrant farmers, cooking demonstrations using seasonal food, music and activities for kids were also part of the festival.

Speaking of CSA farms, the 2000 edition of the Twin Cities Region CSA directory is available now. For a free copy, call LSP at 651-653-0618, or the Minnesota Food Association at 612-872-3298. The list is also available on-line at 2000 CSA Directory.

A nationwide listing of CSA farms has been compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Go to http://www.sare.org/san/csa/ to access the list.


Dairy market future
Where and how will small- and mid-sized family farmers market their dairy products in the future? That and other questions were discussed Dec. 14 in St. Charles, Minn., at "Meeting the Demand: Marketing Opportunities and Issues for a New Dawn of Dairy Farming," sponsored by the Land Stewardship Project.

More than 90 farmers attended the meeting, which covered on-farm processing, organic certification, marketing of niche products, forming cooperatives and ways to tap into state financial resources and
expertise. For more information, call Richard Ness at 507-523-3366.


National Campaign position opening
The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture is seeking a new Executive Director. The Campaign is a network of over 2,000 diverse organizations, including the Land Stewardship Project, whose mission is to shape national policies to foster a sustainable food and agricultural system.

The initial deadline for application is May 12. For a job description, call Sheilah at 914-744-8448, or view it on the Web at http://www.SustainableAgriculture.net


Market gardening & alternative marketing
A workshop for gardeners and farmers who grow vegetables, fruits, herbs and flowers was held Feb. 29 in southeast Minnesota. The workshop featured panels of experienced local gardeners who are successfully marketing sustainable, high quality foods. Marketing through farmers’ markets, Community Supported Agriculture, roadside stands, co-ops, agri-tourism and wholesale distributors was discussed.

In addition, a workshop on alternative farm marketing and production was held March 4. This workshop focused on taking farm products straight from the farm to the consumer, with both marketing and production being covered. Experienced growers, producers and marketers discussed how to identify customers, figuring out what they want, and keeping them. Both of these events were sponsored by the Community Design Center of Minnesota, in cooperation with the Land Stewardship Project.


CURE meeting
The eighth annual Clean Up our River Environment (CURE) meeting was held Feb. 19 in Appleton, Minn. It featured a presentation by students from Montevideo High School who canoed the Minnesota River last summer. CURE membership dollar paids for the canoes used on this special educational expedition. CURE was started by LSP and is headquartered in our western Minnesota office.


Stream Team
LSP members Ralph Lentz and Larry Gates were featured at the annual meeting of the Chippewa River Watershed Project, March 9, in Benson, Minn. Lentz, who farms near Lake City, Minn., and Gates, a watershed specialist with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, were featured in the October/November 1997 issue of the Land Stewardship Letter. They have formed a unique partnership in an effort to improve water quality on farm streams. LSP is a member of the Chippewa River Watershed Project, which is based in Montevideo. Call 320-269-2105 for more information.


Alternative swine
Four alternative swine production houses, called "hoop buildings," have been erected at the West Central Research and Outreach Center in Morris, Minn. The facilities will be used to research the viability of the deep straw bedded system for hog production. This system has proven to be an economically and environmentally viable alternative to confined factory livestock systems. Jim Van Der Pol, a hog farmer and LSP member, has been coordinating construction of the facilities. Hogs were scheduled to be placed in the facilities this spring. Funding for this project came about as a result of recent work LSP members and staff did in the Minnesota Legislature.


Getting to know you…
On the evening of Monday, March 20, Land Stewardship Project member Jim Joens, Jr. arrived in our nation’s capitol, ready to join thousands of other farmers from around the country in the Rally for Rural America, which was being held the next day (it turned out to be the largest gathering of farmers at the capitol in two decades). It was his first trip to Washington, but it didn’t take long for the southwest Minnesota crop and livestock producer to learn that farmers aren’t the only ones suffering as a result of an unjust food system.

A shuttle cab service picked Joens and five other farmers up at the airport. On the way to the hotel, the driver asked the group why they were in Washington. They explained that they were farmers there to protest a system that was putting them out of business through low prices and lack of market access.

