Ag Subsidies Aff – BFHPR
Great work by several students on this file. There is a lot to start from on an incredibly large
area of the topic.
Forslund
Notes
What is regenerative ag? What practices would the aff incentivize??
Gilchrist ‘21
(Jock, “THE PROMISE OF REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE,” pg online @ https://e2.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/Jock-Final-Report-The-Promise-of-Regenerative-Agriculture.pdf //umef)
Regenerative agriculture is a way of farming that replenishes the functional capacities of the
land. It restores the complex soil ecosystem and improves its ability to produce food. In the
process, it offers a suite of benefits including reduced input costs, stabilized or increased crop
yields, carbon sequestration, SOM accrual, pollution reduction, and food security. These
benefits can make farming and ranching more profitable. Beyond this description, regenerative
agriculture is a notoriously difficult concept to precisely define (Newton, Civita,
FrankelGoldwater, Bartel, & Johns, 2020). This is partly because local climatic, ecological, and
sociocultural contexts influence which practices are feasible, so it may manifest differently at
each site. The descriptor “regenerative” is not applied in a binary manner: no farm is simply
regenerative or not regenerative. Introducing regenerative practices generally happens in
stages over time. Many farms use some regenerative management; fewer use only regenerative
management. Additionally, several terms exist that have similar meanings to regenerative
agriculture, such as agroecology, biodynamic farming, soil health, and holistic management.
Perhaps the most important conceptual feature of regenerative agriculture is a shift in mindset.
Instead of extracting nutrients from the soil, regenerative growers employ management
techniques that rebuild soil biology. Regenerative agriculture seeks to understand, harness, and
amplify natural systems in the service of healthy land and profitable food production. Overall,
regenerative practices tend to cause a dual, interrelated shift in farm outcomes: as it is
practiced, soil biology is reinvigorated and becomes more capable of sustaining a healthy
ecosystem. Soil health improves and crop production can increase. At the same time, as soil
rebuilds, the need for chemical inputs such as fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, and
nematicides is reduced or eliminated because their functions are sustained by soil biology. In
this way, regeneratively managed farms and ranches can see an increase in income coupled
with a decrease in input costs, thus improving the financial stability of the operation.
While pinning down a conceptual definition of regenerative agriculture can be challenging, its
practices are clearer. A suite of well-understood principles and techniques define regenerative
agriculture on a practical level. The “five principles” of soil health (or regenerative agriculture)
are:
Maximize Ground Cover: Practices that maximize ground cover offer a variety of natural
benefits to soil and crop production by protecting bare soil. Ground cover, through a cover crop,
crop residue, or living mulch, insulates and buffers soil to keep temperature in an ideal range for
its microbial life. It also dissipates raindrop energy, which, when unimpeded, can create soil
compaction or a crust that reduces permeability. Adequate soil cover reduces the evaporation
rate, which can increase water storage and reduce water input needs. Soil cover reduces
erosion from water and wind and suppresses weed growth (Fuhrer, n.d.).
How this differs from conventional farming: Conventional farming
often leaves the soil bare after crop harvest, or in between crop
rows during the growing season. Continual Living Root in the Soil: Plants supply up to 40% of
their photosynthetically fixed carbon as root exudates to nourish the soil microbiome (Badri &
Vivanco, 2009). This helps foster a robust and diverse microbial community for a greater portion
of the year. Certain species of crops can survive well in the cooler spring and fall months before
planting and after harvest. These practices increase soil health and resilience (Fuhrer, n.d.).
How this differs from conventional farming: Conventional farming tends to focus on maximizing
yield during the summer-centered growing season. It does not prioritize soil management in the
remainder of the year, and outside of some preparatory work, it “leaves more time to go fishing,”
in the words of one farmer. Minimize Soil Disturbance: Soil disturbance usually refers to forms
of physical disturbance such as tillage, although chemical (e.g. over-application of fertilizer) and
biological (e.g. overgrazing) disturbance can also occur. Tillage destroys soil structure. A stable
soil structure is built with aggregates of minerals, organic matter, and water, with pore spaces in
between. Maintaining soil structure is essential for allowing water and oxygen to infiltrate,
facilitating the interactions of bacteria, fungi, and other members of the soil food web, and
improving SOM content (Fuhrer, n.d.).
How this differs from conventional farming: Conventional farming often involves tilling fields 1 or
more times per year. While it can temporarily stimulate microbial activity, it also leads to wind
and water erosion, soil crusting, and loss of SOM. Overuse of chemicals and livestock
overgrazing can also disrupt the soil microbiome even without physical destruction the soil.
Plant Diversity: Each plant species has characteristics that nourish different components of the
soil microbiome. This diversity contributes to healthy soils that are less dependent on chemical
inputs and have natural pest- and pathogensuppressive qualities (Fuhrer, n.d.). Plant diversity
can be temporal (e.g. crop rotation), spatial (e.g. intercropping), or both. How this differs from
conventional farming: Much of America’s farmland was once a polyculture of perennial plants. It
is now largely managed as monocultures of annual crops. This can deplete soil of its natural
microbial biodiversity and promote a reliance on fertilizers and other chemical inputs. Livestock
Integration and Holistic Management: Livestock can be integrated into crop production systems
or form a separate production enterprise. Animals can be managed in a way that stimulates
plant photosynthesis and thus soil carbon sequestration (SCS); transforms plant residue from
hard-todecompose, carbon-rich material into low-carbon material that soil can use more readily;
and reduces weed pressure. By restricting grazing duration and rotating animals through a
series of paddocks, overgrazing is prevented, manure is recycled, and ecosystem and carbon
benefits available through holistic livestock management accrue (Fuhrer, n.d.).
How this differs from conventional farming: Livestock are typically allowed to continuously graze
whole fields until the plant life is nearly eliminated. In conventional farming, livestock are rarely
integrated with crop production, which leads to minimal recycling of animal manure.
Alternatively, some livestock live in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which
generate GHG emissions and pollution and present ethical issues. A number of farming and
ranching techniques translate these principles into action on the ground. Some of the most
common regenerative practices include:
• Cover Cropping, a way of keeping soil covered and
facilitating a more diverse soil ecology (e.g. legume cover
crops can foster rhizobia growth which fix nitrogen from the
19
atmosphere and reduce fertilizer needs)
• Reduced or No Tillage, which leaves soil structures intact and
prevents soil erosion and C emissions
• Compost or Manure Application, which diverts waste from
landfills, supplies some or all fertilization needs, and rapidly
builds SOM
• Crop Diversity and Rotation, which enhance ecosystem and
soil health and can increase yields
• Rotational Grazing, a way of managing livestock that
improves plant growth, restores grassland health, ameliorates
ethical concerns around animals, and avoids some of the harm
done by continuous grazing
• Living Mulch or Crop Residues keep the soil covered, help
soils retain water, and improve resource efficiency
Many more practices improve soil health and thus could be
considered part of a regenerative management system. Some
of these include intercropping, alley cropping, agroforestry,
silvopasture, biochar, and perennial cropping.
What subsidies exist and what do they look like?
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies
Eight Types of Farm Subsidy
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) runs more than 60 direct and indirect aid programs
for farmers. This section summarizes the major ones. Most of the direct aid goes to producers of
a handful of field crops, not to livestock producers or fruit and vegetable growers. In the three
largest farm subsidy programs — insurance, ARC, and PLC — more than 70 percent of the
handouts go to farmers of just three crops — corn, soybeans, and wheat.7 1. Insurance. The
largest farm subsidy program is crop insurance run by the USDA's Risk Management
Agency. Spending on the program has averaged more than $8 billion a year over the past
five years, up from around $3 billion in the early 2000s.8 The program subsidizes both the
insurance premiums of farmers and the administrative costs of the 16 private insurance
companies that offer the policies . Over the past five years, spending has averaged $6.7
billion a year in premium subsidies, $1.5 billion for insurance company subsidies, $0.3 billion for
underwriting losses, and $0.2 billion for federal administrative costs.9 Subsidized insurance is
available for more than 100 crops, but corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat are the main ones.
About 80 percent of current policies in force protect against revenue shortfalls, while the other
20 percent protect against yield shortfalls.10 The insurance companies receive direct
subsidies for administration, but they also earn inflated profits from the high premiums
they charge. The Government Accountability Office has found that crop insurance firms earn
high rates of return.11 Agricultural economist Bruce Babcock has found that commissions made
by crop insurance agents have increased substantially over the years.12 As for farmers, the
USDA pays 62 percent of their premiums, on average.13 Most farmers actually make money on
this so-called insurance, receiving more in claims than they pay in premiums. The
Congressional Budget Office found that farmers have received $65 billion more in claims than
they have paid in premiums since 2000.14 As Babcock noted, this program is not "insurance" at
all, but a lottery that is a sure bet.15 Congress has expanded crop insurance to become the
largest farm program for a reason. For other farm programs, the identities of the wealthy
subsidy recipients are public information, which can be politically embarrassing for farm
program supporters. But with insurance subsidies, Congress essentially launders the cash
through the insurance firms, which hides the identities of the recipients. Also, unlike other
farm programs, there are no income limits on insurance, so millionaires and billionaires receive
subsidies. There are about 20 farm businesses that receive more than $1 million a year from the
program.16 2. Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC). This program pays subsidies to farmers
if their revenue per acre, or alternately their county's revenue per acre, falls below a
benchmark or guaranteed level. Generally, the lower the prices and revenues, the larger the
subsidies. The program covers more than 20 crops, from wheat and corn to chickpeas and
mustard seed. ARC subsidies fluctuate, but they were $3.7 billion in 2017.17 3. Price Loss
Coverage (PLC). This program pays subsidies to farmers on the basis of the national
average price of a crop compared to the crop's reference price set by Congress. The
larger the fall in a crop's national price below its reference price, the larger the payout to
farmers. Since reference prices are set high, payouts are likely. The program covers more than
20 crops, and payments were $3.2 billion in 2017.18 Farmers choose to participate in either
ARC or PLC. At the same time, they can enroll in crop insurance, which has the same general
function of keeping farm incomes high. So farmers can double dip from at least two subsidy
programs should their crop revenues come up short.19 4. Conservation Programs. The USDA
runs numerous farm conservation programs, which cost taxpayers more than $5 billion a
year . Some of the programs pay farmers to improve lands that are in production, such as
the Conservation Stewardship Program. Other programs pay farmers to take land out of
production, such as the Conservation Reserve Program. Like other farm programs, these
subsidies are tilted upward, providing the great bulk of benefits to the largest farms.20 Rather
than handing out taxpayer cash to farmers, a better way to conserve marginal lands would be to
repeal farm subsidies, which encourage excessive cultivation. 5. Marketing Loans. This is a
price-guarantee program that began during the New Deal. The original idea was to give
farmers a loan at harvest time so that they could hold their crops to sell at a higher price later.
But today the program is just another unneeded subsidy that boosts farm incomes. The cost of
this program dropped to near zero in 2017, but it was about $160 million in each of the previous
two years.21 6. Disaster Aid. The government operates disaster aid programs for various
types of farmers, from wheat growers, to livestock producers, to orchard operators. In
addition to disaster programs already in law, Congress often distributes more aid after adverse
events. Disaster aid amounts fluctuate, but such aid has averaged $1.9 billion a year since
2010.22 7. Marketing and Export Promotion. The Agricultural Marketing Service spends
$1.2 billion a year on farm and food promotion activities. The Foreign Agricultural Service
spends about $300 million a year on marketing activities for U.S. farm and food products,
including operating more than 90 foreign offices. 8. Research and Other Support. Most
American industries fund their own research and development, but the government
employs thousands of scientists and other experts to aid the agriculture industry. The
USDA spends about $3 billion a year on agriculture and food research at more than 100
locations. The department also provides an array of other support services to farmers, such as
statistical data and economic studies.
Needs
GMO bad
Ikerd
Small Farms Good/Local Knowledge & Farming Knowledge Good
Fund Ag Tech CP + Answers
1AC
1AC Stuff
Advantage 1 --- Agricultural Industry
A need for massive expansion of ag is coming --- by 2050 we will run out of
food if we don’t find new strategies for sustainable farming
Elferink et al ‘16
(Maarten Elferink is the founder and Managing Director of Vosbor, an Amsterdam based
commodity service and solutions provider dedicated to sustainability, originating soft
commodities and derivative products selectively in Eastern Europe and the FSU for distribution
in the Asia-Pacific region, Florian Schierhorn is a post-doctoral researcher at the Leibniz
Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies in Halle, Germany and was
selected for participation in the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting on Economic Sciences in 2014.
His overall research relates to the question of how to meet global food security without
increasing pressure on land, “Global Demand for Food Is Rising. Can We Meet It?,” pg online @
https://hbr.org/2016/04/global-demand-for-food-is-rising-can-we-meet-it //um-ef)
the global population has quadrupled. In 1915, there were 1.8 billion people in the world. Today, according to the most recent estimate by
we may reach 9.7 billion by 2050. This growth, along with rising incomes in developing countries (which
cause dietary changes such as eating more protein and meat) are driving up global food demand. Food demand is expected to
increase anywhere between 59% to 98% by 2050. This will shape agricultural markets in ways we have not seen before.
Farmers worldwide will need to increase crop production, either by increasing the amount of agricultural land to grow crops or by
enhancing productivity on existing agricultural lands through fertilizer and irrigation and adopting new methods like precision farming. However, the ecological
and social trade-offs of clearing more land for agriculture are often high, particularly in the tropics. And right now, crop yields — the amount of crops
harvested per unit of land cultivated — are growing too slowly to meet the forecasted demand for food. Many other factors,
Over the last century,
the UN, there are 7.3 billion people — and
from climate change to urbanization to a lack of investment, will also make it challenging to produce enough food. There is strong academic consensus that climate change–driven water scarcity, rising global
temperatures, and extreme weather will have severe long-term effects on crop yields. These are expected to impact many major agricultural regions, especially those close to the Equator. For example, the
Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, one of the most important agricultural regions worldwide, may face an 18% to 23% reduction in soy and corn output by 2050, due to climate change. The Midwestern U.S. and
Eastern Australia — two other globally important regions — may also see a substantial decline in agricultural output due to extreme heat. Yet some places are expected to (initially) benefit from climate change.
Countries stretching over northern latitudes — mainly China, Canada, and Russia — are forecasted to experience longer and warmer growing seasons in certain areas. Russia, which is already a major grain
exporter, has huge untapped production potential because of large crop yield gaps (the difference between current and potential yields under current conditions) and widespread abandoned farmland (more than
40 million hectares, an area larger than Germany) following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in 1991. The country arguably has the most agricultural opportunity in the world, but institutional reform and
significant investments in agriculture and rural infrastructure will be needed to realize it. Advanced logistics, transportation, storage, and processing are also crucial for making sure that food goes from where it
grows in abundance to where it doesn’t. This is where soft commodity trading companies, such as Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, or COFCO, come in. While Big Food companies such as General Mills or Unilever have
tremendous global influence on what people eat, trading companies have a much greater impact on food security, because they source and distribute our staple foods and the ingredients used by Big Food, from
rice, wheat, corn, and sugar to soybean and oil palm. They also store periodically produced grains and oilseeds so that they can be consumed all year, and they process soft commodities so that they can be used
even if
some regions increase their output and traders reduce the mismatch between supply and
demand, doubling food production by 2050 will undeniably be a major challenge. Businesses and
further down the value chain. For example, wheat needs to be milled into flour to produce bread or noodles, and soybeans must be crushed to produce oil or feed for livestock. Nonetheless,
governments will have to work together to increase productivity, encourage innovation, and improve integration in supply chains toward a sustainable global food balance. First and foremost, farmers, trading
companies, and other processing groups (Big Food in particular) need to commit to deforestation-free supply chains. Deforestation causes rapid and irreversible losses of biodiversity, is the second largest source
of carbon dioxide emissions after fossil fuels, and has contributed greatly to global warming—adding to the negative pressure on agriculture production for which these forests were cleared in the first place.
Farmers must also grow more on the land they currently operate through what is called
“sustainable intensification.” This means using precision farming tools , such as GPS fertilizer dispersion,
advanced irrigation systems, and environmentally optimized crop rotations. These methods can help produce more crops, especially in parts of
Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe with large yield gaps. They can also reduce the negative environmental impacts
from over-stressing resources–preventing groundwater depletion and the destruction of
fertile lands through over-use of fertilizer . The agricultural sector also needs significant long-term private investment and public spending. Many large
institutional investors, including pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, have already made major commitments to support global agricultural production and trading in recent years—not least because
agricultural (land) investments have historically delivered strong returns, increased diversification, and outpaced inflation. Still, investment in agriculture in most developing countries has declined over the last 30
years and much less is spent on R&D compared to developed countries—resulting in low productivity and stagnant production. And because banking sectors in developing countries give fewer loans to farmers
(compared to the share of agriculture in GDP), investments by both farmers and large corporations are still limited. To attract more financing and investment in agriculture, the risks need to be reduced by
governments.
Regulators need to overhaul policies that limit inclusion of small, rural farmers into the
financial system— for example, soft loans (i.e., lending that is more generous than market lending) and interest rate caps discourage bank lending. More supportive policies, laws, and public spending on
infrastructure would help create a favorable investment climate for agriculture.
U.S. ag subsidies and regulatory exemptions undermine ag innovations
and tech development --- pricing-in the cost of water pollution is
ESSENTIAL
Finney ‘21
(Bradley, federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee. Prior to becoming a clerk, he was an associate in the Houston office of Norton
Rose Fulbright, “Agricultural Law Stifles Innovation And Competition,” pg online @
https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2021/05/3-Finney-785-838.pdf //um-ef)
Innovation in ag is imperative for the future physical and financial
health of the nation Currently, conventional ag lacks incentive to innovate
reg s
carve out exceptions for the industry that allow it to pollute water
there is
little financial incentive for the industry to invest resources in innovation to comply with
regulations
“[f]armers do not bear the total costs of off-farm pollution and
erosion
2. Innovation Complacency within Agriculture
riculture
.
ulation
riculture
for three reasons.401 First,
specifically
.402 Thus,
from which it is exempt. Second,
. Most costs are borne by other users of the polluted water. Therefore[,] pollution offers an inexpensive method of wast e product disposal for farmers and an opportunity to shift the costs of that waste on to others.”403 Given these financial
benefits, conventional agriculture is incentivized to continue to pollute because others must bear the attendant costs.404 This externalization of costs does not spur conventional agriculture to invest time and money in developing, or acquiring, new technology that
there is also a general lack of pressure to innovate from consumers,
policymakers, and other outside forces because food is ostensibly inexpensive
reduces water pollution and its costs.405 Finally,
.406 But food prices at the
store do not reflect the true costs of its production.407 Thus, the consequences of agricultural exceptionalism “are easily ignored by consumers and policymakers who support the production and availability of ‘cheap’ food.”408 At the same time, policymakers likely
ignore negative consequences of agricultural exceptionalism due to the industry’s substantial lobbying efforts.409 In 2018, agriculture spent $134.8 million to lobby U.S. policymakers.410 This put agriculture among the top ten spenders in the United States.411
An analysis of conventional ag ’s recent history of developing and implementing new
innovations reveals the industry is suffering from innovation complacency
utilization of prairie plants could reduce pollution runoff from crop fields and
water pollution
riculture
plainly
that
.412 For example, recent
studies have shown that the
ultimately reduce
from conventional agriculture.413 By strategically planting this mix of plants on sloping areas of the field, “water flowing by will be slowed and will prevent soil and nutrients from washing away.”414 This
innovation is not technologically advanced, so conventional agriculture did not need to wait for the technological capability to implement this change. Yet, it took a study funded largely by state government agencies–– Iowa State University, Iowa Department of
Agriculture and Land Stewardship, and Iowa Flood Center––to make it known that such a change could drastically reduce pollution.415 There are other innovations currently in use that help reduce some of the harmful effects of conventional agriculture’s water
pollution. For example, conventional agriculture utilizes phosphorus to increase plant and animal growth, but phosphorous also has harmful effects on water quality.416 Because of technological innovation, phosphorus n ow can be recovered from water and
converted into a more environmentally friendly fertilizer.417 Although this helps to reduce the harmful effects of conventional agriculture’s pollution, the Madison Metropolitan Sewage District implemented this technology, not conventional agriculture.418 Rather than
conventional agriculture developing and paying for a solution, a city water utility sought out and implemented a solution,419 and the citizens of Madison, Wisconsin, are paying for it through taxes and increas ed water bills.420 Similarly, the city of Boise, Idaho,
Conventional ag often allows others to pay
for new technologies
but conventional ag has shown the ability to
innovate when it makes financial sense for the industry. For example
implemented a new system at its water renewal facility to “manage nuisance struvite deposits and recover phosphorous.”421
riculture
that reduce the harms the industry creates,
riculture
, many farmers have implemented the use of “data
422
gathered from sensors, tractors and satellites . . . to track crop health, make planting decisions and guide fertilizer use t o improve the efficiency of their businesses like never before.”423 Farmers have utilized this style of farming, known as
precision ag riculture,
because it is particularly
helpful in reducing fertilizer loss
.424 Crops only absorb 40% of the total nitrogen fertilizer applied,425 and
nitrogen fertilizer loss is a substantial expense for many farmers.426 Thus, reducing that loss could significantly improve their bottom line.427 While nitrogen fertilizer is also a significant component of conventional agriculture’s total water pollution,428 it is unlikely
If the regulatory structure changed to more
accurately reflect the costs of conventional ag ’s water pollution, conventional
agriculture’s incentive to increase profit would then align with reducing environmental
degradation and the harmful financial effects of water pollution
that reducing such pollution is more than a coincidental side effect of farmers’ desire to reduce costs and improve the bottom line.429
riculture
. As the above example illustrates,430 conventional agriculture can develop
and implement technological innovations so long as those innovations improve profit.431
U.S. advances in tech and sustainability strategies lead the way --- they’ll
be modeled internationally and re-build alliance relationships if we shift
focus to increase regenerative ag innovation
Goldstein and Oken 4/22/21
(Gordon M. Goldstein is an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
From 2010 to 2018, he was also a managing director at Silver Lake, the world’s largest
investment firm in the global technology industry.“America’s New Challenge: Confronting the
Crisis in Food Security,” pg online @ https://www.cfr.org/blog/americas-new-challengeconfronting-crisis-food-security //um-ef)
The Biden administration has encouraged the world with its renewed commitment to the Paris accord and the goal of combatting the existential
challenge of global climate change. But that bold objective will not be achieved without a comprehensive parallel American exercise of leadership to
confront the crisis in food security. Such a strategy is imperative on a global basis and critical to U.S. domestic policy. The challenge of food
security will require leveraging advances in tech nology and demand policy innovation
within the U.S. government and deep cooperation between the public and private sectors. If not tackled comprehensively and
effectively, failure to mitigate the crisis in the sustainability of our global food supply chain will devastate the multilateral effort to arrest climate change.
As the global population grows to a projected 10 billion
in 2050, with a concurrent growth in income, overall food requirements are forecast to increase [PDF] by
more than 50 percent. The demand for resource-intensive foods like meat and dairy is projected to grow by 70 percent. The crisis in food
The global dimensions of food instability are staggering.
sustainability displays a disturbing daily cadence. The world has lost 1,000 football fields worth of forest every hour, almost 30 million acres annually.
According to a recent scientific study, climate change has diminished global food productivity by more than 20 percent over the past 60 years. If crop
and pasture yields continue to grow as projected, by 2050 agricultural land will need to increase by an area nearly twice the size of India. Not
surprisingly, the
world’s most populous and wealthy countries contribute the most to the
crisis in food sustainability. Roughly 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are clustered in four countries—the
United States, China, India and Brazil. Since 1990, roughly 24 percent of global Greenhouse Gas Emissions can be attributed to the food system and
our disproportionate reliance on livestock. Further exacerbating the problem is the methane produced in the agriculture industry, which is ~30 to ~80
times as deleterious to the environment as carbon dioxide. The United States suffers from its own acute national challenges. Estimates suggest 23
million people live in so-called “food deserts”—low-income areas with poor access to healthy food. The pandemic,
which has led to over 50 million Americans facing food insecurity, has illustrated the weakness in our food system and supply chain resiliency.
Americans in lower income segments spend 30-40 percent of their income on food. The food security crisis in the United States has recently prompted
United States has
historically used food policy to strengthen its relationship with friends and allies through initiatives
the Biden administration to propose tens of billions of dollars of new federal assistance to American families at risk. The
such as the U.S. Food for Peace Program, the 1960’s “Green Revolution” or the so-called “Third Agricultural Revolution” which featured research and
increasing U.S. influence
worldwide. The United States is once again poised to use its rich history of innovation in foreign
agricultural policy to both enhance its influence with friends and allies where food insecurity
is a major issue—the Middle East, Africa, and emerging economies in Asia. These include some of the same
countries that China is courting through its “Belt and Road” initiative, which seeks to construct a massive infrastructure network
around the world. The United States should leverage its private and public sources of capital and innovation,
in partnership with new and incumbent players in the corporate community, to accelerate the transition to global food
sustainability. Advances in emerging technologies hold the promise to both alleviate the food
crisis and amplify American influence abroad. The next era of food sustainability will be
influenced by breakthroughs in global technology such as fifth generation telecommunications, robotics, artificial
intelligence, and nanotechnology. Specific areas of technology investment that will contribute to higher levels of
productivity and efficiency in food generation with a decreased impact on the
environment encompass initiatives in agricultural biotechnology, such as genetics, microbiome, breeding and
animal health; alternative food products, including plant-based forms of alternative protein, which are surging in popularity and adoption; farm
management systems, including sensing and data analytics software; farm robotics, including automation and drone based monitoring;
and new farming structures, such as indoor farming and aquaculture. In addition, the Biden administration needs to
technology transfers that significantly increased agricultural production globally while feeding millions and
drive tax, investment, regulatory and subsidy policies that encourage the increased flow of
capital into the transition to viable food sustainability strategies, including investment into cellbased and plant-based meats; the wider implementation of regenerative ag riculture practices , including
agribusiness marketplaces and farm robotics, mechanization and equipment; and, finally, the reduction of waste throughout the food value chain.
The companies and countries that are the leaders in these areas of innovation will not
only strengthen global food supply but also capture the intellectual property,
information and data that is embedded in the global food supply chain. In addition to addressing an
urgent global challenge, American innovation in food security would support the goals of the Strategic Competition Act
of 2021, bipartisan legislation crafted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that seeks to counter China’s growing
economic and geopolitical and technology competition with the United States.
Alliances stop global nuclear war, wildfire prolif, and adventurism.
Brands and Feaver ’17 [Hal and Peter; Summer 2017; Professor of Global Affairs at Johns
Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, Senior Fellow at the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at Duke
University, Director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, Director of the Duke Program in
American Grand Strategy; The U.S. Army War College Quarterly Parameters, “What Are
America’s Alliances Good For?” https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=803998]
Geostrategic Influence and Global Stability
If
alliances
are thus helpful in terms of the conflicts America wages, they
are more helpful still in terms of the
conflicts they prevent and the broader geostrategic influence they confer . Indeed, although
the ultimate test of America’s alliances lies in their efficacy as warfighting coalitions,
the most powerful benefits
they provide come in the normal course of peacetime geostrategic management and
competition .
First,
US alliances bind many of the richest and most militarily capable countries in the
world to Washington through enduring relationships of deep cooperation . Alliances
reflect shared interests
rather than creating them, of course,
and the U nited S tates would
presumably
have close ties to countries such as the U nited K ingdom even without formal alliances .
But alliances
permanence
nonetheless
serve as “hoops of steel.” They help create
and shared purpose in key relationships; they
provide forums for
cooperation ; they conduce to deeply institutionalized exchanges
other assets)
a sense of
regular interaction and
(of intelligence, personnel, and
that insulate and perpetuate friendly associations even when political leaders
clash .38 And insofar as US alliances serve these purposes with respect to
countries in
immensely influential
Europe and the Asia-Pacific , they help Washington preserve a significant
overbalance of power vis-à-vis any competitor .
Second,
alliances have a strong deterrent effect on would -be aggressors . American
alliances lay down “redlines” regarding areas in which territorial aggression is
impermissible ; they complicate the calculus of any potential aggressor by raising the
strong
possibility that an attack on a US ally will mean a fight with the world’s most
formidable military . The proposition that “ defensive alliances deter the initiation of
disputes ” is , in fact, supported by empirical evidence , and the forward deployment of troops strengthens
this deterrence further still.39
NATO
clearly
had an important deterrent effect on Soviet calculations during the Cold
War , for instance; more recently , Russia
has
behaved most aggressively toward countries
lacking US alliance guarantee s (Georgia and Ukraine), rather than toward those countries
possessing them
(the Baltic states or Poland). In other words,
alliances make the geostrategic status
quo — which is enormously favorable to the U nited S tates— far “stickier” than it might
otherwise be .
Third, and related to this second benefit,
alliances tamp down international instability more broadly .
American security guarantees allow US allies to underbuild their own militaries ; while
always annoying and problematic when taken to extremes,
this phenomenon also helps avert the arms
races and febrile security competitions that plagued Europe and East Asia in earlier
eras . In fact, US alliances are as useful in managing tensions among America’s allies as
they are in constraining America’s adversaries .
NATO was always intended to keep the “Americans in” and the “Germans down” as well as the “Russians out”;
US presence ,
along with the creation of a framework in which France and Germany were incentivized to cooperate rather than compete with one
would help stifle any resurgence of tensions between these historical rivals .40
another,
Similarly,
US alliance guarantees in the Asia-Pacific were designed , in part, to create a
climate of security in which Japan could be revived economically without threatening
its neighbors , just as
the expansion of
and territorial irredentism
NATO
after the Cold War
helped prevent incipient rivalries
among former members of the Warsaw Pact.41
US alliances keep things
quiet in regions Washington cannot ignore , thereby fostering a climate of peace
in which
America and its partners can flourish.
Fourth,
US alliances impede dangerous geostrategic phenomena such as nuclear
proliferation . As scholars such as Francis Gavin have emphasized, US security guarantees
deployments
and forward
have played a critical role in convincing historically insecure, technologically
advanced countries — Germany , Japan , Taiwan , South Korea , among others— to forego
possession of the world’s absolute weapon . In several of these cases, moreover, the U nited S tates
has used the security leverage provided by alliance guarantees to dissuade allies from
pursuing the bomb after they had given indications of their intent to start down that
path .42 If , as seems likely, a world with more nuclear powers is likely to be a more dangerous
world in which crises more frequently take on a nuclear dimension and the risk of
nuclear conflict is higher , then the value of American alliances looms large indeed .
In sum,
as the framers of the post -World War II order understood, phenomena such as
massive instability , arms racing , and violence
in key regions
would eventually imperil the
U nited S tates itself .43 Whatever modest reduction in short-term costs might come from pursuing a “free hand” or isolationist
strategy was thus more than lost by the expense of fighting and winning a major war to restore order.
America’s peacetime alliance system represents a
maximizing US influence while
also
cheaper, more prudent
Accordingly ,
alternative for
preventing raging instability by deterring aggression
and managing rivalries among friends . The fact that so many observers seem to have forgotten why, precisely,
America has alliances in the first place is an ironic testament to just how well the system has succeeded
Moreover, subsidies hollow-out rural farming communities --- collapses the
ability of small farms to compete and guts important ag knowledge that
makes Ag Industry unsustainable
Eubanks ‘9
(William S. Eubanks II, Associate Attorney at Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, a Washington, D.C.
public interest environmental law firm. LL.M. in Environmental Law, summa cum laude, Vermont
Law School (2008); J.D., magna cum laude, North Carolina Central University School of Law
(2007); B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “A Rotten System: Subsidizing
Environmental Degradation and Poor Public Health with Our Nation’s Tax Dollars,” pg online @
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1287408 //um-ef)
total number of farms in Iowa only decreased 10%
between 1900 and 1950, but the total number of farms decreased more than 55% between
1950 and 1997. This means that in the pre-Farm Bill era and in the first seventeen years of the
Farm Bill when small farm protection was a key goal, overall farm loss was quite minimal.
However, in the agribusiness-dominated second half of the twentieth century, the overall
One disturbing trend demonstrated by this table is that the
number of farms plummeted in the face of poor agricultural policies . This severe drop-off
can be attributed to the commodity subsidy program that grew rapidly during this period. The respective Farm Bills during
this time were commandeered by Cargill and ADM, among others, to benefit large farmers and processors, and Figure 1 confirms that the companies
increase in large farms of more
than 1000 acres by 2000% between 1950 and 1997 after actually decreasing between 1900 and 1950. In contrast,
mid-sized farms between 50 and 500 acres, which are small and mid-sized farms seeking to make a living solely from farming, saw a
sharp decline of nearly 70% between 1950 and 1997 after only a 10% drop between 1900 and 1950. As unsettling as these trends
are, the wealthy corporations have been adept at utilizing their financial resources to
deceive the public by keeping these trends out of the popular media and by claiming to
advocate for policies favoring small American farmers. In reality, small farmers have been
frequently displaced by these polices and have twice voiced their opinions to Congress
on how to change domestic agricultural policy to realign the Farm Bill with its New Deal
roots aimed at protecting family farms. In both situations, their advice and pleas became distant memories as Congress
accomplished their goal, in Iowa and beyond. Another alarming trend illustrated by Figure 1 is the
chose instead to appease Cargill, ADM, and other large campaign contributors. First, the 1996 Farm Bill, colloquially named the “Freedom to Farm” Act
was enacted to eliminate agricultural subsidies. Nonetheless, the Freedom to Farm Act “triggered the largest government payouts in history, the
opposite of its policy objective” because Congress “reneged on [its subsidy] phase-out plan.” Then, in 2002, President George W. Bush signed the
“Farm Security and Rural Investment Act” Farm Bill, which he hailed as legislation that “preserves the farm way of life for generations.” Despite Bush’s
claim that the bill would protect family farming, knowledgeable critics quickly labeled the bill as “a 10-year, $173.5 billion bucket of slop” and “a gravytrain for mega farms and corporations.” Therefore, it has become clear that small
farmers alone, without public support,
do not have the political voice needed to overcome the financial and political firepower
that agribusiness and corporations constantly wield to protect and increase their profits.
This stagnation and lack of progress in fixing the nation’s subsidy program has caused a
rural exodus that has devastated small-town communities and has resulted in a loss of
invaluable ag ricultural knowledge and cultural resources. For example, the disappearance of large
portions of a rural town’s population negatively affects all aspects of the community’s
functionality by eliminating diverse employment opportunities, threatening rural
economic health, and depleting the local tax base and related public services that are
essential to a community’s continued existence. The correlation between the growth of large industrial megafarms
and this rural exodus is very strong: As these graphs depict, the percentages of small and medium-sized farms
are shrinking quickly as the percentage of large megafarms swells. The megafarms are rapidly becoming
corporate, nonfamily farms, leading to the disintegration of rural communities . Although the percentage of
Americans living in rural areas declined steadily throughout the twentieth century, the percentage of the population devoted to agriculture declined
much more precipitously. In addition to the loss of rural communities, this
transition to commercialized farming has
resulted in the loss of important agricultural knowledge: “[t]he farmer replacement rate has
fallen below 50% as younger generations flee the Corn Belt” and other traditional farming communities. Due to
this phenomenon, there are currently twice as many farmers over the age of sixty-five as there
are under the age of thirty-five, which is a perilous situation as the United States edges
closer to becoming a net importer of food. Thus, our nation faces a substantial gap in our
ag ricultural knowledge because the best farming practices are being phased out over
time by megafarm-favorable commodity subsidies and concerning trends show that
there soon might be too few remaining farmers to fill those gaps in knowledge . The rural
economic fallout from bolstering megafarms and corporations through commodity
subsidies is not unique to farmers. Industries that rely on subsidized crops, which
provide jobs and are typically located in the heart of farm country, have increasingly
become monopolized by a few large companies in each respective industry and are now
typically located outside of rural America. Economists consider a market “concentrated” if the market share of the top four
producers exceeds 20% and “very highly concentrated” if this market share approaches or exceeds 50%. Figure 4 depicts one of the primary problems
of a subsidy system in commercialized agriculture: since
the wealthiest corporations receive double
compensation by both securing the largest profits through sales and acquiring the
largest governmental subsidies based on their yields, they are apt to monopolize the
market and push smaller competitors to the wayside.
Figure 4
MARKET SHARE CONTROLLED BY TOP FOUR PRODUCERS
Very Highly Concentrated
Beef Packers 84%
Pork Packers 64%
Broiler Production 56%
Turkey Production 51%
Flour Milling 63%
Soybean Crushing 71%
Concentrated
Pork Production 49%
Animal Feed Processing 34%
As the small companies fall to the wayside, so too do jobs, public services, and entire communities.
Further, since the majority of farmers rely on these highly consolidated industries to buy their farm products, there exists an unfair and asymmetrical
market system whereby farmers are forced to compete fiercely with each other to sell at the lowest price to the few companies in the field.
Although farmers are thus forced to drive their prices lower because of the lack of choice
in agricultural buyers, the companies in these heavily consolidated industries benefit
enormously from an effective lack of competition because of the overconcentration of
products in these markets. By encouraging oligopolies in these farm-based industries, the Farm Bill’s commodity
subsidies have torn apart rural communities and have given select corporations a
stranglehold on both financial viability in the farming market and political access to
peddle their supposedly “pro-agriculture” initiatives before state and national legislatures.
Consistent U.S. ag production and rural economic strength prevents
nuclear escalation in multiple hotspots
Castellaw, 17—Lieutenant General, former President of the non-profit Crockett Policy Institute
(John, “Opinion: Food Security Strategy Is Essential to Our National Security,” https://www.agripulse.com/articles/9203-opinion-food-security-strategy-is-essential-to-our-national-security, dml)
The United States faces many threats to our National Security. These threats include
continuing wars with extremist elements such as ISIS and potential wars with rogue
state North Korea or regional nuclear power Iran . The heated economic and diplomatic
competition with Russia and a surging China could spiral out of control . Concurrently,
we face threats to our future security posed by growing civil strife , famine , and refugee
and migration challenges which create incubators for extremist and anti-American
government factions . Our response cannot be one dimensional but instead must be a
nuanced and comprehensive National Security Strategy combining all elements of National
Power including a Food Security Strategy .
An American Food Security Strategy is an imperative factor in reducing the multiple
threats impacting our National wellbeing. Recent history has shown that reliable food
supplies and stable prices produce more stable and secure countries . Conversely,
food insecurity , particularly in poorer countries, can lead to instability , unrest , and
violence .
Food insecurity drives mass migration around the world from the Middle East, to Africa, to
Southeast Asia, destabilizing neighboring populations , generating conflicts , and
threatening our own security by disrupting our economic, military, and diplomatic
relationships. Food system shocks from extreme food-price volatility can be correlated
with protests and riots . Food price related protests toppled governments in Haiti and
Madagascar in 2007 and 2008. In 2010 and in 2011, food prices and grievances related to
food policy were one of the major drivers of the Arab Spring uprisings. Repeatedly ,
history has taught us that a strong agricultural sector is an unquestionable requirement
for inclusive and sustainable growth, broad-based development progress, and long-term
stability .
The impact can be remarkable and far reaching . Rising income, in addition to reducing
the opportunities for an upsurge in extremism , leads to changes in diet, producing demand
for more diverse and nutritious foods provided , in many cases, from American farmers
and ranchers . Emerging markets currently purchase 20 percent of U.S. agriculture
exports and that figure is expected to grow as populations boom.
Moving early to ensure stability in strategically significant regions requires long term planning
and a disciplined, thoughtful strategy. To combat current threats and work to prevent future
ones, our national leadership must employ the entire spectrum of our power including
diplomatic, economic, and cultural elements. The best means to prevent future chaos and
the resulting instability is positive engagement addressing the causes of instability
before it occurs .
This is not rocket science . We know where the instability is most likely to occur . The
world population will grow by 2.5 billion people by 2050. Unfortunately, this massive
population boom is projected to occur primarily in the most fragile and food insecure
countries . This alarming math is not just about total numbers. Projections show that the
greatest increase is in the age groups most vulnerable to extremism. There are currently 200
million people in Africa between the ages of 15 and 24, with that number expected to double in
the next 30 years. Already, 60% of the unemployed in Africa are young people.
Too often these situations deteriorate into shooting wars requiring the deployment of
our military forces. We should be continually mindful that the price we pay for committing
military forces is measured in our most precious national resource, the blood of those who
serve. For those who live in rural America , this has a disproportionate impact. Fully 40% of
those who serve in our military come from the farms, ranches, and non-urban communities that
make up only 16% of our population.
Actions taken now to increase agricultural sector jobs can provide economic opportunity
and stability for those unemployed youths while helping to feed people. A recent report by
the Chicago Council on Global Affairs identifies agriculture development as the core
essential for providing greater food security , economic growth , and population wellbeing .
Our active support for food security , including agriculture development, has helped
stabilize key regions over the past 60 years. A robust food security strategy, as a part of
our overall security strategy, can mitigate the growth of terrorism , build important
relationships , and support continued American economic and agricultural prosperity
while materially contributing to our Nation’s and the world’s security.
And, tech innovations in ag are critical to meld sustainable and high-yield
ag necessary for human survival
Dr. Hutchins 2k6
(Faculty - Dr. Scott H. Hutchins Global Director, Crop Protection R&D, University of Nebraska,
The Role of Technology in Sustainable Agriculture,” pg online @
http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/hutchins3.htm //um-ef)
The notion that agriculture, as a global practice, has been exploiting resources faster
than they could be renewed has been a topic of discussion and debate for decades,
perhaps centuries. Symptoms of imbalance have been seen in the form of pollution, soil
erosion/loss, wildlife population decline/shifts, and general alteration of a "natural"
flora/fauna as a result of human intervention. Indeed, agricultural practices are undeniably "unnatural",
regardless of whether the production is a one square meter vegetable garden in Tokyo or a one million hectare rubber tree
plantation in Malaysia. Of course, an equally unnatural and parallel phenomenon has been the exponential growth in human
population, with associated demands for both food and shelter, which have often exceeded the "natural" carrying capacity of land.
Based upon the premise that human population growth will not be constrained as a result of food shortages due to overriding social
Technology has/will
increase agricultural productivity Technology development has-been/will-be sustainable
Technology is, therefore, the basis for Sustainable Agriculture Food is subject to the economic
principles of scarcity. Unlike the artificial value of scarce items such as gold, an adequate supply of food is
paramount to population survival and skill diversification, making agriculture a first level priority. Technology
has enabled human civilization to leave the "Hunter / Gatherer" paradigm of existence and
concentrate labor and land to the sole purpose of food production on an ever-increasing scale. The concept of
"scientific agriculture" dates to publications by Liebig in 1840 and Johnston in 1842 , which speculated
values, this article makes three assertions regarding the role technology in sustainable agriculture:
about the role of chemistry in agriculture (Pesek, 1993). The concepts of inheritance and Mendelian genetics
subsequently stimulated the biological basis for modern
agriculture. Soon, science-based institutions in Europe and North America eagerly expanded the application of biological and
chemical sciences to agriculture, spawning new technologies and approaches. These early applications of
were soon to follow in 1865 and
technology have not only increased food production in real terms, but have dramatically reduced the number of individuals directly
involved in food production/processing – enabling the diversification of society to address social issues not directly related to
To deny the role that biological and chemical
technology have played, continue to play, and will play in the future development of agriculture is to
deny natural history itself. The indiscriminate or inappropriate use of chemical and biological technology, however, can
"survival", but generally seen to increase the quality of life.
clearly produce negative consequences to the ecosystem and threaten the long-term viability of the enterprise. The central issue of
sustainability, therefore, is preservation of nonrenewable resources. Food production, habitat preservation, resource conservation,
Credible arguments have been advanced
to suggest that production of food via high-yield agriculture techniques can meet the
nutrition requirements of the global population (Avery, 1995). The balance can be achieved
through planning land use – with a considerate analysis of what parcels of land to
employ for high-yield agriculture while retaining marginal or poor land for nonagricultural activities or wildlife habitat preserves (Anonymous, 1999). Studies to quantify the impact on
and farm business management are not mutually exclusive objectives.
production of reducing or limiting inputs to agriculture have suggested that yields/hectare would decrease from 35% to 80%
depending upon the crop (Smith et al.). Without
a concurrent decrease in demand, the amount of land
that must be utilized would increase dramatically. In fact, global land in production today, which is roughly
the size of South America, would need to be the size of South America and North America if the high yield benefits of technology
If the motivation of sustainability is optimization of production
and resource conservation objectives, then progress can clearly be achieved. Sustainability in
were not employed (Richards, 1990).
agriculture relates to the capacity of an agroecosystem to predictably maintain production through time. A key concept of
sustainability, therefore, is stability under a given set of environmental and economic circumstances that can only be managed on a
site-specific basis.
If the perspective of sustainability is one of bias against the use of
biological and chemical technology, and espouses a totally natural ecosystem, then
agriculture as a practice is already excluded . If, on the other hand, the perspective of sustainability is one of
preservation of non-renewable resources within the scope of the agricultural enterprise, then the objective is not only achievable, but
good business practice and good environmental management. To a large extent,
the rate of technology
development and the degree of innovation in future technologies will greatly influence
the stability, and certainly the productivity, of agriculture (Hutchins and Gehring, 1993).
Technology, in the classical sense, includes the development and use of nutrients, pest control
products, crop cultivars, and farm equipment; but it also includes the vision of
genetically modified crops providing greater nutritional efficiency (more calories per yield, or more
yield), manipulation of natural pest control agents, and use of farm management
techniques that focus on whole-farm productivity over time, not just annual production per hectare. Consider the basic premise
of biotechnology: the least expensive and most renewable source of energy on Earth is the sun and the most abundant and
predictable mechanism to convert the energy from the sun to useable energy is photosynthesis -- biotechnology has enabled
methods to direct abundant natural energy to new more efficient or unique food products. The imagination is literally the limit to the
opportunities. Short term objectives will of course focus on yield, quality, and input reduction. Long term, however, the genetically-
created "transmissions" will focus on creating super-nutritious feed for animals, plants that outproduce the subtractive influence of
pests (making "tolerance" a key pest management tactic), physiological adaptation to out-compete adjacent species (e.g., weeds),
drought stress tolerance, and overall improvement in the rate of photosynthesis (leading to any number of industrial applications).
The development and use of agricultural technology is not, however, limited to genetic
wizardry . Indeed, the use of computational technology, combined with geographical
location devices and remote sensing advancements, promise to radically change the
way all crops will be managed . Commonly referred to as " Precision Agriculture", the underlying
theme is integration of information to create management knowledge as a means to
address site-specific production goals . Uncertainty with the environment will always be a
key issue with agriculture, but this too will be managed as environmental modeling,
combined with risk management algorithms, will lead to the optimal use of genetics on
specific soils within known weather profiles. And, breakthroughs will continue to be seen
in the "classical" technologies that have exponentially increased world food production
since the advent of "scientific agriculture" in the late 1800’s. In addition to advances in productivity,
technology will be used to remediate land that has been overused or misused through
poor agricultural practices.
The concept of Best Management Practices will continue to be a key focus, regardless of
the current state of technological offerings. Strategies, such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) consider the site-specific
circumstances, but also the values and business considerations of the agricultural producers. IPM has been essential in describing
the role and rationale for responsibly managing pests, pointing scientists and practitioners alike to identify future needs in biological
information, and placing pest control in perspective with production goals. To this end, the concept of pest Economic-injury Levels
has been central to dismiss the notion that pests must be controlled at all cost in favor of break-even analysis (i.e., Gain Threshold;
Sustainability is indeed an issue of survival , but is far broader than the
concept of habitat destruction and soil erosion. Sustainability includes the goal of food
production, welfare of the food producers, and preservation of nonrenewable resources.
To that end, technology of all types has been and will be the enabling man-made
Stone and Pedigo, 1972).
component that will link these two overriding objectives. Indeed, history confirms that technology
has been essential to agricultural productivity/stability, current breakthroughs in
technology confirm that the discovery and development of new technologies is a
sustainable endeavor, and common sense directs us to the conclusion that technology
will enable Sustainable Agriculture
And that solves multiple scenarios for extinction
Trewavas ‘00
(Anthony, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology – University of Edinburgh, “GM Is the Best
Option We Have”, AgBioWorld, 6-5, http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotechart/best_option.html)
There are some Western critics who oppose any solution to world problems involving technological progress. They denigrate this remarkable achievement. These luddite individuals found in some Aid organisations instead attempt to impose their primitivist western
views on those countries where blindness and child death are common. This new form of Western cultural domination or neo-colonialism, because such it is, should be repelled by all those of good will. Those who stand to benefit in the third world will then be
enabled to make their own choice freely about what they want for their own children. But these are foreign examples;
global warming is the problem that requires the
UK to
develop GM technology
. 1998 was the warmest year in the last one thousand years. Many think global warming will simply lead to a wetter climate an d be benign. I do not. Excess rainfall in northern seas has been
There are already worrying signs of
salinity changes in the deep oceans. Agriculture would be seriously damaged and
necessitate the rapid development of new crop varieties to secure our food supply. We
would not have much warning.
Even if the
climate is only wetter and warmer new crop pests and rampant disease will be the
consequence. GM technology can enable new crops to be constructed in months and to
predicted to halt the Gulf Stream. In this situation, average UK temperatures would fall by 5 degrees centigrade and give us Moscow-like winters.
Recent detailed analyses of arctic ice cores has shown that the climate can switch between stable states in fractions of a decade.
be in the fields within a few years. This is the unique benefit GM offers
a volcano near the present Krakatoa exploded with the force of 200
million Hiroshima A bombs The dense cloud of dust so reduced the intensity of the sun
that for at least two years thereafter, summer turned to winter and crops
in the
Northern hemisphere failed completely. The population survived by hunting a rapidly
vanishing population of edible animals
the planet
recovered Such examples of benign nature's wisdom
, dwarf and make miniscule
the tiny modifications we make upon our environment There are
100 such volcanoes
round the world that could at any time unleash forces as great. even smaller volcanic
explosions change our climate and can easily threaten the security of our food supply
Only those with agricultural technology
. The UK populace needs to much more positive about
GM or we may pay a very heavy price. In 535A.D.
.
here and elsewhere
. The after-effects continued for a decade and human history was changed irreversibly. But
.
, in full flood as it were
.
apparently
And
. Our hold
on this planet is tenuous. In the present day an equivalent 535A.D. explosion would destroy much of our civilisation.
sufficiently advanced would have a chance at survival . Colliding asteroids are another
problem that requires us to be forward-looking accepting that technological advance
may be the only buffer between us and annihilation
GM is a technology whose time has come and
just in the nick of time. With each billion that mankind has added to the planet have come
technological advances to increase food supply
. When people say to me they do not need GM, I am astonished at their prescience, their ability to read a
benign future in a crystal ball that I cannot. Now is the time to experiment; not when a holocaust is upon us and it is too late.
. In the 18th century, the start of agricultural mechanisation; in the 19th century knowledge of crop mineral requirements,
the eventual Haber Bosch process for nitrogen reduction. In the 20th century plant genetics and breeding, and later the green revolution. Each time population growth has been sustained without enormous loss of life through starvation even though crisis often
g m
is our primary hope to maintain developing and complex
technological civilisations When the climate is changing in unpredictable ways, diversity
in agricultural technology is a strength and a necessity not a luxury
beckoned. For the 21st century,
enetic
anipulation
.
. Diversity helps secure our food supply. We have heard much of
the precautionary principle in recent years; my version of it is "be prepared".
And, it solves ag disease – extinction
Can be eliminated for time
Carr 10 – Gad Loebenstein, Professor of Plant Pathology at the Agricultural Research
Organization and John P. Carr, Head of the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of
Cambridge, Advances in Virus Research, Volume 75, 2009, Pages ix–x, Science Direct
diseases affecting crop plants have posed an
ever-present, yet ever changing, threat to human survival . The Bible, for example, explicitly mentions blights, blasts,
Since the very earliest developments in agriculture, and probably even before then,
people sought to understand and mitigate the effects of
disease on crop productivity, and many earlier cultures have sought divine aid in the fight against crop disease. The Romans, according to some
and mildew diseases of wheat. Not surprisingly,
historians, celebrated the festival of Robigalia: an attempt to mollify Robigus, the god thought to protect crops from disease, and his less benign sister Robiga (or Robigo), a
primary goddess of Roman farmers, known as the spirit of mildews and rusts. However, even during this period there were attempts to understand plant diseases through the
application of reason: an approach exemplified in the writings of Theophrastus (372–287 BC), who theorized about the nature of the diseases of cereals and other plants.
Meanwhile, over many centuries farmers all over the world practiced domestication of plants from wild populations and selected the best and hardiest plants grown under
the deployment of crops possessing
genetically based resistance is generally considered the best and most economical
approach for disease control. This is especially true for protection against viruses because, so far at least, no
chemicals are available that could provide the same degree of protection in the field against these pathogens, as fungicides do
agricultural conditions, thereby incidentally breeding plants resistant to disease. In the modern world
against fungi and oomycetes. The transfer by breeding of naturally occurring resistance genes from wild plants or land races to cultivated lines is still an ongoing process, and
Genetic resistance against
virus diseases can be surprisingly durable . A good example is that of cucumbers bred for resistance to Cucumber mosaic virus. This
has been supplemented with other methods such as mutation, polyploidy breeding, and the generation of haploids.
resistance, which depends on several genes, was found to be stable for many decades against different strains of this virus. Even though the majority of plants are resistant to
most viruses (the phenomenon of non-host or basal resistance), when viruses are able to infect a crop plant, obtaining durable resistance by breeding is not always possible. In
certain cases, new virus strains overcome the resistance and once again may cause severe crop losses. In addition, for some crops and viruses, no suitable sources of
resistance can be identified among the wild relatives of a crop plant. Hence the need for greater understanding of natural resistance, and for the insights its study can provide for
the development of novel crop protection approaches. In the last few years, much has been learned concerning the mechanisms underlying several natural resistance
mechanisms including inter alia RNA silencing, induced resistance, and resistance conferred by recessive and dominant genes, which will be discussed in this and the following
volume of the Advances. In addition, research over the last two decades has made it possible to move resistance–conferring gene sequences between plants from different
botanical genera, or into plants from other organisms, and even from the viruses themselves (pathogen-derived resistance). This work opened a new vista for plant virus control,
and if combined with engineering for insect resistance could potentially provide protection not only against the viruses themselves, but also against their vectors. The work on
pathogen-derived resistance also led directly to the discovery of a natural resistance and gene regulation mechanism, RNA silencing, that has ramifications throughout the
In all parts of
the world, but especially among the developing nations, agriculture faces the looming
whole of biomedicine. Nevertheless, these technologies face technical and sociological challenges, which are also addressed in these volumes.
problems of emerging virus diseases , population growth, and ecological change. We hope that
the articles in this volume and the following one will inform and stimulate research on natural and engineered resistance, and thereby contribute to the development of new
approaches to disease control and the creation of new resistant varieties that are desperately needed.
Advantage 2 --- Regenerative Agriculture
First, federal ag subsidies impede the transition to regenerative agriculture
and destroy soil health --- undermines efforts at carbon sequestration
Arohi Sharma 19, policy analyst at the National Resource Defense Council, MA from Harvard
University, July, 2019, "How U.S. Agricultural Subsidies Degrade Land and Soil," Food Tank,
https://foodtank.com/news/2019/07/opinion-how-us-agricultural-subsidies-degrade-land-andsoil/ - MBA AM
On May 6th, the
United Nations released a summary of its Global Assessment on Biodiversity. The report finds that 23 percent
of the world’s agricultural lands are less productive than five years ago, even though global food
production has increased. How is that possible? In refreshingly bold language, the report comments on how agricultural
subsidies catalyze land degradation and biodiversity loss . Policy makers need to
consider how agricultural subsidy policies incentivize agricultural practices that harm
species and ecosystem health . This is the case in the United States, where the federal
government spends billions on agricultural subsidies through the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP). The
current structure of the FCIP fails to address the environmental and public health effects of
producing commodity crops intensively. Furthermore, the current structure of the FCIP does
not incentivize farmers to change their farming practices to more regenerative, soil
building methods. Instead of subsidizing degenerative agricultural practices through the FCIP, the federal government
should financially reward farmers who employ farming techniques that build soil health.
The Global Assessment states, “Harmful economic incentives…associated with unsustainable practices of fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture (including
fertilizer and pesticide use) …are often associated with [the] overexploitation of natural resources.”
Healthy soil is alive. One teaspoon of healthy soil has more life than there are people on the earth! The soil supports life like microorganisms, bacteria,
fungi, algae, and earthworms, and these microbes are critical because they provide nutrients, carbon, and water to plants. When the microbes in our
soil are well-fed and supported, our soil and our plants are healthier. Our
soil ecosystem is the greatest concentration
of biomass anywhere on the planet, and when the federal government pays crop
insurance subsidies without considering the practices that are used to grow those crops,
our soil microbiome pays the ultimate price. Our soil microbes matter because they:
Sequester Carbon : The microbes in our soil all need one thing to live: carbon. Our plants
pump excess carbon from the atmosphere into the soil to support microbial health and biodiversity. All the
microbes in the soil consume carbon, but when soil is contaminated by toxic pesticides, fungicides, and
insecticides, the harsh chemicals, microbes cannot thrive. Fewer microbes in the soil mean fewer organisms
to consume and sequester carbon in the soil. By spraying crops with harmful chemicals, we reduce the soil’s capacity to act as a carbon sink.
Retain Water and Use it more Efficiently: Mycorrhizal fungi, a critical component of the soil microbiome, provides nutrients
and water to plant roots. Mycorrhizal fungi, only found on living plant roots, build intricate highways through soil
so plants can access nutrients and water from faraway places, providing water security
during droughts. Impressively, healthy soil can hold up to 20 times its weight in water. When industrial agricultural
practices encourage farmers to till, to rip living roots out from the soil so their crop rows look “clean,” or to fallow
their fields and skip a growing season, mycorrhizal fungi populations are not supported.
When mycorrhizal fungi populations are not supported, soil cannot sequester as much water, and our crops are less resilient during drought.
Keep Our Food Healthy: When plants photosynthesize, they break down water and convert the energy from the sun to form sugars. Whatever sugars
the plant doesn’t use, it pumps into the soil to feed the microbes and fungi. In return, the fungi provide nutrients like organic nitrogen, phosphorous,
calcium, and zinc to the plant. Diverse fungi species help plants access a variety of nutrients, and this nutrient exchange keeps our plants healthy and
nutrient-rich. Monocropping, an industrial agriculture practice supported by agricultural subsidies, does not support mycorrhizal fungi diversity, so the
nutrient density of our fruits and vegetables suffers. The lack of biodiversity above ground affects the biodiversity below ground.
Unfortunately, the U.S.’ subsidized cropping systems do not support microbial health.
Almost one-third of the 320 million acres of harvested cropland in the U.S. is used to produce corn, and
another one-third is used to produce soybeans. Most of the corn and soybean crops are not
grown for human consumption—they are exported or used as feedstock for livestock production—but
they constitute two of the most heavily subsidized crops in the US. The table below breaks down the
types of degenerative practices that are supported by federal government subsidies. These degenerative practices do not support healthy soil, and in
fact, destroy the soil microbiome. The percentages represent the percentages of total corn or soy acres that employ specific degenerative practices.
For example, 97 percent of all corn acres in production apply synthetic fertilizers.
Chemicals and synthetic fertilizers promise short-term boosts in crop yields, but the
overapplication and reliance on
chemicals and synthetic fertilizers for commodity farms create inhospitable soil
conditions for soil microbes. Tillage rips apart the plant roots that feed our soil microbes. When soil is directly exposed to the sun,
moisture evaporates faster and soil temperatures increase, reducing microbial activity.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) advocates for regenerative agricultural systems that support microbial
biodiversity and soil health. The organization’s campaign to reform the FCIP aims to make it easier for
farmers who practice soil-building techniques to access the FCIP. States are also stepping up to the challenge and
implementing innovative crop insurance programs that reward farmers for adopting regenerative agricultural practices like cover cropping. NRDC also
worked with a diverse coalition of agricultural and business groups to successfully pass the Soil Health Demonstration Trial provision in the last Farm
Bill. The provision will reward farmers for adopting soil-building practices that sequester carbon in the soil. These efforts exemplify how governments
should flip the status quo and reward stewardship.
The Global Biodiversity Assessment is clear: Governments must reconsider the types of
agricultural systems that are supported by taxpayer dollars. For the last five years, the U.S. government
spent an average of US$9 billion in crop insurance subsidies through the FCIP . A significant portion of these federal
subsidies goes to commodity farms that employ agricultural practices that degrade soil
health, like nondiverse crop rotations, heavy fertilizer and pesticide use, and tillage. The billions of dollars of subsidies
paid by the federal government should not support degenerative agricultural practices. For
the sake of soil health, farmers should be rewarded for treating their farms as biodiverse, microberich ecosystems. Policy should incentivize soil building practices like crop diversity, cover crops, crop rotations, integrated livestock
management, and no-till.
The Global Biodiversity Assessment calls out the dangerous trajectory of current agricultural subsidies. We’ve hit the snooze button too many times on
subsidy reform, and it’s time for our policymakers to wake up to biodiversity losses perpetuated by this broken system.
Extinction
Lu, 17—Energy and Environmental Laboratories, Industrial Technology Research Institute
(Shyi-Min, “Soil and Forest: The Key Factors for Human Survival,” Journal of Sustainable
Development; Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017, dml) [gendered language modifications denoted by
brackets]
Soil erosion in agriculture is arguably one of the most devastating human activities or
behaviors for sustainable soil development. In the foreseeable future, there is almost no chance or
incentive to expand the scale of agriculture, so our existing soil management of arable
land is essential to the continued prosperity of [hu]mankind . However, although the importance of soil
and water conservation has been stressed, the implementation of measures to reduce soil erosion has not ever caught up with the
deepening of the problem. The most common phenomenon of soil erosion is caused by water. Before the native plant’s growth is
replaced by farming and cultivation of the mankind, the geological mechanism of the vast majority of mountain soil and water losses
as a result of human reclamation
and abusive construction, a large number of plant covers are removed. The natural loss
mechanism of the soil is changed, allowing the raindrops to displace the soil particles and then
to remove them by the slope flow, which is a more rapid soil loss process. In the absence of agriculture,
soil loss is only about 21 meters per million years (Wilkinson & McElroy, 2007). Today, the rate of soil erosion in the
United States can be more than 2,000 meters per million years , while in the Chinese Loess Plateau, in
part of which the soil loss rate is as high as 10,000 meters per million years (Sun et al., 2014). Basically, these lost
sediments will eventually be replaced by underlying sediments or rocks, biological
mechanisms, and newly converted soils with added organic matter and nutrients.
However, little has been known about the pace of this alternative process over the last
decade. Overall, the rate of soil erosion is currently around 400 meters per million years (Montgomery, 2007). In many analyzes,
is slow; basically, it is mainly a biologically driven creep (Kirkby, 1967). However,
the rate of soil production in the natural environment is between 50 and 200 meters per million years, and these data clearly indicate
that soil
erosion in many agricultural areas has so far not been sustainable . Not only does
soil erosion in agricultural areas lose the nutrients necessary for grain growth , but
unfavorable sedimentation also affects the local aquatic ecosystems , water bodies , and
aquatic ecosystems
(Figure 5) (Janisch & Harmon, 2002). Finally, in the face of accelerated soil erosion, maintaining or
even increasing agricultural production will increase the use of energy. Although plant microbial symbiosis can fix nitrogen in the
atmosphere into bioavailable forms or by means of human substitution like the Haber-Bosch process, but there is no biological
process or atmospheric resource to produce earth-derived or rock-derived nutrients (such as phosphorus, potassium, and calcium).
This issue is sufficient for the current agricultural policy-makers alerted.
Although soil can be produced, replaced or release nutrients naturally, the pace of these natural processes is still slow relatively to
the nutrients
provided by the soil for the need of plant growth will be reduced , leading to a fall in
the rate at which people use the land (Figure 6). When crops are transported from production sites to other sites,
production levels potentially (Jones et al., 2013; Levick & Asner, 2013), further deepening reliance on the
exploitation of geological resources and the distribution of large amounts of nutrients,
finally resulting in national economic and geo-political conflicts
(Cordell et al., 2009). The recent increase in the demand for phosphorus has led to a surge in the cost of phosphate rock, from $80
per tonne in 1961 to $450 per tonne in 2008. Prices have been fluctuating since then, now around $700 per tonne. In addition to the
cost increases, mining is also a difficult problem. According to estimated data, Morocco has the world's largest phosphorus
geological reserves, but most of them are located in disputed areas. On the other hand, the United States contains only about 2% of
the most productive phosphate sources
in the United States will be depleted in 20 years , forcing imports of phosphorus increasingly
the world's phosphate rock resources. According to current mining rate,
dependent, thus to maintain the demands from agriculture and industry sectors.
The major phosphorus-dependent countries lack the relative geological resources. In order to maintain their current use indefinitely,
besides the shift from production to import, the only means to maintain stocks is the establishment of consistency and integrated
the soil nutrient loss and animal waste
are regarded as a major problem of environmental and economic damage. Now, from the basic
recycling systems for phosphorus and other nutrients. In human society,
consensus in society, the waste recycling and resource control are very helpful for the reduction of imports and other resource
needs (Elser & Bennett, 2011). In
addition to phosphorus, other soil nutrients appear to have
entered a restricted or high demand era . Potash prices, for example, are expected to
rise from about $875 per tonne in 2009 to $1,500 per tonne in 2020.
5. Challenges of the 21st Century
The results of human reclamation of the earth's soil resources cause a number of soil
longer in equilibrium. The imbalance changes the nature of the soil and
cycles perturbation, so they are no
indirectly or directly affects the survival
of future generations , due to the Earth's climate change. Basically, the major principle of our soil management is to
restore the disrupted soil resource system back to the original regenerative function. The strategy to restore the balance of soil
should include following three soil elements: (1) organic carbon; (2) soil itself; and (3) nutrient. The ultimate goal of soil sustainability
is to manage the global soil resources and to promote the implementation of relevant programs and research projects, such as the
fixed nutrient quantity and the measurement of above-mentioned three elements of soil balance.
These goals are challenging and difficult to achieve. They need solutions to invest considerable human and material resources,
because the existing problem is too large. First, to achieve an effective solution for soil sustainability, innovative mechanisms or
institutions including highly cross-cutting research are needed, as are the models required to combat global climate change.
Second, the ultimate requirement for any innovation is the establishment of a dialogue and communication channel with
policymakers and public institutions, as the ultimate "decision-making" will involve large-scale social change. These interlocking
efforts will depend on the acquisition and delivery of innovative knowledge, as well as the continuous expansion, pursuit, and input
of different conceptual approaches to solve the problem. Our
current mission is to make the future of the
Earth's soil resources sustainable under our control in lifetime or within ability. In this critical twenty-first
century, we will witness the struggle course for mankind survival .
Regenerative ag facilitates a transition away from corn monocultures.
Rebecca Graham 21, a BA candidate in International Studies, May 2021, "Restoration
Through Regeneration: An Analysis of Agriculture in the United States," Arcadia University,
https://scholarworks.arcadia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1403&context=showcase – MBA
AM
For some farms, more control over livestock grazing is necessary and can be accomplished through rotational grazing practices. Rotational grazing
allows livestock to graze in specific areas of pasturelands, allowing unoccupied sections time to regrow stronger and healthier plant matter for future
grazing. The
use of rotational grazing restores the microbial balance of soil. Rotational grazing as a
animal agriculture stimulates healthy soil, which promotes resilient
plant and grass regrowth, which in turn becomes a nutritious and sustainable food
source for livestock (Regeneration International, 2017). Through the use of rotational grazing, farmers do not need to grow
practice of regenerative
corn and other livestock-specific feed crops, as the livestock in a sense become
responsible for the growing and consumption of their own food. This allows for arable
croplands to become diversified in their production of plant foods for human consumption,
creating an increase in food security.
Promoting the natural relationship that exists between animal and plant life cycles is
essential in achieving a balanced and sustainable food system. For some livestock farmers, this involves the use of adaptive multi-paddock (AMP)
grazing management. Adaptive multi-paddock grazing techniques build off of rotational grazing, while adding strategically sectioned zones for livestock
to graze within. By concentrating livestock into smaller sections of pasturelands, the animals are forced to graze within the bounds of that zone,
allowing plants to grow stronger roots. This promotes resilient and bountiful regrowth of grasses in the unoccupied sections (Teague, 2017). Cattle
The
utilization of AMP grazing management allows farmers to sustain their cattle on naturally
growing grasslands, making this regenerative farming technique both cost effective and
sustainable. Ultimately, these strategic grazing techniques supply livestock with food while promoting a healthy balance within the
rotate through these areas, grazing on the healthy grass regrowth while allowing the previously grazed areas time to regenerate.
agroecosystem.
The use of these grazing techniques creates healthy and bountiful plantlife on livestock farms. Healthy
plant life in grazing fields
promotes water retention as well as carbon sequestration, decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere (Teague, 2017). Soil and plants have the ability to store carbon, redirecting it from the atmosphere into the Earth in what is known as a
“carbon sink” (Payne, 2019). Currently in the United States, there are 762 million metric tons of greenhouse gases stored in the soil (Delonge, 2016).
While this offsets 11% of greenhouse gas emissions, it does not sequester enough carbon to prevent rising global temperatures (Delonge, 2016).
While it is still unknown to scientists exactly how much carbon can be absorbed into the soil, as these tests have only been conducted on small-scale
regenerative farms, regenerative agricultural practices lead the way in such discoveries (Delonge, 2016). Carbon sequestration through regenerative
The ability of regenerative
agriculture to restore the Earth’s natural ecological balance while yielding enough food
to sustain the global population proves this approach to be the most effective solution to
the negative impacts of industrialized agriculture. While these regenerative methods of livestock production offer
farming practices actively reverses the environmental destruction caused by industrialized agriculture.
environmentally sustainable solutions to the production of animal products, they must also be able to sustain the growing human population and the
increasingly large demand for meat. As the global demand for meat and dairy continues to rise, agricultural practices must be able to fulfill nutritional
needs for the growing population of the world.
Monocropping causes extinction
Jacques & Jacques 12—Peter J, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science,
University of Central Florida // Jessica Racine, MA, UCF department of sociology
[“Monocropping Cultures into Ruin: The Loss of Food Varieties and Cultural Diversity,”
Sustainability, Vol. 4, p. 2970-2997, Emory Libraries]
The loss of genetic diversity of thousands of plants and crops has been well
documented at least since the 1970s, and has been understood as a result of epistemological and political economic
conditions of the Green Revolution. The political economic arrangement of the Green Revolution, alongside a post-war focus on
economies of scale and export-oriented growth, replace high-yield single varieties of crops for a diverse array of varieties that may
not have the same yield, but may be able to resist pests, disease, and changing climatic conditions. Also, the harvest does not flow
Whereas small holder subsistence farming uses a large variety of crops
the industrial economic system requires simplified, machine
harvested ship-loads of one variety of maize, for example. Diverse varieties of different crops confound the
in all directions equally:
as a food source and small-scale trade,
machines, whereas one variety of wheat can be harvested with one setting on a machine. However, none of this is new. The
purpose of this article is to analyze how the twin concerns of lost varietals and lost cultures are bound together in the socio-political
process of standardization, and to explain some areas of resistance. 1. Introduction In the 1940s, Carl O. Sauer, a consultant to the
instrumental Rockefeller Foundation, warned against the basic design of what would become industrialized agriculture, a.k.a., the
agronomists and plant breeders could ruin the native
resources for good and all by pushing their American commercial stocks . The little agricultural work that
Green Revolution: A good aggressive bunch of American
has been done by experiment stations here [in Mexico] has been making that very mistake, by introducing U.S. forms instead of
The possibilities of disastrous destruction of
local genes are great (…). Mexican agriculture cannot be pointed toward standardization on a few commercial types
working on the selection of ecologically adjusted native items.
without upsetting native economy and culture hopelessly. (Letter from Sauer to Joseph Willits, director of the Rockefeller
Foundation's Division of Social Science quoted in [1], p. 82, emphasis added). Sauer’s concern for both the social and ecological
distress is remarkably prescient. Since the warnings of Sauer, the field of “biocultural” studies, which explores the “ultimate” link
between biological diversity and cultural diversity, emerged in the 1990s; and, this field has discovered critical links between cultural
and biological richness, indicating Sauer’s suspicions were only the beginning [2]. The study of biocultural diversity has shown that
the richest areas of language, ethnicities, and other cultural indicators, correlate and indeed coevolve with areas of both flora and
fauna diversity [3,4]. There is a now an incontrovertible link between plants, animals, and lands that people gain material and nonmaterial welfare from, and the knowledge systems, linguistic development, and cultural identity that grows with and within these
Biological diversity refers to the overall number of individual species
regardless of frequency , while evenness refers to “how similar the frequencies of the different variants are” ([5] p. 5326).
ecological niches.
Low evenness indicates variations are dominated by a single or few varieties and is a biological measure for homogenization of
The threats to biological diversity are fairly well understood, if
complex: loss of habitat, invasive forces that supplant endemic species subsistence,
predation, and introduced diseases [6–9]. The forces that threaten biological diversity
often threaten cultural diversity directly and indirectly, “(…) placing the world’s diversity in both nature
and culture increasingly at risk . This means no less than placing at risk the very basis of life on
direct concern to our proposition.
Earth as we know it: the natural life-supporting systems that have evolved on the planet, and
their cultural counterparts have dynamically coevolved with them since the appearance of Homo sapiens” ([10], p. 56,
see also [11,12]). Areas of rich biodiversity and cultural diversity show “parallel extinction risk” (indeed higher extinction risk than
birds and mammals) [13], in part caused by “dramatic loss of livestock breeds and agricultural varieties as well as traditions for
raising them, and erosion or obliteration of regional cuisines and foodways;” and, as diversity is being lost to homogeneity “almost
everywhere” “forces promoting homogeneity are playing an endgame on a global scale” ([14], p. 317). Further, Jarvis, et al., have
shown that there is a, “close linear relationship between traditional variety richness and evenness” where high evenness is
industrial agriculture in the U.S.
suppresses biodiversity ([15], see also [16]). Provided that decades of empirical work noted above
conclusively demonstrate that industrial agriculture reduces bioculture , this article develops a
supported by traditional farming communities [5]. Likewise, Lyson and Welsh, found that
political-sociology to explain how and why this relationship exists. Cultural and biological diversity co-evolve in complex and
industrial agriculture
selects only a few varieties for high yield, reducing evenness of both biological diversity
and cultural variations through several long-standing patterns of bioculture. “Crops are the direct product of human
selection on wild plant diversity” ([17], p. 450). In traditional farms, there is actually more diversity of
staple varieties than non-staples, indicating traditional agriculture cultivates variation
and difference at the farm and community levels [5]. If there are fewer cultures and knowledge to select a
constitutive feedbacks, and their losses are also complex. However, our argument is fairly simple:
narrowing range of crops, diversity in crops falls alongside the loss of culture. Indeed, between the wild relatives and the industrial
high-yield varieties, there has been a successive reduction of diversity. Initial selection of maize, for example, maintained only 57%
industrial agriculture has selected only five varieties of
the initial “tens of thousands of open-pollinated cultivars of corn ” ([17,18], p. 80). Food varieties
of the wild DNA diversity [17]. Of these varieties,
come from diverse ecological systems, and these ecological systems are the environments within which knowledge is molded and
encoded through language and culture as an adaptive response; therefore, homogenizing ecosystems through industrial agriculture
selects adaptive features of language and culture, while this same process inhibits and obstructs the cultivation and freedom for the
majority of biological organisms and cultures. Our purpose in this essay is to organize and propose a specific political sociology that
as
cultures and biodiversity are lost to a more powerful and homogenizing set of forces, we
do not need to wait for civilization collapse to occur, because these inter-dependent communities are
not being sustained, and collapse , in this way, is already upon us .
explains these concomitant efforts of homogenization which clearly threaten social and ecological sustainability. Indeed,
And, those ag practices ensure phosphorus will run out and lead to food
insecurity and global crises
Olukayode 19 (Toluwase Olukayode is a PhD Student at the Global Institute for Food Security, University of
Saskatchewan. Current interest is on how mRNA serve as signalling molecule communicating nutrient stress
between different organs in plant.; “Phosphate shortage: The dwindling resource required to grow food”; Phys.Org;
July 23, 2019; https://phys.org/news/2019-07-phosphate-shortage-dwindling-resource-required.html) Accessed
7/8/21//eleanor
By 2030, the world's population is projected to be about 8.5 billion people. Global food
security is a major concern for governments—zero hunger is the second most important of the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals. However,
there is a severe conflict between sustainable food
production and the use of nonrenewable resources in agricultural systems, particularly
phosphate . Phosphorous is a major mineral nutrient required by crop plants for optimal
growth and productivity. Phosphate is the only form of phosphorous that plants can
absorb—it is often applied to crops as phosphate fertilizer. Phosphate is obtained
through rock mining. Seventy percent of the world's phosphate reserves are located in North Africa. China, Russia,
South Africa and the United States all have limited quantities of the mineral rock. Finite
resources Scientists have reported that global phosphate production would peak around 2030,
at the same time the global population will reach 8.5 billion people. Several reports have also
warned that the global reserve would be depleted within the next 50 to 100 years. Current
agricultural practice involves the use of a high amount of phosphate fertilizer in order to
achieve optimal plant yield. This is because of the chemical properties of phosphate,
which interacts with soil particles in a way that makes it difficult for the plant to acquire,
leaving a large portion of the element in the soil surface . Because plants can only uptake small amounts
of phosphate,
a large majority of fertilizer ends up in unwanted places, like bodies of water ,
making these practices ecologically and financially unsustainable. It is only reasonable
to fathom that as phosphate becomes more expensive and may eventually run out, it not
only poses a food security threat , but may also pose political crisis between phosphate
rich countries and importing countries.
