COVER STORY: What You See is What You Get

COMMENTARY: No fries with that order, please

LSP NEWS: LSP organizing pushes Farm Bill reform; Landmark feedlot study falls short; A sustainable shopping list

BOOK REVIEWS: The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World, by Michael Pollan

OPPORTUNITIES/RESOURCES

FACES BEHIND THE FOOD: A special photo gallery of farmers

STEWARDSHIP CALENDAR

What You See is What You Get

One day in early July, a southwest Minnesota farmer led me past his nondescript outbuildings, through a hay field and over a fence. We stopped on the other side of the fence to take in the view: an honest to goodness valley. The slope the farmer stood on plummeted at least a couple hundred feet down to a creek that was snaking along the valley floor. The slope on the opposite side was just as dramatic, with numerous side-draws creating an undulating effect. The valley stretched roughly north to south as far as the eye could see. And it was covered in grass. Much of the grass was non-native species that are good for beef production. In fact, in one of those side-draws the bulk of the farmer's cattle herd was grazing in secret delight. But the farmer bent down to point out a few native plants, species that have been around since the wild prairies ruled this part of the world. He couldn't name them all, but he was clearly delighted with their presence, and with what they said about his ability to produce food in harmony with nature.

Not all farms have such pleasant surprises tucked away in the back forty. An increasing number, in fact, have decidedly ugly secrets: leaking manure lagoons, contaminated water tables, eroding soils. Those surprises are called "hidden costs" because they don't go into the calculations used to determine the price of a pound of hamburger or a bag of apples. Those costs may not appear on a food package's bar code, but society eventually pays for them one way or the other-whether it be through a contaminated environment, empty small towns or even unsafe food.

But an increasing number of consumers are making it clear they don't want to support food production that contains hidden costs. This issue of the Land Stewardship Letter is devoted to farmers who are showing food can be produced without rude surprises. The latest Stewardship Food Network listing is now on our Web site. This is our regular update of farmers and retailers who belong to the Land Stewardship Project and who strive to provide sustainably produced food to consumers. And at the end of this newsletter is a series of photos featuring many of the farmers who have recently received the Midwest Food Alliance (MWFA) seal of approval. That means they have undergone a rigorous third-party inspection to determine how their farm rates in terms of water quality, wildlife habitat, soil erosion, community involvement and much more. Only farms that reach a high level of overall sustainability qualify for the MWFA seal.

Will listing farmers who direct-market food and creating a sustainable seal of approval revolutionize our food system? No. But efforts like this can help insure that your food dollar will be supporting more pleasant surprises past the farm gate, behind the barn…and over the hill. - Brian DeVore

top

COMMENTARY

No fries with that order, please

By Dana Jackson

Corn and soybeans are usually the villains when we talk about industrialized crop farming. For example, look at the commentary that appeared on this page in the September/October issue of the Land Stewardship Letter. But there's another, overlooked villain of industrial cropping, the potato-more specifically, the french fried potato. The potato is a marvelous gift of the earth; pomme de terre (apple of the earth) the French called it. After World War II, American GIs craved this potato specialty of the French cuisine; so American drive-in restaurants began to serve french fries with hamburgers. The development of a process to freeze french fries turned them into a cheap commodity and a major profit maker for fast food restaurants. Today the french fried potato is a symbol of everything that's wrong with the industrial food system. Connected to that carton of perfect, golden french fries-which the average American eats several times a week-is the contamination of soil and water, the decline of family farms and rural culture, the consolidation of corporate power over land and markets and people, and a growing health problem-obesity.

The Anishinaabeg people of the White Earth and Mille Lacs Reservations in north central Minnesota live in the midst of potato farming. These Native Americans lost much of their original treaty land through the white man's laws and trickery. Then they lost their livelihood when forests were cut for timber and the land drained for farming. Now the little land they have left to support their traditional way of life is endangered by the farming practices of Ron Offut, the largest independent potato farmer in the world.