"Well, that cabby said, ‘You know, we can’t buy any good food in the big city anymore. They tell us we have to import all our food into this country and that we need GMOs [genetically modified organisms] just to keep up with demand,’ ’’ recalls Joens, who says he then told the driver, "We have all kinds of food. Our bins are full of food. We just can’t get paid nothing for it."

"That cabby was just floored," says Joens. "Isn’t that something? They can’t get good food in the city and we’ve got it but we can’t get it to them. It’s all because someone in the middle has control."

Back to top

OFFICE UPDATES

Western Minnesota—Working on a durable fabric

By Audrey Arner

Every so often there is a cadre of filmmakers or a team of reporters that breeze into Montevideo with a good story idea. Interested in local culture, they are the sort to stop into our own Java River on Main Street to grab a mocha to go. There they meet Patrick Moore, the Land Stewardship Project staff member behind the coffee counter. He is likely to connect them with the community member who will add just the right LSP-influenced emphasis to their project. As a result, LSP-initiated projects have received a fair bit of publicity lately.

The Death of the Dream is a recently broadcast KTCA (public television in the Twin Cities) production based on the book by William Gabler (see Aug/Sept LSL), chronicling the lives and times of the prairie settlement period. It artfully features architecture and activities within farmhouses, many of which are now abandoned and dilapidated, evidence of the decline of the robust farming population that was supported by that fertile upturned prairie. Through LSP staff involvement we have been able to provide some uplift to the story.

This is another example, of, as Sister Kay Fernholz puts it, "…weaving dreams into the fabric of our rural tomorrow."

There is a great cast of characters to draw from:

• In mid-December the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s special section, entitled "Minnesota River in Crisis" featured members, staff and friends of LSP and Clean Up our River Environment (CURE) wearing various hats, calling for progress, canoeing, grazing livestock, checking the ditches and monitoring water quality. We can imagine the water drinkable. Amid the desertifying landscape, we can envision increasing biological diversity. A few newspaper articles can’t begin to tell all these good stories.
  
• The Chippewa River Whole Farm Planning and Monitoring Team is a continuing source of hope, friendship, learning and sharing. The Sustainable Livestock Systems project, partnering with the West Central Research and Outreach Center, is refining grazing management and researching wintering options that are good for the critters, the pocketbook and the waterways. Through the Sustainable Farming Systems project we are researching farm sustainability as reflected by economics, environmental impact and the quality of home and community life.
  
• By virtue of the leadership of CURE’s enthusiastic board, we convened farmers in the Minnesota River Valley this winter to explore policy options that could support river-friendly farming. At CURE’s annual meeting in February, we hosted a presentation by 14 Montevideo High School students who canoed the 325 miles of the Minnesota River last July.
  
  And, finally, we have welcomed a host of new LSP members recently. They are the supporters and developers of the new dreaming. We are waking up and seeing the world
  anew.

LSP organizer Audrey Arner farms in the Minnesota River Valley near.Montevideo. She can be reached at 320-269-2105 or aarner@maxminn.com


Southeast Minnesota—Putting our lands in more hands

By Karen Stettler

As the trend in agriculture moves from big to bigger, our nation’s agriculture and food security is shifted into the hands of fewer and fewer people. This means fewer people to care for the land, and fewer people to support the businesses, churches and schools of our rural communities. The Land Stewardship Project’s Farm Beginnings program is helping establish a new generation of family farmers.

The latest component of Farm Beginnings is the Livestock Loan Program, which was launched with generous financial support from Heifer Project International (HPI). Eventually, the Livestock Loan Program will provide a substantial number of animals to help beginning farmers build equity. The animal loans could be dairy, beef, hogs, poultry, sheep, or goats. The recipients will pay back the loan by passing on offspring of the original animal to the next eligible participant. The pass-on process will take up to five years in some cases.

HPI is plowing new ground in its U.S./Canada Program with this project. It is not a traditional project in many ways, but more of a pilot project which focuses on the sustainability and resilience of the nation’s agriculture and as such on the security of the nation’s food source. HPI hopes this partnership with LSP’s Farm Beginnings Program will provide a model to assist additional would-be farmers across the nation in their attempts to get a foothold on the farms of the nation’s future.