The impact is extinction and the risk outweighs climate change because
there are no solutions coming and peak will hit in 2030
Cox ‘21
(MA in English, words in The Ascent, PSILU, The Writing Cooperative, “Peak Phosphorus May
Be More Alarming Than Climate Change,” pg online @ https://medium.com/climateconscious/peak-phosphorus-may-be-more-alarming-than-climate-change-c6fd0fc69414 //um-ef)
Quotes crop scientist for ADAS
crop scientist for ADAS, “the UK’s largest independent
provider of agricultural and environmental consultancy.” He’s growing barley and other crops using “legacy
Roger Sylvester-Bradley is on a mission. He’s a
phosphorus” from previous harvests instead of industrial fertilizers rich with mined phosphate. He hopes to develop farming techniques that can meet
increasing global demand for food while reducing the use of phosphorus reserves. So far, he’s met with promising results; he continues to raise healthy
crops in defiance of expectations without adding a single new particle of phosphorus to his soil. Unfortunately, however, Sylvester-Bradley’s
experiments have not stopped business as usual on American industrial farms or their
counterparts around the world. Phosphorous is a nutrient that is key to life , but the world has a finite
supply, and that supply is running perilously short . Some studies estimate that global
phosphorus reserves will run out within 50–100 years . And, as early as 2030 , world
phosphorus production will likely reach its peak. When that happens, food prices will steadily climb
in conjunction with rising fertilizer costs. When the supply runs out, crops will fail and
the food web will collapse . Phosphorus depletion is, therefore, an extinction level emergency
more pressing than even global warming . Geopolitical Concerns Seven nations control 90% of the
world’s phosphorous supply. Morocco alone controls 75%, while the U.S., China, and a handful of other nations each have
considerable reserves. The price of phosphorous has increased dramatically in the last sixty years, rising from $80
per ton in 1961 to over $700 per ton in 2015. Given the uneven distribution of phosphorous throughout the
world, wealthy nations will likely starve last , though political strife and wars for food
could imperil even the most insulated countries . PRIO (Peace Research Institute Olso)
rates hunger as one of the most “reliable predictors of civil war.” If that is true, then even
relatively stable nations, like the U.S., can expect their citizens to one day fight for their food. The
recent civil war in Sudan is a prime example of what can happen in a starving nation;
cattle raids, systematic food theft, and farm sabotage were all consequences of vastly
overpriced food in Sudan. Syria and Yemen have also recently grappled with epidemic hunger; according to the U.N.’s World Food
Programme, the brutal conflicts over food in those nations “starkly demonstrate the unequivocal link between hunger and conflict.” Since
phosphorus shortages will affect every nation on earth , no one will be exempt from
hunger or the bloodshed it motivates. Resistance to Change Corn is big business in America.
According to Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft (Environmental Policy 2019), the United States produces enough corn to supply all 7.4 billion people
on Earth with over two bushels per year. Only 20% of the yield goes to human consumption, however; 40% is used in animal feed, while the remaining
40% is used to produce ethanol. And all
94 million acres of American corn crops are fertilized with
phosphorus. Furthermore, each crop is reared through “insurance based farming” — the
practice of “heaping on” phosphorus at a rate 9 times greater than what we consume in
food. The left over phosphorus, rather than finding its way to innovative phosphorus
capture systems in American sewage processing facilities, remains in the soil, washes to the sea, and pollutes rivers, lakes,
and streams . While corn is a staple food for both humans and livestock, federal mandates for ethanol in gasoline are political expediencies
designed to win favor in the corn belt. Fermenting corn into ethanol requires massive amounts of energy and water — more energy than ethanol yields
— and the process that produces it emits greenhouse gases on par with combustion engines. Ethanol, therefore, is not a solution to global warming.
Furthermore, because corn is its source, ethanol production is a leading cause of phosphorus depletion. Paradoxically, the more corn we grow now,
the less food we’ll have in the future. Nevertheless, the corn belt wields considerable influence in Washington and is adamantly opposed to any
proposed curbs to ethanol production. America is, therefore, wasting precious phosphorus reserves for a cause that benefits a handful of industrial
farmers whose produce is burned almost as often as it is eaten. Why No One is Sounding the Alarm While the science of climate change is settled,
estimates for phosphorus demand in the coming decades are widely debated and projections for fresh discoveries of phosphorus ore frequently
override concerns that our known supply is running short. Particularly worrisome is the USGS’s (United States Geological Survey) affirmation of the
International Fertilizer Development Center’s assessment that phosphorus reserves are bountiful enough to meet human needs for another 260 years.
The IFDC represents a vast financial stake in inorganic fertilizers and is, therefore, not a credible source for phosphorus studies. A 2014 review of the
IFDC report, conducted by The University of Amsterdam, concluded that the IFDC estimate of global phosphorus stocks “presents an inflated picture of
global reserves, in particular those of Morocco, where largely hypothetical and inferred resources have simply been relabeled ‘reserves.’” Still,
phosphorus depletion has no visibility in American culture and no traction as an issue on Capitol Hill. Despite The University of Amsterdam’s findings,
the USGS stands behind the IFDC’s assessment that phosphorus will remain readily available for centuries to come. Since the USGS is the United
States government’s most trusted advisor on environmental matters, its apathy toward peak phosphorus is reflected in official policy and in American
While personal boycotts of industrial farm produce might help us
sleep at night, they will have little effect on phosphorus consumption. We must write about peak
phosphorus, talk about it with our friends, neighbors, and coworkers, and raise the issue with our representatives in government and climate
advocacy groups around the world. Researchers like Roger Sylvester-Bradley are scrambling for solutions, but collective effort is required
to meet the challenge of phosphorus depletion and ensure the survival of life on Earth
for centuries to come.
life. All We Can Do Is Raise Awareness
And, a minimum of 9 billion will die without transitions in the U.S. to more
effective agricultural practices --- shifts can still stave-off peak phosphorus
Dolan ‘13
(Ed, Ph.D. in economics from Yale University. Early in his career, he was a member of the
economics faculty at Dartmouth “Doomsday: Will Peak Phosphate Get us Before Global
Warming?,” pg online @ https://oilprice.com/Metals/Commodities/Doomsday-Will-PeakPhosphate-Get-us-Before-Global-Warming.html //um-ef)
climate change catches the headlines, it is not the only doomsday scenario out there. A
peak phosphate—a catastrophic decline in output of an
essential fertilizer—will get us first. One of the worriers is Jeremy Grantham of the global investment management firm GMO. Grantham
foresees a coming crash of the earth’s population from a projected 10 billion to no more
than 1.5 billion. He thinks the rest of humanity will starve to death because we are running
out of phosphate fertilizer. This post on Business Insider from late last year provides an array of alarming charts to back up his warning. Foreign Policy
agrees that phosphate shortages are a potential threat. “If we fail to meet this challenge,” write contributors James Elser and Stuart
White, “humanity faces a Malthusian trap of widespread famine on a scale that we have not
yet experienced. The geopolitical impacts of such disruptions will be severe, as an increasing number of
Although
smaller but no less fervent band of worriers think that
states fail to provide their citizens with a sufficient food supply.” What is going on here? Is this really “the biggest problem we’ve never heard of,” as Elser puts it? Or are
phosphate shortages something that global markets can cope with? Let’s take a closer look. Why we need phosphates and why we are trouble if they run out The element
phosphorus is as essential to life as carbon or oxygen. It forms part of the structure of cell walls and DNA without which no plant or animal can exist. Phosphates are
phosphorus in chemical forms that are available to plants. Some phosphates occur naturally in the soil as the result of weathering of rocks, but since the dawn of agriculture,
farmers have added phosphate fertilizers to increase crop production. Manure, the traditional source, still accounts for about 15 percent of all phosphates used in agriculture, but
we appear to be running out of are deposits of
phosphate rock that can be mined at reasonable cost with today’s technology. Up to now, the United
since mid- twentieth century, most such fertilizer has come from phosphate rock. What
States has been a big producer, but its reserves are declining. China has a lot, but its domestic use is soaring and it is not a big exporter. North Africa has the biggest reserves,
but some of them are in politically unstable regions like the Western Sahara. The following widely reproduced diagram from a 2009 paper in Global Environmental
peak phosphorus hypothesis in the form of a “Hubbert curve” that shows production declining at an accelerating rate after hitting a
maximum around 2035. After that, say peak phosphate proponents, we are in big trouble .
Change depicts the
Can the market save us? Yes, a shortage of phosphates could spell trouble, but don’t forget about markets. Adjusting to shortages is just what markets
are for. As economists see it, depleting a resource like phosphate rock is supposed to cause its price to rise. As the price rises, two things are
supposed to happen. First, users are supposed to figure out ways to get by with less, and second, producers are supposed to find new sources of
supply. Will this happen in the case of phosphates, or do they have unique properties that will prevent markets from working their magic? Some think
a key difference between peak oil and
peak phosphorus, is that oil can be replaced with other forms of energy once it becomes
too scarce. But there is no substitute for phosphorus in food production. It cannot be
produced or synthesized in a laboratory. Quite simply, without phosphorus, we cannot produce
the latter. For example, the authors of the peak phosphorus diagram write that
food.
Fortunately, the biological impossibility of substituting some other element for phosphorus in food production is not enough to thwart the
operation of supply and demand in the phosphate market. One sign that the market is working is that phosphate prices are already rising. As the
following chart shows, the U.S. prices of two of the most commonly used phosphate fertilizers soared in the early 2000s. Along with the prices of many
other commodities, they dropped back from their peaks after the global financial crisis, but they are heading up again as the economy recovers.
The price increases have already had an impact on phosphate use. As the next chart shows, despite rising farm output, the growth
The question for the future is whether it is
technically feasible to increase food output further while actually reducing phosphate
use.
rate of phosphate fertilizer use has slowed over time.
Experts appear to think the answer is yes. A report published in Environmental Research
Letters estimates that improvements in farm management practices and consumer waste could
cut the phosphates needed to produce the present U.S. farm output by half, even with
today’s tech nologies. In the future, even greater reductions may be possible. According to Roberto Gaxiola of Arizona
State University, generations of phosphate fertilizer use have reduced the efficiency of phosphorus uptake by domesticated crop
plants. His experiments indicate that selective breeding and genetic engineering can produce plants that can flourish with much
lower phosphorus use.
US subsidy policy exports industrial ag globally---that causes extinction via
ecological collapse. The plan solves by facilitating a global transition to
sustainability.
Matthew R. Sanderson 21, a social scientist at Kansas State University, Stan Cox, a
research scholar in ecosphere studies at The Land Institute, 5-17-2021, "Big Agriculture Is
Leading to Ecological Collapse," Foreign Policy, https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/17/bigindustrialized-agriculture-climate-change-earth-systems-ecological-collapse-policy/ - MBA AM
Today, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than at any point in the past 3.6 million years. On April 5, atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeded
420 parts per million—marking nearly the halfway point toward doubling the carbon dioxide levels measured prior to the Industrial Revolution, a mere
171 years ago. Even amid a pandemic-induced economic shutdown—during which global annual emissions dropped 7 percent—carbon dioxide and
methane levels set records in 2020. The last time Earth held this much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, sea levels were nearly 80 feet higher and the
planet was 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer. The catch: Homo sapiens did not yet exist.
Change is in the air. U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines announced climate change is “at the center of the country’s national security and
foreign policy.” Business-as-usual is no longer a viable strategy as more institutions consider a future that will look and feel much different. In this
context, it is striking to read a recent piece in Foreign Policy arguing “big agriculture is best.”
“Big agriculture is best” cannot be an argument supported by empirical evidence . By now, it
is vitally clear that Earth systems —the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and biosphere—are in various phases of
collapse , putting nearly one-half of the world’s gross domestic product at risk and undermining the
planet’s ability to support life . And big , industrialized ag riculture— promoted by U.S.
foreign and domestic policy— lies at the heart of the multiple connected crises we are
confronting as a species.
The litany of industrial agriculture’s toll is long and diverse . Consider the effects of industrial animal
agriculture, for example. As of this writing, animal agriculture accounts for 14.5 percent of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
annually. It is also the source of 60 percent of all nitrous oxide and 50 percent of all methane
emissions , which have 36 times and 298 times , respectively, the warming potential of carbon
dioxide. As industrial animal agriculture has scaled up , agricultural emissions of
methane and nitrous oxide have been going in one direction only: up .
Efforts to scale industrial
agriculture are undermining the planet’s capacity to support life at more
local scales too. Consider Brazil, home to the Amazon Rainforest, which makes up 40 percent of all remaining
rainforest and 25 percent of all terrestrial biodiversity on Earth. Forest loss and species
extinctions have only increased as industrial agriculture has scaled up in Brazil. Farmers are
burning unprecedented amounts of forest to expand their operations in pursuit of an industrial model. In August 2019,
smoke blocked the sun in São Paulo, Brazil, 2,000 miles away from the fires in the state of Amazonas.
In India, the pace of agricultural industrialization is hastening as indicated by rising agricultural production and declining employment in agriculture,
which now accounts for less than one-half of India’s workforce. Agriculture has been scaled with all the tools of the Green Revolution: a high-input
farming system comprised of genetically modified seeds and accompanying synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. As agriculture has industrialized in
India, the use of pesticides and fertilizers has risen as well.
Although it has become more difficult to breathe the air in Brazil, it has become harder to find clean freshwater in India, where pesticide contamination
is rising. There, the costs of the industrial agriculture model are plainly ecological and human: Unable to drink the water or pay back the loans they took
out to finance their transition to industrial farming, an alarming number of Indian farmers are drinking pesticides instead. Almost a quarter-million Indian
farmers have died by suicide since 2000, and 10,281 farmers and farm laborers killed themselves in 2019 alone. In Punjab, the country’s breadbasket,
environmental destruction coexists with a raging opioid epidemic ensnaring nearly two-thirds of households in the state.
If the events in Brazil and India sound familiar to U.S. readers, it is because there
are analogous stories in the United
States—where industrial agriculture is rendering entire landscapes uninhabitable. The U.S.
Corn Belt, which spans the region from Ohio to Nebraska, produces 75 percent of the country’s corn, but around 35 percent of the
region has completely lost its topsoil. Industrial agriculture has been pursued with special zeal in Iowa, where there are 25
million hogs and 3 million people. There, water from the Raccoon River enters the state capital of Des Moines—home to 550,000 people—with nitrates,
phosphorus, and bacteria that have exceeded federal safe water drinking standards.
At a larger scale, nutrient
runoff from industrial agriculture in the U.S. Midwest has created an
annual dead zone —a hypoxic area low in or devoid of oxygen—that is the size of Massachusetts. The ecological
consequences of industrial agriculture manifest alongside a growing human toll. Rural
communities are experiencing rising suicide rates, especially among young people, along with increases in “deaths of despair” from alcohol and
drugs—an expanding human dead zone.
Although tragic, these
outcomes are neither inevitable nor natural. They are outcomes of U.S.
policy choices. Industrialized agriculture has been a hallmark of U.S. foreign policy in the
post-World War II era. Under the guise of development for all and the mantra of “feed the world,” the United States has used policy to
dump surplus grain in low-income countries—undermining markets for smallholder farmers—and cultivate
foreign markets as importers of high-input, industrial agriculture technologies to scale
agriculture. At home, federal policy since the 1970s has explicitly promoted scaling industrial
agriculture through the “get big or get out” imperative.
Society did not arrive at this precipice because agriculture was too small or because industrialized agriculture respected the laws of physics. Instead,
we are peering into an abyss of systemic socioecological collapse because every effort
has been made to use industrialization to break through all known ecological and human limitations to scaling agriculture.
Industrial agriculture simplifies ecosystems , rendering us more vulnerable to threats.
Transformative policies will be required to pull us back from the edge. As a start, the
United States could set an example for the Global North with a 50-year farm bill.
The bill would promote ecosystem diversification and increased resilience by reducing acreage of annual grain crops from 70 percent to 10 percent or
less of all cropland while scaling up perennial crops to 80 percent of farmland. The remaining 10 percent would be allocated to other crops, including a
diverse array of locally produced vegetables and fruits. Soil and water-conserving perennial varieties of rice, wheat, legumes, and other food-grain
crops—which are now being developed—could serve as components of diverse, perennial, multispecies communities of food crops that replicate how
nature functions. The bill would promote a transition to smaller, more diverse farm operations as
agricultural diversification will work most effectively not on vast, uniform acreages but as mosaics made up of many modest-sized farms.
The bill would be an important step toward returning home as a species that once again
lives within context—within limits, perennially. Our collective pursuit of “big is best” led
us out of context to our peril.
In the face of multiple cascading socioecological crises, Candide, published by the French writer Voltaire in 1759, shows us a way forward. Candide,
the book’s protagonist, is mentored by Pangloss, a professor who holds a Leibnizian optimism about the world that justifies the status quo as being “all
for the best” in the “best of all possible worlds.”
At the end of Candide and Pangloss’s travels, which laid all forms of disaster on them, the two encounter an old farmer who is casually taking in the
fresh air at his home. The farmer invites them into his house, where they eat and drink well. “You must have a vast and magnificent estate,” Candide
said to the farmer. “I have only twenty acres,” replied the farmer. “I and my children cultivate them; our labor preserves us from three great evils—
weariness, vice, and want.” Candide and the professor return to a small farm, and when the professor begins to philosophize again about how “all is for
the best” in the “best of all possible worlds,” Candide responds, “All that is very well, but let us cultivate our garden.”
As Candide stresses, it
is vital to move away from abstract, monocultural arguments proposing
business-as-usual as the best practice for all toward more practical work in more locally attuned, diversified
agricultures that respect limits—both ecological and human. It is time to scale down agriculture and enhance
our resilience to coming disruptions. The transitions will not be easy. We do not yet live in the best of all worlds, but things can be otherwise than as
they are. We
will need new agricultures and new policies to support them abroad and at
home. Let us cultivate our gardens.
Only a federal shift in subsidies solves --- farmers wont shift if crop
insurance exists --- shifting the subsidies causes farm down-sizing and
regenerative ag approaches
McKenzie ‘19
(Jessica McKenzie Jessica McKenzie is a freelance journalist in Brooklyn, NY. Previously, she
was the managing editor of the civic technology news site Civicist and interned at The Nation
magazine, “What happens if we eliminate crop insurance altogether?,” pg online @
https://thecounter.org/eliminate-crop-insurance-subsidies-regenerative-ag/ //um-ef)
Imagine for a moment, a possible future, some years ahead: Across the plains, acres that were once plowed up and planted to corn or wheat go back to native grass.
Marginal, flood-prone land is left to return to wetlands, improving water quality downstream. Farmers diversify their operations in order to effectively manage risk in a changing
Growers adopt practices like no-till and cover
cropping, which helps lower their inputs—the money spent on fertilizer, pesticides, seed,
climate. Monocropping is a thing of the past. Or this scenario, not so long from now:
and anything else they need to get a crop in the ground. They turn a profit with ease. They may even switch to cheaper, non-GMO seeds and see profit margins swell. In this
Land managers plant low-cost grasses and
other silage, and graze livestock on a portion of the land while the remaining acres are allowed to rest and regenerate. There’s always
something growing in the soil, anchoring nitrogen, helping retain rainwater, and
sequestering carbon. This is what American ag riculture could one day look like, according to
farmers, environmentalists, and economists. But first we’d have to get rid of federally subsidized crop insurance. More
than 300 million acres of cropland in the United States are covered by crop insurance. It’s absolutely
future tableau, cattle are turned out to pasture on land that was once intensively farmed.
essential to the success of American farmers and ranchers, at least according to the industry group, National Crop Insurance Services. It protects farmers from yield or revenue
losses caused by natural disasters like drought, flooding, pests, or disease—even market volatility. Although administered by private insurance companies, this “essential”
safety net is heavily subsidized.
The f ederal g overnment—the taxpayer, ultimately—chips in more than 60 percent of
the premium, with farmers paying, on average, less than 40 percent of the cost of coverage. That financial shield is a major
factor for farmers in deciding what to plant where , and how much to spend on fertilizer
and pesticides , because it essentially guarantees a minimum income on that land. But there have
also been some mostly unintended consequences. This includes confusing guidelines that have,
over time, discouraged farmers from planting cover crops like rye or clover, which anchor soil
and nutrients during the off-season, and help stabilize yields through years both dry and wet. Practices, in other
words, that could protect farmers from the very losses they end up needing crop insurance to recoup. This conundrum has prompted calls
for reform. Earlier this summer, I wrote about a time-consuming and costly effort to create crop insurance products that would reward farmers for adopting
regenerative agriculture practices that are restorative, maintain natural systems, and rebuild the topsoil, thereby defending land against the inevitable ravages of a warming
climate. Not long after my piece was published, someone popped into my Twitter mentions to make a case for what would be the most revolutionary reform of all: Toss out the
federally subsidized crop insurance program altogether. *** I followed up with some of the farmers who reached out to ask why they’d want to get rid of crop insurance and what
a world without it might look like. One of them happens to know the program inside and out. Scott Dudek grows open-pollinated seed corn on 120 acres in Michigan, less than
15 minutes from the Canadian border; he also works as a crop insurance adjuster. “I would like to see the subsidy part of it phased out,” Dudek says. “Let it become a private
product completely.” In his view,
farmers are entirely too reliant on crop insurance . “We’ll end up not being able to feed
ourselves or be a productive society because we’ve become reliant upon subsidies,” he says. While part of Dudek’s objection to subsidized crop insurance is rooted in his
libertarian politics and preference for small government, he also says that getting rid of the subsidy completely would force farmers to adopt more conservation practices. As it is
now, farmers don’t need to ensure that their soil is rich enough to sustain a crop even in
dry years because they can just get an insurance payout if their yields are sub-par.
Although there are a number of incentive programs to nudge farmers to start growing cover crops,
at both state and federal levels , they haven’t spurred widespread adoption . “We’re going to have to
become better stewards of the land going forward if we’re to remain profitable,” Dudek says. It’s not just farmers who take issue with crop insurance. The non-profit, nonpartisan Environmental Working Group (EWG) published a report in 2017, arguing that crop insurance policy as it exists now could lead us into another Dust Bowl. The report
singles out a particularly egregious provision, the Actual Production History Yield Exclusion, which was slipped into the 2014 farm bill and is exacerbating the inherent problems
with crop insurance. Here’s how crop insurance coverage is normally determined: Adjusters calculate the average yield of a crop in a specific area over many years, which gives
a reasonable estimate of what those acres might yield in the future. But the yield exclusion changes that equation, allowing farmers in some counties to exclude bad years from
that estimate. And not just one or two bad years, but up to 12. This essentially means farmers can rewrite history, and pretend that the region isn’t as arid or bad for crops as it
really is. “Even if bad years occur more often than good years, the bad years are treated as aberrations and the good years as normal,” the authors of the report write.
Crop insurance becomes a form of annual income support that encourages farmers to
keep planting crops that fail more often than they succeed.” This not only drives up the cost of subsidizing crop
“
insurance for taxpayers, it’s causing long-term damage to the environment and the American landscape. High crop insurance payouts discourage farmers from adapting to the
changing climate, and that could prompt another man-made environmental disaster like the Dust Bowl. Anne Weir Schechinger, a senior analyst at EWG and co-author of the
When you’re subsidizing crop insurance,
you have farmers planting riskier crops or bringing riskier acres into production,” Schechinger says. Studies show that
crop insurance encourages more farmers to plant corn, because it is subsidized at a
higher rate than other commodity crops, like soybeans. That may seem pretty innocuous, says Schechinger, until you
consider that corn is often planted in lieu of winter wheat, which holds the soil in place during
the colder months. So without winter wheat in the ground (or a cover crop like buckwheat
or clover, which are still rare) there is going to be more erosion, and more nutrient runoff. Schechinger says
that marginal land, or land prone to drought or flooding, is more likely to be brought into
production because of subsidized crop insurance. Although they might be riskier acres (read: more likely to fail) with drastically
2017 report, says the problems with crop insurance aren’t limited to the yield exclusion. “
different yields from one year to the next, farmers don’t pay the full premiums that account for that risk, so it’s still worth it to them to plant and take a chance. This has
the land is prone to drought or flooding, it’s also prone to soil
erosion and nutrient runoff, which degrade local water quality and can have serious consequences downstream, causing toxic
algal blooms in all types of water bodies and hypoxic dead zones in the ocean. “There was a period
environmental consequences: Because
where you could, as long as you planted corn, you were guaranteed a profit,” says Loran Steinlage, who farms 750 acres in Iowa. Although it used to be almost all corn,
Steinlage now grows corn, soybeans, buckwheat, rye, barley, and sunflowers, “a little bit of everything.” Steinlage says as soon as people figured out that planting corn virtually
guaranteed a profit, they started buying more land, raising rents and forcing out smaller operators. Sandra Kay Miller has also seen problems in Pennsylvania, where she raises
meat goats, lambs, and poultry on a 75-acre farm. “
I have watched, for the last 20 years, so many abuses of the
crop insurance program,” Miller says. “I’m so frustrated that this is what agriculture has come to.” Miller says she has seen wetlands that have never
been farmed before plowed up and planted. And year after year, the acres flood, and year after year, the crop insurance adjuster shows up. *** In theory, producers should not
be allowed to farm converted wetlands at all, or even highly erodible land, without a conservation system in place. But Seth Watkins says that enforcement of those rules is
nearly nonexistent. (It is left up to states to monitor and hold farmers accountable, and they have limited resources to do so.) Watkins is a fourth-generation farmer from
southwest Iowa. He runs a diversified operation on 3,000 acres, grazes around 600 cows, and grows a mix of alfalfa, hay, oats, and corn for silage. “What breaks my heart is
that, without some significant policy change, someone would buy it all up and turn it all into crops,” Watkins says. This possibility bothered him so much that he recently put his
land into a conservation trust to ensure that will never happen. Watkins doesn’t actually want to get rid of crop insurance, or at least, he doesn’t want to deprive farmers of a
safety net. “Our food system is pretty complex,” Watkins says. “I think the idea of
revenue protection is great, as long as it’s
supporting appropriate land use. What bothers me with federal crop insurance is it’s created an incentive to farm land that shouldn’t be farmed.”
The problems with crop insurance have united a number of unlikely allies. On one side, you have environmental groups advocating for significant reforms to the federal
program. This includes EWG and the Union of Concerned Scientists. On the other, you have conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute arguing
for outright elimination (or, barring that possibility, significant reforms). In a hefty 2016 report, the Heritage Foundation called the crop insurance program a “complete failure”
and argued that it should have been eliminated decades ago. “Federal coddling of the agriculture industry is deep and comprehensive,” Chris Edwards, director of tax policy
studies at Cato, wrote in 2018. “Farm subsidies are costly to taxpayers, but they also harm the economy and the environment.” Some of the problems that these conservative
think tanks identify are issues that might just as likely be championed by progressive organizations. For example: Farm subsidies, including crop insurance, further concentrate
wealth among the already-wealthy. Edwards notes that, in 2016, the average income of farm households was 42 percent higher than the average American household. And the
benefits may not actually be going to the growers; the authors of the Heritage report wryly observe that “reviews of agricultural programs have repeatedly found tens of millions
the
majority of crop insurance benefits go to producers of cash crops, like soybeans, rather
than fruit and vegetable growers, or the people who epitomize our very idea of “farmer.” Eliminating crop insurance
would force every grower to be more creative, and more careful. Suddenly, they would have to
manage all of the risks of farming themselves. Conservative economists like Edwards argue that farmers are more than up to it.
Business risk is not unique to farming, and other business owners and operators figure out ways to manage it, he says. They save during good years, and borrow during bad. If
the government-subsidized program disappeared, private insurance companies would
create a range of crop insurance products that farmers could choose from. Edwards adds that
farmers could diversify their planting to protect themselves from volatile markets or fluctuating yields, something many
of dollars in agricultural subsidies annually going to residents of such agriculture powerhouses as New York City and Washington, D.C.” Then there’s the fact that
of the farmers I spoke with for this story have already done. More farmers might pursue secondary or part-time work to supplement their farming income (again many, like
larger operations would be forced to downsize , which could make
those acres available to a greater number of farmers. The Heritage Foundation also says that crop insurance
artificially inflates the value of land, which can make it harder than it already is for new,
beginner farmers to enter the profession.
Dudek, already do). Dudek says that some
Thus the following plan: The United States federal government should
substantially increase its protection of water resources in the United States
by directing substantial U.S. agricultural subsidies toward meeting water
quality goals.
Solvency
The aff’s reverse auction process incentivizes effective agricultural
practices that shifts land use away from inefficient and destructive
agriculture
Adler ‘13
(Robert, Interim Dean, James I. Farr Chair, and Professor of Law, University of Utah, S.J.
Quinney College of Law, “Agriculture And Water Quality: A Climate-Integrated Perspective ,” pg
online @ https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/8-Adler.pdf //um-ef)
2. Aligning Multiple Interests Simply reframing the question, of course, at best only takes us in a new direction with the potential to generate more promising solutions. Moving from the reframed question to one or
more
solutions also requires both a mechanism to match public and private interests and successful ideas on how
those interests should be aligned to achieve mutually beneficial goals. In previous work, I proposed a potential mechanism designed in part to achieve a better alignment of public and private interests in the
context of the massive public expenditures that have been devoted to agricultural water pollution control in recent decades. Without suggesting that this is the only possible approach to achieve this pairing of
interests—and indeed, I hope many more might be proposed—it can serve as an illustration of how this might be achieved. In Priceline for Pollution: Auctions to Allocate Public Pollution Control Dollars, 189 I
throwing huge amounts of public dollars at agricultural
water pollution control programs without adequate accountability or success measures.
None of those funding sources, of course, are free of guiding criteria or standards, but others have
critiqued them as inadequate and ineffective.190 It is possible, then, that the primary flaw in our previous
approaches to agricultural pollution is not that we have chosen to subsidize private
pollution control with public dollars rather than regulating farmers, but that we have
subsidized in an inefficient way with little or no effective means of measuring or even
requiring effective use of those funds. An alternative is to borrow a concept from the Colorado River Salinity Control Program, which also
devotes significant public funding to the control of both point and nonpoint source salinity pollution in the
critiqued our decades-old policy, under both Clean Water Act and Farm Bill programs, of
Colorado River Basin.191 In the early years of the salinity program, following the traditional methods it had used for decades for dams and other water projects, the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) selected salinity
reduction projects using a traditional public works model.192 Later, the USDA added its traditional federal assistance approach to subsidize farmers to reduce their salinity inputs into the system.193 Both internal
and external reviewers critiqued the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, and Congress adopted legislative reforms194 suggesting a “basinwide” approach to the salinity problem.195 As a result,
the
BoR, in cooperation with the Colorado River Basin states, shifted to a public auction
approach . Program funds are now allocated to those who can demonstrate that they can
reduce salt loadings to the river most cost-effectively, measured in cost per ton of salt
removed from the river, regardless of the source, after accounting for any risk that the project will not be implemented effectively.196 In the roughly decade and a half since BoR
adopted the auction approach, the cost-effectiveness of salinity reduction measures in the basin has improved dramatically.197 In my earlier analysis, I suggested using nutrient
and sediment pollution of the Chesapeake Bay as an experimental model for using the reverse
auction approach to tackle a more traditional but longstanding and intractable agricultural pollution problem.198 Rather than throwing public money at
anyone who can meet generic program criteria independent of cost-effectiveness or any other measure of accountability, under this approach agency officials
would solicit bids based on who can reduce more pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, or
sediment loadings at the lowest costs, again accounting for project risk.199 My intent in that analysis was not to argue that public funding is necessarily the
best approach to agricultural pollution control, but if we are going to continue to spend large amounts of public funds in that effort—particularly during a time of federal fiscal crisis—we certainly should do so more
interest in the public auction approach is building, as Pennsylvania is
considering legislation to adopt an auction model200 as part of its implementation of the EPA’s interstate Chesapeake Bay TMDL discussed above.201 This same strategy might also help us
to identify and prioritize funding for solutions to agricultural water pollution in ways that also help
agricultural producers adapt to the disruptive effects of climate change. One thing seems reasonably clear in this effort: Neither
farmers nor governments can solve the reframed problems laid out earlier on their own. It needs to be a partnership. And it is equally clear that, despite rhetorical claims
about the independent nature of small rural farmers, agriculture has been a privatepublic
partnership in the United States since at least the 1930s. The f ederal g overnment has
assisted farmers through direct subsidies, price supports, subsidized crop insurance,
international trade policies, and otherwise. Since Congress adopted the original New Deal agricultural programs, the real question has been about the
effectively and with more accountability. There is some indication that
a
reverse auction approach might help us to use climate change as an (admittedly counter-intuitive) opportunity to make this public-private
partnership work more effectively to reduce the water quality and other adverse environmental effects of
agriculture while also helping with climate change adaptation. To explore that option, we first need to consider accountability metrics
specific nature and terms of the public-private partnership, which has evolved considerably throughout its history,202 as opposed to whether it should exist at all. Although certainly not the only option,
equivalent to dollars per ton of salt (or nitrogen or phosphorus) that address multiple, hopefully consistent, goals. Although more difficult and more complex than programs designed to address individual pollutants
like salt or nutrients, it is quite possible to conceive of metrics that might be suitable. The following examples are presented simply as preliminary possibilities to llustrate the idea. All would require considerably
more refinement and are in no way intended to be exclusive. In a region facing expected reductions in precipitation and runoff, we might rank public investments based on predicted crop production per unit of
water used (e.g., tons of wheat per acre-foot of water applied). In this case, the mutually aligned goals would be to increase production efficiency while preserving scarce water resources in increasingly arid
areas. The accountability metric would provide incentives to develop more waterefficient production methods, while making public funds available to make the necessary investments in the most cost-effective
irrigation methods, crop changes, or other innovations. Similarly, in a region facing increasing weed growth or increased risks from insects or other pests, we could rank public investments by crop production per
unit of herbicide or pesticide use, perhaps weighted by the toxicity and mobility of each chemical in the environment. The mutually aligned goals would be to maintain production while reducing input costs and
reducing adverse effects on water quality and human health. Producers would have incentives to innovate weed control and pest control methods that either used lower quantities of chemicals, or chemicals that
were either less toxic or less likely to contaminate surface water, ground water, or other resources. Last, in a region in which crops are facing natural temperature limits, we might rank investments based on which
new crops or varieties can produce best in that region with lowest water quality or other environmental impacts. The mutually aligned goals would be to promote and support crop shifts that maintain or improve
production levels with lower environmental impacts, even if that means that different crops would be produced in different regions. Producers would have incentives either to develop or change to crops or crop
varieties better suited to changing weather conditions, or even to change production locations. Some of those solutions could be expensive, making the partnership and public funding approach particularly
desirable. One interesting advantage of using accountability metrics based on production relative to some relevant measure of environmental harm, as opposed to dollars per unit of pollution reduction, as is used
As a matter of basic
domestic farm policy, it may no longer be feasible from a fiscal, food supply, or
environmental perspective to continue to subsidize inefficient production of large
amounts of commodity crops, either for domestic consumption or for export. Rather than basing only certain
targeted provisions of the Farm Bill on water quality and other resource protection goals, as
well as any funding under the CWA or other federal and state environmental programs, this strategy
could be used to direct all ag ricultural subsidies , or at least a larger percentage of them, to
for the salinity control program and proposed for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, is that it potentially opens up a wider scope of federal funding mechanisms.
production changes designed simultaneously to help farmers adapt to climate change
and
to
meet water quality
and other environmental
goals . A particularly challenging problem inherent in this approach, however, is that so many different accountability
metrics might be relevant in determining the sustainability of agricultural production in the face of climate change, and some of those metrics might be internally inconsistent and subject to different value
if one measures production relative to pesticide use as a way to
avoid or reduce the likelihood that farmers will adapt to increased pest risks by using
more, or more toxic, pesticides, that might provide an incentive to shift to g enetically
preferences or policy judgments. As just one example,
m odified o rganism s . Some may believe that to be a positive trend, while others may fear that it exposes humans, or the environment, to currently unknown or poorly understood
risks. On the other hand, framing the question in this way may force us to make the choices among
competing values that will be inevitable in deciding how to maintain or increase agricultural productivity
in the face of climate change without aggravating already serious water quality and other environmental
problems . Agricultural water pollution remains a serious problem that has not been mitigated on a nationwide scale despite four
decades or more of effort. It has also been an intractable problem, in part due to the longstanding policy impasse about
whether the best approach to the problem is to regulate farming practices more rigorously or to continue to
encourage farmers to minimize their environmental impacts through education, public funding, and other voluntary programs. Climate change is likely to exacerbate the water quality effects of a range of
climate change is likely to hurt U.S. agriculture
itself, in ways both related to and entirely independent of environmental issues. As unsettling as those dual realizations may be, if we integrate the two issues,
they provide an interesting opportunity to reframe the agricultural water pollution problem in a
way that brings about an alignment of—rather than a conflict between—traditional
agricultural and environmental interests. Some of the same strategies that will help farmers to withstand the production challenges presented by climate
agricultural practices and to increase other associated environmental problems as well. At the same time,
change, such as better pest management techniques, simultaneously could reduce the water pollution effects of those activities. Accordingly, reframing the agricultural water pollution issue from a climateintegrated perspective may increase our chance of finding viable solutions and overcoming the longstanding policy impasse in this area.
Status quo subsidies lock agriculture into industrial, destructive practices--but the plan solves by incentivizing the transition to regenerative
practices.
Fiona McBride 20, Research Fellow at the Berkley Food Institute and Center for Law,
Energy, and the Environment, December 2020, "Redefining Value and Risk in Agriculture:
Policy and Investment Solutions to Scale the Transition to Regenerative Agriculture," Center for
Law, Energy, and the Environment at UC Berkley Law School, https://food.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/12/BFI_ValueRisk_in_Ag_120920_Digital.pdf - MBA AM
II. Reform Crop Insurance
Growers looking to implement regenerative practices face high up-front costs and often
shoulder the full risk of this transition . When it comes to encouraging this shift , federal reform
efforts have most often focused on the Conservation Title in the Farm Bill, which rewards farmers for practicing conservation activities.
Crop
insurance has been overlooked in this context. To some degree, this policy choice is understandable: reform is difficult because
any changes to the risk model require formal proposals that are costly, work-intensive, and depend on robust actuarial data. But
it remains a
significant opportunity . Federal crop insurance is a $9 billion per annum program that covers over 350
million acres of agricultural lands in the United States, or 80 percent of arable acreage.22 If the RMA were to
recognize the lowered risk associated with regenerative farming, they could incentivize
more insured farmers to transition to regenerative farming , while widening eligibility for
regenerative growers who are not yet insured.
Existing crop insurance programs tend to favor largescale conventional growers
commodity crops like corn and soy. Conversely,
cultivating
lack of access to this insurance puts smaller , diversified ,
and regenerative growers at a disadvantage—and locks conventional farmers into their
current cropping patterns and practices that can be insured. The federal crop insurance
program can recognize the reduced risk of regenerative practices by adjusting their
insurance model to promote them. More specifically, the RMA could account for the greater yield stability and increase in crop
value23 of regenerative farms by expanding crop insurance access and lowering rates. Over the last five years, groups including the AGree Economic
and Environmental Risk Coalition and the NRDC have worked to reform crop insurance to drive broader adoption of agricultural conservation.24 The
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has also successfully achieved adjustments to the crop insurance program. They have strengthened the
recently established Whole-Farm Revenue Protection program, which allows diversified growers to insure their entire farm rather than just individual
commodity crops. They also worked within the US Department of Agriculture’s Farm Production and Conservation mission area (which includes NRCS,
RMA, the Farm Service Agency, and the Farm Production and Conservation Business Center) to refine the cover cropping termination guidelines.
Finally, they successfully advocated for the inclusion of cover crops in the crop insurance program’s “Good Farming Practices,” making it easier for
producers to use this practice without fear of jeopardizing their insurance coverage.25 The nonprofit Land Core has been working with actuarially
sound data on yield variability and recovery rates to create an independent modeling tool to determine risk for crop insurers and lenders. To be
effective, future efforts should occur in collaboration with existing coalitions spearheaded by AGree and other advocacy groups. Greater advocacy from
state legislators and governors to federal policymakers would be particularly effective at driving more rapid reform.
Current ag subsidies lock-in farmers into destructive practices and
financially forbid the transition to regenerative ag.
Jessica Mckenzie 19, a freelance journalist, formerly the managing editor of Civicist, 3-142019, "Regenerative agriculture saves soil, water, and the climate. The government actively
discourages it.," Counter, https://thecounter.org/regenerative-agriculture-cover-crops-no-tillusda/ - MBA AM
Cover crops and other regenerative agriculture practices are still pigeonholed as
conservation practices, not as good farming practices. But if farmers want crop
insurance, they have to play by the rules .
Last year, a few days before Christmas, Gail Fuller drove me out to the middle of a windwhipped field just north of Emporia, Kansas. “This is really where it started for me,” he said as
he climbed out of the truck, spade in hand. With a thunk, he drove the spade into the ground
and pulled out a hunk of earth, holding it up so I could see the texture, which he described as
like “chocolate cake” and “black cottage cheese.”
Pointing to a wriggling earthworm, a sign of good soil health, Fuller explained that conventional,
tilled fields would be too cold for earthworms to be that close to the surface. Tilling rips up and
compacts soil, compressing the air pockets that would otherwise insulate earthworms from
temperature extremes. But because Fuller never tills and maintains a continuous living root
system, which provides additional insulation, his field has earthworms year-round.
Fuller’s approach is part of the broader “regenerative agriculture” movement, a way of farming
that prioritizes soil health and has a host of other benefits, from carbon sequestration to
reducing nutrient runoff. In the mid-1990s, he stopped tilling his fields to improve water
retention , increase soil nutrients, and help counter erosion. In 2002, he began planting cover
crops, grains and legumes that cover land through the winter, and can help control weeds,
increase biodiversity, and capture carbon. Fuller also drastically cut down on his use of
herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer.
This long evolution has improved his farm’s health and profitability . But Fuller is one of
many regenerative farmers who feels that government policies have actively worked
against them .
In 2012, a historic drought year, Fuller’s approach to farming cost him a crucial crop insurance
payout: His insurance company denied his claim because days of harsh, dry winds prevented
him from terminating his crops in line with the government’s strict timeline. He spent almost two
years fighting for the money, and though he eventually won his case, he lost his operating line
of credit at the bank while he waited—and subsequently lost much of his land.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has delivered perfunctory messages
about the benefits of cover crops and other regenerative agricultural practices. But, for years,
the agency has effectively discouraged farmers from planting cover crops through
confusing and overly restrictive rules set by the Risk Management Agency (RMA), an
agency under USDA that determines crop insurance eligibility, a lifeline for many farmers. Fuller
and other producers have fought for those rules to be lifted, and the most recent farm bill
finally does away with the worst and most restrictive rules. Now, as long as farmers make a
good faith effort to terminate their crops according to USDA guidelines, they cannot be denied a
payout if drought or floods or other acts of Mother Nature impede their work. However, until
cover crops and other regenerative practices are branded by the government as good
farming , instead of merely good environmental stewardship, adoption will never reach a
critical mass.
In theory, the RMA is an independent government agency, a neutral arbiter of rules and
regulations. But multiple sources told me on background that they believe the agency
essentially publishes rules that the agribusiness industry supplies. And the industry
doesn’t want cover crops. Crop insurance companies are reluctant to introduce variables they
don’t understand and that might come with new risks; the broader agricultural industry has a
vested interest in farmers needing to buy its pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in everincreasing quantities. The use of cover crops threatens that demand.
The year Fuller’s insurance provider denied his claim, based on the RMA’s cover crop rules, the
country-wide drought was so bad that a crop insurance industry group has dedicated a web
page to it. Fuller began the long process of challenging the denial, but in the years that followed,
landlords gave his acres to farmers who could afford to put seed in, and who wouldn’t rock the
boat so much. Others sold off the land he had been farming and he didn’t have the money to
buy it back. Fuller struggled to afford the seed and fertilizer for the acres he still had.
“The upside is they pushed us to this, which is where we really wanted to be anyway,” Fuller
said. “So there’s really a lot of good to come out of it. We wouldn’t have had the courage to do
this without being broke and not having an option.”
“This” means pivoting away from commodity crops and moving toward a more
diversified approach to agriculture: a system where grass-fed cows, sheep, heirloom pig
breeds, and chickens rove a more biodiverse landscape. Many of Fuller’s fields are planted with
perennial plants and native grasses that he has let go to seed, which the ruminants graze on a
rotational basis. Fuller went from farming 3,200 acres of corn and soybeans in 2000, to just 400
acres in 2018, very few of them planted with commodity grains. And this way, for reasons I’ll
explain, he doesn’t need crop insurance in the first place.
“If you want crop insurance, you have to play by their rules.”
Farmers have been experimenting with different regenerative agricultural practices since the
late 1980s, although they might not have used that term back then. Steve Swaffar, executive
director of No-Till on the Plains, said that soil erosion was a major factor. Even though farmers
were following standard best practices, topsoil was still running off their fields. They began
looking for solutions. A few people pulled together a conference on alternative farming methods
in 1995, and soon the Kansas Crop Residue Management Alliance was established as a
nonprofit. The organization was later renamed No-Till on the Plains, a catchier rebrand that still
belies the broad scope of its mission, which is a systems-based approach to agriculture that
includes no-till, cover crops, crop rotation, and livestock integration.
“When you put it all together, that’s when you get a complete farming approach that I think is
certainly superior from an environmental standpoint,” said Swaffar. “And we’re seeing more
and more evidence that it’s superior from an economic standpoint.”
Darin Williams, a Kansas farmer who grows a mix of corn, soybeans, and cereal crops on 2,000
acres, and incorporates practices like no-till and cover crops, says his input costs are
significantly lower than his peers. He needs less fertilizer and half as much herbicide; when
herbicides can cost anywhere between $20 to $40 per acre, the savings add up quick.
Even as evidence of the benefits of cover crops mounted, the government held onto
rules that discouraged their use. Although crop insurance is administered by private
companies, the federal government manages and subsidizes the industry , and sets the
rules that determine crop insurance eligibility . Most of those rules allow farmers to farm the
way they see fit, as long as that is within a fairly broad range of good farming practices; fertilizer,
pesticide, and herbicide use are all left to farmer discretion. But for years, the RMA dictated
how farmers could use cover crops by setting strict termination dates—dates that may not
make sense in a particular location or in a given year.
“If you want crop insurance, you have to play by their rules,” Swaffar said. “Many of the farmers
that come to our events would tell you, ‘If I didn’t have to follow those rules, I could be a
lot more productive and a lot more effective as a farmer,’ but because crop prices only
offer very slim profit margins for producers, they’re almost financially obligated to carry
crop insurance.”
For example: Last spring was unusually cold in Iowa. Sarah Carlson, the director of Strategic
Initiatives for Practical Farmers of Iowa, said that when it came time to plant soybeans, cover
crops across the state were barely two inches high. “Agronomically, they should have planted
soybeans as early as possible and let the cover crop grow until it reached about knee-height to
get weed control benefits from it,” Carlson said. But that would have been “off label” and against
RMA policy. Practical Farmers won a deviation for two farmers that allowed them to go off book
without jeopardizing their crop insurance. All that effort, Carlson said, was “a waste of time.”
“Farmers should be allowed to farm the way they feel is best,” Carlson said. “RMA should get
out of the agronomy business.”
In addition to making it overly onerous for farmers to implement cover crops in a way that works
for them, RMA policies have had the effect of scaring off farmers who might otherwise be
interested in cover crops.
Approximately 90 percent of the insurable farm acreage in the U.S. is protected by crop
insurance. Many farmers have to have it in order to qualify for operating loans from the bank.
Simply knowing that cover crops could impact eligibility has been enough to scare some
farmers away.
After Fuller was denied his crop insurance payout, he said farmers would come up to him during
events that he attended or spoke at, and say, “I’m not gonna do cover crops now,” or “I was
doing cover crops and I quit, because I can’t afford to lose my insurance.”
“So it did set the movement back, for a few years,” Fuller said.
While financial concerns can keep farmers from experimenting with cover crops and other
regenerative practices, some farmers try them when they fall on hard times, as a last resort.
“I don’t think you find many who actively said, ‘I just want to do this for the benefit of the climate
or the environment,'” said Mike Lavender, who works on food and environmental issues for the
Union of Concerned Scientists. “You typically find that people, for whatever circumstance, were
forced into and have found a way to make it work.”
Many of the farmers practicing regenerative agriculture, including cover crops, have begun to
self-insure; it’s not ideal, but the way the crop insurance industry works leaves them little choice.
What they have found is that cover crops and other regenerative practices have made them less
susceptible to yield variations from year to year.
Ryan Stockwell is the director of sustainable agriculture at the National Wildlife Federation and
helped Fuller win his crop insurance claim; he also farms 110 acres in Wisconsin, and forgoes
crop insurance entirely.
“As a farmer, I’ve been doing no-till, cover crops, and a diverse crop rotation for eight years
now, and I’m getting to the point where I’m not seeing any major yield variation that my
neighbors are experiencing,” Stockwell said. “So why should I pay $15 an acre for no return?”
Right now, crop insurance is based entirely on the county in which you live. The RMA calculates
risk that way because weather across a single county is fairly consistent, and weather is a huge
factor in farm yields from one year to the next. The comparison I heard over and over again was
that it’s like giving everyone who lives in the same neighborhood the same car insurance rate,
without a “good driver” discount.
Stockwell and others want the crop insurance industry to be restructured in order to take
practices that decrease yield variability—and therefore lessen risk for the insurance company—
into account. They want a “good farmer” discount for farmers who use practices that
stabilize yields, but that also have broader environmental benefits. By that logic,
regenerative farmers should be cheaper to insure.
“Instead of having a county average that defines your risk, regardless of practices that you use
in that county, instead we may see a larger geographic pool that they put people in, but there
would be a number of different pools within that geography,” said Stockwell. “So, it could be a
four, six, or eight county area, and they pool the farmers who have a two-crop rotation, or they
pool the farmers who have a three-crop rotation plus cover crops plus no-till.”
Only the plan’s incentive solves --- farmers wont switch as long as
subsidies force monocropping and unsustainable farming --- a switch in
the incentive structure ensures sustainable farming strategies
Eubanks ‘13
(William, Summer Faculty Member, Vermont Law School; Adjunct Associate Professor of Law,
American University Washington College of Law; Partner, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, “THE
FUTURE OF FEDERAL FARM POLICY: STEPS FOR ACHIEVING A MORE SUSTAINABLE
FOOD SYSTEM,” pg online @ https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/11-Eubanks.pdf //um-ef)
B. Scaling up Sustainable Agriculture with Significant Reform of Farm Bill Commodity Subsidies
As seen with our nation’s massive corn production tied solely to subsidies, farmers will
farm wherever the money is . If subsidies were available for sustainable agriculture,
regardless of the crop produced, data suggests that farmers would undertake
sustainable agricultural practices in order to survive. Further, all available data indicates
that many farmers genuinely want to grow healthier foods, maintain their communities,
and conserve their natural ecosystems, but they are pressured to farm corn and other
commodity crops at the expense of those values because that is where profits are
garnered under the existing subsidy framework .46 Although most farmers in the United
States do not want farm bill subsidies eliminated or phased out,47 farmers “show[] strong
support for programs focused on conservation” and seem very concerned about the status of
the natural environment.48 This is not surprising considering the interdependent relationship
between healthy farms and a healthy environment: Long-term farm health requires a functioning
local ecosystem that can sufficiently supply all of a farm’s needs. To prevent degradation of this
important ecosystem, which suffers from a classic “tragedy of the commons”49 problem under
the current farm bill subsidy regime, the proposed sustainable agriculture subsidy system would
pay farmers to protect this common pool resource for society and for the farmers themselves for
future crop years, to avoid passing on environmental externalities as has typically been the case
under federal farm policies. A related question that is often asked is whether farmers are
willing to make the transition from solely growing corn or other commodity crops to
planting a diversity of fruits and vegetables under a sustainable agriculture subsidy
program . Based on available research, it seems that farmers would be willing to do so
both financially and for the viability of their farms and families . Financially speaking, a
farmer receives only four cents out of every consumer dollar spent on a corn-based product in
the supermarket because of the large number of middlemen such as Cargill, ADM, CocaCola,
and PepsiCo.50 The return is starkly different for whole foods such as green vegetables, fruits,
and eggs, where the respective farmer receives forty cents for every supermarket dollar spent,
or ten times the amount of return on investment.51 Thus, it makes financial sense for farmers
to indulge in the cultivation of healthier produce and unprocessed whole foods once
sustainable agriculture subsidies are put into place, not to mention the ability to feed one’s
family with the farm’s diverse crops rather than purchasing food at the supermarket that was
produced and processed hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away. With respect to anticipated
environmental impacts, sustainable agriculture will greatly help to repair local ecosystems, boost
farmers’ yields as the ecology and soil improves, and mitigate the degradation caused by
decades of mechanized agriculture under the farm bill. As farmers well know, sustainable
agriculture includes polycultures and crop rotations that are essential to protect soils from
erosion and streambeds from sedimentation.52 Farmers have long recognized the need for
better farming practices to enhance environmental protection.53 When the USDA has
given farmers the flexibility to diversify their crops into polycultures and yet retain their
full direct payment of commodity subsidies, many farmers have taken advantage of this
flexibility and planted noncommodity crops on nearly half of the land available for
diversification.54 This choice indicates a desire to move towards a more ecologically
protective cultivation scheme within the parameters of the farm bill’s commodity title.55
Additionally, sustainable agricultural systems do not rely on harmful chemical inputs of
synthetic fertilizers or pesticides that pose serious threats to humans and wildlife .56
Studies indicate that sustainable farming systems “use 30 to 70 percent less energy per
unit of land than conventional systems, a critical factor in terms of global warming and
eventual fossil fuel shortages.”57 Since subsidizing sustainable agriculture will result in
more polycultures and thus more robust and diverse local food supplies, less
transportation will be needed, and the result will be “reduced energy consumption, less
processing and packaging, and higher nutritional values” lost during storage and
transportation.58
Agriculture Industry Advantage
1AC Ag Industry Advantage
A need for massive expansion of ag is coming --- by 2050 we will run out of
food if we don’t find new strategies for sustainable farming
Elferink et al ‘16
(Maarten Elferink is the founder and Managing Director of Vosbor, an Amsterdam based
commodity service and solutions provider dedicated to sustainability, originating soft
commodities and derivative products selectively in Eastern Europe and the FSU for distribution
in the Asia-Pacific region, Florian Schierhorn is a post-doctoral researcher at the Leibniz
Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies in Halle, Germany and was
selected for participation in the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting on Economic Sciences in 2014.
His overall research relates to the question of how to meet global food security without
increasing pressure on land, “Global Demand for Food Is Rising. Can We Meet It?,” pg online @
https://hbr.org/2016/04/global-demand-for-food-is-rising-can-we-meet-it //um-ef)
the global population has quadrupled. In 1915, there were 1.8 billion people in the world. Today, according to the most recent estimate by
the UN, there are 7.3 billion people — and we may reach 9.7 billion by 2050. This growth, along with rising incomes in developing countries (which
cause dietary changes such as eating more protein and meat) are driving up global food demand. Food demand is expected to
increase anywhere between 59% to 98% by 2050. This will shape agricultural markets in ways we have not seen before.
Farmers worldwide will need to increase crop production, either by increasing the amount of agricultural land to grow crops or by
enhancing productivity on existing agricultural lands through fertilizer and irrigation and adopting new methods like precision farming. However, the ecological
and social trade-offs of clearing more land for agriculture are often high, particularly in the tropics. And right now, crop yields — the amount of crops
harvested per unit of land cultivated — are growing too slowly to meet the forecasted demand for food. Many other factors,
Over the last century,
from climate change to urbanization to a lack of investment, will also make it challenging to produce enough food. There is strong academic consensus that climate change–driven water scarcity, rising global
temperatures, and extreme weather will have severe long-term effects on crop yields. These are expected to impact many major agricultural regions, especially those close to the Equator. For example, the
Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, one of the most important agricultural regions worldwide, may face an 18% to 23% reduction in soy and corn output by 2050, due to climate change. The Midwestern U.S. and
Eastern Australia — two other globally important regions — may also see a substantial decline in agricultural output due to extreme heat. Yet some places are expected to (initially) benefit from climate change.
Countries stretching over northern latitudes — mainly China, Canada, and Russia — are forecasted to experience longer and warmer growing seasons in certain areas. Russia, which is already a major grain
exporter, has huge untapped production potential because of large crop yield gaps (the difference between current and potential yields under current conditions) and widespread abandoned farmland (more than
40 million hectares, an area larger than Germany) following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in 1991. The country arguably has the most agricultural opportunity in the world, but institutional reform and
significant investments in agriculture and rural infrastructure will be needed to realize it. Advanced logistics, transportation, storage, and processing are also crucial for making sure that food goes from where it
grows in abundance to where it doesn’t. This is where soft commodity trading companies, such as Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, or COFCO, come in. While Big Food companies such as General Mills or Unilever have
tremendous global influence on what people eat, trading companies have a much greater impact on food security, because they source and distribute our staple foods and the ingredients used by Big Food, from
rice, wheat, corn, and sugar to soybean and oil palm. They also store periodically produced grains and oilseeds so that they can be consumed all year, and they process soft commodities so that they can be used
even if
some regions increase their output and traders reduce the mismatch between supply and
demand, doubling food production by 2050 will undeniably be a major challenge. Businesses and
further down the value chain. For example, wheat needs to be milled into flour to produce bread or noodles, and soybeans must be crushed to produce oil or feed for livestock. Nonetheless,
governments will have to work together to increase productivity, encourage innovation, and improve integration in supply chains toward a sustainable global food balance. First and foremost, farmers, trading
companies, and other processing groups (Big Food in particular) need to commit to deforestation-free supply chains. Deforestation causes rapid and irreversible losses of biodiversity, is the second largest source
of carbon dioxide emissions after fossil fuels, and has contributed greatly to global warming—adding to the negative pressure on agriculture production for which these forests were cleared in the first place.
Farmers must also grow more on the land they currently operate through what is called
“sustainable intensification.” This means using precision farming tools , such as GPS fertilizer dispersion,
advanced irrigation systems, and environmentally optimized crop rotations. These methods can help produce more crops, especially in parts of
Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe with large yield gaps. They can also reduce the negative environmental impacts
from over-stressing resources–preventing groundwater depletion and the destruction of
fertile lands through over-use of fertilizer . The agricultural sector also needs significant long-term private investment and public spending. Many large
institutional investors, including pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, have already made major commitments to support global agricultural production and trading in recent years—not least because
agricultural (land) investments have historically delivered strong returns, increased diversification, and outpaced inflation. Still, investment in agriculture in most developing countries has declined over the last 30
years and much less is spent on R&D compared to developed countries—resulting in low productivity and stagnant production. And because banking sectors in developing countries give fewer loans to farmers
(compared to the share of agriculture in GDP), investments by both farmers and large corporations are still limited. To attract more financing and investment in agriculture, the risks need to be reduced by
governments.
Regulators need to overhaul policies that limit inclusion of small, rural farmers into the
financial system— for example, soft loans (i.e., lending that is more generous than market lending) and interest rate caps discourage bank lending. More supportive policies, laws, and public spending on
infrastructure would help create a favorable investment climate for agriculture.
U.S. ag subsidies and regulatory exemptions undermine ag innovations
and tech development --- pricing-in the cost of water pollution is
ESSENTIAL
Finney ‘21
(Bradley, federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee. Prior to becoming a clerk, he was an associate in the Houston office of Norton
Rose Fulbright, “Agricultural Law Stifles Innovation And Competition,” pg online @
https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2021/05/3-Finney-785-838.pdf //um-ef)
Innovation in ag is imperative for the future physical and financial
health of the nation Currently, conventional ag lacks incentive to innovate
reg s
carve out exceptions for the industry that allow it to pollute water
there is
little financial incentive for the industry to invest resources in innovation to comply with
regulations
“[f]armers do not bear the total costs of off-farm pollution and
erosion
2. Innovation Complacency within Agriculture
riculture
.
ulation
riculture
for three reasons.401 First,
specifically
.402 Thus,
from which it is exempt. Second,
. Most costs are borne by other users of the polluted water. Therefore[,] pollution offers an inexpensive method of waste product disposal for farmers and an opportunity to shift the costs of that waste on to others.”403 Given these financial
benefits, conventional agriculture is incentivized to continue to pollute because others must bear the attendant costs.404 This externalization of costs does not spur conventional agriculture to invest time and money in developing, or acquiring, new technology that
there is also a general lack of pressure to innovate from consumers,
policymakers, and other outside forces because food is ostensibly inexpensive
reduces water pollution and its costs.405 Finally,
.406 But food prices at the
store do not reflect the true costs of its production.407 Thus, the consequences of agricultural exceptionalism “are easily ignored by consumers and policymakers who support the production and availability of ‘cheap’ food.”408 At the same time, policymakers likely
ignore negative consequences of agricultural exceptionalism due to the industry’s substantial lobbying efforts.409 In 2018, agriculture spent $134.8 million to lobby U.S. policymakers.410 This put agriculture among the top ten spenders in the United States.411
An analysis of conventional ag ’s recent history of developing and implementing new
innovations reveals the industry is suffering from innovation complacency
utilization of prairie plants could reduce pollution runoff from crop fields and
water pollution
riculture
plainly
that
.412 For example, recent
studies have shown that the
ultimately reduce
from conventional agriculture.413 By strategically planting this mix of plants on sloping areas of the field, “water flowing by will be slowed and will prevent soil and nutrients from washing away.”414 This
innovation is not technologically advanced, so conventional agriculture did not need to wait for the technological capability to implement this change. Yet, it took a study funded largely by state government agencies–– Iowa State University, Iowa Department of
Agriculture and Land Stewardship, and Iowa Flood Center––to make it known that such a change could drastically reduce pollution.415 There are other innovations currently in use that help reduce some of the harmful effects of conventional agriculture’s water
pollution. For example, conventional agriculture utilizes phosphorus to increase plant and animal growth, but phosphorous also has harmful effects on water quality.416 Because of technological innovation, phosphorus now can be recovered from water and
converted into a more environmentally friendly fertilizer.417 Although this helps to reduce the harmful effects of conventional agriculture’s pollution, the Madison Metropolitan Sewage District implemented this technology, not conventional agriculture.418 Rather than
conventional agriculture developing and paying for a solution, a city water utility sought out and implemented a solution,419 and the citizens of Madison, Wisconsin, are paying for it through taxes and increased water bills.420 Similarly, the city of Boise, Idaho,
Conventional ag often allows others to pay
for new technologies
but conventional ag has shown the ability to
innovate when it makes financial sense for the industry. For example
implemented a new system at its water renewal facility to “manage nuisance struvite deposits and recover phosphorous.”421
riculture
that reduce the harms the industry creates,
riculture
, many farmers have implemented the use of “data
422
gathered from sensors, tractors and satellites . . . to track crop health, make planting decisions and guide fertilizer use t o improve the efficiency of their businesses like never before.”423 Farmers have utilized this style of farming, known as
precision ag riculture,
because it is particularly
helpful in reducing fertilizer loss
.424 Crops only absorb 40% of the total nitrogen fertilizer applied,425 and
nitrogen fertilizer loss is a substantial expense for many farmers.426 Thus, reducing that loss could significantly improve their bottom line.427 Whil e nitrogen fertilizer is also a significant component of conventional agriculture’s total water pollution,428 it is unlikely
If the regulatory structure changed to more
accurately reflect the costs of conventional ag ’s water pollution, conventional
agriculture’s incentive to increase profit would then align with reducing environmental
degradation and the harmful financial effects of water pollution
that reducing such pollution is more than a coincidental side effect of farmers’ desire to reduce costs and improve the bottom lin e.429
riculture
. As the above example illustrates,430 conventional agriculture can develop
and implement technological innovations so long as those innovations improve profit.431
U.S. advances in tech and sustainability strategies lead the way --- they’ll
be modeled internationally and re-build alliance relationships if we shift
focus to increase regenerative ag innovation
Goldstein and Oken 4/22/21
(Gordon M. Goldstein is an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
From 2010 to 2018, he was also a managing director at Silver Lake, the world’s largest
investment firm in the global technology industry.“America’s New Challenge: Confronting the
Crisis in Food Security,” pg online @ https://www.cfr.org/blog/americas-new-challengeconfronting-crisis-food-security //um-ef)
The Biden administration has encouraged the world with its renewed commitment to the Paris accord and the goal of combatting the existential
challenge of global climate change. But that bold objective will not be achieved without a comprehensive parallel American exercise of leadership to
confront the crisis in food security. Such a strategy is imperative on a global basis and critical to U.S. domestic policy. The challenge of food
security will require leveraging advances in tech nology and demand policy innovation
within the U.S. government and deep cooperation between the public and private sectors. If not tackled comprehensively and
effectively, failure to mitigate the crisis in the sustainability of our global food supply chain will devastate the multilateral effort to arrest climate change.
As the global population grows to a projected 10 billion
in 2050, with a concurrent growth in income, overall food requirements are forecast to increase [PDF] by
more than 50 percent. The demand for resource-intensive foods like meat and dairy is projected to grow by 70 percent. The crisis in food
The global dimensions of food instability are staggering.
sustainability displays a disturbing daily cadence. The world has lost 1,000 football fields worth of forest every hour, almost 30 million acres annually.
According to a recent scientific study, climate change has diminished global food productivity by more than 20 percent over the past 60 years. If crop
and pasture yields continue to grow as projected, by 2050 agricultural land will need to increase by an area nearly twice the size of India. Not
surprisingly, the
world’s most populous and wealthy countries contribute the most to the
crisis in food sustainability. Roughly 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are clustered in four countries—the
United States, China, India and Brazil. Since 1990, roughly 24 percent of global Greenhouse Gas Emissions can be attributed to the food system and
our disproportionate reliance on livestock. Further exacerbating the problem is the methane produced in the agriculture industry, which is ~30 to ~80
times as deleterious to the environment as carbon dioxide. The United States suffers from its own acute national challenges. Estimates suggest 23
million people live in so-called “food deserts”—low-income areas with poor access to healthy food. The pandemic,
which has led to over 50 million Americans facing food insecurity, has illustrated the weakness in our food system and supply chain resiliency.
Americans in lower income segments spend 30-40 percent of their income on food. The food security crisis in the United States has recently prompted
the Biden administration to propose tens of billions of dollars of new federal assistance to American families at risk. The United States has
historically used food policy to strengthen its relationship with friends and allies through initiatives
such as the U.S. Food for Peace Program, the 1960’s “Green Revolution” or the so-called “Third Agricultural Revolution” which featured research and
technology transfers that significantly increased agricultural production globally while feeding millions and increasing
U.S. influence
worldwide. The United States is once again poised to use its rich history of innovation in foreign
agricultural policy to both enhance its influence with friends and allies where food insecurity
is a major issue—the Middle East, Africa, and emerging economies in Asia. These include some of the same
countries that China is courting through its “Belt and Road” initiative, which seeks to construct a massive infrastructure network
around the world. The United States should leverage its private and public sources of capital and innovation,
in partnership with new and incumbent players in the corporate community, to accelerate the transition to global food
sustainability. Advances in emerging technologies hold the promise to both alleviate the food
crisis and amplify American influence abroad. The next era of food sustainability will be
influenced by breakthroughs in global technology such as fifth generation telecommunications, robotics, artificial
intelligence, and nanotechnology. Specific areas of technology investment that will contribute to higher levels of
productivity and efficiency in food generation with a decreased impact on the
environment encompass initiatives in agricultural biotechnology, such as genetics, microbiome, breeding and
animal health; alternative food products, including plant-based forms of alternative protein, which are surging in popularity and adoption; farm
management systems, including sensing and data analytics software; farm robotics, including automation and drone based monitoring;
and new farming structures, such as indoor farming and aquaculture. In addition, the Biden administration needs to
drive tax, investment, regulatory and subsidy policies that encourage the increased flow of
capital into the transition to viable food sustainability strategies, including investment into cellbased and plant-based meats; the wider implementation of regenerative ag riculture practices , including
agribusiness marketplaces and farm robotics, mechanization and equipment; and, finally, the reduction of waste throughout the food value chain.
The companies and countries that are the leaders in these areas of innovation will not
only strengthen global food supply but also capture the intellectual property,
information and data that is embedded in the global food supply chain. In addition to addressing an
urgent global challenge, American innovation in food security would support the goals of the Strategic Competition Act
of 2021, bipartisan legislation crafted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that seeks to counter China’s growing
economic and geopolitical and technology competition with the United States.
Alliances stop global nuclear war, wildfire prolif, and adventurism.
Brands and Feaver ’17 [Hal and Peter; Summer 2017; Professor of Global Affairs at Johns
Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, Senior Fellow at the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at Duke
University, Director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, Director of the Duke Program in
American Grand Strategy; The U.S. Army War College Quarterly Parameters, “What Are
America’s Alliances Good For?” https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=803998]
Geostrategic Influence and Global Stability
If
alliances
are thus helpful in terms of the conflicts America wages, they
are more helpful still in terms of the
conflicts they prevent and the broader geostrategic influence they confer . Indeed, although
the ultimate test of America’s alliances lies in their efficacy as warfighting coalitions,
the most powerful benefits
they provide come in the normal course of peacetime geostrategic management and
competition .
First,
US alliances bind many of the richest and most militarily capable countries in the
world to Washington through enduring relationships of deep cooperation . Alliances
reflect shared interests
rather than creating them, of course,
and the U nited S tates would
presumably
have close ties to countries such as the U nited K ingdom even without formal alliances .
But alliances
permanence
nonetheless
serve as “hoops of steel.” They help create
and shared purpose in key relationships; they
provide forums for
cooperation ; they conduce to deeply institutionalized exchanges
other assets)
a sense of
regular interaction and
(of intelligence, personnel, and
that insulate and perpetuate friendly associations even when political leaders
clash .38 And insofar as US alliances serve these purposes with respect to
countries in
immensely influential
Europe and the Asia-Pacific , they help Washington preserve a significant
overbalance of power vis-à-vis any competitor .
Second,
alliances have a strong deterrent effect on would -be aggressors . American
alliances lay down “redlines” regarding areas in which territorial aggression is
impermissible ; they complicate the calculus of any potential aggressor by raising the
strong
possibility that an attack on a US ally will mean a fight with the world’s most
formidable military . The proposition that “ defensive alliances deter the initiation of
disputes ” is , in fact, supported by empirical evidence , and the forward deployment of troops strengthens
this deterrence further still.39
NATO
clearly
had an important deterrent effect on Soviet calculations during the Cold
War , for instance; more recently , Russia
has
behaved most aggressively toward countries
lacking US alliance guarantee s (Georgia and Ukraine), rather than toward those countries
possessing them
(the Baltic states or Poland). In other words,
alliances make the geostrategic status
quo — which is enormously favorable to the U nited S tates— far “stickier” than it might
otherwise be .
Third, and related to this second benefit,
alliances tamp down international instability more broadly .
American security guarantees allow US allies to underbuild their own militaries ; while
always annoying and problematic when taken to extremes,
this phenomenon also helps avert the arms
races and febrile security competitions that plagued Europe and East Asia in earlier
eras . In fact, US alliances are as useful in managing tensions among America’s allies as
they are in constraining America’s adversaries .
NATO was always intended to keep the “Americans in” and the “Germans down” as well as the “Russians out”;
US presence ,
along with the creation of a framework in which France and Germany were incentivized to cooperate rather than compete with one
would help stifle any resurgence of tensions between these historical rivals .40
another,
Similarly,
US alliance guarantees in the Asia-Pacific were designed , in part, to create a
climate of security in which Japan could be revived economically without threatening
its neighbors , just as
the expansion of
and territorial irredentism
NATO
after the Cold War
helped prevent incipient rivalries
among former members of the Warsaw Pact.41
US alliances keep things
quiet in regions Washington cannot ignore , thereby fostering a climate of peace
in which
America and its partners can flourish.
Fourth,
US alliances impede dangerous geostrategic phenomena such as nuclear
proliferation . As scholars such as Francis Gavin have emphasized, US security guarantees
deployments
and forward
have played a critical role in convincing historically insecure, technologically
advanced countries — Germany , Japan , Taiwan , South Korea , among others— to forego
possession of the world’s absolute weapon . In several of these cases, moreover, the U nited S tates
has used the security leverage provided by alliance guarantees to dissuade allies from
pursuing the bomb after they had given indications of their intent to start down that
path .42 If , as seems likely, a world with more nuclear powers is likely to be a more dangerous
world in which crises more frequently take on a nuclear dimension and the risk of
nuclear conflict is higher , then the value of American alliances looms large indeed .
In sum,
as the framers of the post -World War II order understood, phenomena such as
massive instability , arms racing , and violence
in key regions
would eventually imperil the
U nited S tates itself .43 Whatever modest reduction in short-term costs might come from pursuing a “free hand” or isolationist
strategy was thus more than lost by the expense of fighting and winning a major war to restore order.
America’s peacetime alliance system represents a
maximizing US influence while
also
cheaper, more prudent
Accordingly ,
alternative for
preventing raging instability by deterring aggression
and managing rivalries among friends . The fact that so many observers seem to have forgotten why, precisely,
America has alliances in the first place is an ironic testament to just how well the system has succeeded
Moreover, subsidies hollow-out rural farming communities --- collapses the
ability of small farms to compete and guts important ag knowledge that
makes Ag Industry unsustainable
Eubanks ‘9
(William S. Eubanks II, Associate Attorney at Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, a Washington, D.C.
public interest environmental law firm. LL.M. in Environmental Law, summa cum laude, Vermont
Law School (2008); J.D., magna cum laude, North Carolina Central University School of Law
(2007); B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “A Rotten System: Subsidizing
Environmental Degradation and Poor Public Health with Our Nation’s Tax Dollars,” pg online @
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1287408 //um-ef)
total number of farms in Iowa only decreased 10%
between 1900 and 1950, but the total number of farms decreased more than 55% between
1950 and 1997. This means that in the pre-Farm Bill era and in the first seventeen years of the
Farm Bill when small farm protection was a key goal, overall farm loss was quite minimal.
However, in the agribusiness-dominated second half of the twentieth century, the overall
One disturbing trend demonstrated by this table is that the
number of farms plummeted in the face of poor agricultural policies . This severe drop-off
can be attributed to the commodity subsidy program that grew rapidly during this period. The respective Farm Bills during
this time were commandeered by Cargill and ADM, among others, to benefit large farmers and processors, and Figure 1 confirms that the companies
increase in large farms of more
than 1000 acres by 2000% between 1950 and 1997 after actually decreasing between 1900 and 1950. In contrast,
mid-sized farms between 50 and 500 acres, which are small and mid-sized farms seeking to make a living solely from farming, saw a
sharp decline of nearly 70% between 1950 and 1997 after only a 10% drop between 1900 and 1950. As unsettling as these trends
are, the wealthy corporations have been adept at utilizing their financial resources to
deceive the public by keeping these trends out of the popular media and by claiming to
advocate for policies favoring small American farmers. In reality, small farmers have been
frequently displaced by these polices and have twice voiced their opinions to Congress
on how to change domestic agricultural policy to realign the Farm Bill with its New Deal
roots aimed at protecting family farms. In both situations, their advice and pleas became distant memories as Congress
accomplished their goal, in Iowa and beyond. Another alarming trend illustrated by Figure 1 is the
chose instead to appease Cargill, ADM, and other large campaign contributors. First, the 1996 Farm Bill, colloquially named the “Freedom to Farm” Act
was enacted to eliminate agricultural subsidies. Nonetheless, the Freedom to Farm Act “triggered the largest government payouts in history, the
opposite of its policy objective” because Congress “reneged on [its subsidy] phase-out plan.” Then, in 2002, President George W. Bush signed the
“Farm Security and Rural Investment Act” Farm Bill, which he hailed as legislation that “preserves the farm way of life for generations.” Despite Bush’s
claim that the bill would protect family farming, knowledgeable critics quickly labeled the bill as “a 10-year, $173.5 billion bucket of slop” and “a gravytrain for mega farms and corporations.” Therefore, it has become clear that small
farmers alone, without public support,
do not have the political voice needed to overcome the financial and political firepower
that agribusiness and corporations constantly wield to protect and increase their profits.
This stagnation and lack of progress in fixing the nation’s subsidy program has caused a
rural exodus that has devastated small-town communities and has resulted in a loss of
invaluable ag ricultural knowledge and cultural resources. For example, the disappearance of large
portions of a rural town’s population negatively affects all aspects of the community’s
functionality by eliminating diverse employment opportunities, threatening rural
economic health, and depleting the local tax base and related public services that are
essential to a community’s continued existence. The correlation between the growth of large industrial megafarms
and this rural exodus is very strong: As these graphs depict, the percentages of small and medium-sized farms
are shrinking quickly as the percentage of large megafarms swells. The megafarms are rapidly becoming
corporate, nonfamily farms, leading to the disintegration of rural communities . Although the percentage of
Americans living in rural areas declined steadily throughout the twentieth century, the percentage of the population devoted to agriculture declined
much more precipitously. In addition to the loss of rural communities, this
transition to commercialized farming has
resulted in the loss of important agricultural knowledge: “[t]he farmer replacement rate has
fallen below 50% as younger generations flee the Corn Belt” and other traditional farming communities. Due to
this phenomenon, there are currently twice as many farmers over the age of sixty-five as there
are under the age of thirty-five, which is a perilous situation as the United States edges
closer to becoming a net importer of food. Thus, our nation faces a substantial gap in our
ag ricultural knowledge because the best farming practices are being phased out over
time by megafarm-favorable commodity subsidies and concerning trends show that
there soon might be too few remaining farmers to fill those gaps in knowledge . The rural
economic fallout from bolstering megafarms and corporations through commodity
subsidies is not unique to farmers. Industries that rely on subsidized crops, which
provide jobs and are typically located in the heart of farm country, have increasingly
become monopolized by a few large companies in each respective industry and are now
typically located outside of rural America. Economists consider a market “concentrated” if the market share of the top four
producers exceeds 20% and “very highly concentrated” if this market share approaches or exceeds 50%. Figure 4 depicts one of the primary problems
of a subsidy system in commercialized agriculture: since
the wealthiest corporations receive double
compensation by both securing the largest profits through sales and acquiring the
largest governmental subsidies based on their yields, they are apt to monopolize the
market and push smaller competitors to the wayside.