In a study just published by the White Earth Land Recovery Project, Potatoes, Frogs and Water: R.D. Offutt Co. and Northwestern Minnesota's Future, Winona LaDuke and co-authors describe the Offutt empire and their concern for its impact upon the water, the land and people of the region. Through a diversity of land holding entities that keep Offutt from violating the Minnesota corporate farm laws, Ron Offutt and associates control a total of 27,926 acres in 12 counties of Minnesota, with special concentration in Otter Tail County and Becker County. The problem, the study says, is not the number of acres Offutt controls, but the concentration of potato farming in these areas.

The sandy soils in northwest Minnesota are good for growing potatoes, but they also have high infiltration rates, which result in a quick leaching of nitrates into the aquifer below. Typical usage of nitrogen fertilizer for corn is about 96 pounds per acre, but for potatoes the typical usage is much higher-241 pounds per acre. Thirty-one percent of the wells in Otter Tail County, where Offutt controls 8,547 acres, tested for nitrate levels higher than the drinking water standard of 10 milligrams per liter set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Anishinaabeg see that in addition to their water being endangered by nitrogen fertilizer applications, the wild medicinal and food plants traditionally gathered by native people are harmed by frequent herbicide applications. People living on land between and around Offutt fields are also exposed to pesticide drift from the many aerial sprayings. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture, however, is satisfied that the Offutt growers voluntarily use "best management practices." When the Mantrap Township Board of Hubbard County passed an ordinance to restrict aerial spraying of pesticides in the early 1990s, the Department of Agriculture joined the commercial sprayers and Offutt in suing the township. The township lost.

Industrial potato production requires a heavy use of pesticides. In The Botany of Desire (see book review) Michael Pollan says that to produce the perfect french fry potato, an Idaho farmer plants one variety only, the Russet Burbank, and protects the crop with an arsenal of chemicals. Beginning in the spring the farmer applies a soil fumigant to control nematodes, then a pre-planting herbicide to control weeds and a systemic insecticide at planting time. Additional herbicides and 10 weekly applications of fertilizer follow during the growing season. The potato crop needs a fungicide to avoid the late blight that caused the Irish potato famine. The potatoes also need regular sprayings to kill aphids that transmit a leaf roll virus which creates spots on the Russet Burbank, anathema to a french fry processor. Then there is the nemesis of home gardeners, the potato beetle. Potato farmers naturally see Monsanto's New Leaf potato, genetically engineered with a bacterium that kills potato beetles as they eat the leaves, to be a cost-cutting advance by eliminating a spraying.

The typical potato farmer in Idaho spends approximately $1,950 an acre for chemicals, water and electricity and sells the average yield of 20 tons to a french-fry processor for $2,000. For every $1.50 spent on french fries at a fast food restaurant, the farmer makes only two cents.

As with corn, wheat and other cheap commodities, the potato growers feel pressured to get big or get out, and the family-sized farms are getting out, while large operations get larger. The Anishinaabeg have watched Ron Offut accumulate more and more land to produce potatoes, including land originally part of the White Earth reservation.

Ron Offut supplies potatoes for a french fry processing plant in Park Rapids, Minn., that is a joint venture of Offut, ConAgra and Lamb Weston, the largest manufacturer of french fries in the world. Lamb Weston and McCain, a Canadian Firm, control 80 percent of the American market for frozen french fries, even though J.R. Simplot Company supplies most of the frozen french fries that McDonald's uses. Frozen french fries have become a bulk commodity, manufactured in high volume with a low margin of profit.

Americans devour a prodigious amount of french fries. In Fast Food Nation (see Jan./Feb./Mar. 2001 LSL), the author Eric Schlosser tells us that the average American in 1960 ate 81 pounds of fresh potatoes and about four pounds of frozen french fries. Today the average American eats about 49 pounds of fresh potatoes each year and more than 30 pounds of frozen french fries. The success of fast food restaurants is directly linked to the growing popularity, tastiness and cheapness of french fries. "Super Size Fries (540 calories) with that double bacon cheeseburger?"

Potatoes are inherently a healthful food. Michael Pollan writes that the potato became a food staple in Ireland because, in addition to its carbohydrate energy, it provided considerable amounts of protein and vitamins B and C, and the missing vitamin A could be supplied by cow's milk. But today we eat the potato with grease, not milk.