The Livestock Loan Committee has been working diligently to put together processes, applications, guidelines and contracts over the past six months. Applications are being accepted from Farm Beginnings participants who have completed the 10-month course. Late this winter the first "loaned" animals were delivered to two different Minnesota beginning farm operations: Roger and Michelle Benrud of Goodhue and Jon Kaiser of Dodge Center. With the help of many people, the loaned animals were found, checked out, purchased and delivered. This is an exciting start to this aspect of the program.

Farm Beginnings is in session
The current Farm Beginnings course is going full force with a very diverse group of participants linked by their common desire to farm. Participants have attended over half of the nine three-hour seminars and are working individually to put together a mission statement and goals for their farming enterprise. Each participant and his or her families are at different stages in the process. Some participants have land, some don’t. Some participants have farming experience, others are excited by the mentorship component of the course in which to gain hands-on learning. An encouraging indicator of the networking and value of the Farm Beginnings Program is the presence of past Farm Beginnings participants at almost every session. Once the seminars are complete, the mentorship component of the program will begin.

Issues facing the beginning farmers include, not surprisingly, access to land and financing. The Farm Beginnings Steering Committee will be discussing these and other issues at an upcoming visioning session. Without the foresight and continued guidance of the Steering Committee members, the Farm Beginnings program would not be where it is today. Thanks to Everett Koenig, Diane Leonhardt, Chuck Schwartau, Dan French, Loel Gorden, Bill McMillin, Arlene Hershey, Jim Scaife and Ralph Stelling.

People like this are making "keeping the land and people together" more than just a catchy slogan.

Karen Stettler, who is based in LSP’s southeast Minnesota office, works hard to organize meetings, classes and. apprenticeships for the Farm Beginnings program.

SIDEBAR
Want to join Farm Beginnings?
The 2000-2001 Farm Beginnings class will begin meeting in the fall. If you are interested in applying for this program, call Karen Stettler in our southeast Minnesota office at 507-523-3366, or e-mail her at stettler@landstewardshipproject.org

Also, if you are an established or retired farmer who is interested in serving as a mentor to this program, Farm Beginnings would like to hear from you.

SIDEBAR
Livestock Loan Committee works the nitty-gritty
The Livestock Loan Committee was hand-picked by the Farm Beginnings Steering Committee and represents a range of experiences: from dairy and sheep farmers, to extension educator/mediator, to farm business management instructor. The mix is quite complementary. The thoroughness of the Committee in addressing questions and problem-solving is impressive. To date, the Committee has met at least twice a month since August 1999 and has reviewed materials and/or researched topics between meetings.

Additionally, a big thanks is owed to John Baker, attorney and founder of the Beginning Farm Center in Iowa. Baker has generously volunteered his time to help draft the contract for our program and answer countless questions.

Back to top

LSP LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

The 2000 session of the Minnesota Legislature was winding down as this issue of the Land Stewardship Letter went to press. But Land Stewardship Project members and staff were still working hard on several issues of concern to family farming and sustainable agriculture. Here, we’ll give a brief rundown of bills LSP has been working on. The April/May issue of the LSL will have a more complete summary of how these bills fared.

Limited Liability Companies
Yet again, factory farm boosters are trying to gut the law that controls corporate farming in Minnesota. This time, it’s under the guise of making it easier for Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) to be formed in agriculture. LLCs are business arrangements under which the owners are liable for the company’s debts only to the extent of their initial investment in the LLC. As a result, these owners are significantly shielded from liability for, as an example, pollution caused by a manure spill. LLCs also gain significant tax protection. No wonder hog factories in Iowa, Illinois and Indiana have organized themselves as LLCs.

Factory farm supporters, such as Independent state senator Charles Berg of Chokio, say LLCs in agriculture are necessary for family farmers to compete.

"But in reality, LLCs are just another way to give subsidies and protection to absentee investors and large-scale farms, to the detriment of the land and people of Minnesota," says Paul Sobocinski, an LSP organizer and hog farmer.