Figure 4
MARKET SHARE CONTROLLED BY TOP FOUR PRODUCERS
Very Highly Concentrated
Beef Packers 84%
Pork Packers 64%
Broiler Production 56%
Turkey Production 51%
Flour Milling 63%
Soybean Crushing 71%
Concentrated
Pork Production 49%
Animal Feed Processing 34%
As the small companies fall to the wayside, so too do jobs, public services, and entire communities.
Further, since the majority of farmers rely on these highly consolidated industries to buy their farm products, there exists an unfair and asymmetrical
market system whereby farmers are forced to compete fiercely with each other to sell at the lowest price to the few companies in the field.
Although farmers are thus forced to drive their prices lower because of the lack of choice
in agricultural buyers, the companies in these heavily consolidated industries benefit
enormously from an effective lack of competition because of the overconcentration of
products in these markets. By encouraging oligopolies in these farm-based industries, the Farm Bill’s commodity
subsidies have torn apart rural communities and have given select corporations a
stranglehold on both financial viability in the farming market and political access to
peddle their supposedly “pro-agriculture” initiatives before state and national legislatures.
Consistent U.S. ag production and rural economic strength prevents
nuclear escalation in multiple hotspots
Castellaw, 17—Lieutenant General, former President of the non-profit Crockett Policy Institute
(John, “Opinion: Food Security Strategy Is Essential to Our National Security,” https://www.agripulse.com/articles/9203-opinion-food-security-strategy-is-essential-to-our-national-security, dml)
The United States faces many threats to our National Security. These threats include
continuing wars with extremist elements such as ISIS and potential wars with rogue
state North Korea or regional nuclear power Iran . The heated economic and diplomatic
competition with Russia and a surging China could spiral out of control . Concurrently,
we face threats to our future security posed by growing civil strife , famine , and refugee
and migration challenges which create incubators for extremist and anti-American
government factions . Our response cannot be one dimensional but instead must be a
nuanced and comprehensive National Security Strategy combining all elements of National
Power including a Food Security Strategy .
An American Food Security Strategy is an imperative factor in reducing the multiple
threats impacting our National wellbeing. Recent history has shown that reliable food
supplies and stable prices produce more stable and secure countries . Conversely,
food insecurity , particularly in poorer countries, can lead to instability , unrest , and
violence .
Food insecurity drives mass migration around the world from the Middle East, to Africa, to
Southeast Asia, destabilizing neighboring populations , generating conflicts , and
threatening our own security by disrupting our economic, military, and diplomatic
relationships. Food system shocks from extreme food-price volatility can be correlated
with protests and riots . Food price related protests toppled governments in Haiti and
Madagascar in 2007 and 2008. In 2010 and in 2011, food prices and grievances related to
food policy were one of the major drivers of the Arab Spring uprisings. Repeatedly ,
history has taught us that a strong agricultural sector is an unquestionable requirement
for inclusive and sustainable growth, broad-based development progress, and long-term
stability .
The impact can be remarkable and far reaching . Rising income, in addition to reducing
the opportunities for an upsurge in extremism , leads to changes in diet, producing demand
for more diverse and nutritious foods provided , in many cases, from American farmers
and ranchers . Emerging markets currently purchase 20 percent of U.S. agriculture
exports and that figure is expected to grow as populations boom.
Moving early to ensure stability in strategically significant regions requires long term planning
and a disciplined, thoughtful strategy. To combat current threats and work to prevent future
ones, our national leadership must employ the entire spectrum of our power including
diplomatic, economic, and cultural elements. The best means to prevent future chaos and
the resulting instability is positive engagement addressing the causes of instability
before it occurs .
This is not rocket science . We know where the instability is most likely to occur . The
world population will grow by 2.5 billion people by 2050. Unfortunately, this massive
population boom is projected to occur primarily in the most fragile and food insecure
countries . This alarming math is not just about total numbers. Projections show that the
greatest increase is in the age groups most vulnerable to extremism. There are currently 200
million people in Africa between the ages of 15 and 24, with that number expected to double in
the next 30 years. Already, 60% of the unemployed in Africa are young people.
Too often these situations deteriorate into shooting wars requiring the deployment of
our military forces. We should be continually mindful that the price we pay for committing
military forces is measured in our most precious national resource, the blood of those who
serve. For those who live in rural America , this has a disproportionate impact. Fully 40% of
those who serve in our military come from the farms, ranches, and non-urban communities that
make up only 16% of our population.
Actions taken now to increase agricultural sector jobs can provide economic opportunity
and stability for those unemployed youths while helping to feed people. A recent report by
the Chicago Council on Global Affairs identifies agriculture development as the core
essential for providing greater food security , economic growth , and population wellbeing .
Our active support for food security , including agriculture development, has helped
stabilize key regions over the past 60 years. A robust food security strategy, as a part of
our overall security strategy, can mitigate the growth of terrorism , build important
relationships , and support continued American economic and agricultural prosperity
while materially contributing to our Nation’s and the world’s security.
And, tech innovations in ag are critical to meld sustainable and high-yield
ag necessary for human survival
Dr. Hutchins 2k6
(Faculty - Dr. Scott H. Hutchins Global Director, Crop Protection R&D, University of Nebraska,
The Role of Technology in Sustainable Agriculture,” pg online @
http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/hutchins3.htm //um-ef)
The notion that agriculture, as a global practice, has been exploiting resources faster
than they could be renewed has been a topic of discussion and debate for decades,
perhaps centuries. Symptoms of imbalance have been seen in the form of pollution, soil
erosion/loss, wildlife population decline/shifts, and general alteration of a "natural"
flora/fauna as a result of human intervention. Indeed, agricultural practices are undeniably "unnatural",
regardless of whether the production is a one square meter vegetable garden in Tokyo or a one million hectare rubber tree
plantation in Malaysia. Of course, an equally unnatural and parallel phenomenon has been the exponential growth in human
population, with associated demands for both food and shelter, which have often exceeded the "natural" carrying capacity of land.
Based upon the premise that human population growth will not be constrained as a result of food shortages due to overriding social
Technology has/will
increase agricultural productivity Technology development has-been/will-be sustainable
Technology is, therefore, the basis for Sustainable Agriculture Food is subject to the economic
principles of scarcity. Unlike the artificial value of scarce items such as gold, an adequate supply of food is
paramount to population survival and skill diversification, making agriculture a first level priority. Technology
has enabled human civilization to leave the "Hunter / Gatherer" paradigm of existence and
concentrate labor and land to the sole purpose of food production on an ever-increasing scale. The concept of
"scientific agriculture" dates to publications by Liebig in 1840 and Johnston in 1842 , which speculated
values, this article makes three assertions regarding the role technology in sustainable agriculture:
about the role of chemistry in agriculture (Pesek, 1993). The concepts of inheritance and Mendelian genetics
subsequently stimulated the biological basis for modern
agriculture. Soon, science-based institutions in Europe and North America eagerly expanded the application of biological and
chemical sciences to agriculture, spawning new technologies and approaches. These early applications of
were soon to follow in 1865 and
technology have not only increased food production in real terms, but have dramatically reduced the number of individuals directly
involved in food production/processing – enabling the diversification of society to address social issues not directly related to
To deny the role that biological and chemical
technology have played, continue to play, and will play in the future development of agriculture is to
deny natural history itself. The indiscriminate or inappropriate use of chemical and biological technology, however, can
"survival", but generally seen to increase the quality of life.
clearly produce negative consequences to the ecosystem and threaten the long-term viability of the enterprise. The central issue of
sustainability, therefore, is preservation of nonrenewable resources. Food production, habitat preservation, resource conservation,
Credible arguments have been advanced
to suggest that production of food via high-yield agriculture techniques can meet the
nutrition requirements of the global population (Avery, 1995). The balance can be achieved
through planning land use – with a considerate analysis of what parcels of land to
employ for high-yield agriculture while retaining marginal or poor land for nonagricultural activities or wildlife habitat preserves (Anonymous, 1999). Studies to quantify the impact on
and farm business management are not mutually exclusive objectives.
production of reducing or limiting inputs to agriculture have suggested that yields/hectare would decrease from 35% to 80%
depending upon the crop (Smith et al.). Without
a concurrent decrease in demand, the amount of land
that must be utilized would increase dramatically. In fact, global land in production today, which is roughly
the size of South America, would need to be the size of South America and North America if the high yield benefits of technology
If the motivation of sustainability is optimization of production
and resource conservation objectives, then progress can clearly be achieved. Sustainability in
were not employed (Richards, 1990).
agriculture relates to the capacity of an agroecosystem to predictably maintain production through time. A key concept of
sustainability, therefore, is stability under a given set of environmental and economic circumstances that can only be managed on a
site-specific basis.
If the perspective of sustainability is one of bias against the use of
biological and chemical technology, and espouses a totally natural ecosystem, then
agriculture as a practice is already excluded . If, on the other hand, the perspective of sustainability is one of
preservation of non-renewable resources within the scope of the agricultural enterprise, then the objective is not only achievable, but
good business practice and good environmental management. To a large extent,
the rate of technology
development and the degree of innovation in future technologies will greatly influence
the stability, and certainly the productivity, of agriculture (Hutchins and Gehring, 1993).
Technology, in the classical sense, includes the development and use of nutrients, pest control
products, crop cultivars, and farm equipment; but it also includes the vision of
genetically modified crops providing greater nutritional efficiency (more calories per yield, or more
yield), manipulation of natural pest control agents, and use of farm management
techniques that focus on whole-farm productivity over time, not just annual production per hectare. Consider the basic premise
of biotechnology: the least expensive and most renewable source of energy on Earth is the sun and the most abundant and
predictable mechanism to convert the energy from the sun to useable energy is photosynthesis -- biotechnology has enabled
methods to direct abundant natural energy to new more efficient or unique food products. The imagination is literally the limit to the
opportunities. Short term objectives will of course focus on yield, quality, and input reduction. Long term, however, the genetically-
created "transmissions" will focus on creating super-nutritious feed for animals, plants that outproduce the subtractive influence of
pests (making "tolerance" a key pest management tactic), physiological adaptation to out-compete adjacent species (e.g., weeds),
drought stress tolerance, and overall improvement in the rate of photosynthesis (leading to any number of industrial applications).
The development and use of agricultural technology is not, however, limited to genetic
wizardry . Indeed, the use of computational technology, combined with geographical
location devices and remote sensing advancements, promise to radically change the
way all crops will be managed . Commonly referred to as " Precision Agriculture", the underlying
theme is integration of information to create management knowledge as a means to
address site-specific production goals . Uncertainty with the environment will always be a
key issue with agriculture, but this too will be managed as environmental modeling,
combined with risk management algorithms, will lead to the optimal use of genetics on
specific soils within known weather profiles. And, breakthroughs will continue to be seen
in the "classical" technologies that have exponentially increased world food production
since the advent of "scientific agriculture" in the late 1800’s. In addition to advances in productivity,
technology will be used to remediate land that has been overused or misused through
poor agricultural practices.
The concept of Best Management Practices will continue to be a key focus, regardless of
the current state of technological offerings. Strategies, such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) consider the site-specific
circumstances, but also the values and business considerations of the agricultural producers. IPM has been essential in describing
the role and rationale for responsibly managing pests, pointing scientists and practitioners alike to identify future needs in biological
information, and placing pest control in perspective with production goals. To this end, the concept of pest Economic-injury Levels
has been central to dismiss the notion that pests must be controlled at all cost in favor of break-even analysis (i.e., Gain Threshold;
Sustainability is indeed an issue of survival , but is far broader than the
concept of habitat destruction and soil erosion. Sustainability includes the goal of food
production, welfare of the food producers, and preservation of nonrenewable resources.
To that end, technology of all types has been and will be the enabling man-made
Stone and Pedigo, 1972).
component that will link these two overriding objectives. Indeed, history confirms that technology
has been essential to agricultural productivity/stability, current breakthroughs in
technology confirm that the discovery and development of new technologies is a
sustainable endeavor, and common sense directs us to the conclusion that technology
will enable Sustainable Agriculture
And that solves multiple scenarios for extinction
Trewavas ‘00
(Anthony, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology – University of Edinburgh, “GM Is the Best
Option We Have”, AgBioWorld, 6-5, http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotechart/best_option.html)
There are some Western critics who oppose any solution to world problems involving technological progress. They denigrate this remarkable achievement. These luddite individuals found in some Aid organisations instead attempt to im pose their primitivist western
views on those countries where blindness and child death are common. This new form of Western cultural domination or neo-colonialism, because such it is, should be repelled by all those of good will. Those who stand to benefit in the third world will then be
enabled to make their own choice freely about what they want for their own children. But these are foreign examples;
global warming is the problem that requires the
UK to
develop GM technology
. 1998 was the warmest year in the last one thousand years. Many think global warming will simply lead to a wetter climate an d be benign. I do not. Excess rainfall in northern seas has been
There are already worrying signs of
salinity changes in the deep oceans. Agriculture would be seriously damaged and
necessitate the rapid development of new crop varieties to secure our food supply. We
would not have much warning.
Even if the
climate is only wetter and warmer new crop pests and rampant disease will be the
consequence. GM technology can enable new crops to be constructed in months and to
predicted to halt the Gulf Stream. In this situation, average UK temperatures would fall by 5 degrees centigrade and give us Moscow-like winters.
Recent detailed analyses of arctic ice cores has shown that the climate can switch between stable states in fractions of a decade.
be in the fields within a few years. This is the unique benefit GM offers
a volcano near the present Krakatoa exploded with the force of 200
million Hiroshima A bombs The dense cloud of dust so reduced the intensity of the sun
that for at least two years thereafter, summer turned to winter and crops
in the
Northern hemisphere failed completely. The population survived by hunting a rapidly
vanishing population of edible animals
the planet
recovered Such examples of benign nature's wisdom
, dwarf and make miniscule
the tiny modifications we make upon our environment There are
100 such volcanoes
round the world that could at any time unleash forces as great. even smaller volcanic
explosions change our climate and can easily threaten the security of our food supply
Only those with agricultural technology
. The UK populace needs to much more positive about
GM or we may pay a very heavy price. In 535A.D.
.
here and elsewhere
. The after-effects continued for a decade and human history was changed irreversibly. But
.
, in full flood as it were
.
apparently
And
. Our hold
on this planet is tenuous. In the present day an equivalent 535A.D. explosion would destroy much of our civilisation.
sufficiently advanced would have a chance at survival . Colliding asteroids are another
problem that requires us to be forward-looking accepting that technological advance
may be the only buffer between us and annihilation
GM is a technology whose time has come and
just in the nick of time. With each billion that mankind has added to the planet have come
technological advances to increase food supply
. When people say to me they do not need GM, I am astonished at their prescience, their ability to read a
benign future in a crystal ball that I cannot. Now is the time to experiment; not when a holocaust is upon us and it is too late.
. In the 18th century, the start of agricultural mechanisation; in the 19th century knowledge of crop mineral requirements,
the eventual Haber Bosch process for nitrogen reduction. In the 20th century plant genetics and breeding, and later the green revolution. Each time population growth has been sustained without enormous loss of life through starvation even though crisis often
g m
is our primary hope to maintain developing and complex
technological civilisations When the climate is changing in unpredictable ways, diversity
in agricultural technology is a strength and a necessity not a luxury
beckoned. For the 21st century,
enetic
anipulation
.
. Diversity helps secure our food supply. We have heard much of
the precautionary principle in recent years; my version of it is "be prepared".
And, it solves ag disease – extinction
Can be eliminated for time
Carr 10 – Gad Loebenstein, Professor of Plant Pathology at the Agricultural Research
Organization and John P. Carr, Head of the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of
Cambridge, Advances in Virus Research, Volume 75, 2009, Pages ix–x, Science Direct
diseases affecting crop plants have posed an
ever-present, yet ever changing, threat to human survival . The Bible, for example, explicitly mentions blights, blasts,
Since the very earliest developments in agriculture, and probably even before then,
people sought to understand and mitigate the effects of
disease on crop productivity, and many earlier cultures have sought divine aid in the fight against crop disease. The Romans, according to some
and mildew diseases of wheat. Not surprisingly,
historians, celebrated the festival of Robigalia: an attempt to mollify Robigus, the god thought to protect crops from disease, and his less benign sister Robiga (or Robigo), a
primary goddess of Roman farmers, known as the spirit of mildews and rusts. However, even during this period there were attempts to understand plant diseases through the
application of reason: an approach exemplified in the writings of Theophrastus (372–287 BC), who theorized about the nature of the diseases of cereals and other plants.
Meanwhile, over many centuries farmers all over the world practiced domestication of plants from wild populations and selected the best and hardiest plants grown under
the deployment of crops possessing
genetically based resistance is generally considered the best and most economical
approach for disease control. This is especially true for protection against viruses because, so far at least, no
chemicals are available that could provide the same degree of protection in the field against these pathogens, as fungicides do
agricultural conditions, thereby incidentally breeding plants resistant to disease. In the modern world
against fungi and oomycetes. The transfer by breeding of naturally occurring resistance genes from wild plants or land races to cultivated lines is still an ongoing process, and
Genetic resistance against
virus diseases can be surprisingly durable . A good example is that of cucumbers bred for resistance to Cucumber mosaic virus. This
has been supplemented with other methods such as mutation, polyploidy breeding, and the generation of haploids.
resistance, which depends on several genes, was found to be stable for many decades against different strains of this virus. Even though the majority of plants are resistant to
most viruses (the phenomenon of non-host or basal resistance), when viruses are able to infect a crop plant, obtaining durable resistance by breeding is not always possible. In
certain cases, new virus strains overcome the resistance and once again may cause severe crop losses. In addition, for some crops and viruses, no suitable sources of
resistance can be identified among the wild relatives of a crop plant. Hence the need for greater understanding of natural resistance, and for the insights its study can provide for
the development of novel crop protection approaches. In the last few years, much has been learned concerning the mechanisms underlying several natural resistance
mechanisms including inter alia RNA silencing, induced resistance, and resistance conferred by recessive and dominant genes, which will be discussed in this and the following
volume of the Advances. In addition, research over the last two decades has made it possible to move resistance–conferring gene sequences between plants from different
botanical genera, or into plants from other organisms, and even from the viruses themselves (pathogen-derived resistance). This work opened a new vista for plant virus control,
and if combined with engineering for insect resistance could potentially provide protection not only against the viruses themselves, but also against their vectors. The work on
pathogen-derived resistance also led directly to the discovery of a natural resistance and gene regulation mechanism, RNA silencing, that has ramifications throughout the
In all parts of
the world, but especially among the developing nations, agriculture faces the looming
whole of biomedicine. Nevertheless, these technologies face technical and sociological challenges, which are also addressed in these volumes.
problems of emerging virus diseases , population growth, and ecological change. We hope that
the articles in this volume and the following one will inform and stimulate research on natural and engineered resistance, and thereby contribute to the development of new
approaches to disease control and the creation of new resistant varieties that are desperately needed.
Ag Innovation Scenario
Uniq: Subsidies Distort
U.S. agricultural policy ensures widespread water pollution while distorting
the market and undercutting innovation and technology --- farmers have no
incentives to invest
Finney ‘21
(Bradley, federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee. Prior to becoming a clerk, he was an associate in the Houston office of Norton
Rose Fulbright, “Agricultural Law Stifles Innovation And Competition,” pg online @
https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2021/05/3-Finney-785-838.pdf //um-ef)
Agricultural policy and subsidies influence the crops farmers choose to grow with little
consideration for consumer demand.11 These policies also restrict healthy competition
within the industry .12 Additionally, agriculture causes serious environmental harm, and many of the policies meant to prop up the industry also encourage
and exacerbate this harm.13 Agricultural exceptionalism represented understandable and arguably necessary policy choices in the 1930s.14 Today, however, agricultural
stifles innovation
of technological developments that reduce water pollution while also hindering competition
exceptionalism results in significant consequences without that same need. The primary claim of this Article is that agricultural exceptionalism
within the agriculture industry. The lack of innovation and competition causes significant
harm to the industry . Agricultural exceptionalism also results in an inequitable assignment of many of agriculture’s burdensome
pollution costs to society. This Article calls for a shift toward placing limits on agricultural exceptionalism to more fairly apportion the industry’s liability for the costs of
its actions and thus encourage it to adapt its operations while also spurring competition. Agricultural exceptionalism suppresses innovation. Regulatory
exemption allows the industry to dispose of its pollution in water sources because agriculture largely
does not have to comply with the CWA and other water-related environmental statutes.15
Thus, agriculture externalizes the expansive costs of its water pollution by assigning them to society, which must filter and treat water, pay for increased medical care, and suffer
disposal of these harmful pollutants is
cheap for the industry.17 There are expansive costs to agriculture’s water pollution, but society is assigned those costs.18 Given this special treatment,
ag riculture has little incentive to create new pollution-reducing tech nology.19 It does not make
financial sense for a farmer to invest money developing and implementing technology to
reduce costs that are paid by others.20 Agricultural exceptionalism also limits competition within the
industry.21 Subsidies distort the industry’s reliance on market signals to make strategic
decisions that align with consumer demands.22 The industry’s focus is often on receiving
subsidies rather than delivering a product that satisfies demand.23 Thus, players in the
industry compete to receive subsidies, not to satisfy consumer preferences.24 Additionally,
because of the regulatory exemptions and cost externalization, there is a lack of competition focused
on developing new innovations to limit pollution and reduce attendant costs.25 As a result of this lack of competition, society
the reduced profitability of clean, water-reliant economies.16 Because of cost externalization, the
bears more costs.26 If agriculture was not exempt and was assigned more responsibility for its pollution, the industry would compete to reduce pollution and the costs of that
pollution.27
Uniq: Ag Shortages Coming
A need for massive expansion of agriculture is coming --- by 2050 we will
run out of food if we don’t find new strategies for sustainable farming
Elferink et al ‘16
(Maarten Elferink is the founder and Managing Director of Vosbor, an Amsterdam based
commodity service and solutions provider dedicated to sustainability, originating soft
commodities and derivative products selectively in Eastern Europe and the FSU for distribution
in the Asia-Pacific region, Florian Schierhorn is a post-doctoral researcher at the Leibniz
Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies in Halle, Germany and was
selected for participation in the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting on Economic Sciences in 2014.
His overall research relates to the question of how to meet global food security without
increasing pressure on land, “Global Demand for Food Is Rising. Can We Meet It?,” pg online @
https://hbr.org/2016/04/global-demand-for-food-is-rising-can-we-meet-it //um-ef)
the global population has quadrupled. In 1915, there were 1.8 billion people in the world. Today, according to the most recent estimate by
we may reach 9.7 billion by 2050. This growth, along with rising incomes in developing countries (which
cause dietary changes such as eating more protein and meat) are driving up global food demand. Food demand is expected to
increase anywhere between 59% to 98% by 2050. This will shape agricultural markets in ways we have not seen before.
Farmers worldwide will need to increase crop production, either by increasing the amount of agricultural land to grow crops or by
enhancing productivity on existing agricultural lands through fertilizer and irrigation and adopting new methods like precision farming. However, the ecological
and social trade-offs of clearing more land for agriculture are often high, particularly in the tropics. And right now, crop yields — the amount of crops
harvested per unit of land cultivated — are growing too slowly to meet the forecasted demand for food. Many other factors,
Over the last century,
the UN, there are 7.3 billion people — and
from climate change to urbanization to a lack of investment, will also make it challenging to produce enough food. There is strong academic consensus that climate change–driven water scarcity, rising global
temperatures, and extreme weather will have severe long-term effects on crop yields. These are expected to impact many major agricultural regions, especially those close to the Equator. For example, the
Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, one of the most important agricultural regions worldwide, may face an 18% to 23% reduction in soy and corn output by 2050, due to climate change. The Midwestern U.S. and
Eastern Australia — two other globally important regions — may also see a substantial decline in agricultural output due to extreme heat. Yet some places are expected to (initially) benefit from climate change.
Countries stretching over northern latitudes — mainly China, Canada, and Russia — are forecasted to experience longer and warmer growing seasons in certain areas. Russia, which is already a major grain
exporter, has huge untapped production potential because of large crop yield gaps (the difference between current and potential yields under current conditions) and widespread abandoned farmland (more than
40 million hectares, an area larger than Germany) following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in 1991. The country arguably has the most agricultural opportunity in the world, but institutional reform and
significant investments in agriculture and rural infrastructure will be needed to realize it. Advanced logistics, transportation, storage, and processing are also crucial for making sure that food goes from where it
grows in abundance to where it doesn’t. This is where soft commodity trading companies, such as Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, or COFCO, come in. While Big Food companies such as General Mills or Unilever have
tremendous global influence on what people eat, trading companies have a much greater impact on food security, because they source and distribute our staple foods and the ingredients used by Big Food, from
rice, wheat, corn, and sugar to soybean and oil palm. They also store periodically produced grains and oilseeds so that they can be consumed all year, and they process soft commodities so that they can be used
even if
some regions increase their output and traders reduce the mismatch between supply and
demand, doubling food production by 2050 will undeniably be a major challenge. Businesses and
further down the value chain. For example, wheat needs to be milled into flour to produce bread or noodles, and soybeans must be crushed to produce oil or feed for livestock. Nonetheless,
governments will have to work together to increase productivity, encourage innovation, and improve integration in supply chains toward a sustainable global food balance. First and foremost, farmers, trading
companies, and other processing groups (Big Food in particular) need to commit to deforestation-free supply chains. Deforestation causes rapid and irreversible losses of biodiversity, is the second largest source
of carbon dioxide emissions after fossil fuels, and has contributed greatly to global warming—adding to the negative pressure on agriculture production for which these forests were cleared in the first place.
Farmers must also grow more on the land they currently operate through what is called
“sustainable intensification.” This means using precision farming tools, such as GPS fertilizer dispersion,
advanced irrigation systems, and environmentally optimized crop rotations. These methods can help produce more crops, especially in parts of
Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe with large yield gaps. They can also reduce the negative environmental impacts
from over-stressing resources–preventing groundwater depletion and the destruction of
fertile lands through over-use of fertilizer . The agricultural sector also needs significant long-term private investment and public spending. Many large
institutional investors, including pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, have already made major commitments to support global agricultural production and trading in recent years—not least because
agricultural (land) investments have historically delivered strong returns, increased diversification, and outpaced inflation. Still, investment in agriculture in most developing countries has declined over the last 30
years and much less is spent on R&D compared to developed countries—resulting in low productivity and stagnant production. And because banking sectors in developing countries give fewer loans to farmers
(compared to the share of agriculture in GDP), investments by both farmers and large corporations are still limited. To attract more financing and investment in agriculture, the risks need to be reduced by
governments.
Regulators need to overhaul policies that limit inclusion of small, rural farmers into the
financial system— for example, soft loans (i.e., lending that is more generous than market lending) and interest rate caps discourage bank lending. More supportive policies, laws, and public spending on
infrastructure would help create a favorable investment climate for agriculture.
Collapse coming --- innovations and tech key
AOF ‘21
(American Ostrich Farms, “What Does The Future Of The Agriculture Industry Look Like? ,” pg
online @ https://www.americanostrichfarms.com/blogs/news/what-does-the-future-of-theagriculture-industry-look-like //um-ef)
THE FUTURE OF THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY As the world’s population continues to
grow, so does the demand for food. Food needs are expected to nearly double by 2050,
according to a study published in Agricultural Economics. This dramatic increase in food demand puts tremendous pressure on the
agricultural industry to develop sustainable and efficient strategies to increase output.
Rising food demand and changes in technology, policies, planning, and consumer habits
continuously shape the future of the agriculture industry. Review the information below to learn more about how these
changes may force the industry to evolve and what agriculture could look like in the future. TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS Technological
advancement affects all industries, including agriculture. The future of the agriculture
industry is being molded by advancements in technology that allow farmers to do their
job more quickly, efficiently, and with calculated results. The most revolutionary
innovations include smart farming and GMOs. SMART FARMING Gone are the days when farmers simply used a till and an
almanac to plan and plant their crops. Smart farming has become a way that most agricultural businesses plan, plant, and harvest. This type of farming allows workers to use
data, sensors, computers, and other technologies to make informed business decisions based on accurate information and recorded patterns. Different agricultural businesses
adapt their own systems and integrate technology to make their processes more streamlined and predictable. Some of the technological advancements that smart farmers use
include: GPS tracking: Farmers use GPS devices to track the movements of their equipment, animals, and crop planting. This allows them to make informed decisions on when
animals or crops need attention or are ready for harvest. Drones: With aerial views of their land provided by drones, farmers find it easier to plan their crops, keep track of herd
movement, and analyze the health of their harvest. The Internet of Things (IoT): The IoT refers to several technological devices that communicate with each other to record
data. With accurate and comprehensive data, farmers have access to updated information on the health and longevity of their crops, profits, and losses. IoT sensors can
monitor the use of resources like water, fertilizer, or even patterns of sun exposure and weather to precision-tune production techniques and minimize waste. Robotics: Simple,
repetitive processes including weeding, planting, and harvesting, can be automated with the help of robotics, helping farmers save time and money on staffing needs. These
procedures are also completed more uniformly and efficiently. Where tasks cannot be fully automated, robotics may augment human workers to improve efficiency or to
integrate IoT systems for better monitoring and coordination. GMOS Farmers in the agricultural industry are turning to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to create a more
reliable and inexpensive crop. Plants that have been genetically modified are bred with specific goals in mind. These seeds may have been modified to produce: Bigger or
With GMOs, farmers may not
have to invest in additional seed or may be able to completely skip planting for a season
while still maintaining their harvest. Since some GMO plants are bred to resist pests,
farmers using this modified seed may be able to reduce the number of pesticides they
use, saving them time and money. There is also research that indicates some GMO
plants may require less water. As the population grows and increases demands on the food supply, GMO crops may prove essential to providing
heartier crop. More flavorful crop. A crop that will automatically reproduce. A crop that is resistant to insects and pests.
global food security. Unfortunately, some GMOs can present serious hazards, many of which are not yet fully understood. Along with breeding crops that require less water or
which are naturally disease and pest-resistant, some GMO crops are instead being created specifically to be resistant to common herbicides or more tolerant of heavy pesticide
use — resulting in the increased use of these chemical treatments in the food supply. While research into the full impact of these trends is ongoing, the future of clean and
sustainable agriculture must account for more responsible use of chemicals, and prioritizing natural solutions or alternatives where possible to protect the integrity of the food
supply. AGROECOLOGICAL AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE Agroecology farmers practice sustainable farming tactics that focus on protecting natural resources and
land while yielding as much crop as possible. Small and local farms generally use agroecological practices to ensure they protect their land and the environment while producing
natural, organic, and sustainable crops. Consumers are becoming more concerned with the meats they’re eating and how they’re raised. Farmers who are focused on
agroecology and sustainable agriculture will attract more consumers when they practice humane and healthy practices. The emphasis many consumers place on sustainability
forces farmers to evaluate their practices. Consumers are also paying close attention to how their food choices impact the environment. For example, ostrich meat is starting to
become more mainstream because it can be raised humanely and doesn’t result in nearly as many carbon emissions as other meats, such as beef. The two primary things that
enable this low carbon footprint are: 1) ostriches don't burp or flatulate toxic methane gas; and 2) the amount of feed an animal consumes is the largest contributor to their
environmental footprint, and ostriches - like all birds, due simply to their biology - are much more efficient converters of feed into weight gain. Like all birds, ostriches lay eggs,
which, when effectively grown, enable significantly higher rates of reproduction than mammalian livestock, like cows. Beyond the red meat, Ostrich oil is a valuable byproduct
and a critical ingredient in premium cosmetics and soaps, allowing a single farm to produce diverse food products as well as beauty care products. DISTRIBUTED FOOD
PRODUCTION An increasing number of consumers are beginning to see the value in purchasing ethically and sustainably sourced food. This is supported by decentralizing
centralized production centers and increasing distributed, small farms, and integrating more producers into the supply chain in more locations. As diversity and overall interest in
the food production system grows, consumers gain more opportunities to learn about producers and feel a closer connection to their food, something more and more consumers
are looking for. In December 2018, 46% of consumers polled in a Nielsen rating were socially aware of the importance of buying local. Other growing food production issues of
importance to consumers include suspect agricultural techniques (pesticide and herbicide use on crops; and treatment, handling, and antibiotic use on animals), and concerns
about waste along the many links of the food production and distribution value chain. The farm-to-table connection is strengthened when consumers — either in restaurants, at
grocery stores, or perusing the local farmers market — know where their food came from. Distributed food production — especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic — has also
become an important practice in the agriculture industry. With stronger hurricanes, flooding, and natural disasters threatening many areas of the country, agricultural production
must become more geographically diverse. The concentration of food production and processing into a handful of giant corporations has been exposed as a major national
security problem and we need to make changes to our food system to ensure that our food supply isn’t threatened or halted due to a singular catastrophic event. POLICIES
AND PLANNING The future of the agricultural industry is changing rapidly, like many other modern industries. To implement these progressive changes fairly and justly, new
policies must be implemented as the result of extensive planning. RISING GLOBAL DEMAND FOR FOOD The rising demand for food has made it essential for the agricultural
industry to increase production. With this increasing demand, many agricultural businesses have cut corners — such as adopting inhumane livestock practices and unhealthy
farming habits — to increase production and efficiency. To say nothing of the animals and the farmers, this undoubtedly has negative effects on consumers and the
environment. Small scale farmers have traditionally been generally more focused on sustainability and humane practices but larger agricultural businesses are steamrolling
these small farms and taking over the industry with ever larger facilities in the never-ending pursuit of efficiency gains. Farm bankruptcies in the Northwest increased by 50%
from July 2018 to June 2019 and increased by 12% in the Midwest, according to Time Magazine. Small farmers desperately seek out loans to save their family businesses, only
to be met with unfair repayment plans and high interest rates. Government policies punish these small farms with taxes and other policies that make it ever more difficult to
survive in a modernizing agriculture sector. ENSURING FOOD SECURITY The rising population, increased demand for food (protein, in particular), and unsustainable practices
of large agricultural businesses also threaten global food security. Most food insecure citizens reside in Sub-Saharan African countries, according to the USDA’s Economic
Consumers are becoming more
attracted to small, local farmers who focus on sustainability and humane practices.
However, recent government policies and an increase in food demand may offer the right
environment for agricultural corporations to thrive. By focusing on how to grow and
evolve with consumer demands, the agricultural industry can help secure a firm place in
the future of our food systems while adapting the progressive changes necessary to
remain essential.
Research Service. However, many households around the world struggle to afford enough food for their families.
Uniq: U.S. Farm Collapse Inevitable
Collapse of U.S. ag inevitable --- water use
Dr. Foldvary ‘14
(Fred, PhD economics, “US Agriculture Will Collapse,” pg online @
https://www.progress.org/articles/us-agriculture-will-collapse //um-ef)
Agriculture has always been a major strength of the American economy. However, now
American farming is headed towards a collapse . US farming is unsustainable, as farmers
are mining the water rather than harvesting it. In California’s Central Valley, farmers are
extracting twice as much water than is being added. Not only is the water table falling, but the
ceilings of empty aquifers are falling in. The water caves are physically collapsing, and once the
space gets filled, there is no more room for the water to fill in. The underground water is lost
forever. Farmers in the Central Valley keep digging deeper to get water. When the deepest
water is all taken, then the farms will be dry. Water has a common pool problem. When the
landowners can extract the water without limit, each farmer has an incentive to draw out
as much as possible. Then the water gets used up that much faster. California has failed to
require payments high enough for water extraction to induce sustainable use. Overpumping is an old problem, and much of the San Juaquin Valley in California has already sunk
from previous over-consumption. Now the Valley is sinking some more. As the ground falls,
infrastructure - canals, roads, and bridges - will crack and break. Another problem is well failure:
as the underground water gets used up, the pumps draw out sand, which wears out the pumps.
The basic moral question is, who is the proper owner of natural water? Water is ultimately a
common pool that should belong to everyone in a region, including persons who will be
here in the future. Equal benefits can be implemented by having the users pay the price that
keeps the quantity demanded equal to the average annual quantity supplied from rain and
snow. It takes a gallon of water to produce one almond. The true cost of that gallon of water is
not the pumping costs but the market price of water when the quantity obtained is sustainable.
This is economically similar to a toll road charge just high enough to prevent congestion. When
the price is water is too low, the usage is congested. A similar problem is occurring in the
Ogallala Aquifer in the US Midwest, from South Dakota to Texas, with an area of 225,000
square miles, where the water has fallen by over 300 billion gallons per year during the past half
century. About 30 percent of the Kansas portion has already been pumped out. It will take
thousands of years for the underground water to recharge. The farmers are stuck in a previousinvestment problem. If from the beginning, farmers had to pay the sustainable price for water,
they would have invested accordingly. Instead, in effect, farmers and consumers have
been subsidizes by not paying the full social cost for water. A higher price for water
would now require major changes in farming practices and crops, with large losses. If
farmers and ranchers paid the true cost of water, it would be more expensive to feed cattle, and
beef prices would rise sharply. There would be less domestic production and more imports.
Uniq: US Ag Leadership at risk
US leadership in agriculture is being questioned now---only federal
intervention restores credibility and spreads regenerative ag globally.
Chase Sova 19, Senior Associate (Non-resident) in the Global Food Security Program;
Kimberly Flowers, Senior Associate (Non-resident) in the Humanitarian Agenda and Global
Food Security Program; Christian Man, Adjunct Fellow (Non-resident) in the Global Food
Security Program; 10-15-2019, "Climate Change and Food Security: A Test of U.S. Leadership
in a Fragile World," Center for Strategic and International Studies,
https://www.csis.org/analysis/climate-change-and-food-security-test-us-leadership-fragile-world
- MBA AM
The credibility and potency of our leadership
at global levels begins with our commitment to change and improve our own priorities.
Very public controversies around the alleged suppression of research regarding the impact of climate
change on food production from the Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has brought into
Support domestic efforts to promote climate resilience in food systems:
question the administration’s ability to lead by example. For continued progress in
reducing agriculture’s global greenhouse gas footprint and improving adoption of
climate-smart agricultural practices, the United States must walk the walk here at home . Climatesmart interventions are not limited to developing country contexts. In the United States, cover cropping, for example, has
increased considerably, but the practice still represents only a small percentage of planted
area. These and other regenerative practices are being rolled out in the United States thanks, in part, to USDA’s
10 regional Climate Hubs, led by the Agricultural Research Service and the Forest Service. In this same spirit, the United States should
continue and expand its leveraging of domestic university research programs for developing global climate solutions in
agriculture. U.S. universities, through the Feed the Future Innovation Labs, are currently involved in research on climate resilient sorghum,
wheat, millet, cowpea, chickpea, and beans.64 Finally, recent years have seen the emergence of several mechanisms that compensate U.S. farmers
for storing carbon in their agricultural soils, including in California and several non-profit and private sector initiatives. These
initiatives
require federal support to be sustainable in the long run, a step that should be explored within USDA’s existing
authorities or in the next Farm Bill cycle.
Internals: Rural Econ/Farming Knowledge
The commodity subsidy is hollowing-out rural farming communities --collapses the ability of small farms to compete and guts important ag
knowledge that makes Ag Industry collapse
Eubanks ‘9
(William S. Eubanks II, Associate Attorney at Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, a Washington, D.C.
public interest environmental law firm. LL.M. in Environmental Law, summa cum laude, Vermont
Law School (2008); J.D., magna cum laude, North Carolina Central University School of Law
(2007); B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “A Rotten System: Subsidizing
Environmental Degradation and Poor Public Health with Our Nation’s Tax Dollars,” pg online @
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1287408 //um-ef)
One disturbing trend demonstrated by this table is that the total number of farms in Iowa only
decreased 10% between 1900 and 1950, but the total number of farms decreased more
than 55% between 1950 and 1997. This means that in the pre-Farm Bill era and in the first
seventeen years of the Farm Bill when small farm protection was a key goal, overall farm
loss was quite minimal. However, in the agribusiness-dominated second half of the
twentieth century, the overall number of farms plummeted in the face of poor
agricultural policies . This severe drop-off can be attributed to the commodity subsidy
program that grew rapidly during this period. The respective Farm Bills during this time were
commandeered by Cargill and ADM, among others, to benefit large farmers and processors,
and Figure 1 confirms that the companies accomplished their goal, in Iowa and beyond. Another
alarming trend illustrated by Figure 1 is the increase in large farms of more than 1000 acres
by 2000% between 1950 and 1997 after actually decreasing between 1900 and 1950. In
contrast, mid-sized farms between 50 and 500 acres, which are small and mid-sized farms
seeking to make a living solely from farming, saw a sharp decline of nearly 70% between
1950 and 1997 after only a 10% drop between 1900 and 1950. As unsettling as these trends
are, the wealthy corporations have been adept at utilizing their financial resources to
deceive the public by keeping these trends out of the popular media and by claiming to
advocate for policies favoring small American farmers. In reality, small farmers have been
frequently displaced by these polices and have twice voiced their opinions to Congress
on how to change domestic agricultural policy to realign the Farm Bill with its New Deal
roots aimed at protecting family farms. In both situations, their advice and pleas became
distant memories as Congress chose instead to appease Cargill, ADM, and other large
campaign contributors. First, the 1996 Farm Bill, colloquially named the “Freedom to Farm” Act
was enacted to eliminate agricultural subsidies. Nonetheless, the Freedom to Farm Act
“triggered the largest government payouts in history, the opposite of its policy objective”
because Congress “reneged on [its subsidy] phase-out plan.” Then, in 2002, President George
W. Bush signed the “Farm Security and Rural Investment Act” Farm Bill, which he hailed as
legislation that “preserves the farm way of life for generations.” Despite Bush’s claim that the bill
would protect family farming, knowledgeable critics quickly labeled the bill as “a 10-year, $173.5
billion bucket of slop” and “a gravy-train for mega farms and corporations.” Therefore, it has
become clear that small farmers alone, without public support, do not have the political
voice needed to overcome the financial and political firepower that agribusiness and
corporations constantly wield to protect and increase their profits. This stagnation and
lack of progress in fixing the nation’s subsidy program has caused a rural exodus that
has devastated small-town communities and has resulted in a loss of invaluable
ag ricultural knowledge and cultural resources. For example, the disappearance of large
portions of a rural town’s population negatively affects all aspects of the community’s
functionality by eliminating diverse employment opportunities, threatening rural
economic health, and depleting the local tax base and related public services that are
essential to a community’s continued existence. The correlation between the growth of large
industrial megafarms and this rural exodus is very strong: As these graphs depict, the
percentages of small and medium-sized farms are shrinking quickly as the percentage of
large megafarms swells. The megafarms are rapidly becoming corporate, nonfamily farms,
leading to the disintegration of rural communities . Although the percentage of Americans
living in rural areas declined steadily throughout the twentieth century, the percentage of the
population devoted to agriculture declined much more precipitously. In addition to the loss of
rural communities, this transition to commercialized farming has resulted in the loss of
important agricultural knowledge: “[t]he farmer replacement rate has fallen below 50% as
younger generations flee the Corn Belt” and other traditional farming communities. Due to
this phenomenon, there are currently twice as many farmers over the age of sixty-five as
there are under the age of thirty-five, which is a perilous situation as the United States
edges closer to becoming a net importer of food. Thus, our nation faces a substantial
gap in our ag ricultural knowledge because the best farming practices are being phased
out over time by megafarm-favorable commodity subsidies and concerning trends show
that there soon might be too few remaining farmers to fill those gaps in knowledge . The
rural economic fallout from bolstering megafarms and corporations through commodity
subsidies is not unique to farmers. Industries that rely on subsidized crops, which
provide jobs and are typically located in the heart of farm country, have increasingly
become monopolized by a few large companies in each respective industry and are now
typically located outside of rural America. Economists consider a market “concentrated” if
the market share of the top four producers exceeds 20% and “very highly concentrated” if this
market share approaches or exceeds 50%. Figure 4 depicts one of the primary problems of a
subsidy system in commercialized agriculture: since the wealthiest corporations receive
double compensation by both securing the largest profits through sales and acquiring
the largest governmental subsidies based on their yields, they are apt to monopolize the
market and push smaller competitors to the wayside.
Figure 4
MARKET SHARE CONTROLLED BY TOP FOUR PRODUCERS
Very Highly Concentrated
Beef Packers 84%
Pork Packers 64%
Broiler Production 56%
Turkey Production 51%
Flour Milling 63%
Soybean Crushing 71%
Concentrated
Pork Production 49%
Animal Feed Processing 34%
As the small companies fall to the wayside, so too do jobs, public services, and entire
communities. Further, since the majority of farmers rely on these highly consolidated
industries to buy their farm products, there exists an unfair and asymmetrical market system
whereby farmers are forced to compete fiercely with each other to sell at the lowest price to the
few companies in the field. Although farmers are thus forced to drive their prices lower
because of the lack of choice in agricultural buyers, the companies in these heavily
consolidated industries benefit enormously from an effective lack of competition
because of the overconcentration of products in these markets. By encouraging
oligopolies in these farm-based industries, the Farm Bill’s commodity subsidies have torn
apart rural communities and have given select corporations a stranglehold on both
financial viability in the farming market and political access to peddle their supposedly
“pro-agriculture” initiatives before state and national legislatures.
Internals: Subs distort Ag Industry
That guts the ag industry --- distorts the market and undermines ag
innovations and pollution reduction
Finney ‘21
(Bradley, federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee. Prior to becoming a clerk, he was an associate in the Houston office of Norton
Rose Fulbright, “Agricultural Law Stifles Innovation And Competition,” pg online @
https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2021/05/3-Finney-785-838.pdf //um-ef)
Agricultural exceptionalism also limits competition within the industry.21 Subsidies
distort the industry’s reliance on market signals to make strategic decisions that align
with consumer demands.22 The industry’s focus is often on receiving subsidies rather than
delivering a product that satisfies demand.23 Thus, players in the industry compete to
receive subsidies, not to satisfy consumer preferences.24 Additionally, because of the
regulatory exemptions and cost externalization, there is a lack of competition focused on
developing new innovations to limit pollution and reduce attendant costs.25 As a result of
this lack of competition, society bears more costs.26 If agriculture was not exempt and was
assigned more responsibility for its pollution, the industry would compete to reduce
pollution and the costs of that pollution.27
Internals: Undermines Small Farms
Subsidies expand large farms, undercut small farms, limit new farms and
ensure bad farming practices
Cotnoir ‘16
(Emma, A Master’s Research Paper Submitted to the faculty of Clark University, Worcester,
Massachusetts, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
the department of Environmental Science and Policy “The Influence of Agriculture Policy: The
Effects of the Farm Bill on Farm Size, Crop Choice, and Trends in Agriculture,” pg online @
https://commons.clarku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=idce_masters_papers
//um-ef)
When analyzing farm policy, it is important to note that not all farms are the same in size or
crop choice. Consequently, one policy may having varying effects on different farms.
According to data from the 2007 agricultural census, there are 922,095,840 acres of farmland in
the United States, which is approximately 40% of all land. Equally, this is broken into 2.2 million
farms with an average of 418 acres per farm. Yet in reality, there are not 2 million equally sized
farms (USDA NASS, 2014). In fact, 11% of farms are 1-9 acres, 28% are 10-49 acres, and 30%
are 50-179 acres, but these account for merely 9% of farmland combined. Meanwhile, farms
with 180-499 acres represent 16% of farms and 500-999 acres 7% of farms, but each account
for 11% of total farmland. The large scale farms then hold 14% of farmland for 1000-1999 acres
and 55% of farmland for farms over 2000 acres, despite the fact that each category represents
only 4% of the total number of farms (USDA NASS, 2014). This shows that large-scale farms
take up most of the acreage, meaning they own most of the 40% of land in the United States
used for farming. The 2012 census data then showed a clear consolidation of farms as overall
acreage decreased to 2.1 million, but average farm size increased to 434 acres (USDA NASS,
2014). Looking at both sets of statistics shows how misleading it can be to base analysis and
policy on only number of farms or percent of farms without looking at how much cropland they
actually constitute. Looking at trends can create a more accurate picture, since census data has
shown a steady increase in the number of large farms, as well as an increase in the average
acres per farm and the midpoint in acres per farm. Even beyond these apparent shifts, 14 there
are less small farms than it would appear, since of the number of farms exiting and entering
agriculture, the majority are small. This indicates that it is more difficult for them to stay in
business. It has been shown that large farms do tend to turn a better profit comparatively, and
within census data, many of the small farms either break even or hardly make a profit, and it is
through non-farm incomes that these families are able to subsist. At a glance, the subsidy and
insurance systems would benefit farms of all different sizes. Yet it seems that they do the
most for mid-level farms rather than the small farms that need assistance . The
commodity payments are calculated using base acreage in previous years rather than the
current production rates, so they tend to favor producers who are already established. This
offers little support for producers who are just starting in their business, and often
farmers will wait several years to build up their base acreage before they apply for direct
payments (Coble, 2008). This creates a system where producers are rewarded for
expanding their cropland rather than for what practices they use or how efficient they
are . While it makes sense to create a payment system based on the size of the farm, this does
not account for the fact that there are costs such as equipment or technology that will cost
roughly the same amount no matter what size the property is (MacDonald et. al., 2013). This
also deters farmers away from sustainable practices that use less acreage. Some have
argued that while larger farms obviously receive larger payments, they are proportional to cost
and therefore are still fair, but this may not be accurate. On a larger farm, there is a tendency to
use labor and capital more extensively, so costs of 15 labor and technology do not increase
proportionally to farm size. Additionally, farm owners then use the commodity payments to
raise the value of their land, increasing the rent if they have farmers renting plots or
keeping the wealth rather than distributing it amongst all the producers involved in the
cropland. This is important since approximately 40% of farmland is rented or leased, so the
subsidy programs could be hurting rather than helping this portion of producers (USDA
NASS, 2014). Aside from the obvious benefit of receiving a larger payment, the commodity
programs have subtler ways of increasing farm sizes. Cochrane and Ryan had a theory, which
could still hold true, which is that these payments create price stability and insurance for
large farms to be able to invest in new technology and expand (De Gorter, 1993).
Conversely, farms with comparatively low or mid-level incomes pale in comparison, and
consequently have difficulty in getting enough money, even through loans, to be able to
build up their business. There are other factors involved, but a study by Key and Roberts
(2007) used census data on cropland and government payments to show that cropland
consolidated most rapidly in areas with higher government payments. Between 1987 and
2007, zip codes with the highest payments showed a 46.3 percent increase in midpoint acreage
for farm size while the zip codes with lowest payments showed a 23.6 percent increase and
areas with no payments showed only an 11.2 percent increase.
Internals: Exem/Subs kill Ag Tech
And, exemptions undermine agricultural innovations and tech --- costs and
undercut by subsidies
Finney ‘21
(Bradley, federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee. Prior to becoming a clerk, he was an associate in the Houston office of Norton
Rose Fulbright, “Agricultural Law Stifles Innovation And Competition,” pg online @
https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2021/05/3-Finney-785-838.pdf //um-ef)
2. Innovation Complacency within Agriculture Innovation
in agriculture is imperative for the future physical and
financial health of the nation. Currently, conventional agriculture lacks incentive to innovate
for three reasons.401 First, regulations specifically carve out exceptions for the industry that allow it to
pollute water.402 Thus, there is little financial incentive for the industry to invest resources in
innovation to comply with regulations from which it is exempt. Second, “[f]armers do not bear the total costs of
off-farm pollution and erosion. Most costs are borne by other users of the polluted water. Therefore[,] pollution offers an
inexpensive method of waste product disposal for farmers and an opportunity to shift the costs of that waste on to others.”403 Given these financial
benefits, conventional agriculture is incentivized to continue to pollute because others must bear the attendant costs.404 This externalization of costs
does not spur conventional agriculture to invest time and money in developing, or acquiring, new technology that reduces water pollution and its
costs.405 Finally, there
is also a general lack of pressure to innovate from consumers,
policymakers, and other outside forces because food is ostensibly inexpensive.406 But food
prices at the store do not reflect the true costs of its production.407 Thus, the consequences of agricultural exceptionalism “are easily ignored by
consumers and policymakers who support the production and availability of ‘cheap’ food.”408 At the same time, policymakers likely ignore negative
consequences of agricultural exceptionalism due to the industry’s substantial lobbying efforts.409 In 2018, agriculture spent $134.8 million to lobby
An analysis of conventional
agriculture’s recent history of developing and implementing new innovations plainly
reveals that the industry is suffering from innovation complacency.412 For example, recent studies have
shown that the utilization of prairie plants could reduce pollution runoff from crop fields and
ultimately reduce water pollution from conventional agriculture.413 By strategically planting this mix of plants on sloping areas of the field,
U.S. policymakers.410 This put agriculture among the top ten spenders in the United States.411
“water flowing by will be slowed and will prevent soil and nutrients from washing away.”414 This innovation is not technologically advanced, so
conventional agriculture did not need to wait for the technological capability to implement this change. Yet, it took a study funded largely by state
government agencies–– Iowa State University, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, and Iowa Flood Center––to make it known that
such a change could drastically reduce pollution.415 There are other
innovations currently in use that help reduce some of the harmful
effects of conventional agriculture’s water pollution. For example, conventional agriculture utilizes phosphorus to
increase plant and animal growth, but phosphorous also has harmful effects on water
quality.416 Because of technological innovation, phosphorus now can be recovered from water and
converted into a more environmentally friendly fertilizer.417 Although this helps to reduce the harmful effects of
conventional agriculture’s pollution, the Madison Metropolitan Sewage District implemented this technology, not conventional agriculture.418 Rather
than conventional agriculture developing and paying for a solution, a city water utility sought out and implemented a solution,419 and the citizens of
Madison, Wisconsin, are paying for it through taxes and increased water bills.420 Similarly, the city of Boise, Idaho, implemented a new system at its
Conventional agriculture often
allows others to pay for new technologies that reduce the harms the industry creates, but conventional
agriculture has shown the ability to innovate when it makes financial sense for the
industry.422 For example, many farmers have implemented the use of “data gathered from sensors, tractors and satellites . . . to track
water renewal facility to “manage nuisance struvite deposits and recover phosphorous.”421
crop health, make planting decisions and guide fertilizer use to improve the efficiency of their businesses like never before.”423 Farmers have utilized
this style of farming, known as
precision agriculture,
because it is particularly helpful
in reducing fertilizer
loss.424 Crops only absorb 40% of the total nitrogen fertilizer applied,425 and nitrogen fertilizer loss is a substantial expense for many farmers.426
Thus, reducing that loss could significantly improve their bottom line.427 While nitrogen fertilizer is also a significant component of conventional
agriculture’s total water pollution,428 it is unlikely that reducing such pollution is more than a coincidental side effect of farmers’ desire to reduce costs
and improve the bottom line.429 If
the regulatory structure changed to more accurately reflect the
costs of conventional agriculture’s water pollution, conventional agriculture’s incentive to
increase profit would then align with reducing environmental degradation and the
harmful financial effects of water pollution. As the above example illustrates,430 conventional agriculture can develop
and implement technological innovations so long as those innovations improve profit.431
Impacts: Ag/Food Wars
It causes nuke war in Asia and the Middle East---each independently
causes extinction
Julian Cribb 19. Author, Journalist, Editor and Science Communicator, Principal of Julian
Cribb & Associates who Provide Specialist Consultancy in the Communication of Science,
Agriculture, Food, Mining, Energy and the Environment, More Than Thirty Awards for
Journalism. 10/03/2019. “6 - Food as an Existential Risk.” Food or War, 1st ed., Cambridge
University Press. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1017/9781108690126.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Detonating just 50 –100 out of the global arsenal of nearly 15,000 nuc lear weapon s would suffice to
end civilisation in a nuclear winter , causing worldwide famine and economic collapse
affecting even distant nations, as we saw in the previous chapter in the section dealing with South Asia. Eight
nations
now have
the power to terminate civilisation
should they desire to do so – and
two have the
power to extinguish the human species . According to the nuclear monitoring group Ploughshares, this arsenal is
distributed as follows:
– Russia, 6600 warheads (2500 classified as ‘retired’)
– America, 6450 warheads (2550 classified as ‘retired’)
– France, 300 warheads
– China, 270 warheads
– UK, 215 warheads
– Pakistan, 130 warheads
– India, 120 warheads
– Israel, 80 warheads
– North Korea, 15–20 warheads.11
Although actual numbers of warheads have continued to fall from its peak of 70,000 weapons in the mid 1980s, scientists argue
the danger of nuclear conflict in fact increased in the first two decades of the twenty-first
century. This was due to the modernisation
of existing stockpiles, the adoption of dangerous
new tech nologies
such as robot delivery systems, hypersonic missiles, a rtificial i ntelligence and e lectronic w arfare,
and the continuing leakage of nuclear materials and knowhow
to nonnuclear nations and potential
terrorist organisations.
In early 2018 the hands of the ‘Doomsday Clock’, maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, were re-set at two minutes to midnight, the highest risk to humanity that it has ever shown since the clock was
introduced in 1953. This was due not only to the state of the world’s nuclear arsenal, but also to irresponsible language by world leaders, the growing use of social media to destabilise rival regimes, and to the
rising threat of uncontrolled climate change (see below).12
In an historic moment on 17 July 2017, 122 nations voted in the UN for the first time ever in favour of a treaty banning all nuclear weapons. This called for comprehensive prohibition of “a full range of nuclearweapon-related activities, such as undertaking to develop, test, produce, manufacture, acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, as well as the use or threat of use of
these weapons.”13 However, 71 other countries – including all the nuclear states – either opposed the ban, abstained or declined to vote. The Treaty vote was nonetheless interpreted by some as a promising first
step towards abolishing the nuclear nightmare that hangs over the entire human species.
In contrast, 192 countries had signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention to ban the use of chemical weapons, and 180 to the Biological Weapons Convention. As of 2018, 96 per cent of previous world
stocks of chemical weapons had been destroyed – but their continued use in the Syrian conflict and in alleged assassination attempts by Russia indicated the world remains at risk.14
As things stand, the only entities that can afford to own nuclear weapons are nations – and
out , it will most likely be as a result of an atomic conflict
if humanity is to be wiped
between nations. It follows from this that, if the
world is to be made safe from such a fate it will need to get rid of nations as a structure of human self-organisation and replace them
with wiser, less aggressive forms of self-governance. After all, the nation state really only began in the early nineteenth century and
is by no means a permanent feature of self-governance, any more than monarchies, feudal systems or priest states. Although many
people still tend to assume it is. Between them, nations have butchered more than 200 million people in the past 150 years and it is
increasingly clear the world would be a far safer, more peaceable place without either nations or nationalism. The question is what
to replace them with.
Although there may at first glance appear to be no close linkage between weapons of mass destruction and food, in
the
twenty-first century with world resources of food , land and water under growing stress,
nothing can be ruled out . Indeed, chemical weapons have frequently been deployed in the
Syria n civil war, which had drought , ag ricultural failure and hunger among its early
drivers . And nuclear conflict remains a distinct possibil ity in South Asia and the Mid dle
East , especially, as these regions are already stressed in terms of food, land and water, and
their nuclear firepower
or access to nuclear materials is
It remains an open question whether
ruthless enough to
multiplying .
panicking regimes in Russia, the US A or even France would be
deploy atomic weapons in an attempt to quell invasion by tens of millions of
desperate refugees , fleeing famine and climate chaos
in their own homelands – but the possibility ought
not to be ignored.
That nuclear war is at least a possible outcome of food and climate crises was first flagged in the report The Age of Consequences
nuclear
Food insecurity is
by Kurt Campbell and the US-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, which stated ‘it is clear that even
war cannot be excluded as a political consequence of global warming’. 15
therefore a driver in the preconditions for the use of nuclear weapons, whether limited or unlimited.
A global famine is a likely outcome of limited use of nuclear weapons by any country or countries – and would be unavoidable in the
event of an unlimited nuclear war between America and Russia, making it unwinnable for either. And
that , as the mute
hands of the ‘Doomsday Clock’ so eloquently admonish, is also the most likely scenario
for the premature termination of the human species .
Such a grim scenario can be alleviated by two measures: the voluntary banning by the whole of humanity of nuclear weapons, their
technology, materials and stocks – and by a global effort to secure food against future insecurity by diverting the funds now wasted
on nuclear armaments into building the sustainable food and water systems of the future (see Chapters 8 and 9).
Food is the most probable conflict trigger AND causes terrorism
Carolyn Heneghan 15, Reporter, Citing UN Experts at the Global Harvest Initiative Report,
1/22/2015, “Where Food Crises and Global Conflict Could Collide”,
http://www.fooddive.com/news/where-food-crises-and-global-conflict-could-collide/350837/
World War III is unimaginable for many, but some experts believe that not only is this
degree of global conflict imminent, but it may be instigated not by military tensions, oil
and gas, or nuclear threats, but instead by, of all things, food .
As it stands, countries
across the globe are enduring food crises, and the U.N.’s Food & Agriculture
Organization (FAO) estimates that about 840 million people in the world are undernourished, including the
one in four children under the age of 5 who is stunted because of malnutrition.
Assistant director-general of U.N. FAO Asia-Pacific Hiroyuki Konuma told Reuters that
social and political unrest, civil wars , and terrorism could all be possible results of food
crises, and “world security as a whole might be affected.” Such consequences could happen
unless the world increases its output of food production 60% by mid-century. This includes
maintaining a stable growth rate at about 1% to have an even theoretical opportunity to circumvent severe shortages. These
needs are due to the growing global population, which is expected to reach 9 billion by
2050 while demand for food will rise rapidly.
Famine kills billions AND destroys the environment---extinction
Richard G. Lugar 4, U.S. Senator from Indiana and Former Chair of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, “Plant Power”, Our Planet, 14(3),
http://www.unep.org/ourplanet/imgversn/143/lugar.html
In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats and other crises, it is easy to lose
sight of the long-range
challenges. But we do so at our peril. One of the most daunting of them is
meeting the world’s need for food and energy in this century. At stake is not only preventing
starvation and saving the environment , but also world peace and security. History tells us that
states may go to war over access to resources, and that poverty and famine have often bred
fanaticism and terrorism. Working to feed the world will minimize factors that contribute to global
instability and the proliferation of w eapons of m ass d estruction.
With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable
food will increase well beyond current international production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will have the
means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake. Inevitably, that means eating more meat. This will raise demand
for feed grain at the same time that the growing world population will need vastly more basic food to eat.
Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West: developing countries often use
limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations.
timber resources and even rainforests
term
As good land disappears, people destroy
feed themselves. The long-
as they try to create more arable land to
environmental consequences could be disastrous for the entire globe .
Productivity revolution
To meet the expected demand for food over the next 50 years, we in the U nited S tates will
have to grow roughly three times more food on the land we have. That’s a tall order . My
farm in Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare – typical for a farm in central
Indiana. To triple our production by 2050, we will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare.
Can we possibly boost output that much? Well, it’s been done before. Advances in the use of fertilizer
and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to generate a threefold increase in yields
since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen
similar increases.
But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again. Given
the urgency of expanding food
production to meet world demand, we must invest much more in scientific research and
target that money toward projects that promise to have significant national and global
impact . For the United States, that will mean a major shift in the way we conduct and fund agricultural science.
Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the
world.
The U nited S tates can take a leading position in a productivity revolution. And our success
at increasing food production may play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival of
billions
of people and
the health of our planet .
Impacts: Food Wars Studies
Rigorous empirical studies prove the impact
Ore Koren 16, PhD Candidate at the University of Minnesota in Political Science and Former
Jennings Randolph Peace Scholar at the United States Institute of Peace, & Benjamin E.
Bagozzi, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science & International. Relations at
the University of Delaware, “From Global to Local, Food Insecurity is Associated with
Contemporary Armed Conflicts”, Food Security, October 2016, Volume 8, Issue 5,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12571-016-0610-x
all four models support
the argument that a significant relationship exists between food insecurity and conflict.
What do these findings indicate about the variation in the risk of conflict and civil conflict? Firstly,
More specifically, these findings suggest that, for an average country, the baseline risk of conflict and civil conflict increases in
regions that provide at least some access to food – supporting the expectation that global demands for food should generally direct
conflict towards agricultural areas. At the same time, within agricultural areas, conflict
is intuitively more likely to
arise in regions where the levels of food per capita are low – that is, where food supplies
are scarce. Secondly, and in line with previous research (Burke et al. 2009; O’Loughlin et al. 2012; Hsiang and Meng 2014;
Hendrix and Salehyan 2012), warmer regions and areas with lower precipitation were significantly more likely to experience conflict.
This supports the argument that food scarcity can serve, to some extent, as a mediating factor for the effects of climate variables, in
addition to the independent impact of food insecurity related concerns on conflict. Thirdly, as extant studies (e.g., Hegre and
Sambanis 2006) suggest, poorer regions are more likely to experience conflict, as are more ethnically diverse regions, although it
appears that higher levels of democracy do not translate into more peace once cell level characteristics are taken into account.3
Perhaps unsurprisingly, regions with larger populations are more likely to experience conflict, as are more rural regions, as some
scholars have argued (Fearon and Laitin 2003; Kalyvas 2006; Buhaug et al. 2009).
In sum, four models involving different explanatory variables have been utilized to examine two conceptualizations of conflict as an
outcome of interest. The
results strongly support extant arguments that access to and
availability of food are each associated with an increased occurrence of armed conflict.
This evidence does not negate previous explanations of conflict that emphasize the
importance of political and economic development or climactic variation. However, by
highlighting the strong association between food access and availability on one hand,
and local political violence on the other, the above findings do show that these past
expositions (e.g. Miguel et al. 2004; Burke et al. 2009; Hsiang and Meng 2014) in and of themselves are
insufficient to fully explain the likelihood of local level conflict. Simply put, the present study confirms
that there exists a systematic, and global, relationship between food insecurity on one hand,
and the occurrence and persistence of social conflict on the other.
Discussion
What do these findings imply about the effect of food insecurity and conflict? Naturally, even the most detailed and elaborate models
in terms
of conditional probabilities, all models show a statistically significant first difference
are simplistic, especially when containing as diverse a range of observations as those examined above. Nevertheless,
change of approximately +92 % in the probability of conflict when a high risk scenario is simulated for
an average cell.4
The conditional probabilities discussed above highlight the inherent complexity of social systems, as a phenomenon as notable as
violent conflict ultimately arises due to a variety of stressors. Therefore, it should be emphasized that the above findings should not
be interpreted as explaining conflict onset. Conflict can erupt due to various political (Buhaug 2010; Fearon and Laitin 2003) or
economic (Hegre and Sambanis 2006; Collier and Hoeffler 2005) reasons – which may or may not be related to food insecurity –
that are beyond the scope of this paper. Rather, the present study more simply suggests that political violence will have a higher
likelihood of concentrating in regions that (i) offer more access to food resources and (ii) face low levels of food availability within
areas that offer some access to food resources.
This study adopts an economic perspective on food security to explain this variation in the concentration of social conflict. From the
When food insecurity
produces higher demands for food, these demands will directly compel groups and
individuals to seek out and fight over existing food resources, rather than leading these
actors to pursue and fight over geographic areas that lack any (or have very little) agricultural
resources. Thus, access to croplands and food is a necessary condition for food insecurity-induced conflict, which is confirmed
demand side, violent conflict is most likely to revolve primarily around access to food sources.
in the cropland analyses presented here. From the supply side, and within those areas that do already offer access to agriculture
and/or food, conflict is most likely to occur in regions that offer lower levels of food availability, or insufficient food supplies. This is
because lower
food availability (or supplies) in these contexts directly implies higher levels of
resource scarcity, which can engender social grievances, and ultimately, social and
political conflict (Brinkman and Hendrix 2011; Hendrix and Brinkman 2013). More broadly, several causal
mechanisms could plausibly link food security and social conflict.
For one, conflict in regions with higher food access and lower availability might arise as
a principal outcome of food insecurity. This approach is most directly in tune with the
body of research concerned with the resource scarcity-based security implications of
climate change (e.g. Miguel et al. 2004; Burke et al. 2009; O’Loughlin et al. 2012), as well as with
broader studies of conflict dynamics and food security in both rural and urban contexts
(Brinkman and Hendrix 2011; Hendrix and Brinkman 2013; Messer and Cohen 2006). From this
perspective, individuals and groups actively fight with one another due to food insecurity-induced
grievances, which may manifest in groups’ attempts to overthrow existing political
structures, or in these actors’ efforts to more directly seize and control available (but
scarce) agricultural resources in an effort to better guarantee long-term food security for
their constituents. If future global projections for population growth, consumption, and
climate change hold true, then these dynamics suggest that incidences of violent conflict
over food scarcity and food insecurity may increase as individuals and groups fight over
a continuously shrinking pool of resources, including food.
A second mechanism involves the existence of logistic support in conflict-prone
regions, or lack thereof. Throughout history and well into the nineteenth century, armies living off the land have been a regular
characteristic of warfare. The utilization of motorized transport vehicles and airlifts has significantly reduced the need of modern
militaries to rely on local populations for support, at least among modernized, highly technological militaries (Kress 2002, 12–13).
the majority of state and nonstate armed groups in the developing world are still unlikely to be supported by well-developed
logistic supply chains (Henk and Rupiya 2001). Taking into account the consistent relationship between economic
welfare and conflict (Hegre and Sambanis 2006; Fearon and Laitin 2003), unsupported warring groups on all
sides of a conflict may move into regions that offer more access to cropland in order to
forage and pillage to support themselves, which in turn produces higher incidences of
hostilities, especially if there is not much food per person available within these fertile regions. Hence, violent conflict in this
case is not the direct result of food insecurity, but rather is shaped by food insecurity concerns. The identified
relations hips between food security and conflict are robust across numerous
However, given the bureaucratic and economic capabilities required to maintain such systems,
alternative model specifications , and imply an independent effect of food insecurity in
shaping conflict dynamics and conflict risk. Especially when considered alongside current, and projected,
climatic and political-economic conditions, this linkage suggests that countries could see an increase in
localized conflict worldwide in the coming years . However, this anticipated trend should be considered with
caution for several key reasons.
Impacts: Global Poverty
Agricultural innovation eradicates extreme poverty globally.
Thomas P. Tomich et al. 19, Distinguished Professor of Sustainability Science and Policy at
University of California, Davis; Preetmoninder Lidder, Technical Adviser to the Chief Scientist of
the Food and Agriculture Organisation; Mariah Coley, PhD Student in Geography at UC Davis;
Douglas Gollin, Professor of Development Economics at Oxford University; Ruth Meinzen-Dick,
Senior Research Fellow at International Food Policy Research Institute; Patrick Webb,
Professor of Nutrition at Tufts University; Peter Carberry, Director-General of the International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics; June 2019, "Food and agricultural
innovation pathways for prosperity," Agricultural Systems, Volume 172, Pages 1-15,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17305383 - MBA AM
1. Introduction
The last three decades have seen significant progress in reducing poverty and boosting
prosperity. Nevertheless, approximately 800 million people continue to live in extreme poverty
(World Bank, 2017). Moreover regional progress has been uneven, with Sub-Saharan Africa accounting for half of the world's extreme poor. Therefore,
much remains to be done in terms of international efforts to reach the target for 2030 as
articulated under Sustainable Development Goal 1 (SDG 1), i.e. eradicate extreme poverty.
Poverty is a multidimensional concept and poverty reduction is achieved through many routes (Alkire and Foster, 2011). No country – putting aside city
states – has achieved prosperity without growth in productivity in multiple sectors (agriculture, industry, services) and for many countries this growth
process has been mutually reinforcing. However,
agriculture can and does play a central role in reducing
poverty, since the majority of the world's poor are still rural people who depend upon
agriculture for their livelihoods (Webb and Block, 2012). Fostering agricultural growth can serve
as a critical entry point for designing effective strategies to transform the rural economy
and meet SDG 1 (Christiaensen et al., 2010), and investments in agricultural
research for development ( AR4D ) are
key to agricultural growth (Fuglie, 2017). A considerable amount of publicly-funded agricultural research has taken place in the
CGIAR, a worldwide partnership addressing AR4D. The CGIAR has three System Level Outcomes (SLOs) aligned with the SDGs and under SLO 1
aims to assist 100 million people, of whom 50% are women, to exit poverty by 2030.1
Evidence to date suggests that investment in AR4D provides high economic returns (Hurley et al., 2016),
and has been an effective tool to combat poverty (Adato and Meizen-Dick, 2007; Renkow and Byerlee, 2010; Pray
et al., 2017). Results from a recent simulation study have revealed that investment in agricultural
research reduces poverty more than irrigation, water holding capacity, or infrastructure
investments and is even more beneficial when coupled with these other investments (Rosegrant et al., 2017). Nonetheless relationships
between AR4D strategies and investment priorities for poverty reduction continue to be debated. Apparent lack of consensus concerning the key links
between AR4D and its impact on poverty reduction is a barrier to clarity and effectiveness in development strategy as well as weakening the case for
public investment.
Global poverty poses multiple transnational security threats. Namely,
nuclear terror which cause extinction.
Susan Rice 10, US Ambassador to the United Nations, senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 2010, "Confronting Poverty: Weak
States and U.S. National Security," Brookings Institution Press, https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/confrontingpoverty_chapter.pdf - MBA AM
A Changed Security Paradigm
Throughout the cold war period, successive U.S. administrations defined the vital national
security interests of the United States in narrow strategic and geographic terms. Their aim was clear: to avert the
existential threat of nuclear annihilation
through deterrence and containment, and to counter Soviet and communist
influences in key regions—chiefly Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Only to the extent that superpower competition spread to more distant battlefields
Major threats were those that risked
the very survival of the country, and such threats emanated almost exclusively from other states: the Soviet Union and its
communist proxies. The post–cold war world is fundamentally different, and so is the nature of the threats
Americans face. The Soviet Union is gone. The cold war proxy wars fought across the globe have ended. The risk of nuclear
annihilation is reduced, though by no means eliminated . The world is in this regard a much safer place.
did the United States evince much strategic interest in parts of Africa and Latin America.
Yet it
is still a dangerous world . It is more complex and less predictable . Real threats
persist, but their origins and consequences are more diffuse. Fewer of the principal threats to U.S. national
security today are existential in the cold war sense, with the crucial exception of nuclear
terrorism.
Furthermore, fewer derive primarily from nation-states.
In today’s world, risks
to U.S. national security extend well beyond a handful of hostile states. Foremost among them are
transnational security threats that, by definition, are not limited to any individual state. They include terrorism,
weapons proliferation, the global economic crisis, conflict, infectious disease,
international crime and narcotics flows, climate change, and environmental degradation. These transnational phenomena
can threaten U.S. national security because they have the potential to kill significant numbers of Americans—whether swiftly or over an extended
period of time.
With the advent of globalization and the rapid international movement of people, goods, funds, and
information, transnational security threats can arise from and spread with dangerous speed to
any part of the planet. They can emerge from remote regions and poor, weak states, turning them into potentially high-risk zones that may eventually,
often indirectly, pose significant risks to distant peoples. In 2008 alone, more than 900 million travelers crossed an international border each day.16
The risk that weak
states will inadvertently function as incubators of transnational security threats to their
Over the past four decades, total seaborne trade more than quadrupled, reaching in excess of 8 billion tons in 2007.17
own people as well as to others becomes exponentially magnified in a highly
interconnected world.
Such threats can potentially take various forms: a mutated, highly contagious and deadly flu virus
that jumps from animals to humans, and from human to human, in Cambodia or Cameroon; a case of deadly hemorrhagic Marburg fever unwittingly
terrorist cell attacks on a U.S. navy vessel
in Yemen or Djibouti; the theft of biological or nuclear materials from poorly secured facilities in
some forty countries around the world;18 narcotics traffickers in Tajikistan and criminal syndicates from Nigeria; or flooding and other
contracted by a U.S. expatriate in Angola who returns to Houston on an oil company charter;
effects of global warming, exacerbated by extensive deforestation, in the Amazon and Congo River basins. Dangerous spillovers from fragile states
could result in major damage to the global economy. In a worst-case scenario, millions of lives could be lost.
The Threat of Global Poverty
When Americans see televised images of bone-thin children with distended bellies, typically their humanitarian instincts take over. Few look at such
footage and perceive a threat that could destroy their way of life. Yet
global poverty is not solely a humanitarian
concern . Over the long term, it can threaten U.S. national security . Poverty erodes a state’s
capacity to prevent the spread of disease and protect forests and watersheds. It creates conditions
conducive to transnational criminal and terrorist activity, luring desperate individuals
into recruitment and, more significant, undermining the state’s ability to prevent and counter those
violent threats. Poverty can also give rise to tensions that can erupt into full-blown civil
conflict , further taxing the state and allowing transnational predators greater freedom of action. In the twenty-first century, poverty is an
important driver of transnational threats.
Americans can no longer realistically hope to erect the proverbial glass dome over their homeland and live safely isolated from the killers—human or
otherwise—that plague poorer countries. Al Qaeda has had training camps in conflict-ridden Sudan, Somalia, and Afghanistan and a presence in the
diamond markets of Sierra Leone and Liberia.19 A global pandemic or a mutated, deadly virus causing human-to-human contagion could also have an
alarming impact.20
Low-income states tend to be fragile and in poor control of their territory and resources.
Ill-equipped and poorly trained immigration and customs officials along with weak police, military, judiciary, and financial
systems create vacuums readily invaded by transnational predators. Conflict, difficult terrain, and
corruption render such states even more vulnerable. Terrorist groups are able to raise funds through tactical
alliances with transnational criminal syndicates, smugglers, and pirates operating in lawless zones, from the Somali
coast and Central Asia to the triborder region of South America. Not surprisingly, the human pawns drawn into global
criminal enterprises—the narcotics couriers, sex slaves, and petty thieves—frequently come from the ranks of
the unemployed or desperately poor . Transnational crime syndicates reap billions each year from illicit trafficking in
humans, drugs, weapons, hazardous waste, and endangered species—all of which reach American shores.
Conflict
Among the most significant consequences of country-level poverty is a heightened risk
of conflict . Poor countries are much more likely than rich ones to experience civil war.