Eric Schlosser says that forty-four million Americans are obese, and six million are "super obese," weighing about 100 pounds more than they should. The growth of the fast food industry, which has made "eating out" so cheap and convenient, contributes to our bulging waistlines as much as the decline of physical activity in our work life and leisure. Teenage clerks punching buttons with pictures on them at the fast food check-out counters don't even exercise their brains, and these youngsters are often overweight, eating their way to an early onset of diseases linked to obesity, such as diabetes and heart disease. But the high-fat fast food meals, which all include french fries, are popular not only with teenagers, but also busy working parents of young children, as well as retired people.

The potato was first domesticated more than 7,000 years ago by ancestors of the Incas in the Andes. Their descendants perfected a complex and sustainable system by planting many different sizes, shapes and colors of potatoes that fit particular microclimates and soil formations along mountainsides. The diversity was essential as each potato had a special use in their diet. Several varieties of potatoes, besides the Russet Burbank, are available today as seed potatoes and in farmers' markets and food cooperatives. It's possible for people to learn again how to boil, bake and mash potatoes-with milk-and avoid that villainous symbol of an industrial food system: the processed, frozen french fry.

Dana Jackson is the Land Stewardship Project's Associate Director. For more information on Potatoes, Frogs, and Water: R.D. Offutt Co. and Northwestern Minnesota's Future, contact the White Earth Land Recovery Project at 32033 East Round Lake Road, Ponsford, MN 56575; phone: 218-573-3448.

top

LSP NEWS

LSP organizing pushes Farm Bill reform
Amendment to ban packer ownership of livestock 'historic'

EDITOR'S NOTE: As the Land Stewardship Letter went to press in late December, the U.S. Senate had delayed debate on their version of the Farm Bill until it reconvenes Jan. 23. The U.S. House of Representatives passed their Farm Bill in October. Once the Senate version passes, a joint House/Senate conference committee will be created to hammer out a compromise measure that will go to President Bush. This law will determine the content and funding for Federal farm policy for the next five years. Major policy decisions affecting the quality of our environment, the stewardship of the land, and the future of family farms and rural communities are made in the Farm Bill. Contact LSP's Policy Program by calling 612-722-6377 or e-mailing marks@landstewardshipproject.org for more information. Also, check for regular farm policy updates on the LSP Web site.

********************************************

In a major victory for family farms and the environment, the U.S. Senate voted Dec. 13 to ban corporate meatpackers from owning livestock.

The historic 51-46 bipartisan vote, which would also require packers to divest themselves of the livestock they currently own, came on an amendment to the Senate's version of the Farm Bill. The amendment was introduced by Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone.

"This is an historic action," says Mark Schultz, LSP's Policy Program Director. "Responding to the will of the people, the U.S. Senate has finally told big agribusiness that it can't control all of agriculture. We must now make sure the House gets the same message and acts accordingly, and then move on to further progressive legislation on behalf of family farms, rural communities, and the care of the land."

Over the past five years, direct ownership of livestock by pork and beef processors has escalated sharply. In the hog industry, this has gone hand-in-hand with the expansion of factory farms across the countryside, as packers such as Tyson/IBP, Premium Standard Farms, Cargill and Smithfield all have established huge sow herds, raising the breeding stock and their offspring in confinement buildings of unprecedented size and generating massive adverse impact on the surrounding environment. Smithfield Foods alone, following an aggressive acquisition and expansion policy, is now the number one pork packer in the country and owns 711,000 sows, producing more than 14 million hogs per year. In comparison, the vast majority of Midwestern family farm hog producers own between 30 and 200 sows.

"University studies show that the small- to medium-sized hog producers are very competitive in terms of cost of production. Efficiency is not the issue-we can compete," says Minnesota hog farmer and LSP Board member Monica Kahout. "The fact is, corporate packers like Smithfield, Tyson and Cargill are trying to take away our livelihood by controlling the livestock-not because we can't compete, but because we are their stiffest competition. So they are controlling the market, killing competition with captive supplies, in order to either put us out of business, or make us raise their factory-farm hogs for them through one-sided production contracts."

