"SOUND"...COMPARED TO WHAT?

Published on Sunday, February 23, 2014 by Common Dreams

'Sound Science' Deception

by Jim Goodman

Food is big business; everyone eats. Global food production is about profit.

Photo: Peter Blanchard/cc/flickrIn the North, store shelves are always full. It's cheap, were told it's safe, healthy and suddenly it's sustainable, because sustainable sells.

Sustainable agriculture used to be defined by peasant farmers, by organic farmers—farmers who avoided using pesticides on their crops, farmers who avoided using antibiotics and hormones on their livestock, farmers who relied on integrated farming practices to make their farms regenerative —sustainable.

Now, Monsanto bills itself as a leader and innovator in sustainable agriculture. Elanco tells us technology yields sustainability and Elanco president Jeff Simmons tells us that “access to safe, proven, efficiency-enhancing technologies ensures the three rights”—food as a basic human right; choice as a consumer right; and sustainability as an environmental right.

What?  Biotechnology giants are standing up for the rights of people and the environment? The same corporations who for decades have ridiculed consumer protests and environmental concerns because their technology, their GMO's (genetically modified organisms), their crop protection chemicals, their seed patents were all based on “sound science”?

But, “sound science” has no scientific definition. It does not mean peer reviewed, or well documented research. “Sound science” is only a term, an ideological term, used to support a particular point of view, policy statement or a technology. “Sound science” is little more than the opinions of so-called “experts” representing corporate interests.

For example, if the public has concerns about the environment, our health or the safety of our food after having been forced to accept scientific advancements like agricultural biotechnology, highly toxic pesticides, or “fracking,” our concerns are blown off because they are not based on “sound science.”

Without doubt, these practices are inherently unsafe, and in the case of GMOs, ineffective as well. In the end, they are of benefit only to the industries that own the technology. And because our society is so afraid of doing anything that might anger industry, or give industry a reason to outsource more jobs, science that does not support industry is not “sound science.”

Simply put, “sound science” always supports the position of industry over people, corporate profit over food safety, the environment and public health. So when someone says something is based on “sound science,” get ready to be duped.

“Sound science “is really all about deception. It paints a picture that is hard to resist, a story we want to believe. We wanted to believe that smoking was good for us, that nuclear energy was completely safe, that dioxin was not a problem—all stories backed by “sound science.”

Farmers wanted to believe that if they bought into the GMO system, they would actually make money, but the dream turned on them. Patented seeds, the cost of fertilizer and chemicals pushed the small farmers out of business, their farms gobbled up by the corn/soy monoculture that made Monsanto, Cargill and all the other multi-national agri-business corporations rich.

Peasant farmers in the global South were pushed off their land, rain forests were cleared to grow more corn and soy and rural communities could no longer feed themselves.

Simmons also tells us that hunger should not be happening in the United States. He is dedicating his life to ensure that everyone has food security. “There is no issue more important in the next seven years than food security. A healthier, more sustainable, more peaceful world is possible. We've talked enough. We have enough technology. Now is the time to act.”

So, people are hungry because there is not enough food. “Sound science” and technology are needed to grow more food and the owners of the seed patents, proprietary chemicals, the grain processors and meat packers will give the technology and food to those who need it?

Sure.

People are hungry because they are poor and they are poor because the corporate system has outsourced their jobs, ruined their local economy and taken their land away.

Farmers cannot feed people when seeds are patented and cost more than they are worth.

Farmers cannot feed people when the crop protection chemicals they must use poison thewater and the air.

Farmers cannot feed people when local markets are destroyed by a global food system and when the “sound science” they are told will make them profitable and help them feed the hungry turns out to be a lie.

GMOs are safe and they hold the promise of feeding the world. Really? On vary rare occasions the “sound science” gets debunked by those behind the science.

GMOs will not feed the world. “If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world, tell them that it is not… To feed the world takes political and financial will.”
—Steve Smith, head of GM company Novartis Seeds UK (now Syngenta), public meeting on proposed local GM farm scale trial, Tittleshall, Norfolk, UK, 29 March 2000.

____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Jim Goodman and his wife Rebecca run a 45-cow organic dairy and direct market beef farm in southwest Wisconsin. His farming roots trace back to his great-grandfather's immigration from Ireland during the famine and the farm's original purchase in 1848. A farm activist, Jim credits more than 150 years of failed farm and social policy as his motivation to advocate for a farmer-controlled consumer-oriented food system. Jim currently serves on the policy advisory boards for the Center for Food Safety and the Organic Consumers Association, and is a board member of Midwest Environmental Advocates and of the Family Farm Defenders.