Their average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is usually less than half that of countries free of conflict.21 Indeed, per capita GDP is known to
The link
between poverty and conflict, an area of rare scholarly consensus , is probably the most
have a statistically significant relationship to the likelihood of civil war.22 Economic decline heightens the risk even further.23
robust finding in the econometric literature on conflict.24
Put simply, increasing
a country’s GDP—without changing other important factors such as the degree of democratization or number
of ethnic groups—reduces the chance of civil war in that country. An otherwise “average” country with $250 GDP per
capita has a 15 percent risk of experiencing a civil war in the next five years, whereas for a country with per capita GDP of $5,000, the risk of civil war
drops to less than 1 percent over the same period.25 Other poverty-related factors that foment conflict include shrinking economic growth, low levels of
education, and high child mortality rates. Poverty
also helps perpetuate the fighting and once a conflict
has ended may increase the likelihood that war will recur.26 This was the case in East Timor, where violence
resumed in 2006, displacing an estimated 150,000 and necessitating the redeployment of UN forces, and in 2008 when an attempt was made on
President José Ramos-Horta’s life.27 Since then, the security situation has improved. Ten years into the postconflict period, however, poverty remains
high, unemployment is still rampant, and GDP growth has languished.28 In 2009 half the country’s population lived below the poverty line, compared
with 36 percent in 2001.29 Despite substantial inflows of international aid, East Timor’s child mortality rate remains among the highest in the world, and
unemployment hits nearly half the young people in urban areas, now a cauldron of disaffected youth.30 Unless East Timor’s economy improves and
poverty is reduced, peace and stability will be difficult to sustain.
Civil wars tend to be long, averaging sixteen years by one estimate.31 Their resolution often falters: one-third
later reignite.32 The ensuing vicious cycle is termed a “conflict trap.”33 Further conflict cannot
be avoided unless economic performance improves, as occurred in Mozambique, one of the world’s poorest
nations. After civil war ended there in 1994, GDP increased by nearly 8 percent.34 Furthermore, gross primary school enrollment jumped from 60
percent at the end of the war to roughly full enrollment in 2005.35 In the wake of sustained economic growth and investments in social services, rural
poverty declined 16 percent from 1997 to 2003.36 Once an epicenter of subregional conflict, Mozambique is now among the more stable societies in
southern Africa. When conflicts ignite, they function as the ultimate killer of innocents, and can destabilize entire regions (as Liberia did in West Africa,
the DRC and Darfur in Sudan), requiring costly international peacekeeping and humanitarian interventions. At the same time, conflict zones provide the
optimal anarchic environment for transnational predators: Haiti and West Africa now host international criminals and drug traffickers; Afghanistan,
Tajikistan, and Colombia, drug producers and smugglers; West Africa and Chechnya, weapons traffickers; and Congo, Angola, and Uganda, deadly
war zones can provide
fertile operating environments for international terrorist networks.
pathogens. As conflicts in Bosnia, the Philippines, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Sudan have shown,
Terrorism
Most dangerous are conflict zones that collapse into failed states with no control over much of their territory, a classic example being Somalia.
Anarchy has facilitated the operation of transnational terrorist networks, allowed Islamic
extremists to grow powerful, and fueled the rise of piracy. Al Qaeda leaders have long
believed Somalia could be “another Afghanistan . . . , a low-cost recruiting ground where disaffected
people in a failed state would readily join its ranks.”37 Foreign jihadis operate terrorist training camps in Somalia.38
Al Qaeda’s cells in Somalia provided essential support to the perpetrators of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in the capitals of Kenya and
Tanzania.39 With the collapse of Siad Barre’s government in 1991 and ensuing endemic violence, local militants also emerged. By December 2006,
the Islamic Courts had gained control of large parts of the former Somali Republic. Although Ethiopian troops subsequently helped Somalia’s
Transitional Federal Government to reestablish control, the al Qaeda–linked al Shabaab movement maintains control over large swaths of southern
Somalia, where al Qaeda leaders operate training bases and al Shabaab consistently threatens the fledgling transitional government in Mogadishu.
Somalia’s long-standing poverty and instability have also fostered piracy, now well established in
the major shipping routes off the Horn of Africa. Yet weak states need not collapse and fail before they can
be exploited by terrorists. Al Qaeda has preyed on the territory, cash crops, natural resources, and financial
institutions of low-income but somewhat more stable states, from Senegal to Yemen. Militants have exploited poor immigration, security,
and financial controls to plan and carry out terrorist operations in Kenya, Tanzania, and Indonesia. Al Qaeda operatives have been detained in more
than 100 countries worldwide.40
One such state is Mali. Ninety percent Muslim and a multiparty democracy since 1992, Mali remains an extremely poor state with a per capita GNI of
approximately $500.41 An estimated 36 percent of its 12 million people live on less than $2 a day, and income inequality remains high.42 Mali’s human
development score is the eleventh lowest in the world.43 Land-locked and bordering seven states—Mauritania, Algeria, Côte D’Ivoire, Guinea,
Senegal, Burkina Faso, and Niger—Mali is roughly the size of Texas plus California. Malian authorities face an invigorated nomadic Tuareg rebellion in
the north and have failed to expel terrorists associated with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), formerly the Algerian-based Salafist Group for
Preaching and Combat (GSPC).44 The GSPC’s leader, Amari Saifi (known as Al Para), and his associates evaded capture in the northern Malian
desert for six months in 2003 before releasing thirty-two European hostages seized in southern Algeria.45 Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has been
involved in numerous instances of kidnapping and killing foreign nationals in Mali and the region and utilizes Mali’s centuries-old, trans-Saharan Tuareg
trading routes to smuggle cigarettes and other contraband to raise cash for its terrorist operations.46
Mali’s poverty renders it vulnerable to terrorist infiltration in another critical way. Like several poor states,
Mali’s government lacks the resources and institutional capacity to provide adequately
for its citizens. Large numbers do not have enough to eat or access to potable water, basic medical care, or educational opportunities for
their children. To fill the social services gap in Mali and elsewhere, it relies on outsiders, including extremist Wahhabist charities and mosques funded
by groups in Gulf states. Wahhabists are setting up mosques across northern Mali, often right next door to the indigenous Sufi mosques, and offering
what the Sufi cannot: food, clothing, medical care, schools, and the opportunity to send young men to Saudi Arabia for religious training. When those
newly minted Wahhabist clerics return, they draw additional adherents to their extremist ideology.
Evidence that al
Qaeda strategists deliberately target weak, poor states appears in a work titled The
Management of Savagery: The Most Critical Stage through Which the Umma Will Pass, which the Combating Terrorism Center of the U.S. Military
Academy at West Point calls “one of the most recent and significant” extremist strategic texts.47 In it, author Abu Bakr Naji outlines the successive
stages in establishing an Islamic caliphate. A key stage, what he calls “the management of savagery,” consists of laying the foundation, which entails
bringing order, security, and Islamic sharia rule to formerly chaotic states—those of first “priority” being “Jordan, the countries of the Maghrib, Nigeria,
Pakistan, and the countries of the Haramayn and the Yemen.” The “common links between states in which the regions of savagery can come into
being” include “the weakness of the ruling regime and the weakness of the centralization of its power in the peripheries of the borders of its state and
sometimes in internal regions, particularly those that are over-crowded” and “the presence of jihadi, Islamic expansion being propagated in these
regions.”48 Similarly, an
article in Sada al-Jihad, an online extremist magazine, cites the weakness
of Africa’s states and pervasive corruption as an advantage, making them an easier place
to operate than “in other countries which have effective security, intelligence and military
capacities.”49 Africa’s poverty and social conditions, it states, “will enable the mujahadeen to
provide some finance and welfare, thus, posting there some of their influential
operatives.”
2AC Ag Shifts Spill-Over
***And, U.S. shifts in ag spill-over --- affects other countries ag output and
strategy
Adler ‘13
(Robert, Interim Dean, James I. Farr Chair, and Professor of Law, University of Utah, S.J.
Quinney College of Law, “Agriculture And Water Quality: A Climate-Integrated Perspective ,” pg
online @ https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/8-Adler.pdf //um-ef)
Moreover, it
is not possible to consider the U.S. agricultural economy in isolation from its
international cousins. The United States has been one of the dominant forces in global
markets for commodity crops182 at least since World War II, and U.S. agriculture was affected
significantly by global shortages or surpluses before then.183 Today, U.S. farm policy has
ripple effects around the world , because subsidies or significant shifts in production
levels in major exporting nations can affect global supply and demand as well as prices, which
in turn can either help or hurt farmers in smaller countries.184 Therefore, to the extent that U.S. production
shifts due to climate change, there may be significant impacts on food supplies and agricultural economies around the world. From the reverse
perspective, agriculture in many parts of the world is significantly more vulnerable to climate change than in the United States.185 In subtropical
regions, such as the Sahel in Africa and in portions of Southeast Asia and Latin America, for example, crops are already closer to their natural heat
tolerances, meaning that increases in temperature will push some crops beyond their limits sooner than in more temperate zones.186 Likewise,
drought and desertification have already reached crisis proportions in many subtropical regions, leading to a large number of major famines and
Although not as desirable as
helping those countries themselves to adapt to changing agricultural conditions so that
they can better meet their own population’s needs for food, fiber, and other basic
agricultural products, one aspect of climate change adaptation will be enhanced food
transfers from countries with agricultural surpluses to those with large deficits. If U.S.
production also declines dramatically due to climate change, its ability to help offset a
global imbalance between food supply and nutrition demand will be far more limited, with
accompanying refugee crises and other social and economic disruption in those regions.187
accompanying human rights and global security implications.188
US subsidy reform goes global and solves imminent food shortages, but
failure to act will devastate global climate efforts and competitiveness with
China.
Gordon M. Goldstein 21, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Erik
R. Oken, Global Chairman of Investment Banking at J.P. Morgan, 4-22-2021, "America’s New
Challenge: Confronting the Crisis in Food Security," Council on Foreign Relations,
https://www.cfr.org/blog/americas-new-challenge-confronting-crisis-food-security - MBA AM
The Biden administration has encouraged the world with its renewed commitment to the
Paris accord and the goal of combatting the existential challenge of global climate change. But that bold objective will
not be achieved without a comprehensive parallel American exercise of leadership to
confront the crisis in food security . Such a strategy is imperative on a global basis and
critical to U.S. domestic policy. The challenge of food security will require leveraging advances in
technology and demand policy innovation within the U.S. government and deep cooperation between the public and
private sectors. If not tackled comprehensively and effectively, failure to mitigate the crisis in
the sustainability of our global food supply chain will devastate the multilateral effort to
arrest climate change.
The global dimensions of food instability are staggering. As the global population grows
to a projected 10 billion in 2050, with a concurrent growth in income, overall food requirements are forecast to
increase by more than 50 percent . The demand for resource-intensive foods like meat and dairy
is projected to grow by 70 percent.
The crisis in food sustainability displays a disturbing daily cadence. The world has lost
1,000 football fields worth of forest every hour, almost 30 million acres annually. According to a recent scientific study,
climate change has diminished global food productivity by more than 20 percent over the past
60 years. If crop and pasture yields continue to grow as projected, by 2050 agricultural land will need
to increase by an area nearly twice the size of India.
Not surprisingly, the
world’s most populous and wealthy countries contribute the most to the
crisis in food sustainability. Roughly 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are clustered in four countries—the
United States, China, India and Brazil. Since 1990, roughly 24 percent of global Greenhouse Gas Emissions can be attributed to the food system and
our disproportionate reliance on livestock. Further exacerbating the problem is the methane produced in the agriculture industry, which is ~30 to ~80
times as deleterious to the environment as carbon dioxide.
The United States suffers from its own acute national challenges. Estimates suggest 23 million people live in socalled “food deserts”—low-income areas with poor access to healthy food. The pandemic, which has led to over 50 million Americans
facing food insecurity, has illustrated the weakness in our food system and supply chain resiliency. Americans in lower income
segments spend 30-40 percent of their income on food. The food security crisis in the United States has recently prompted the Biden administration to
propose tens of billions of dollars of new federal assistance to American families at risk.
The United States has historically used food policy to strengthen its relationship with friends
and allies through initiatives such as the U.S. Food for Peace Program, the 1960’s “Green Revolution”
or the so-called “Third Agricultural Revolution” which featured research and technology transfers that significantly increased agricultural production
globally while feeding millions and increasing U.S. influence worldwide.
The United States is once again poised to use its rich history of innovation in foreign
agricultural policy to both enhance its influence with friends and allies where food insecurity is a major
issue—the Middle East, Africa, and emerging economies in Asia. These include some of the same countries that
China is courting through its “Belt and Road” initiative, which seeks to construct a massive infrastructure
network around the world.
The United States should leverage its private and public sources of capital and innovation, in partnership with new and incumbent players in the
corporate community, to accelerate the transition to global food sustainability.
Advances in emerging technologies hold the promise to both alleviate the food crisis and amplify American influence abroad. The next era of food
sustainability will be influenced by breakthroughs in global technology such as fifth generation telecommunications, robotics, artificial intelligence, and
nanotechnology. Specific areas of technology investment that will contribute to higher levels of productivity and efficiency in food generation with a
decreased impact on the environment encompass initiatives in agricultural biotechnology, such as genetics, microbiome, breeding and animal health;
alternative food products, including plant-based forms of alternative protein, which are surging in popularity and adoption; farm management systems,
including sensing and data analytics software; farm robotics, including automation and drone based monitoring; and new farming structures, such as
indoor farming and aquaculture.
In addition, the
Biden administration needs to drive tax, investment, regulatory and subsidy policies that
encourage the increased flow of capital into the transition to viable food sustainability
strategies , including investment into cell-based and plant-based meats; the wider implementation of
regenerative agriculture practices , including agribusiness marketplaces and farm robotics, mechanization and equipment; and,
finally, the reduction of waste throughout the food value chain. The companies and countries that are the leaders in these areas of innovation will not
only strengthen global food supply but also capture the intellectual property, information and data that is embedded in the global food supply chain. In
addition to addressing an urgent global challenge,
American innovation in food security would support the goals of the
counter China’s
growing economic and geopolitical and technology competition with the United States.
Strategic Competition Act of 2021, bipartisan legislation crafted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that seeks to
Meeting the food sustainability challenge will require creativity and a new level of engagement between the public and private sectors. The Biden
administration should consider creating a high-level commission of government and private sector experts to compose a multifaceted food
sustainability strategy. That group should include the former secretary of state, John Kerry, who has been appointed the president’s special envoy for
climate change; the secretary of agriculture, Tom Vilsack; representatives of the National Security Council and the National Economic Council; the
Administration for International Development as well as other government agencies working in concert with corporate, academic, and think tank
leaders on the issue of food sustainability.
The world is hungry for American leadership in the quest to solve the food security
crisis. It is time for Washington to act ambitiously, applying imagination and strategic determination to this seminal
twenty-first century problem.
Small Farms Scenario
Subsidies undermine small farms
Status Quo subsidies gut small farms in favor of major agribusiness --- pay
for land productivity, subsidize limited crops and pay for the MOST crops
produced
Quintanilla ‘13
(David, Candidate for Juris Doctor at St. Mary's University School of Law, Class of 2013,
“Comment: A Bitter Policy Shoved Down Our Throats: How A Once Admirable And Necessary
Agricultural Program Has Resulted In Major Profits For Big Business And Major Frustration For
Others,” Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis, pg nexus//um-ef)
With certain subsidy programs the problem is realized by the methods some
corporations use to manipulate the system. 148 A major subsidy program that benefits
those with deep pockets bases the payments on the historical productivity of the land,
not farm production . 149 This method necessarily benefits the landowner, not the farmer. 150
Essentially, the land itself is given an economic value, completely separate from the
land's actual ability to produce crops. 151 As one commentator aptly stated, "it's the
equivalent of a Texas oil well that guarantees the owner money year in and year out." 152
Today, investors and corporations purchase farmland based on the subsidy applied to
that land and use the payments from the government to generate fixed income. 153
Because the current subsidy system distorts land values and bases payments on
historical production, it has become financially impossible for many small farmers [*367]
to purchase land of their own. 154 The outcome is that "the big get bigger, and the little
guys, the ones federal subsidy dollars are supposed to protect" get kicked out of the
system completely. 155 With other programs, big business is expressly advanced by the very
aim of the subsidy. The term "corporate welfare" seems rather appropriate for the nearly billion
dollars spent each year to promote industrial agriculture products, including McDonald's
Chicken McNuggets and the Pillsbury Doughboy line. 156 The companies that make billions
of dollars in profit each year 157 are the ones receiving governmental support to market
their products. This does not promote agriculture. More importantly, this does not advance
the interests of the American people. Given the sheer volume of subsidies and various
programs, farm policy can be difficult to understand. This complexity is convenient for the "small
group of lawmakers and interest groups who specialize in the details" as it insulates the entire
process. 158 The following provides a very basic overview of one form of eligibility: [*368]
Subsidy eligibility is based on the crop. More than 90 percent of all subsidies go to just
five crops-wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans, and rice-while the vast majority of crops are
ineligible for subsidies. Once eligibility is established, subsidies are paid per amount of the
crop produced , so the largest farms automatically receive the largest checks . 159
Though "farm subsidies are promoted as helping struggling farmers...Washington could
guarantee every full-time farmer an income of nearly $ 40,000 for just $ 4 billion annually." 160
The reality is that the vast majority of subsidies are distributed to large commercial farms .
161 Spanning over a sixteen-year period from 1995 to 2011, the top 10% of subsidy recipients
received $ 37,555 per year while the bottom 80% received only $ 1,858 per year. 162 As New
York Times farm policy writer Ron Nixon put it, "These programs are like vampires, you just
can't kill them … . Just when you think they are dead, they manage to rise up." 163 For many
people disgusted at the perpetual abuse of subsidized agriculture, this statement sums it up. B.
More Than Just Unfair: Other Harmful Consequences of Big Business Driving Agricultural Policy
America's agricultural policy favors those with deep pockets and a focus on the bottom
line to the detriment of those who were originally intended to receive governmental
assistance--the small farmer. While this problem alone demands an updated policy focused
on assistance for those who need it and not for those who utilize subsidies to increase their
tremendous [*369] profits, the consequences of allowing big business to shape the current
policy is astounding. There are a number of negative effects from subsidizing large corporations
to grow and process America's food. These consequences affect most Americans on a daily
basis, sometimes several times a day, often without people even knowing they are acting,
buying, or protesting in direct response to the nation's farm policy. America's farm policy has
allowed large corporations to successfully argue that efficiency and profitability, as in other
sectors, reign supreme. The result is a national identity crisis of how to feed and care for
ourselves and our nation's natural resources. Of particular consequence from promoting large
agri-business over the traditional small farmer, are health related effects, the environmental
impact, and illegal immigration.
farm subsidies go to large corporate farms that pollute and drain aquifers –
causes small farmers to go broke.
Wakamo 18 (Brian Wakamo is a Next Leader on the Global Economy Project at the Institute for
Policy Studies.; “We Subsidize the Wrong Kind of Agriculture”; Institute for Policy Studies; June 22, 2018;
https://ips-dc.org/we-subsidize-the-wrong-kind-of-agriculture/) Accessed 7/4/21//eleanor
The pastoral ideal of golden fields of corn and wheat is what comes to mind for most people, and they’d be on the right track.
Corn, soybeans, and wheat are the three biggest crops grown in this country, and — along with
cows, pigs, and chicken — make up the bulk of our farming output. There’s a reason for this: The federal government
heavily subsidizes those products. In fact, the bulk of U.S. farming subsidies go to only 4
percent of farms — overwhelmingly large and corporate operations — that grow these
few crops. For the most part, that corn, soy, and wheat doesn’t even go to feed our populace.
More of it goes into the production of ethanol — which is also heavily subsidized — and
into the mouths of those cows, pigs, and chickens stuffed into feedlots. Those grains
purchased by the feedlots are also federally subsidized, allowing producers to buy
grains at below market prices. When we do eat these foods, they’re sold back to us in unhealthy
forms, pumped full of high fructose corn syrup and growth hormones. Large corporate
farms and feedlots also poison waterways, drain aquifers, and pollute the air.
Meanwhile,
small farmers continue to go broke, thanks to the low cost of foods subsidized by the
government for corporate buyers. Even the few companies that provide seeds and equipment for farmers receive
their own tax breaks from state governments, while farmers are stuck with the bill of goods sold to them
from companies like John Deere and Monsanto. Does this help feed America? Not really: We still
buy most of our food from far-flung places. So why is our government subsidizing this
production model? Plain and simple: Corporations buy these subsidies for pennies on the
dollar. In 2011, the agribusiness industry spent around $100 million to lobby and campaign
for federal support. They got billions in subsidies in return, making them the biggest
recipients of corporate welfare. This is disgraceful. Why should our government support big
businesses that poison us and our environment? Congress is now considering a new Farm Bill. The
recently shot-down first draft cut funding for rural development and conservation programs, while opening up loopholes for corporate
farms to access more subsidies. That should open the field for newer, better ideas. All politicians champion small businesses,
especially those in the heartland where most agricultural production takes places. If they’re going to subsidize agriculture, why not
give more support to family farms, which often farm more sustainably and grow much healthier foods? Instead
of
supporting factory farms and mono-crops, we could provide incentives for crop
rotations, reduced usage of pesticides and herbicides , pasture-raised meat, and organic
practices. Studies show that practices like organic farming produce only marginally less than
conventional farms. These practices are a part and parcel of a growing segment of the agricultural industry bolstered by
health and environmentally conscious consumers. Farmers who sell their products at farmers markets and through community
supported agriculture groups should be heralded and paid for their support of the community. This could also lower the costs of
healthier foods, which often are priced prohibitively for the people who need them most. Expanding the market for food farmed
sustainably and ethically grown would benefit all consumers — and address the health crisis brought on by the mass consumption
of unhealthy foods. Why
should we subsidize things that harm us all when we can help out the
farmers who support a better life and environment for us all?
Internals: Farmers/Knowledge Dying
And, farming knowledge critical to the future of ag innovations are dying
out as we lose farmers
Carlisle et al ‘19
(Liz, Environmental Studies Program, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara,
CA, United States, Marcia S. DeLonge3, Union of Concerned Scientists, “Transitioning to
Sustainable Agriculture Requires Growing and Sustaining an Ecologically Skilled Workforce,” pg
online @ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00096/full //um-ef)
is clear that global agriculture must swiftly
and decisively shift toward sustainability. Agriculture not only contributes to these environmental problems—accounting for
In the face of rapidly advancing climate change, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity, it
approximately one quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions when land use change is included (Smith et al., 2014)—current practices also leave many communities
Fortunately, farmers and
researchers have developed a thoroughly studied and tested pathway for sustainability
transition in agriculture: agroecological farming systems. By shifting from large acreages
of single crops to diversified cropping and livestock systems that mimic natural
ecosystems, farmers can create tightly coupled cycles of energy, water, and nutrients,
greatly lessening both the environmental footprint of farms and their reliance on
resource-intensive external inputs (Vandermeer, 2011; Kremen et al., 2012). Agroecology also gives farmers more flexibility for adapting to
vulnerable to climate-related disasters, as monocultures of input-dependent crops leave little room for adaptive resilience.
climate change and market fluctuations, and can provide more diverse, nutrient-dense, and culturally-appropriate diets while enhancing the environmental benefits of
A critical
and underappreciated feature of agroecological systems is that they replace fossil fueland chemical -intensive management with knowledge-intensive management .
Agroecology requires farmers and farmworkers to learn how a landscape works as an
ecosystem, combining farmers' observations, predictions, and experiments with
ecological principles honed by scientists who study the complexities of working
landscapes (Pimbert, 2011; Gliessman, 2014). To succeed, agroecological farmers must do the long-term,
cumulative work of building place-based acumen: observing living soils, adapting seeds to shifting climatic and human needs,
and establishing socially and ecologically resilient farming systems. For decades, US policies, technologies, and economic
pressures have tended instead to “deskill” rural labor (Carlisle et al., 2019), a trend that has been linked to labor under
agriculture. Furthermore, as a science, practice, and a movement, agroecology considers both the biophysical and social sustainability of farming systems.
capitalism more generally (Braverman, 1974). Land concentration has been a factor in deskilling too: whereas the national census counted 6.5 million farms in the 1920s, just
2.04 million were left by 2017. With these shrinking farm numbers, production has shifted to larger farms that specialize in two to three crops or in livestock. Such ecologically
simplified operations rely on repetitive tasks, heavy chemical and fertilizer applications, and large-scale “labor saving” machines (USDA ERS, 2018). At the same time,
externalizing the environmental costs of production and tailoring farm safety net programs toward major commodity crops have left little incentive for farmers to adopt more
sustainable practices (Ristino and Steier, 2016). Under a model that pursues productivity as the primary goal, neither food security nor sustainability has been achieved, and a
critical resource—farmer knowledge—has been eroded. As a result, the single greatest sustainability challenge for agriculture may well be that of replacing non-renewable
resources with agroecologically skilled people.
Impacts: Rural Econ
That’s crucial to overall national competitiveness
Porter 4
(Michael E. Pro. Buisness @ Harvard, 2/25/4 (Competitiveness in Rural U.S. Regions, google)
The failure of current policies for rural regions has many costs: First, it draws on limited
government resources at a time of budget deficits and cuts in spending. With many other competing
demands on public sector funds, policies that fail to generate results are getting increasingly hard to defend. Second, rural counties account for 80% of
land area, and 20% of U.S. population. Weak performance in rural regions retards
national productivity and national prosperity, and fails to effectively utilize the nation’s
resources. As the growth of the U.S. workforce slows, making all parts of the economy
productive is an important priority. Third, the inability of rural areas to achieve their
potential leads to an inefficient spatial distribution of economic activity in the United States.
Activities that could be performed more efficiently in rural areas either migrate
offshore or add to the congestion of urban centers. Fourth, weak rural performance creates
demands for interventions that threaten to erode the incentives for productive economic
activity. The lack of competitiveness of rural economies has been a prominent cause
of agricultural subsidies as well as import barriers that hurt the U.S. position in the
international trading system without addressing the underlying challenges rural
regions face.
Internals: Subs = Large Farms/Commodity Crops
Government subsidies support large commodity farming to the exclusion
of small and medium farms
Finney ‘21
(Bradley, federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee. Prior to becoming a clerk, he was an associate in the Houston office of Norton
Rose Fulbright, “Agricultural Law Stifles Innovation And Competition,” pg online @
https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2021/05/3-Finney-785-838.pdf //um-ef)
The Federal Government has given farms anywhere from $14 billion to $18 billion in subsidies
each year for the last decade.226 Commodity subsidy payments alone totaled over $5
billion in 2015, half of which went to farmers earning $150,000 or more per year.227 These
subsidies initially began during the Great Depression to keep family farms in operation and
ensure a steady food supply for the nation.228 “Today, these subsidies have grown so
lucrative that wealthy investors, large corporations, and farm-estate heirs use taxpayer
money to maximize their personal return on investment.”229 Farm subsidies are skewed
towards wealthy farms230 that grow specific types of crops231 and use conventional
agriculture methods.232
Agriculture subsidies do not help every farmer, nor do they focus on small, family-owned
farms.233 Instead, over two-thirds of these subsidy payments go to a limited class of
farmers, many of which are large businesses.234 In 2017, 400 entities, including
corporations and agri-businesses, received between $1 million and $9.9 million in federal
subsidies.235 This is not a new trend. In 2000, taxpayers gave more than $1 million to fifteen
Fortune 500 companies—along with David Rockefeller, Charles Schwab, and Ted Turner.236
The top recipient alone received more than $500 million in subsidy payments from 1995 to
2005.237 Yet, “[t]he bottom eighty percent of subsidy recipients saw only $704 [each] on
average per year,”238 and the majority of farmers received no aid at all.239
These farm subsidies are generally used by conventional farms to grow specific types of
crops.240 For example, corn, cotton, soybeans, wheat, and rice received 93% of the
commodity subsidies from 2002 to 2005, but those crops only comprised 21% of the total
farm cash receipts.241 In contrast, fruit and vegetable producers, as well as most organic
farms, have historically not been eligible to receive commodity subsidies.242 Therefore,
these monetary subsidies largely neglect to assist the most nutritious crops and the
most environmentally friendly farms .243
Impacts: Small Farms k Crop Diversity
Small farms uniquely key to crop diversity – Extinction
Boyce 6 – Professor of Economics, UMass Amherst
James Boyce, in Human Development in the Era of Globalization: Essays in Honor of Keith B. Griffin,
eds. Keith B. Griffin, Stephen Cullenberg, and Prasanta K. Pattanaik, Google Books, p. 99
There is a future for small farms. Or, to be more precise, there can be and should be a
future for them. Given the dependence of 'modern' low-diversity agriculture on
'traditional' high-diversity agriculture, the long-term food security of humankind
will depend on small farms and their continued provision of the environmental
service of in situ conservation of crop genetic diversity. Policies to support small
farms can be advocated therefore not merely as a matter of sympathy, or nostalgia, or equity. Such
policies are also a matter of human survival.
Internals: Small Farms k Rural Econ
Small and midsize farms are key to rural economies and agriculture
sustainability.
UCS 16, Union of Concerned Scientists, 1-22-2016, "Growing Economies: Connecting Local
Farmers and Large-Scale Food Buyers to Create Jobs and Revitalize America's Heartland,",
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/01/ucs-growing-economies-2016.pdf MBA AM
Midsize family farms have long formed the backbone of rural economies . But these farms
have been disappearing for almost two decades. The “Agriculture of the Middle” initiative—convened and
administered by researchers at Iowa State University (ISU) and the University of Wisconsin–Madison—first called attention to the “disappearing
middle” of American agriculture. These researchers defined midsize farms as those too small to compete in globalized commodity markets but too
large and specialized to sell directly to consumers (Kirschenmann et al. 2004). Typically, these farms have gross annual sales of $50,000 to $250,000,
and farming is the primary occupation of the owner(s). Generally, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) considers farms operating on 50
to 999 acres to be midsize farms. Based on USDA data, we
estimate that nearly 56,000 midsize farms were lost
nationally between 2007 and 2012, while large farms (more than 1,000 acres) increased by more
than 400 (USDA 2012a). Some agricultural states were hit particularly hard; Iowa, for example, lost some
6,000 midsize farms, accounting for nearly 10 percent of all those lost nationally (USDA 2012b).
The demise of midsize family farms has had serious consequences in rural
communities. These farms employ more people per acre than large, industrialized farms;
when they disappear, many farming jobs evaporate with them, along with farm-related jobs in the
community. Already, many rural areas across the country have been steadily losing population—the
population across 1,300 rural counties dropped by half a million people between 2010 and 2014 (ERS 2015). Once-vibrant rural
communities are at continued risk as the loss of job and business opportunities
represented by midsize farms continues.
Rural Communities Get Greater Benefits from Midsize Farms
Generally, small
and midsize farms are more likely than large farms to purchase inputs
locally —in particular, livestock feed and equipment—keeping more money in their local economies.1
In addition, research
has shown that areas having more moderate-size farms and a stronger
middle class have lower poverty and unemployment rates, higher average household
incomes, and greater socioeconomic stability (Lyson, Torres, and Welsh 2001; Labao 1990). In contrast, larger
farms are associated with lower household incomes, more poverty and economic
inequality, less active “Main Streets” with fewer retail businesses, and less money spent
in the community (Pew Commission n.d.). Agribusiness concentration leads to a decline in the value of
local businesses and the overall local economy (Food and Water Watch 2012).2
In addition to their socioeconomic benefits, midsize
farms tend to be good for the environment and the long-term
sustainability of farming. Having fewer acres to manage, farmers are more in tune with
subtleties of soil type, climate, and pest populations. Moreover, when farms are passed from
generation to generation, there is a transfer not just of land, but also of location-specific
knowledge . This intimate knowledge of the land often allows the production and rotation of
diverse crops in systems integrated with the raising of livestock; as a result, midsize farms are often quite
biodiverse (Martilla-Losure 2012). Large farms instead tend to simplify operations for ease of management as farm size increases; they restrict
crop production to one or two crops and livestock production to a few breeds, thus decreasing biodiversity, and they adversely affect soil and water
quality and increase global warming emissions (Martilla-Losure 2012; Killebrew and Wolff 2010).
Internals: Small Farms k2 ag innovation
Small farms are key to agricultural innovation---that ensures global food
stability.
Susan H. Bragdon 15, Representative at QUNO, MSc from University of Michigan, Chelsea
Smith, writer for QUNO, November 2015, "Small-scale farmer innovation," Quaker United
Nations Office,
https://www.quno.org/sites/default/files/resources/SSF%20Innovation%20WEB.pdf – MBA AM
I. The importance of small-scale farmer innovation
Small-scale farmers, including fisherfolk, forest dwellers and pastoralists, contribute between 50 and 70 percent
of the global food supply.3 Small-scale farming systems are characterized by their relative size, reliance on family labour and low use
of external inputs, and also the sheer diversity of farm management practices and livelihood strategies employed within each to suit local
environmental and socioeconomic conditions.
The majority of agrobiodiversity 4 is also actively maintained,
used and developed by small-scale farmers, which provides the foundation for all future
innovation in crop breeding.5
Farmers adapt their farm management practices and actively enhance agrobiodiversity to
suit changing conditions. This describes the majority of agricultural innovation that has
taken place since the beginning of agriculture.6
With intimate knowledge of their natural landscapes, farmers continually conduct
experiments and observe subtle changes over time. They integrate new varieties and technologies into their
management practices, blending knowledge systems, and make decisions based on cultural preferences and local contexts. Women play particularly
important roles in on-farm innovation relating to conservation and nutrition. In the context of intensifying environmental pressures associated with
climate change, increasing market volatility, and decreasing public sector investment in agriculture, SSF’s
capacity to innovate in
absence of outside intervention is ever-more important for achieving global food
security.
Not all innovation that happens on-farm necessarily or in every case yields socio-economically and environmentally sustainable
outcomes. However, farmers’
experimentation and innovation in response to changing
conditions inherently creates greater diversity . On the whole, greater diversity contributes to
resilience within the global food system , i.e. greater responsiveness to changing
conditions and adaptability to environmental or socio-economic shocks.
Importantly, focusing on SSF innovation does not exclude collaborative research efforts. Experts during the QUNO consultation emphasized the
synergistic relationship between ‘formal’ sector actors, particularly public research institutions, and small-scale innovation systems.
Impacts: Bioterror
Nuclear posture and international and domestic pressure would push the
United States to respond to a bioweapon attack with nuclear retaliation
Pifer et al 10 – Steven Pifer, senior fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe
and director of the Arms Control Initiative at The Brookings Institution, Richard C. Bush, senior
fellow at the Brookings Institution, holds the The Michael H. Armacost Chair and Chen-Fu and
Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies, co-director, with Mireya Solís, of its Center for East
Asia Policy Studies, joint appointment as a senior fellow in the Brookings John L. Thornton
China Center, Ph.D. (1978), M.Phil. (1975), M.A. (1973), Columbia University, Vanda FelbabBrown, senior fellow in the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence in the Foreign
Policy program at Brookings, Ph.D., MIT, 2007, Martin S. Indyk, executive vice president of the
Brookings Institution, Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, PhD in international
relations from the Australian National University, Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow in Foreign
Policy at the Brookings Institution, Ph.D. (1991), M.A. (1988), M.S.E. (1987), B.A. (1982),
Princeton University, Adjunct Professor, Columbia University, Kenneth M. Pollack, Ph.D. from
MIT, Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and a
Senior Advisor at Albright Stonebridge Group (“U.S. Nuclear and Extended Deterrence:
Consideration and Challenges,” Brookings Institution, Arms Control Series, Paper 3, May 2010,
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_nuclear_deterrence.pdf)
The United States has at times recognized this reality. It publicly committed not to use
nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states, unless the latter are allied with
nuclear powers in wartime operations (and now has aligned its NSAs to non-nuclear weapon
states in compliance with the NPT). Yet American policy had not been consistent . Even
while making such NSA commitments at various points, the United States has also sought
to retain nuclear weapons as an explicit deterrent against other, nonnuclear forms of
weapons of mass destruction, as a matter of targeting policy and nuclear weapons
doctrine.106
There was an element of hypocrisy in this previous American pledge not to use nuclear
weapons against non-nuclear weapon states when combined with a willingness to
consider using nuclear weapons in response to a biological (or even chemical) attack .
Others noted this contradiction and chastised the United States for it. One thoughtful and wellargued study in the 1990s asserted that nuclear weapons should never be used against
biological (or chemical) threats or in retaliation for such attacks. In considering the possibility
of an extremely destructive biological agent that killed as many as nuclear weapons might, the
authors wrote that “… it would be technically and operationally difficult to achieve such high
numbers of casualties with biological weapons, and no nation is known to possess weapons so
effective.”107 It is a good reason that, as a normal matter of policy, the United States should
not plan on any nuclear response to attacks by lesser types of weapons of mass
destruction, especially the types of attacks that might be anticipated today or that have been
witnessed in the recent past (for example, the chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war of the
1980s).108 From this standpoint, the Nuclear Posture Review reached a sound conclusion on
responding to a BW or CW attack.
But this argument is perhaps more persuasive for the technologies of the present rather than a
hypothetical situation in the future; things could change over time. That is the crux of the
challenge for future policy and doctrine regarding whether nuclear weapons should have a
future purpose of helping deter advanced biological attack.
Biological weapons could become much more potent in coming decades. Biological
knowledge certainly is advancing rapidly . To take one metric, the number of genetic
sequences on file, a measure of knowledge of genetic codes for various organisms, grew from
well under five million in the early 1990s to 80 million by 2006.109 The number of countries
involved in biological research is growing rapidly as well. What about 25 to 50 years from now, a
day that current policymakers must contemplate when considering lasting changes to doctrine
as well as the pursuit of a nuclear-weapons-free world?
As of 2008, more than 160 states had ratified and acceded to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, but one of its weaknesses is the lack of verification measures. One
can naturally hope that better monitoring and verification concepts will be developed in the biological field—just as they must clearly be improved in the nuclear realm if abolition
is ever to be feasible even on its own more narrow terms.110 But these techniques will be very hard to devise, and probably rather imperfect in their ability to provide timely
warning. One can try various forms of direct as well as indirect monitoring—the latter including looking for mismatches between the numbers of trained scientists and
professional positions available to them in a given country, or a mismatch between the numbers of relevant scientists and associated publications.111 Big disparities could
suggest hidden programs. One can also build up disease surveillance systems and create rapid-response BW investigation teams to look into any suspected development of
illicit pathogens or any outbreak of associated disease.112 But the United States will still need a good deal of luck to discover many hypothetical biological weapons programs.
Any countries bent on cheating will have a good chance of success in hiding their associated research and production facilities.
For Americans, who long led the way in biology, it is sobering and important to remember that even today, at least half of all important biological research is already done
abroad. It often takes place in small facilities that are very hard if not impossible to identify from remote sensing.113
For such reasons, it is eminently possible that an advanced “bug”—perhaps an influenza-born derivative of smallpox resilient against currently available treatments, for
example—could be developed by a future aggressor state. Such a bug could combine the contagious qualities of the flu with the lethality of very severe diseases.114 This could
dramatically alter the calculations of BW use.
It is such a prospect that led University of Maryland scholar John Steinbruner to note “One can
imagine killing more people with an advanced pathogen than with the current nuclear weapons
arsenals.”115 The state developing this BW agent might simultaneously develop a vaccine
against the new disease and use that vaccine to inoculate its own people. It might then use the
biological pathogen as a weapon, or a threat, against another country. That could be a country it
was interested in conquering; it could also threaten use against the United States and broader
international community, to deter other countries from coming to the rescue of another state
being attacked directly by the aggressor (analogous to how Saddam Hussein would have liked
to deter the U.S.-led coalition from coming to Kuwait’s aid in 1990-1991). If the United States
faced the prospect of millions of its own citizens, or hundreds of thousands of its own
troops, becoming sick as it considered a response to aggression, and its only recourse was
conventional retaliation, its range of options could be limited . Indeed, the very troops
called on to carry out the retaliation might become vulnerable to the disease,
jeopardizing their physical capacity to execute the conventional operation. Perhaps they
could be wellprotected on the battlefield, once suited up, but they could be vulnerable before
deployment, along with the rest of the American population. A potential adversary, seeing these
possibilities, might find the concept of such an advanced pathogen very appealing.
Would there be a clear and definitive policy or moral argument against the use of a nuclear
weapon in retaliation for a BW attack that killed hundreds of thousands—or even millions—of
Americans? If the origin of the attack could be identified, as it might well be under numerous
scenarios like the one sketched above, and if huge numbers of American civilians had been
targeted, the case for restraint would be hard to make . At the least, it might be no stronger
than the case for absorbing a nuclear weapons strike and choosing not to retaliate.
What if the United States thought a biological attack by an aggressor imminent? Or what if it
had already suffered one attack and others seemed possible? In such circumstances, there
could be potential value in a nuclear retaliatory threat against the belligerent state ,
warning that any future use of biological attacks against the American people or U.S.
allies might produce a nuclear response.116
In his classic book on just and unjust war, Michael Walzer asserted that “Nuclear war is and will remain morally unacceptable, and there is no case for its rehabilitation.” He also
argues “Nuclear weapons explode the theory of just war. They are the first of mankind’s technological innovations that are simply not encompassable within the familiar moral
world.” This would seem to argue (since biological weapons of certain types predated nuclear technologies) that in fact nuclear deterrent threats could never be justifiable
against a biological attack. However, the logic of Walzer’s overall case against nuclear weapons is based explicitly on their indiscriminate and extreme effects—characteristics
that advanced biological pathogens, which did not exist when he wrote the above words, would share. It is hard to argue that nuclear deterrence of an adversary’s possible use
of an advanced pathogen that could kill a million or even ten million is less justifiable than the use of nuclear deterrence against an adversary’s nuclear arms.117
Indeed, it is possible that a nuclear response to such a biological attack might be conducted in a more humane way than the BW attack. Nuclear responses might target military
bases and command headquarters, for example. To be sure, civilians would also be at risk in such a nuclear attack, but in proportionate terms a nuclear retaliatory blow could
well cause a smaller fraction of casualties among innocent civilian populations than would a biological pathogen.118
U.S. policymakers had to bear in mind what is possible, at least theoretically, with advanced engineered pathogens. As Steinbruner notes, in discussing the contagiousness of
certain flu-borne ailments,
“One strain infected an estimated 80 percent of the world’s population in a sixmonth period. Normally the incidence of disease among those infected is relatively low, as is the
mortality rate of those who contract the disease. However, aviary strains of the virus have killed virtually all of the birds infected, which suggests the possibility of highly lethal
human strains as well.”119
It was these kinds of considerations that led the Nuclear Posture Review to incorporate a
hedge with regard to biological weapons . While U.S. policy now is not to respond with
nuclear weapons for a CW or BW attack by a non-nuclear weapons state, the U.S. government
retained the option to reconsider nuclear retaliation with regard to BW if there were major
advances in biotechnology that were put to use for BW purposes.
But the other side of the argument is not inconsequential, either. Advanced biological pathogens
may never be developed; nuclear weapons already have been not only developed but massproduced and used. Retaining the threat of nuclear retaliation based on hypothetical concerns
about possible future developments with biological agents that are far from inevitable may be
unnecessary and unjustified. Surely it would be seen as cynical in the eyes of some, as a barely
veiled attempt to find an excuse to maintain dependence on nuclear arms, and could undercut
the value of the policy change in reducing the relevance of nuclear weapons.
Moreover, if a biological weapon with mass casualty features ever were developed and
utilized to devastating effect, the United States would not be constrained in its retaliatory
options in any event. If a million Americans, Germans, Italians or Japanese were killed by
a superbug, it would be hard to imagine a particularly strong international criticism if
Washington reversed its previous pledges and responded with nuclear arms . If
necessary, this point could be conveyed privately through diplomatic channels to U.S.
allies in advance, as a way of shoring up the credibility of the American extended deterrent even
as the formal role of nuclear weapons was publicly constrained by announcement of a new
doctrine. This could offer a way to avoid allowing the unlikely and extreme scenario of horrific
biological attack to stand in the way of the more immediate agenda of reducing the role of
nuclear weapons in U.S. security policy.
GMOs Scenario
1AC GMO’s Good
GM tech makes industrial ag sustainable and necessary to feed the
population and solve global warming
Dr. Federoff 2k11
(Nina, who was the science and technology adviser to the secretary of state from 2007 to 2010,
is a professor of biology at Pennsylvania State University, “Engineering Food for All,” pg online
@ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/opinion/genetically-engineered-food-for-all.html //ghs-ef)
FOOD prices are at record highs and the ranks of the hungry are swelling once again. A
warming climate is beginning to nibble at crop yields worldwide. The United Nations predicts that there
will be one to three billion more people to feed by midcentury. Yet even as the Obama administration says it wants
to stimulate innovation by eliminating unnecessary regulations, the E nvironmental P rotection A gency wants to require even more data
on g enetically m odified crops, which have been improved using technology with great promise and
a track record of safety. The process for approving these crops has become so costly and burdensome that it is choking off
innovation . Civilization depends on our expanding ability to produce food efficiently , which
has markedly accelerated
thanks to science and technology . The use of chemicals for fertilization
and for pest and disease control, the induction of beneficial mutations in plants with
chemicals or radiation to improve yields, and the mechanization of ag riculture have all
increased the amount of food that can be grown on each acre of land by as much as 10 times in the last 100 years. These
extraordinary increases must be doubled by 2050 if we are to continue to feed an expanding population. As people around the
world become more affluent, they are demanding diets richer in animal protein, which will require ever more robust feed crop yields to sustain. New molecular
methods that add or modify genes can protect plants from diseases and pests and
improve crops in ways that are both more environmentally benign and beyond the
capability of older methods. This is because the gene modifications are crafted based on
knowledge of what genes do, in contrast to the shotgun approach of traditional breeding or using chemicals or radiation to induce mutations. The
results have been spectacular. For example, g enetically m odified crops containing an extra gene that confers
resistance to certain insects require much less pesticide. This is good for the
environment because toxic pesticides decrease the supply of food for birds and run off
the land to poison rivers, lakes and oceans. The rapid adoption of g enetically m odified herbicide-tolerant
soybeans has made it easier for farmers to park their plows and forgo tilling for weed
control. No-till farming is more sustainable and environmentally benign because it
decreases soil erosion and shrinks agriculture’s carbon footprint .
High-yield tech key to solve extinction
Trewavas ‘00
(Anthony, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology – University of Edinburgh, “GM Is the Best
Option We Have”, AgBioWorld, 6-5, http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotechart/best_option.html)
There are some Western critics who oppose any solution to world problems involving technological progress. They denigrate this remarkable achievement. These luddite individuals found in some Aid organisations instead attempt to impose their primit ivist western
views on those countries where blindness and child death are common. This new form of Western cultural domination or neo-colonialism, because such it is, should be repelled by all those of good will. Those who stand to benefit in the third world will then be
enabled to make their own choice freely about what they want for their own children. But these are foreign examples;
global warming is the problem that requires the
UK to
develop GM technology
. 1998 was the warmest year in the last one thousand years. Many think global warming will simply lead to a wetter climate an d be benign. I do not. Excess rainfall in northern seas has been
There are already worrying signs of
salinity changes in the deep oceans. Agriculture would be seriously damaged and
necessitate the rapid development of new crop varieties to secure our food supply. We
would not have much warning.
Even if the
climate is only wetter and warmer new crop pests and rampant disease will be the
consequence. GM technology can enable new crops to be constructed in months and to
be in the fields within a few years. This is the unique benefit GM offers
a volcano near the present Krakatoa exploded with the force of 200
million Hiroshima A bombs The dense cloud of dust so reduced the intensity of the sun
that for at least two years thereafter, summer turned to winter and crops
in the
Northern hemisphere failed completely. The population survived by hunting a rapidly
vanishing population of edible animals
the planet
recovered Such examples of benign nature's wisdom
, dwarf and make miniscule
the tiny modifications we make upon our environment There are
100 such volcanoes
round the world that could at any time unleash forces as great. even smaller volcanic
explosions change our climate and can easily threaten the security of our food supply
Only those with agricultural technology
predicted to halt the Gulf Stream. In this situation, average UK temperatures would fall by 5 degrees centigrade and give us Moscow-like winters.
Recent detailed analyses of arctic ice cores has shown that the climate can switch between stable states in fractions of a decade.
. The UK populace needs to much more positive about
GM or we may pay a very heavy price. In 535A.D.
.
here and elsewhere
. The after-effects continued for a decade and human history was changed irreversibly. But
.
, in full flood as it were
.
apparently
And
. Our hold
on this planet is tenuous. In the present day an equivalent 535A.D. explosion would destroy much of our civilisation.
sufficiently advanced would have a chance at survival . Colliding asteroids are another
problem that requires us to be forward-looking accepting that technological advance
may be the only buffer between us and annihilation
GM is a technology whose time has come and
just in the nick of time. With each billion that mankind has added to the planet have come
technological advances to increase food supply
. When people say to me they do not need GM, I am astonished at their prescience, their ability to read a
benign future in a crystal ball that I cannot. Now is the time to experiment; not when a holocaust is upon us and it is too late.
. In the 18th century, the start of agricultural mechanisation; in the 19th century knowledge of crop mineral requirements,
the eventual Haber Bosch process for nitrogen reduction. In the 20th century plant genetics and breeding, and later the green revolution. Each time population growth has been sustained without enormous loss of life through starvation even though crisis often
g m
is our primary hope to maintain developing and complex
technological civilisations When the climate is changing in unpredictable ways, diversity
in agricultural technology is a strength and a necessity not a luxury
beckoned. For the 21st century,
enetic
anipulation
.
. Diversity helps secure our food supply. We have heard much of
the precautionary principle in recent years; my version of it is "be prepared".
And, it solves ag disease – extinction
Carr 10 – Gad Loebenstein, Professor of Plant Pathology at the Agricultural Research
Organization and John P. Carr, Head of the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of
Cambridge, Advances in Virus Research, Volume 75, 2009, Pages ix–x, Science Direct
diseases affecting crop plants have posed an
ever-present, yet ever changing, threat to human survival . The Bible, for example, explicitly mentions blights, blasts,
Since the very earliest developments in agriculture, and probably even before then,
people sought to understand and mitigate the effects of
disease on crop productivity, and many earlier cultures have sought divine aid in the fight against crop disease. The Romans, according to some
and mildew diseases of wheat. Not surprisingly,
historians, celebrated the festival of Robigalia: an attempt to mollify Robigus, the god thought to protect crops from disease, and his less benign sister Robiga (or Robigo), a
primary goddess of Roman farmers, known as the spirit of mildews and rusts. However, even during this period there were attempts to understand plant diseases through the
application of reason: an approach exemplified in the writings of Theophrastus (372–287 BC), who theorized about the nature of the diseases of cereals and other plants.
Meanwhile, over many centuries farmers all over the world practiced domestication of plants from wild populations and selected the best and hardiest plants grown under
the deployment of crops possessing
genetically based resistance is generally considered the best and most economical
approach for disease control. This is especially true for protection against viruses because, so far at least, no
chemicals are available that could provide the same degree of protection in the field against these pathogens, as fungicides do
agricultural conditions, thereby incidentally breeding plants resistant to disease. In the modern world
against fungi and oomycetes. The transfer by breeding of naturally occurring resistance genes from wild plants or land races to cultivated lines is still an ongoing process, and
Genetic resistance against
virus diseases can be surprisingly durable . A good example is that of cucumbers bred for resistance to Cucumber mosaic virus. This
has been supplemented with other methods such as mutation, polyploidy breeding, and the generation of haploids.
resistance, which depends on several genes, was found to be stable for many decades against different strains of this virus. Even though the majority of plants are resistant to
most viruses (the phenomenon of non-host or basal resistance), when viruses are able to infect a crop plant, obtaining durable resistance by breeding is not always possible. In
certain cases, new virus strains overcome the resistance and once again may cause severe crop losses. In addition, for some crops and viruses, no suitable sources of
resistance can be identified among the wild relatives of a crop plant. Hence the need for greater understanding of natural resistance, and for the insights its study can provide for
the development of novel crop protection approaches. In the last few years, much has been learned concerning the mechanisms underlying several natural resistance
mechanisms including inter alia RNA silencing, induced resistance, and resistance conferred by recessive and dominant genes, which will be discussed in this and the following
volume of the Advances. In addition, research over the last two decades has made it possible to move resistance–conferring gene sequences between plants from different
botanical genera, or into plants from other organisms, and even from the viruses themselves (pathogen-derived resistance). This work opened a new vista for plant virus control,
and if combined with engineering for insect resistance could potentially provide protection not only against the viruses themselves, but also against their vectors. The work on
pathogen-derived resistance also led directly to the discovery of a natural resistance and gene regulation mechanism, RNA silencing, that has ramifications throughout the
In all parts of
the world, but especially among the developing nations, agriculture faces the looming
whole of biomedicine. Nevertheless, these technologies face technical and sociological challenges, which are also addressed in these volumes.
problems of emerging virus diseases , population growth, and ecological change. We hope that
the articles in this volume and the following one will inform and stimulate research on natural and engineered resistance, and thereby contribute to the development of new
approaches to disease control and the creation of new resistant varieties that are desperately needed.
Internals: Plan k GMOs
The aff creates the incentive to shift to GMOs.
Adler 13 (Robert Adler; Interim Dean, James I. Farr Chair, and Professor of Law, University of Utah,
S.J. Quinney College of Law; “AGRICULTURE AND WATER QUALITY: A CLIMATEINTEGRATED
PERSPECTIVE”; Vermont Law Review; 2013; https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/8-Adler.pdf) Accessed 7/7/21//eleanor
A particularly challenging problem inherent
in this approach, however, is that so many different
accountability metrics might be relevant in determining the sustainability of agricultural
production in the face of climate change, and some of those metrics might be internally inconsistent and subject
to different value preferences or policy judgments. As just one example, if one measures production relative to
pesticide use as a way to avoid or reduce the likelihood that farmers will adapt to
increased pest risks by using more, or more toxic, pesticides, that might provide an
incentive to shift to genetically modified organisms.
Some may believe that to be a positive trend, while
others may fear that it exposes humans, or the environment, to currently unknown or poorly understood risks. On the other hand,
framing the question in this way may force us to make the choices among competing
values that will be inevitable in deciding how to maintain or increase agricultural
productivity in the face of climate change without aggravating already serious water
quality and other environmental problems.
Internals: Regen Ag includes GMOs
Regen ag includes GMOs
Noble Research Institute, 2-15-2021, "What Is the Difference Between Organic and
Regenerative Agriculture?," https://www.noble.org/regenerative-agriculture/organic-vsregenerative-agriculture/ - MBA AM
REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE FOCUSES ON OUTCOMES
Regenerative agriculture is about principles, not practices. It focuses on outcomes —
actual improvements to soil health and the overall quality and health of the land (the soil,
water, plants, animals and humans).
Regenerative agriculture is an adaptive management approach that is supported by soil
health principles. There is no recipe or prescription because each farm or ranch differs
based on unique natural resources, climate variability, and animal and ecological
dynamics. Producers apply those principles for their particular region, operation and personal
situation.
This freedom for producers to make decisions on their land is important. The reality is that
working with nature is complex. There are good practices that if applied at the wrong time or
under the wrong conditions can hurt, not help the land.
Internals: GMOs Safe
They are rigourously tested for safety.
Oliver 14 (Melvin J. Oliver, PhD; Adjunct Professor, Plant Sciences, College of Agriculture, Food &
Natural Resources, University of Missouri; “Why We Need GMO Crops in Agriculture”; Missouri Medicine;
November-December 2014; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173531/) Accessed
7/6/21//eleanor
A major paradigm in the risk assessment of GM crops, particularly for human consumption, is the
concept of “substantial equivalence” which is based on the idea that a GM crop is
directly comparable (within normal levels of variation) to its non-GM counterpart to ensure that there
are no unintended hazards associated with the insertion of the transgene. The GM and
non-GM plants are compared with regard to their agronomic and morphological
characteristics prior to an in depth compositional analysis. The compositional comparisons encompass “those components in
a particular food that may have a substantial impact in the overall diet”59 present in the food/feed products that are derived from the
The non-GM
crop that is used as a point of comparison is presumed to be safe, as it will have had a
history of successful and safe use as food or feed. Any difference in the composition of
the GM crop must fall within the normal range of variability for the non-GM counterpart
for it to be considered safe. If the differences fall outside the normal range then the GM
crop must be further assessed for its safety. All of the GM crops adopted so far have
been fully tested for substantial equivalence, and all have been graded as equivalent to
their non-GM counterpart, and thus, safe.60 The approaches to assess equivalence are
constantly improving and there is a movement towards non-targeted approaches including “omics” based analyses
(genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, etc.). In a recent review, Ricroch et al.61 concluded that GM crop plants more
closely resemble the parental line from which they were generated than do their
conventional bred (or mutagenized) counterparts. The “omics” analyses would support the
conclusion that the insertion of a transgene into a plant to generate a GM crop is neither
inherently risky and nor does it present novel or greater sources of risk than
conventional breeding. The use of “omics” in the normal testing for substantial equivalence is not yet part of a standard
approach.24 GM crops are more rigorously tested for safety than any conventionally bred
crop (which are not tested), even though the genetic changes that are made in the production of
GM crops are precisely assessed and minimal, and none have yet failed to pass this
GM crop. The analysis can include macro- and micronutrients, anti-nutrients, secondary metabolites, and toxins.
intense scrutiny , including golden rice.
Internals: GMOs k Crop Yields
Less fertilizer use leads to better artificial selection of plants.
Rosen 20 (Julia Rosen is a reporter covering science and the environment; “Farmers are facing a
phosphorus crisis. The solution starts with soil.”; National Geographic; October 14, 2020;
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/farmers-are-facing-a-phosphorus-crisis-the-solutionstarts-with-soil) Accessed 7/5/21//eleanor
Smarter crops At some point, however, soil phosphorus drops low enough that crops become
stressed. That’s partly because some of it really is out of reach for plants, but also
because many modern crops cannot get ahold of what is there. The scarcity of
phosphorus in nature forced wild plants to develop strategies for securing an adequate
supply. Many evolved extensive root systems that search out phosphorus. Some can
also excrete chemicals to liberate the nutrient from the soil. But most commercial crops
don’t have those abilities. Scientists cultivated them in well-fertilized soils that didn’t
require plants to spend energy deploying such tools. And, in a world of plentiful resources,
breeders didn’t select for varieties with strong phosphorus-harvesting traits. The result,
says Phil Haygarth, a soil scientist at Lancaster University, is “a load of fast-growing, dumb plants” that
struggle to extract phosphorus from the soil. Researchers now want to create smarter
crops. In 2012, scientists identified a gene in an ancient variety of Japanese rice that
enhanced the plant’s ability to find phosphorus by growing fine roots. Researchers then
bred the trait into modern rice plants, and in 2019 farmers in Madagascar—which has naturally
nutrient-poor soils—started testing some of the most promising varieties. Sigrid Heuer, a
researcher at Rothamsted who helped with the rice study, is searching for a similar gene in wheat
as part of the International Wheat Yield Partnership. Other scientists are developing crop
varieties that don’t need as much phosphorus in the first place. Besides breeding, no-till farming
could help by preventing soil compaction and encouraging good root development to help plants access more legacy phosphorus.
Adding symbiotic fungi that spread through the soil may extend a plant’s underground reach, and growing crops alongside legumes
and other plants that secrete phosphorus-releasing compounds can free up more of the nutrient. Withers and Sylvester-Bradley
have been running down the phosphorus levels in their test fields for the exact purpose of exploring these kinds of approaches.
GMOs increase agricultural output and are more environmentally
sustainable – only increasing output prevents food insecurity from
population growth.
Norero 18 (Daniel Norero; “GMO crops have been increasing yield for 20 years, with more progress
ahead”; Cornell Alliance for Science; Febuary 23, 2018;
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/02/gmo-crops-increasing-yield-20-years-progress-ahead/)
Accessed 7/6/21//eleanor
Recently, Italian researchers
published a review of studies concluding planting genetically
modified (GM) maize (corn) over the past 20 years has increased the agricultural yield of this
popular and important staple food. In this context, it is important to remember one of the most
popular myths perpetuated about GM crops: that they aren’t boosting yields. In fact, in 2016
the media mentioned this point when the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (NAS) published an extensive review
of about 1,000 studies about the safety of GM crops. Apart from concluding that GMOs are as safe as conventional crops, the
review mentioned that “there was no evidence that transgenic crops had changed the rate of increase in yields.” That phrase was
enough for many journalists to erroneously publish news mentioning that GM crops “were useless to increase agricultural yield.”
New York Times reporter Danny Hakim even published a controversial article around that claim, which was widely criticized by
academics and researchers. While this point about “no change in yield” is real,
it was omitted that GM crops
currently harvested at the commercial level haven’t been modified to directly increase
agricultural yield, such as increasing the number of grains, pods, fruits or size of the plant. The GM crops that
have been commercialized since 1996 were designed for two main traits: resistance to
insects (or diseases) and/or tolerance to herbicides. In recent years, new traits such as
drought-tolerance and non-browning have been commercially approved. Insect-resistant
Bt crops, and those that confer virus-resistance, like the Hawaiian papaya, reduce crop losses
and require fewer phytosanitary products compared to conventional susceptible crops.
In the case of herbicide-tolerant GM crops, they allow a better control of problematic
weeds and facilitate the adoption of more environmentally friendly phytosanitary
products, as well as sustainable no-till farming practices. The reduction of losses by
pests, viruses and weeds that compete for soil nutrients, together with savings in
phytosanitary products and fuel, indirectly increase the final yield when compared with
conventional crops. These advantages were previously documented in two major academic
reviews by agricultural economists. The first, which was published in 2014 and included the
review of 147 studies, concluded that GM crops have allowed an average increase in
agricultural yield by 22 percent and increased farmers’ profits by 68 percent , with profit
margins even larger in developing countries. The second review is a study published annually covering the
data of the global GM crops production. The last version, published in 2017, indicates that between 1996 and 2015, GM crops
increased global production by 357.7 million tons of corn, 180.3 million tons of soybean,
25.2 million tons of cotton fiber, 10.6 million tons of canola and about a ton of sugar beet .
In addition, the report mentions that GM crops significantly reduced the use of agricultural land due
to this higher productivity. In 2015 alone they prevented almost 20 million hectares from
being used for agricultural purposes, thus reducing the environmental impact cultivating
forests or wild lands . This is a great environmental benefit derived from the higher
agricultural yield. Apart from these two major revisions, there is the new one referenced at the start of this post: a paper
that was published a couple of days ago by Italian researchers, who reviewed more than 6,000 studies over 20
years of GM corn harvest. They concluded that GM crops allowed an increase in yield of 6
percent to 25 percent, depending on the country, with the additional benefit of reducing mycotoxin
levels by one-third. These toxins contributed to major economic losses and cause
serious health problems. If GM crops didn’t provide a significant yield benefit to farmers, they would simply choose to
use conventional seeds. However, the amount of arable land planted with GM crops has multiplied 100-fold in the last decade, from
1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 185.1 million hectares in 2016. These crops were planted by 18 million farmers in 26 countries,
making GM the fastest adopted crop technology worldwide in recent times. This impressive increase in the adoption rate speaks for
itself, in terms of its sustainability, resilience, extra income and the significant yield benefits available to both small and big farmers.
Genes for better yield The only GM crop designed for higher yield that has received commercial approval is a GM eucalyptus
developed in Brazil, which was approved in 2015. A gene from the model plant Arabipdopsis thaliana was inserted into the
eucalyptus, which produced 20 percent more wood and reduced the time to maturity from 7 to 5.5 years. Outside the forestry sector,
although there are still no commercially available GM plants specifically designed to maximize yield (in terms of, for example, grain
production or plant biomass), there
are already several developments at the experimental or
regulation stage. A very promising example is the so-called “C4 rice” developed by scientists from the International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines, with collaboration from researcher groups all over the world. Because rice has C3
photosynthesis (3-carbon pathway), which is much less efficient than the C4 photosynthesis (4-carbon pathway) of crops such as
corn or sugar cane, scientists work on inserting genes to express the metabolic pathway of C4 photosynthesis in rice plants. This
accelerates plant growth by capturing carbon dioxide and concentrating it in specialized cells in the leaves, allowing the process of
The technology that is being applied experimentally in
rice and wheat — two crops that have already reached their peak of yield and feed the
majority of the world’s population — would increase yield by 50 percent. In addition, it would
photosynthesis to work much more efficiently.
be possible to use much less water and fertilizer to produce the same amount of food.
This project has already had its first positive results. Another project is the Realizing Increased
Photosynthetic Efficiency (RIPE), an international research effort that is also engineering plants to photosynthesize more efficiently
to increase crop yields. They have already succeeded increasing yields with model plants such as tobacco and Arabidopsis, and
they are now transferring the technology to crops important in developing countries, such as cassava, rice and beans. There are
other projects under way that address the optimization of the photosynthesis process. For example, a University of Illinois initiative
achieved a 20 percent higher yield in tobacco by overexpressing three genes protecting damage at times when more light is
obtained. Other research managed to increase the yield of soy under conditions that emulate the higher temperatures and carbon
dioxide levels expected in the year 2050. There are also various GM
crops in the experimental stage that can
directly maximize the yield trait. These include a wheat with 20 percent higher yield, developed by Rothamsted
Research in the United Kingdom, and another GM wheat with larger grains developed by the Austral University in Chile; a soybean
with 36 percent more grain developed by Washington State University; a mustard with 25 to 34 percent more seeds developed by
the University of Delhi in India; a corn with 50 percent larger kernels and an increased number of grains developed by the Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) in the United States; and a rice with a 54 percent higher yield developed by public sector
a series of GM crops
have modified to express traits like an efficient use of soil nitrogen , which directly
researchers from the United Kingdom and China. Other GM traits and gene editing Additionally,
increases agricultural yield while reducing the use of fertilizers , and the new generation
of diverse drought-tolerant, heat-tolerant and salinity-tolerant crops, which will increase
the final yield in soils that face water scarcity, warm climates or high salt levels. And we can’t
leave aside the new breeding techniques (NBTs), which also offer tools for improving yield . In
fact, at the end of last year a review was published that analyzed 52 studies using the gene editing technology known as CRISPR
from 2014 to mid-2017. The results showed that 15 crops were studied for the application of CRISPR. The
most studied crop has been rice, followed by tobacco, Arabidopsis and corn. The majority of CRISPR applications were to improve
crop yields, followed by improved nutrient content (biofortification) and tolerance to biotic/abiotic stresses. An example of these
developments is the modification of the structure of the plant, the size of the frui, and the architecture of ramification in tomato
through CRISPR by CSHL scientists.
All of these crops deliver benefits not only for farmers, but also
for the environment by reducing land use and general environmental impact, and for
consumers by supporting global food security . It’s estimated that to feed a growing
population , we will need to increase the food supply by 60 to 70 percent by 2050, which
is why we need to use all possible technologies to boost agricultural production while
reducing the environmental impact. However, the ability of society as a whole to enjoy the
benefits of this technology depends in large part on decision makers, governments and
the regulatory frameworks of each country. Let’s hope they don’t react too late, since it requires at least a decade and a
lot of investment to take GM crops from the laboratory into the field, and the goal to significantly expand global food production is
just around the corner.
GMOs boost crop yields, increases farm incomes, decreases chemical use,
and has no harmful effects – prefer meta-analysis of studies.
McDivitt 18 (Paul McDivitt is a science and environmental writer based in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has
a Master’s in environmental journalism from the University of Colorado.; “Does GMO corn increase crop
yields? 21 years of data confirm it does—and provides substantial health benefits”; Genetic Literacy
Project; February 19, 2018; https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/19/gmo-corns-yield-human-healthbenefits-vindicated-21-years-studies/) Accessed 7/8/21//eleanor
While many studies show that genetically modified crops contribute to yield gains, GMO critics
say that they don’t. Such claims, they say, are industry talking points drawn from industry-funded studies. Most recently and notably,
the New York Times asserted in a 2016 front-page analysis that “genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not
accelerated increases in crop yields.” Organic food advocates, from Michael Pollan to the Environmental Working Group, often cite
media articles or single studies, as well as unpublished reports from groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, to back up
similar views, A widely disseminated “white paper” written in 2009 and still on the UCS website titled “Failure to Yield” claims, “For
years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will
produce higher yields. That promise has proven to be empty.” But scientists know better than to draw definitive conclusions
from such sources. Instead, they look
at the results of many peer-reviewed scientific studies. One
way that they do this is through what are called meta-analyses, which sort through
hundreds or thousands of studies to separate the signal from the noise and draw surer
conclusions from scientific data. That’s exactly what a group of Italian researchers has done in a new meta-study
that compared GMO corn with conventional varieties. The analysis of over 6,000 peer-reviewed studies
covering 21 years of data found that GMO corn increased yields up to 25 percent and
dramatically decreased dangerous food contaminants. The study, published in Scientific Reports,
analyzed field data from 1996, when the first GMO corn was planted, through 2016 in the United States, Europe, South America,
Asia, Africa and Australia. The researchers’ key findings: GMO
corn varieties increased crop yields 5.6 to
24.5 percent relative to their non-GMO equivalents GMO corn crops had lower percentages
of mycotoxins (-28.8 percent), fumonisins (-30.6 percent) and thricotecens (−36.5 percent), all of which
can lead to economic losses and harm human and animal health The study also
reaffirmed the scientific consensus that genetically modified corn does not pose risks
to human health . “This analysis provides an effective synthesis on a specific problem that is widely
discussed publicly,” study coauthor Laura Ercoli told Italian newspaper la Repubblica (quote translated from Italian). The scientists
meta-analysis allows us “to draw unequivocal conclusions , helping to
increase public confidence in food produced with genetically modified plants.” There are currently two
types of GMO corn seeds available to farmers: herbicide-tolerant (HT) corn, which allows farmers to better
control weeds, and insect-resistant (Bt) corn, which fends off pests such as the corn
borer. Some GMO corn strains have both the herbicide-tolerance and insect-resistance
traits. Herbicide-tolerant corn is genetically engineered to confer resistance to the
herbicide glyphosate, meaning that the crop is not affected by the herbicide but weeds
are killed. This was achieved by incorporating genes from a soil bacterium into corn plants. Insect-resistant corn is genetically
said that the
modified to include genes from another soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is commonly sprayed on organic farms as
an approved natural pesticide. This built-in protection has been shown to reduce the need for insecticide spraying. Yield controversy
The Italian meta-analysis marks what could be a final chapter in an important facet of the ongoing debate over the use of GMOs in
farming. Most recently, the argument that GMO crops do not result in yield increases received
prominent attention after the publication of a 2016 article on the front page of the New York Times claimed that GMO crops had not
increased yields relative to their non-GMO counterparts. The article, by Danny Hakim, cited a report by the National Academies of
Sciences as saying “there was little evidence’ that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield
gains beyond those seen in conventional crops.” Hakim was
widely criticized by scientists for cherrypicking parts of the NAS report and other datasets to build a narrative that GMO crops
don’t increase yields. Read in context, the NAS reaffirmed the obvious—no GMO crop has been engineered specifically
to increase yields. The two types of genetically engineered corn, for example, were not tweaked to increase yield, but rather to
combat losses from weeds and insects. The NAS report did document that the reduction in weeds and insects had a positive yield
impact—as many other studies have confirmed. For example, a
2014 meta-analysis by two Germans scientists of all GMO
crops found, “On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use
by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.” It also found
that yield and profit gains were higher in developing countries, which the New York Times did not include in its analysis. A 2015
review by PG Economics, an industry-focused consultant firm, found that GMO crops provided economic benefits of $133.4 billion
About 70 percent of the
economic benefits were attributed to yield and production gains while the remaining 30
percent came from cost savings. Inside the Italian study According to the Italian study, over 53 million hectares
from 1996 to 2013, with roughly half of the gains going to farmers in developing nations.
(~131 million acres) of genetically modified corn was cultivated in 2015, representing almost a third of the global area of planted
corn. The United States leads the world in GMO corn production at 33 million hectares (82 million acres), with Brazil, Argentina and
Canada also growing large quantities. While yield increases were more modest in developing nations where growing conditions are
poorer, South Africa, which has been growing GMO corn since 2002, recorded an average yield increase of 24.6 percent. The
authors suggest that increased
adoption of GMO corn by developing countries could provide farmers and
consumers with substantial economic and human health benefits. The health benefits
come from a reduction in mycotoxins, which are toxic and carcinogenic for humans and
animals. According to the study, GMO corn likely had lower mycotoxin content because the
genetically modified varieties decreased insect crop damage by 59.6 percent. Essentially,
insects, like the “bugs” humans get, weaken the plant’s “immune system” and leave it more susceptible to fungal development.
Mycotoxins remain a persistent health threat in the developing world. Although commercial corn is
screened for mycotoxin contamination and rejected if high enough levels are detected, much slips through to
consumers. Food safety systems are often not as rigorous in developing countries, resulting in significant human and animal
exposure to their toxic and carcinogenic effects. Studies have shown that mycotoxin contamination is associated with increased liver
cancer rates, which are higher in developed countries. The Italian scientists also note that climate
change could
increase mycotoxin contamination because increased temperatures and decreased
rainfall could leave corn plants more susceptible to fungal attacks. Last year, University of Arizona
scientists developed a genetically engineered corn variety resistant to aflatoxins, one of the major groupings of mycotoxins, but it is
The meta-analysis also found “modest or no effect on the
abundance of non-target insects, suggesting no substantial effect on insect community
diversity.”
years from potential approval.
GMOs are key to food security.
Oliver 14 (Melvin J. Oliver, PhD; Adjunct Professor, Plant Sciences, College of Agriculture, Food &
Natural Resources, University of Missouri; “Why We Need GMO Crops in Agriculture”; Missouri Medicine;
November-December 2014; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173531/) Accessed
7/6/21//eleanor
It is well documented that the
use of biotechnology is having an impact on the alleviation of
poverty and to hunger in those developing countries, especially China and India (if one can
still classify these two as developing), where development and deployment of GM crops has been
adopted.28, 29, 31 Economic gains are being translated into improving agriculture-based
economies and higher and more stable yields are alleviating some of the concerns
about food security. GM crop production is a vital tool in the “agricultural toolbox” and
along with advances in the development of the new genomics based genetic technologies that improve conventional crop production
it may be realistic to expect to meet the aforementioned lofty goals. Organic crop production technologies, although generally
delivering lower yields than conventional crops,32 have an important role in yield improvement and stability efforts in areas where
these technologies are optimal. To abandon any one of these efforts would be unwise and potentially catastrophic, especially
without sound scientific reason, as agricultural production systems are complex and changing, more so now than ever before, as
global climate change alters the “farming landscape.” There are those that are adamantly opposed to the adoption of GM
technologies in agriculture (though not in medicine) as a means of increasing yields and improving nutrition, and thus removing this
key tool from the toolbox. The reasons for this opposition are complex and multifaceted, but from what is articulated and
communicated by those who oppose GMOs, they are based on the perception that such crops pose an unacceptable risk to both
human health and the environment. Such sentiment exists even though
there have been no adverse health or
environmental affects from the almost four billion acres of GMO crops grown since their
introduction in 1996. Several National Research Council committees and European Commissions (as well as joint
commissions) have concluded that with the extensive scientific inquiry into the safety issues
surrounding the adoption of GM crops, genetic engineering using biotechnology is no
different from conventional breeding in terms of unintended consequences to the
environment or animal and human health.33 The European Commission funded more 50 research programs
from 2001–2010 to address concerns regarding the use of GM crops to reach this same determination.34 Nicolia et al.24
constructed a database of 1,783 scientific original research papers, reviews, relevant
opinion articles, and reports published between 2002 and October of 2010 on GMO safety issues, and
reviewed the contents to generate a comprehensive overview of the accumulated
knowledge. The overall conclusion of this mammoth undertaking was that “the scientific research
conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the
use of GM crops.
Impacts: GMOs Solve Warming
GM tech makes industrial ag sustainable and necessary to feed the
population and solve global warming
Dr. Federoff 2k11
(Nina, who was the science and technology adviser to the secretary of state from 2007 to 2010,
is a professor of biology at Pennsylvania State University, “Engineering Food for All,” pg online
@ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/opinion/genetically-engineered-food-for-all.html //ghs-ef)
FOOD prices are at record highs and the ranks of the hungry are swelling once again. A
warming climate is beginning to nibble at crop yields worldwide. The United Nations predicts that there
will be one to three billion more people to feed by midcentury. Yet even as the Obama administration says it wants
to stimulate innovation by eliminating unnecessary regulations, the E nvironmental P rotection A gency wants to require even more data
on g enetically m odified crops, which have been improved using technology with great promise and
a track record of safety. The process for approving these crops has become so costly and burdensome that it is choking off
innovation . Civilization depends on our expanding ability to produce food efficiently , which
has markedly accelerated
thanks to science and technology . The use of chemicals for fertilization
and for pest and disease control, the induction of beneficial mutations in plants with
chemicals or radiation to improve yields, and the mechanization of ag riculture have all
increased the amount of food that can be grown on each acre of land by as much as 10 times in the last 100 years. These
extraordinary increases must be doubled by 2050 if we are to continue to feed an expanding population. As people around the
New molecular
methods that add or modify genes can protect plants from diseases and pests and
improve crops in ways that are both more environmentally benign and beyond the
capability of older methods. This is because the gene modifications are crafted based on
knowledge of what genes do, in contrast to the shotgun approach of traditional breeding or using chemicals or radiation to induce mutations. The
results have been spectacular. For example, g enetically m odified crops containing an extra gene that confers
resistance to certain insects require much less pesticide. This is good for the
environment because toxic pesticides decrease the supply of food for birds and run off
the land to poison rivers, lakes and oceans. The rapid adoption of g enetically m odified herbicide-tolerant
soybeans has made it easier for farmers to park their plows and forgo tilling for weed
control. No-till farming is more sustainable and environmentally benign because it
world become more affluent, they are demanding diets richer in animal protein, which will require ever more robust feed crop yields to sustain.
decreases soil erosion and shrinks agriculture’s carbon footprint .
Impacts: GMO’s Good – Starvation
GM crops key to avert extinction (preserve food production, biodiversity
and prevent erosion)
Dennis T. Avery, 3/16/2004. Director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues.
“British government calls for more weeds, less food,” Hudson
Institute,http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3255.