The Campaign for Family Farms, of which LSP is a founding member, took the lead nationally in organizing for the amendment, with farmers and other members calling hog farmers in dozens of states who had taken part in the campaign to end the mandatory pork checkoff. The Campaign also sent out mass mailings and coordinated a media campaign targeted at livestock producers. LSP and the Campaign for Family Farms met with Senator Wellstone and worked closely with his staff on the amendment. All of this was kicked off in August with a strong LSP turnout for the Senate Ag Committee field hearings convened by Wellstone and Senator Mark Dayton in Minnesota.

"The Wellstone/Johnson amendment to ban packer ownership is a big first step to addressing this economic injustice being forced on rural communities by corporate meatpackers," Kahout says. "The farmers I called in Oregon, South Carolina and Maryland didn't know how to address this injustice, but when we called from the Campaign for Family Farms, they joined in our grassroots campaign."

Besides the ban on packer ownership of Livestock, the Senate bill includes a fully-funded Conservation Security Program (see Sept./Oct. LSL), a major LSP policy priority which would reward farmers who care for the land by paying for the public benefits-such as enhanced water quality, improved soil conservation and increased wildlife habitat-that good stewardship farming produces. The House's farm policy proposal does not contain such a conservation provision or a ban on packer ownership of livestock.

Landmark feedlot study falls short

As a three-year landmark study of Minnesota's livestock industry nears the finish line, there are clear signs it will fall far short of meeting its original objectives, say several participants in the analysis. And those shortcomings could have an impact as early as this legislative session, when lawmakers review the results as they consider the role livestock farming will play in the state's future.

In 1998, tired of wrestling with the contentious environment created by the aggressive growth of large-scale livestock facilities in the state, the Minnesota Legislature commissioned a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on Animal Agriculture. The Legislature gave the Environmental Quality Board (EQB), along with a 24-member Citizen Advisory Committee, $3 million to conduct a statewide study of the present and projected impacts of livestock facilities. The objective of the study was, according to the Environmental Quality Board, to "…provide balanced information on animal agriculture and recommendations on future alternatives to optimize livestock production in the state, while protecting public health, social stability and environmental quality."

The study was touted as the first of its kind in the nation. The GEIS Citizen Advisory Committee, appointed by the EQB, consisted of organizations and individuals who are involved in livestock farming issues. The committee eventually directed the development of a 1,500-page literature summary, as well as 10 technical working papers on subjects such as human health and water quality. After hundreds of hours of meetings, including numerous forums where the public provided input, the Citizen Advisory Committee came up with 77 policy recommendations. Those recommendations, along with a draft of the 238-page GEIS report, have been submitted to the EQB, which is expected to act on approval of the final GEIS sometime in January.

Mark Schultz, the Land Stewardship Project's Policy Program Director, served on the Citizen Advisory Committee. "Overall, there are a couple of good things about the GEIS," he says. "There is some good information in the technical working papers that may be of use to citizens looking into the environmental, health, economic and social impacts of industrial agriculture. And the recommendations will provide some options for state policy makers."

However, Schultz adds, the report fell far short in two key areas: identifying and comparing a range of options for the future of animal agriculture in Minnesota, and evaluating cumulative effects of animal agriculture development on the state's environment and communities."

Both these elements were priority goals of the study, as approved by the EQB in 1998.

"This report basically assumed the current path of large-scale factory livestock was the only way to go, and all but ignored any other path," says Schultz. "This is particularly troubling considering the concerns of increasing numbers of Minnesotans about the adverse impacts of industrial agriculture."

An examination of the summary of public comments on the draft GEIS shows two general concerns emerging repeatedly: the lack of discussion over alternatives, and the cursory treatment of cumulative impacts.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Commissioner Karen Studders, who sits on the EQB, also expressed concerns about the report's shortcomings during a Dec. 10 GEIS hearing. She said cumulative impacts of operations is a growing environmental concern and she didn't understand why modeling couldn't have been used to provide more information in that area, particularly considering the fact that large-scale livestock operations have become so standardized. She also said the report's lack of information on alternatives puts more of a burden on farmers who are seeking viable ways to produce livestock.