For example, if the pollution caused by a LLC produces clean-up costs that are greater than the assets of the company, local communities can be stuck with the remaining costs. That kind of set-up serves as a deterrent for managing a livestock operation in an environmentally sustainable manner, says Sobocinski. In addition, LLCs allow absentee investors to be major players in the operation. That leaves the door open for these operations to siphon money out of local rural communities. This contradicts the goal of the Corporate Farm Law, which is to keep the benefits of ag production in the hands of family farmers.

Berg’s current bill would, among other things, make it so only just over 38 percent of the members of an "Authorized Livestock Farm" LLC would have to be actively engaged in livestock production on a farm. However, that doesn’t mean those 38 percent of LLC members would have to be engaged in livestock production on that particular LLC farm.

"This is ridiculous to say this is being done for family farmers," says Sobocinski. "Come on, you don’t even have to be working on the farm that the LLC is being formed for."

Thanks to the efforts of LSP members, including phone calls and visits to lawmakers, the Senate version of the bill was stymied in the Judiciary Committee on March 10. However, in a move that gave the proposed legislation renewed life, lawmakers who support factory farms attached it to the agriculture omnibus bill in the House; similar action was expected in the Senate.

Hydrogen sulfide
Lawmakers are also considering giving factory farms significant loopholes when it comes to meeting hydrogen sulfide emissions standards. This is particularly ironic considering that hydrogen sulfide emissions from mega-manure lagoons have become a major issue in rural Minnesota.

Price reporting
Independent family farmers are often denied access to information on the average amount of money packers are paying for hogs, making it difficult to determine if fair prices are being paid. LSP has fought hard for meaningful price reporting laws that would require packers to publicly disclose what they are paying for livestock. Minnesota has passed such a law. But as it is written now, it will expire 30 days after the implementation of a federal mandatory pricing law.

USDA announced in March that a federal law was going to be implemented later in the spring. It appears that law would only report prices on negotiated sales (including cash sales) on a national basis, not on a regional or state-by-state basis, which is more useful to farmers.

"Without meaningful, local price reporting, the idea of an open and fair market is a sham," says Jim Joens, Jr., a hog farmer from Wilmont, Minn. "Right now, it’s who you are and how many hogs you have that determines your price. It has nothing to do with hog quality."

LSP members provided input on the USDA’s weak proposal during the comment period, which ended April 17. At this writing, a measure that would extend the life of the state price reporting law was moving through the Minnesota House.

Other policy activity…
More than 40 LSP members joined some 3,000 other farmers in the nation’s capitol on March 21 for the "Rally for Rural America." This was a chance to show solidarity in rural America at a time when independent family farmers are facing a crisis situation as a result of government policies and corporate consolidation.

LSP members also used the trip as an opportunity to speak to lawmakers and government officials about issues such as the pork checkoff, mandatory price reporting and corporate mergers. High on the agenda during discussions was reforming government policy so that it rewards farmers for being good stewards. LSP members were particularly encouraged by the positive response the proposal got from officials at the Office of Management and Budget.

This concept was also put forward by LSP members Paul Homme, Kathleen Storms and Dan Specht at the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group’s annual meeting in Nebraska. Specht, along with LSP members Dan French and Dave Serfling, also talked about farm policy stewardship incentives at the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture meeting in Washington, D.C.

Watch future LSL’s for more information on this farm policy proposal.

For more information
For information on the how you can lend a hand in developing local, state and federal policy that benefits independent family farmers, contact Mark Schultz or Mike McMahon at our Policy Program office: 612-722-6377; marks@landstewardshipproject.org. Paul Sobocinski, a southwest Minnesota farmer who works on LSP policy, can be reached at 507-342-2323.

Back to top

BOOK REVIEWS

Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology
By Brewster Kneen
1999
231 pages
$16.95 (U.S.) $19.95 (Can.)
New Society Publishers
P.O. Box 189
Gabriola Island, B.C.
Canada, V0R 1X0
Email: webmaster@newsociety.com

Reviewed by Brooks Anderson

Brewster Kneen is by now a widely recognized and respected analyst of food systems. His latest book, Farmageddon, is a provocative contribution to the growing body of evidence that a free market generates economic selection pressures that advantage employers and producers who ruthlessly exploit land and labor.