CHURCHVILLE, VA—Late last year, the British government completed extensive three-year field trials of genetically modified rapeseed, sugar beets, and corn. The journal Science reported, “Cultivation of
[genetically modified] beets and rapeseed clearly had deleterious effects on wildlife and native plants” in the trials. The Guardian of London headlined, “Two GM Crops Face Ban for Damaging Wildlife.”
Commentator John Vidal said that the trials provide “a legal basis for banning the two crops under European Union rules.” What they’re talking about protecting is weeds. Thefield trials found somewhat more
weeds and weed-dependent insects in the conventional rapeseed and sugar beet fields than in the biotech fields—where weed control was more effective. Clare Oxborrow from Friends of the Earth said, “Weeds
are a crucial part of maintaining farm land diversity.” This is absurd. Weeds compete with crop plants for water, soil nutrients, and sunlight. The more weeds in the field, the lower the food production per acre. The
more weeds in the fields, the more acreage we’re forced to take away from forests and wild meadows to grow our food. Leslie Elmslie, in a letter to the Financial Times, wrote that the British government had
apparently spent $8.6 million Euros “on conceptually silly but well designed and meticulously implemented trials that demonstrate what any Neolithic farmer scratching the soil with a stick could have told it: that
the more weeds there are in a crop, the more animals there will be that feed on those weeds. . . . The Neolithic farmer might have explained that the definition of a weed is a plant out of place and that his aim was
to grow crops, not weeds.” The UN Environmental Program’s recently published Atlas of Biodiversity says wildlife species extinctions in the last third of the twentieth century were only half as numerous as
because high-yield farming systems tripled the yields on the
world’s best farmland; we haven’t had to clear significantly more cropland in the last fifty years, even
though the human population grew from 2.5 billion to 6 billion and hasn’t quite stopped growing yet. Let’s be clear about something: any farm is an insult to Nature.
extinctions in the last third of the nineteenth century. That is
Any farm suppresses wildlife within its confines. Organic farmers kill weeds with “bare-earth” tools such as plows and hoes and hand-weeding. Should plows and hoes be banned? Conventional farmers use
herbicide sprays to kill the weeds because it is hard to find many workers willing to spend their days whacking weeds with short-handled hoes. Should herbicide sprays be banned? Humans have already cleared
Without biotech, we could lose the wildlands that still occupy nearly half the
planet’s land area, as world food demand doubles in the next forty years. The only viable strategy for wildlife
conservation in the twenty-first century is to grow the food we need on the smallest possible amount of
land. Biotech does exactly that. In addition to suppressing pests, biotech crops have encouraged a massive
increase in no-till farming, which cuts soil erosion by more than 90 percent, precisely because
herbicide-tolerant crops help farmers suppress weed competition more effectively. If the British government is now
for farming half the global land area not covered by deserts and glaciers.
ushering in a mandate for weedier fields, that is prima facie evidence that the EU’s costly farm subsidies have made Europe a serious danger to the world’s wildlife. The British conservation movement has
apparently been driven slightly insane by the decline in its populations of birds and small wild creatures during the thirty years of Britain’s EU membership. Thousands of miles of thick, ancient, hand-laid
hedgerows that once sheltered songbirds, butterflies, and other small creatures have been torn out because high EU farm price supports pushed UK farmers out of grazing (and the consequent need for
hedgerows to keep flocks separate) into field crops. Mandating that farmers have more weeds in the fields, however, won’t bring back the hedgerows, which were the critical habitat. After the British government’s
report was released, The New York Times told its readers, “Here’s something for the Greens of the world to ponder: ‘genetic engineering may be the most environmentally beneficial technology to have emerged
in decades, or possibly centuries. . . . If properly developed, disseminated and used,
genetically modified crops may be the best hope the
planet has got.’” Britain, please take note.
Every GMOs bad argument is wrong, scientific consensus is clear—and
their proponents are literally killing people
Mark Lynas 13, Visiting Research Associate at Oxford University’s School of Geography and
the Environment, vice-chair of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on
Emerging Technologies, and Visiting Fellow at Cornell University’s Office of International
Programs at the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences , “Time to call out the anti-GMO
conspiracy theory,” April 29, http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmoconspiracy-theory/
the controversy over GMOs represents one of the greatest science communications
failures of the past half-century. Millions, possibly billions, of people have come to believe what is
essentially a conspiracy theory, generating fear and misunderstanding about a whole
class of technologies on an unprecedentedly global scale.¶ This matters enormously
because these technologies – in particular the various uses of molecular biology to
enhance plant breeding potential – are clearly some of our most important tools for
addressing food security and future environmental change.¶ I am a historian, and history surely offers us, from witch trials to
I think
eugenics, numerous examples of how when public misunderstanding and superstition becomes widespread on an issue, irrational policymaking is the inevitable consequence, and great damage is done to
Allowing anti-GMO activists to
dictate policymaking on biotechnology is like putting homeopaths in charge of the health
service, or asking anti-vaccine campaigners to take the lead in eradicating polio.¶ I believe the
time has now come for everyone with a commitment to the primacy of the scientific
peoples’ lives as a result.¶ This is what has happened with the GMOs food scare in Europe, Africa and many other parts of the world.
method and evidence-based policy-making to decisively reject the anti-GMO
conspiracy theory and to work together to begin to undo the damage that it has caused
over the last decade and a half.¶ On a personal note, let me explain why I am standing here saying this. Believe me, I would much prefer to live a quieter life. However, following my apology for my former antiGMO activism at my Oxford speech in January, I have been subject to a co-ordinated campaign of intimidation and hate, mostly via the internet.¶ Even when I was at school I didn’t give in to bullies, and at the
ripe old age of 40 I am even less inclined to do so now. Moreover, I have been encouraged by emails and other support from globally-renowned scientists who are experts on this issue, and who all said basically
scientists are the unsung heroes of this saga. They carried on with their
important work and tried year after year to fight against the rising tide of misinformation,
the same thing to me: ‘You think you’ve got hatemail? Welcome to my world’.¶ I think these
while people like me were belittling and undermining them at every turn. I won’t mention names, but they know who they are. Some of them are here today, and I would like to give them my deepest thanks.¶ So
for me also there is also a moral dimension to this. The fact that I helped promote unfounded scare stories in the early stages of the anti-GMO movement in the mid 1990s is the reason why I now feel compelled
to speak out against them. I have a personal responsibility to help put these myths to rest because I was so complicit in initially promoting them.¶ My activism, which I wrongly thought of at the time as being
many people have died
unnecessarily because of mistakes that we in the environmental movement collectively
made in promoting anti-GMO fear. With that on your conscience, saying sorry and then moving on is not enough. Some restitution is in order.¶ Following
a decade and a half of scientific and field research, I think we can now say with very high
confidence that the key tenets of the anti-GMO case were not just wrong in points of fact
but in large parts the precise opposite of the truth .¶ This is why I use the term conspiracy
theory. Populist ideas about conspiracies do not arise spontaneously in a political and historic vacuum. They result when powerful ideological narratives collide with major world events, rare occasions
‘environmental’, has done real damage in the world. For me, apologising was therefore only the beginning. I am now convinced that
where even a tiny number of dedicated activists can create a lasting change in public consciousness.¶ In the 1960s the conspiracy theories about Kennedy’s assassination reflected the profound feeling that there
were shadowy people high up in the CIA and government who were subverting democracy, and fighting the Cold War by devious and deadly means. More recently, conspiracy theories about 9-11 reflected the
hatred many on the political Left had for the Bush Administration.¶
Successful conspiracy theories can do real damage. In Nigeria an
outbreak of Muslim conspiracy theorising against the polio vaccination campaign there led to a renewed polio outbreak which then spread to 20 other countries just when the disease was on the brink of being
entirely eradicated.¶ In South Africa during the presidency of Thabo Mbeki the HIV/AIDS denialist myth became official government policy, just as the anti-GMO denialist myth is official European Union policy
today. The result in South Africa was that hundreds of thousands of people were denied life-saving anti-retroviral treatments and died unnecessarily.¶
The anti-GMO campaign
has also undoubtedly led to unnecessary deaths. The best documented example, which is laid out in detail by Robert Paarlberg in his book
‘Starved for Science’, is the refusal of the Zambian government to allow its starving population to eat imported GMO corn during a severe famine in 2002. ¶ Thousands died
because the President of Zambia believed the lies of western environmental groups that
genetically modified corn provided by the World Food Programme was somehow
poisonous. I have yet to hear an apology from any of the responsible Western groups for their role in this humanitarian atrocity.¶ Friends of the Earth was one
of those responsible, and I note that not only has no apology been forthcoming, but Friends of the Earth Europe is still actively promoting GMO denialism in the EU in a new campaign
called Stop the Crop. Check out their Youtube video to see how they have learned nothing in ten years. ¶ Another well-known example is that of Golden Rice, genetically modified to contain high levels of beta
One study on the
prospects for Golden Rice in India found that the burden of vitamin A deficiency could be
reduced by 60%, saving 1.4 million healthy life years.¶ Here the actions of Greenpeace in
forestalling the use of golden rice to address micronutrient deficiencies in children makes them the moral and indeed practical equivalent of the Nigerian mullahs who
preached against the polio vaccine – because they were stopping a lifesaving technology solely to flatter their own
fanaticism.¶ I think this campaign is shameful and has brought the entire environmental movement into disrepute, with damaging consequences for the very beneficial work that many
carotene in order to compensate for the vitamin A deficiency which kills hundreds of thousands of children around the world and blinds many more every year.
environmentalists do. Greenpeace’s campaign against vitamin A-enhanced Golden Rice should therefore be cancelled, and I call on everyone concerned about children’s health to lobby Greenpeace and demand
The anti-GMO campaign does not even have the benefit of
intellectual coherence. If you truly think that herbicide-tolerant biotech crops are an evil
plot by Monsanto to achieve a stranglehold on the entire world’s food supply, why would
you also oppose all other non-patented and open-source applications of biotechnology,
which have nothing to do with Monsanto, apparently without exception? This is like being against all
computer software because you object to the dominant position of Microsoft Office. ¶ On a logical basis only a case by case
that this happens immediately and without delay.¶
assessment makes sense for deciding how any technology might best be applied. So if you think that Bt corn is bad for US farmers, despite all the evidence to the contrary, it shouldn’t necessarily follow that you
This matters today more than ever because we are
entering an age of increasingly threatening ecological scarcity. The planet is beginning to move outside the envelope of
also have to ban virus-resistant papaya, or oppose a blight-resistant potato in Ireland.¶
stable temperatures that we have enjoyed for 10,000 years, and into an age of instability and rapid change.¶ Within just a year from now, global CO2 concentrations will break through the crucial 400 parts per
million boundary, marking a change is atmospheric chemistry that is unprecedented for at least 3 million years.¶ Moreover, we are now on a global emissions path which puts us on track for 4-5 degrees Celsius
of warming by 2100, a transformation which will leave this planet barely recognisable and considerably more hostile to human and other life. ¶ But what about all those who say that global warming is a hoax, a
product of thousands of scientists conspiring with governments and the UN to falsify temperature data and usher in a new age of global socialism?¶ Well, I’ve spent more than a decade arguing with climate
sceptics, and in the end I fall back on a single killer argument: that if an overwhelming majority of experts say something is true, then any sensible non-expert should assume that they are probably right.¶ To
make the point, here is the consensus position of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences on climate change: ¶ “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas
the AAAS has also released another statement of consensus science on another area
concerning us today:¶ “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular
techniques of biotechnology is safe… The W orld H ealth O rganization, the American
emissions is now.”¶ Oh, but wait –
M edical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society,
and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the
same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no
riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified
by conventional plant improvement techniques.” ¶ So, my suggestion today is that a sensible baseline
position for environmentalists and indeed everyone else is to accept the consensus science in both these areas.
Instead, you have the unedifying spectacle of so-called green groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists stoutly defending consensus science in the area of climate change, while just as determinedly
the UCS utilises the exact same techniques as climate sceptics in its enduring and strikingly unscientific campaign against GMOs: it
issues impressive reports based on strategic cherry-picking and only referencing its
ideological allies in a kind of epistemological closed-loop, it pushes the perspective of a
tiny minority of hand-picked pseudo-experts, and it tries to capture and control the public policy agenda to enforce its long-held prejudices.¶ Many of
undermining it in the area of biotechnology.¶ Tellingly,
the most influential denialists like those at the Union of Concerned Scientists sound like experts; indeed they may even be experts. Richard Dawkins tells a story about a professor of geology, who lectured and
published papers about stratigraphy in hundred-million year old rocks whilst at the same time being a ‘young-earth’ creationist who really believed the world was only 6,000 years old. His pre-existing religious
conviction simply overpowered his scientific evidence-based training.¶ An even more striking example is Peter Duesberg, the leading light in the AIDS denialist movement, who is a professor of cell biology at the
University of California in Berkeley.¶ Many anti-vaccine campaigners, like Andrew Wakefield, started out as qualified medical professionals.
This is why scientific
consensus matters – it is the last line of defence we have against the impressive
credentials and sciency-sounding language of those who are really on the lunatic fringe .
¶ Speaking of the lunatic fringe, someone else who claims scientific credentials is
Vandana Shiva, probably the most prominent Indian anti-biotechnology activist, who incidentally draws much larger audiences than this one to her fiery speeches about the evils of Monsanto
and all things new in agriculture. Shiva tweeted after my Oxford speech that me saying that farmers should be free to use GMO crops was like giving rapists the freedom to rape. ¶ That is obscene and offensive,
but actually is not the half of it. Let me give you my all-time favourite Vandana Shiva quote, regarding the so-called terminator technology, on which she launches constant blistering attacks without once
acknowledging the salient fact that it was never actually developed.¶ “The danger that the terminator may spread to surrounding food crops or the natural environment is a serious one. The gradual spread of
sterility in seeding plants would result in a global catastrophe that could eventually wipe out higher life forms, including humans, from the planet”.¶ Now, I’ve said and done some pretty stupid things in my time, but
this one takes some beating. You don’t need the intelligence of a Richard Dawkins or indeed a Charles Darwin to understand that sterility is not a great selective advantage when it comes to reproduction, hence
the regular observed failure of sterile couples to breed large numbers of children.¶
As Shiva’s case so clearly shows, if we reject data-
driven empiricism and evidence as the basis for identifying and solving problems, we
have nothing left but vacuous ideology and self-referential myth-making . Indeed in many related areas, like
nuclear power, the environmental movement has already done great harm to the planet, even as it has rightly helped raise awareness in other areas such as deforestation, pollution and biodiversity loss. ¶
If we wish to preserve a semblance of
current biodiversity on this planet, for example, we must urgently curtail agricultural land
conversion in rainforest and other sensitive areas.¶ This is why organic agriculture is an
ecological dead-end: it is dramatically less efficient in terms of land use, so likely leads
to higher rates of biodiversity loss overall. Maybe organic producers should be legally mandated to specify on labels the overall land-use efficiency of their
Science tells us today that the coming age of ecological scarcity extends much further than just global warming.
products. I’m all in favour of food labelling by the way when it comes to something important that the consumer should have the right to know.¶ Of course conventional agriculture has well-documented and major
environmental failings, not least of which is the massive use of agricultural fertilisers which is destroying river and ocean biology around the world. But the flip side of this is that intensive agriculture’s extremely
efficient use of land is conversely of great ecological benefit.¶ For example, if we had tried to produce all of today’s yield using the technologies of 1960 – largely organically in other words – we would have had to
cultivate an additional 3 billion hectares, the area of two South Americas.¶
We cannot afford the luxury of romanticised but
inefficient agricultural systems like organic because the planet is already maxxed out in
terms of both land and water. Our only option therefore is to learn to do more with less. This
is known as sustainable intensification – it’s about improving the efficiency of our most ecologically scarce resources. ¶ But remember, everything is changing. Food demand will
inevitably skyrocket this half-century because of the twin pressures of population
growth and economic development. We need to sustainably increase food production by
at least 100% by 2050 to feed a larger and increasingly affluent global population.¶ This is where the
eco-Malthusians tend to pop up, illustrating another uncomfortable aspect of the anti-GMO philosophy. Let me share with you a rather revealing quote I read just a couple of weeks ago on Yale 360, from the US
environmental writer Paul Greenberg, where he is lamenting the supposed wrongs of genetically engineered salmon. But forget the fish – when it comes to humans he says the following:¶ “If we continue to bend
the rules of nature so that we can provide more and more food for an open-ended expansion of humans on the planet, something eventually will have to give. Would you like to live in a world of 15 billion people?
20 billion? I would not. And while it’s possible you will label my response as New Age-ish, I feel that GE food distracts us from the real question of the carrying capacity of the planet.”¶ Well, I think that calling
these sentiments New Age-ish is to give them far too much credit. I would actually call them misanthropic. What Greenberg seems to be suggesting here, as Paul Ehrlich did before him, is the denial of food to
hungry people in order to prevent them breeding more children and contributing to overpopulation.¶ Luckily this modern-day Malthusianism is wrong in point of fact as well as by moral implication. Firstly, the
human population is never going to reach 20 billion. Instead, it is forecast to peak at 9-10 billion and then slowly decline.¶ Secondly, although we are certainly heading for 9 billion people by mid-century, but that
is not because people in poor countries are still having too many babies. The main reason is that children who are born today are much more likely to survive, and become parents themselves.¶ It is a little-known
fact that the global average fertility rate is now down to about 2.4, not far above natural replacement of 2.1. So pretty much all the increased population growth to 2050 will come from more children surviving into
adulthood.¶ And that is surely a good thing. I want to see child death rates in developing countries continue to plummet thanks to better healthcare, access to clean water and sanitation, and all the other benefits
the modern world can and should bring to everyone.¶ No doubt like all of you, I also want to see an end to the scourge of hunger which today affects more people in an absolute sense than ever before in history.
It is surely an abomination that in 2013 we can all go to bed each night knowing that 900 million other people are hungry.¶ This scourge affects children disproportionately – one third of child deaths are
attributable to malnutrition. Among those who survive, nutrient deficiencies like iron, zinc and vitamin A can lead to cognitive impairment and other health problems, reducing a child’s life chances for his or her
it is a
dangerous fallacy to suggest therefore that because the world on average has enough
food, we should therefore oppose efforts to improve agricultural productivity in food
insecure countries.¶ In fact probably the best way to address rural poverty is to ensure
that subsistence farmers the world over enjoy more reliable and increasingly productive
harvests. This will enable them both to feed their own families and to generate a surplus
to sell at a profit so their children can go to school.¶ Is genetic modification a silver bullet
way to achieve this? Of course not. It cannot build better roads or chase away corrupt
officials. But surely seeds which deliver higher levels of nutrition, which protect the
resulting plant against pests without the need for expensive chemical inputs, and which
have greater yield resilience in drought years are least worth a try?¶ And real-world
evidence so far gives grounds for optimism. The use of Bt cotton in China has been shown to dramatically improve biodiversity, unlike broad-spectrum
entire future.¶ It is a truism to say that people are hungry not because there is a global shortage of food in an absolute sense, but because they are too poor to afford to eat. But
insecticides which kill everything, pests and predators alike. The Bt protein only affects the insects which bore into the crop, is entirely safe for us, and has led to insecticide reductions of 60% in China and 40% in
India on cotton.¶ The introduction of Bt brinjal in India, a project which I know people here in Cornell were closely involved in leading, would have dramatically reduced insecticide poisonings associated with that
crop too, had the anti-GMO activists in India not succeeded in preventing its use.¶ India today seems to be perched on a scientific knife-edge, with a vociferous lobby pushing dark-age traditionalism on the brink
of permanently capturing the entire political and legal agenda. If they succeed, hundreds of millions of food-insecure Indians will be the losers.¶ In Africa too there are a multitude of western-funded NGOs who all
claim to be mysteriously protecting biodiversity by keeping cultivated plant genetic improvements permanently out of the continent. In many African countries GMOs are subject to the same kind of de-facto ban as
is the case in Europe, leaving poorer farmers at the mercy of a changing climate and exhausted soils.¶ However, a showdown is looming, because some of the most exciting biotechnology initiatives are now
based in African countries. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is putting substantial funding into these efforts – such as improved maize for poorer African soils, a project which is looking to get yield increases
of 50% even where fertiliser is not available or the farmer cannot afford to buy it.¶ There’s also the public-private partnership called Water Efficient Maize for Africa, using biotech to produce drought tolerant corn
specifically for African smallholders facing the challenges of a changing climate. There’s C4 rice, aiming to improve the photosynthetic capacity of rice and thereby dramatically increase yields. ¶ Another Gatesfunded project is based at the John Innes Centre in the UK and aims by 2017 to have cereal crops which fix their own nitrogen available for farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. The list goes on: there’s biofortified
cooking bananas in East Africa, and cassava fortified with iron, protein and vitamin A in Nigeria and elsewhere.¶ ¶ I haven’t finished! There’s resistance to cassava brown streak disease, which is currently
spreading rapidly and threatens the staple crop for two out of every five people in sub-Saharan Africa.¶ ¶ And of course transgenic technology focused on conferring wheat rust resistance at the molecular level to
if the activists have their way, none
of these improved seeds will ever leave the laboratory. And this brings me, by way of conclusion, to the essentially authoritarian nature of
head off the threat of a global pandemic which could otherwise threaten one of humanity’s most important staple foods. ¶ ¶ But
the anti-GMO project.¶ ¶ All these activists, strikingly few of whom are themselves smallholder farmers in Africa or India, claim to know exactly which seeds developing country farmers should be allowed to plant.
Those which are not ideologically approved by self-appointed campaigners should be banned forever.¶ ¶ The irony here is that predominantly left-wing activists, who are supposedly so concerned about
corporate power, are determined to deny the right to choose to the most powerless people in the world – subsistence farmers in developing countries. In fact, this is more than an irony – it is a cruelty. And it is a
cruelty which must stop, and stop now. ¶ HG Wells is often quoted as saying that civilization is a race between education and catastrophe. The New Yorker writer Michael Specter, who wrote a great book about
civilisation is
genuinely threatened by the twin catastrophes of climate change and ecological scarcity
colliding with vastly greater food demand from a larger and wealthier population.¶ ¶ The
solution is the same one that it always was – innovation – the uniquely human capacity
to produce new tools which has saved our species so many times before from apparently
inevitable Malthusian collapses. Therefore if we reject innovation now of all times we
anti-science movements called ‘Denialism’, updates this, writing that civilisation is a race between innovation and catastrophe. ¶ ¶ This is surely no more true than today, when
make catastrophe not just likely but probably inevitable .¶ ¶ This was indeed the warning the great Norman Borlaug
left us with before he died. To quote:¶ ¶ “If the naysayers do manage to stop agricultural
biotechnology, they might actually precipitate the famines and the crisis of global
biodiversity they have been predicting for nearly 40 years.”¶ ¶ In the final assessment only way that conspiracy theories die is
because more and more people begin to wake up to reality and reject them. Then perhaps there comes a tipping point where what was once received wisdom becomes increasingly understood for the foolish
nonsense that it always was.¶ ¶ I think – I hope – that we are close to this tipping point today. And now, with just a little extra push, we can all join in consigning anti-GMO denialism to the dustbin of history where
it belongs.
AT: SQ GMOs Solve
Innovation and new developments are key.
Stokstad 19 (Erik Stokstad is a reporter at Science, covering environmental issues.; “New genetically
modified corn produces up to 10% more than similar types”; Science; November 4, 2019;
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/new-genetically-modified-corn-produces-10-more-similartypes) Accessed 7/7/21//eleanor
engineering have long promised it will help meet the world’s growing demand
for food. But despite the creation of many genetically modified (GM) pest- and herbicide-resistant crops, scientists haven’t had
much success with boosting crop growth. Now, researchers have for the first time shown they can
reliably increase corn yields up to 10% by changing a gene that increases plant growth—
regardless of whether growing conditions are poor or optimal. “It’s incredible,” says Kan Wang, a
molecular biologist at Iowa State University in Ames who was not involved in the new study. Aside from increasing
corn harvests, she says, the new modifications should inspire other researchers in the quest
for coaxing higher yields out of other crops. The world’s most widely planted GM crops, including soybean,
Supporters of genetic
corn, and cotton, were created with a few relatively simple genetic tweaks. By adding a single gene from bacteria to certain crop
simple
genetic manipulation results in crops that withstand glyphosate or other herbicides; one
benefit is that farmers can kill weeds without eroding the soil. Yet another protects crops
during drought. But it’s been a lot harder to come up with plants that also yield more grain in good conditions, because of the
varieties, for example, scientists gave them the ability to make a protein that kills many kinds of insects. Another
complex genetics involved in plant growth. Starting in about 2000, companies around the world began to screen in earnest for single
genes that could increase yield. Only a few identified genes have shown promise, and many companies have reduced or stopped
screening for genes related to crop yield, because of the low rate of success. But researchers at Corteva Agriscience, a chemical
and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware, decided to look at genes that function like master switches for growth and yield.
The
challenge of working with genes that regulate development is making sure they turn on
the right amount at the right time and in the right type of tissues. “It’s awfully easy to get
messed up plants” if the genes are too active, says Jeff Habben, a plant physiologist at Corteva who helped
They picked MADS-box genes, a group common in many plants, before settling on one (zmm28) to alter in corn plants.
lead the research. The group aimed to fuse zmm28 with a new promoter, a stretch of DNA that controls when the gene is activated.
After trying a dozen, they found one that worked reliably. Usually, zmm28 turns on when corn plants begin to flower. The added
promoter turned on zmm28 earlier than happens naturally and also continued to boost the gene’s beneficial effects after flowering.
“If you make the gene work harder and longer, you can make the plant perform better,” Wang says. The researchers tested the
enhanced gene’s performance in 48 commercial types of corn, known as hybrids, that are commonly used to feed livestock. In field
tests across corn-growing regions of the United States between 2014 and 2017, they found that the GM
hybrids typically
yielded 3% to 5% more grain than control plants. Some yielded 8% to 10% more, the team
reports this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The benefit held regardless of how
good or bad the growing conditions were. “This is one of the best examples where GM for yield actually works
convincingly in a field environment,” says Matthew Paul, a crop scientist at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, U.K. The increased
growth is due to several factors. First, the engineered plants have slightly bigger leaves, which are 8% to 9% better at turning
sunlight into sugars. “This increase is really a big deal,” says Jingrui Wu, a plant physiologist at Corteva, because photosynthesis
has been difficult to improve with genetic engineering. The plants are also 16% to 18% more efficient at using nitrogen, a key soil
nutrient—another trait that has been difficult for plant breeders to manipulate because of complex genetics. “This
looks very
promising from a commercial point of view,” says Dirk Inzé, a molecular biologist at VIB, a research institute in
Flanders, Belgium. Corteva has already applied to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for approval of new higher-yielding
hybrids. (Although zmm28 and its promoter occur naturally in corn, they were paired using a technique that USDA regulates as
biotechnology.) Habben estimates it will take 6 to 10 years to gain formal approval in countries around the world. There’s a “good
chance” that related regulatory genes might boost yield in other cereals, Inzé says. The large-scale field demonstration in corn
“reinforces our belief that intrinsic
give people inspiration.”
yield can be improved if we do it cleverly,” Wang says. “This indeed will
AT: ABR
No risk of ABR – antibiotic resistance occurs naturally and transfer to
humans is extremely unlikely.
Bodnar 10 (Anastasia Bodnar, PhD, is a science communicator and multidisciplinary risk analyst with
a career in federal service. She has a PhD in plant genetics and sustainable agriculture from Iowa State
University.; “GMOs could render important antibiotics worthless”; Biology Fortified; March 19, 2010;
https://biofortified.org/2010/03/gmos-antibiotics/) Accessed 7/8/21//eleanor
Fear of antibiotic resistance markers is mainly due to fear of gene transfer from
genetically modified plants to bacteria in the soil or bacteria in human or animal guts.
There are at least two reasons why this fear is unwarranted . First, soil and gut bacteria
naturally contain a variety of antibiotic resistance genes without any human intervention.
Second, transfer of genes from a plant to a bacterium is extremely unlikely. Natural antibiotic
resistance genes Life for a bacterium isn’t easy. They have to compete fiercely for resources, so it’s not surprising that some
bacteria have evolved to produce poison that kills their competitors: antibiotics. The
producers of these antibiotics also evolved antibiotic resistance mechanisms so they
could survive their own weapons. Additionally, bacteria develop resistance to antibacterial compounds in the
environment. Often, antibiotic resistance is conferred by a single gene. Any bacteria that can find that resistance gene and use it
antibiotic resistance genes are widespread in natural
environments. When humans intervene, using antibiotics in ways that encourage
development of resistance in bacteria, that resistance is passed around even faster (no
GMOs needed). For some information on how humans, check out the CDC’s pages on antibiotic resistance. Gene swapping
have an advantage. Consequently,
Genetically modified crops: methodology, benefits, regulation and public concerns, a 2000 review in the British Medical Bulletin has
a summary of the risks of horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified crops: …horizontal transfer
of a gene from
ingested plant material to bacteria has never been demonstrated , and there is no
indication that it has ever occurred d uring evolution. The probability that it could occur
is, therefore, considered to be so low that it is not relevant when compared with the natural
occurrence of antibiotic resistance genes. They sound awfully confident, don’t they? Bacteria (prokaryotes) are
fairly promiscuous when it comes to genes. Many types of bacteria (not all) have the ability to take up DNA from the environment
and from other bacteria and integrate it into their own genome during parts or all of their life cycle. This process is called horizontal
gene transfer, and the bacteria that have this ability are called competent. Since they have this ability, it makes sense to worry about
bacteria picking up antibiotic resistance genes (and other genes as well) from other organisms, including genetically modified crops.
Interestingly, eukaryotes (multicellular organisms like plants and people) also have the ability to take up DNA into their genomes.
For example, the August 2007 Widespread lateral gene transfer from intracellular bacteria to multicellular eukaryotes shows transfer
of the entire genome from endosymbiotic bacteria into their hosts’ genomes. A more recent example appeared in January 2010 in
the New York Times: Hunting Fossil Viruses in Human DNA. An entire virus genome resides in the human genome, and has been
passed down from our simian ancestors. So we know that bacteria can swap DNA and that eukaryotes can take up DNA from
bacteria and viruses. Can prokaryotes take up DNA from eukaryotes? It doesn’t look like it. The
European Food Safety Authority has the following to say about the subject in their excellent 2009 Statement of EFSA on the
consolidated presentation of opinions on the use of antibiotic resistance genes as marker genes in genetically modified plants
(section 2.1.1.2., edited slightly for clarity): While many studies support the evolutionary significance of horizontal gene transfer
between bacteria, eukaryotic
genes in prokaryotic genomes are a rarity. There is no definitive
report of DNA transfer from eukaryotes to bacteria. As of 24 September 2008 the public genome
databases included more than 750 completed prokaryotic genomes. In the first annotation of the putative genes there are frequent
results have not manifested
into demonstrations of horizontal gene transfer from eukaryotes to prokaryotes, as
judged by the scientific publications interpreting the genomic sequencing data. For one
cases where closest matches are found with eukaryotic genes, but these preliminary
functional gene (phosphoglucose isomerase), phylogenetic analyses indicated that the gene might have been transferred from a
eukaryote to bacteria. The transfer was estimated to have happened approximately 500 million years ago. Multiple studies have
found that bacteria can take up eukaryote DNA, but only in certain conditions, where the researchers used a sort of genetic trick
called homologous recombination. In short, homologous recombination can occur when the ends of the donor DNA have sequences
similar to part of the acceptor DNA. The homologous sequences can bind together, and in the next round of replication, the donor
DNA can be integrated. In
studies that aimed to find evidence of transfer of DNA from
eukaryotes to prokaryotes without genetic tricks, none was found. Table 1 of the EFSA Statement
lists all studies prior to its publishing that examined horizontal gene transfer in bacteria (25 studies in all). Of the 18 studies that
Of the 16 studies that
looked for gene transfer without homologous recombination, no evidence of gene
transfer was found. In short, there are many DNA sequences that look like eukaryote genes in prokaryote genomes, but so
looked for gene transfer with homologous recombination, 15 found gene transfer and 3 did not.
far only one has been found that might be an actual functional gene. All evidence to date shows that gene transfer from eukaryotes
The lack of
evidence for horizontal gene transfer in the wild suggests that there are some sort of
barriers to gene transfer from eukaryotes to prokaryotes. Barriers to gene swapping Prokaryotic
DNA and eukaryotic DNA are sort of like different computer languages. In fact, each species has
to prokaryotes can only occur when homologous DNA sequences are present in donor and acceptor genomes.
slightly different ways of “personalizing” its own DNA with things like methylation and other DNA modifications, different codon
preference, post translational modification of RNA, and whether or not introns are present. Eukaryotic DNA is so different from
prokaryotic DNA that the bacteria just can’t take it up and use it as they would other bacterial DNA. Additionally, even
if all of
the barriers to gene uptake occur and all the barriers to gene expression are overcome,
the likelihood that the gene will confer a positive trait for the bacterium is low . Most eukaryotic
genes aren’t going to be helpful for a prokaryote, such that the few useful genes are few and far between. Even if a bacterium was
able to uptake and express an antibiotic resistance gene from a genetically engineered plant, there would have to be selective
pressure (i.e. an environment that included the antibiotic that the gene conferred resistance to) in order for the gene to be
maintained in a bacterial colony. For more information about barriers to gene swapping, check out the EFSA Statement. Avoiding
the unlikely Despite
the fact that horizontal gene transfer from eukaryotes to prokaryotes is
so unlikely (the only known example was estimated to have happened 500 million years ago), there are still
precautions that can be taken to make it even more unlikely. For example, if antibiotic
resistance genes are used as selectable markers in genetically modified organisms,
researchers can avoid using sequences with homology to known bacterial genomes,
they can be sure to only use antibiotic resistance genes that include features that make
the gene unusable in bacteria, and they can avoid using promoters that are active in
bacteria, just to name a few. Alternative markers Another option is to find alternative marker
genes and alternative strategies. Herbicide resistance genes are an alternative selectable
marker. Visible markers like GFP or GUS are screenable markers. Marker genes can be
bred out, meaning that the final plant line will not contain the marker gene. Finally, it is
possible to use no marker genes at all, but that does require far more screening of adult plants which can add
expense and time to any project.
No risk and innovation solves – leads to solutions that overcome health
risks.
Hug 08 (Kristina Hug; Department of Medical Ethics, Lund University, Sweden Department of Health
Management, Kaunas University of Medicine, Lithuania; “Genetically modified organisms: do the benefits outweigh
the risks?”; Medicina; Febuary 1, 2008; https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/44/2/87) Accessed 7/11/21//eleanor
Suggested ways to tackle or avoid the GMO-related risks It has been argued that from
the available experimental
data, currently utilized GM plants appear safe and show no effects on animals or animal
products (16). It has also been stated that risks caused by the use of GM plants appear to be so low
that they should be negligible in comparison with their potential benefits (16). However, longterm risks for most conventional foods have never been analyzed (8). GM crops are novel foods, and the assessment of their safety
is essential to protect the environment, as well as the health of humans and livestock (16). It is also important to try to tackle the
risks related to the application of GMOs. The following proposals have been made: The
risk of unexpected gene
interactions could be tackled as follows: to predict gene interactions, the insertion of a
gene coupled with a promoter into a GMO chromosome could trigger the expression of a
neighboring gene for a toxin or allergen that was previously present but not expressed
(25). The risk of allergenicity could be tackled by assessing the stability of the novel
protein(s) to the processing of food and to digestive processes, since many allergenic
proteins are resistant to degradation (25). It is also advisable to avoid using plants
containing known allergens, such as peanuts and Brazil nuts, as sources of genes for
GM plants (25). The risk of HGT in the organisms fed with GM could be tackled by using
kanamycin, an unusual antibiotic as antimicrobial resistance marker (16). However,
antibiotic marker genes should be excised after the initial multiplication step, according
to the measure endorsed by EU since 2005 (EU directive 2001/18) (37). It has been estimated that the
likelihood of transfer of DNA from ingested food by gut microflora and/or human cells is
minimal (37) and thus the likelihood that a GMO’s gene construct resistant to antibiotics may
be transferred to gut bacteria is also small (16). It has been stated that after consumption, DNA
and DNA fragments are rapidly degraded by gastric acid and various enzymes in the
digestive tract, but this process may leave some fragment intact, which may be absorbed in the intestinal epithelia (27).
Perturbation of the long-established systems caused by genetic manipulation could be
tackled by manipulation techniques, which involve precise and predictable
manipulations, with minimum perturbation of the long-established systems (32). One of these
new techniques of DNA insertion is called transposon movement – it allows plants to relocate their DNA,
reducing the disruption caused by genetic manipulation (32). Extinction of native cultures
could be avoided by preventing the seeds of GM varieties from food aid donations from
being planted in the soil of countries objecting to introducing GM crops into their
territory (8, 10). This could be achieved by providing food aid in milled form (8, 10). The
establishment and maintenance of seed banks to conserve genetic resources of crop
plants is also important (8). Pollen-mediated transmission of transgenes could be avoided
by establishing appropriate separation distances between fields containing GM and
nonGM crops (8). Also, many GM crops are male sterile varieties which means that
pollination cannot occur (38). There are farming practices that can be deployed to
minimize what has been referred to as “genetic contamination” (10). It has been argued that
thanks to scientific research, a better understanding of technologies and to recent
provisions, most of the parties participating in the discussion on GMOs agree on the fact
that foodstuffs and ingredients originating from the current GM crops do not seem to
pose a hazard to public health (7). According to the judgment of the Nuffield Council of Bioethics, there is no
empirical or theoretical evidence that GM crops pose greater hazards to health than
plants resulting from conventional plant breeding (8). The Nuffield Council of Bioethics has argued that the
potential benefits of contemporary plant breeding, including those arising from the use
of genetic modification of crops, have been empirically demonstrated in some instances, and
have considerable potential in others, to improve agricultural practice and the livelihood of
poor people in developing countries while reducing environmental degradation (8). According
to this Council, there is an ethical obligation to explore these benefits responsibly, in order to
improve food security, profitable agriculture, and the protection of the environment in
developing countries (8). It has been argued that there is currently not enough evidence of actual
or potential harm to justify a moratorium on research, field trials, or the controlled
release of GM crops into the environment (10). Research on the use of GM crops in
developing countries should therefore be sustained and governed by a reasonable
application of the precautionary approach (10), and the views of farmers and other relevant stakeholders must
also be taken into account (8). It is equally important that governments and citizens of developing nations are involved in the
decision-making process on the use of GM crops in their countries (10).
AT: Bio D
GMOs do not decrease biodiversity – if their argument were true, it would
apply to artificial selection as well.
Hug 08 (Kristina Hug; Department of Medical Ethics, Lund University, Sweden Department of Health
Management, Kaunas University of Medicine, Lithuania; “Genetically modified organisms: do the benefits outweigh
the risks?”; Medicina; Febuary 1, 2008; https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/44/2/87) Accessed 7/11/21//eleanor
However, the arguments about the GMO threat to biodiversity also cause some criticism.
It has been argued that crop varieties which are used in agriculture already frequently
interbreed with their wild relatives, and, given that the systematic cultivation of plants
had begun by 6000 BC, humans have been influencing natural selection for a long time
(8). For example, we may question whether the rhododendron, which originated in Spain
and Portugal, should ever have been introduced into the UK, where it became invasive
and adversely affected the environment (8). Changes in nature cannot be undertaken
only if there can be absolute certainty that no risks are implied, since we do not apply
this requirement consistently in other cases where human intervention affects biological
and ecological systems (8).
1AC/2AC GMO’s Bad Internal Link
Ag subsidies boost corporate-led ag --- causes an increase in GMO’s
Quintanilla ‘13
(David, Candidate for Juris Doctor at St. Mary's University School of Law, Class of 2013,
“Comment: A Bitter Policy Shoved Down Our Throats: How A Once Admirable And Necessary
Agricultural Program Has Resulted In Major Profits For Big Business And Major Frustration For
Others,” Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis, pg nexus//um-ef)
Outdated and misguided subsidy policies continue to have negative effects on the nation's
health, environment, and immigration. 190 Additionally, many would argue that the costs
associated with these subsidies are far greater than any possible benefit they provide. The
problems generated from agricultural subsidies are only beginning. There are other serious
consequences from these policies. Corporate-led agriculture companies, buoyed by
government subsidies, have led the charge for genetically modified organisms (GMO), which
many farmers, scientists, and citizens fear will have disastrous results. 191 They argue that
utilizing a single genetic strain of a particular crop offers no protection against disease and thus
puts our food supply a risk. 192 In the fifteen plus years that GMO foods have been available,
"the industry has not released one product that benefits consumers." 193 The items that have
had commercial success "are used exclusively by commodity farmers , who for the [*375]
most part are dependent on government subsidies to make ends meet ." 194 Additionally,
even though we are the richest country in the world, we have "forgotten really what farming is
and what it is for." 195 We have lost the importance of food and its ability to bring together a
community, 196 instead we act as if it is just a commodity for someone's profit. The failed
policies and lingering inaction have resulted in a political stalemate. As a result of this
stalemate, on September 30, 2012, the farm bill expired. 197 The way forward is both uncertain
and perilous, but it is also an opportunity for change.
Regenerative Agriculture Advantage
1AC Regenerative Ag Advantage
Advantage 2 --- Regenerative Agriculture
First, federal ag subsidies impede the transition to regenerative agriculture
and destroy soil health --- undermines efforts at carbon sequestration
Arohi Sharma 19, policy analyst at the National Resource Defense Council, MA from Harvard
University, July, 2019, "How U.S. Agricultural Subsidies Degrade Land and Soil," Food Tank,
https://foodtank.com/news/2019/07/opinion-how-us-agricultural-subsidies-degrade-land-andsoil/ - MBA AM
On May 6th, the
United Nations released a summary of its Global Assessment on Biodiversity. The report finds that 23 percent
of the world’s agricultural lands are less productive than five years ago, even though global food
production has increased. How is that possible? In refreshingly bold language, the report comments on how agricultural
subsidies catalyze land degradation and biodiversity loss . Policy makers need to
consider how agricultural subsidy policies incentivize agricultural practices that harm
species and ecosystem health . This is the case in the United States, where the federal
government spends billions on agricultural subsidies through the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP). The
current structure of the FCIP fails to address the environmental and public health effects of
producing commodity crops intensively. Furthermore, the current structure of the FCIP does
not incentivize farmers to change their farming practices to more regenerative, soil
building methods. Instead of subsidizing degenerative agricultural practices through the FCIP, the federal government
should financially reward farmers who employ farming techniques that build soil health.
The Global Assessment states, “Harmful economic incentives…associated with unsustainable practices of fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture (including
fertilizer and pesticide use) …are often associated with [the] overexploitation of natural resources.”
Healthy soil is alive. One teaspoon of healthy soil has more life than there are people on the earth! The soil supports life like microorganisms, bacteria,
fungi, algae, and earthworms, and these microbes are critical because they provide nutrients, carbon, and water to plants. When the microbes in our
soil are well-fed and supported, our soil and our plants are healthier. Our
soil ecosystem is the greatest concentration
of biomass anywhere on the planet, and when the federal government pays crop
insurance subsidies without considering the practices that are used to grow those crops,
our soil microbiome pays the ultimate price. Our soil microbes matter because they:
Sequester Carbon : The microbes in our soil all need one thing to live: carbon. Our plants
pump excess carbon from the atmosphere into the soil to support microbial health and biodiversity. All the
microbes in the soil consume carbon, but when soil is contaminated by toxic pesticides, fungicides, and
insecticides, the harsh chemicals, microbes cannot thrive. Fewer microbes in the soil mean fewer organisms
to consume and sequester carbon in the soil. By spraying crops with harmful chemicals, we reduce the soil’s capacity to act as a carbon sink.
Retain Water and Use it more Efficiently: Mycorrhizal fungi, a critical component of the soil microbiome, provides nutrients
and water to plant roots. Mycorrhizal fungi, only found on living plant roots, build intricate highways through soil
so plants can access nutrients and water from faraway places, providing water security
during droughts. Impressively, healthy soil can hold up to 20 times its weight in water. When industrial agricultural
practices encourage farmers to till, to rip living roots out from the soil so their crop rows look “clean,” or to fallow
their fields and skip a growing season, mycorrhizal fungi populations are not supported.
When mycorrhizal fungi populations are not supported, soil cannot sequester as much water, and our crops are less resilient during drought.
Keep Our Food Healthy: When plants photosynthesize, they break down water and convert the energy from the sun to form sugars. Whatever sugars
the plant doesn’t use, it pumps into the soil to feed the microbes and fungi. In return, the fungi provide nutrients like organic nitrogen, phosphorous,
calcium, and zinc to the plant. Diverse fungi species help plants access a variety of nutrients, and this nutrient exchange keeps our plants healthy and
nutrient-rich. Monocropping, an industrial agriculture practice supported by agricultural subsidies, does not support mycorrhizal fungi diversity, so the
nutrient density of our fruits and vegetables suffers. The lack of biodiversity above ground affects the biodiversity below ground.
Unfortunately, the U.S.’ subsidized cropping systems do not support microbial health.
Almost one-third of the 320 million acres of harvested cropland in the U.S. is used to produce corn, and
another one-third is used to produce soybeans. Most of the corn and soybean crops are not
grown for human consumption—they are exported or used as feedstock for livestock production—but
they constitute two of the most heavily subsidized crops in the US. The table below breaks down the
types of degenerative practices that are supported by federal government subsidies. These degenerative practices do not support healthy soil, and in
fact, destroy the soil microbiome. The percentages represent the percentages of total corn or soy acres that employ specific degenerative practices.
For example, 97 percent of all corn acres in production apply synthetic fertilizers.
Chemicals and synthetic fertilizers promise short-term boosts in crop yields, but the
overapplication and reliance on
chemicals and synthetic fertilizers for commodity farms create inhospitable soil
conditions for soil microbes. Tillage rips apart the plant roots that feed our soil microbes. When soil is directly exposed to the sun,
moisture evaporates faster and soil temperatures increase, reducing microbial activity.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) advocates for regenerative agricultural systems that support microbial
biodiversity and soil health. The organization’s campaign to reform the FCIP aims to make it easier for
farmers who practice soil-building techniques to access the FCIP. States are also stepping up to the challenge and
implementing innovative crop insurance programs that reward farmers for adopting regenerative agricultural practices like cover cropping. NRDC also
worked with a diverse coalition of agricultural and business groups to successfully pass the Soil Health Demonstration Trial provision in the last Farm
Bill. The provision will reward farmers for adopting soil-building practices that sequester carbon in the soil. These efforts exemplify how governments
should flip the status quo and reward stewardship.
The Global Biodiversity Assessment is clear: Governments must reconsider the types of
agricultural systems that are supported by taxpayer dollars. For the last five years, the U.S. government
spent an average of US$9 billion in crop insurance subsidies through the FCIP . A significant portion of these federal
subsidies goes to commodity farms that employ agricultural practices that degrade soil
health, like nondiverse crop rotations, heavy fertilizer and pesticide use, and tillage. The billions of dollars of subsidies
paid by the federal government should not support degenerative agricultural practices. For
the sake of soil health, farmers should be rewarded for treating their farms as biodiverse, microberich ecosystems. Policy should incentivize soil building practices like crop diversity, cover crops, crop rotations, integrated livestock
management, and no-till.
The Global Biodiversity Assessment calls out the dangerous trajectory of current agricultural subsidies. We’ve hit the snooze button too many times on
subsidy reform, and it’s time for our policymakers to wake up to biodiversity losses perpetuated by this broken system.
Extinction
Lu, 17—Energy and Environmental Laboratories, Industrial Technology Research Institute
(Shyi-Min, “Soil and Forest: The Key Factors for Human Survival,” Journal of Sustainable
Development; Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017, dml) [gendered language modifications denoted by
brackets]
Soil erosion in agriculture is arguably one of the most devastating human activities or
behaviors for sustainable soil development. In the foreseeable future, there is almost no chance or
incentive to expand the scale of agriculture, so our existing soil management of arable
land is essential to the continued prosperity of [hu]mankind . However, although the importance of soil
and water conservation has been stressed, the implementation of measures to reduce soil erosion has not ever caught up with the
deepening of the problem. The most common phenomenon of soil erosion is caused by water. Before the native plant’s growth is
replaced by farming and cultivation of the mankind, the geological mechanism of the vast majority of mountain soil and water losses
as a result of human reclamation
and abusive construction, a large number of plant covers are removed. The natural loss
mechanism of the soil is changed, allowing the raindrops to displace the soil particles and then
to remove them by the slope flow, which is a more rapid soil loss process. In the absence of agriculture,
soil loss is only about 21 meters per million years (Wilkinson & McElroy, 2007). Today, the rate of soil erosion in the
United States can be more than 2,000 meters per million years , while in the Chinese Loess Plateau, in
part of which the soil loss rate is as high as 10,000 meters per million years (Sun et al., 2014). Basically, these lost
sediments will eventually be replaced by underlying sediments or rocks, biological
mechanisms, and newly converted soils with added organic matter and nutrients.
However, little has been known about the pace of this alternative process over the last
decade. Overall, the rate of soil erosion is currently around 400 meters per million years (Montgomery, 2007). In many analyzes,
is slow; basically, it is mainly a biologically driven creep (Kirkby, 1967). However,
the rate of soil production in the natural environment is between 50 and 200 meters per million years, and these data clearly indicate
that soil
erosion in many agricultural areas has so far not been sustainable . Not only does
soil erosion in agricultural areas lose the nutrients necessary for grain growth , but
unfavorable sedimentation also affects the local aquatic ecosystems , water bodies , and
aquatic ecosystems
(Figure 5) (Janisch & Harmon, 2002). Finally, in the face of accelerated soil erosion, maintaining or
even increasing agricultural production will increase the use of energy. Although plant microbial symbiosis can fix nitrogen in the
atmosphere into bioavailable forms or by means of human substitution like the Haber-Bosch process, but there is no biological
process or atmospheric resource to produce earth-derived or rock-derived nutrients (such as phosphorus, potassium, and calcium).
This issue is sufficient for the current agricultural policy-makers alerted.
Although soil can be produced, replaced or release nutrients naturally, the pace of these natural processes is still slow relatively to
the rate at which people use the land (Figure 6). When crops are transported from production sites to other sites, the
nutrients
provided by the soil for the need of plant growth will be reduced , leading to a fall in
production levels potentially (Jones et al., 2013; Levick & Asner, 2013), further deepening reliance on the
exploitation of geological resources and the distribution of large amounts of nutrients,
finally resulting in national economic and geo-political conflicts
(Cordell et al., 2009). The recent increase in the demand for phosphorus has led to a surge in the cost of phosphate rock, from $80
per tonne in 1961 to $450 per tonne in 2008. Prices have been fluctuating since then, now around $700 per tonne. In addition to the
cost increases, mining is also a difficult problem. According to estimated data, Morocco has the world's largest phosphorus
geological reserves, but most of them are located in disputed areas. On the other hand, the United States contains only about 2% of
the most productive phosphate sources
in the United States will be depleted in 20 years , forcing imports of phosphorus increasingly
the world's phosphate rock resources. According to current mining rate,
dependent, thus to maintain the demands from agriculture and industry sectors.
The major phosphorus-dependent countries lack the relative geological resources. In order to maintain their current use indefinitely,
besides the shift from production to import, the only means to maintain stocks is the establishment of consistency and integrated
the soil nutrient loss and animal waste
are regarded as a major problem of environmental and economic damage. Now, from the basic
recycling systems for phosphorus and other nutrients. In human society,
consensus in society, the waste recycling and resource control are very helpful for the reduction of imports and other resource
needs (Elser & Bennett, 2011). In
addition to phosphorus, other soil nutrients appear to have
entered a restricted or high demand era . Potash prices, for example, are expected to
rise from about $875 per tonne in 2009 to $1,500 per tonne in 2020.
5. Challenges of the 21st Century
soil cycles perturbation, so they are no
indirectly or directly affects the survival
The results of human reclamation of the earth's soil resources cause a number of
longer in equilibrium. The imbalance changes the nature of the soil and
of future generations , due to the Earth's climate change. Basically, the major principle of our soil management is to
restore the disrupted soil resource system back to the original regenerative function. The strategy to restore the balance of soil
should include following three soil elements: (1) organic carbon; (2) soil itself; and (3) nutrient. The ultimate goal of soil sustainability
is to manage the global soil resources and to promote the implementation of relevant programs and research projects, such as the
fixed nutrient quantity and the measurement of above-mentioned three elements of soil balance.
These goals are challenging and difficult to achieve. They need solutions to invest considerable human and material resources,
because the existing problem is too large. First, to achieve an effective solution for soil sustainability, innovative mechanisms or
institutions including highly cross-cutting research are needed, as are the models required to combat global climate change.
Second, the ultimate requirement for any innovation is the establishment of a dialogue and communication channel with
policymakers and public institutions, as the ultimate "decision-making" will involve large-scale social change. These interlocking
efforts will depend on the acquisition and delivery of innovative knowledge, as well as the continuous expansion, pursuit, and input
of different conceptual approaches to solve the problem. Our
current mission is to make the future of the
Earth's soil resources sustainable under our control in lifetime or within ability. In this critical twenty-first
century, we will witness the struggle course for mankind survival .
Regenerative ag facilitates a transition away from corn monocultures.
Rebecca Graham 21, a BA candidate in International Studies, May 2021, "Restoration
Through Regeneration: An Analysis of Agriculture in the United States," Arcadia University,
https://scholarworks.arcadia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1403&context=showcase – MBA
AM
For some farms, more control over livestock grazing is necessary and can be accomplished through rotational grazing practices. Rotational grazing
allows livestock to graze in specific areas of pasturelands, allowing unoccupied sections time to regrow stronger and healthier plant matter for future
grazing. The
use of rotational grazing restores the microbial balance of soil. Rotational grazing as a
animal agriculture stimulates healthy soil, which promotes resilient
plant and grass regrowth, which in turn becomes a nutritious and sustainable food
source for livestock (Regeneration International, 2017). Through the use of rotational grazing, farmers do not need to grow
practice of regenerative
corn and other livestock-specific feed crops, as the livestock in a sense become
responsible for the growing and consumption of their own food. This allows for arable
croplands to become diversified in their production of plant foods for human consumption,
creating an increase in food security.
Promoting the natural relationship that exists between animal and plant life cycles is
essential in achieving a balanced and sustainable food system. For some livestock farmers, this involves the use of adaptive multi-paddock (AMP)
grazing management. Adaptive multi-paddock grazing techniques build off of rotational grazing, while adding strategically sectioned zones for livestock
to graze within. By concentrating livestock into smaller sections of pasturelands, the animals are forced to graze within the bounds of that zone,
allowing plants to grow stronger roots. This promotes resilient and bountiful regrowth of grasses in the unoccupied sections (Teague, 2017). Cattle
The
utilization of AMP grazing management allows farmers to sustain their cattle on naturally
growing grasslands, making this regenerative farming technique both cost effective and
sustainable. Ultimately, these strategic grazing techniques supply livestock with food while promoting a healthy balance within the
rotate through these areas, grazing on the healthy grass regrowth while allowing the previously grazed areas time to regenerate.
agroecosystem.
The use of these grazing techniques creates healthy and bountiful plantlife on livestock farms. Healthy
plant life in grazing fields
promotes water retention as well as carbon sequestration, decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere (Teague, 2017). Soil and plants have the ability to store carbon, redirecting it from the atmosphere into the Earth in what is known as a
“carbon sink” (Payne, 2019). Currently in the United States, there are 762 million metric tons of greenhouse gases stored in the soil (Delonge, 2016).
While this offsets 11% of greenhouse gas emissions, it does not sequester enough carbon to prevent rising global temperatures (Delonge, 2016).
While it is still unknown to scientists exactly how much carbon can be absorbed into the soil, as these tests have only been conducted on small-scale
regenerative farms, regenerative agricultural practices lead the way in such discoveries (Delonge, 2016). Carbon sequestration through regenerative
The ability of regenerative
agriculture to restore the Earth’s natural ecological balance while yielding enough food
to sustain the global population proves this approach to be the most effective solution to
the negative impacts of industrialized agriculture. While these regenerative methods of livestock production offer
farming practices actively reverses the environmental destruction caused by industrialized agriculture.
environmentally sustainable solutions to the production of animal products, they must also be able to sustain the growing human population and the
increasingly large demand for meat. As the global demand for meat and dairy continues to rise, agricultural practices must be able to fulfill nutritional
needs for the growing population of the world.
Monocropping causes extinction
Jacques & Jacques 12—Peter J, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science,
University of Central Florida // Jessica Racine, MA, UCF department of sociology
[“Monocropping Cultures into Ruin: The Loss of Food Varieties and Cultural Diversity,”
Sustainability, Vol. 4, p. 2970-2997, Emory Libraries]
The loss of genetic diversity of thousands of plants and crops has been well
documented at least since the 1970s, and has been understood as a result of epistemological and political economic
conditions of the Green Revolution. The political economic arrangement of the Green Revolution, alongside a post-war focus on
economies of scale and export-oriented growth, replace high-yield single varieties of crops for a diverse array of varieties that may
not have the same yield, but may be able to resist pests, disease, and changing climatic conditions. Also, the harvest does not flow
Whereas small holder subsistence farming uses a large variety of crops
the industrial economic system requires simplified, machine
harvested ship-loads of one variety of maize, for example. Diverse varieties of different crops confound the
in all directions equally:
as a food source and small-scale trade,
machines, whereas one variety of wheat can be harvested with one setting on a machine. However, none of this is new. The
purpose of this article is to analyze how the twin concerns of lost varietals and lost cultures are bound together in the socio-political
process of standardization, and to explain some areas of resistance. 1. Introduction In the 1940s, Carl O. Sauer, a consultant to the
instrumental Rockefeller Foundation, warned against the basic design of what would become industrialized agriculture, a.k.a., the
agronomists and plant breeders could ruin the native
resources for good and all by pushing their American commercial stocks . The little agricultural work that
Green Revolution: A good aggressive bunch of American
has been done by experiment stations here [in Mexico] has been making that very mistake, by introducing U.S. forms instead of
working on the selection of ecologically adjusted native items.
The possibilities of disastrous destruction of
local genes are great (…). Mexican agriculture cannot be pointed toward standardization on a few commercial types
without upsetting native economy and culture hopelessly. (Letter from Sauer to Joseph Willits, director of the Rockefeller
Foundation's Division of Social Science quoted in [1], p. 82, emphasis added). Sauer’s concern for both the social and ecological
distress is remarkably prescient. Since the warnings of Sauer, the field of “biocultural” studies, which explores the “ultimate” link
between biological diversity and cultural diversity, emerged in the 1990s; and, this field has discovered critical links between cultural
and biological richness, indicating Sauer’s suspicions were only the beginning [2]. The study of biocultural diversity has shown that
the richest areas of language, ethnicities, and other cultural indicators, correlate and indeed coevolve with areas of both flora and
fauna diversity [3,4]. There is a now an incontrovertible link between plants, animals, and lands that people gain material and nonmaterial welfare from, and the knowledge systems, linguistic development, and cultural identity that grows with and within these
Biological diversity refers to the overall number of individual species
regardless of frequency , while evenness refers to “how similar the frequencies of the different variants are” ([5] p. 5326).
ecological niches.
Low evenness indicates variations are dominated by a single or few varieties and is a biological measure for homogenization of
The threats to biological diversity are fairly well understood, if
complex: loss of habitat, invasive forces that supplant endemic species subsistence,
predation, and introduced diseases [6–9]. The forces that threaten biological diversity
often threaten cultural diversity directly and indirectly, “(…) placing the world’s diversity in both nature
and culture increasingly at risk . This means no less than placing at risk the very basis of life on
direct concern to our proposition.
Earth as we know it: the natural life-supporting systems that have evolved on the planet, and
their cultural counterparts have dynamically coevolved with them since the appearance of Homo sapiens” ([10], p. 56,
see also [11,12]). Areas of rich biodiversity and cultural diversity show “parallel extinction risk” (indeed higher extinction risk than
birds and mammals) [13], in part caused by “dramatic loss of livestock breeds and agricultural varieties as well as traditions for
raising them, and erosion or obliteration of regional cuisines and foodways;” and, as diversity is being lost to homogeneity “almost
everywhere” “forces promoting homogeneity are playing an endgame on a global scale” ([14], p. 317). Further, Jarvis, et al., have
shown that there is a, “close linear relationship between traditional variety richness and evenness” where high evenness is
industrial agriculture in the U.S.
suppresses biodiversity ([15], see also [16]). Provided that decades of empirical work noted above
conclusively demonstrate that industrial agriculture reduces bioculture , this article develops a
supported by traditional farming communities [5]. Likewise, Lyson and Welsh, found that
political-sociology to explain how and why this relationship exists. Cultural and biological diversity co-evolve in complex and
industrial agriculture
selects only a few varieties for high yield, reducing evenness of both biological diversity
and cultural variations through several long-standing patterns of bioculture. “Crops are the direct product of human
selection on wild plant diversity” ([17], p. 450). In traditional farms, there is actually more diversity of
staple varieties than non-staples, indicating traditional agriculture cultivates variation
and difference at the farm and community levels [5]. If there are fewer cultures and knowledge to select a
constitutive feedbacks, and their losses are also complex. However, our argument is fairly simple:
narrowing range of crops, diversity in crops falls alongside the loss of culture. Indeed, between the wild relatives and the industrial
high-yield varieties, there has been a successive reduction of diversity. Initial selection of maize, for example, maintained only 57%
industrial agriculture has selected only five varieties of
the initial “tens of thousands of open-pollinated cultivars of corn ” ([17,18], p. 80). Food varieties
of the wild DNA diversity [17]. Of these varieties,
come from diverse ecological systems, and these ecological systems are the environments within which knowledge is molded and
encoded through language and culture as an adaptive response; therefore, homogenizing ecosystems through industrial agriculture
selects adaptive features of language and culture, while this same process inhibits and obstructs the cultivation and freedom for the
majority of biological organisms and cultures. Our purpose in this essay is to organize and propose a specific political sociology that
as
cultures and biodiversity are lost to a more powerful and homogenizing set of forces, we
do not need to wait for civilization collapse to occur, because these inter-dependent communities are
not being sustained, and collapse , in this way, is already upon us .
explains these concomitant efforts of homogenization which clearly threaten social and ecological sustainability. Indeed,
And, those ag practices ensure phosphorus will run out and lead to food
insecurity and global crises
Olukayode 19 (Toluwase Olukayode is a PhD Student at the Global Institute for Food Security, University of
Saskatchewan. Current interest is on how mRNA serve as signalling molecule communicating nutrient stress
between different organs in plant.; “Phosphate shortage: The dwindling resource required to grow food”; Phys.Org;
July 23, 2019; https://phys.org/news/2019-07-phosphate-shortage-dwindling-resource-required.html) Accessed
7/8/21//eleanor
By 2030, the world's population is projected to be about 8.5 billion people. Global food
security is a major concern for governments—zero hunger is the second most important of the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals. However,
there is a severe conflict between sustainable food
production and the use of nonrenewable resources in agricultural systems, particularly
phosphate . Phosphorous is a major mineral nutrient required by crop plants for optimal
growth and productivity. Phosphate is the only form of phosphorous that plants can
absorb—it is often applied to crops as phosphate fertilizer. Phosphate is obtained
through rock mining. Seventy percent of the world's phosphate reserves are located in North Africa. China, Russia,
South Africa and the United States all have limited quantities of the mineral rock. Finite
resources Scientists have reported that global phosphate production would peak around 2030,
at the same time the global population will reach 8.5 billion people. Several reports have also
warned that the global reserve would be depleted within the next 50 to 100 years. Current
agricultural practice involves the use of a high amount of phosphate fertilizer in order to
achieve optimal plant yield. This is because of the chemical properties of phosphate,
which interacts with soil particles in a way that makes it difficult for the plant to acquire,
leaving a large portion of the element in the soil surface . Because plants can only uptake small amounts
of phosphate,
a large majority of fertilizer ends up in unwanted places, like bodies of water ,
making these practices ecologically and financially unsustainable. It is only reasonable
to fathom that as phosphate becomes more expensive and may eventually run out, it not
only poses a food security threat , but may also pose political crisis between phosphate
rich countries and importing countries.
The impact is extinction and the risk outweighs climate change because
there are no solutions coming and peak will hit in 2030
Cox ‘21
(MA in English, words in The Ascent, PSILU, The Writing Cooperative, “Peak Phosphorus May
Be More Alarming Than Climate Change,” pg online @ https://medium.com/climateconscious/peak-phosphorus-may-be-more-alarming-than-climate-change-c6fd0fc69414 //um-ef)
Quotes crop scientist for ADAS
crop scientist for ADAS, “the UK’s largest independent
provider of agricultural and environmental consultancy.” He’s growing barley and other crops using “legacy
Roger Sylvester-Bradley is on a mission. He’s a
phosphorus” from previous harvests instead of industrial fertilizers rich with mined phosphate. He hopes to develop farming techniques that can meet
increasing global demand for food while reducing the use of phosphorus reserves. So far, he’s met with promising results; he continues to raise healthy
crops in defiance of expectations without adding a single new particle of phosphorus to his soil. Unfortunately, however, Sylvester-Bradley’s
experiments have not stopped business as usual on American industrial farms or their
counterparts around the world. Phosphorous is a nutrient that is key to life , but the world has a finite
supply, and that supply is running perilously short . Some studies estimate that global
phosphorus reserves will run out within 50–100 years . And, as early as 2030 , world
phosphorus production will likely reach its peak. When that happens, food prices will steadily climb
in conjunction with rising fertilizer costs. When the supply runs out, crops will fail and
the food web will collapse . Phosphorus depletion is, therefore, an extinction level emergency
more pressing than even global warming . Geopolitical Concerns Seven nations control 90% of the
world’s phosphorous supply. Morocco alone controls 75%, while the U.S., China, and a handful of other nations each have
considerable reserves. The price of phosphorous has increased dramatically in the last sixty years, rising from $80
per ton in 1961 to over $700 per ton in 2015. Given the uneven distribution of phosphorous throughout the
world, wealthy nations will likely starve last , though political strife and wars for food
could imperil even the most insulated countries . PRIO (Peace Research Institute Olso)
rates hunger as one of the most “reliable predictors of civil war.” If that is true, then even
relatively stable nations, like the U.S., can expect their citizens to one day fight for their food. The
recent civil war in Sudan is a prime example of what can happen in a starving nation;
cattle raids, systematic food theft, and farm sabotage were all consequences of vastly
overpriced food in Sudan. Syria and Yemen have also recently grappled with epidemic hunger; according to the U.N.’s World Food
Programme, the brutal conflicts over food in those nations “starkly demonstrate the unequivocal link between hunger and conflict.” Since
phosphorus shortages will affect every nation on earth , no one will be exempt from
hunger or the bloodshed it motivates. Resistance to Change Corn is big business in America.
According to Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft (Environmental Policy 2019), the United States produces enough corn to supply all 7.4 billion people
on Earth with over two bushels per year. Only 20% of the yield goes to human consumption, however; 40% is used in animal feed, while the remaining
40% is used to produce ethanol. And all
94 million acres of American corn crops are fertilized with
phosphorus. Furthermore, each crop is reared through “insurance based farming” — the
practice of “heaping on” phosphorus at a rate 9 times greater than what we consume in
food. The left over phosphorus, rather than finding its way to innovative phosphorus
capture systems in American sewage processing facilities, remains in the soil, washes to the sea, and pollutes rivers, lakes,
and streams . While corn is a staple food for both humans and livestock, federal mandates for ethanol in gasoline are political expediencies
designed to win favor in the corn belt. Fermenting corn into ethanol requires massive amounts of energy and water — more energy than ethanol yields
— and the process that produces it emits greenhouse gases on par with combustion engines. Ethanol, therefore, is not a solution to global warming.
Furthermore, because corn is its source, ethanol production is a leading cause of phosphorus depletion. Paradoxically, the more corn we grow now,
the less food we’ll have in the future. Nevertheless, the corn belt wields considerable influence in Washington and is adamantly opposed to any
proposed curbs to ethanol production. America is, therefore, wasting precious phosphorus reserves for a cause that benefits a handful of industrial
farmers whose produce is burned almost as often as it is eaten. Why No One is Sounding the Alarm While the science of climate change is settled,
estimates for phosphorus demand in the coming decades are widely debated and projections for fresh discoveries of phosphorus ore frequently
override concerns that our known supply is running short. Particularly worrisome is the USGS’s (United States Geological Survey) affirmation of the
International Fertilizer Development Center’s assessment that phosphorus reserves are bountiful enough to meet human needs for another 260 years.
The IFDC represents a vast financial stake in inorganic fertilizers and is, therefore, not a credible source for phosphorus studies. A 2014 review of the
IFDC report, conducted by The University of Amsterdam, concluded that the IFDC estimate of global phosphorus stocks “presents an inflated picture of
global reserves, in particular those of Morocco, where largely hypothetical and inferred resources have simply been relabeled ‘reserves.’” Still,
phosphorus depletion has no visibility in American culture and no traction as an issue on Capitol Hill. Despite The University of Amsterdam’s findings,
the USGS stands behind the IFDC’s assessment that phosphorus will remain readily available for centuries to come. Since the USGS is the United
States government’s most trusted advisor on environmental matters, its apathy toward peak phosphorus is reflected in official policy and in American
While personal boycotts of industrial farm produce might help us
sleep at night, they will have little effect on phosphorus consumption. We must write about peak
phosphorus, talk about it with our friends, neighbors, and coworkers, and raise the issue with our representatives in government and climate
advocacy groups around the world. Researchers like Roger Sylvester-Bradley are scrambling for solutions, but collective effort is required
to meet the challenge of phosphorus depletion and ensure the survival of life on Earth
for centuries to come.
life. All We Can Do Is Raise Awareness
And, a minimum of 9 billion will die without transitions in the U.S. to more
effective agricultural practices --- shifts can still stave-off peak phosphorus
Dolan ‘13
(Ed, Ph.D. in economics from Yale University. Early in his career, he was a member of the
economics faculty at Dartmouth “Doomsday: Will Peak Phosphate Get us Before Global
Warming?,” pg online @ https://oilprice.com/Metals/Commodities/Doomsday-Will-PeakPhosphate-Get-us-Before-Global-Warming.html //um-ef)
climate change catches the headlines, it is not the only doomsday scenario out there. A
peak phosphate—a catastrophic decline in output of an
essential fertilizer—will get us first. One of the worriers is Jeremy Grantham of the global investment management firm GMO. Grantham
foresees a coming crash of the earth’s population from a projected 10 billion to no more
than 1.5 billion. He thinks the rest of humanity will starve to death because we are running
out of phosphate fertilizer. This post on Business Insider from late last year provides an array of alarming charts to back up his warning. Foreign Policy
agrees that phosphate shortages are a potential threat . “If we fail to meet this challenge,” write contributors James Elser and Stuart
White, “humanity faces a Malthusian trap of widespread famine on a scale that we have not
yet experienced. The geopolitical impacts of such disruptions will be severe, as an increasing number of
Although
smaller but no less fervent band of worriers think that
states fail to provide their citizens with a sufficient food supply.” What is going on here? Is this really “the biggest problem we’ve never heard of,” as Elser puts it? Or are
phosphate shortages something that global markets can cope with? Let’s take a closer look. Why we need phosphates and why we are trouble if they run out The element
phosphorus is as essential to life as carbon or oxygen. It forms part of the structure of cell walls and DNA without which no plant or animal can exist. Phosphates are
phosphorus in chemical forms that are available to plants. Some phosphates occur naturally in the soil as the result of weathering of rocks, but since the dawn of agriculture,
farmers have added phosphate fertilizers to increase crop production. Manure, the traditional source, still accounts for about 15 percent of all phosphates used in agriculture, but
we appear to be running out of are deposits of
phosphate rock that can be mined at reasonable cost with today’s technology. Up to now, the United
since mid- twentieth century, most such fertilizer has come from phosphate rock. What
States has been a big producer, but its reserves are declining. China has a lot, but its domestic use is soaring and it is not a big exporter. North Africa has the biggest reserves,
but some of them are in politically unstable regions like the Western Sahara. The following widely reproduced diagram from a 2009 paper in Global Environmental
peak phosphorus hypothesis in the form of a “Hubbert curve” that shows production declining at an accelerating rate after hitting a
maximum around 2035. After that, say peak phosphate proponents, we are in big trouble .
Change depicts the
Can the market save us? Yes, a shortage of phosphates could spell trouble, but don’t forget about markets. Adjusting to shortages is just what markets
are for. As economists see it, depleting a resource like phosphate rock is supposed to cause its price to rise. As the price rises, two things are
supposed to happen. First, users are supposed to figure out ways to get by with less, and second, producers are supposed to find new sources of
supply. Will this happen in the case of phosphates, or do they have unique properties that will prevent markets from working their magic? Some think
a key difference between peak oil and
peak phosphorus, is that oil can be replaced with other forms of energy once it becomes
too scarce. But there is no substitute for phosphorus in food production. It cannot be
produced or synthesized in a laboratory. Quite simply, without phosphorus, we cannot produce
the latter. For example, the authors of the peak phosphorus diagram write that
food.
Fortunately, the biological impossibility of substituting some other element for phosphorus in food production is not enough to thwart the
operation of supply and demand in the phosphate market. One sign that the market is working is that phosphate prices are already rising. As the
following chart shows, the U.S. prices of two of the most commonly used phosphate fertilizers soared in the early 2000s. Along with the prices of many
other commodities, they dropped back from their peaks after the global financial crisis, but they are heading up again as the economy recovers.
The price increases have already had an impact on phosphate use. As the next chart shows, despite rising farm output, the growth
The question for the future is whether it is
technically feasible to increase food output further while actually reducing phosphate
use.
rate of phosphate fertilizer use has slowed over time.
Experts appear to think the answer is yes. A report published in Environmental Research
Letters estimates that improvements in farm management practices and consumer waste could
cut the phosphates needed to produce the present U.S. farm output by half, even with
today’s tech nologies. In the future, even greater reductions may be possible. According to Roberto Gaxiola of Arizona
State University, generations of phosphate fertilizer use have reduced the efficiency of phosphorus uptake by domesticated crop
plants. His experiments indicate that selective breeding and genetic engineering can produce plants that can flourish with much
lower phosphorus use.
US subsidy policy exports industrial ag globally---that causes extinction via
ecological collapse. The plan solves by facilitating a global transition to
sustainability.
Matthew R. Sanderson 21, a social scientist at Kansas State University, Stan Cox, a
research scholar in ecosphere studies at The Land Institute, 5-17-2021, "Big Agriculture Is
Leading to Ecological Collapse," Foreign Policy, https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/17/bigindustrialized-agriculture-climate-change-earth-systems-ecological-collapse-policy/ - MBA AM
Today, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than at any point in the past 3.6 million years. On April 5, atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeded
420 parts per million—marking nearly the halfway point toward doubling the carbon dioxide levels measured prior to the Industrial Revolution, a mere
171 years ago. Even amid a pandemic-induced economic shutdown—during which global annual emissions dropped 7 percent—carbon dioxide and
methane levels set records in 2020. The last time Earth held this much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, sea levels were nearly 80 feet higher and the
planet was 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer. The catch: Homo sapiens did not yet exist.
Change is in the air. U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines announced climate change is “at the center of the country’s national security and
foreign policy.” Business-as-usual is no longer a viable strategy as more institutions consider a future that will look and feel much different. In this
context, it is striking to read a recent piece in Foreign Policy arguing “big agriculture is best.”
“Big agriculture is best” cannot be an argument supported by empirical evidence . By now, it
is vitally clear that Earth systems —the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and biosphere—are in various phases of
collapse , putting nearly one-half of the world’s gross domestic product at risk and undermining the
planet’s ability to support life . And big , industrialized ag riculture— promoted by U.S.
foreign and domestic policy— lies at the heart of the multiple connected crises we are
confronting as a species.
The litany of industrial agriculture’s toll is long and diverse . Consider the effects of industrial animal
agriculture, for example. As of this writing, animal agriculture accounts for 14.5 percent of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
annually. It is also the source of 60 percent of all nitrous oxide and 50 percent of all methane
emissions , which have 36 times and 298 times , respectively, the warming potential of carbon
dioxide. As industrial animal agriculture has scaled up , agricultural emissions of
methane and nitrous oxide have been going in one direction only: up .
Efforts to scale industrial
agriculture are undermining the planet’s capacity to support life at more
local scales too. Consider Brazil, home to the Amazon Rainforest, which makes up 40 percent of all remaining
rainforest and 25 percent of all terrestrial biodiversity on Earth. Forest loss and species
extinctions have only increased as industrial agriculture has scaled up in Brazil. Farmers are
burning unprecedented amounts of forest to expand their operations in pursuit of an industrial model. In August 2019,
smoke blocked the sun in São Paulo, Brazil, 2,000 miles away from the fires in the state of Amazonas.
In India, the pace of agricultural industrialization is hastening as indicated by rising agricultural production and declining employment in agriculture,
which now accounts for less than one-half of India’s workforce. Agriculture has been scaled with all the tools of the Green Revolution: a high-input
farming system comprised of genetically modified seeds and accompanying synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. As agriculture has industrialized in
India, the use of pesticides and fertilizers has risen as well.
Although it has become more difficult to breathe the air in Brazil, it has become harder to find clean freshwater in India, where pesticide contamination
is rising. There, the costs of the industrial agriculture model are plainly ecological and human: Unable to drink the water or pay back the loans they took
out to finance their transition to industrial farming, an alarming number of Indian farmers are drinking pesticides instead. Almost a quarter-million Indian
farmers have died by suicide since 2000, and 10,281 farmers and farm laborers killed themselves in 2019 alone. In Punjab, the country’s breadbasket,
environmental destruction coexists with a raging opioid epidemic ensnaring nearly two-thirds of households in the state.
If the events in Brazil and India sound familiar to U.S. readers, it is because there
are analogous stories in the United
States—where industrial agriculture is rendering entire landscapes uninhabitable. The U.S.
Corn Belt, which spans the region from Ohio to Nebraska, produces 75 percent of the country’s corn, but around 35 percent of the
region has completely lost its topsoil. Industrial agriculture has been pursued with special zeal in Iowa, where there are 25
million hogs and 3 million people. There, water from the Raccoon River enters the state capital of Des Moines—home to 550,000 people—with nitrates,
phosphorus, and bacteria that have exceeded federal safe water drinking standards.