CALIFORNIA HAS NEW GE FOOD LABELING BILL SB 1381

THIS JUST IN:
GE Food Labeling Bill SB 1381
INTRODUCED FEB 21 2014 by CA State
Senator Noreen Evans

CALIFORNIA ON THRESHOLD OF INTRODUCTION OF NEW GE FOOD LABELING BILL

State Sen. Noreen Evans proposes labeling GMO foods in state   

·         

Peter Breyfogle feeds his daughter, Katherine, 1, an organic package of pureed fruit and grains as Abraham Schroeder, left, feeds his son, Nathaniel, 8 months, a jar of organic pureed peas during lunch at Five Guys on Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2014 in Petaluma. (BETH SCHLANKER / The Press Democrat)

State Sen. Noreen Evans plans to introduce legislation Friday that would require all foods containing genetically modified organisms to be labeled in California, a move sure to reignite a contentious and costly battle that the state's voters last weighed in on in 2012.

The Santa Rosa Democrat says genetically modified organisms have been linked to health problems ranging from allergies to cancer, and that babies, in particular, are at risk of getting sick, in part because their immune systems are not fully developed. “For parents, it's important that they not have to rely on the food industry before deciding what they feed their children,” Evans said Thursday. “Parents should be able to make their own choices.”

Evans originally was planning to target only baby foods. But later Thursday, her staff announced that her bill has been broadened to require GMO labeling for all foods used for “human consumption” in California. That more closely mirrors Proposition 37, which voters rejected in 2012. The senator's staff said about 85 percent of all foods on store shelves in California contain genetically modified organisms. Evans did not respond to a request seeking comment on the changes made to the proposed legislation. Teala Schaff, her spokeswoman, said the changes were made at the request of the California State Grange, which pushed for the original bill.

“It's still a consumer choice bill. She's always been a strong consumer choice advocate,” Schaff said. Mike Greene, director of legislative affairs for the California State Grange, on Thursday attributed the last-minute changes to a “lack of communication between us and the senator's office.”

The grange has about 10,000 members in about 45 California counties. Greene said the organization passed a resolution at its annual meeting in October calling for GMO labeling on baby foods. He said in November, a coalition of 17 groups, including the Grange, Pesticide Action Network and Organic Consumers Association, amended that stance to call for such labeling on all foods sold for human consumption in California. He said the group had four meetings with the senator's staff but that “they didn't understand we were no longer talking about baby foods. We were talking about all foods.”

That raises the stakes on the proposed legislation considerably. Anti-GMO advocates have been pushing for such labels for years, even though the federal government and many scientists say the bio-technology behind genetically modified organisms is safe.

Most grocers are opposed, on the grounds that such labels are unnecessary, confusing to consumers and likely to increase costs to produce new labels or ingredients to meet California's new restrictions.

“Every credible U.S. and international food safety authority that has studied GMO crops has found that they are safe and that there are no health effects associated with their use,” said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. He said the nation's food safety and labeling laws “should not be set by political campaigns, or state and local legislatures.”

Humans have been altering the foods they consume for millennia. The current debate centers on genetically modified plants that are engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides, add nutritional benefits or otherwise improve crop yields and increase the global food supply. Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States today have been genetically modified.

The Food and Drug Administration does not require genetically modified foods to carry a label, and attempts to change that at the federal level have failed. No states currently require labeling of GMO foods, although Greene said bills are pending in 26 states.

In 2005, Sonoma County voters rejected a ballot measure that would have banned certain GMO products for 10 years, ostensibly to allow more time for testing.

All of that has not deterred organic food companies and some consumer groups from continuing their push for labeling. Whole Foods Market is requiring all products sold in its stores in the United States and Canada to carry labels indicating whether they contain genetically modified ingredients by 2018.

Karen Hudson, coordinator of the group Sonoma County Label GMOs, said people “really don't know what the repercussions” of serving foods with genetically engineered ingredients are. With respect to infants, she said it's important parents be given the choice of knowing what goes into the products.

She said she doesn't view it any different than disclosing whether foods contain gluten, trans fats or known allergens. “All it is saying is it has GMO in the food,” she said.