Farmageddon, a work that is part investigative journalism and part moral philosophy, empowers the reader in several ways. Kneen brings us up to speed on many recent developments in the field of genetically modified food. He provides in-depth background on the development, regulation and marketing of bovine growth hormone, the Flavr Savr tomato and the New Leaf potato.

He uses such case studies to reveal a disturbing credibility gap that plagues agricultural biotechnology firms. Kneen exposes a contradiction that unfailingly characterizes such companies: their marketing and public relations staff profess ideals and intentions that the companies’ lobbyists and research and development technicians demonstrate no awareness or understanding of. The Monsanto Company, he argues, provides one example of such schizophrenic or disingenuous behavior. Monsanto, which boasts a motto of "food, health, hope," files bankrupting lawsuits against small dairy processors that label products made from milk produced with the help of genetically modified bovine growth hormone. Monsanto understandably fears that most, if not all, consumers will purchase milk that was produced without bovine growth hormone. So, although Monsanto insists that it favors fully informed debate, the company aggressively deploys its intimidating legal retainers, financial resources and political influence to deprive the public of, first, scientific testing and regulation of its product, and, second, the right to an informed choice of whether or not to purchase and consume that product.

Kneen’s book is empowering also because he admonishes the public for relinquishing responsibility for food production and the regulation of food safety to market forces, big business, and increasingly compliant governments. Kneen’s rigorous scrutiny of the track record of agricultural biotech firms leads him to conclude that society’s faith that the profit motive and free market forces will deliver the safest, most rational and most efficient of all possible food systems is unfounded. This insight leads him to advocate a radical, yet traditional, approach to food production: systems that are diverse and decentralized.

The only weakness of Farmageddon is that Kneen does not coherently address the very serious problem of population growth, which biotechnology’s enthusiasts repeatedly use as moral leverage to justify their work. For example, I was recently attending a conference in the Indian city of Bangalore where an employee of Unilever assured people that agricultural biotechnology is the solution to India’s challenge of feeding 1.6 to 1.8 billion people by the year 2040.

There simply is no reason to believe that biotechnology will have any substantial positive impact on the availability of food. Agricultural biotechnology firms have failed to develop any technique that significantly increases food yield, despite decades of research and the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, agricultural biotechnology firms have no genuine interest in feeding the hungry, who are, in almost all cases, hungry because they are poor. Kneen rightly asserts, "We should not be fooled into believing that the intent of engineering the seed . . . is to feed the world or save the environment; it is to gain control and create dependency." The importance of Kneen’s book is that it dispels the myth that biotechnology will feed the world’s growing human population, a myth that generates a very dangerous complacency about population growth and its impact. Unfortunately, Kneen appears to suffer from this complacency.

Society has to address the very real challenge of reducing population, as well as the perhaps even more difficult challenge of moderating the consumption patterns of affluent people. Kneen can undoubtedly help us to face such challenges if he devotes a future book to describing and analyzing in detail the structure and functioning of the alternative food system models that he advocates.

Brooks Anderson lives and works at Annapurna Farm, a 135-acre organic farm that is a part of the international, experimental township called Auroville, in Tamil Nadu, South India. For more information on Brewster and Cathleen Kneen’s coverage of agribusiness and food issues, see: http://www.ramshorn.bc.ca

Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution
By Paul Hawkens, Amory Lovins & L. Hunter Lovins
1999
396 pages
$26.95
Little, Brown & Company
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020

Reviewed by Dana Jackson

Publishers’ Weekly called Natural Capitalism a "visionary monster of a book." It is. At nearly 400 pages, including notes (Amory Lovins takes pride in "footnotes by the furlong"), references and an index, the heft of this hardcover belies a straightforward message: the future for human prosperity and well-being is limited by the decline of natural capital, which includes water, minerals, oil, trees, fish, etc. as well as living systems such as oceans, wetlands, rainforests, and ecosystem services such as humus creation and pollination. Not only is it necessary that businesses quit squandering natural capital and producing waste, there is competitive advantage and potentially great profit for those that do.