At a larger scale, nutrient
runoff from industrial agriculture in the U.S. Midwest has created an
annual dead zone —a hypoxic area low in or devoid of oxygen—that is the size of Massachusetts. The ecological
consequences of industrial agriculture manifest alongside a growing human toll. Rural
communities are experiencing rising suicide rates, especially among young people, along with increases in “deaths of despair” from alcohol and
drugs—an expanding human dead zone.
Although tragic, these
outcomes are neither inevitable nor natural. They are outcomes of U.S.
policy choices. Industrialized agriculture has been a hallmark of U.S. foreign policy in the
post-World War II era. Under the guise of development for all and the mantra of “feed the world,” the United States has used policy to
dump surplus grain in low-income countries—undermining markets for smallholder farmers—and cultivate
foreign markets as importers of high-input, industrial agriculture technologies to scale
agriculture. At home, federal policy since the 1970s has explicitly promoted scaling industrial
agriculture through the “get big or get out” imperative.
Society did not arrive at this precipice because agriculture was too small or because industrialized agriculture respected the laws of physics. Instead,
we are peering into an abyss of systemic socioecological collapse because every effort
has been made to use industrialization to break through all known ecological and human limitations to scaling agriculture.
Industrial agriculture simplifies ecosystems , rendering us more vulnerable to threats.
Transformative policies will be required to pull us back from the edge. As a start, the
United States could set an example for the Global North with a 50-year farm bill.
The bill would promote ecosystem diversification and increased resilience by reducing acreage of annual grain crops from 70 percent to 10 percent or
less of all cropland while scaling up perennial crops to 80 percent of farmland. The remaining 10 percent would be allocated to other crops, including a
diverse array of locally produced vegetables and fruits. Soil and water-conserving perennial varieties of rice, wheat, legumes, and other food-grain
crops—which are now being developed—could serve as components of diverse, perennial, multispecies communities of food crops that replicate how
nature functions. The bill would promote a transition to smaller, more diverse farm operations as
agricultural diversification will work most effectively not on vast, uniform acreages but as mosaics made up of many modest-sized farms.
The bill would be an important step toward returning home as a species that once again
lives within context—within limits, perennially. Our collective pursuit of “big is best” led
us out of context to our peril.
In the face of multiple cascading socioecological crises, Candide, published by the French writer Voltaire in 1759, shows us a way forward. Candide,
the book’s protagonist, is mentored by Pangloss, a professor who holds a Leibnizian optimism about the world that justifies the status quo as being “all
for the best” in the “best of all possible worlds.”
At the end of Candide and Pangloss’s travels, which laid all forms of disaster on them, the two encounter an old farmer who is casually taking in the
fresh air at his home. The farmer invites them into his house, where they eat and drink well. “You must have a vast and magnificent estate,” Candide
said to the farmer. “I have only twenty acres,” replied the farmer. “I and my children cultivate them; our labor preserves us from three great evils—
weariness, vice, and want.” Candide and the professor return to a small farm, and when the professor begins to philosophize again about how “all is for
the best” in the “best of all possible worlds,” Candide responds, “All that is very well, but let us cultivate our garden.”
As Candide stresses, it
is vital to move away from abstract, monocultural arguments proposing
business-as-usual as the best practice for all toward more practical work in more locally attuned, diversified
agricultures that respect limits—both ecological and human. It is time to scale down agriculture and enhance
our resilience to coming disruptions. The transitions will not be easy. We do not yet live in the best of all worlds, but things can be otherwise than as
they are. We
will need new agricultures and new policies to support them abroad and at
home. Let us cultivate our gardens.
Only a federal shift in subsidies solves --- farmers wont shift if crop
insurance exists --- shifting the subsidies causes farm down-sizing and
regenerative ag approaches
McKenzie ‘19
(Jessica McKenzie Jessica McKenzie is a freelance journalist in Brooklyn, NY. Previously, she
was the managing editor of the civic technology news site Civicist and interned at The Nation
magazine, “What happens if we eliminate crop insurance altogether?,” pg online @
https://thecounter.org/eliminate-crop-insurance-subsidies-regenerative-ag/ //um-ef)
Imagine for a moment, a possible future, some years ahead: Across the plains, acres that were once plowed up and planted to corn or wheat go back to native grass.
Marginal, flood-prone land is left to return to wetlands, improving water quality downstream. Farmers diversify their operations in order to effectively manage risk in a changing
Growers adopt practices like no-till and cover
cropping, which helps lower their inputs—the money spent on fertilizer, pesticides, seed,
climate. Monocropping is a thing of the past. Or this scenario, not so long from now:
and anything else they need to get a crop in the ground. They turn a profit with ease. They may even switch to cheaper, non-GMO seeds and see profit margins swell. In this
Land managers plant low-cost grasses and
other silage, and graze livestock on a portion of the land while the remaining acres are allowed to rest and regenerate. There’s always
something growing in the soil, anchoring nitrogen, helping retain rainwater, and
sequestering carbon. This is what American ag riculture could one day look like, according to
farmers, environmentalists, and economists. But first we’d have to get rid of federally subsidized crop insurance. More
than 300 million acres of cropland in the United States are covered by crop insurance. It’s absolutely
future tableau, cattle are turned out to pasture on land that was once intensively farmed.
essential to the success of American farmers and ranchers, at least according to the industry group, National Crop Insurance Services. It protects farmers from yield or revenue
losses caused by natural disasters like drought, flooding, pests, or disease—even market volatility. Although administered by private insurance companies, this “essential”
safety net is heavily subsidized.
The f ederal g overnment—the taxpayer, ultimately—chips in more than 60 percent of
the premium, with farmers paying, on average, less than 40 percent of the cost of coverage. That financial shield is a major
factor for farmers in deciding what to plant where , and how much to spend on fertilizer
and pesticides , because it essentially guarantees a minimum income on that land. But there have
also been some mostly unintended consequences. This includes confusing guidelines that have,
over time, discouraged farmers from planting cover crops like rye or clover, which anchor soil
and nutrients during the off-season, and help stabilize yields through years both dry and wet. Practices, in other
words, that could protect farmers from the very losses they end up needing crop insurance to recoup. This conundrum has prompted calls
for reform. Earlier this summer, I wrote about a time-consuming and costly effort to create crop insurance products that would reward farmers for adopting
regenerative agriculture practices that are restorative, maintain natural systems, and rebuild the topsoil, thereby defending land against the inevitable ravages of a warming
climate. Not long after my piece was published, someone popped into my Twitter mentions to make a case for what would be the most revolutionary reform of all: Toss out the
federally subsidized crop insurance program altogether. *** I followed up with some of the farmers who reached out to ask why they’d want to get rid of crop insurance and what
a world without it might look like. One of them happens to know the program inside and out. Scott Dudek grows open-pollinated seed corn on 120 acres in Michigan, less than
15 minutes from the Canadian border; he also works as a crop insurance adjuster. “I would like to see the subsidy part of it phased out,” Dudek says. “Let it become a private
product completely.” In his view,
farmers are entirely too reliant on crop insurance . “We’ll end up not being able to feed
ourselves or be a productive society because we’ve become reliant upon subsidies,” he says. While part of Dudek’s objection to subsidized crop insurance is rooted in his
libertarian politics and preference for small government, he also says that getting rid of the subsidy completely would force farmers to adopt more conservation practices. As it is
now, farmers don’t need to ensure that their soil is rich enough to sustain a crop even in
dry years because they can just get an insurance payout if their yields are sub-par.
Although there are a number of incentive programs to nudge farmers to start growing cover crops,
at both state and federal levels , they haven’t spurred widespread adoption . “We’re going to have to
become better stewards of the land going forward if we’re to remain profitable,” Dudek says. It’s not just farmers who take issue with crop insurance. The non-profit, nonpartisan Environmental Working Group (EWG) published a report in 2017, arguing that crop insurance policy as it exists now could lead us into another Dust Bowl. The report
singles out a particularly egregious provision, the Actual Production History Yield Exclusion, which was slipped into the 2014 farm bill and is exacerbating the inherent problems
with crop insurance. Here’s how crop insurance coverage is normally determined: Adjusters calculate the average yield of a crop in a specific area over many years, which gives
a reasonable estimate of what those acres might yield in the future. But the yield exclusion changes that equation, allowing farmers in some counties to exclude bad years from
that estimate. And not just one or two bad years, but up to 12. This essentially means farmers can rewrite history, and pretend that the region isn’t as arid or bad for crops as it
really is. “Even if bad years occur more often than good years, the bad years are treated as aberrations and the good years as normal,” the authors of the report write.
Crop insurance becomes a form of annual income support that encourages farmers to
keep planting crops that fail more often than they succeed.” This not only drives up the cost of subsidizing crop
“
insurance for taxpayers, it’s causing long-term damage to the environment and the American landscape. High crop insurance payouts discourage farmers from adapting to the
changing climate, and that could prompt another man-made environmental disaster like the Dust Bowl. Anne Weir Schechinger, a senior analyst at EWG and co-author of the
When you’re subsidizing crop insurance,
you have farmers planting riskier crops or bringing riskier acres into production,” Schechinger says. Studies show that
crop insurance encourages more farmers to plant corn, because it is subsidized at a
higher rate than other commodity crops, like soybeans. That may seem pretty innocuous, says Schechinger, until you
consider that corn is often planted in lieu of winter wheat, which holds the soil in place during
the colder months. So without winter wheat in the ground (or a cover crop like buckwheat
or clover, which are still rare) there is going to be more erosion, and more nutrient runoff. Schechinger says
that marginal land, or land prone to drought or flooding, is more likely to be brought into
production because of subsidized crop insurance. Although they might be riskier acres (read: more likely to fail) with drastically
2017 report, says the problems with crop insurance aren’t limited to the yield exclusion. “
different yields from one year to the next, farmers don’t pay the full premiums that account for that risk, so it’s still worth it to them to plant and take a chance. This has
the land is prone to drought or flooding, it’s also prone to soil
erosion and nutrient runoff, which degrade local water quality and can have serious consequences downstream, causing toxic
algal blooms in all types of water bodies and hypoxic dead zones in the ocean. “There was a period
environmental consequences: Because
where you could, as long as you planted corn, you were guaranteed a profit,” says Loran Steinlage, who farms 750 acres in Iowa. Although it used to be almost all corn,
Steinlage now grows corn, soybeans, buckwheat, rye, barley, and sunflowers, “a little bit of everything.” Steinlage says as soon as people figured out that planting corn virtually
guaranteed a profit, they started buying more land, raising rents and forcing out smaller operators. Sandra Kay Miller has also seen problems in Pennsylvania, where she raises
meat goats, lambs, and poultry on a 75-acre farm. “
I have watched, for the last 20 years, so many abuses of the
crop insurance program,” Miller says. “I’m so frustrated that this is what agriculture has come to.” Miller says she has seen wetlands that have never
been farmed before plowed up and planted. And year after year, the acres flood, and year after year, the crop insurance adjuster shows up. *** In theory, producers should not
be allowed to farm converted wetlands at all, or even highly erodible land, without a conservation system in place. But Seth Watkins says that enforcement of those rules is
nearly nonexistent. (It is left up to states to monitor and hold farmers accountable, and they have limited resources to do so.) Watkins is a fourth-generation farmer from
southwest Iowa. He runs a diversified operation on 3,000 acres, grazes around 600 cows, and grows a mix of alfalfa, hay, oats, and corn for silage. “What breaks my heart is
that, without some significant policy change, someone would buy it all up and turn it all into crops,” Watkins says. This possibility bothered him so much that he recently put his
land into a conservation trust to ensure that will never happen. Watkins doesn’t actually want to get rid of crop insurance, or at least, he doesn’t want to deprive farmers of a
safety net. “Our food system is pretty complex,” Watkins says. “I think the idea of
revenue protection is great, as long as it’s
supporting appropriate land use. What bothers me with federal crop insurance is it’s created an incentive to farm land that shouldn’t be farmed.”
The problems with crop insurance have united a number of unlikely allies. On one side, you have environmental groups advocating for significant reforms to the federal
program. This includes EWG and the Union of Concerned Scientists. On the other, you have conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute arguing
for outright elimination (or, barring that possibility, significant reforms). In a hefty 2016 report, the Heritage Foundation called the crop insurance program a “complete failure”
and argued that it should have been eliminated decades ago. “Federal coddling of the agriculture industry is deep and comprehensive,” Chris Edwards, director of tax policy
studies at Cato, wrote in 2018. “Farm subsidies are costly to taxpayers, but they also harm the economy and the environment.” Some of the problems that these conservative
think tanks identify are issues that might just as likely be championed by progressive organizations. For example: Farm subsidies, including crop insurance, further concentrate
wealth among the already-wealthy. Edwards notes that, in 2016, the average income of farm households was 42 percent higher than the average American household. And the
benefits may not actually be going to the growers; the authors of the Heritage report wryly observe that “reviews of agricultural programs have repeatedly found tens of millions
the
majority of crop insurance benefits go to producers of cash crops, like soybeans, rather
than fruit and vegetable growers, or the people who epitomize our very idea of “farmer.” Eliminating crop insurance
would force every grower to be more creative, and more careful. Suddenly, they would have to
manage all of the risks of farming themselves. Conservative economists like Edwards argue that farmers are more than up to it.
Business risk is not unique to farming, and other business owners and operators figure out ways to manage it, he says. They save during good years, and borrow during bad. If
the government-subsidized program disappeared, private insurance companies would
create a range of crop insurance products that farmers could choose from. Edwards adds that
farmers could diversify their planting to protect themselves from volatile markets or fluctuating yields, something many
of dollars in agricultural subsidies annually going to residents of such agriculture powerhouses as New York City and Washington, D.C.” Then there’s the fact that
of the farmers I spoke with for this story have already done. More farmers might pursue secondary or part-time work to supplement their farming income (again many, like
larger operations would be forced to downsize , which could make
those acres available to a greater number of farmers. The Heritage Foundation also says that crop insurance
artificially inflates the value of land, which can make it harder than it already is for new,
beginner farmers to enter the profession.
Dudek, already do). Dudek says that some
Phosphorus Scenario
1AC Phosphorus
Current ag practices ensures phosphorus will run out and lead to food
insecurity and global crises
Olukayode 19 (Toluwase Olukayode is a PhD Student at the Global Institute for Food Security, University of
Saskatchewan. Current interest is on how mRNA serve as signalling molecule communicating nutrient stress
between different organs in plant.; “Phosphate shortage: The dwindling resource required to grow food”; Phys.Org;
July 23, 2019; https://phys.org/news/2019-07-phosphate-shortage-dwindling-resource-required.html) Accessed
7/8/21//eleanor
By 2030, the world's population is projected to be about 8.5 billion people. Global food
security is a major concern for governments—zero hunger is the second most important of the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals. However,
there is a severe conflict between sustainable food
production and the use of nonrenewable resources in agricultural systems, particularly
phosphate. Phosphorous is a major mineral nutrient required by crop plants for optimal
growth and productivity. Phosphate is the only form of phosphorous that plants can
absorb—it is often applied to crops as phosphate fertilizer. Phosphate is obtained
through rock mining. Seventy percent of the world's phosphate reserves are located in North Africa. China, Russia,
South Africa and the United States all have limited quantities of the mineral rock. Finite
resources Scientists have reported that global phosphate production would peak around 2030,
at the same time the global population will reach 8.5 billion people. Several reports have also
warned that the global reserve would be depleted within the next 50 to 100 years. Current
agricultural practice involves the use of a high amount of phosphate fertilizer in order to
achieve optimal plant yield. This is because of the chemical properties of phosphate,
which interacts with soil particles in a way that makes it difficult for the plant to acquire,
leaving a large portion of the element in the soil surface . Because plants can only uptake small amounts
of phosphate,
a large majority of fertilizer ends up in unwanted places, like bodies of water ,
making these practices ecologically and financially unsustainable. It is only reasonable
to fathom that as phosphate becomes more expensive and may eventually run out, it not
only poses a food security threat , but may also pose political crisis between phosphate
rich countries and importing countries.
The impact is extinction and the risk outweighs climate change because
there are no solutions coming and peak will hit in 2030
Cox ‘21
(MA in English, words in The Ascent, PSILU, The Writing Cooperative, “Peak Phosphorus May
Be More Alarming Than Climate Change,” pg online @ https://medium.com/climateconscious/peak-phosphorus-may-be-more-alarming-than-climate-change-c6fd0fc69414 //um-ef)
Quotes crop scientist for ADAS
crop scientist for ADAS, “the UK’s largest independent
provider of agricultural and environmental consultancy.” He’s growing barley and other crops using “legacy
Roger Sylvester-Bradley is on a mission. He’s a
phosphorus” from previous harvests instead of industrial fertilizers rich with mined phosphate. He hopes to develop farming techniques that can meet
increasing global demand for food while reducing the use of phosphorus reserves. So far, he’s met with promising results; he continues to raise healthy
crops in defiance of expectations without adding a single new particle of phosphorus to his soil. Unfortunately, however, Sylvester-Bradley’s
experiments have not stopped business as usual on American industrial farms or their
counterparts around the world. Phosphorous is a nutrient that is key to life , but the world has a finite
supply, and that supply is running perilously short . Some studies estimate that global
phosphorus reserves will run out within 50–100 years . And, as early as 2030 , world
phosphorus production will likely reach its peak. When that happens, food prices will steadily climb
in conjunction with rising fertilizer costs. When the supply runs out, crops will fail and
the food web will collapse . Phosphorus depletion is, therefore, an extinction level emergency
more pressing than even global warming . Geopolitical Concerns Seven nations control 90% of the
world’s phosphorous supply. Morocco alone controls 75%, while the U.S., China, and a handful of other nations each have
considerable reserves. The price of phosphorous has increased dramatically in the last sixty years, rising from $80
per ton in 1961 to over $700 per ton in 2015. Given the uneven distribution of phosphorous throughout the
world, wealthy nations will likely starve last , though political strife and wars for food
could imperil even the most insulated countries . PRIO (Peace Research Institute Olso)
rates hunger as one of the most “reliable predictors of civil war.” If that is true, then even
relatively stable nations, like the U.S., can expect their citizens to one day fight for their food. The
recent civil war in Sudan is a prime example of what can happen in a starving nation;
cattle raids, systematic food theft, and farm sabotage were all consequences of vastly
overpriced food in Sudan. Syria and Yemen have also recently grappled with epidemic hunger; according to the U.N.’s World Food
Programme, the brutal conflicts over food in those nations “starkly demonstrate the unequivocal link between hunger and conflict.” Since
phosphorus shortages will affect every nation on earth , no one will be exempt from
hunger or the bloodshed it motivates. Resistance to Change Corn is big business in America.
According to Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft (Environmental Policy 2019), the United States produces enough corn to supply all 7.4 billion people
on Earth with over two bushels per year. Only 20% of the yield goes to human consumption, however; 40% is used in animal feed, while the remaining
40% is used to produce ethanol. And all
94 million acres of American corn crops are fertilized with
phosphorus. Furthermore, each crop is reared through “insurance based farming” — the
practice of “heaping on” phosphorus at a rate 9 times greater than what we consume in
food. The left over phosphorus, rather than finding its way to innovative phosphorus
capture systems in American sewage processing facilities, remains in the soil, washes to the sea, and pollutes rivers, lakes,
and streams . While corn is a staple food for both humans and livestock, federal mandates for ethanol in gasoline are political expediencies
designed to win favor in the corn belt. Fermenting corn into ethanol requires massive amounts of energy and water — more energy than ethanol yields
— and the process that produces it emits greenhouse gases on par with combustion engines. Ethanol, therefore, is not a solution to global warming.
Furthermore, because corn is its source, ethanol production is a leading cause of phosphorus depletion. Paradoxically, the more corn we grow now,
the less food we’ll have in the future. Nevertheless, the corn belt wields considerable influence in Washington and is adamantly opposed to any
proposed curbs to ethanol production. America is, therefore, wasting precious phosphorus reserves for a cause that benefits a handful of industrial
farmers whose produce is burned almost as often as it is eaten. Why No One is Sounding the Alarm While the science of climate change is settled,
estimates for phosphorus demand in the coming decades are widely debated and projections for fresh discoveries of phosphorus ore frequently
override concerns that our known supply is running short. Particularly worrisome is the USGS’s (United States Geological Survey) affirmation of the
International Fertilizer Development Center’s assessment that phosphorus reserves are bountiful enough to meet human needs for another 260 years.
The IFDC represents a vast financial stake in inorganic fertilizers and is, therefore, not a credible source for phosphorus studies. A 2014 review of the
IFDC report, conducted by The University of Amsterdam, concluded that the IFDC estimate of global phosphorus stocks “presents an inflated picture of
global reserves, in particular those of Morocco, where largely hypothetical and inferred resources have simply been relabeled ‘reserves.’” Still,
phosphorus depletion has no visibility in American culture and no traction as an issue on Capitol Hill. Despite The University of Amsterdam’s findings,
the USGS stands behind the IFDC’s assessment that phosphorus will remain readily available for centuries to come. Since the USGS is the United
States government’s most trusted advisor on environmental matters, its apathy toward peak phosphorus is reflected in official policy and in American
While personal boycotts of industrial farm produce might help us
sleep at night, they will have little effect on phosphorus consumption. We must write about peak
phosphorus, talk about it with our friends, neighbors, and coworkers, and raise the issue with our representatives in government and climate
life. All We Can Do Is Raise Awareness
advocacy groups around the world. Researchers like Roger Sylvester-Bradley are scrambling for solutions, but collective effort is required
to meet the challenge of phosphorus depletion and ensure the survival of life on Earth
for centuries to come.
And, a minimum of 9 billion will die without transitions in the U.S. to more
effective agricultural practices --- shifts can still stave-off peak phosphorus
Dolan ‘13
(Ed, Ph.D. in economics from Yale University. Early in his career, he was a member of the
economics faculty at Dartmouth “Doomsday: Will Peak Phosphate Get us Before Global
Warming?,” pg online @ https://oilprice.com/Metals/Commodities/Doomsday-Will-PeakPhosphate-Get-us-Before-Global-Warming.html //um-ef)
climate change catches the headlines, it is not the only doomsday scenario out there. A
smaller but no less fervent band of worriers think that peak phosphate—a catastrophic decline in output of an
essential fertilizer—will get us first. One of the worriers is Jeremy Grantham of the global investment management firm GMO. Grantham
foresees a coming crash of the earth’s population from a projected 10 billion to no more
than 1.5 billion. He thinks the rest of humanity will starve to death because we are running
out of phosphate fertilizer. This post on Business Insider from late last year provides an array of alarming charts to back up his warning. Foreign Policy
agrees that phosphate shortages are a potential threat . “If we fail to meet this challenge,” write contributors James Elser and Stuart
White, “humanity faces a Malthusian trap of widespread famine on a scale that we have not
yet experienced. The geopolitical impacts of such disruptions will be severe, as an increasing number of
Although
states fail to provide their citizens with a sufficient food supply.” What is going on here? Is this really “the biggest problem we’ve never heard of,” as Elser puts it? Or are
phosphate shortages something that global markets can cope with? Let’s take a closer look. Why we need phosphates and why we are trouble if they run out The element
phosphorus is as essential to life as carbon or oxygen. It forms part of the structure of cell walls and DNA without which no plant or animal can exist. Phosphates are
phosphorus in chemical forms that are available to plants. Some phosphates occur naturally in the soil as the result of weathering of rocks, but since the dawn of agriculture,
farmers have added phosphate fertilizers to increase crop production. Manure, the traditional source, still accounts for about 15 percent of all phosphates used in agriculture, but
we appear to be running out of are deposits of
phosphate rock that can be mined at reasonable cost with today’s technology. Up to now, the United
since mid- twentieth century, most such fertilizer has come from phosphate rock. What
States has been a big producer, but its reserves are declining. China has a lot, but its domestic use is soaring and it is not a big exporter. North Africa has the biggest reserves,
but some of them are in politically unstable regions like the Western Sahara. The following widely reproduced diagram from a 2009 paper in Global Environmental
peak phosphorus hypothesis in the form of a “Hubbert curve” that shows production declining at an accelerating rate after hitting a
maximum around 2035. After that, say peak phosphate proponents, we are in big trouble .
Change depicts the
Can the market save us? Yes, a shortage of phosphates could spell trouble, but don’t forget about markets. Adjusting to shortages is just what markets
are for. As economists see it, depleting a resource like phosphate rock is supposed to cause its price to rise. As the price rises, two things are
supposed to happen. First, users are supposed to figure out ways to get by with less, and second, producers are supposed to find new sources of
supply. Will this happen in the case of phosphates, or do they have unique properties that will prevent markets from working their magic? Some think
a key difference between peak oil and
peak phosphorus, is that oil can be replaced with other forms of energy once it becomes
too scarce. But there is no substitute for phosphorus in food production. It cannot be
produced or synthesized in a laboratory. Quite simply, without phosphorus, we cannot produce
the latter. For example, the authors of the peak phosphorus diagram write that
food.
Fortunately, the biological impossibility of substituting some other element for phosphorus in food production is not enough to thwart the
operation of supply and demand in the phosphate market. One sign that the market is working is that phosphate prices are already rising. As the
following chart shows, the U.S. prices of two of the most commonly used phosphate fertilizers soared in the early 2000s. Along with the prices of many
other commodities, they dropped back from their peaks after the global financial crisis, but they are heading up again as the economy recovers.
The price increases have already had an impact on phosphate use. As the next chart shows, despite rising farm output, the growth
The question for the future is whether it is
technically feasible to increase food output further while actually reducing phosphate
use.
rate of phosphate fertilizer use has slowed over time.
Experts appear to think the answer is yes. A report published in Environmental Research
Letters estimates that improvements in farm management practices and consumer waste could
cut the phosphates needed to produce the present U.S. farm output by half, even with
today’s tech nologies. In the future, even greater reductions may be possible. According to Roberto Gaxiola of Arizona
State University, generations of phosphate fertilizer use have reduced the efficiency of phosphorus uptake by domesticated crop
plants. His experiments indicate that selective breeding and genetic engineering can produce plants that can flourish with much
lower phosphorus use.
Internals: Bad Farming = No Phosphorus
Overuse of fertilizer causes phosphorus shortages, water pollution, and
algae blooms – collapses agriculture and the environment – more efficient
uses of phosphorous is key.
Rosen 20 (Julia Rosen is a reporter covering science and the environment; “Farmers are facing a
phosphorus crisis. The solution starts with soil.”; National Geographic; October 14, 2020;
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/farmers-are-facing-a-phosphorus-crisis-the-solutionstarts-with-soil) Accessed 7/5/21//eleanor
That’s something of a surprise to Sylvester-Bradley, a crop scientist at ADAS, an agricultural consulting company in Cambridge,
England. Phosphorus
occurs naturally in soil and is a critical nutrient for plant growth. For
centuries, farmers have added extra to their fields to boost harvests, but Sylvester-Bradley and his
colleagues are studying ways to produce food using less of it. The reasons are twofold: First, phosphorus runoff from
farms contributes to widespread water pollution . Second, we don’t have phosphorus to
waste. Nearly all of the phosphorus that farmers use today—and that we consume in the food we eat—is
mined from a few sources of phosphate rock, mainly in the United States, China, and Morocco. By some
estimates, those could run out in as little as 50 to 100 years. Geologists know of other deposits, but they are
harder to access and contain less phosphorus. Thus, the price will likely rise , making it harder for
growers to afford fertilizer and for people to afford food. Here and at other experimental sites in
England, Sylvester-Bradley and his colleagues have taken a first commonsense step toward addressing the problem:
They stopped adding phosphorus fertilizer to half the barley field to see how the plants
would fare. Eight years later, they have only just started to observe the first effects on crop size and yield. The plants
have survived on the excess nutrients in the soil—so-called legacy phosphorus—which some
say represents a key piece of the phosphorus puzzle. Researchers have calculated that, in countries
like the United Kingdom and the United States, there is already billions of dollars’ worth
of fertilizer in the ground that could help offset demand for mined phosphorus. Using it
up would also curb phosphorus runoff. To Paul Withers, a soil scientist at Lancaster University and one of
Sylvester-Bradley’s collaborators, tapping into legacy phosphorus is a no-brainer and continuing with the status quo
is a recipe for both ecological and humanitarian disaster . “We can’t have agriculture polluting the
environment and using resources the way we are,” Withers says. “It’s just going to cause a meltdown in the
end.” A devious nutrient Phosphorus is a non-negotiable requirement for life. It’s the backbone of DNA
and the P in ATP—the molecule that carries energy around cells. Plants need phosphorus to grow, which is
why farmers have been feeding it to their crops for millennia. At first, and without understanding the
chemistry, people used manure and human waste as fertilizer. Then in the 1800s farmers recognized that phosphorus-rich bones
and rocks worked too. In 1842 an Oxford University dropout named John Bennet Lawes patented a process for treating these new
mineral forms of phosphorus with acid, making the nutrient more accessible to plants, and soon began selling the world’s first
human-made fertilizer. Lawes plowed his considerable profits back into research at his family’s country estate, which later became
the Rothamsted Research center. And there, scientists
discovered that phosphorus was a somewhat
devious nutrient. The fertilizer Lawes manufactured contained a soluble, inorganic form of phosphorus that plants can
readily use. But as soon as the phosphorus hit the soil, a large fraction of it reacted with soil minerals, forming compounds that
crops can’t access. Some also got locked away in equally unavailable organic forms. From those observations, scientists concluded
that farmers shouldn’t scrimp on phosphorus. They should heap it on, especially as they raced to feed the world’s growing
populations during the 20th century. In fact, it was once Withers’ job to spread the word. As a government farm advisor in the 1980s,
he drove a red Volvo station wagon around the winding roads of rural England telling farmers to make sure their crops got plenty of
key nutrients. This method, which Withers calls “insurance-based farming,” still prevails in many parts of the world. In Europe,
farmers apply roughly 4 kilograms of phosphorus for each kilogram that we consume in food. For U.S. diets, that ratio is about 9 to
1, and in China, it may be as high as 13 to 1. (There are crucial exceptions in places where farmers have never had adequate
Phosphorus is lost at many stages
of food production and processing. But these inefficiencies pose a problem as looming
changes in phosphorus availability and price threaten to destabilize the world’s food
access to phosphorus fertilizer, like many parts of Africa and South America.)
system , Withers says. “We’ve sort of gone over the top and we’ve come back to
vulnerability.” To make matters worse, some unused fertilizer builds up in the soil, which causes
environmental problems long after it’s applied, says Helen Jarvie, a hydrochemist at the Centre for Ecology
and Hydrology in Wallingford, U.K. Her research shows that it slowly leaks into the environment for decades,
confounding well-intentioned efforts by landowners to reduce nutrient pollution. Even
small amounts of phosphorus runoff from farms and sewage are enough to fuel algal
blooms that fill waterways with festering green scum. Sometimes, like in Lake Erie, they produce
toxins that can foul drinking water and use up dissolved oxygen , killing fish and other
aquatic life. According to one study, phosphorus pollution affects nearly 40 percent of Earth’s
land areas. And the damage adds up. By one estimate, the impacts of excess phosphorus
and nitrogen—another key nutrient—on water quality and ecosystems cost $2.2 billion
per year in the U.S. alone. A slam dunk for plants? If legacy phosphorus is an environmental liability, it is also a
tremendous opportunity, according to Withers and other scientists. He and his colleagues calculated in a 2015 study that fields in
the United Kingdom contain more than $10 billion worth of phosphorus, enough to meet the country’s fertilizer demand for up to 54
years. Many
other nations possess similar reserves. A 2012 analysis found that global soils contain
enough legacy phosphorus to cut the projected demand for new fertilizer in half by 2050.
“The plants can use our mistakes from the past,” says Sheida Sattari, lead author of the study. By the numbers, legacy phosphorus
looks like a slam dunk. But can plants actually live on it? Studies suggest that, in
places with long histories of
phosphorus overuse, like the U.K., crops can thrive for 10 years or more on the stores built up in the ground. The most
extreme example comes from Saskatchewan, where researchers haven’t added phosphorus to plots of wheat since 1995. Twentyfive years later they still haven’t seen problems. Conventional measures of soil chemistry suggest they should apply more fertilizer,
says Barbara Cade-Menun, who oversees the experiments at the Swift Current Research and Development Center in Canada. “But
as plants use up the readily available phosphorus in the
fields, soil minerals and organic matter release more of the nutrient. Cade-Menun doesn’t yet know
our yields aren’t changing.” Scientists think that
whether changes in soil chemistry, soil microbes, or plants themselves can explain what’s happening in her plots. Regardless, the
results suggest that those inaccessible forms of phosphorus that the Rothamsted researchers fretted about aren’t quite as off-limits
as scientists once thought. And that means just cutting
back on fertilizer could go a long way to meeting
phosphorus demand and reducing runoff without jeopardizing harvests.
Impacts: Phos Deplete Bad
Phosphorous depletion causes wars
Charly Faradji 16, Doctor of Philosophy Student, Chemistry, University of Bristol, “How the
great phosphorus shortage could leave us short of food,” 2/17/16, https://phys.org/news/201602-great-phosphorus-shortage-short-food.html
It's not as well-known as the other issues, but phosphorus
depletion is no less significant. After all, we could live
without cars or unusual species, but if phosphorus ran out we'd have to live without food .¶
Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for all forms of life . It is a key element in our DNA and all living
organisms require daily phosphorus intake to produce energy. It cannot be replaced and there is no synthetic
substitute: without phosphorus, there is no life.¶ Our dependence began in the mid-19th century, after farmers
noticed spreading phosphorus-rich guano (bird excrement) on their fields led to impressive improvements in crop yields. Soon after,
mines opened up in the US and China to extract phosphate ore – rocks which contain the useful mineral. This triggered the current
use of mineral fertilisers and, without this industrial breakthrough, humanity could only produce half the food that it does today.¶
Fertiliser use has quadrupled over the past half century and will continue rising as the
population expands. The growing wealth of developing countries allows people to afford
more meat which has a "phosphorus footprint" 50 times higher than most vegetables. This,
together with the increasing usage of biofuels, is estimated to double the demand for phosphorus fertilisers by 2050.¶ Today
phosphorus is also used in pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, catalysts for chemical industries, building
materials, cleaners, detergents and food preservatives.¶ Phosphorus is not a renewable resource¶ Reserves are limited and not
equally spread over the planet. The only large mines are located in Morocco, Russia, China and the US. Depending on which
scientists you ask, the world's phosphate rock reserves will last for another 35 to 400 years – though the more optimistic
assessments rely on the discovery of new deposits.¶ It's a big concern for the EU and other countries without their own reserves,
and phosphorus
depletion could lead to geopolitical tensions . Back in 2008, when fertiliser
prices sharply increased by 600% and directly influenced food prices, there were violent riots in 40
different developing countries.¶ Phosphorus also harms the environment. Excessive fertiliser use means it leaches
from agricultural lands into rivers and eventually the sea, leading to so-called dead zones where most fish can't survive. Uninhibited
algae growth caused by high levels of phosphorus in water has already created more than 400 coastal death zones worldwide.
Related human poisoning costs US$2.2 billion dollars annually in the US alone.¶ With the increasing demand for phosphorus leading
to massive social and environmental issues, it's time we looked towards more sustainable and responsible use. ¶ There is still hope¶
In the past, the phosphorus cycle was closed: crops were eaten by humans and livestock while their faeces
were used as natural fertilisers to grow crops again. ¶ These days, the cycle is broken. Each year 220m tonnes of
phosphate rocks are mined, but only a negligible amount makes it back into the soil. Crops are transported to cities and the waste is
not returned to the fields but to the sewage system, which mainly ends up in the sea. A cycle has become a linear process. ¶ We
could reinvent a modern phosphorus cycle simply by dramatically reducing our
consumption . After all, less than a third of the phosphorus in fertilisers is actually taken up by plants; the rest accumulates in
the soil or is washed away. To take one example, in the Netherlands there is enough phosphorus in the soil today to supply the
country with fertiliser for the next 40 years.
Extinction—scaling down is key
Faradji and de Boer, 16—Marie Curie research fellow at the University of Bristol AND
Researcher and European Project Manager of SusPhos at the VU University in Amsterdam
(Charly and Marissa, “How the great phosphorus shortage could leave us short of food,”
https://phys.org/news/2016-02-great-phosphorus-shortage-short-food.html, dml)
It's not as well-known as the other issues, but phosphorus depletion is no less significant. After all, we could live without cars or
unusual species, but if
phosphorus ran out we'd have to live without food .
Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for all forms of life . It is a key element in our DNA and all living
organisms require daily phosphorus intake to produce energy. It cannot be replaced
and there is no synthetic substitute: without phosphorus, there is no life .
Our dependence began in the mid-19th century, after farmers noticed spreading phosphorus-rich guano (bird excrement) on their
fields led to impressive improvements in crop yields. Soon after, mines opened up in the US and China to extract phosphate ore –
rocks which contain the useful mineral. This triggered the current use of mineral fertilisers and, without this industrial breakthrough,
humanity could only produce half the food that it does today.
Fertiliser use has quadrupled over the past half century and will continue rising as the
population expands. The growing wealth
of developing countries allows people to afford more meat which has a
"phosphorus footprint" 50 times higher than most vegetables. This, together with the increasing usage of biofuels,
is estimated
to double the demand for phosphorus fertilisers by 2050.
Today phosphorus is also used in pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, catalysts for chemical industries,
building materials, cleaners, detergents and food preservatives.
Phosphorus is not a renewable resource
Reserves are limited and not equally spread
over the planet. The only large mines are located in Morocco,
Russia, China and the US. Depending on which scientists you ask, the world's phosphate rock reserves will last for another 35 to
400 years – though the more optimistic assessments rely on the discovery of new deposits.
phosphorus depletion could lead
to geopolitical tensions . Back in 2008, when fertiliser prices sharply increased by 600% and directly
It's a big concern for the EU and other countries without their own reserves, and
influenced food prices, there
were violent riots in 40 different developing countries.
Phosphorus also harms the environment . Excessive fertiliser use means it leaches from agricultural
lands into
rivers and eventually the sea, leading to so-called dead zones where most fish can't
survive. Uninhibited algae growth caused by high levels of phosphorus in water has already created more than 400 coastal
death zones worldwide. Related human poisoning costs US$2.2 billion dollars annually in the US alone.
Overuse of phosphorous causes war and climate change.
Johnson 15 (Nathanael Johnson is a Senior Staff Writer; “The next big war might be over
phosphorus”; Grist; Nay 11, 2015; https://grist.org/food/the-next-big-war-might-be-over-phosphorus/)
Accessed 7/11/21//eleanor
Soil is the foundation for everything we’ve built — all agriculture and civilization must
grow from healthy soils. And we’re heading straight for some hard limits, beyond which
soils will no longer support us. Or, as UC Berkeley soil scientist Ronald Amundson and his colleagues put it in this
paper, “Soil is the living epidermis of the planet.” Soil helps regulate the carbon and water
cycles — it’s a reservoir for both cycles, buffering them from shocks and feeding us, all
at the same time. But, Amundson et al. warn: Profound changes are on the horizon for these
interconnected functions — particularly sparked by changes to climate and food
production — that will likely reverberate through society this century . Ultimately, the way in
which we directly and indirectly manage our planet’s soil will be interwoven within our
future success as a species. We are already running into a hard limit when it comes to
soil nutrients. Plants need nutrients like phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium to grow. Microbes,
certain plants, and human factories can pull nitrogen out of the air (there’s plenty of it in the atmosphere), but the other nutrients
have to come either from mining or recycling. When a farmer harvests a bunch of carrots (say) and takes them to the market, she’s
trucking nutrients off the land. When you eat those carrots, you are using those nutrients to build muscles and blood cells, and
eventually you flush them down the toilet. The only way to recycle those nutrients is to use human waste as fertilizer. For a lot of
reasons (contamination with prescription drugs, heavy metals, and pathogens in the sewage system) people dislike the idea of
turning municipal sewage into fertilizer. Those flushed nutrients never leave the system in the largest sense, of course: They end up
in lakes and oceans and landfills. Phosphorus in the ocean can turn into an algal bloom, which turns into fish, which birds eat and
The only
is to mine those nutrients, and we are running out: The growing demand for P
[phosphorus] has recently caused an increase in the cost of rock phosphate from about
$80 per U.S. ton in 1961 to up to $450 per ton in 2008. Prices since then have fluctuated
but are now at about $700 per ton … K [potassium] prices were ~$875 per metric ton in 2009 yet are expected to
reach $1500 by 2020. And the authors point out that these elements are unevenly distributed. The biggest phosphorus
mine in the U.S. will be depleted in 20 years, and geopolitical balance of power may get
poop out, which we mine for fertilizer. But that cycle takes place far too slowly to meet the needs of hungry humanity.
other option
shaken up as nations and corporations begin competing for the remaining reserves in
places like Morocco. Oil wars are one thing ; at least you can replace oil with other forms
of energy. But it’s physically impossible to replace a basic element like P or K. Thinking
about soil, of course, also means thinking about climate change, because there are
gigatons of carbon (or C) locked up in the earth. We’ve already released a lot of that; indeed, farming has
had a greater impact than fossil fuel emissions : Based on the global agricultural land area, cultivation
has likely released between 50 and 70 Gt of C to the atmosphere over the course of
human history, and the combined cultivation and biomass burning contributions to
atmospheric CO2 exceeded that of fossil fuel emissions well into the 20th century. However,
the agricultural imprint on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations appeared much earlier in the Holocene. Soil can also
help get us out of this predicament: Under changed management or through land
abandonment, global agricultural soils have the capacity to reapproach their original C
storage and regain up to a half a decade of present fossil fuel emissions (over a multidecade
period). Better stewardship of domesticated soils that leads to higher organic matter
contents is a valuable practice from an ecological perspective and from an agronomic
point of view. There is now a large body of research on the rates of C sequestration
under differing management practices. Those management techniques are spelled out in the citations (here are a
few of the papers cited). We need to be building up the soil rather than eroding it. And, if we want
to avoid fighting wars over phosphorus
and potassium, we
need to figure out ways of closing
the loop so that we’re not simply flushing those elements down the drain.
Extinction – wars, food crises, dead zones, and pollution.
Rosen 21 (Julia Rosen is a reporter covering science and the environment; “HUMANITY IS
FLUSHING AWAY ONE OF LIFE’S ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS”; The Atlantic; Febuary 8, 2021;
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/02/phosphorus-pollution-fertilizer/617937/) Accessed
7/11/21//eleanor
In recent years, Cordell has voiced concerns that we
are fast consuming our richest and most accessible
reserves. U.S. phosphate production has fallen by about 50 percent since 1980, and the
country—once the world’s largest exporter—has become a net importer. According to some
estimates, China, now the leading producer, might have only a few decades of supply left. And under
current projections, global production of phosphate rock could start to decline well before the
end of the century. This represents an existential threat, Cordell says: “We now have a
massive population that is dependent on those phosphorus supplies.” Many experts dispute these
dire predictions. They argue that peak phosphorus—like peak oil—is a specter that always seems to recede just before its prophecy
is fulfilled. Humans will never extract all of the phosphorus from the Earth’s crust, they say, and whenever we have needed more in
the past, mining companies have found it. “I don’t think anybody really knows how much there is,” says Achim Dobermann, the chief
scientist at the International Fertilizer Association, an industry group. But Dobermann, whose job involves forecasting phosphorus
demand, is confident that “whatever it is is going to last several hundred more years.” Simply extracting more phosphate rock might
not solve all of our problems, Cordell says. Already, one
in six farmers worldwide can’t afford fertilizer,
and phosphate prices have started to rise. Due to a tragic quirk of geology, many tropical
soils also lock away phosphorus efficiently, forcing farmers to apply more fertilizer than
their counterparts in other areas of the world. The grossly unequal distribution of
phosphate-rock resources adds an additional layer of geopolitical complexity . Morocco
and its disputed territory, Western Sahara, contain about three-quarters of the world’s known
reserves of phosphate rock, while India, the nations of the European Union, and many
other countries depend largely on phosphorus imports. (In 2014, the EU added phosphate
rock to its list of critical raw materials with high supply risk and economic importance .)
And as U.S. and Chinese deposits dwindle, the world will increasingly rely on Morocco’s
mines. We have already glimpsed how the phosphorus supply chain can go haywire . In 2008, at the
height of a global food crisis, the cost of phosphate rock spiked by almost 800 percent
before dropping again over the next several months. The causes were numerous: a
collapsing global economy, increased imports of phosphorus by India, and decreased
exports by China. But the lesson was clear: Practically speaking, phosphorus is an
undeniably finite resource.
I first heard about the potential for a phosphorus catastrophe a few years later, when a
farmer friend mentioned casually that we consume mined phosphorus every day and that those mines are running out. The more I
learned, the more fascinated I became by the story, not only because of its surprising and arcane details—eating rocks! mining
poop!—but because of its universality. Phosphorus is a classic natural-resource parable: Humans strain against some kind of
scarcity for centuries, then finally find a way to overcome it. We extract more and more of what we need—often in the name of
improving the human condition, sometimes transforming society through celebrated revolutions. But eventually, and usually too late,
we discover the cost of overextraction. And the
cost of breaking the phosphorus cycle is not just
looming scarcity, but also rampant pollution. “We have a too-little-too-much problem,” says Geneviève
At
nearly every stage of its journey from mine to field to toilet, phosphorus seeps into the
environment. This leakage has more than doubled the pace of the global phosphorus
cycle, devastating water quality around the world. One 2017 study estimated that high phosphorus
levels impair watersheds covering roughly 40 percent of Earth’s land surface and
housing about 90 percent of its people. In more concrete terms, this pollution has a tendency to
fill water bodies with slimy, stinking scum. Too much phosphorus—or nitrogen— jolts aquatic
Metson, an environmental scientist at Linköping University in Sweden, “which is what makes this conversation very difficult.”
ecosystems long accustomed to modest supplies, Elser says, triggering algal blooms that
turn the water green, cloudy, and odorous. The algae not only discourage people from recreating in lakes
and rivers (people “like to see their toes,” Elser observes) but also can produce toxins that harm wildlife and
disrupt drinking-water supplies. And when the algae die, decomposition sucks oxygen
out of the water, killing fish and creating devastating dead zones. Indeed, pollution may be the
strongest argument for reducing our dependence on mined phosphorus. “If we take all the phosphorus in the
ground and move it into the system— ooh, we’re done ,” Elser says. Some researchers have calculated
that
unchecked human inputs of phosphorus,
combined with climate change,
could eventually push
much of the ocean into an anoxic state persisting for millennia . “I’m pretty sure we don’t want to do
that,” Elser says, chuckling. Such events have occurred numerous times over Earth’s history and
are thought to have caused several mass extinctions —for instance, when land plants evolved
and sent a pulse of newly weathered phosphorus into the ocean. The clear consensus
among phosphorus experts is that humans must start mending the phosphorus cycle to
reduce the environmental damage caused by pollution and to waste less of an
increasingly scarce resource. Or, as a button I once saw Elser wear put it, save the p(ee).
Solvency: Fertilizer
Redirecting agricultural subsidies towards water protection provides a
model for global fertilizer efficiency.
Searchinger et. al. ’20 [Tim Searchinger, Senior Research Scholar at the Princeton School
of Public and International Affairs and Senior Fellow at World Resources Institute; David
Baldock, Institute for European Environmental Policy; Joe Glauber, International Food Policy
Research Institute; Paswel Marenya, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre, and
others; 7-21-2020; "Redirecting Agricultural Subsidies for a Sustainable Food Future", World
Resources Institute; https://www.wri.org/insights/redirecting-agricultural-subsidies-sustainablefood-future, accessed 7-7-2021; RG]
To both feed the world and solve climate change, the
world needs to produce 50% more food in 2050
compared to 2010 while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds . While government
funding has an important role to play , a new World Bank report I wrote with seven co-authors found that
agricultural subsidies are currently doing little to achieve these goals, but have great potential for
reform .
Governments provide on average $600 billion per year for agricultural support in the countries that
generate two-thirds of the world’s agriculture. This is a lot of money. Government support averages
30% of the agricultural production in these countries (measured by “value added”). Yet our report found that only
5% of this funding supports any kind of conservation objective, and only 6% supports research and
technical assistance. Pure income support accounts for 70%.
By redirecting
even a portion of total
agricultural subsidies, governments could do more to feed the
world while reducing greenhouse gas emissions .
Where Are Agricultural Subsidies Currently Going?
What is needed to mitigate the 25% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions contributed by global
agriculture, including emissions from land use change? The good news is that many
opportunities exist to boost
agricultural productivity to provide more food on existing agricultural land while reducing emissions.
Opportunity one is to increase natural resource efficiency by
kilogram of fertilizer
and other chemicals
productivity gains to protection
producing more food per hectare, per animal and per
used. Opportunity two is to put in place measures to link these
of forests and other native habitats. Opportunity three is to
pursue
innovations , because reaching climate goals for agriculture — just like for energy use — requires new technologies
and approaches.
Reanalyzing data from the OECD and using country studies, our report examined whether farm
support programs are doing any of these things today. Despite a few good examples, most public support is
making little contribution.
One reason is that half
of the support occurs in the form of trade and other market barriers
governments impose to boost farm prices in their own countries. Although these barriers increase or
stabilize income for one country’s farmers, they result in lower income for farmers elsewhere in the world. As a
general rule, the world’s poor farmers are losers rather than winners when it comes to global
agricultural subsidies, even though it is they who would most benefit from some reduction in their risk due to fluctuating
prices and incomes. And of the 20% of total farm support that comes in the form of direct production
subsidies to farmers, most goes to the largest farms that are best able to handle price and income variability on
their own.
In India and Africa, fertilizer
and
subsidies are designed to stimulate production, but our report found limited
unequally distributed benefits . In India, these subsidies are contributing to both excessive use
of fertilizer
overall and an
imbalance of nitrogen
to other nutrients.
Although modest, conservation spending has been growing in various forms (see graphic below), but could be better used. For
example, most conservation funding reestablishes forests or grazing on cropland, which could generate real benefits. But because
most of these programs are temporary, the land can be re-plowed,
risking the loss of carbon and biodiversity
gains. These programs also have mostly restored plantation forests, which store less carbon and can have even less biodiversity
than the farmlands they replace.
Some countries, including the United States and EU nations, have made
efforts to condition financial support to
farmers on compliance with environmental criteria . But we found that those conditions have mostly
been limited .
Because of trade agreements, governments have also shifted some of their subsidies so that they are less
market distorting. As a good result , farmers have less incentive to produce more food than needed in some
places or to
use too many
inputs like
fertilizers and other chemicals . These changes have the
potential to lead to more efficiency — and did so in New Zealand , where reforms were the
most dramatic— but will probably not have significant effects on greenhouse gas emissions globally.
How to Put Agricultural Subsidies to Better Use?
country and regional studies show some areas of progress that
governments around the world can build on to meet our challenging climate and food
Despite a concerning global picture,
security goals . Key reforms include:
Condition farm financial aid on the protection of forests and other native areas.
In Brazil, for example, the government conditioned low-cost agricultural loans to farms and
municipalities that
curbed deforestation . Although imperfectly enforced, these programs helped to reduce
deforestation significantly . This example highlights the potential to link efforts to produce more food on existing land with
efforts to protect forests.
We recommend that other countries follow this approach. This is important
even
in developed
countries like the United States , where farmers continue to plow up carbon-rich native prairie.
Direct conservation support toward integrated projects that bring together producers with scientists to develop needed innovations.
In the United States and Europe, some
farmers together with scientists to try
Such integrated
model
conservation funding supports integrated projects that bring groups of
out innovative systems that reduce fertilizer or pesticide use .
projects are the best way to address vexing challenges and should be the
for spending in general.
Condition funding on environmental practices , and use systems of “graduated” payments that reward
farmers for better and better performance.
Europe put in place a structure that in theory conditions all direct funding to farmers based on some
environmental practices and distributes much aid in ways that are supposed to improve the
environment . Some is even supposed to address climate change . The environmental
requirements for these funds have been too limited to provide much environmental benefit, and little
money has actually gone towards climate mitigation. Still, the structure is partially in place to make the money achieve real gains. By
offering higher payments based on better performance, such systems can avoid setting one set of standards that are too low to be
meaningful.
Support more efficient uses of fertilizer in high fertilizer-use countries, and take a more
balanced approach to boosting fertilization everywhere.
The Chinese
government phased out fertilizer subsidies and started to fund improvements
in nitrogen and manure management . In India, the government conditioned nitrogen fertilizer
subsidies on use with an additive designed to reduce nitrogen losses
government programs
to the environment. In
Kenya,
helped dairy farmers increase their use of nitrogen-fixing , high-protein shrubs,
an alternative to using fertilizer, to increase the efficiency of their dairy production.
Target land retirement (i.e., restoration of agricultural land) on carbon-rich peatlands and lands with limited agricultural productivity,
and restore them using native vegetation.
In the United States, a small part of land retirement funds goes toward restoration of buffers and
wetlands in specific river systems . In China , the government promised to put a greater
emphasis on using native trees for restoration.
Overall, governments around the world should
redirect more agricultural funding to focus on mitigation
and the synergies between reducing emissions and producing more food. A first step toward a
sustainable food future is to make better use of the large financial support governments are
already providing.
Solvency: Phosophorus
Sustainable farm management shifts to strategies that reduce phosphorus
use
Oliveira 11 [Caroline Felix Oliveira, Addressing the Phosphate Crisis: Precision Agriculture
versus Agroecology, University of Florida Honor’s Thesis, 4/20/2011, pg.
www.honors.ufl.edu/apps/Thesis.aspx/Download/945]
Industrial agriculture has jeopardized the availability of phosphate for future generations.
Agriculture’s dependence on chemical fertilizers has directly impacted the sources of
economically available phosphate, in turn affecting the balance of global P flow. These
concerns have risen from the inefficiencies of our current system. Florida has been a significant
contributor to the phosphate mining industry, but has suffered from rising global competition. As
a result, this imminent crisis challenges the continuation of current agricultural
practices, not only in Florida but world-wide. Despite the contentions towards sustainability, it
has been successful in bringing to light the environmental and social concerns caused by
industrial farming. IFM is a viable method to systematically implement sustainability through
sustainable farm management. This approach can help restore global P flows by
minimizing nutrient input and by maximizing nutrient recycling. Through this methodology,
the integration of precision agriculture and agroecology combines the technology for
minimal input and the natural processes for maximizing P recycling. Amidst the negativity
that is associated with a crisis, there is still prosperity for positive outcomes. The positive
outcome brought forth by is the potential to pressure research and development of alternative
agricultural methods. The success of sustainable farming lies in the institutionalization of
alternative agriculture as the standard for farming. This process may require additional
incentives, markets or infrastructure for large scale implementation and increased public
awareness of the crisis. During this transition, it is important to acknowledge that food is not just
another commodity, but is deeply ingrained into a nation’s culture and the foundation for social
wellbeing. Knowledge of the global P cycle must be interwoven in the fabric of society and
integrated into food production, thus “ecologizing” the economy towards sustainable
farm management.
AT: No Peak
“No peak phosphorous” doesn’t assume increasing use now – our impacts
still apply, even if we don’t completely run out.
Grossman 19 (David Grossman is a staff writer for PopularMechanics.com. He's previously written
for The Verge, Rolling Stone, The New Republic and several other publications.; “Are We Reaching Peak
Phosphorus? Maybe”; Popular Mechanics; November 4, 2019;
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a29391215/phosphorus-shortage/) Accessed
7/12/21//eleanor
Sounds Like a Lot. Where's the Shortage? The
USGS estimates that global phosphorus use will
increase to 50.5 million tons by 2022 a increase from 47.0 million tons in 2018. Scientists disagree about how
much more food will be needed to feed the planet in coming years, with numbers ranging
from 25 to 56% more. Man-made climate change will negatively affect farms in a number
of ways, from heat waves to increased pests. Those changes could force farmers to use
even more fertilizer, further increasing phosphorus usage. Unlike man-made climate change, an issue
on which the science is settled, there is a scientific debate on "peak phosphorus," a point at which the global amount of phosphorus
will decline. Some scientists warn it could come as early as 2030, while a group from the International Fertilizer Development Center
(IFDC) has found that there could be enough phosphorus to last hundreds of years. Where Does The Controversy Stem From? One
big problem is that nobody truly knows how much mineable phosphorus there in the world. Critics of the
IFDC's numbers
have said that it "presents an inflated picture of global reserves, in particular those of
Morocco," with still-hypothetical or inferred tonnes of ore have been labeled reserves.
Combined with the lack of knowledge regarding the supply chain, it's hard to say
definitively how close to peak phosphorous humanity has come. But one thing's for sure: even
without hitting peak, a phosphorus shortage could significantly affect the world's food
prices. Thanks to the mineral's uneven distribution, events like a political crisis or growing demand
could cause prices to radically fluctuate. The increase in the cost of rock phosphate rose
"from about $80 per U.S. ton in 1961 to up to $450 per ton in 2008. Prices since then have
fluctuated but are now at about $700 per ton," a study from 2015 showed. Shortage or not,
responsible phosphorus usage will be crucial for keeping future food prices down.
Yes impact – their evidence doesn’t assume that its finite and that demand
will increase.
Cordell & White 11 (Dana Cordell is a Research Director at the Institute for Sustainable Futures
where she leads the Food Systems research group; Stuart White, Institute for Sustainable Futures; “Peak
Phosphorus: Clarifying the Key Issues of a Vigorous Debate about Long-Term Phosphorus Security”;
Sustainability; October 24, 2011;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227439251_Peak_Phosphorus_Clarifying_the_Key_Issues_of_
a_Vigorous_Debate_about_Long-Term_Phosphorus_Security) Accessed 7/12/21//eleanor
4.4. Criticisms of Peak Phosphorus Analysis Critics of the idea of peak production often argue that the market will take care of
scarcity, that resource scarcity is relative, and one scarce resource can simply be replaced by another indefinitely, because as price
rises, investment in new technology will always improve efficiency of extraction and use [42]. This is the basis of the market system–
neoclassical economic theory—which functions for a narrowly defined system, but does not acknowledge
the finite nature of non-renewable resources like phosphate rock (or oil). This means that
the concepts of peak oil and peak phosphorus (which are based on the non-homogenous
nature of non-renewable resources) are not supported by the adherents of the market
system. Other skeptics don’t deny that phosphorus peaks will one day occur; rather, they dispute the timeline and
insist a peak is more in the distant future [43]. For example: “peak phosphate in my view will not be a peak phosphate on the supply
side, which is the arguments being raised right now. In my view it will be a peak phosphate on demand, and that will be probably
within the next 40 years” [44]. However there
is little analysis on which to base this, as most demand
studies do not include the growing per capita demand for phosphorus-intensive meat
and dairy products and the other changes described earlier. For example, Van Kauwenbergh’s
conclusion in the recent IFDC report that “there is no indication there is going to be a
“peak phosphorus” event within the next 20–25 years” [45], is not based on any analysis of
demand trends, let alone a peak phosphorus analysis [45] for a revised peak phosphorus
analysis based on the IFDC reserve estimates.
Soil Scenario
1AC Soil Health
Agriculture subsidies impede the transition to regenerative agriculture and
destroy soil health --- undermines efforts at carbon sequestration
Arohi Sharma 19, policy analyst at the National Resource Defense Council, MA from Harvard
University, July, 2019, "How U.S. Agricultural Subsidies Degrade Land and Soil," Food Tank,
https://foodtank.com/news/2019/07/opinion-how-us-agricultural-subsidies-degrade-land-andsoil/ - MBA AM
On May 6th, the
United Nations released a summary of its Global Assessment on Biodiversity. The report finds that 23 percent
of the world’s agricultural lands are less productive than five years ago, even though global food
production has increased. How is that possible? In refreshingly bold language, the report comments on how agricultural
subsidies catalyze land degradation and biodiversity loss . Policy makers need to
consider how agricultural subsidy policies incentivize agricultural practices that harm
species and ecosystem health . This is the case in the United States, where the federal
government spends billions on agricultural subsidies through the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP). The
current structure of the FCIP fails to address the environmental and public health effects of
producing commodity crops intensively. Furthermore, the current structure of the FCIP does
not incentivize farmers to change their farming practices to more regenerative, soil
building methods. Instead of subsidizing degenerative agricultural practices through the FCIP, the federal government
should financially reward farmers who employ farming techniques that build soil health.
The Global Assessment states, “Harmful economic incentives…associated with unsustainable practices of fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture (including
fertilizer and pesticide use) …are often associated with [the] overexploitation of natural resources.”
Healthy soil is alive. One teaspoon of healthy soil has more life than there are people on the earth! The soil supports life like microorganisms, bacteria,
fungi, algae, and earthworms, and these microbes are critical because they provide nutrients, carbon, and water to plants. When the microbes in our
soil are well-fed and supported, our soil and our plants are healthier. Our
soil ecosystem is the greatest concentration
of biomass anywhere on the planet, and when the federal government pays crop
insurance subsidies without considering the practices that are used to grow those crops,
our soil microbiome pays the ultimate price. Our soil microbes matter because they:
Sequester Carbon : The microbes in our soil all need one thing to live: carbon. Our plants
pump excess carbon from the atmosphere into the soil to support microbial health and biodiversity. All the
microbes in the soil consume carbon, but when soil is contaminated by toxic pesticides, fungicides, and
insecticides, the harsh chemicals, microbes cannot thrive. Fewer microbes in the soil mean fewer organisms
to consume and sequester carbon in the soil. By spraying crops with harmful chemicals, we reduce the soil’s capacity to act as a carbon sink.
Retain Water and Use it more Efficiently: Mycorrhizal fungi, a critical component of the soil microbiome, provides nutrients
and water to plant roots. Mycorrhizal fungi, only found on living plant roots, build intricate highways through soil
so plants can access nutrients and water from faraway places, providing water security
during droughts. Impressively, healthy soil can hold up to 20 times its weight in water. When industrial agricultural
practices encourage farmers to till, to rip living roots out from the soil so their crop rows look “clean,” or to fallow
their fields and skip a growing season, mycorrhizal fungi populations are not supported.
When mycorrhizal fungi populations are not supported, soil cannot sequester as much water, and our crops are less resilient during drought.
Keep Our Food Healthy: When plants photosynthesize, they break down water and convert the energy from the sun to form sugars. Whatever sugars
the plant doesn’t use, it pumps into the soil to feed the microbes and fungi. In return, the fungi provide nutrients like organic nitrogen, phosphorous,
calcium, and zinc to the plant. Diverse fungi species help plants access a variety of nutrients, and this nutrient exchange keeps our plants healthy and
nutrient-rich. Monocropping, an industrial agriculture practice supported by agricultural subsidies, does not support mycorrhizal fungi diversity, so the
nutrient density of our fruits and vegetables suffers. The lack of biodiversity above ground affects the biodiversity below ground.
Unfortunately, the U.S.’ subsidized cropping systems do not support microbial health.
Almost one-third of the 320 million acres of harvested cropland in the U.S. is used to produce corn, and
another one-third is used to produce soybeans. Most of the corn and soybean crops are not
grown for human consumption—they are exported or used as feedstock for livestock production—but
they constitute two of the most heavily subsidized crops in the US. The table below breaks down the
types of degenerative practices that are supported by federal government subsidies. These degenerative practices do not support healthy soil, and in
fact, destroy the soil microbiome. The percentages represent the percentages of total corn or soy acres that employ specific degenerative practices.
For example, 97 percent of all corn acres in production apply synthetic fertilizers.
Chemicals and synthetic fertilizers promise short-term boosts in crop yields, but the
overapplication and reliance on
chemicals and synthetic fertilizers for commodity farms create inhospitable soil
conditions for soil microbes. Tillage rips apart the plant roots that feed our soil microbes. When soil is directly exposed to the sun,
moisture evaporates faster and soil temperatures increase, reducing microbial activity.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) advocates for regenerative agricultural systems that support microbial
biodiversity and soil health. The organization’s campaign to reform the FCIP aims to make it easier for
farmers who practice soil-building techniques to access the FCIP. States are also stepping up to the challenge and
implementing innovative crop insurance programs that reward farmers for adopting regenerative agricultural practices like cover cropping. NRDC also
worked with a diverse coalition of agricultural and business groups to successfully pass the Soil Health Demonstration Trial provision in the last Farm
Bill. The provision will reward farmers for adopting soil-building practices that sequester carbon in the soil. These efforts exemplify how governments
should flip the status quo and reward stewardship.
The Global Biodiversity Assessment is clear: Governments must reconsider the types of
agricultural systems that are supported by taxpayer dollars. For the last five years, the U.S. government
spent an average of US$9 billion in crop insurance subsidies through the FCIP . A significant portion of these federal
subsidies goes to commodity farms that employ agricultural practices that degrade soil
health, like nondiverse crop rotations, heavy fertilizer and pesticide use, and tillage. The billions of dollars of subsidies
paid by the federal government should not support degenerative agricultural practices. For
the sake of soil health, farmers should be rewarded for treating their farms as biodiverse, microberich ecosystems. Policy should incentivize soil building practices like crop diversity, cover crops, crop rotations, integrated livestock
management, and no-till.
The Global Biodiversity Assessment calls out the dangerous trajectory of current agricultural subsidies. We’ve hit the snooze button too many times on
subsidy reform, and it’s time for our policymakers to wake up to biodiversity losses perpetuated by this broken system.
Extinction
Lu, 17—Energy and Environmental Laboratories, Industrial Technology Research Institute
(Shyi-Min, “Soil and Forest: The Key Factors for Human Survival,” Journal of Sustainable
Development; Vol. 10, No. 3; 2017, dml) [gendered language modifications denoted by
brackets]
Soil erosion in agriculture is arguably one of the most devastating human activities or
behaviors for sustainable soil development. In the foreseeable future, there is almost no chance or
incentive to expand the scale of agriculture, so our existing soil management of arable
land is essential to the continued prosperity of [hu]mankind . However, although the importance of soil
and water conservation has been stressed, the implementation of measures to reduce soil erosion has not ever caught up with the
deepening of the problem. The most common phenomenon of soil erosion is caused by water. Before the native plant’s growth is
replaced by farming and cultivation of the mankind, the geological mechanism of the vast majority of mountain soil and water losses
as a result of human reclamation
and abusive construction, a large number of plant covers are removed. The natural loss
mechanism of the soil is changed, allowing the raindrops to displace the soil particles and then
is slow; basically, it is mainly a biologically driven creep (Kirkby, 1967). However,
to remove them by the slope flow, which is a more rapid soil loss process. In the absence of agriculture,
soil loss is only about 21 meters per million years (Wilkinson & McElroy, 2007). Today, the rate of soil erosion in the
United States can be more than 2,000 meters per million years , while in the Chinese Loess Plateau, in
part of which the soil loss rate is as high as 10,000 meters per million years (Sun et al., 2014). Basically, these lost
sediments will eventually be replaced by underlying sediments or rocks, biological
mechanisms, and newly converted soils with added organic matter and nutrients.
However, little has been known about the pace of this alternative process over the last
decade. Overall, the rate of soil erosion is currently around 400 meters per million years (Montgomery, 2007). In many analyzes,
the rate of soil production in the natural environment is between 50 and 200 meters per million years, and these data clearly indicate
that soil
erosion in many agricultural areas has so far not been sustainable . Not only does
soil erosion in agricultural areas lose the nutrients necessary for grain growth , but
unfavorable sedimentation also affects the local aquatic ecosystems , water bodies , and
aquatic ecosystems
(Figure 5) (Janisch & Harmon, 2002). Finally, in the face of accelerated soil erosion, maintaining or
even increasing agricultural production will increase the use of energy. Although plant microbial symbiosis can fix nitrogen in the
atmosphere into bioavailable forms or by means of human substitution like the Haber-Bosch process, but there is no biological
process or atmospheric resource to produce earth-derived or rock-derived nutrients (such as phosphorus, potassium, and calcium).
This issue is sufficient for the current agricultural policy-makers alerted.
Although soil can be produced, replaced or release nutrients naturally, the pace of these natural processes is still slow relatively to
the nutrients
provided by the soil for the need of plant growth will be reduced , leading to a fall in
the rate at which people use the land (Figure 6). When crops are transported from production sites to other sites,
production levels potentially (Jones et al., 2013; Levick & Asner, 2013), further deepening reliance on the
exploitation of geological resources and the distribution of large amounts of nutrients,
finally resulting in national economic and geo-political conflicts
(Cordell et al., 2009). The recent increase in the demand for phosphorus has led to a surge in the cost of phosphate rock, from $80
per tonne in 1961 to $450 per tonne in 2008. Prices have been fluctuating since then, now around $700 per tonne. In addition to the
cost increases, mining is also a difficult problem. According to estimated data, Morocco has the world's largest phosphorus
geological reserves, but most of them are located in disputed areas. On the other hand, the United States contains only about 2% of
the most productive phosphate sources
in the United States will be depleted in 20 years , forcing imports of phosphorus increasingly
the world's phosphate rock resources. According to current mining rate,
dependent, thus to maintain the demands from agriculture and industry sectors.
The major phosphorus-dependent countries lack the relative geological resources. In order to maintain their current use indefinitely,
besides the shift from production to import, the only means to maintain stocks is the establishment of consistency and integrated
the soil nutrient loss and animal waste
are regarded as a major problem of environmental and economic damage. Now, from the basic
recycling systems for phosphorus and other nutrients. In human society,
consensus in society, the waste recycling and resource control are very helpful for the reduction of imports and other resource
needs (Elser & Bennett, 2011). In
addition to phosphorus, other soil nutrients appear to have
entered a restricted or high demand era . Potash prices, for example, are expected to
rise from about $875 per tonne in 2009 to $1,500 per tonne in 2020.
5. Challenges of the 21st Century
soil cycles perturbation, so they are no
indirectly or directly affects the survival
The results of human reclamation of the earth's soil resources cause a number of
longer in equilibrium. The imbalance changes the nature of the soil and
of future generations , due to the Earth's climate change. Basically, the major principle of our soil management is to
restore the disrupted soil resource system back to the original regenerative function. The strategy to restore the balance of soil
should include following three soil elements: (1) organic carbon; (2) soil itself; and (3) nutrient. The ultimate goal of soil sustainability
is to manage the global soil resources and to promote the implementation of relevant programs and research projects, such as the
fixed nutrient quantity and the measurement of above-mentioned three elements of soil balance.
These goals are challenging and difficult to achieve. They need solutions to invest considerable human and material resources,
because the existing problem is too large. First, to achieve an effective solution for soil sustainability, innovative mechanisms or
institutions including highly cross-cutting research are needed, as are the models required to combat global climate change.
Second, the ultimate requirement for any innovation is the establishment of a dialogue and communication channel with
policymakers and public institutions, as the ultimate "decision-making" will involve large-scale social change. These interlocking
efforts will depend on the acquisition and delivery of innovative knowledge, as well as the continuous expansion, pursuit, and input
of different conceptual approaches to solve the problem. Our
current mission is to make the future of the
Earth's soil resources sustainable under our control in lifetime or within ability. In this critical twenty-first
century, we will witness the struggle course for mankind survival .
Internals: Subsidies = Erosion
Ag subsidies encourage high levels of soil erosion by emphasizing
maximum production of commodity crops
Quintanilla ‘13
(David, Candidate for Juris Doctor at St. Mary's University School of Law, Class of 2013,
“Comment: A Bitter Policy Shoved Down Our Throats: How A Once Admirable And Necessary
Agricultural Program Has Resulted In Major Profits For Big Business And Major Frustration For
Others,” Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis, pg nexus//um-ef)
2. Environmental Issues
In addition to the negative impact on physical health, America's policy of subsidizing the
same land and the same crops without a recalibration for a changing world is having
terrible effects on the nation's vital natural resources. 174 The environmental impact that
follows farm subsidies is both startling and unnecessary. One author summarized the current
environmental concerns stemming from large scale farming in the following way:
Rather than consisting of rural communities of similarly sized crop-diverse farms like those that
existed prior to the 1950s, American agriculture is today an industrialized system whereby
water, chemicals, and fossil fuels are converted into cheap commodity crops. Not
coincidentally, the most significant environmental impacts from industrial commodity crop
agriculture are impacts to the water, land, wildlife, and air derived from agriculture's heavy
dependence on inputs that affect these facets of the environment. 175
[*372] Misguided agricultural policies have resulted in "increased farming on marginal
lands, which inherently leads to high levels of soil erosion." 176 Soil erosion, may not
sound like an alarming issue, but its effects are potentially devastating .
Because the farm bill promotes "maximum production of commodity crops, many
farmers grow corn and other subsidized annual crops without rotating in a valuable mix
of non-commodity crops and perennials that can bolster the health of the land by
returning critical nutrients to the soil and preventing erosion." 177 The competition for
profitability that the farm bill creates "forces farmers to cultivate their fields without opting
for fallow seasons to rest the fields. In a matter of years, these devastating practices can
render once profitable cropland completely worthless." 178
It might make sense in the short term, but once again, we will all pay the price in the long
term . Corporate farms continue to lobby against EPA-suggested regulations, claiming that it
will hurt the industry. This is both a short sighted and dangerous position to hold. 179 A time
will come [*373] very soon when change must be forced upon these industrial giants or we will
have severe problems at hand.
Impacts: Erosion = Extinction
Soil erosion causes extinction
George Monbiot 15, Visiting Fellow in Environmental Policy at Oxford, Environmental
Correspondent for The Guardian, and MA in Zoology, “We’re Treating Soil Like Dirt. It’s a Fatal
Mistake, As Our Lives Depend On It,” The Guardian, 3-25, http://tinyurl.com/q39qy2j, this one’s
a lanerz card
Imagine a wonderful world, a planet on which there was no threat of climate breakdown, no loss
of freshwater, no a nti b iotic r esistance, no obesity crisis, no terrorism, no war. Surely, then, we would be out of
major danger? Sorry.
Even if everything else were miraculously fixed, we’re finished if we don’t
address an issue considered so marginal and irrelevant that you can go for months without seeing it in a newspaper. It’s literally
and – it seems – metaphorically, beneath us. To judge by its absence from the media, most journalists consider it unworthy of
consideration. But all human life depends on it. We knew this long ago, but somehow it has been forgotten. As a
soil our survival depends. Husband it and it will grow our food,
our fuel and our shelter and surround us with beauty. Abuse it and the soil will collapse and die, taking humanity
with it.” The issue hasn’t changed, but we have. Landowners around the world are now engaged in an
orgy of soil destruction so intense that, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, the world on average
Sanskrit text written in about 1500BC noted: “Upon this handful of
has just 60 more years of growing crops. Even in Britain, which is spared the tropical downpours that so quickly strip exposed soil
from the land, Farmers Weekly reports, we
have “only 100 harvests left”. To keep up with global food demand, the UN
estimates, 6m hectares (14.8m acres) of new farmland will be needed every year. Instead, 12m hectares a year are lost through soil degradation. We
wreck it, then move on, trashing rainforests and other precious habitats as we go. Soil is an almost magical substance, a living system that transforms
the materials it encounters, making them available to plants. That handful the Vedic master showed his disciples contains more micro-organisms than
all the people who have ever lived on Earth. Yet we treat it like, well, dirt. The techniques that were supposed to feed the world threaten us with
starvation. A paper just published in the journal Anthropocene analyses the undisturbed sediments in an 11th-century French lake. It reveals that the
intensification of farming over the past century has increased the rate of soil erosion sixtyfold. Another paper, by researchers in the UK, shows that soil
in allotments – the small patches in towns and cities that people cultivate by hand – contains a third more organic carbon than agricultural soil and 25%
more nitrogen. This is one of the reasons why allotment holders produce between four and 11 times more food per hectare than do farmers. Whenever
I mention this issue, people ask: “But surely farmers have an interest in looking after their soil?” They do, and there are many excellent cultivators who
There are also some terrible farmers, often absentees, who allow contractors to rip
their fields to shreds for the sake of a quick profit. Even the good ones are hampered by an economic and political
seek to keep their soil on the land.
system that could scarcely be better designed to frustrate them. This is the International Year of Soils, but you wouldn’t know it. In January, the
Westminster government published a new set of soil standards, marginally better than those they replaced, but wholly unmatched to the scale of the
problem. There are no penalities for compromising our survival except a partial withholding of public subsidies. Yet even this pathetic guidance is
considered intolerable by the National Farmers’ Union, which greeted them with bitter complaints. Sometimes the NFU seems to me to exist to
champion bad practice and block any possibility of positive change. Few sights are as gruesome as the glee with which the NFU celebrated the death
last year of the European soil framework directive, the only measure with the potential to arrest our soil-erosion crisis. The NFU, supported by
successive British governments, fought for eight years to destroy it, then crowed like a shedful of cockerels when it won. Looking back on this episode,
we will see it as a parable of our times. Soon after that, the business minister, Matthew Hancock, announced that he was putting “business in charge of
driving reform”: trade associations would be able “to review enforcement of regulation in their sectors.” The NFU was one the first two bodies granted
this privilege. Hancock explained that this “is all part of our unambiguously pro-business agenda to increase the financial security of the British people.”
But it doesn’t increase our security, financial or otherwise. It undermines it. The government’s deregulation bill, which has now almost completed its
passage through parliament, will force regulators – including those charged with protecting the fabric of the land – to “have regard to the desirability of
promoting economic growth”. But short-term growth at the expense of public protection compromises long-term survival. This “unambiguously probusiness agenda” is deregulating us to death. There’s no longer even an appetite for studying the problem. Just one university – Aberdeen – now
offers a degree in soil science. All the rest have been closed down.
This is what topples civilisations . War and
pestilence might kill large numbers of people, but in most cases the population recovers .
But lose the soil and everything goes with it . Now, globalisation ensures that this disaster
is reproduced everywhere . In its early stages, globalisation enhances resilience: people are no longer dependent on
the vagaries of local production. But as it proceeds, spreading the same destructive processes to all
corners of the Earth, it undermines resilience , as it threatens to bring down systems everywhere. Almost all
other issues are superficial by comparison. What appear to be great crises are slight and evanescent when
held up against the steady trickling away of our subsistence.
Monocultures Scenario
1AC Monocropping
Regenerative agriculture facilitates a transition away from corn
monocultures.