The issue is whether such labeling should be mandatory.

Abraham Schroeder of Petaluma said he doesn't believe it's completely necessary, even though he's more likely to buy foods that specify the ingredients.

He and his wife, Kati Schroeder, choose foods labeled organic or non-GMO for their 8-month-old son Nathaniel, who also gets breast milk.

“We've been genetically selecting food for millennia. Everything we eat now is the result of thousands of years of cross-breeding and modification,” Abraham Schroeder said. “That being said, I like to know what's in my food.”

Another Petaluma father, Peter Breyfogle, said he doesn't know whether “there's an actual risk” tied to genetically modified organisms in food. Still, he and his wife, Marian Hughes, are opting to feed their 13-month-old daughter, Katie, foods that are labeled organic.

“Consumer choice is important, and knowing what you're looking at when you make that choice is great,” he said.

However, UC Davis Professor Martina Newell-McGloughlin said consumers would interpret GMO labels on foods as a warning that the products are unsafe, when she said there is no evidence of that.

She said since the introduction of modern bio-engineered crops in 1994, Americans have consumed about “two trillion” meals containing the organisms without suffering “one single documented incident of any adverse effect.”

“All food has been genetically modified to one extent or the other over the last 1,000 years, and especially, the last 100 years,” said Newell-McGloughlin, director of Life and Health Sciences Research Initiatives and International Biotechnology Program at UC Davis.

Critics of Prop. 37, which was defeated by six percentage points, argued that it would be a payday for lawyers suing to enforce violations.

Greene said Evans' legislation would only allow people to collect attorney's fees, and no damages.

He said her bill also clarifies that food manufacturers — and not retailers — are responsible for disclosing whether foods contain genetically modified organisms. It also does not cover foods consumed by animals.

“People want to know what's in their food, and that's about it,” he said.

Source:  http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20140220/articles/140229942#page=1

WOMEN FARMERS HOLD THEIR OWN IN USA

2012 Ag Census Figures Show Women Principal Operators Holding Steady at 14% of Total

Women continue as principal operators of 14% of the nation's farms, even though the total number of farms declined between 2007 and 2012, according to preliminary figures released today by the US Department of Agriculture.
Women were listed as principal operators of 288,269 farms nationwide in 2012, compared to 306,209 in 2007. The overall number of farm operators declined from 2.2 million to 2.11 million during that five-year span. Men and women appear to have left farming at an equivalent rate.

Women continue to operate smaller farms than men, earn less income on average, and own a greater percentage of their farmland. This corresponds to the type of farms a majority of women operate: small-scale, diversified farms producing goods for direct sale, rather than the large commodity farms that tend to be operated by men.

"Our network continues to receive calls from aspiring and beginning women farmers all over the US, looking for technical and financial support, and for community," said Adcock. "The network has grown from 300 in 2008 to more than 4,000 today. Women in sustainable agriculture are here to stay."

The 2007 ag census showed a 30% increase in the number of female principal operators since 2002.
"Some of the jump we saw in women operators between 2002 and 2007 may have been due to improved sampling techniques," said Leigh Adcock, executive director of Women, Food and Agriculture Network. "In past years, the census questionnaire had only one space for the primary operator, and in a farm partnership the man typically filled out that form."

Beginning in 2002, the census form included space for two primary operators, allowing women to be more accurately counted.

Adcock added that the preliminary census publication does not yet provide information on women as a percentage of all farm operators (as opposed to principal operators).

Read the 2012 Ag Census Preliminary Report at this link. Data specific to women primary operators, nationwide and by state, begin on page 18 of the report.

Visit WFAN's website to learn more about our programming for women farmers, landowners, and healthy food systems advocates.

WFAN''s mision is to link and empower women to build food systems and communities that are healthy, just, sustainable, and that promote environmental integrity.

For more information, call 515 460 2477, or click here to email the staff.

200,000 MALAWI HECTARES "RING FENCED" PRIVATE BIG AG INVESTMENT IN G8 AGREEMENT

Malawi's small farmers kept in the dark about G8 New Alliance
By the time the government launched the initiative in December, some of the reforms it had committed to were already under way

Liz Ford in Blantyretheguardian.com, Tuesday 18 February 2014 04.59 EST

A Malawian farmer waters his maize crop. Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian


Cryton Chipeta and Charles Mazibuko have not heard of the G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. The treasurer and secretary, respectively, of the Chisemphere farmers' organisation in Kasungu,Malawi, are also unaware of their government's plans to earmark 200,000 hectares of land for large-scale commercial farming, relax export bans on certain crops, reform its tax laws to make it easier for companies to do business in the country and enact a new land bill.