"I am somewhat disheartened," Studders told George Johnson, the GEIS Project manager.

Both Johnson and Gregg Downing, GEIS Research Coordinator, agreed that both issues were "extremely important," but defended their cursory treatment by saying there was not enough money or time to consider such complicated topics.

"It's obviously very disappointing to many people," said Downing.

The public may also be disappointed to know how much influence Minnesota Agriculture Commissioner Gene Hugoson had on the GEIS, says Schultz. Hugoson is the chair of the EQB and has long been an advocate of large-scale factory farming. He worked hard (and unsuccessfully) during the last legislative session to gut state sustainable agriculture programs (see July/Aug. 2001 LSL). On Oct. 25, he sent a three-page letter to George Johnson expressing concern that the GEIS not be too heavily weighted in favor of "environmental concerns." In the letter, Hugoson called the current state environmental review process a "trumped up roadblock" and said regulations threaten to either drive farmers out of business or make them "move to a state or country with a less onerous regulatory structure." In his letter, Hugoson also argued against making data on large-scale farming operations available to the public.

When the draft GEIS report was released in November, several paragraphs of Hugoson's letter were tacked onto the introduction. Although the words were virtually verbatim from the letter, there was no recognition that Hugoson was the author.

"These paragraphs represent an opinion, contradict findings within the GEIS and set a negative tone," said Rachel Hopper at the Dec. 10 hearing. Hopper, who represented the Izaak Walton League as an alternate on the GEIS Citizen Advisory Committee, added that the new introduction "basically undermines the entire document, three years of research and the commitment of 24 professionals."

Helen Palmer, who represented the League of Women Voters on the Citizen Advisory Committee, told the EQB that whether one agreed with Hugoson's words or not, they didn't belong in a "neutral" report introduction.

"They did not come from a policy recommendation of the Citizen Advisory Committee, nor do they sum up the message of the public hearings. By setting up the old opposition between the economy and the environment these statements in fact encourage the kind of divisions which led up to the need for the GEIS in the first place."

top

The GEIS report

To view the draft of Minnesota's final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture, including the 77 policy recommendations of the Citizen Advisory Committee, log onto http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/eqb.

Copies can also be viewed at regional libraries in Minnesota. Ten technical working papers on various issues related to animal agriculture have been produced for the GEIS.

The topics are:

• Description of Animal Agriculture
• Social & Community Topics
• Land Use & Conflict Resolution
• Role of Government
• Economic Impacts
• Water Quality Issues
• Air Quality Issues
• Soils & Manure Issues
• Human Health Issues
• Animal Health & Welfare

To download a technical paper, log onto www.mnplan.state.mn.us and click on the "Feedlots" link. For more information on the GEIS process, contact the Land Stewardship Project's Mark Schultz at 612-722-6377, or marks@landstewardshipproject.org.

top

A sustainable shopping list
Western Minn. survey shows what farmers have & what consumers want

The new Pride of the Prairie initiative, based in the Land Stewardship Project's Montevideo office, is working to develop the foundation for a regional food system in western Minnesota. As a first step, this summer and fall Pride of the Prairie conducted a survey to determine how many producers in the upper Minnesota River Basin already produce and market food from their farms. As news of the planning phase of the Pride of the Prairie work spread through newspaper and radio stories, area farmers began contacting us to express interest. Some 75 farmers have been identified, and 51 of those have been surveyed. We're just getting started on our surveying, but we've already learned some interesting things about our local food and farm system.