Rebecca Graham 21, a BA candidate in International Studies, May 2021, "Restoration
Through Regeneration: An Analysis of Agriculture in the United States," Arcadia University,
https://scholarworks.arcadia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1403&context=showcase – MBA
AM
For some farms, more control over livestock grazing is necessary and can be accomplished through rotational grazing practices. Rotational grazing
allows livestock to graze in specific areas of pasturelands, allowing unoccupied sections time to regrow stronger and healthier plant matter for future
grazing. The
use of rotational grazing restores the microbial balance of soil. Rotational grazing as a
practice of regenerative animal agriculture stimulates healthy soil, which promotes resilient
plant and grass regrowth, which in turn becomes a nutritious and sustainable food
source for livestock (Regeneration International, 2017). Through the use of rotational grazing, farmers do not need to grow
corn and other livestock-specific feed crops, as the livestock in a sense become
responsible for the growing and consumption of their own food. This allows for arable
croplands to become diversified in their production of plant foods for human consumption,
creating an increase in food security.
Promoting the natural relationship that exists between animal and plant life cycles is
essential in achieving a balanced and sustainable food system. For some livestock farmers, this involves the use of adaptive multi-paddock (AMP)
grazing management. Adaptive multi-paddock grazing techniques build off of rotational grazing, while adding strategically sectioned zones for livestock
to graze within. By concentrating livestock into smaller sections of pasturelands, the animals are forced to graze within the bounds of that zone,
allowing plants to grow stronger roots. This promotes resilient and bountiful regrowth of grasses in the unoccupied sections (Teague, 2017). Cattle
rotate through these areas, grazing on the healthy grass regrowth while allowing the previously grazed areas time to regenerate. The
utilization of AMP grazing management allows farmers to sustain their cattle on naturally
growing grasslands, making this regenerative farming technique both cost effective and
sustainable. Ultimately, these strategic grazing techniques supply livestock with food while promoting a healthy balance within the
agroecosystem.
Healthy plant life in grazing fields
promotes water retention as well as carbon sequestration, decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the
The use of these grazing techniques creates healthy and bountiful plantlife on livestock farms.
atmosphere (Teague, 2017). Soil and plants have the ability to store carbon, redirecting it from the atmosphere into the Earth in what is known as a
“carbon sink” (Payne, 2019). Currently in the United States, there are 762 million metric tons of greenhouse gases stored in the soil (Delonge, 2016).
While this offsets 11% of greenhouse gas emissions, it does not sequester enough carbon to prevent rising global temperatures (Delonge, 2016).
While it is still unknown to scientists exactly how much carbon can be absorbed into the soil, as these tests have only been conducted on small-scale
regenerative farms, regenerative agricultural practices lead the way in such discoveries (Delonge, 2016). Carbon sequestration through regenerative
The ability of regenerative
agriculture to restore the Earth’s natural ecological balance while yielding enough food
to sustain the global population proves this approach to be the most effective solution to
the negative impacts of industrialized agriculture. While these regenerative methods of livestock production offer
farming practices actively reverses the environmental destruction caused by industrialized agriculture.
environmentally sustainable solutions to the production of animal products, they must also be able to sustain the growing human population and the
increasingly large demand for meat. As the global demand for meat and dairy continues to rise, agricultural practices must be able to fulfill nutritional
needs for the growing population of the world.
Monocropping causes extinction
Jacques & Jacques 12—Peter J, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science,
University of Central Florida // Jessica Racine, MA, UCF department of sociology
[“Monocropping Cultures into Ruin: The Loss of Food Varieties and Cultural Diversity,”
Sustainability, Vol. 4, p. 2970-2997, Emory Libraries]
The loss of genetic diversity of thousands of plants and crops has been well
documented at least since the 1970s, and has been understood as a result of epistemological and political economic
conditions of the Green Revolution. The political economic arrangement of the Green Revolution, alongside a post-war focus on
economies of scale and export-oriented growth, replace high-yield single varieties of crops for a diverse array of varieties that may
not have the same yield, but may be able to resist pests, disease, and changing climatic conditions. Also, the harvest does not flow
Whereas small holder subsistence farming uses a large variety of crops
as a food source and small-scale trade, the industrial economic system requires simplified, machine
harvested ship-loads of one variety of maize, for example. Diverse varieties of different crops confound the
in all directions equally:
machines, whereas one variety of wheat can be harvested with one setting on a machine. However, none of this is new. The
purpose of this article is to analyze how the twin concerns of lost varietals and lost cultures are bound together in the socio-political
process of standardization, and to explain some areas of resistance. 1. Introduction In the 1940s, Carl O. Sauer, a consultant to the
instrumental Rockefeller Foundation, warned against the basic design of what would become industrialized agriculture, a.k.a., the
agronomists and plant breeders could ruin the native
resources for good and all by pushing their American commercial stocks . The little agricultural work that
Green Revolution: A good aggressive bunch of American
has been done by experiment stations here [in Mexico] has been making that very mistake, by introducing U.S. forms instead of
The possibilities of disastrous destruction of
local genes are great (…). Mexican agriculture cannot be pointed toward standardization on a few commercial types
working on the selection of ecologically adjusted native items.
without upsetting native economy and culture hopelessly. (Letter from Sauer to Joseph Willits, director of the Rockefeller
Foundation's Division of Social Science quoted in [1], p. 82, emphasis added). Sauer’s concern for both the social and ecological
distress is remarkably prescient. Since the warnings of Sauer, the field of “biocultural” studies, which explores the “ultimate” link
between biological diversity and cultural diversity, emerged in the 1990s; and, this field has discovered critical links between cultural
and biological richness, indicating Sauer’s suspicions were only the beginning [2]. The study of biocultural diversity has shown that
the richest areas of language, ethnicities, and other cultural indicators, correlate and indeed coevolve with areas of both flora and
fauna diversity [3,4]. There is a now an incontrovertible link between plants, animals, and lands that people gain material and nonmaterial welfare from, and the knowledge systems, linguistic development, and cultural identity that grows with and within these
Biological diversity refers to the overall number of individual species
regardless of frequency , while evenness refers to “how similar the frequencies of the different variants are” ([5] p. 5326).
ecological niches.
Low evenness indicates variations are dominated by a single or few varieties and is a biological measure for homogenization of
The threats to biological diversity are fairly well understood, if
complex: loss of habitat, invasive forces that supplant endemic species subsistence,
predation, and introduced diseases [6–9]. The forces that threaten biological diversity
often threaten cultural diversity directly and indirectly, “(…) placing the world’s diversity in both nature
and culture increasingly at risk . This means no less than placing at risk the very basis of life on
direct concern to our proposition.
Earth as we know it: the natural life-supporting systems that have evolved on the planet, and
their cultural counterparts have dynamically coevolved with them since the appearance of Homo sapiens” ([10], p. 56,
see also [11,12]). Areas of rich biodiversity and cultural diversity show “parallel extinction risk” (indeed higher extinction risk than
birds and mammals) [13], in part caused by “dramatic loss of livestock breeds and agricultural varieties as well as traditions for
raising them, and erosion or obliteration of regional cuisines and foodways;” and, as diversity is being lost to homogeneity “almost
everywhere” “forces promoting homogeneity are playing an endgame on a global scale” ([14], p. 317). Further, Jarvis, et al., have
shown that there is a, “close linear relationship between traditional variety richness and evenness” where high evenness is
industrial agriculture in the U.S.
suppresses biodiversity ([15], see also [16]). Provided that decades of empirical work noted above
conclusively demonstrate that industrial agriculture reduces bioculture , this article develops a
supported by traditional farming communities [5]. Likewise, Lyson and Welsh, found that
political-sociology to explain how and why this relationship exists. Cultural and biological diversity co-evolve in complex and
industrial agriculture
selects only a few varieties for high yield, reducing evenness of both biological diversity
and cultural variations through several long-standing patterns of bioculture. “Crops are the direct product of human
selection on wild plant diversity” ([17], p. 450). In traditional farms, there is actually more diversity of
staple varieties than non-staples, indicating traditional agriculture cultivates variation
and difference at the farm and community levels [5]. If there are fewer cultures and knowledge to select a
constitutive feedbacks, and their losses are also complex. However, our argument is fairly simple:
narrowing range of crops, diversity in crops falls alongside the loss of culture. Indeed, between the wild relatives and the industrial
high-yield varieties, there has been a successive reduction of diversity. Initial selection of maize, for example, maintained only 57%
industrial agriculture has selected only five varieties of
the initial “tens of thousands of open-pollinated cultivars of corn ” ([17,18], p. 80). Food varieties
of the wild DNA diversity [17]. Of these varieties,
come from diverse ecological systems, and these ecological systems are the environments within which knowledge is molded and
encoded through language and culture as an adaptive response; therefore, homogenizing ecosystems through industrial agriculture
selects adaptive features of language and culture, while this same process inhibits and obstructs the cultivation and freedom for the
majority of biological organisms and cultures. Our purpose in this essay is to organize and propose a specific political sociology that
as
cultures and biodiversity are lost to a more powerful and homogenizing set of forces, we
do not need to wait for civilization collapse to occur, because these inter-dependent communities are
not being sustained, and collapse , in this way, is already upon us .
explains these concomitant efforts of homogenization which clearly threaten social and ecological sustainability. Indeed,
Internals: subs = monocropping
Subsidies cause monocropping
Cotnoir ‘16
(Emma, A Master’s Research Paper Submitted to the faculty of Clark University, Worcester,
Massachusetts, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
the department of Environmental Science and Policy “The Influence of Agriculture Policy: The
Effects of the Farm Bill on Farm Size, Crop Choice, and Trends in Agriculture,” pg online @
https://commons.clarku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=idce_masters_papers
//um-ef)
Looking at statistics on agriculture in the United States, it is apparent that the way cropland is
used is shifting, but it is not apparent why this is problematic (MacDonald et. al., 2013).
Increased monocropping, paired with a move towards larger farms, has detrimental
environmental and economic effects; therefore having legislation that supports these is
problematic. Monocropping is an environmental issue since it increases the rate at which
the soil becomes exhausted and is leached of nutrients, whereas if crops were varied,
this would help replace nutrients and cause less erosion (Evans, 2004). With large-scale
farms, each acre is correspondingly used more extensively, and practices tend to be
more machinated and industrial, intensifying environmental issues such as nitrogen
fertilizer overuse and runoff (Ahearn, 2005). By structuring programs in terms of outputs such
as crop yield or acreage, programs cannot influence the way crops are produced. This means
that policy cannot steer farms towards more environmentally friendly and economically
equitable practices. Though the commodity payments and crop insurance programs are
not the biggest contributor to these changes, legislation should work towards correcting
problems rather than reinforcing them. Especially because of the detrimental
environmental effects, keeping the commodity and crop insurance section of the Farm Bill as
they are would contradict other parts of the bill, such as the conservation measures. While the
Farm Bill is not the only important legislation on agriculture, it is 19 certainly one of the largest,
and its economic programs are longstanding and widely used. The measures in this bill do
support farmers, but they also align with corporate views in many ways, as the economic
programs resemble the private contracts that many farmers opt for instead (Lobao, 2008). In
both cases, outputs such as crop yield are emphasized rather than farm structure or
farming practices, so in order to succeed, farms become larger and more industrial.
Current ag subsidies incentivize corn and soybean production.
Haspel 14 (Tamar Haspel, a freelance writer and farmer of oysters; “Farm bill: Why don’t taxpayers
subsidize the foods that are better for us?”; The Washington Post; Febuary 18, 2014;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/farm-bill-why-dont-taxpayers-subsidize-the-foods-that-arebetter-for-us/2014/02/14/d7642a3c-9434-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html) Accessed 7/4/21//eleanor
Taxpayers heavily subsidize corn and soy, two
crops that facilitate the meat and processed food we’re supposed to eat less of, and do
almost nothing for the fruits and vegetables we’re supposed to eat more of. If there’s any obligation to spend
Read the farm bill, and a big problem jumps right out at you:
the public’s money in a way that’s consistent with that same public’s health, shouldn’t it be the other way around? The problem
dates back to the bill’s inception in the 1930s, when farms raised livestock and grew a mix of crops, including staple crops (corn,
wheat, oats, barley) and what the bill calls “specialty crops” but what the rest of us know as fruits and vegetables. From the 1930s to
1980, subsidies
alone weren’t substantial enough to significantly change the mix of crops
on farms, according to Vincent Smith, professor of economics at Montana State University and a visiting scholar at the
American Enterprise Institute. “In 1980, we introduced crop insurance subsidies of substance that began to change the ways in
which farmers manage risk, and to discourage diversification,” he says. And then we increased them until they became very
What’s important
about how we subsidize farms isn’t necessarily the overall dollar amount — it comes to 5
percent to 10 percent of the market price of most of the subsidized crops — it’s that it takes some of the risk out
of farming grains and oil seeds, but not fruits and vegetables. Farming is inherently
substantial, and farmers, at least to some extent, farmed to the bill the way teachers teach to a test.
risky . Weather, insects and disease, over which you have limited control or none at all,
can wipe you out. One of the ways farmers manage risk is to plant variety . Okay,
powdery mildew got your strawberries, but the broccoli’s going gangbusters. For farmers,
crops that are given guaranteed protection from both losses and price drops are lowerrisk propositions . Farmers, like the rest of us, have bills to pay and children to feed. (Full disclosure: My husband and I
farm oysters and have benefited from the farm bill’s conservation program.) A guaranteed source of income is
attractive. That’s one of the reasons that, of the 300-million-plus acres planted with food
(other than grass, hay and forage for animals) in this country, half are corn and soy.
Another 50 million are wheat. Only 14 million are devoted to fruits and vegetables, from peas
(1.2 million acres) to mangosteens (1 acre, which I’d dearly love to visit).
Internals: Regen Ag S Monoculture
Regenerative agriculture facilitates a transition away from corn
monocultures.
Rebecca Graham 21, a BA candidate in International Studies, May 2021, "Restoration
Through Regeneration: An Analysis of Agriculture in the United States," Arcadia University,
https://scholarworks.arcadia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1403&context=showcase – MBA
AM
For some farms, more control over livestock grazing is necessary and can be accomplished through rotational grazing practices. Rotational grazing
allows livestock to graze in specific areas of pasturelands, allowing unoccupied sections time to regrow stronger and healthier plant matter for future
grazing. The
use of rotational grazing restores the microbial balance of soil. Rotational grazing as a
practice of regenerative animal agriculture stimulates healthy soil, which promotes resilient
plant and grass regrowth, which in turn becomes a nutritious and sustainable food
source for livestock (Regeneration International, 2017). Through the use of rotational grazing, farmers do not need to grow
corn and other livestock-specific feed crops, as the livestock in a sense become
responsible for the growing and consumption of their own food. This allows for arable
croplands to become diversified in their production of plant foods for human consumption,
creating an increase in food security.
Promoting the natural relationship that exists between animal and plant life cycles is
essential in achieving a balanced and sustainable food system. For some livestock farmers, this involves the use of adaptive multi-paddock (AMP)
grazing management. Adaptive multi-paddock grazing techniques build off of rotational grazing, while adding strategically sectioned zones for livestock
to graze within. By concentrating livestock into smaller sections of pasturelands, the animals are forced to graze within the bounds of that zone,
allowing plants to grow stronger roots. This promotes resilient and bountiful regrowth of grasses in the unoccupied sections (Teague, 2017). Cattle
rotate through these areas, grazing on the healthy grass regrowth while allowing the previously grazed areas time to regenerate. The
utilization of AMP grazing management allows farmers to sustain their cattle on naturally
growing grasslands, making this regenerative farming technique both cost effective and
sustainable. Ultimately, these strategic grazing techniques supply livestock with food while promoting a healthy balance within the
agroecosystem.
The use of these grazing techniques creates healthy and bountiful plantlife on livestock farms. Healthy
plant life in grazing fields
promotes water retention as well as carbon sequestration, decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere (Teague, 2017). Soil and plants have the ability to store carbon, redirecting it from the atmosphere into the Earth in what is known as a
“carbon sink” (Payne, 2019). Currently in the United States, there are 762 million metric tons of greenhouse gases stored in the soil (Delonge, 2016).
While this offsets 11% of greenhouse gas emissions, it does not sequester enough carbon to prevent rising global temperatures (Delonge, 2016).
While it is still unknown to scientists exactly how much carbon can be absorbed into the soil, as these tests have only been conducted on small-scale
regenerative farms, regenerative agricultural practices lead the way in such discoveries (Delonge, 2016). Carbon sequestration through regenerative
farming practices actively reverses the environmental destruction caused by industrialized agriculture. The
ability of regenerative
agriculture to restore the Earth’s natural ecological balance while yielding enough food
to sustain the global population proves this approach to be the most effective solution to
the negative impacts of industrialized agriculture. While these regenerative methods of livestock production offer
environmentally sustainable solutions to the production of animal products, they must also be able to sustain the growing human population and the
increasingly large demand for meat. As the global demand for meat and dairy continues to rise, agricultural practices must be able to fulfill nutritional
needs for the growing population of the world.
Impacts: Monoculture = Bioterror
Widespread monocultures make bioterror attacks inevitable.
Jared Kelly 19, BA in Political Science at UC Berkley, Counterterrorism Research Intern at UC
Berkley, 2019, "The United States Love Affair with Maize: A National Security Issue?,"
Gettysburg Social Sciences Review,
https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=gssr – MBA AM
Externalities from a Reliance on Monoculture
In the past the
reliance on large monocultures have led to catastrophic consequences when
they have failed to produce a viable crop. Examples of large monocultures failing are seen throughout history. In the
1940s a significant portion of the oat crop was lost due to a fungal pathogen known as Victoria blight, while in the 1850s1870s the Great French Wine
Blight caused by aphids laid waste to the wine industry in France. The Gros Michel was the primary export banana consumed around the world until
the 1950s, when the variety declined due to significant losses resulting from Panama Disease. One of the most notable monoculture failures was the
Irish Potato Famine occurring between 1845 and 1852 in which the potato crop failed, and the population of Ireland was reduced by about 20 – 25
Monocultures are larger than they have ever been, and the
reliance on them is far greater than it ever was in the past. This is problematic as they are
extremely susceptible to infestations , natural disasters , and in our current era,
percent due to starvation and mass exodus.
bioterrorism attacks.
Anthropogenic Impacts
A bioterrorist attack would involve the intentional dissemination of biological or
herbicidal agents such as viruses, fungi, bacteria, toxins, or chemical substances to
destroy plants or disrupt agricultural food production. Since 1978, the United Nations Environmental Modification
Convention has outlawed “any technique for changing the composition or structure of the 95 Earth’s biota” (ENMOD 1978: Article II). However, if an
entity were inclined to disrupt the American maize crop, extensive damage could occur
by comparatively low-tech means. A bioterrorism attack would require relatively little
specialized expertise and technology to be carried out. The impacts from such an attack would
pose a serious threat to both US agriculture and the domestic economy (Wheelis, Casagrande, and Madden
2002). It
is an extremely vulnerable area where there are little to no protections in place.
The maize monoculture is vulnerable to both biocrimes and bioterrorism which are difficult to
protect against. It is difficult to pinpoint where an attack will come from as agricultural
bioterrorists have a variety of motives.
There are a number of adaptive strategies the United States can use to mitigate against a bioterrorist attack. First and foremost, the government could
If the government
chooses to maintain the Farm Bill and subsidies, they can use these rewards to
incentivize farmers to grow different varieties of crops. Farmland where the crops
maintain a diverse genetic composition are less susceptible to a bioterrorism attack,
seek to address the issue of what creates monocultures such as reforming or eliminating the Marketing Loan Program.
especially if that attack targets a specific crop or plant variety. As technology progresses ports of entry can be equipped to perform more
comprehensive testing of foodstuffs, and crops being brought in to prevent pests or pathogens from being introduced intentionally or unintentionally.
Industrial agriculture makes the US vulnerable to devastating bioterror
attacks.
Colonel Charles Luke 21, Army Strategic Plans Officer, fellow with the US Army War College,
5-21-2021, "PERSPECTIVE: Hidden Security Dangers in the American Industrial Agriculture
System," Homeland Security Today, https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/infrastructure-
security/perspective-hidden-security-dangers-in-the-american-industrial-agriculture-system/ MBA AM
MONOCULTURE: A LACK OF DIVERSITY
Agricultural industrialization’s increased efficiencies have led to historical systematic monoculture
in the variety of produce grown and animals raised. Beyond the well-documented environmental impacts – pesticide toxicity, water pollution, erosion,
and soil depletion – monoculture
is fragile in its lack of biodiversity . [23] This lack of diversity is twofold: types of
varieties within a species and the overall specialization of large farms.
Genetic
diversity in farming is important for resiliency and ensuring food security . By growing
A 2019 UN report notes that of the 6,000 plant species cultivated for food, just nine account for 66% of total crop production.[24]
fewer varieties of essential crops such as corn, tomatoes, and potatoes, the genetic pool for adapting to
disease and climate change is lost. Loss of genetic diversity is a well-documented
scientific concern for long-term food security.[25] The loss of this diversity is largely driven by proprietary seed
production of large biotech companies such as Monsanto. “Seed laws” have evolved that severely restrict local farmers from saving their own seeds,
losing the local sources, and forcing farmers to buy from a handful of companies. As Grain, a nonprofit organization supporting local farmers, pointed
out, “Today, just 10 companies account for 55% of the global seed market. And the lobbying power of these giants – such as Monsanto, Dow or
Syngenta – is very strong. As a result, they have managed to impose restrictive measures giving them monopoly control.”[26] The monopolization and
concentration of seed rights is another contributing weakness factor to the system.
The lack of diversity extends to animals raised as food sources as well. Chickens have been bred to
unnatural growth specifications with just two main varieties where once American farms raised
hundreds of different types of chickens. This lack of diversity in commercial meat
chickens is of particular vulnerability if a disease or virus were to spread throughout the
industry, such as the avian flu (H51N) outbreak in 2005. IA 2008 Purdue University report noted, “Despite the fact that hundreds of chicken
breeds exist … today’s commercial broilers descend from about three lines of chickens, and poultry used in egg production come from only one
specialized line.”[27] This lack of diversity in commercial meat chickens is of particular vulnerability if a disease or virus was to spread throughout the
industry that millions of people rely on for food. The hog and beef cattle industry
slightly lesser extent, as there are more laws and regulations governing their raising and slaughter.
has followed suit as well, but to a
The lack of diversity extends from the genome to the farm itself. It is common for farms to dedicate
thousands of continuous acres to one food crop. This industrial system is more efficient and
profitable, but requires chemical resources that weaken the supporting biological
infrastructure. Many of these large farms have evolved to grow single commercial food crops, largely corn and soybeans. Neither of these
two commercially grown crops produce food that is directly edible for humans, adding to the production network to process them. In general, corn and
soybeans are considered feed crops for industrially raised farm animals. Corn is also used to make ethanol, which according to the USDA “now
accounts for nearly 40 percent of total corn use. While the number of feed grain farms (those that produce corn, sorghum, barley, and/or oats) in the
United States has declined in recent years, the acreage per corn farm has risen.”[28] Put simply,
even though there is plenty of
farmland, we are not producing food we can eat now, or could eat in an emergency. Most farm areas, if under
strain or in a crisis, could not feed themselves. The combination of crop specialization , fewer farmers , and a
decline in grocery stores has created farm deserts in farm country. As noted by the New York Times, “Farm towns … that
produce beef, corn and greens to feed the world are becoming America’s unlikeliest food deserts as traditional grocery stores are forced out of
business by fewer shoppers and competition from dollar-store chains.”[29]
THREATS
Agricultural monocultures “putting all the eggs in one basket” could be prime targets for natural blights and
manufactured diseases . Just as the DNA of crops and animals have been manipulated to increase yield and growth rates,
viruses could conceivably be tailored to target specific seeds and animals raised largely
in the United States or by specific companies. With gene editing technology such as CRISPR “clusters of regularly
interspaced short palindromic repeats,” an avian flu tailored to American chicken breeds or specific
potatoes is technically possible.[30] While the Chinese military is gaining headlines for using
gene editing on its own troops, the gene editing of viruses is a possible long-term threat to
American industry and agriculture.[31]
Bio-terror causes extinction---mathematically outweighs.
Millett 17. Piers Millett, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Institute, University of
Oxford; and Andrew Snyder-Beattie, M.S., Director of Research, Future of Humanity Institute, University
of Oxford. 08-01-2017. “Existential Risk and Cost-Effective Biosecurity,” Health Security, 15(4), PubMed
In the decades to come, advanced
bioweapons could threaten human
existence . Although the probability
expected value of reducing
existence of
of human extinction from bioweapons
the risk
may be low, the
could still be large , since such risks jeopardize the
all future generations . We provide an overview of biotechnological extinction risk, make some rough initial
estimates for how severe the risks might be, and compare the cost-effectiveness of reducing these extinction-level risks with existing
biosecurity work. We find that reducing human extinction risk can be more cost-effective than reducing smaller-scale risks, even
when using conservative estimates. This suggests that the risks are not low enough to ignore and that more ought to be done to
prevent the worst-case scenarios. How worthwhile is it spending resources to study and mitigate the chance of human extinction
from biological risks? The risks of such a catastrophe are presumably low, so a skeptic might argue that addressing such risks
would be a waste of scarce resources. In this article, we investigate this position using a cost-effectiveness approach and ultimately
conclude that the expected value of reducing these risks is large, especially since such risks jeopardize the existence of all future
human lives.
Historically, disease events have been responsible for the greatest death
tolls on humanity. The 1918 flu was responsible for more than 50 million deaths,1 while smallpox killed perhaps 10 times
that many in the 20th century alone.2 The Black Death was responsible for killing over 25% of the European population,3 while
other pandemics, such as the plague of Justinian, are thought to have killed 25 million in the 6th century—constituting over 10% of
a future pandemic could result in outright
human extinction or the irreversible collapse of civilization. A skeptic would have many
good reasons to think that existential risk from disease is unlikely. Such a disease would
need to spread worldwide to remote populations , overcome rare genetic resistances ,
the world's population at the time.4 It is an open question whether
and evade detection , cures, and countermeasures . Even evolution itself may work in
humanity's favor: Virulence and transmission is often a trade-off , and so evolutionary
pressures could push against maximally lethal wild-type pathogens.5,6 While these
arguments point to a very small risk of human extinction, they do not rule
rare, there are recorded instances of
the possibility
out
entirely. Although
species going extinct due to disease —primarily in amphibians,
but also in 1 mammalian species of rat on Christmas Island.7,8 There are also historical
examples of large human populations being almost entirely wiped out by disease,
especially when multiple diseases were simultaneously introduced into a population
without immunity. The most striking examples of total population collapse include native
American tribes exposed to European diseases, such as the Massachusett (86% loss of
population), Quiripi-Unquachog (95% loss of population), and the Western Abenaki (which suffered a
staggering 98% loss of population).9 In the modern context, no single disease currently exists that
combines the worst-case levels of transmissibility, lethality, resistance to
countermeasures, and global reach. But many diseases are proof of principle that each
worst-case attribute can be realized independently . For example, some diseases exhibit
nearly a 100% case fatality ratio in the absence of treatment, such as rabies or septicemic
plague. Other diseases have a track record of spreading to virtually every human
community worldwide, such as the 1918 flu,10 and seroprevalence studies indicate that
other pathogens, such as chickenpox and HSV-1, can successfully reach over 95% of a
population.11,12 Under optimal virulence theory, natural evolution would be an unlikely source for
pathogens with the highest possible levels of transmissibility, virulence, and global
reach . But advances in biotech nology might allow the creation of diseases
that combine such traits . Recent controversy has already emerged over a number
of scientific experiments that resulted in viruses with enhanced transmissibility ,
lethality , and/or the ability to overcome therapeutics .13-17 Other experiments demonstrated that
mousepox could be modified to have a 100% case fatality rate
and render a vaccine ineffective.18 In
addition to transmissibility and lethality, studies have shown that other disease traits, such as incubation time, environmental
survival, and available vectors, could be modified as well.19-21 Although
these experiments had scientific
merit and were not conducted with malicious intent, their implications are still worrying.
This is especially true given that there is also a long historical track record of state-run
bioweapon research applying cutting-edge science and technology to design agents not
previously seen in nature. The Soviet bioweapons program developed agents with traits such as enhanced virulence,
resistance to therapies, greater environmental resilience, increased difficulty to diagnose or treat, and which caused unexpected
disease presentations and outcomes.22 Delivery capabilities have also been subject to the cutting edge of technical development,
with Canadian, US, and UK bioweapon efforts playing a critical role in developing the discipline of aerobiology.23,24 While there is
no evidence of state-run bioweapons programs directly attempting to develop or deploy bioweapons that would pose an existential
risk, the
logic of deterrence and m utually a ssured d estruction
could create such incentives in more unstable political environments or following a breakdown of
the Biological Weapons Convention.25 The possibility of a war between great powers could
also increase the pressure to use such weapons—during the World Wars, bioweapons
were used across multiple continents, with Germany targeting animals in WWI,26 and Japan using plague to
cause an epidemic in China during WWII.27 Non-state actors may also pose a
risk, especially those with explicitly omnicidal aims . While rare, there are examples. The
Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan sought biological weapons for the express purpose of
causing extinction.28 Environmental groups, such as the Gaia Liberation Front, have
argued that “we can ensure Gaia's survival only through the extinction of the Humans as
a species … we now have the specific technology for doing the job … several different
[genetically engineered] viruses could be released”(quoted in ref. 29). Groups such as R.I.S.E.
also sought to protect nature by destroying most of humanity with bioweapons.30
Fortunately, to date, non-state actors have lacked the capabilities needed to pose a
catastrophic bioweapons threat, but this could change in future
decades as biotech nology becomes more accessible and the pool of experienced users
grows .31,32 What is the appropriate response to these speculative extinction threats? A
include investments that reduce a mix of proven and
speculative risks, but striking this balance is still difficult given the massive uncertainties
around the low-probability, high-consequence risks. In this article, we examine the traditional spectrum of
balanced biosecurity portfolio might
biosecurity risks (ie, biocrimes, bioterrorism, and biowarfare) to categorize biothreats by likelihood and impact, expanding the
historical analysis to consider even lower-probability, higher-consequence events (catastrophic risks and existential risks). In order
to produce reasoned estimates of the likelihood of different categories of biothreats, we bring together relevant data and theory and
produce some first-guess estimates of the likelihood of different categories of biothreat, and we use these initial estimates to
compare the cost-effectiveness of reducing existential risks with more traditional biosecurity measures. We emphasize that these
models are highly uncertain, and their utility lies more in enabling order-of-magnitude comparisons rather than as a precise measure
of the true risk. However,
even with the most conservative models , we find that reduction of low-
probability, high-consequence risk s can be more cost-effective, as measured by qualityadjusted life year
per dollar, especially when we account for the lives of future generations. This suggests that
despite the low probability of such events, society still ought to invest more in
preventing the most extreme possible biosecurity catastrophes .
Risks extinction.
Pedersen 17. Pepperdine University (Christian, “Reflecting Back on the Ebola Outbreak and the Future of Bioterrorism,”
Pepperdine Policy Review: Vol. 9, dml)
Terror groups like al-Qaeda and ISIL
(the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) have
expressed
interested , and have even attempted , to use biological agents in terror plots (Biodefense,
2016).
The technical and administrative knowledge of biology and chemistry can be
acquired globally in medical schools , research programs , and laboratories , making it
difficult to prevent potential practitioners of bioterrorism from acquiring the required
scientific knowledge
(Chiodo, 2015). While
at one time the ability to mutate strands was
restricted to advanced research laboratories, rudimentary high school laboratories now
have the ability to develop deadly biological agents
(Garrett, 2012). With relative easy, terror groups could
engineer the flu virus, making it deadlier (Selk, 2017). By combining traits of multiple strains and maximizing the virus’ natural properties, it could
become highly transmittable (Farmer, 2107).
Genetically engineered viruses have the potential to kill more
people than nuclear weapons , governments remain underprepared for that threat (Selk, 2017).
Terrorists could be drawn to the use of biological agents because of the difficulty of
detection and the ease at which some biological agents can naturally spread through a
population (Bioterrorism, 2006). There are essentially three ways which agents could be acquired by terrorist: they could be
stolen , created in laboratory environments , or collected naturally . A gloomy reality is that as the
advancement of new technologies reduce the costs of genetic sequencing , it will
become easier and less expensive to create novel organisms (Garrett, 2012). Bioterrorist
attacks can be planned to induce maximum damage and panic with a minimum risk of
early detection . Potential agents of attack are categorized by risk (rated as an, A, B, or a C) depending on the agent’s availability, ease of
dissemination and transmission, and potential impact (Bioterrorism, 2006). Category A agents are considered the most dangerous and threatening to
National Security. Ebola is categorized as a Category A bioagent because of its ability to cause mass panic and disruption and the special public health
actions required for treating those infected.
Through the EVD, “mother nature has created the perfect bioweapon” (Thiessen, 2014). Following the Paris terrorist attacks, the French have warned
that terrorist organizations may attempt to steal biological agents (Talent & Graham, 2016). The British Ministry of Defense feared terrorists
would try to acquire EVD and released a report outlining three separate scenarios in which terror groups could successfully weaponize the virus.
(Quinn, 2015) These could
be stolen from research facilities , laboratories , or government
stockpiles . While the more exotic and devastating agents (such as small pox) must be cultivated
in laboratory environments and are therefore more difficult to obtain, many biological
agents are naturally occurring
(Gottron, 2002). Examples
of these naturally occurring, and
easier to obtain agents include: human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ), the hepatitis strands , yellow
fever , and the Ebola
virus (Gottron, 2002). Moreover, the
Ebola virus is native to a continent where
terrorist organizations like Boko Haram , Al-Qaeda , and the Islamic State are active
(Thiessen, 2014). The
21-day incubation period allows potential jihadists more than enough
time to infect themselves, then travel to infected population centers, developing the
means of mass distribution
(Thiessen, 2014).
In June 2001 – months prior to the September 11th attack in New York – Dark Winter, a
senior level wargame , was run in
conjunction with security think tanks and government agencies to simulate government
responses to acts of bioterrorism (Dark Winter). The simulation demonstrated how a biological
terror attack could result in mass civilian casualties , civil disorder , institutional
breakdown and lack of faith in government
– compromising national security (Dark Winter). Major challenges for
policymakers included the many “fault lines” which existed between governmental agencies, the levels of government, private healthcare systems, and
the public (Dark Winter). Breakdowns
in centralized leadership and communication could threaten
containment and control . It was revealed that the healthcare system in the United States had no surge abilities to prevent hospitals
from becoming overwhelmed or to meet the heightened demand for vaccinations (Dark Winter). Finally, targeted communications and information
management was recognized as a challenge, both in working with the media and in disseminating important information (Dark Winter). It became very
clear after the exercise that the United States was unprepared for an act of bioterrorism. In 2010, nearly ten years after the Dark Winter exercise, a
commission created to evaluate the national emergency response capabilities gave the nation a failing grade on its ability to respond to a bioterrorist
threat (O’Grady, 2015).
Bioterrorism can cause extinction
Toby Ord 20, philosopher and research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute, and the
author of The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity, “Why we need worst-case
thinking to prevent pandemics,” Guardian, 3-6-2020,
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/mar/06/worst-case-thinking-prevent-pandemicscoronavirus-existential-risk
To understand our vulnerability, and to determine what steps must be taken to end it, it is useful to ask about the very worst-case
scenarios. Just how bad could a pandemic be? In science fiction, we sometimes encounter the idea of
severe
that it could
a pandemic so
cause the end of civilisation , or even of humanity itself . Such a risk to
humanity’s entire future is known as an existential risk . We can say with certainty that
the novel coronavirus, named Covid-19, does not pose such a risk. But could the next
pandemic?
To find out, and to put the current outbreak into greater context, let us turn to the past.
In 1347, death came to Europe. It entered through the Crimean town of Caffa, brought by the besieging Mongol army. Fleeing merchants unwittingly carried it back to Italy. From
there, it spread to France, Spain and England. Then up as far as Norway and across the rest of Europe – all the way to Moscow. Within six years, the Black Death had taken the
continent.
Tens of millions fell gravely ill, their bodies succumbing to the disease in different ways. Some bore swollen buboes on their necks, armpits and thighs; some had their flesh turn
black from haemorrhaging beneath the skin; some coughed blood from the necrotic inflammation of their throats and lungs. All forms involved fever, exhaustion and an
intolerable stench from the material that exuded from the body.
There were so many dead that mass graves needed to be dug and, even then, cemeteries ran out of room for the bodies. The Black Death devastated Europe. In those six
years, between a quarter and half of all Europeans were killed. The Middle East was ravaged, too, with the plague killing about one in three Egyptians and Syrians. And it may
have also laid waste to parts of central Asia, India and China. Due to the scant records of the 14th century, we will never know the true toll, but our best estimates are that
somewhere between 5% and 14% of all the world’s people were killed, in what may have been the greatest catastrophe humanity has seen.
The Black Death was not the only biological disaster to scar human history. It was not even the only great bubonic plague. In AD541 the plague of Justinian struck the Byzantine
empire. Over three years, it took the lives of roughly 3% of the world’s people.
When Europeans reached the Americas in 1492, the two populations exposed each other to completely novel diseases. Over thousands of years, each population had built up
resistance to their own set of diseases, but were extremely susceptible to the others. The American peoples got by far the worse end of the exchange, through diseases such as
measles, influenza and, especially, smallpox.
During the next 100 years, a combination of invasion and disease took an immense toll – one whose scale may never be known, due to great uncertainty about the size of the
pre-existing population. We can’t rule out the loss of more than 90% of the population of the Americas during that century, though the number could also be much lower. And it
is very difficult to tease out how much of this should be attributed to war and occupation, rather than disease. At a rough estimate, as many as 10% of the world’s people may
have been killed.
Centuries later, the world had become so interconnected that a truly global pandemic was possible. Towards the end of the first world war, a devastating strain of influenza,
known as the 1918 flu or Spanish flu, spread to six continents, and even remote Pacific islands. About a third of the world’s population were infected and between 3% and 6%
were killed. This death toll outstripped that of the first world war.
Yet even events like these fall short of being a threat to humanity’s long-term potential. In the great bubonic plagues we saw civilisation in the affected areas falter, but recover.
The regional 25%-50% death rate was not enough to precipitate a continent-wide collapse. It changed the relative fortunes of empires, and may have substantially altered the
course of history, but if anything, it gives us reason to believe that human civilisation is likely to make it through future events with similar death rates, even if they were global in
scale.
The Spanish flu pandemic was remarkable in having very little apparent effect on the world’s development, despite its global reach. It looks as if it was lost in the wake of the
first world war, which, despite a smaller death toll, seems to have had a much larger effect on the course of history.
The full history of humanity covers at least 200,000 years. While we have scarce records for most of these 2,000 centuries, there is a key lesson we can draw from the sheer
length of our past. The chance of human extinction from natural catastrophes of any kind must have been very low for most of this time – or we would not have made it so far.
But could these risks have changed? Might the past provide false comfort?
Our population
now is
a thousand times greater than it was for most of human history, so
there are vastly more opportunities for new human diseases to originate . And our
farming practices have created vast numbers of animals living in unhealthy conditions
within close proximity to humans . This increases the risk , as many major diseases originate in animals
before crossing over to humans. Examples include HIV (chimpanzees), Ebola (bats), Sars (probably civets or bats) and influenza
(usually pigs or birds). We do not yet know where Covid-19 came from, though it is very similar to coronaviruses found in bats and
pangolins. Evidence suggests that diseases are crossing over into human populations from animals at an increasing rate.
Modern civilisation may also make it much easier for a pandemic to spread. The higher
density of people living together
distance transport
in cities increases the number of people each of us may infect. Rapid
long-
greatly increases the distance pathogens can spread, reducing the degrees of separation between any
two people. Moreover, we are no longer divided into isolated populations as we were for most of the past 10,000 years.
Together
these effects suggest
that we might expect more new pandemics , for them to
spread more quickly , and to reach a higher percentage of the world’s people.
But we have also changed the world in ways that offer protection. We have a healthier population; improved sanitation and hygiene;
preventative and curative medicine; and a scientific understanding of disease. Perhaps most importantly, we have public health
bodies to facilitate global communication and coordination in the face of new outbreaks. We have seen the benefits of this protection
through the dramatic decline of endemic infectious disease over the past century (though we can’t be sure pandemics will obey the
same trend). Finally, we have spread to a range of locations and environments unprecedented for any mammalian species. This
offers special protection from extinction events, because it requires the pathogen to be able to flourish in a vast range of
environments and to reach exceptionally isolated populations such as uncontacted tribes, Antarctic researchers and nuclear
submarine crews.
It is hard to know whether these combined effects have increased or decreased the existential risk from pandemics. This uncertainty
is ultimately bad news: we were previously sitting on a powerful argument that the risk was tiny; now we are not.
We have seen the indirect ways that our actions aid and abet the origination and spread of pandemics. But what about cases where
we have a much more direct hand in the process – where
we deliberately use, improve or create
the
pathogens ?
Our understanding and control of pathogens is very recent. Just 200 years ago, we didn’t even understand the basic cause of pandemics – a leading theory in the west claimed that disease was produced by a
kind of gas. In just two centuries, we discovered it was caused by a diverse variety of microscopic agents and we worked out how to grow them in the lab, to breed them for different traits, to sequence their
genomes, to implant new genes and to create entire functional viruses from their written code.
This progress is continuing at a rapid pace. The past 10 years have seen major qualitative breakthroughs, such as the use of the gene editing tool Crispr to efficiently insert new genetic sequences into a genome,
and the use of gene drives to efficiently replace populations of natural organisms in the wild with genetically modified versions.
This progress in biotechnology seems unlikely to fizzle out anytime soon: there are no insurmountable challenges looming; no fundamental laws blocking further developments. But it would be optimistic to
assume that this uncharted new terrain holds only familiar dangers.
To start with, let’s set aside the risks from malicious intent, and consider only the risks that can arise from well-intentioned research. Most scientific and medical research poses a negligible risk of harms at the
scale we are considering. But there is a small fraction that uses live pathogens of kinds that are known to threaten global harm. These include the agents that cause the Spanish flu, smallpox, Sars and H5N1 or
avian flu. And a small part of this research involves making strains of these pathogens that pose even more danger than the natural types, increasing their transmissibility, lethality or resistance to vaccination or
treatment.
In 2012, a Dutch virologist, Ron Fouchier, published details of an experiment on the recent H5N1 strain of bird flu. This strain was extremely deadly, killing an estimated 60% of humans it infected – far beyond
even the Spanish flu. Yet its inability to pass from human to human had so far prevented a pandemic. Fouchier wanted to find out whether (and how) H5N1 could naturally develop this ability. He passed the
disease through a series of 10 ferrets, which are commonly used as a model for how influenza affects humans. By the time it passed to the final ferret, his strain of H5N1 had become directly transmissible
between mammals.
The work caused fierce controversy. Much of this was focused on the information contained in his work. The US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity ruled that his paper had to be stripped of some of
its technical details before publication, to limit the ability of bad actors to cause a pandemic. And the Dutch government claimed that the research broke EU law on exporting information useful for bioweapons. But
it is not the possibility of misuse that concerns me here. Fouchier’s research provides a clear example of well-intentioned scientists enhancing the destructive capabilities of pathogens known to threaten global
catastrophe.
Of course, such experiments are done in secure labs, with stringent safety standards. It is highly unlikely that in any particular case the enhanced pathogens would escape into the wild. But just how unlikely?
Unfortunately, we don’t have good data, due to a lack of transparency about incident and escape rates. This prevents society from making well-informed decisions balancing the risks and benefits of this research,
and it limits the ability of labs to learn from each other’s incidents.
Security for highly dangerous pathogens has been deeply flawed, and remains insufficient. In 2001, Britain was struck by a devastating outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in livestock. Six million animals were
killed in an attempt to halt its spread, and the economic damages totalled £8bn. Then, in 2007, there was another outbreak, which was traced to a lab working on the disease. Foot-and-mouth was considered a
highest-category pathogen, and required the highest level of biosecurity. Yet the virus escaped from a badly maintained pipe, leaking into the groundwater at the facility. After an investigation, the lab’s licence was
renewed – only for another leak to occur two weeks later.
In my view, this track record of escapes shows that even the highest biosafety level (BSL-4) is insufficient for working on pathogens that pose a risk of global pandemics on the scale of the Spanish flu or worse.
Thirteen years since the last publicly acknowledged outbreak from a BSL-4 facility is not good enough. It doesn’t matter whether this is from insufficient standards, inspections, operations or penalties. What
matters is the poor track record in the field, made worse by a lack of transparency and accountability. With current BSL-4 labs, an escape of a pandemic pathogen is only a matter of time.
One of the most exciting trends in
biotech nology is its rapid democratisation
– the speed at which cutting-edge
techniques can be adopted by students and amateurs. When a new breakthrough is achieved, the pool of people with the talent,
training, resources and patience to reproduce it rapidly expands: from a handful of the world’s top biologists, to people with PhDs in
the field, to millions of people with undergraduate-level biology.
The Human Genome Project was the largest ever scientific collaboration in biology. It took 13 years and $500m to produce the full
DNA sequence of the human genome. Just 15 years later, a genome can be sequenced for under $1,000, and within a single hour.
The reverse process has become much easier, too: online DNA synthesis services allow anyone to upload a DNA sequence of their
choice then have it constructed and shipped to their address. While still expensive, the price of synthesis has fallen by a factor of
1,000 in the past two decades, and continues to drop. The first ever uses of Crispr and gene drives were the biotechnology
achievements of the decade. But within just two years, each of these technologies were used successfully by bright students
participating in science competitions.
Such democratisation promises to fuel a boom of entrepreneurial biotechnology. But since biotechnology can be misused to lethal
effect, democratisation also means
proliferation . As the pool of people with access
to a technique
grows, so does the chance it contains someone with malign intent .
People with the motivation to wreak global destruction are mercifully rare. But they exist. Perhaps the best example is the Aum
Shinrikyo cult in Japan, active between 1984 and 1995, which sought to bring about the destruction of humanity. It attracted several
thousand members, including people with advanced skills in chemistry and biology. And it demonstrated that it was not mere
misanthropic ideation. It launched multiple lethal attacks using VX gas and sarin gas, killing more than 20 people and injuring
thousands. It attempted to weaponise anthrax, but did not succeed. What
happens when the circle of people
able to create a global pandemic becomes wide enough to include members of such a
group? Or members of a terrorist organisation or rogue state that could try to build an
omnicidal weapon for the purposes of extortion or deterrence ?
The main candidate for biological existential risk in the coming decades thus stems from technology – particularly the risk of misuse
by states or small groups. But this is not a case in which the world is blissfully unaware of the risks. Bertrand Russell wrote of the
danger of extinction from biowarfare to Einstein in 1955. And, in 1969, the possibility was raised by the American Nobel laureate for
medicine, Joshua Lederberg: “As a scientist I am profoundly concerned about the continued involvement of the United States and
other nations in the
development of biological warfare . This process puts the very future of human
life on earth in serious peril .”
Current agricultural practices make bioterror attacks inevitable.
Henry S. Parker 2, National Program Leader for Aquaculture at the Agricultural Research
Service, a former associate professor at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, and
instructor at the University of Rhode Island, 3/1/2002, "Agricultural Bioterrorism: A Federal
Strategy to Meet the Threat," , https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA409307.pdf - MBA AM
The attacks of September 11, 2001, have made Americans acutely aware of their vulnerability to terrorism. Now the Nation is focused on improving
defensive measures and rooting out and destroying the global infrastructure of terrorism. In response to the terrorist offensive, the Bush administration
has engineered an international coalition against terrorism; dedicated substantial new resources to prevent or deter this blight; undertaken military
action against blatant practitioners of terrorism; and established a new Office of Homeland Security, under the leadership of former Pennsylvania
governor Tom Ridge, to coordinate the Federal response to terrorism.
the threat of bioterrorism in
particular looms larger than ever. Fears of anthrax, smallpox, and plague pervade the American consciousness, fueled by
As America prepares defenses against catastrophes barely conceivable only a few months ago,
reports that some of the plane hijackers involved in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks had specific interest in crop duster aircraft that could
be used to disseminate aerosols of pathogens. Because of this, the Nation is stepping up its defenses against bioterrorism.
Nevertheless, little
attention has been given to agricultural biowarfare and bioterrorism or to the
Americans appreciate
the gravity of the threat of bioterrorist attacks against the American food and agriculture
infrastructure. This point is exemplified in a General Accounting Office (GAO) report on combating terrorism released 9 days after the attacks
roles and responsibilities of the public and private sectors in deterring and responding to potential attacks. Few
of September 11.1 The report did not address threats to American agriculture, nor did it involve participation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA). It focused only on terrorism directed against “civilian targets”; therefore, according to GAO, it ix “did not focus on terrorism directed against
agricultural targets.” GAO explained that agriculture was not included in the review because it has not been designated a critical national infrastructure.
But agriculture
is a critical American infrastructure . It constitutes one-sixth of gross domestic product (GDP)—over a
trillion dollars a year. The food and agriculture sector is the Nation’s largest employer; one of eight Americans works in an occupation directly
supported by food production. Agriculture exports total over $50 billion annually, making the farm sector the largest positive contributor to the national
trade balance. The farming system is the most productive and efficient in the world, enabling Americans to spend less than 11 percent of disposable
income on food, compared to a global average of 20 to 30 percent.
Officials are beginning to recognize that this vast network of food and fiber production, processing,
distribution, and sales is a potential— even inevitable —target of hostile interests employing
biological agents for political, economic, or criminal objectives. Even the threat of attack
could jeopardize consumer confidence, disrupt commodity markets, and wreak
economic havoc.
American agriculture is often concentrated , highly accessible, vertically integrated , and
of limited genetic diversity ; historically it has been free of major disease outbreaks, so vaccines are not routinely
used. Consequently, pathogens could be introduced easily and spread rapidly .
Widespread use of antibiotics in livestock production makes U.S. animals vulnerable to
a nti b iotic- r esistant bacteria. Advances in genetic engineering have raised the prospect of
transgenic pathogens and pests that are resistant to conventional control methods. In
addition, it may be hard to distinguish a biological attack from a natural disease outbreak. Signs of infections may be manifested slowly, delaying
effective response by authorities. Finally, attacks against agriculture may be less risky to perpetrators than attacks against humans because many antiagriculture pathogens are comparatively safe to work with. Also, public reaction may be less intense because humans are not being directly targeted
(unless the goal is food contamination), and there is currently no national policy prescribing criminal penalties for biological attacks against targets
other than humans.
Ignore defense---agricultural bioterrorism is easier and just as
catastrophic.
Mark Wheelis 2, professor of biology at UC Davis, Rocco Casagrande, scientist at Surface
Logix, Laurence V. Madden, professor of plant protection at Ohio State University. 7-1-2002,
"Biological Attack on Agriculture: Low-Tech, High-Impact Bioterrorism," BioScience, Volume 52,
Issue 7, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/7/569/247956 - MBA AM
Agricultural bioterrorist attack requires relatively little expertise or technology
One of the reasons that a bioterrorist attack on human populations is difficult is that the
development of an effective bioweapon is a technically daunting task (Falkenrath et al. 1998). Many of
the antipersonnel agents that have been used as weapons (“weaponized”) are poorly
transmitted among humans (e.g., anthrax), so a large amount has to be disseminated at once to cause large numbers of casualties.
The only effective way to infect large numbers of people simultaneously is to generate a respirable aerosol. However, aerosol preparation to a particle
size that is effective in causing inhalational disease is quite difficult, and once so prepared, it is highly hazardous to the perpetrators themselves
(unless they are vaccinated and taking prophylactic antibiotics).
Other anti-human agents are contagious (e.g., Yersinia pestis, the causative agent of plague), but they too have to be disseminated in large quantities
for widespread infections, because agent transmission can be interrupted by antibiotic treatment. Since organisms such as Y. pestis do not form the
highly resistant spore form that Bacillus does, it is technically quite challenging (and dangerous) to prepare a large stockpile of the agent. Still other
agents are viral rather than bacterial, and their preparation and weaponization is even more challenging because of the more demanding technologies
needed for laboratory culture.
In some special situations, highly contagious viruses could be effectively introduced by voluntarily infected terrorists who would travel to the target area
during the incubation period of the disease. This reportedly was done a number of times in the 1950s and 1960s in an effort to infect Native Americans
in the Matto Grosso of Brazil, by land speculators who would be able to purchase tribal lands once the natives no longer inhabited them (Davis 1977).
the
technical expertise required to mount a mass-casualty biological attack on the human
population is formidable and probably beyond the capabilities of most terrorist groups
However, in the developed world, for any disease other than smallpox, it is unlikely that such a low-tech method would be effective. Thus,
(and indeed of many nations).
However , the recent anthrax infections have clearly shown that only a few cases are
sufficient to produce a large psychological impact on the population.
Unfortunately, the
same difficulties do not exist for many of the diseases that would make
effective agricultural bioterrorist weapons. These diseases of animals and crops are highly
contagious and spread effectively from a point source, as the recent FMD outbreak in the
United Kingdom dramatically confirms. Moreover, humans can safely handle the causative organisms, with no risk of becoming
infected. None of the plant pathogens of concern, nor most of the animal pathogens, cause disease in humans. Thus, there is no need for vaccination,
prophylactic antibiotic use, or special precautions to prevent infection of the perpetrators.
Although a small outbreak may not produce a large psychological impact (relative to a single person dying of anthrax or smallpox), several of these
pathogens owe much of their economic impact to trade sanctions that are imposed in response to a few cases; thus,
even small
outbreaks can have very large economic effects . A few cases of FMD scattered around the country could interrupt
much of US animal product exports for several months, even if the outbreaks were promptly contained (importing countries would want to wait several
weeks or months to verify that the outbreak was truly contained before resuming imports). Obviously it is technically easier to cause a few scattered
cases of disease than to prepare a kilogram-sized stockpile of weaponized agent for aerosol distribution.
Material to initiate an outbreak of plant or animal disease therefore does not have to be prepared in
large quantity—a few milligrams could be sufficient to initiate multiple outbreaks in widely separated locations—if the goal is to disrupt
international trade, or if the terrorists are sufficiently patient to allow a crop disease to develop over several months by transmission from individual to
individual. And the
agent does not necessarily have to be grown in the laboratory or otherwise
manipulated—a small amount of natural material taken from a diseased animal or plant
can serve without any additional manipulation. For instance, a few hundred microliters of scrapings from the blistered
mucosa of an FMD-infected animal, or blood from an animal hemorrhaging from ASF, or a handful of wheat tillers heavily infected by the stem rust
pathogen can provide more than enough agent to initiate an epidemic. Such materials are readily available in many places in
the world where the diseases of concern are endemic, and they can be obtained and transported without any particular expertise other than what is
necessary to recognize the disease symptoms with confidence. Since
only small amounts are needed, they can be
easily smuggled into the country with essentially no chance of detection.
Dissemination of many introduced pathogens likewise requires relatively little expertise .
Animal virus preparations could be diluted and disseminated with a simple atomizer in close proximity to target animals, or the preparation smeared
directly on the nostrils or mouths of a small number of animals.
This could be done from rural roads with
essentially no chance of detection . Dissemination of animal diseases could also be done surreptitiously at an animal auction
or near barns where animals are densely penned (as in chicken houses or piggeries). For plant diseases, simply exposing a mass of
sporulating fungi to the air immediately upwind of a target field could be effective, if
environmental conditions were favorable for infection. The biggest challenge of introducing a plant pathogen is probably timing the release with the
appropriate weather conditions (Campbell and Madden 1990). If pathogens are released immediately before the start of a dry period, few, if any,
infections are likely to result. However, if released at the start of a rainy period, these pathogens could cause a major epidemic.
Low-diversity monocultures make the US vulnerable to bioterror attacks.
Mark Wheelis 2, professor of biology at UC Davis, Rocco Casagrande, scientist at Surface
Logix, Laurence V. Madden, professor of plant protection at Ohio State University. 7-1-2002,
"Biological Attack on Agriculture: Low-Tech, High-Impact Bioterrorism," BioScience, Volume 52,
Issue 7, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/7/569/247956 - MBA AM
Conclusion
Despite our best efforts, this country will continue to be vulnerable to deliberate
introductions of exotic plant and animal diseases by terrorist groups with an ideological
agenda or by governments, corporations, or individuals with a profit motive. The vulnerability
to agricultural bioterrorist attack is a consequence of the intrinsically low security of
agricultural targets, the technical ease of introducing consequential diseases, and the large
economic repercussions of even small outbreaks. It is exacerbated by structural features
of US agriculture that are unlikely to change without forceful government intervention:
low genetic diversity of plants and animals, extensive monoculture , and highly
concentrated animal husbandry.
Monocultures expand US reliance on foreign oil.
Jared Kelly 19, BA in Political Science at UC Berkley, Counterterrorism Research Intern at UC
Berkley, 2019, "The United States Love Affair with Maize: A National Security Issue?,"
Gettysburg Social Sciences Review,
https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=gssr – MBA AM
If the US maize supply were reduced, ethanol production would also decrease, leading to
a greater demand for gas and oil . The United States has increased its domestic production of
gas and oil following the shale revolution; however, the country remains a net energy
importer. The United States would face a greater demand for international energy primarily
from fossil fuels. Reliance on the maize monoculture is subject to vagaries as it can be
impacted by a natural disasters , such as droughts, or an attack. If the monoculture is
impacted, the United States will face a greater dependence on foreign fossil fuels and the
potential for the country to become caught up in political entanglements with volatile
energy producing countries. As one of the world's largest oil consumers, uncertainties
concerning the maize monoculture and the lack of energy security means the United
States is subject to the whims, powers, and price fluctuations of OPEC. The United States’
decision to use maize as a means to reduce foreign oil dependence is not efficient and creates
a national security concern as it increases the domestic reliance on an uncertain commodity.
Impacts: Monocultures Add-on
Extinction
Mulvany and Berger 2001 – *chair of the Ford Group, senior policy advisor at Practical
Action, Oxfam trustee, member of the Institute of Biology, **climate change Policy Advisor with
Practical Action (Patrick and Rachel, "Agricultural biodiversity: farmers sustaining the web of
life", http://practicalaction.org/docs/advocacy/fwn_bio-div_briefing.pdf)
Agricultural biodiversity embraces the living matter that produces food and other farm
products, supports production and shapes agricultural landscapes. The variety of tastes,
textures and colours in food is a product of agricultural biodiversity. This biodiversity is the
result of the interaction by smallholder farmers, herders and artisanal fisherfolk with other
species over millennia. Selecting and managing these for local nutritional, social and
economic needs has produced the agricultural biodiversity on which humanity depends.
Food production systems need to be rooted in sustaining agricultural biodiversity so that
farmers everywhere can continue to provide food and livelihoods and maintain life on Earth.
STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY
At a time of unprecedented changes in society, population and the environment, agricultural
biodiversity also provides some security against future adversity, be it from climate
change, war, industrial developments, biotechnological calamities or ecosystem collapse.
There is greater strength in diversity than in susceptible uniformity. A diversity of
varieties, breeds and species will ensure that there will continue to be agricultural
production whatever the threat, and hidden in the genetic code of today's crop plants and
livestock are many invisible traits that may become useful in confronting future challenges.
Sustainable Ag Scenario
Uniq: SQ Ag Unsustainable
Status quo agricultural techniques are unsustainable
Harmon 11 [Alison Harmon, Food and Nutrition, Department of Health and Human
Development, Montana State University. Also Teri Underwood, Christine Mccullum-Gomez, and
Susan Roberts. Organic Agriculture Supports Biodiversity and Sustainable Food Production.
Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 6:398–423, 2011.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19320248.2011.627301?needAccess=true]
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Today's farmers produce more food and fiber with less energy than farmers did 50 years ago.1
However, there is concern that
conventional agriculture is not sustainable due to its dependence on
nonrenewable, external inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides and its poor regeneration of soil ,
groundwater , and other natural resources
on which agricultural production depends.2,3
Conventional
ag riculture also contributes to numerous ecological and environmental problems , such as
ground- and surface water pollution 4-6; reduction in key pollinators of food crops5,7,8; distortion
in relative-abundance distributions of natural enemy communities in favor of a few dominant
species9,10; potential human health risks from exposure to agricultural chemicals2,11-18; potential human health risks
associated with contamination of food and water2 11 19-24; chemical and physical soil degradation2,3-*25; and
significant
declines in global biodiversity .26-31 Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Sustainable Agriculture Human
survival and agriculture are dependent on a variety of goods and services that ecosystems
provide . Food and fiber production, soil formation, pollination of food crops, suppression of infectious
disease, regulation of agricultural pests, water purification, nutrient cycling, and climate regulation are
examples of ecosystem services
vital to human health
and agriculture.32-38 Yet, according to the United Nations
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), approximately 60% of the ecosystem services examined from air quality to water
purification are being degraded or used unsustainably.26 See Table 1 for definitions related to biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Biodiversity is central to ecosystem function and the provision of ecosystem services.33 Yet today global biodiversity is plummeting,
with current extinction rates 100 to 1000 times that seen in the fossil record.38 The loss of global biodiversity to meet growing
demands for food, water, timber, and fuel has impaired ecosystem function and resulted in a decline in ecosystem services.26,33
Agroecosystems cover 40% of the terrestrial surface of the Earth and differ radically in how they are
managed.8 Farm management practices can degrade biodiversity.39,40 For example, the use of synthetic fertilizers in agriculture
has led to eutrophication and a decline in aquatic biodiversity and freshwater resources.26 The MEA concluded that
agriculture is the “ largest threat to biodiversity and ecosystem function of any single
human activity. ”35<p 7TTi Global biodiversity decline has substantial implications for human health and sustainable
agriculture. Biodiversity is essential to several ecosystem services needed for agriculture and the provision of food, such as soil
formation, nutrient cycling, and pollination of crops.8,26,27,33,34 The relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem services, and
human wellbeing can be summarized by a simple formula,36 which is outlined in Figure 1. Conservation of biodiversity is recognized
by scientists and practitioners as an important element of sustainable agriculture. Numerous studies and practical experiences have
shown that biodiversity contributes to the resilience and stability of farming systems.2 Concerns about the detrimental effects of
intensive agriculture practices,2,25"37,38 such as chemical soil degradation from the use of pesticides and excessive fertilization,2
have led to the development of sustainable agricultural systems, including organic agriculture.^ A systems approach and integrated
management strategies that seek to enhance biodiversity, soil quality, and ecosystem services is fundamental to the practice of
organic agriculture.8 See Table 1 for multiple, internationally recognized definitions related to organic production and organic
agriculture. The purpose of this review is to examine (1) how organic agriculture differs from conventional agriculture in regard to its
impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services and (2) the implications of organic agriculture on soil quality, sustainable agriculture,
and human health. Soil Biodiversity It is estimated that soil contains one fourth of all of the biodiversity on Earth.37 According to the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), “Soil is one of nature’s most complex ecosystems: it contains
thousands of different organisms, which interact and contribute to the global cycles that make all life possible.”43<pI5> Collectively
referred to as soil biodiversity, algae, bacteria, fungi, insects, and other soil organisms are interdependent in a complex food
web.2,37 The rich biodiversity in soil provides a number of important ecosystem services essential to human health and agriculture.
These services fall into 6 categories: (1) maintenance of soil structure, soil organic matter (SOM), and fertility; (2) regulation of
carbon flux and climate via carbon storage; (3) water cycle regulation; (4) decontamination and bioremediation; (5) pest control; and
(6) human health.37 In summary: 1. Soil is a diverse ecosystem of life that performs several services important to agriculture and
the provision of food and 2. Soil biodiversity is crucial to soil ecosystem function and the provision of ecosystem services.37 Soil
Quality Soil quality or soil health is the foundation for all agriculture and natural plant communities and is a primary indicator of
sustainable land management.56 In this article, soil health and soil quality are used synonymously and imply soil that is productive
and capable of supporting plant growth and normal ecosystem functioning. Soil degradation is a pressing ecological concern and a
serious threat to sustainable food production. Past management of agroecosystems has substantially degraded and reduced the
quality of soils worldwide. For example, mechanical cultivation and continuous production of row crops has resulted in a physical
loss of soil and large decreases in SOM.56 Inventories of soil productive capacity have found human-induced soil degradation on
nearly 40% of the world’s agricultural land.56 Scientific monitoring of soil quality is essential to assessing the sustainability of
agricultural systems.57 Although there are varying methods for measuring soil quality, soil biological properties and soil organisms
are of great importance. This is particularly true in organic agriculture, because most nutrients are derived from soil organisms’
microbial decomposition of SOM.57 Soil oiganisms meet many of the criteria for useful indicators of sustainable land management:
they (1) respond sensitively to land management practices and climate; (2) are correlated with beneficial soil and ecosystem
functions, including w'ater storage, decomposition and nutrient cycling, detoxification, and suppression of noxious and pathogenic
organisms; and (3) illustrate the chain of cause and effect that links land management decisions to ultimate productivity and the
health of plants and animals.56 Although it is established that soil organisms are essential to soil quality,37,56 the scientific
understanding of soil biodiversity as it relates to soil quality is limited, constrained by the tremendous diversity of soil organisms and
technical challenges involved.2 38 For example, DNA extraction and other methods used to identify and measure specific soil
organisms are not standardized and are therefore problematic.37 Compared to physical and chemical soil degradation, little is
known about how agricultural practices alter soil biological properties and functioning even though soil degradation includes a
decline in biodiversity (soil organisms) and soil carbon and an increase in soil-borne pathogens.2,42 Research has shown that
diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, a dominant microbial group in most soil habitats, may determine the productivity of plant
communities.58 More recent research indicates that for individual plants, increasing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi diversity promotes
plant growth and resistance to pathogens.'*9 Hence, an improved understanding of the spatial distribution and functioning of soil
microorganisms is essential to meeting a variety of major challenges faced by human society, including challenges related to the
future food supply and mitigation of climate change.60,61 Organic Agriculture Soil quality is affected by farm management and land
use decisions.2,55 Because most arable land on Earth is now under cultivation and agroecosystems cover 40% of the terrestrial
land surface of the Earth, agricultural
land management decisions are crucial to future food
production.8
Industrial agriculture is inherently unsustainable---unsustainable depletion
of natural resources makes collapse inevitable.
John Ikerd 13, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics at the University of Missouri,
2013, "Can Industrial Agriculture Provide Global Food Security?," Prepared for presentation at a
conference, Rural Development of China, sponsored by the Institute for Post-Modern
Development of China, http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/California%20-%20IPDC%20%20Small%20Farms.htm – MBA AM
The prevailing agricultural ideology seems to be that industrial agriculture meaning large,
specialized, mechanized farms will be necessary to meet the food needs of a growing global
population. The logic or reasoning supporting this ideology is: Global population is destined to grow from the current seven billion to at least
nine billion people by the middle of this century. More people obviously will require more food. And, industrial agriculture is the only logical means of
increasing global food production.
The basic flaw in this logic is that industrializing global agriculture meaning replacing the remaining small, diversified farms with large, specialized
farms is not the only means of increasing global food production. In fact, with
greater scarcity and rising costs of fossil
energy and the progression of global climate change, industrial agriculture is becoming less
productive and may not even survive the twenty-first century. As we have seen in recent years, the global economy
has no nationality, no sense of social responsibility, or concern for the future of humanity. Nations that depend on industrial agriculture for their food
security face a future of growing dependence on a few large multi-national food corporations that have no allegiance to anything other than maximum
profit and growth.
The blind faith in the future of industrial agriculture is based on its record of increasing
productivity over the past 50 to 60 years. Admittedly, yields of crops per acre or hectare of farmland production of meat, milk, and eggs per
bushel or ton of feed have increased during this period. However, virtually all of these increases have been linked
directly or indirectly to an increased reliance on abundant and inexpensive fossil energy.
Cheap nitrogen fertilizers were readily available because of an abundance of natural gas.
Climate-controlled buildings for livestock were economically feasible because of lowcost fuel for heating and ventilation. Fossil fuels provided energy not only for traction but also for manufacturing of machinery.
Deep-well irrigation likewise depends on low cost energy to pump and distribute water.
Most pesticides are also fossil-energy based materials. Industrial agriculture is
inherently fossil-energy dependent.
In the United States, for example, approximately 10 calories of fossil energy is required for each
calorie of food energy produced.[1] About two-thirds of this total is accounted for by food processing, manufacturing,
transportation, packaging and other processes of the industrial food system. But, even at the farm level, industrial agriculture requires about three kcals
of fossil energy per kcal of food produced. In addition, industrial
agriculture is impractical, if not impossible, without an
industrial system of processing and distribution. Industrial agriculture depends on a fossil energy dependent food
system.
experts claim that
most economically recoverable fossil energy reserves will be depleted within fifty years while other believe
there is enough fossil energy for another 100 to 150 years. However, there is no disagreement that the remaining reserves of
fossil energy will be more difficult and costly to extract, as we are seeing with the fracking process required to
Energy experts differ on their estimates of how much recoverable fossil energy is left to be extracted from the earth. Some
extract shale gas and the costs and risks of deep-sea oil drilling. Beyond some point in each extraction process production will peak; there will be less
fossil energy available each year thereafter. Each
time demand increases relative to supplies, prices of
fossil energy will rise and eventually will rise dramatically . An agriculture that is
dependent on fossil energy quite simply is not sustainable.
With increases in fossil energy demand of 2.5% per year, which is typical of recent years, total fossil energy demand would double every 30 years. This
means twice
as much fossil energy would be needed by 2045, four times as much by 2075,
and eight times as much by 2105. Renewable energy from wind, water, passive solar, and photovoltaic cells eventually must
replace fossil energy in agriculture as well as elsewhere in the economy. But, useful energy from renewable sources will
be less abundant and more expensive than the fossil energy of the past century.� The era of
abundant, inexpensive energy is over.
In addition, industrial
agriculture places similarly unsustainable demands on fossil water, or slow-
recharging aquifers , for irrigation, half of which has already been depleted by some
estimates.[2],[3] �Other estimates indicate that the earth's mineable phosphorus reserves could be
depleted in 50-100 years, with a peak occurring around 2030.[4] In addition, industrial agriculture
is destroying the natural productivity of soils through erosion, salinization, and
agrochemical contamination. Fertilizers and agricultural pesticides also are major contributors to pollution of groundwater, streams,
and estuaries. Industrial agriculture is a major contributor to global climate change, and the
related weather instability will be a major challenge to global food security in the
future.[5] In summary, industrial agriculture depletes the natural resource base that supports
its productivity and pollutes the natural environment that sustains the health of
humanity. Industrial agriculture cannot possibly provide long-run global food security.
Contrary to popular belief, the
failure of industrial agriculture to provide food security is readily
apparent in the United States. In fact, a larger percentage of Americans are food insecure today
than during the 1960s, prior to the final phases of agricultural industrialization.[6] More than 20% of
American children today live in food insecure homes. Food security means that everyone must have enough
wholesome and nutritious food to support healthy, active lifestyles. Food insecurity takes on a different form in nations with industrial food economics.
The food insecure people in these nations can often get enough food to satisfy their need for calories or energy but do not get enough nutritious food to
meet their nutritional needs for healthy, active lifestyles. Diet related illnesses are rampant in America, including obesity and related diseases such as
diabetes, hypertension, heart failure, and various types of cancers. These illnesses are prevalent in lower-income, food-insecure homes.
Obesity related illnesses alone are projected to claim about one-in-five dollars spent for health care in America by 2020 erasing virtually all of the gains
A growing body of scientific evidence links the
industrialization of agriculture to foods that are rich in calories and poor in essential
nutrients, which have helped fuel the epidemic of obesity and other diet-related illnesses in America.[8] The
rising costs of diet-related health care have paralleled the industrialization of agriculture. Industrial agriculture in America has
produced an abundance of cheap food, but it has failed to provide food security.
made in improving public health over the past several decades.[7]
Agricultural industrialization has also failed to increase food security in the so-called
developing nations. A larger percentage of people in the world are hungry today than were hungry prior to the Green Revolution. The
development experts attribute the persistent increases in global hunger to increases in population made possible by increased food production.
However, many of those living in developing nations often have a very different view. In the words of Stacia and Kristof Nordin who have worked for
years with farmers in Malawi, Africa:
Another drawback to the new [Green Revolution] varieties of crops is their reliance on
chemical fertilizers and pesticides to ensure the success of a harvest. This process continually
denies the return of organic matter to the nature cycle the very essence of soil structure.
As this depletion of organic matter has taken its toll, farmers have resorted to purchasing and applying greater quantities of chemicals to
make up the difference. When these farmers, especially in developing countries, have been faced with these issues many have found
themselves caught in a
cycle of dependency that has actually left them worse off than before
the Green Revolution took hold. People are finding that they are forced to sell off larger amounts of their yields in
order to cover the cost of these growing expenditures. The selling of their crops has deprived many families of annual food reserves,
nutritional requirements, and increased standards of living. As this cycle of dependency widens, the alternatives for creating healthy
lifestyles seem to be narrowing.[9]
Vandava Shiva, a globally-prominent and highly-respected ecologist and Indian food activist
summarizes the failure as follows:
The Green Revolution has been a failure. It has led to reduced genetic diversity ,
increased vulnerability to pests, soil erosion, water shortages, reduced soil
fertility, micronutrient deficiencies, soil contamination, reduced availability of
nutritious food crops for the local population, the displacement of vast numbers of small
farmers from their land, rural impoverishment and increased tensions and
conflicts.
The beneficiaries have been the agrochemical industry, large petrochemical companies, manufacturers of agricultural
machinery, dam builders and large landowners.[10]
Industrial agriculture inevitably increases hunger in developing countries because is displaces
subsistence farming families, who are meeting at least most of their basic food needs, and fails to provide them with economic opportunities to
purchase foods they are no longer able to produce for themselves. Subsistence farmers typically rely on selling some amount of surplus production to
meet specific needs that they cannot meet from their farming operations. Such needs may include clothing, medical care, school fees, and
transportation. Industrial
agriculture invariably is introduced on larger, specialized farms, often
with generous government subsidies, because it is incompatible with small, diversified,
family farms. The increase in production on these larger farms depresses market prices
for the agricultural commodities that subsistence farmers must sell to meet their
financial needs, thus often depriving them of their ability to continue farming. This frees up
farmland for industrial farms but forces subsistence farmers into the cities in search of employment.
Urban employment for displaced farmers often is not available or doesn't pay enough to
meet the food needs of their families. Thus, families that were once reasonably well-fed on
subsistence farms are now among the hungry. The experts assume the increased calorie production on industrial farms must have
reduced hunger. However, the loss in production on subsistence farms was never accurately counted and thus represents an unknown and often
ignored offsetting loss in calorie production due to industrialization. The fact that previous food-importing countries become food exporters simply
means the new industrial producers are exporting their products to more profitable markets, rather than selling to poor, hungry people at home. The
potential reduction in food prices for those living in the cities is often too small to make any real difference in hunger even in the cities. In addition,
reductions in production costs may be offset by increased profits of food processors
and distributors and the nutritional quality of food may be diminished, as it has been in the United
States. Even in cases where it may appear that industrial agriculture has succeeded, it eventually is destined to fail.
The unsustainability of industrial agriculture is inherent in the industrial model
or paradigm of
production. Industrialization is motivated by economic efficiency. Efficiency is determined by economic value relative to economic costs. Economic
values and costs are determined by scarcity, meaning the quantity of something that is available relative to the quantity that people are willing and able
to buy. The industrial revolution advanced most rapidly in those nations and situations where there was a scarcity of labor and management ability
relative to land and capital. Industrialization was a new model of organization that allowed production to be increased by relying more on specialized
tools, machinery, and equipment and relying less on labor and management. The new technologies eventually included fertilizers and pesticides as
well as fossil fuels and machinery and equipment for industrial farming. Financial capital provided the means of acquiring and using industrial
technologies. Capital and technology were substituted for labor and management for people.
The basic strategies of industrialization are specialization, standardization, and
consolidation of control. By specializing in producing specific crops of livestock or phases of crop and livestock production, the
specific tasks could be carried out more efficiently, meaning by employing fewer farmers. Specialization required standardization, simplification, and
routinization of each task and each phase of production so they could be coordinated to complete the entire production process. Standardization
allowed control or management of the production process to be consolidated into few larger farming operations, meaning fewer farm managers. This is
the process by which industrialization achieves economies of scale, allowing fewer farmers on larger farms to produce more food.
In addition, standardization
agricultural workforce.
and simplification inevitably result in the deskilling of the
Thoughtful, caring farmers are replaced with farm workers who are trained to follow instructions and eventually
fewer people are
employed and those who are employed contribute less to the economy. The economic benefits
become capable of performing only simple tasks. The economic costs of labor and management are reduced, but
accrue largely to the few who manage large agricultural operations, the corporate managers who employ or contract with them, and to the stockholders
in the large corporations that ultimately dominate or control industrial food systems.
Small, diverse ag systems are the only way to provide food security.
John Ikerd 13, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics at the University of Missouri,
2013, "Can Industrial Agriculture Provide Global Food Security?," Prepared for presentation at a
conference, Rural Development of China, sponsored by the Institute for Post-Modern
Development of China, http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/California%20-%20IPDC%20%20Small%20Farms.htm – MBA AM
Industrial agriculture cannot provide global food security. But is there an alternative? Can an
agriculture that is sustainable over the long run meet the growing food needs of global society over the next fifty years? If we can't feed the world with
large, specialized, mechanized farms, can we provide global food security with small, diversified, organic farms? Contrary to what is commonly
believed, that
question has been asked and answered. No one can foretell the future with certainty, but small ,
diversified , organic family farms are humanity's best hope for global food security.
First, industrial agriculture is more efficient than non-industrial agriculture only in terms of the number of people employed and the costs of labor and
management. Industrial
agriculture is not more efficient in terms of production per dollar
invested, per calorie of fossil energy, or in terms of resource degradation and pollution
per calorie of food produced. It is not even more efficient in terms of production per acre or hectare of land. Industrial agriculture
advocates conveniently ignore that small farms already account for at least 70% of global food
production , according to United Nations Environmental Program.[11] Furthermore, the research indicates that today's small
farms are actually far more productive per acre or hectare than are the large industrial
farms. As Peter Rossett of the Institute for Food and Development Policy explains:
Here at the Institute, we've reviewed the data from every country for which it's available, comparing the productivity of smaller farms versus
larger farms. By productivity, I mean the total output of agricultural products per unit area -- per acre or hectare.