What Chipeta and Mazibuko do know is that Monsanto offers the best seeds in town, but at a price.

"The benefits are the higher yields and early maturity, but they are quite expensive," Chipeta said.

"But it's worth it, especially if we have a good buyer, like the World Food Programme," added Mazibuko, who is in Blantyre with Chipeta in the hope of selling the maize grown by the farmers' group 208 members to the WFP. "More people are buying hybrid seeds because of the high yields. Hybrids are very resistant to disease," he said.

Chipeta says a 5kg bag of seeds costs up to 4,000 kwacha (more than £5), not a trivial sum when, according to government statistics, over 40% of the country's population of more than 15 million live on less than $1.25 (£0.75) a day. But local seeds are vulnerable to increasingly erratic weather conditions.

The catch for farmers buying hybrid seeds from the likes of Monsanto and the Seed Co Malawi, which dominate the market, is they will need to buy new seeds every year, as what they purchase only lasts for one season.

Monsanto is one of the eight international companies that have signed up to the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Malawi. A further 15 companies registered in Malawi, but not necessarily Malawian-owned or managed, are also involved. The 23 companies are jointly promising $100m (£63m) in investments in agriculture.

Malawi announced its was joining the G8 initiative in June last year, promising a range of policy commitments and legislative changes to make the country more attractive to private investors and boost its agricultural output. The changes are to be rolled out between December 2013 and the end of 2018, but most should come into effect over the next two years.

Food insecurity is a huge problem in Malawi. Parts of the country, particularly in the south, are heavily reliant on the UN and NGOs for assistance. Last month, the Malawi vulnerability assessment committee said more than 1.85 million people - more than 10% of the country's population - will need food assistance between January and March. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 1.6 million people received food aid from WFP and NGOs in January. Late rains and sustained high food prices following the government's decision to devalue the kwacha in 2012 are blamed.

The government believes the new alliance will improve the lives of 1.7 million people in Malawi by 2022 through the production of more nutritious crops, investment in agro-processing and increased exports.

Universal Industries, a Blantyre-based snacks and drinks manufacturer, is waiting to hear if it will get a slice of the 200,000 hectares ring-fenced for private investment. The company, which last year took part in new alliance discussions on the policy changes that would help private companies do their work, wants to produce breakfast cereals using locally grown rice and maize, a nutritious porridge by processing soya flour and an instant soya meal. The company is bringing $2m to the table, and sees local farmers as key to making its plans a reality.

Chief executive Kaushik Pillalamarri said around 4,000 hectares of land would allow the company to develop its proposals.

Pilalklamari said it was already working with local smallholders, buying produce and supporting them with technical and good practice advice. "We give them the technical knowhow. It's important that we give them this so they will be successful," he said.

Including farmers into the value chain was crucial to improving incomes,food security and nutrition in the country, he added.

There are concerns, however, about the lack of information available to farmers like Chipeta and Mazibuko. The government only officially launched the New Alliance in December, by which time some of the proposals in its co-operation framework were already in process.

An NGO worker, who declined to be named, said the potential to develop agriculture in Malawi was huge, but that big agricultural companies such as Monsanto dominated the market.

"Eighty percent of people are subsistence farmers. They can easily be turned into commercial farmers if they are supported," he said.

"Farmers need to be listened to. There are no shortcuts to development. Donors are interested in results, quick wins, but most of the problems need long-term [solutions]. You have to talk to farmers."

SOURCE:  http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/18/malawi-small-farmers-g8-new-alliance

TOP TEN AFRICAN NATIONAL SELL-OUTS TO INDUSTRIAL AG

Ten African countries and their G8 New Alliance commitments
Some of the 200-plus commitments made after agribusinesses were granted unprecedented access to decision-makers

Claire Provost  theguardian.com, Tuesday 18 February 2014 05.01 EST
A worker tends to a paddy field on the Saudi Star rice farm in Gambella, Ethiopia. Photograph: Jenny Vaughan/AFP/Getty Images

The pledges made by 10 African countries in their New Alliance co-operation frameworks include changes to laws and regulations that make it easier for companies to do business by easing export controls and tax regimes, and by ringfencing huge chunks of land for investment.