• Twenty-two vegetable producers have every vegetable you can imagine available seasonally. Many are organic producers; most are "reduced chemical."
• Twelve farmers market beef, either by the quarter or half, or by the piece. Over 340 head of beef were sold directly in this area last year. The majority of the beef animals were raised primarily on grass, with no hormones or antibiotics.
• Ten producers marketed a total of nearly 6,000 chickens last year. All the chickens were raised in a "free-range," or "moving pen" design.
• Ten families produce and sell fruit and fruit products: apples, strawberries, raspberries, jams, jelly and cider.
• Eight producers marketed a total of 450 head of hogs. Most were raised on pasture or deep-bedded straw.
• Seven farmers sold a total of 700 head of lamb, by the half or whole carcass, or by the piece. Tanned wool pelts and washed and carded wool fiber are also available.
• ive producers raised, gathered, packed and sold 625 dozen eggs last year.
• Five area farmers offer various grains, including buckwheat, cornmeal, oats, flax and rye.
• Four bison producers sold a total of over 250 head of bison.
• Area consumers and retailers can also buy herbs, pheasants, cheese, goats, flowers and flower arrangements, honey, and maple syrup directly from producers.

• Forty farmers sell directly to individuals and families.
• Twenty-nine report having customers coming directly to their farms to purchase products.
• Seventeen sell at area farmers' markets
• Ten have some of their products in area grocery stores.
• Nine sell to wholesale distributors.
• Nine sell to area restaurants.
• Nine sell to other retailers.
• Five make use of the Internet.
• Four sell to caterers.

• Ninety-six percent said it is important to produce the food the customer desires.
• Ninety-six percent said it is important to use production practices that protect water quality, support the local economy, decrease soil erosion and provide wildlife habitat.
• Eighty-eight percent also listed fair treatment of farm workers and humane treatment of animals as important aspects of farm production.
• Sixty-three percent counted their desire to produce good food for their families as part of the reason they farm as they do.

• Over half of the farmers said they need information about retailing licenses, packaging and labeling requirements, selling to institutions, developing local markets and building market capacity.
• Forty-three percent want assistance with business planning.
• About a third of those surveyed mentioned as concerns certifying with an eco-label, getting help setting up an agricultural tourism enterprise, finding processing, and getting financing.

Other challenges listed include a lack of processing, especially organic and poultry processing, and living in a sparsely populated region. Farmers also cited difficulty working with state licensing people and the lack of useful information from the University of Minnesota's College of Agriculture and Extension Service. The most mentioned barrier that farmers want help with is educating the public about food choices.The farmers we talked with strongly support a trade association that would broker foods to larger institutions. They also want to explore the possibility of sales to area institutions.

Now the consumer's turn…
We also surveyed 119 area non-farmers to, among other things, get consumer feedback and perspectives on the concept of "local foods."

The local food concept

• Between 50-100 miles was the maximum distance considered to be local.
• We found there was a standard theme defining a local food system, which included: 1) food that is grown, processed, distributed and sold within the local region; 2) farmers' markets and gardens were considered part of the system.
• The benefits of purchasing local foods could be grouped as: 1) enhancing the local economy; 2) supporting local farmers and producers; 3) better tasting, fresher food; 4) knowing where food is coming from.
• Respondents would be more likely to purchase local foods if they were easily accessible. Food also had to be economical and in a convenient form to use (chicken breasts vs. whole chicken).
• One-fourth or more of all respondents said they would be willing to pay $2 more for a restaurant meal valued at $8, if they were guaranteed the food had been produced locally.

The next steps
As the many pieces of the Pride of the Prairie work move forward, it is clear that area farmers are already producing and marketing many fine products for our dinner tables, church events and community fund-raisers. It's also clear consumers are, under certain circumstances, willing to use their food dollars to support such farmers.

Much of the information we are gleaning will be compiled in a local foods directory to be published soon. And a group of area farmers are already meeting to explore ways to collaborate in creating a local food system.

For more information, contact LSP at 320-269-2105.

Lynn Mader and Terry VanDerPol work with the Pride of the Prairie program in LSP's western Minnesota office. Besides LSP, others collaborating on the initiative are the West Central Research and Outreach Center and the University of Minnesota-Morris.

top

BOOK REVIEWS

Reviewed by Ray Kirsch

Michael Pollan's latest book, The Botany of Desire, contains stories that are true to our best narrative traditions-stories that are humorous, adventurous, inquisitive, and ultimately enlightening as to our place in this world.