Traditional capitalism ignores at its own peril the natural resources and ecosystem services that make possible all economic activity and all life. Capitalism developed when we thought of nature and all its raw materials as abundant and human labor as scarce, so we invented ingenious machines to extract resources with labor efficiency and assumed nature was large and resilient enough to absorb all our wastes. But now we’re seeing that people are an abundant resource and nature is becoming scarce. The atmosphere can’t absorb all the waste gasses from burning fossil fuel, and we are beginning to understand that the penalty for rapidly squandering this natural capital will be global climate change and natural disasters.

This book in not a plea for society to pay the external environmental costs of capitalism. It is a hopeful picture of trends that the authors interpret as a beginning of a new kind of capitalism that will be the next industrial revolution. Natural Capitalism is a compendium of business strategies that create great savings in materials and operating costs and increase profitability for savvy companies. A favorite example of the authors is Interface, a carpet company that became a floor covering service company, leasing carpet tiles to offices. Interface maintains tiles and, when needed, replaces them. The company closes the loop by recycling old carpets into new carpets, avoiding tons of landfill waste.

The authors call for companies, communities and countries to apply four strategies of natural capitalism, which will make them responsible stewards of the planet and prosperous at the same time.

The first strategy of natural capitalism is to radically increase resource productivity. Using resources efficiently in manufacturing or farming reduces the costs of production while slowing resource depletion and decreasing pollution.

The second strategy is to be more in accord with biological systems. This means replacing mechanical systems that use heavy metals, combustion and petroleum, with a system of minimal inputs, lower temperatures, enzymatic reactions and solar power. It means creating closed-loop production systems where every output is returned to the ecosystem as a nutrient or becomes an input for another product.

The third strategy is to develop a service economy in which consumers lease services rather than buy goods outright. This would result in replacing all the goods — such as wash machines, computers or cars — that people now buy, use up and throw away, with services purchased from a company that provides repair, recycling and replacement along with the equipment.

The fourth strategy is to invest in natural capital. This requires an understanding that if the flow of services from industry is to be maintained or increased for a growing population, the flow of life-supporting services from living systems will have to be maintained. Investments to prevent water pollution or lower heavy metal emissions must be made, not because of government regulations, but for the long-term self interest of industry.

The authors have been talking about these four strategies to diverse audiences and corporate leaders throughout the world for the past several years. Paul Hawken is best known for his book The Ecology of Commerce and his connection to the Natural Step, an approach to business that employs principles of natural capitalism. The Lovins are the founders and co–CEOs of Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), a nonprofit think tank best known for its leadership in energy efficiency.

Other chapters discuss manufacturing, the building industry, lumber and paper, and agriculture, giving examples of companies or processes that profitably employ strategies of natural capitalism. In "Food for Life," the authors describe how industrial agriculture destroys natural capital by eroding and depleting soil, polluting groundwater and decreasing biodiversity. But farms offer major opportunities to combine resource productivity with the loop-closing second principle of natural capitalism. The Land Stewardship Letter is referenced as the source of information on management intensive rotational grazing, described as a livestock production system that protects and builds natural capital.

This is an important book, not for environmentalists, but for business owners and executives who have the power to reorganize their operations based on the four principles of natural capitalism. The more this book influences Wall Street Journal readers, the better chance we have to leave our children a livable planet.

Dana Jackson, associate director of the Land Stewardship Project, has served on the board of directors of Rocky Mountain Institute since 1986. If you want to know more about natural capitalism check out http://www.naturalcapitalism.org. It has browsable excerpts of the book reviewed here, discussion groups, updates and more. A reprint of an article by the authors in the Harvard Business Review called "A Road Map for Natural Capitalism" is also available at that site.

Back to top

OPPORTUNITIES/RESOURCES

Children, farms & sustainable agriculture

Giving Children a Role in Sustainable Agriculture is a manual for teachers and farmers who would like to provide meaningful experiences with organic or sustainable agriculture to school children. In the 24-page booklet, Ulrich Koester describes how trips to farms, combined with lessons in the classroom, can provide a unique education for children, and at the same time help farmers as they try out new farming practices.