Benin
Benin promised to change tax, legal and regulatory provisions to encourage and favour investment in agriculture by December 2014. It said it would also revise its investment code to create a more favourable environment for investors. Unlike many other countries involved in the New Alliance, Benin included explicit, albeit vague, commitments to gender equality in its co-operation framework.

Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso committed to helping private sector companies invest in fertiliser. It also said it would improve customs procedures and review its seed law. The government further promised to adopt and implement a national food security policy.

Ethiopia
Ethiopia said it would refine its policies on agrochemical imports and revisit its land law to encourage long-term land leasing. It also pledged to ratify a new seed law and implement policies to secure ownership and trade rights for commercial farms. The government said it would encourage international seed companies to operate in the country and revisit regulations to "stimulate private sector engagement in livestock production".

Ghana
Ghana promised to appoint representatives of private sector investors in key grains to a ministry of food and agriculture committee. It also said it would change its seed law and, by the end of 2015, identify 10,000 hectares of land for private investors.

Ivory Coast
Ivory Coast said it would strengthen services to assist and support investors and develop an action plan to combat products and trademark fraud which threatens the agropharmaceutical industry. It also pledged to change its seed law by the end of 2014. Unlike many other countries involved in the New Alliance, Ivory Coast's co-operation framework includes a few explicit commitments on nutrition. It says it will strengthen regulations and laws on biofortification and food hygiene, and draft laws on the marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Malawi
Malawi said it would set aside 200,000 hectares of land for large scale commercial agriculture by 2015. It also pledged to end export bans on crops other than maize and set up a one-stop shop to promote and attract investment and assist investors. The government said it would fast-track new agriculture, irrigation, industry and trade policies by January 2014, and review tax regimes to "maximise incentives to investment" in areas identified by its national export strategy by the end of 2016.

Mozambique
Mozambique said it would revise its seed law and stop the distribution of free and "unimproved" seeds except in emergencies. It pledged to implement new regulations to promote private sector investment in seed production and adopt procedures so that land rights could be obtained faster and at lower costs.

Nigeria
Nigeria pledged to complete the privatisation of power companies and pass a new seed law that reflects the role of the private sector in the development, multiplication and marketing of seeds. The government also promised to liberalise the country's agricultural insurance market by the end of 2014 to allow private sector companies to participate. On nutrition, it said it would develop a fully costed plan and update its national policy. Nigeria said it would provide funding to expand school feeding programmes, with 25% of produce purchased from local farmers.

Senegal
Senegal's commitments are particularly broad and open to interpretation. It said that it would "implement tax incentives for agricultural investment" by late 2013 but did not specify what the incentives would be. It also said it would "update and implement" its policies on nutrition and the feeding of infants and young children in 2016.

Tanzania

The Tanzanian government pledged to reduce or lift taxes on farm machinery and equipment, crops, seeds and seed packaging. It also made commitments to facilitate imports of seeds and agrochemicals from outside the region.

• Tanzania: 'large-scale farming turns small farmers into mere labourers'

  18 Feb 2014: Critics of New Alliance say private investment and improvements in rural infrastructure will not liberate people from poverty

• Ghana hopes G8 New Alliance will end long history of food insecurity

  18 Feb 2014: Critics of the initiative, however, fear the commercialisation of agriculture will not benefit small-scale farmers

• G8 New Alliance condemned as new wave of colonialism in Africa

  18 Feb 2014: 

  Critics say landmark initiative to boost agriculture and relieve poverty favours big business to the detriment of small farmers

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/18/10-african-countries-g8-new-alliance-commitments

FORGET FOOD: AMERICA'S FARMLAND BIG MONEY LAND GRAB FRENZY IS ON

Published on Wednesday, February 19, 2014 by Inter Press Service

Private Equity Predators and the Great American Farm Grab
Half of US farmland being eyed by private equity interests


by Carey L. Biron'S FARMALND

Industry analysts say the institutional share of U.S. farmland ownership is rising quickly. (Credit: Bigstock)WASHINGTON - An estimated 400 million acres of farmland in the United States will likely change hands over the coming two decades as older farmers retire, even as new evidence indicates this land is being strongly pursued by private equity investors.