It says something about Pollan's skill that these stories retain their literary value even though they are strung together by a term which is steeped in science: "artificial selection." Charles Darwin used that phrase over a century ago in The Origin of Species to ease his readers into the ideas of evolution and natural selection. Unwittingly perhaps, Darwin thus reinforced an ideological chasm between artificial or unnatural selection-the selection we humans perform to create roses, butter pears and show dogs-and the selection that takes place out there, in nature, the world of natural selection.

Pollan holds that this chasm is an illusion, a failure of our imagination, and more dangerously, a conceit. We are a part of nature, no more or less, than any other creatures-take your pick, from conifers to cucumbers to cats. We are all co-evolving. And here there is nodding by the readers and perhaps some begrudged muttering. And yet there are two more steps to take. The first easy, the second more challenging.

Pollan relates the fine example of wolves and dogs. How a few wolves long ago threw in with us humans and began the long road of domestication. And ultimately (at least to date), how well this has worked out for all parties to the agreement-dogs can be found everywhere while wolves are having a hard time of it. And humans are happy with the friendship and service of their hairy companions. Pollan contends that those who survive with us, understand us. They understand our needs and desires. True enough for dogs, but what about plants? Are we co-evolving with plants? Are we throwing in with them and they with us, and if so, how?

This then is Pollan's challenge-that we must answer, "yes." Plants do understand our needs and desires, and they work us as hard as they work bumblebees. True, we travel in different circles-plants don't have large brains and they can't run around; we can't photosynthesize nor create the molecules to defend a stationary existence. But nonetheless, our desires intersect. Pollan calls this the botany of our desires. He then conjures up for us four delicious stories that examine this botany, make us smile, and prompt us to worry just a bit about what comes next.

The four human desires that the author examines are sweetness, beauty, intoxication and control. As guides to these desires, we are treated to (respectively) apples, tulips, marijuana and potatoes. Each story is unique, but Pollan pulls on several common threads to create a delightful dinner. First, the stories are collages-circular pieces of history, science, gardening and memoir. Co-evolution is not a narrow topic. Thus, we get to meet John Chapman, a.k.a Johnny Appleseed, but we also learn about grafting and genetic diversity, the dearth of sweeteners on the pioneer frontier, and the surfeit of cider. We get to discuss marijuana as a cultural mutagen, as well as share Pollan's own funny-looking-back-at-it experiences with this savvy weed.

And these various collage pieces are not necessarily dazzling. More than likely they're simple observations. The key is how Pollan fits them together. Here's a small observation that gets us rolling in the tulip story:

"Bee or boy, our attention is awakened by a petal's color, alerting us to what comes next, which is form or pattern, beauty's second inflection of the given world. Against the background of inchoate green a contrasting color by itself could well be an accident of some kind (a feather, say, or a dying leaf), but the appearance of symmetry is a reliable expression of formal organizations-or purpose, even intent. Symmetry is an unmistakable sign that there's relevant information in a place."

From here we travel to bees, and information-greetings, the beckoning of beauty and symmetry—the dance of pollination, and onward to the Ottoman Empire, to Holland, and back again.

Pollan grounds each of his stories with personal experiences and with histories. We get the Irish potato famine as well as Pollan's potato salad sans genetic engineering. We get the tulip mania of 17th century Holland mixed with Pollan's childhood memories of tulip planting. And in an interesting twist, we also get a sense of how long these botanical discussions have been going on. Pollan invites the Greek gods of Apollo and Dionysus into each story. And through this longest of lenses-mythology-we begin to see the ongoing struggle between wildness and civilization.

Lastly, Pollan illustrates in each story that is it is the malleability of each of these plants that affords them such success at meeting our desires. And also paints us as an incredibly demanding and fickle customer. Tired of a red tulip? No problem; a blue one is on its way. A mix of red and blue? We can do that too. Apple too tart? We can fix that. Need some rope? Here's some hemp-oh, and by the way, don't try smoking it. True, same species, different result. Colorado potato beetle got you down? No problem; try the software in this NewLeaf potato.