Koester, a Land Stewardship Project member who serves as program director of the Midwest Food Connection, has extensive experience bringing children and farmers together. He has also conducted in-class sessions on food.

His manual does not set up specific experiments, nor give exact lesson plans, but it does give a strong organizational framework and many ideas for filling in the details. It also provides a list of resources.

For a free copy, contact: Midwest Food Connection, 2105 Lyndale Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55405; phone: 612-874-7275.

Attention direct-marketing farmers
Farmers are needed to provide food for the Minnesota Grown Community Food Project. This project, which is starting its third season, provides low-income families an opportunity to buy quality food directly from farmers (see June/July/Aug LSL) .

For more information on selling food through this program, call the Minnesota Food Association at 612-872-3298.

Back to top

STEWARDSHIP CALENDAR

MAY 18 — Field day featuring management intensive grazing of a sheep flock, Kura clover establishment, managing woods for timber & grazing, watering systems options for graziers, Jim and Tara Scaife farm, Rushford, Minn.; Contact: Richard Ness, LSP, 507-523-3366
MAY 20-21 — Clean Up our River Environment’s Minnesota River Spring Observation Trip; Contact: Lynn Lokken, LSP, 320-269-2105; e-mail: llokken@maxminn.com
JUNE, JULY, AUG. — A series of streamside events along Minnesota’s Sand Creek, including field days on birding, citizen stream monitoring & stream restoration walk (dates & locations to be announced); Contact: Caroline van Schaik, LSP, 651-653-0618;.email: caroline@landstewardshipproject.org
JUNE 3 — Earth Sabbath Prayer Day, Earth Rise Farm, Madison, Minn.; Contact: Sisters Annette & Kay Fernholz, 320-568-2191
JUNE 10 — Farming with Nature pork delivery (Twin Cities location to be announced); Contact: Jodi Dansingburg, 507-523-3366
JUNE 22-25 — Conference of Rural Women’s Studies Association, St. Paul, Minn.; Contact: Debra Reid, 1300 Briar Cliff, #227, Bryan, TX 77802;.email: debrareid@aol.com
JULY 8 — Farming with Nature pork delivery (Twin Cities location to be announced); Contact: Jodi Dansingburg, 507-523-3366
JULY 28-29 — Land Conservation Summit 2000: Advancing the Debate in the New Millennium, St. Paul, Minn.; Contact: http://www.geog.umn.edu/summit2000
JULY 2000 — Organic Crops Field Day, University of Minnesota Southwest Research & Outreach Center (exact date to be announced), Lamberton, Minn.; Contact: 507-752-7372; URL: http://swroc.coafes.umn.edu
AUG. 4-5 — Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (MSAWG) summer meeting, East Troy, Wis.; Contact: Mark Schultz, LSP, 612-722-6377
AUG. 12 — Farming with Nature pork delivery (Twin Cities location to be announced); Contact: Jodi Dansingburg, 507-523-3366
AUG. 29-31 — Carbon: Exploring the Benefits to Farmers & Society, Des Moines, Iowa; Contact: 515-225-1051; URL: http://www.cvrcd.org
SEPT. 9 — Farming with Nature pork delivery (Twin Cities location to be announced); Contact: Jodi Dansingburg, 507-523-3366
OCT. 7 — LSP-Twin Cities Local Foods Banquet (location to be announced); Contact: Cathy Eberhart, LSP, 651-653-0618; email: cathye@landstewardshipproject.org
OCT. 14 — Farming with Nature pork delivery (Twin Cities location to be announced); Contact: Jodi Dansingburg, 507-523-3366

Want to go to a field day?
Field day season is upon us. For dates and locations, contact DeEtta.Bilek at the Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota; 218-445-7475; deebilek@wcta.net
You can also check out LSP’s Web site for press releases on upcoming field days.

Check the Calendar for the latest on upcoming LSP events.

Back to top

Return to LSL Index

Return to Home Page