Mirroring a trend being experienced across the globe, this strengthening focus on agriculture-related investment by the private sector is already leading to a spike in U.S. farmland prices. Coupled with relatively weak federal policies, these rising prices are barring many young farmers from continuing or starting up small-scale agricultural operations of their own.

"This is no longer necessarily about food at all, but rather is a way to reap financial profits." -- Anuradha Mittal

In the long term, critics say, this dynamic could speed up the already fast-consolidating U.S. food industry, with broad ramifications for both human and environmental health.

“When non-operators own farms, they tend to source out the oversight to management companies, leading in part to horrific conditions around labour and how we treat the land,” Anuradha Mittal, the executive director of the Oakland Institute, a U.S. watchdog group focusing on global large-scale land acquisitions, told IPS.

“They also reprioritise what commodities are grown on that land, based on what can yield the highest return. This is no longer necessarily about food at all, but rather is a way to reap financial profits. Unfortunately, that’s far removed from the central role that land ultimately plays in terms of climate change, growing hunger and the stability of the global economy.”

In a new report released Tuesday, the Oakland Institute tracks rising interest from some of the financial industry’s largest players. Citing information from Freedom of Information Act requests, the group says this includes bank subsidiaries (the Swiss UBS Agrivest), pension funds (the U.S. TIAA-CREF) and other private equity interests (such as HAIG, a subsidiary of Canada’s largest insurance group).

“Today, enthusiasm for agriculture borders on speculative mania. Driven by everything from rising food prices to growing demand for biofuel, the financial sector is taking an interest in farmland as never before,” the report states.

"Driven by the same structural factors and perpetrated by many of the same investors, the corporate consolidation of agriculture is being felt just as strongly in Iowa and California as it is in the Philippines and Mozambique.”

As yet, the amount of U.S. land owned by private investors is thought to be relatively low. The report points to a 2011 industry estimate that large-scale investors at the time owned around one percent of U.S. farmland, worth between three five billion dollars.

Last year, however, another industry analyst put this figure at around 10 billion dollars, suggesting that the institutional share of farmland ownership is rising quickly.

“We’ve been seeing a decimation of the family farmer for a long time, but now these processes are accelerating,” Mittal says. “We need a tightening at the policy level before we’re swamped by these trends."

Demographic collision

In the year after food prices suddenly rose in 2008, global speculation in land rose by some 200 percent. With the international financial meltdown coinciding almost simultaneously with this crisis, investors have increasingly viewed agricultural land as a relatively safe place to put their money amidst rising volatility.

In the United States, investors are particularly eyeing potential future returns from mineral prospecting, water rights and strengthening trends in meat consumption. U.S. farmland is also seen as globally desirable due to a combination of high-tech farming opportunities and lax regulations regarding the use of genetically modified crops.

As a result of this new interest, land prices in the United States have risen by an estimated 213 percent over the past decade. This could now play into two trends at once.

Already, the United States is home to relatively low numbers of farmers, with the country famously home to more prisoners than full-time agriculturalists. But those who do continue to farm are also quickly aging.

While federal agriculture officials are expected to offer updated demographic information within the coming week, the most recent statistics suggest that just 6 percent of farmers are under 35 of age. Further, some 70 percent of U.S. farmland is owned by people 65 years or older.

“The older generation needs to cash out because they have no retirement funds, even as the new generation doesn’t have the capital to get into the kind of debt that [starting a farm] requires,” Severine von Tscharner Fleming, a farmer and co-founder of the Agrarian Trust, a group that helps new farmers access land, told IPS.

“Today there is a huge number of older folks trying to decide what to do with their land, and in many places we don’t have many years to help them make that decision. So in that sense there’s an urgent need, and we don’t have many tools at the federal level to help.”

For the most part, Fleming suggests, U.S. federal agriculture policy today is not aligned to the country’s best interests, instead pointing away from greater agricultural diversity, regional resilience and greater strengthened opportunity for rural economies. Nonetheless, she says that her organisation is encountering a surge of attention from young people that want to start their own farms.

“Over the past seven years, we’ve had an explosion of interest in being trained as a farmer and entering the trade of agriculture, and this is very much related to the crises around the banks and the environment,” she says.

“The problem we’re facing is not one in which nobody wants to farm, but rather the fact that the U.S. economy is structured in such a way that makes it really hard to start a farm in this country.”

© 2014 IPS North America
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/02/19-0