And it's in the last section-the potato story-that the subtle hints of the previous tales coalesce into the conceit and danger that lie at our door. This story was my introduction to Pollan's writing—it appeared originally as a shorter 1998 article in the New York Times Magazine—and immediately grabbed my attention. It's the story of genetically engineered potatoes-NewLeaf potatoes developed by Monsanto, which, in effect, take our cultural knowledge off the farm and puts it in the hands of scientists and corporations. Writes Pollan:

"What is perhaps most striking about the NewLeafs coming up in my garden is the added human intelligence that the insertion of the Bacillus thuringiensis gene represents. In the past that intelligence resided outside the plant, in the minds of the organic farmers and gardeners (myself included) who used Bt, commonly in the form of spray, to manipulate the ecological relationship between certain insects and a certain bacterium in order to foil those insects."

By discussing the genetically engineered NewLeaf, Pollan raises the question: if we do adopt the metaphor of software for the genes of our plants, what comes next? What does this portend for our co-evolution with the world?

The answers are not clear, but the direction of the compass is, and that direction is caution-caution in editing out the code we're unhappy with and inserting our own subroutines. We must be careful because this code, these improbable strings of nucleic acids, are forged from evolution beyond our understanding. They hold the world, as we know it, steady. As Pollan notes, if we cull these strings, if we shrink the diversity of life, we shrink evolutions's possibilities-and that has implications for all of us.

Thoreau wrote, "In wildness is the preservation of the world." Pollan suggests that Wendell Berry has presented the necessary corollary: "In human culture is the preservation of wildness." Thus our human cultures and the preservation of the world are linked in wildness—in biodiversity. The glory of Pollan's book is that this load of a word—biodiversity—rarely appears. I don't remember seeing it until the epilogue, and then on the last page. He leaves us instead with a metaphor-one invoked by descriptions of John Chapman transporting his apple seeds down river. Namely, that we're all in this boat together. If we are to exist and plants are to exist, then wildness must exist. And this has ramifications for our cultures, for how we might live on the land. It also reinforces that we are involved in a co-evolution. And that as an evolutionary force, we humans can be a reckless lot. If the wildness of the world is our ballast, then more likely than not, we're the crazies standing up in the boat, one foot on the gunwale, as the water laps in.

Land Stewardship Project staff member Ray Kirsch is the Farm Coordinator for the Midwest Food Alliance. He grew up in St. Louis, Monsanto's hometown.

top

OPPORTUNITIES/RESOURCES

Century Farm essays

A Stranger in This Place But Once: Portraits of Century Farmers is a new book written by Tim King and illustrated by Nancy Leasman. Since 1976, the Minnesota State Fair and the Minnesota Farm Bureau have paid tribute to families who have been on their farms for a century or more. King has written essays about the residents of 10 of Todd County's Century Farms, and Leasman has drawn portraits of the families.

Copies of the book can be purchased for $9.95 each (plus tax) from Whole Farm Cooperative, a group of direct-marketing farmers that King and Leasman are associated with. For ordering information, log onto www.wholefarmcoop.com,
e-mail whlefarm@rea-alp.com, or call 320-732-3023.

For more information, log onto www.mnlcv.org, or contact the League at 360 North Robert, Suite 415, St. Paul, MN 55101; phone: 651-229-0621; fax: 651-229-0623.

Sustainable ag chair
Michigan State University is recruiting candidates for the C.S. Mott Chair for Sustainable Agriculture. Applications or nominations will be accepted until Feb. 15, or until a suitable candidate is identified. The position description can be downloaded from http://www.msue.msu.edu/misanet/Mott.htm. For more information, contact Gary Lemme by calling 517-355-0123 or e-mailing lemme@msu.edu.

A Special Photo Gallery:
Some faces behind the food

Clicking this link will take you to featured photos of many of the farmers who have recently received the Midwest Food Alliance (MWFA) seal of approval. MWFA, which is a joint project of the Land Stewardship Project and Cooperative Development Services, is a third-party sustainable farming certification system (see July/Aug 2001 Land Stewardship Letter). For more information contact Ray Kirsch at 651-653-0618 or Britt Jacobson at 651-265-3682. Future issues of the Land Stewardship Letter will feature more photos of MWFA-approved farmers.

STEWARDSHIP CALENDAR

See the latest calendar of events.