For every
country for which data is available, smaller farms are anywhere from 200 to 1,000
percent more productive per unit area. The myth of the greater productivity of
larger farms stems in part from the confusing use of the term "yield" to measure
productivity. Yield is how much of a single crop you can get per unit area -- for example, bushels of soy beans per acre. That's a
measure that's only relevant to monocultures. A monoculture is when a single crop is grown in a field, rather than the kind of mixtures of
crops and animals that small farmers have. When
you grow one crop all by itself, you may get a lot of that one
water very efficiently.
crop, but you're not using the ecological space -- the land and
Large farmers generally have monocultures because they are easier to fully mechanize.[12]
Miguel Altieri of the University of California, who has spent his entire professional working with small farmers, elaborates on the productivity advantage
for small farms.[13]
These diversified
farming systems in which the small-scale farmer produces grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, and
the yield per unit of single crops such as corn
grown alone on large-scale farms. A large farm may produce more corn per hectare than a small
farm in which the corn is grown as part of a polyculture that also includes beans, squash, potatoes,
and fodder. But, productivity in terms of harvestable products per unit area of
polycultures developed by smallholders is higher than under a single crop with
the same level of management. Yield advantages can range from 20 percent to 60 percent, because polycultures
animal products in the same field or garden out-produce
reduce losses due to weeds (by occupying space that weeds might otherwise occupy), insects, and diseases (because of the presence of
multiple species), and make more efficient use of the available resources of water, light, and nutrients.[14]
By managing fewer resources more intensively, small farmers are able to make
more profit per unit of output, and thus, make more total profits even if production of each commodity is less.[15] In
overall output, the diversified farm produces much more food . In the United States the smallest
two-hectare farms produced $15,104 per hectare and netted about $2,902 per hectare. The largest farms, averaging 15,581 hectares,
yielded $249 per hectare and netted about $52 per hectare.
Even when single crops are produced in organic rotations, organic methods are found to be competitive with conventional monocropping
systems. One 15-year study in the United States found organic farming to have comparable yields of both products and profits. The study
showed that yields of organic corn were identical to yields of corn grown with fertilizers and pesticides, while soil quality in the organic fields
improved dramatically.[16]
If small-scale, diversified, organic production is more productive and more profitable on a per acre or per hectare basis, why have farmers in the United
States and other so-called developed countries adopted industrial agriculture? The answer is that industrial farming strategies allow �each farmer� to
manage �more acres or hectares,� or in the case of livestock to produce more livestock or poultry. �A 5,000 acre farm in that nets $50 per acre in
profits gives the farmer/owner a net income of $250,000. A 3 acre farm that net $15,000 in profits per acre gives the farmer/owner a net income of only
$45,000. Large industrial farms don't need to yield more production or profit per acre or per hectare to yield more net income for farm managers or
owners because they can farm more land using industrial methods. In addition, large industrial farming operations can afford to keep producing at
lower margins of profit per acre, per bushel, or head because they produce more bushels of crop or head of livestock. Thus, they have able to produce
at commodity prices low enough for long enough to drive more productive smaller, diversified, organic farmers out of business.
The limiting factor of industrial agriculture has been access to capital, rather than ability to work, management skills, or basic agricultural knowledge.
Those with access to capital have been able to drive those without access to capital out of business, In addition, as their farming operations expand,
access to capital becomes easier and less expensive and they are able to expand even faster. Increasingly, large multinational corporations are
providing the capital for industrial farming operations and are using this strategy to gain increasing control of the global food system. Having exploited
most of the expansion opportunities in the so-called developed world, agribusiness corporations are now expanding into the less-developed areas of
the world, forcing subsistence farmers off their farms and into urban poverty and hunger.
Even if small farmers are more productive than industrial farmers and are currently producing most of the global food supply, the question remains:
Can small, diversified, organic farmers provide food security for a growing global
population? Again, the scientific evidence clearly indicated that small farms are the best
hope for providing food security for the nine-billion-plus people expected by 2050 and
beyond.
If small farms were able to double their total production they could increase global food
production by 40%, even without more production from industrial farms.� A doubling of the current 70% of food
currently produced by small farms would result in 170% of current production, enough to meet
expected global food needs of 2050. If current industrial farming operations are converted to more intensive farming methods,
by dividing into smaller farms, they could easily double their production per acre or hectare as well, resulting is a 100% increase in global food
production. In addition, the need
for fossil energy for food production would be greatly reduced,
scarcity of water and other natural resources would be less restricting of food
productive, nature could accommodate agricultural wastes, and soil productivity could
be restored, sequestering large quantities of greenhouse gasses in the process. All of
these changes would move humanity closer to long-run , sustainable food security.
All of these developments needed to ensure the future of humanity are possible and even feasible with existing agricultural knowledge and
technologies. Jules Pretty, Director of the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of Essex in the UK, lists research projects pointing to
potentials for increasing yields on small, diversified, organic farms. He highlights: 223,000
farmers in Brazil using green
manures and cover crops of legumes and livestock integration have doubled yields of maize and wheat; 45,000
farmers in Guatemala and Honduras have used regenerative technologies to triple maize
yields ; 300,000 farmers in southern and western India farming in dryland conditions, and now using a
range of water and soil management technologies, have tripled sorghum and millet
yields ; 200,000 farmers across Kenya who participated in sustainable agriculture
programs have more than doubled their maize yields; 100,000 small coffee farmers in
Mexico who have adopted fully organic production methods, have increased yields by
half . [17]
These are but a few examples that have been included in more comprehensive studies of the potential to increase the productivity of intensivelymanaged, small-scale farms by relying on diversified, organic, sustainable farming methods. For example, a
2008 United Nations study of
that organic or near-organic farming resulted in yield
increases of more than 100 percent.[18] Another United Nations supported study entitled Agriculture at a
Crossroads, was compiled by 400 international experts. The report concluded that agricultural
production systems must change radically to meet future demand. It called for
governments to pay more attention to small-scale farmers and sustainable farming
practices.[19]
farming methods in 24 African countries found
As Altieri summarizes the ecological and social benefits that can be achieved while yields are increases:
A variety of agroecological and participatory approaches in many countries show very
positive outcomes even under adverse environmental conditions. Potentials
include: raising cereal yields from 50 to 200 percent, increasing stability of
production through diversification, improving diets and income, and contributing
to national food security (and even to exports) and conservation of the natural resource base and biodiversity.[20]
The experts
challenged the myth that industrial agriculture is more efficient in any respects
other than reducing agricultural employment and maximizing economic returns for those who have the capital to invest in industrial farming operation.
The narrowly-defined employment and economic efficiencies of large scale production
are not necessary for, and are not capable of, providing global food security or long run sustainability. The food
security experts called for a shift in global agricultural development programs to focus on supporting a
multifunctional agriculture capable of providing global food security while protecting the natural environment, preserving rural communities, and
honoring indigenous knowledge and cultures.
Industrial agriculture is unsustainable---pests develop resistance, soil
erodes, and pollinators die-off.
Alice Friedemann 17, writer for energyskeptic.com and author of “When Trucks Stop
Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 3-27-2017, "Chemical Industrial Agriculture
is Unsustainable. Here's why," Resilience, https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-0327/chemical-industrial-farming-unsustainable-heres/ - MBA AM
We hear a lot about how we’re running out of antibiotics. But we
are also doomed to run out of pesticides ,
because insects inevitably develop resistance , whether toxic chemicals are sprayed directly or genetically engineered
into the plants.
Worse yet, weeds,
insects, and fungus develop resistance in just 5 years on average, which
has caused the chemicals to grow increasingly lethal over the past 60 years. And it takes on
average eight to ten years to identify, test, and develop a new pesticide, though that isn’t long enough
to discover the long-term toxicity to humans and other organisms.
And this
devil’s bargain hasn’t even provided most of the gains in crop yields , which is due to
natural-gas and phosphate fertilizers plus soil-crushing tractors and harvesters that can do the work of millions of men and horses quickly on farms that
grow only one crop on thousands of acres.
Yet before pesticides, farmers lost a third of their crops to pests, after pesticides, farmers
still lose a third of their crops.
Even without pesticides, industrial
agriculture is doomed to fail from extremely high rates of soil
erosion and soil compaction
at rates that far exceed losses in the past, since soil
couldn’t wash or blow
away as easily on small farms that grew many crops.
But pest
killing chemicals are surely accelerating the day of reckoning sooner rather than
later. Enormous amounts of toxic chemicals are dumped on land every year — over 1 billion pounds are used in the United State (US) every year
and 5.6 billion pounds globally (Alavanja 2009).
This destroys the very ecosystems that used to help plants fight off pests, and is a major
factor biodiversity loss and extinction.
Evidence also points to pesticides playing a key role in the loss of bees and their
pollination services . Although paleo-diet fanatics won’t mind eating mostly meat when fruit, vegetable, and nut crops are gone, they will
not be so happy about having to eat more carbohydrates. Wheat and other grains will still be around, since they are wind-pollinated.
Agricultural chemicals render land lifeless and toxic to beneficial creatures, also killing
the food chain above — fish, amphibians, birds, and humans (from cancer, chronic disease, and suicide).
Surely a
day is coming when pesticides stop working, resulting in massive famines.
But who is
there to speak for the grandchildren? And those that do speak for them are mowed down by the logic of libertarian capitalism, which only cares about
profits today. Given that a political party is now in power in the U.S. that wants to get rid of the protections the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and other agencies provide, may make matters worse if agricultural chemicals are allowed to be more toxic, long-lasting, and released earlier, before
being fully tested for health effects.
Internals: Subs = Conventional Ag
Organic ag doesn’t receive benefits from subsidies --- only conventional
Finney ‘21
(Bradley, federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee. Prior to becoming a clerk, he was an associate in the Houston office of Norton
Rose Fulbright, “Agricultural Law Stifles Innovation And Competition,” pg online @
https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2021/05/3-Finney-785-838.pdf //um-ef)
C. Agricultural Exceptionalism Largely Only Benefits Conventional Agriculture When it
comes to agricultural exceptionalism, all foods are not equal. Organic agriculture benefits little
from the monetary subsidies and regulatory benefits provided to conventional agriculture,296
even though it is more environmentally friendly.297 In fact, organic agriculture receives “only
a fraction of the government support that traditional commodities do . . . .”298 For
example, “because organic farmers do not use synthetic production inputs, they do not
make use of the federal regulatory ‘subsidies’ that heavily incentivize the use of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides.”299
Furthermore, the government guarantees income through commodity subsidies,300 but
those subsidies are tied to commodity production not overall farm productivity.301 This
severely limits organic agriculture’s ability to receive this type of support because
organic farmers must rotate growing commodity crops with nitrogen-fixing legumes or
risk ruining the soil’s fertility.302 Agricultural exceptionalism also provides the
agriculture industry protection from crop loss through federally underwritten
insurance.303 Until 2013, however, the USDA charged 5% more for organic insurance
premiums,304 yet when organic farmers incur losses of row crops, such as corn and soybeans,
they are compensated as though they were growing conventional crops, despite a higher
production cost and market price.305
Additionally, the legal exemptions that aid conventional agriculture benefit organic
agriculture only slightly, if at all.306 While the value these exemptions offer conventional
agriculture is allowing them to pollute water with fertilizers and pesticides,307 organic
agriculture does not use these pollutants in their production process.308 Therefore, these
exemptions largely do not apply to organic agriculture.309 Similarly, organic agriculture
benefits little from cost externalization because it pollutes less.310 Thus, agricultural
exceptionalism generally only benefits conventional agriculture, and even when it does
provide some benefit to organic agriculture, it often is not an equivalent one.311
Internals: Industrial Kills Biod
Industrial agriculture is the greatest cause of global biodiversity loss.
Ian Johnston 17, the environment correspondent for the Independent quoting Raj Patel, a
Research Professor in the Lyndon B Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas,
8-1-2017, "Industrial farming is driving the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth, says leading
academic," Independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/mass-extinctionlife-on-earth-farming-industrial-agriculture-professor-raj-patel-a7914616.html - MBA AM
Industrial agriculture is bringing about the mass extinction of life on Earth, according to a leading
academic.
Professor Raj Patel said mass deforestation to clear the ground for single crops like palm oil and
soy, the creation of vast dead zones in the sea by fertiliser and other chemicals, and the pillaging of fishing
grounds to make feed for livestock show giant corporations can not be trusted to produce food for
the world.
The author of bestselling book The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society and Redefine Democracy will be one of the keynote speakers at
the Extinction and Livestock Conference in London in October.
the rapid rate of
species loss could ultimately result in the sixth mass extinction of life. This is just one reason why
Organised by campaign groups Compassion in World Farming and WWF, it is being held amid rising concern that
geologists are considering declaring a new epoch of the Earth, called the Anthropocene, as the fossils of soon-to-be extinct animals will form a line in
the rocks of the future.
The last mass extinction, which finished off the dinosaurs and more than three-quarters of all life about 65 million years ago, was caused by an asteroid
strike that sent clouds of smoke all around the world, blocking out the sun for about 18 months.
Prof Patel, of the University of Texas at Austin, said: “The
footprint of global agriculture is vast . Industrial
agriculture is absolutely responsible for driving deforestation , absolutely responsible
for pushing industrial monoculture , and that means it is responsible for species loss.
“We’re
losing species we have never heard of, those we’ve yet to put a name to and industrial
agriculture is very much at the spear-tip of that.”
Speaking to The Independent, he
pointed to a “dead zone” – an area of water where there is too little oxygen for most marine life –
in the Gulf of Mexico that has grown to the same size as Wales because of vast amounts of fertiliser that
has washed from farms in mainland US, into the Mississippi River and then into the ocean.
“That
dead zone isn’t an accident. It’s a requirement of industrial agriculture
to get rid of the sh*t and the run-off
elsewhere because you cannot make industrial agriculture workable unless you kick the costs somewhere else,” he said.
“The story of industrial agriculture is all about externalising costs and exploiting nature.”
The Amazon and surrounding lands in South America are also under increasing pressure from soy plantations.
“Extinction is about the elimination of diversity. What happens in Brazil and other places is you get
green deserts — monocultures of soy and nothing else.
“Various kinds of chemistry is deployed to make sure it is only soy that’s grown on these mega-farms.
Internals/Solvency: Subs kill Regenerative Ag
Status quo subsidies lock agriculture into industrial, destructive practices--but the plan solves by incentivizing the transition to regenerative
practices.
Fiona McBride 20, Research Fellow at the Berkley Food Institute and Center for Law,
Energy, and the Environment, December 2020, "Redefining Value and Risk in Agriculture:
Policy and Investment Solutions to Scale the Transition to Regenerative Agriculture," Center for
Law, Energy, and the Environment at UC Berkley Law School, https://food.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/12/BFI_ValueRisk_in_Ag_120920_Digital.pdf - MBA AM
II. Reform Crop Insurance
Growers looking to implement regenerative practices face high up-front costs and often
shoulder the full risk of this transition . When it comes to encouraging this shift , federal reform
efforts have most often focused on the Conservation Title in the Farm Bill, which rewards farmers for practicing conservation activities.
Crop
insurance has been overlooked in this context. To some degree, this policy choice is understandable: reform is difficult because
any changes to the risk model require formal proposals that are costly, work-intensive, and depend on robust actuarial data. But
it remains a
significant opportunity . Federal crop insurance is a $9 billion per annum program that covers over 350
million acres of agricultural lands in the United States, or 80 percent of arable acreage.22 If the RMA were to
recognize the lowered risk associated with regenerative farming, they could incentivize
more insured farmers to transition to regenerative farming , while widening eligibility for
regenerative growers who are not yet insured.
Existing crop insurance programs tend to favor largescale conventional growers cultivating
commodity crops like corn and soy. Conversely, lack of access to this insurance puts smaller, diversified,
and regenerative growers at a disadvantage —and locks conventional farmers into their
current cropping patterns and practices that can be insured. The federal crop insurance
program can recognize the reduced risk of regenerative practices by adjusting their
insurance model to promote them. More specifically, the RMA could account for the greater yield stability and increase in crop
value23 of regenerative farms by expanding crop insurance access and lowering rates. Over the last five years, groups including the AGree Economic
and Environmental Risk Coalition and the NRDC have worked to reform crop insurance to drive broader adoption of agricultural conservation.24 The
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has also successfully achieved adjustments to the crop insurance program. They have strengthened the
recently established Whole-Farm Revenue Protection program, which allows diversified growers to insure their entire farm rather than just individual
commodity crops. They also worked within the US Department of Agriculture’s Farm Production and Conservation mission area (which includes NRCS,
RMA, the Farm Service Agency, and the Farm Production and Conservation Business Center) to refine the cover cropping termination guidelines.
Finally, they successfully advocated for the inclusion of cover crops in the crop insurance program’s “Good Farming Practices,” making it easier for
producers to use this practice without fear of jeopardizing their insurance coverage.25 The nonprofit Land Core has been working with actuarially
sound data on yield variability and recovery rates to create an independent modeling tool to determine risk for crop insurers and lenders. To be
effective, future efforts should occur in collaboration with existing coalitions spearheaded by AGree and other advocacy groups. Greater advocacy from
state legislators and governors to federal policymakers would be particularly effective at driving more rapid reform.
Regenerative agriculture is the key to clean, efficient water use---bad
agricultural subsidies impede the transition.
Emily Folk 20, a sustainability and agriculture writer, 8-10-2020, "Regenerative Agriculture Is
the Key to Increasing Access to Clean Water," Farming Secrets,
https://www.farmingsecrets.com/regenerative-agriculture-is-the-key-to-increasing-access-toclean-water/ - MBA AM
Water scarcity affects over 700 million people globally, and that number is only expected to rise
due to a warming climate. Without clean water, communities cannot thrive. Certain industries,
like fossil fuels and manufacturing, are significant water polluters, and their impact on the
environment is easy to see. But what about how we grow our food?
Agriculture has a water problem as well. Over 70% of the global freshwater supply is used for
agricultural operations. With the threat of climate change and more areas experiencing
water scarcity, agriculture plays an essential role in improving water access. As a type of
sustainable agriculture, regenerative agriculture is key to increasing access to clean
water.
Regenerative agriculture works to rebuild the soil, regenerating ecosystems so that more
water can be stored, more carbon can be sequestered and pests can be managed naturally.
Soil health is directly linked to water health. With many farms relying on groundwater for
irrigation, regenerative agriculture can help store water in the soil without the need for
expensive equipment or complicated technology.
Agriculture and Water Pollution
Water scarcity is directly linked to food insecurity, making agriculture a key player in access to
clean water. Agriculture is a major contributor to water pollution, but it is also one of the
least environmentally regulated industries.
Most agricultural water pollution is known as nonpoint source pollution, making it more difficult
to identify. Nonpoint source pollution can include herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, and
excess fertilizer that run off the soil, into waterways, and into drinking water.
Globally, most farms are still small and family-run. However, a handful of large corporate
farms are responsible for the majority of water use and are often not held accountable for
their impact.
For example, less than 3% of farms in the United States have an annual income above $1
million but are responsible for 42% of production, and the majority of water usage. In less
developed countries, small farmers often lack the proper infrastructure for irrigation, relying on
waterways rather than groundwater. In areas with intense dry periods, this system is subject to
serious fluctuation.
Soil runoff and erosion is a key player in water pollution and groundwater depletion. This
is where incorporating regenerative agriculture principles can be transformative.
Regenerative agriculture utilizes various techniques, such as cover cropping, that help
rebuild healthy soil structure so that it is more resilient to varying weather patterns.
Regenerative agriculture methods can be applied to large commercial farms or small
family farms without infrastructure.
Strategies such as managed livestock grazing and reduced tillage are inexpensive
solutions that not only help farmers increase their yields and reduce the need for
irrigation, but also impact the global clean water supply.
Incentivizing Change
So why don’t all farms practice regenerative agriculture? Unfortunately, the lack of adoption is
purely economic.
For most farmers, especially farmers who grow commodity crops like corn and soybeans, crop
insurance is a necessity to protect against losses throughout the season. In the United
States especially, many farmers have not turned a profit in years, and have more debt than ever
before.
The ability to leverage subsidies and crop insurance is the only way many farmers are
getting by , at least for now. Regenerative agriculture practices, like cover crops, can
threaten a farmer’s ability to qualify for insurance, even if the growing practice could
save their crop.
The issue here is that many sustainable farming practices like cover crops and reduced tillage
are seen simply as conservation practices, not standard farming practices. Farmers may receive
a nice pat on the back for utilizing conservation practices, but they are not seen as responsible
or effective growing methods, at least generally.
Most of the agricultural industry relies heavily on pesticides, which contribute significantly to
water pollution. But as long as the economic drive for using chemicals is there, it will be
difficult to sway the market towards a more regenerative system.
Regeneration and Climate Change
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, agriculture will be a
key player in improving not only food security for a warming planet but also sustainability.
Sustainability efforts must include agriculture as a key player if we are going to improve access
to clean water.
Regenerative agriculture can improve soil fertility, store carbon and help restore groundwater
reserves for irrigation. Utilizing regenerative agriculture practices such as cover crops,
managed grazing, and reduced tillage are directly linked with healthier soil, which results in
a healthy water supply.
Clean water will be increasingly harder to find in the coming years, and regenerative
agriculture is key to increasing access to it.
Current ag subsidies lock-in farmers into destructive practices and
financially forbid the transition to regenerative ag.
Jessica Mckenzie 19, a freelance journalist, formerly the managing editor of Civicist, 3-142019, "Regenerative agriculture saves soil, water, and the climate. The government actively
discourages it.," Counter, https://thecounter.org/regenerative-agriculture-cover-crops-no-tillusda/ - MBA AM
Cover crops and other regenerative agriculture practices are still pigeonholed as
conservation practices, not as good farming practices. But if farmers want crop
insurance, they have to play by the rules .
Last year, a few days before Christmas, Gail Fuller drove me out to the middle of a windwhipped field just north of Emporia, Kansas. “This is really where it started for me,” he said as
he climbed out of the truck, spade in hand. With a thunk, he drove the spade into the ground
and pulled out a hunk of earth, holding it up so I could see the texture, which he described as
like “chocolate cake” and “black cottage cheese.”
Pointing to a wriggling earthworm, a sign of good soil health, Fuller explained that conventional,
tilled fields would be too cold for earthworms to be that close to the surface. Tilling rips up and
compacts soil, compressing the air pockets that would otherwise insulate earthworms from
temperature extremes. But because Fuller never tills and maintains a continuous living root
system, which provides additional insulation, his field has earthworms year-round.
Fuller’s approach is part of the broader “regenerative agriculture” movement, a way of farming
that prioritizes soil health and has a host of other benefits, from carbon sequestration to
reducing nutrient runoff. In the mid-1990s, he stopped tilling his fields to improve water
retention , increase soil nutrients, and help counter erosion. In 2002, he began planting cover
crops, grains and legumes that cover land through the winter, and can help control weeds,
increase biodiversity, and capture carbon. Fuller also drastically cut down on his use of
herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer.
This long evolution has improved his farm’s health and profitability . But Fuller is one of
many regenerative farmers who feels that government policies have actively worked
against them .
In 2012, a historic drought year, Fuller’s approach to farming cost him a crucial crop insurance
payout: His insurance company denied his claim because days of harsh, dry winds prevented
him from terminating his crops in line with the government’s strict timeline. He spent almost two
years fighting for the money, and though he eventually won his case, he lost his operating line
of credit at the bank while he waited—and subsequently lost much of his land.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has delivered perfunctory messages
about the benefits of cover crops and other regenerative agricultural practices. But, for years,
the agency has effectively discouraged farmers from planting cover crops through
confusing and overly restrictive rules set by the Risk Management Agency (RMA), an
agency under USDA that determines crop insurance eligibility, a lifeline for many farmers. Fuller
and other producers have fought for those rules to be lifted, and the most recent farm bill
finally does away with the worst and most restrictive rules. Now, as long as farmers make a
good faith effort to terminate their crops according to USDA guidelines, they cannot be denied a
payout if drought or floods or other acts of Mother Nature impede their work. However, until
cover crops and other regenerative practices are branded by the government as good
farming , instead of merely good environmental stewardship, adoption will never reach a
critical mass.
In theory, the RMA is an independent government agency, a neutral arbiter of rules and
regulations. But multiple sources told me on background that they believe the agency
essentially publishes rules that the agribusiness industry supplies. And the industry
doesn’t want cover crops. Crop insurance companies are reluctant to introduce variables they
don’t understand and that might come with new risks; the broader agricultural industry has a
vested interest in farmers needing to buy its pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in everincreasing quantities. The use of cover crops threatens that demand.
The year Fuller’s insurance provider denied his claim, based on the RMA’s cover crop rules, the
country-wide drought was so bad that a crop insurance industry group has dedicated a web
page to it. Fuller began the long process of challenging the denial, but in the years that followed,
landlords gave his acres to farmers who could afford to put seed in, and who wouldn’t rock the
boat so much. Others sold off the land he had been farming and he didn’t have the money to
buy it back. Fuller struggled to afford the seed and fertilizer for the acres he still had.
“The upside is they pushed us to this, which is where we really wanted to be anyway,” Fuller
said. “So there’s really a lot of good to come out of it. We wouldn’t have had the courage to do
this without being broke and not having an option.”
“This” means pivoting away from commodity crops and moving toward a more
diversified approach to agriculture: a system where grass-fed cows, sheep, heirloom pig
breeds, and chickens rove a more biodiverse landscape. Many of Fuller’s fields are planted with
perennial plants and native grasses that he has let go to seed, which the ruminants graze on a
rotational basis. Fuller went from farming 3,200 acres of corn and soybeans in 2000, to just 400
acres in 2018, very few of them planted with commodity grains. And this way, for reasons I’ll
explain, he doesn’t need crop insurance in the first place.
“If you want crop insurance, you have to play by their rules.”
Farmers have been experimenting with different regenerative agricultural practices since the
late 1980s, although they might not have used that term back then. Steve Swaffar, executive
director of No-Till on the Plains, said that soil erosion was a major factor. Even though farmers
were following standard best practices, topsoil was still running off their fields. They began
looking for solutions. A few people pulled together a conference on alternative farming methods
in 1995, and soon the Kansas Crop Residue Management Alliance was established as a
nonprofit. The organization was later renamed No-Till on the Plains, a catchier rebrand that still
belies the broad scope of its mission, which is a systems-based approach to agriculture that
includes no-till, cover crops, crop rotation, and livestock integration.
“When you put it all together, that’s when you get a complete farming approach that I think is
certainly superior from an environmental standpoint,” said Swaffar. “And we’re seeing more
and more evidence that it’s superior from an economic standpoint.”
Darin Williams, a Kansas farmer who grows a mix of corn, soybeans, and cereal crops on 2,000
acres, and incorporates practices like no-till and cover crops, says his input costs are
significantly lower than his peers. He needs less fertilizer and half as much herbicide; when
herbicides can cost anywhere between $20 to $40 per acre, the savings add up quick.
Even as evidence of the benefits of cover crops mounted, the government held onto
rules that discouraged their use. Although crop insurance is administered by private
companies, the federal government manages and subsidizes the industry , and sets the
rules that determine crop insurance eligibility . Most of those rules allow farmers to farm the
way they see fit, as long as that is within a fairly broad range of good farming practices; fertilizer,
pesticide, and herbicide use are all left to farmer discretion. But for years, the RMA dictated
how farmers could use cover crops by setting strict termination dates—dates that may not
make sense in a particular location or in a given year.
“If you want crop insurance, you have to play by their rules,” Swaffar said. “Many of the farmers
that come to our events would tell you, ‘If I didn’t have to follow those rules, I could be a
lot more productive and a lot more effective as a farmer,’ but because crop prices only
offer very slim profit margins for producers, they’re almost financially obligated to carry
crop insurance.”
For example: Last spring was unusually cold in Iowa. Sarah Carlson, the director of Strategic
Initiatives for Practical Farmers of Iowa, said that when it came time to plant soybeans, cover
crops across the state were barely two inches high. “Agronomically, they should have planted
soybeans as early as possible and let the cover crop grow until it reached about knee-height to
get weed control benefits from it,” Carlson said. But that would have been “off label” and against
RMA policy. Practical Farmers won a deviation for two farmers that allowed them to go off book
without jeopardizing their crop insurance. All that effort, Carlson said, was “a waste of time.”
“Farmers should be allowed to farm the way they feel is best,” Carlson said. “RMA should get
out of the agronomy business.”
In addition to making it overly onerous for farmers to implement cover crops in a way that works
for them, RMA policies have had the effect of scaring off farmers who might otherwise be
interested in cover crops.
Approximately 90 percent of the insurable farm acreage in the U.S. is protected by crop
insurance. Many farmers have to have it in order to qualify for operating loans from the bank.
Simply knowing that cover crops could impact eligibility has been enough to scare some
farmers away.
After Fuller was denied his crop insurance payout, he said farmers would come up to him during
events that he attended or spoke at, and say, “I’m not gonna do cover crops now,” or “I was
doing cover crops and I quit, because I can’t afford to lose my insurance.”
“So it did set the movement back, for a few years,” Fuller said.
While financial concerns can keep farmers from experimenting with cover crops and other
regenerative practices, some farmers try them when they fall on hard times, as a last resort.
“I don’t think you find many who actively said, ‘I just want to do this for the benefit of the climate
or the environment,'” said Mike Lavender, who works on food and environmental issues for the
Union of Concerned Scientists. “You typically find that people, for whatever circumstance, were
forced into and have found a way to make it work.”
Many of the farmers practicing regenerative agriculture, including cover crops, have begun to
self-insure; it’s not ideal, but the way the crop insurance industry works leaves them little choice.
What they have found is that cover crops and other regenerative practices have made them less
susceptible to yield variations from year to year.
Ryan Stockwell is the director of sustainable agriculture at the National Wildlife Federation and
helped Fuller win his crop insurance claim; he also farms 110 acres in Wisconsin, and forgoes
crop insurance entirely.
“As a farmer, I’ve been doing no-till, cover crops, and a diverse crop rotation for eight years
now, and I’m getting to the point where I’m not seeing any major yield variation that my
neighbors are experiencing,” Stockwell said. “So why should I pay $15 an acre for no return?”
Right now, crop insurance is based entirely on the county in which you live. The RMA calculates
risk that way because weather across a single county is fairly consistent, and weather is a huge
factor in farm yields from one year to the next. The comparison I heard over and over again was
that it’s like giving everyone who lives in the same neighborhood the same car insurance rate,
without a “good driver” discount.
Stockwell and others want the crop insurance industry to be restructured in order to take
practices that decrease yield variability—and therefore lessen risk for the insurance company—
into account. They want a “good farmer” discount for farmers who use practices that
stabilize yields, but that also have broader environmental benefits. By that logic,
regenerative farmers should be cheaper to insure.
“Instead of having a county average that defines your risk, regardless of practices that you use
in that county, instead we may see a larger geographic pool that they put people in, but there
would be a number of different pools within that geography,” said Stockwell. “So, it could be a
four, six, or eight county area, and they pool the farmers who have a two-crop rotation, or they
pool the farmers who have a three-crop rotation plus cover crops plus no-till.”
Regenerative agriculture boosts crop yields and increases profitability--consensus of meta-studies.
Jock Gilchrist 21, climate policy analyst at The Climate Center, MS in Environmental Science
from Johns Hopkins University, 3/x/2021, "THE PROMISE OF REGENERATIVE
AGRICULTURE: The Science-Backed Business Case and Mechanisms to Drive Adoption,"
Environmental Entrepreneurs and Natural Capitalism Solutions, https://e2.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/Jock-Final-Report-The-Promise-of-Regenerative-Agriculture.pdf - MBA
AM
*SOM = Soil Organic Matter
Stabilized or Improved Crop Yields and Enhanced Food Security
Global climate change and soil degradation present major issues for maintaining
cropland productivity. Evidence suggests that climate change is reducing crop yields despite
an increased CO2 availability for plants. A global modeling study found that climate change was
responsible for a 3.8% decrease in maize yields and 5.5% decrease in wheat yields between
1980 and 2008 (Lobell, Schlenker, & Costa-Roberts, 2011). Other studies predict even more
significant losses for wheat, maize, and rice under the warmer temperature regimes expected in
coming years (Challinor, et al., 2014). Food security impacts from climate change will be
harshest for nations already suffering from high levels of hunger and will reduce their resilience
to climate shocks (Wheeler & von Braun, 2013).
The impacts of soil and land degradation on agricultural productivity also reveals grim
results. According to Otuk and Daniel (2015), estimates for the magnitude of global crop
yield reduction caused by soil degradation range from 12.7% (Oldeman, 1998) and 13.4%
(Crosson, 1997) to 19% (IIASA, 2000), and even as high as 30% (Pimentel, Allen, and Beer,
1993). A review by Eswaran, Lal, and Reich (2001) found that at the field and plot level,
degraded soils reduced harvests by up to 40% in rowcrops in the U.S. Midwest (Fahnestock, et
al., 44 1995; Schumacher, et al., 1994); by between 30% and 90% in west Africa (Mbagwu, et
al., 1984; Lal, 1987; Charreau, 1972; Kayombo and Lal, 1994); by up to 50% in some parts of
Europe (Ericksson, et al., 1974); and by 20% in India, China, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon,
Nepal, and Pakistan (Dregne, 1992). Soil erosion causes economic losses to the U.S.
agricultural sector of $44 billion per year (Eswaran, Lal, & Reich, 2001). A 100-year
analysis of a continuously cropped field in the U.S. Midwest found that, even with fertility
management, degraded soils had 60% lower corn yields than at the start of the 100-year
period (Gantzer, Anderson, Thompson, & Brown, 1990). The worsening of soil quality
threatens global food security and livelihoods in developing nations and exacerbates climate
change (Sulaeman & Westoff, 2020).
Increasing SOM through regenerative management represents the reversal of the soil
erosion process: adding SOM builds soil structure and aggregate stability and makes
soil less vulnerable to erosion by wind and water. Research on the impact of
regenerative agriculture implementation on crop yields generally shows that crop yields
stabilize or increase , with a smaller number of studies showing yield declines after
implementation. It is postulated that the increase in soil fertility and the resilience that allows soil
to withstand shocks and stabilize yields is mediated by the increase in SOM (Soil Health
Institute, 2018).
The Soil Health Institute reviewed some of the literature on the impacts of regenerative
agriculture practices on crop yield. Of the 8 studies that had sufficient data, crop yield
volume remained the same or increased in 7 (Soil Health Institute, 2018). The average
change in crop yield in these studies was +17.6%, while the change in the one remaining study
was -6.2% (Soil Health Institute, 2018). Six of the 8 studies showed that yield variability was the
same or smaller from year-to-year (Soil Health Institute, 2018). Van Es and Karlen analyzed 3
long-term field experiments in North Carolina, which primarily differed by tillage intensity and
management disposition (organic or conventional). They found that tillage intensity was the
most important variable in predicting soil health levels, with minimally tilled soils having the
best scores for each variable at each site (van Es & Karlen, 2019).
Especially important were levels of plant-available C and N, as well as manganese (which helps
break down organic matter and make it available to plants). Soil health indicators were
correlated with increased crop yields (van Es & Karlen, 2019). A meta-analysis that compared
conventional to organic crop production systems found that organic farms produce around 80%
of the yields of conventional farms (de Ponti, Bert, & van Ittersum, 2012).8 The study does not
include data on farm profitability, which can be higher in organic operations due to
premium pricing and reduced input costs, even if yields are lower.
A global meta-analysis that analyzed the relationship between SOM and yields of maize and
corn found that increasing SOM levels increase the yields of both crops (Oldfield,
Bradford, & Wood, 2019). They found that the yield benefits started to level off after SOM levels
reached 2%, a threshold also found in other studies (Oldfield, Bradford, & Wood, 2019). Since
about two-thirds of wheat and maize cropland globally are below 2%, small increases in SOM
levels could have major yield benefits. Indeed, according to the authors, “potential yield
increases of 10±11% (mean±SD) for maize and 23±37% for wheat amount to 32% of the
projected yield gap (the difference between observed and attainable yields) for maize and 60%
of that for wheat” (parenthetical statement my own) (Oldfield, Bradford, & Wood, 2019). The
increase in SOM would also reduce the fertilizer requirements by 7% for maize fields and
by 5% for wheat fields (Oldfield, Bradford, & Wood, 2019). Fertilizer reductions may be even
greater in some scenarios, as a 1% increase in SOM roughly equates to 20 pounds of N that a
producer does not have to apply.9
Another global meta-analysis examined the impact of cover crops on crop yield and found
that with a biodiverse mix of cover crops that includes legumes and non-legumes, primary
crop yield improved by 13% (when cover crops were not biodiverse, primary crop yield
dropped by 4%) (Abdalla, et al., 2019). While cover crops can negatively impact yield in waterscarce regions, livestock integration with cover crop grazing offers higher profits than
monoculture crop production.10
8 While organic and regenerative operations are both more ecologically oriented, important
differences can be present. For example, organic farms may till their soils, while regenerative
farms often reduce or eliminate tillage; regenerative farms may choose to incorporate some
chemical use, while strictly organic farms do not.
A large-scale set of field experiments in China showed that without any increase in
fertilizer application, adopting agroecological and integrated crop management methods
can increase rice, wheat, and maize yields by 18%, 24%, and 35% respectively (Chen, et
al., 2014). The experiments also reduced nitrogen losses and GHG emissions.
In sub-Saharan Africa, intercropping of a legume tree in a maize monoculture and application
of the tree’s prunings as a soil amendment tripled maize yield (Makumba, et al., 2006). A
country-wide study over dozens of farms in Malawi showed that a crop rotation that
incorporated semi-perennial legumes allowed farmers to halve fertilizer use while
maintaining the same yield and improving yield stability (Snapp, Blackie, Gilbert, BeznerKerr, & Kanyama-Phiri, 2010). Field trials in Botswana also showed that reduced tillage and
manure application doubled maize yields (Falkenmark, Fox, Persson, & Rockström, 2001).
According to Lal, improving SOC levels by 1 Mg/ha globally would “increase crop yield by 20 to
70 kg/ha for wheat, 10 to 50 kg/ha for rice, 30 to 300 kg/ha for corn, and 10 to 20 kg/ha for
beans,” and by 0.5 to 1 kg/ha for cowpeas (2010, p. 717; 2004). The benefits of regenerative
management to crop yield and yield stabilization increase profitability and decrease
economic risk for farmers. This service also improves global food security and fights
climate change.
Impacts: Regen Ag k Survival
Collapse of civilization inevitable without changes to agriculture
management
Sallet ‘18
(Lori, “Viewpoint: Our civilization could die if we don’t save agriculture,” pg online @
https://www.agdaily.com/features/viewpoint-our-civilization-could-die-if-we-dont-saveagriculture/ //um-ef)
Early farming societies were egalitarian, collaborative, with little evidence of hierarchy. However,
as populations grew, due to the nutritional certainty and the ability to have more children in a
sedentary setting, humans had to find a way to deal with the complications inherent in larger
groups. First religion, then central government, and soon immense civilizations such as Egypt.
At this point farming had become the economy: the basis of exchange and payment (grain
stores) and wealth (land). To farm at the scale needed to support an economy based on
specialization, where not everyone grew their own food, took immense bureaucracies.
But when societies ignored problems in agriculture, time after time, these civilizations
collapsed. What may not be written in our history books and only known well by archeologists
who study the Neolithic Era, the era of transition to farming, problems in agricultural
management, overuse of destructive agricultural practices that lead to environmental
and man-made climate-related problems, mismanagement of land and labor, and
ignorant behavior can lead to the end of times. What is not new is what the collapse of the
civilizations tells us: Agriculture must itself be cultivated, protected and renewed. Modern
agriculture has advanced mightily, but it is not immune to societal indifference and
negligence. Today, we face an equally uncertain future. Loss of farmland to ill planned and
senseless development; climate change for which we are unprepared and too unwilling
to confront; trade wars that could put millions of farmers out of business and poor
farming practices that degrade our soils, cause erosion, pollute our water, air and food;
all imperil our society and our civilization. We can’t afford to ignore the plight of our
farmers, the farmers who feed our growing population and steward the most precious
asset we have in the country, our farmland. Only about 1 percent of our population farms
today. The average farmer is 58 years old. As they retire over the next 20 years, 340 million
acres will transition. To farming, maybe, but perhaps not. There are not enough new and
beginning farmers to take their place. Farmland is expensive, so it often goes to developers.
Putting farmers out of business ahead of their time and ahead of the benefits of solutions now
just being put into place to get more new farmers on the land is short sided, to say the least. We
can’t afford to ignore the fate of our farmland — 2.3 billion acres that feed our growing
population and provide fuel, fiber, flood mitigation by slowing the flow and filtering water
from extreme weather events, and a carbon sink that is a significant climate change
mitigation tool, capable of drawing down up to 2,000 tons of carbon per acre per year
when managed correctly. Put to work, agricultural land in this world could sequester 20
percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Farmland sustains us, our loved ones,
our friends and neighbors. It sustains our society and it sustains our planet. However, the
conversion of farmland to development is occurring at an alarming rate — 31 million acres
between 1992 and 2012 lost in the U.S. to development, 175 acres per hour, 3 acres a minute.
It’s unsustainable. We will cease to exist as a society — the society we know anyway — if we
don’t reverse this trend.
AT: Regenerative Ag Bad
No link---consensus of studies prove regenerative agriculture does not
cause food insecurity.
Jock Gilchrist 21, climate policy analyst at The Climate Center, MS in Environmental Science
from Johns Hopkins University, 3/x/2021, "THE PROMISE OF REGENERATIVE
AGRICULTURE: The Science-Backed Business Case and Mechanisms to Drive Adoption,"
Environmental Entrepreneurs and Natural Capitalism Solutions, https://e2.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/Jock-Final-Report-The-Promise-of-Regenerative-Agriculture.pdf - MBA
AM
BOX 1: Can Regenerative Agriculture Feed the World?
One of the common concerns about regenerative and organic agriculture is whether they can be
practiced at a scale that can feed the world’s growing population. Since regenerative systems
are more complex to manage, they are only feasible at small scale, as the argument goes.
This means more land will need to be converted from native vegetation to agricultural
production to sustain current levels of food production, and this land use conversion is a
major driver of deforestation and GHG emissions. The climate and ecosystem benefits of
regenerative agriculture would thus be negated.
There is evidence to suggest that this scenario is far from inevitable for two major reasons.
First, the view that there is a supply-side problem of inadequate food production is
untenable. Globally, only 55% of calories grown go to human consumption; the
remainder go to biofuels and animal feed (Cassidy, West, Gerber, & Foley, 2013). If 100% of
the calories grown went to human consumption, we could feed an additional 4 billion
people (Cassidy, West, Gerber, & Foley, 2013). Similarly, of the food that currently goes to
human consumption, the amount wasted is sufficient to feed an additional 2 billion
people (FAO, 2013). Other studies show that even a slight reduction in the meat-intensity of
global diets would reduce emissions and free up land for human consumption (and
improve public health outcomes) (Tilman & Clark, 2014). Crops used for biofuels and
livestock feed can be produced regeneratively and thus create benefits. Still, together, these
figures suggest that we already produce enough calories to feed a population well in
excess of the 10-billion-person peak expected by 2050. Eliminating inefficiencies in our food
distribution systems, reducing food waste, improving the purchasing power of residents of the
Global South, and devoting more food production to human consumption means that no
additional land need be converted to meet demand.
The above argument also tends to imply that large-scale, conventional agriculture is the
only way to meet our food production demand. The scientific literature suggests
otherwise. There is a wide range of estimates on how much food the world’s small-scale farms
produce, although much of the discrepancies can be traced to different ways of defining “smallscale farm.” One oft-cited figure is small-scale farms make up over 70% of agricultural land
and produce up to 80% of the world’s food (FAO, 2014). Another study found that small-
scale farms produce 30-34% of global food supply on just 24% of the world’s agricultural
land (Ricciardi, Ramankutty, Mehrabi, Jarvis, & Chookolingo, 2018). A third estimates that
53% of agricultural land is managed by small farmers who produce at least 53% of the
world’s food supply (Graeub, et al., 2016). In any case, small-scale farms more than pull
their weight when it comes to production and food security . And according to an
UNCTAD report, the future of food requires us to see that “a farmer is not only a producer of
agricultural goods, but also a manager of an agro-ecological system that provides quite a
number of public goods and services” (2013). Small-scale farms are more agile and better
poised to adopt this essential praxis. The foregone conclusion that large-scale agriculture
is the only way to feed the world lacks empirical support.
Aff---AT: Precision Ag Solves
Precision ag can’t achieve widespread adoption.
James Mintert et al. 16, professor and extension economist in the Department of
Agricultural Economics, director of the Center for Commercial Agriculture; David Widmar, an
agricultural economist at AEI; Michael Langemeier, professor at Perdue University; Michael
Boehlje, professor at Perdue Universit; Bruce Erickson, the Agronomy Education Distance &
Outreach Director at Purdue University; February 6-9, 2016, "The Challenges of Precision
Agriculture: Is Big Data the Answer?," Southern Agricultural Economics Association,
https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/agssaea16/230057.htm - MBA AM
Challenges Limiting Adoption
Agricultural retailer surveys indicated that adoption of key precision agriculture techniques
increased significantly since the 1990s. However, given that some of the key building block
technologies, such as GPS based soil sampling, have been available for over twenty years,
it is surprising that usage is not even more ubiquitous . Why have key components of
precision agriculture not been adopted more widely?
The inherent appeal of precision crop agriculture is embedded in the idea that managing crop
production on a small scale, certainly smaller than individual field scale, will lead to increases in
total production, reductions in input usage, or both production increases and input usage
reductions. For this to be true, it implies that crop production functions change as you move
across a field. Importantly, it also implies that the decision maker knows when the crop
production functions change, thereby entering a new management zone, has detailed
knowledge of the crop production function for each management zone, and has the ability to
optimize input usage for each management zone. Once optimum input levels for each
management zone have been identified, precision application equipment must be used to apply
the inputs specified by the optimization routine. All this sounds simple, but in practice, of
course, it is not so simple.
The key factor discouraging more widespread adoption of precision agriculture
technology is profitability or, more precisely, failure to demonstrate that application of
precision agriculture technology improves farm profitability. Given that the premise of
precision agricultural crop production technology is so simple, namely apply the “right” quantity
of crop inputs in the right location at the right time, what’s the problem(s)? There are a multitude
of challenges facing a farm operator interested in using precision agriculture techniques to
improve profitability. First, the crop production function needs to be identified with respect
to key crop inputs. Although this sounds straightforward, in practice it is not easy. Camberato
provides an interesting summary of the evolution of nitrogen rate recommendations in Indiana.
Initial nitrogen rate recommendations were somewhat subjective and, over time, oriented
towards providing adequate nitrogen based upon yield goals. Subsequent research led to the
conclusion that basing nitrogen application rate recommendations on yield goals was not
reliable. Although the current approach to nitrogen rate recommendations in Indiana is
research based and derived from a model of corn production, it’s also clear that current
modeling techniques do not provide the precision required to vary optimal rate
recommendations as an applicator travels across a field. Similar problems exist with
respect to identifying optimal applications of other important nutrients. Thus, the first problem
to be addressed is more detailed knowledge of crop production functions with respect to
usage of key nutrients including, but not necessarily limited to, nitrogen, phosphorous, and
potassium.
The second challenge facing a crop farm operator is identifying the appropriate size
management zone to use when making decisions regarding input usage. Historically,
farmers tended to manage at the field level, effectively treating an entire field as though it
was an optimal management zone. In some cases this evolved into breaking a field down into
several management zones, sometimes based upon soil type changes within the field.
Research into identifying optimal management zones has been limited, but does not
currently offer broad-based conclusions farmers can rely upon. For example, Scharf, et al
examined eight different fields and concluded that in half the fields nitrogen management zones
of greater than 1 hectare were best, but in the other four fields smaller nitrogen management
zones were needed.
Closely related to the management zone issue is the need to identify the optimal size
zone for soil sampling. Mallarino and Wittry examined this issue and, similar, to the nitrogen
management zone researchers, found that they could not identify a single soil sampling
zone recommendation that was best in all fields and across nutrients. They did observe
that variability across sample zones tended to be larger for phosphorous and potassium than for
soil ph or organic matter, implying that optimal soil sample size zone might vary depending on
the nutrient or soil characteristic of most interest.
Initial attempts at identifying optimal management zones and soil sampling zones are often
based in part on soil survey maps. But not all soil maps are created equal. Most soil survey
maps are classified as order 2 maps, with a scale of 1:24,000. Slater indicates that order 1
maps were typically produced by soil scientists combining observations from aerial photography
with on the ground soil observations reliant upon soil bores covering 10 to as much as 5 acres.
The minimum size delineation for an order 2 maps is 5.7 acres and hence relying on order 2
maps to identify a management or soil sampling zones is limited by this level of granularity.
Order 1 soil maps are much less common, but are prepared at a much smaller scale ranging
from 1:2,500 or 1:10,000 and can be used at the one acre or less level (Slater). Frazen et al
examined the usefulness of Order 1 vs. Order 1 soil maps when identifying nitrogen
management zones and concluded that Order 2 maps were rarely helpful whereas Order 1
maps were much more useful.
Results from researchers examining optimal management and soil testing zones indicate that
work providing clarity with respect to sizing both soil testing zones and management
zones is needed to make precision agriculture techniques more profitable. Additionally,
higher quality soil maps with resolutions equivalent to what’s provided by Order 1 maps are
needed in much of the U.S.
Warming Scenario
Climate Scenario
Transition to regenerative agriculture ends global climate change---subsidy
reform is key
Ryan Bort 19, reporter for Rolling Stone, BA from University of Washington, 9-19-2019, "How
Big Agriculture Is Preventing Farmers From Combating the Climate Crisis," Rolling Stone,
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/big-agriculture-preventing-farmerscombating-climate-crisis-886538/
Farmers in Iowa have relied on the same weather pattern for generations. Rain in the spring, heat with a little
rain mixed in to sustain the crops in the summer, followed by a dry harvest season. It’s a delicate cycle, and any fluctuation
can throw off an entire harvest , and with it a farmer’s ability to earn a living.
In recent years, fluctuations have become the norm . It’s been raining too much in the spring, not enough in the
summer, and then raining again when farmers are trying to harvest. And it
keeps getting worse . Flooding rocked the
region earlier this year, part of a brutal stretch of inclement weather nationwide that led the U.S. Department of Agriculture to approve
$3 billion in disaster relief. In June, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the previous 12 months were Iowa’s wettest
such period since official records began in 1895.
The record rainfall isn’t due to an anomaly in the weather pattern that will eventually correct itself, and farmers know it; it’s due to
man-made climate change , and a growing contingent of farmers and activists are beginning to realize that the U.S.
agricultural system is going to need to be overhauled if it’s going to survive deep into
the 21st century.
“It’s not just the floods that are bringing farmers to the realization that things are different,” says Iowa Farmers Union President Aaron
Lehman. “We’ve had a number of years with extreme weather volatility . I think there’s still a debate about
what exactly we should do about it, but I think there is a growing acceptance that something is going on.”
Whatever is done about it, if
it’s going to happen on a consequential scale, is going to require the
help of the federal government . Earlier this month, Lehman led a coalition to Washington, D.C., for the National Farmers Union
Fall Legislative Fly-In, an annual opportunity for farmers to take their concerns directly to lawmakers. Climate change was on the agenda. “There
should be incentives for farmers to help address the climate issue, which they can do in
ways no other industry can,” he says.
They can address it, primarily, through the soil. Crops can absorb a lot of carbon dioxide if
the right farming methods are used, like planting “cover crops” to replenish soil during the offseason,
diversifying how land is used, employing “no-till” farming that does not disturb the soil and keeps
the carbon sequestered , and cutting back on pesticides. But modern agricultural practices
have stripped the world’s soil of nutrients to an alarming degree over the course of the
past century, releasing carbon back into the atmosphere. A report released this summer by the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that
agriculture and land use are responsible for 23 percent
of man-man g reen h ouse g as emission s , and that the world’s food supply is in danger
if nothing is done to curb the rate at which carbon is being pumped into the atmosphere.
“There is a ubiquitous lack of understanding that you can end
improving the soil,”
climate change by
says Don Wiviott, director of Tomorrow’s Farms, an organization that works to convert farmland to organics. “That is
big news for 99.9 percent of the people out there.”
This degradation of the soil is taking just as heavy of a toll on the livelihoods of small
farmers, who are forced to rely on land that is not healthy, not able to retain water, prone to erosion, and thus not at all resilient to the
contingencies of a changing climate. As those contingencies have become realities, the need to adopt more sustainable
practices has become acute.
But implementing
these practices requires an economic flexibility most farmers don’t
have, and which is almost impossible to achieve within a government-backed system
designed to preserve a large-scale, corporate-farming monoculture based around commodity crops
like corn and soybeans, which often cost smaller farmers more money to grow than they can make selling.
direct subsidies , or Trump’s payments, it’s all based on the same thing,” says Ron Rosmann, who has been
farming sustainably for decades in Harlan, Iowa. “It rewards the worst practices and the agriculture system
just keeps getting bigger. All the payments go to the biggest farms . The payments are based on how
“Whether it’s crop insurance,
much corn you grow, and that is so wrong.”
In August, Rosmann, who hosts field days to promote resilient agricultural practices in Iowa, gave Elizabeth Warren a tour of his 700-acre farm in
Harlan. Warren has pledged to tackle the corporate consolidation that has allowed Big Ag to keep getting bigger while smaller farmers get squeezed,
and also to expand the Conservation Stewardship Program, which pays farmers to implement practices that keep carbon in the soil.
“I think Elizabeth is on the right track,” says Rosmann, who also wants to overhaul the federal crop insurance program to be more amenable to green
farming. Currently, insurance payments are structured around the mass production of commodity crops like corn, which only perpetuates more corn
and more monoculture, as farmers don’t want to risk planting crops that are more difficult to insure, especially as climate change worsens. As
Rosmann puts it, the system aims to “find ways to adapt to the bad things that have already happened and will get worse” rather than working to fix
those bad things.
Several other Democratic presidential candidates have released plans that would expand federal dollars
going to farmers who adopt climate-friendly practices like planting cover crops , no-till
farming , and organic growing , but the movement to reimagine the agricultural system has gained little traction with lawmakers
on the other side of the aisle, who have either denied the existence of the climate crisis or are too cozy with the corporations whose bottom line
depends on propagating it.
“There are Republicans that want to see [sustainable farming practices] increase, but how much are they willing to throw money to it? I don’t know,”
says Rosmann. “They say they want to see more of that happening. They get so much resistance from the Industrial Ag community.”
“It’s been politicized and that’s a darn shame,” says Wiviott. “The weather is getting worse. Instead of calling it climate change, we need to just ask
ourselves, ‘What are we going to do about it.’”
There isn’t likely to be any Green New Deal for agriculture without the kinds of federal incentives farmers like Lehman and Rosmann would like to see,
as smaller farmers simply can’t afford to risk converting to alternative practices otherwise, even though studies
have shown
growing organics to be more profitable in the long-term as demand continues to
increase. “It will make them more money over time, because the organic farmers are far
more prosperous , and their yields are very comparable to conventional,” says Wiviott, who notes
that 70 percent of organic crops are currently imported.
“Farmers are saying, ‘I’ve got to make it to next year. What am I going to do this year?’ he
adds. “Landowners are saying, ‘You’re telling me I’m going to make less for two years, and then make more in the third year? I don’t know, that sounds
risky.’ Everything
has to do with microeconomics.”
Rosmann agrees. “As soon as you start pursuing alternatives you’re going to have to purchase different equipment,” he says. “There’ll be less crop
production on an individual farm. They
think they can’t make as much money, because the subsidies ,
whether it’s crop insurance or a direct subsidy for low prices, are based around volume versus conservation and
quality.”
Though Big Agriculture may be able to sustain itself in the face of the climate crisis by way of subsidies and crop insurance in the short-term, a drastic
if greenhouse gas emissions
continue to increase, production of corn and soybeans in the U.S. could decline by 80
shift in thinking will be needed at some point. A USDA report released in July found that
percent in the next 60 years. “One thing climate-denying farmers are going to find out is that in about 25 years
you’re not going to be able to grow corn and soybeans in Iowa,” says Jay Yarnell, an Iowa Farmers Union
member from Pleasant Hill. “They just don’t care as long as they’re making a profit today.”
Regenerative agriculture can sequester all carbon emissions---ending
climate change.
Rodale Institute 19, 501 nonprofit that supports research into organic farming. 10-30-2019,
"Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change," https://rodaleinstitute.org/wpcontent/uploads/rodale-white-paper.pdf - MBA AM
Executive Summary
We are at the most critical moment in the history of our species, as man-made changes to
humanity’s security on Earth. In 2012, total annual global emissions of greenhouse gases were
emissions must soon drop to a net of 41 GtCO2e if we are to have
a feasible chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, above which point we dare not pass.
the climate threaten
approximately 52 GtCO2e. These
The key term in the above paragraph is “net.” Gross greenhouse gas emissions come from numerous man-made
sources. The resulting climate chaos has begun to modify our planet in ways that are not fully understood, leading to natural emissions that add to the
complexity of the challenge. If
we continue to attack the climate crisis solely from the direction of
reducing gross manmade emissions, we will be forced to confront all the bewildering
complexity of climate chaos. We will also be forced to battle carbon pumps everywhere –
industrial, agricultural, the transportation sector – and from every direction on the globe. We will be forced to ask what countries
should bear what responsibility, what industries should bear what portion of the blame and
burden, and who should pay for the sacrifices we tremble to imagine? This daunting challenge is
posed by trying to solve the problem by addressing only the “pump,” and it has led to
international bickering, incoherence, and inaction . People are left to pray for a yet undiscovered “technological messiah” to undo the damage, for
our political will is paralyzed. All this flows from the failure to look beyond the source of the problem ,
namely, the swarming carbon pumps that endlessly contaminate our atmosphere. The purpose of this paper is to redirect the discussion from the
“swarm” to the “simple.” We
suggest an obvious and immediately available solution – put the
carbon back to work in the terrestrial carbon “sinks” that are literally right beneath our
feet. Excess carbon in the atmosphere is surely toxic to life, but we are, after all, carbon-based life forms, and returning stable
carbon to the soil can support ecological abundance.
Simply put, recent
data from farming systems and pasture trials around the globe show that we could
sequester more than 100% of current annual CO 2 emissions with a switch to widely
available and inexpensive organic management practices, which we term “ regenerative organic agriculture .”
These practices work to maximize carbon fixation while minimizing the loss of that
carbon once returned to the soil, reversing the greenhouse effect. Regenerative organic agriculture for
soil-carbon sequestration is tried and true : Humans have long farmed in that fashion, and there is nothing
experimental about it. What is new is the scientific verification of regenerative agricultural practices. Farming trials across
the world have contrasted various forms of regenerative and conventional practices with
special attention to crop yield, drought impact, and carbon sequestration. Some of these studies
are in their third decade of data, such as this Institute’s Farming Systems Trial, and there are important fresh looks such as in the new Tropical
Farming Systems Trial (“TFST”) on the Caribbean slope of Costa Rica. The TFST is exactly the type of research needed for us to understand the full
sequestration potential of regenerative agriculture, and Rodale Institute is pleased to be collaborating with local researchers associated with Finca
Luna Nueva and EARTH University. Taken together, the
wealth of scientific support for regenerative organic
agriculture has demonstrated that these practices can comfortably feed the growing
human population, while repairing our damaged ecosystem. This scientific support has also led the United
Nations Commission on Trade and Development (“UNCTAD”) to issue, in September, 2013, a report “Wake Up Before It’s Too Late,” a powerful call for
the return to these sustainable practices.
Developing a comparable set of global farming system trials designed to more specifically measure carbon sequestration is
our best hope for demonstrating the power of regenerative organic agriculture to help solve the
climate equation. At the same time, these trials will act as hubs of skills incubation and support
networks for farmers already working in, or transitioning to, regenerative organic models.
Today there are farmers and agricultural scientists in every corner of the world committed to and excited about the results of regenerative organic
agriculture’s role in reversing both climate issues and food insecurity, and the specific research needs have been well documented. Now
is the
time to harness cutting-edge technological understanding, human ingenuity and the rich
history of farmers working in tandem with the wisdom of natural ecosystems. Now is the time to
arrive at a stable climate by way of healing our land and ourselves - through regenerative organic agriculture.
Solvency: Regen Ag Solves Climate
Regenerative agriculture is comparatively the most effective solution to
environmental destruction and climate change.
Rebecca Graham 21, a BA candidate in International Studies, May 2021, "Restoration
Through Regeneration: An Analysis of Agriculture in the United States," Arcadia University,
https://scholarworks.arcadia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1403&context=showcase – MBA
AM
Restoration Through Regeneration
While there are many different approaches to climate change mitigation and
environmental protection as it relates to agriculture, regenerative farming serves as the most
effective and sustainable solution . While policy-based approaches, small-scale community oriented farming, and food
science innovations offer varying levels of relief, regenerative agriculture is the best approach, as it not only
prevents environmental destruction, but actively restores the ecological balance .
Regenerative animal agriculture requires the coexistence of plants and trees with livestock as a means of obtaining a healthy soil balance, promoting
Through regenerative agriculture, humans can achieve a
sustainable food system that provides enough sustenance to feed the growing global
population.
healthy and thriving agroecosystems (Lal, 2020).
There are many different regenerative farming techniques, and farmers can determine which combination of regenerative practices best suit their
specific farm. Mimicking the centuries old patterns of North American bison on the grasslands, integrated livestock grazing allows livestock animals to
graze freely among crops and other livestock, resulting in a reduced need for fertilizers and healthier soil matter. As livestock cattle graze, plant matter
Organic matter, which is
comprised of decaying plant and animal matter, is essential for water retention in the ground. Soil retains 20,000 more
gallons of water per acre for each additional percentage of organic matter it holds (Payne, 2019). In addition to increased water retention, the
incorporation of manure and plant matter into topsoils increases its carbon content .
This leads to a higher quality and quantity of plant growth, requiring less artificial fertilizers to be used to
promote plant regrowth in the future (Schroeder, 2019). By allowing livestock to consume and defecate freely
across farmlands, the natural balance that exists between animal digestive cycles and
plant life cycles is restored, resulting in healthier plant life and, in turn, healthier crop production. Integrating livestock production
and manure becomes stomped into the ground where it enriches the soil with nutrients (Schroeder, 2019).
with crop production benefits both the farm animals and the plants, and promotes the long term health and fertility of the soil, creating a stable and
thriving agroecosystem (Schroeder, 2019). In addition to integrating livestock into croplands, rotational grazing of livestock in pasturelands boosts the
organic matter in the soil, enriching its nutrient content and increasing water retention. This,
in turn, requires farmers to use
fewer pesticides and less water to maintain healthy pasturelands.
AT: Cant Sequester
Neg ev is wrong---regenerative ag sequesters substantial carbon.
Keith Paustian et al. 20, Distinguished Professor of Soil and Crop Sciences and Senior
Research Scientist at Colorado State University. Claire Chenu, Professor at AgroParisTech, the
Paris Institute of Technology for Life, Food and Environmental Sciences, and a researcher at
the Joint Research Unit for Functional Ecology and Exotoxicology of Agroecosystems. Rich
Conant, a professor and associate dean of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability at Colorado
State University. Francesca Cotrufo, a Professor of Soil and Crop Sciences, and Senior
Scientist at the Natural Resource Ecology Lab, at Colorado State University. Rattan Lal,
Distinguished University Professor of Soil Science, Pete Smith, Professor of Soils and Global
change at the University of Aberdeen, Jean-Francois Soussana, Vice-President of the National
Institute of Agronomic Research, June 2020, "CLIMATE MITIGATION POTENTIAL OF
REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE IS SIGNIFICANT!," Princeton University,
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f90d6a90795c927511f7f1e/t/60349f967f294f10542841a
a/1614061462284/Climate+Mitigation+Potential+of+Regenerative+Ag+is+Significant++Response+to+WRI.pdf – MBA AM
In a recent World Resources Institute (WRI) blog post entitled “Regenerative Agriculture: Good for Soil
Health, but Limited Potential to Mitigate Climate Change”, Ranganathan et al. (2020), dismiss
the potential for regenerative agriculture to contribute to the “largescale emission reductions” and CO2 removal needed
to hold global warming below the 2 oC threshold in the Paris Accords. We believe their blog post
merits comment and critique. Given the severity of the climate change challenge and the urgent need to decarbonize the global
economy, while also actively drawing down CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, all viable options are needed to help solve the problem. We believe
that the
science is clear that regenerative agriculture can in fact contribute significant
emission reductions and CO2 removal, as well as improve soil health. Unfortunately, we believe the WRI post
confuses rather than clarifies the scientific and policy issues concerning the role and
potential of regenerative agriculture to contribute to climate change mitigation.
First, the
WRI piece poorly characterized the practices and principles comprising the suite of conservation management
practices that are often referred to as “regenerative agriculture”. These principles are widely understood to include: 1) maintaining
(to the degree possible) continuous vegetation cover on the soil, 2) reducing soil disturbance, 3) increasing the amount and diversity of organic
residues returned to the soil and 4) maximizing nutrient and water use efficiency by plants. Broadly these
attributes are designed
to more closely mimic native (e.g. prairie) ecosystems which we know maintain much higher
soil C stocks than conventional annual croplands. In general, these practices work to
increase soil C by increasing the amount of C added back into the soil and reducing the relative C loss
rates via soil respiration and erosion. For annual cropland, these practices include reduced tillage/ no-till and cover
crops (as mentioned by WRI), more diverse crop rotations with higher frequency of perennial crops, but also
grassed waterways and buffer strips, agroforestry (e.g., hedgerows, windbreaks), integrated livestock
management with improved grazing management, and conversion of marginal lands (poorly suited to annual cropping)
to perennial grasses and trees. There is an extensive literature and literally hundreds of
long-term field experiments across the globe that document the capability of these
practices, e.g., cover crops, (Abdalla et al. 2019, Poeplau and Don 2015), tillage reduction (Ogle et al. 2005, Franzluebbers 2010, Kravchenko
and Robertson 2011), perennials (Conant et al. 2016, Ogle et al. 2005, Guo and Gifford 2002) to increase soil C contents. Hence
the field experimental evidence that regenerative agricultural practices can significantly
increase soil C stocks is unequivocal . Of course, results vary for different combinations of climate and soil types and
management systems but in general we understand the variability in responses from region to region and we can design regionally-appropriate
climate-smart regenerative agroecosystems.
“Faulty carbon accounting” is stated as another reason for discounting the capability of
regenerative ag practices to store C and reduce greenhouse gases. One of the examples given, of the impact of organic amendments
(e.g. manure) that is imported from off-farm sources, is correct in that the addition of that (imported) carbon does not by itself represent a net
Assessing the net impact of such practices requires a broader life
cycle assessment that goes beyond the farmgate boundaries and may (Ryals et al. 2015) or may not result
in a net reduction of GHG emissions. However, estimates of global soil C sequestration potential (e.g., Fuss et al.
sequestration from the atmosphere.
2018, Griscom et al. 2018, Lal 2004, Paustian et al. 2016, Smith et al. 2008, Sommer and Bossio 2014), based on field experimental data (as
described above), generally
don’t include organic amendments in the suite of practices
considered in estimating soil C sequestration potential.
Further, the
WRI blog post speculates that adoption of regenerative practices might cause
significant yield declines compared to conventional agriculture, and therefore increase pressure to convert
forests to crop production, resulting in large C emissions from the liquidated forest biomass stocks. We don’t believe
there is strong evidence to support that assumption and indeed it is more likely that in the
regenerative practices will reduce soil degradation and improve yield stability
(Oldfield et al. 2019, Schjønning et al. 2018), resulting in less pressure for land use conversion. In fact, one of the more attractive features of using
soils as a CO2 removal strategy is that additional C can be stored in the soil, without land
use/land cover change. In contrast, land conversion is recognized as one of the major constraints against scaling up other CO2
long run,
removal approaches involving tree biomass sinks, including afforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) (NASEM 2019).
Finally, the argument is made that building soil organic matter (SOM) requires the concomitant
storage of both carbon and nitrogen at a ratio (C:N) of ca. 10-12. Indeed, this characteristic stoichiometry of
SOM is well known and soil scientists agree that practices to build up SOM stocks will generally speaking entail building up stocks of organically bound
nitrogen as well! However, we
reject the implication that any increase in organic matter storage will
require an additional proportional increase in the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer.
If this were the case, then it would be true that the large “embodied emissions” associated with industrial fertilizer production as well as increased N2O
emissions could render moot any climate benefit from C sequestration. However, in
most annual croplands in the
industrialized world, there is an excess of nitrogen and in fact one of the key functions of
cover crops (an important regenerative ag practice) is to capture nitrogen that otherwise could be
leached to aquatic systems or lost in gaseous forms. Hence stabilizing that nitrogen in organic
matter stocks via cover crop adoption and improved crop rotations is a positive benefit! When N is
not in excess, legume (cover) crops can promote N input via biological N fixation.
There are many long-term experiments which demonstrate the capacity of improved crop rotations and cover crop adoption to increase SOM stocks,
while maintaining or increasing yields, without requiring additional nitrogen inputs compared to conventional management (e.g., Dick et al. 1998,
regenerative agriculture practices can build up soil
organic C and N stocks, while reducing N losses and “tightening up” the N cycle in our
agroecosystems.
Abdalla et al. 2019). Hence, with proper management,
The WRI blog closes with an excellent analysis showing the potential to reduce
agricultural greenhouse gas emissions through a variety of practices including reducing food waste,
shifting towards more plantbased diets, improving crop N use efficiency, reducing on farm energy use and other land management changes. These are
all changes that
are fully compatible with the management practices associated with
regenerative agriculture. Indeed, we believe it is not productive to create artificial silos that seemingly decouple non-CO2 GHG
emission reductions from CO2 removal and soil sequestration. We submit that adoption of conservation practices that
comprise regenerative agriculture can – and must – do both. Ironically, this is implied in the first part of the
title of the WRI blog “Good for Soil Health…” Most soil scientists would agree that the main mechanism for the improvement in soil health with adoption
of regenerative agricultural practices is due to the increase in soil organic matter!
Climate change as well as food security, climate resilience, biodiversity and soil health are all interrelated parts of a new global imperative. That
imperative is for humanity to fundamentally reimagine our agricultural landscapes, designing them to provide not only sustaining services (food and
The science is clear that
regenerative agricultural practices have the biophysical capability to contribute
fiber) but environmental services as well, including climate change mitigation and adaptation capacity.
significantly to both soil health and climate change mitigation! There are no single solutions to achieving
GHG emission reductions and CO2 removal and by now it is universally accepted that many solution ‘wedges’, each contributing a modest (5-10%)
part of the solution, are required. We believe the preponderance of evidence is that regenerative agriculture has the potential to be such a wedge. The
challenge, however, is whether socioeconomic and political barriers can be overcome to bring that transformation to scale. Thus, it is more important
than ever that the scientific community project a clear, data-driven message that can inform policy makers and the general public about the potential for
positive change via a new agricultural revolution.
Water Advantage
1AC/2AC Stuff
Ag Exempt CWA
Agriculture is completely exempt from federal environmental regulations
now --- status quo subsidies undermine competition and cause
environmental damage
Finney ‘21
(Bradley, federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee. Prior to becoming a clerk, he was an associate in the Houston office of Norton
Rose Fulbright, “Agricultural Law Stifles Innovation And Competition,” pg online @
https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2021/05/3-Finney-785-838.pdf //um-ef)
Agriculture operates in a complex mosaic of federal and state environmental laws, from which
it is largely exempt—to its own benefit. In particular, agriculture is exempt from every major federal environmental
regulation, including the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA).1 The federal government also provides the industry significant financial support.2 Conspicuously missing from this maze of
exemptions, entitlements, and subsidies is any regulation that makes agriculture
responsible for the costs of its pollution. The origin of agricultural exceptionalism is a crucial backdrop to understanding policymakers’ failure to address
agricultural water pollution. The term “agricultural exceptionalism,” as used in this Article, encompasses the array of government benefits provided to agriculture, specifically regulatory exemptions, monetary
subsidies, and the permission to externalize pollution costs. Agricultural exceptionalism began amid one of the worst economic periods in the history of the industrialized world,3 the Great Depression of the
1930s.4 Farmers could not afford to harvest their crops, so produce and grain rotted in fields while people across the nation starved.5 In the midst of this desolation, policymakers crafted regulations to allow
agriculture to succeed.6 In the decades since, policymakers have continued this protectionist stance toward agriculture while developing and expanding the benefits provided.7 Today, critics on both sides of the
political aisle castigate agricultural exceptionalism.8 Some critics have chastised it for its market distortion,9 while others have widely attacked it for the environmental degradation the industry causes and this
Agricultural policy and
subsidies influence the crops farmers choose to grow with little consideration for
consumer demand.11 These policies also restrict healthy competition within the industry.12 Additionally, agriculture
causes serious environmental harm, and many of the policies meant to prop up the industry also encourage and exacerbate this harm.13 Agricultural
exceptionalism encourages.10 Both sides argue that agricultural exceptionalism is a relic of another era and is no longer needed. Both are correct.
exceptionalism represented understandable and arguably necessary policy choices in the 1930s.14 Today, however, agricultural exceptionalism results in significant consequences without that same need. The
stifles innovation of technological developments that reduce water
pollution while also hindering competition within the agriculture industry. The lack of innovation and
competition causes significant harm to the industry . Agricultural exceptionalism also results in an inequitable assignment of many of
primary claim of this Article is that agricultural exceptionalism
agriculture’s burdensome pollution costs to society. This Article calls for a shift toward placing limits on agricultural exceptionalism to more fairly apportion the industry’s liability for the costs of its actions and thus
Regulatory exemption allows the
industry to dispose of its pollution in water sources because agriculture largely does not have
to comply with the CWA and other water-related environmental statutes.15 Thus, agriculture externalizes the
encourage it to adapt its operations while also spurring competition. Agricultural exceptionalism suppresses innovation.
expansive costs of its water pollution by assigning them to society, which must filter and treat water, pay for increased medical care, and suffer the reduced profitability of clean, water-reliant economies.16
Because of cost externalization, the disposal of these harmful pollutants is cheap for the industry.17 There are expansive costs to agriculture’s water pollution, but society is assigned those costs.18 Given this
It does not make financial sense for a farmer to
invest money developing and implementing technology to reduce costs that are paid by
others.20 Agricultural exceptionalism also limits competition within the industry.21 Subsidies distort the industry’s reliance on market signals to make strategic decisions that align with consumer
special treatment, agriculture has little incentive to create new pollution-reducing technology.19
demands.22 The industry’s focus is often on receiving subsidies rather than delivering a product that satisfies demand.23 Thus, players in the industry compete to receive subsidies, not to satisfy consumer
preferences.24 Additionally, because of the regulatory exemptions and cost externalization, there is a lack of competition focused on developing new innovations to limit pollution and reduce attendant costs.25 As
a result of this lack of competition, society bears more costs.26 If agriculture was not exempt and was assigned more responsibility for its pollution, the industry would compete to reduce pollution and the costs of
that pollution.27 Regulatory change is necessary to curtail agricultural exceptionalism and make the industry more liable for the costs of its actions.28 There are several different policy mechanisms through which
that change can occur.29 This Article discusses several of those solutions, including banning certain fertilizers, taxing agriculture’s water pollution, requiring more transparency and availability of information, and
restructuring current regulations to eliminate agriculture exemptions and force cost-internalization.30 This Article considers the financial impact of agricultural exceptionalism. It also analyzes the financial impact if
these exemptions and subsidies were curtailed through the lens of an important and influential economic theory, the Porter Hypothesis.31 Although the regulatory exemptions and monetary subsidies provided to
agriculture and the impact of such exceptions on the environment have been discussed in other articles,32 this Article applies the Porter Hypothesis to agricultural exceptionalism and analyzes, through the lens of
that theory, the resulting financial impact of rolling back such exemptions and subsidies. This Article concludes by discussing solutions that utilize the perspectives gained from the Porter Hypothesis and that limit
the pervasive effect of agricultural exceptionalism on water pollution. Glancing at any newspaper or watching any news program reveals that agriculture pollution is currently a controversial subject. A few
illustrative headlines include the following: 14 States Sue EPA over Rollback of Obama-Era Water Rule; 33 Rich Farmers, Not Mom-and-Pop Farms, Will Collect Most of Trump’s Tariff Bailout; 34 We’re Suing
Iowa for Choosing Big Ag Over Clean Water; 35 Groups Sue Iowa for Farm Pollution into Racoon River. 36 Such controversy exists because emissions of various agricultural pollutants into water sources are
causing changes to the environment that could permanently alter how humans live37 and threaten human health in devastating ways.38 This pollution is wreaking havoc on water sources throughout the United
States, creating areas in bodies of water that are the size of multiple states in which living organisms cannot exist,39 causing harmful health effects,40 and devastating local economies.41 This could be just the
beginning. Agricultural pollution stems from many sources, including fertilizers and pesticides, animal excrement from livestock operations, and sediment loading from timber operations.42 These pollutants add
“ammonium, nitrates, nitrites, and phosphorous to ambient water quality[, causing d]ownstream lakes and reservoirs [to] experience eutrophication, algae blooms, and depleted oxygen, while rivers can be
impacted by excessive salinity, turbidity (from sediment), and toxicity, resulting in forever-altered marine ecosystems.”43 The negative impact and financial burden of agriculture’s water pollution on society are
well-documented.44 Yet, legislation continues to largely exempt agriculture from environmental regulation and allows it to externalize many of its costs. Regulators ostensibly provide such special treatment to
agriculture to ensure its continued financial health, which in turn arguably ensures that cheap food is readily available for the country.45 But such special treatment decreases water quality, as the environmental
regulatory exemptions provided to the industry allow it to pollute water sources.46 Many economic and environmental experts disagree that providing regulatory exemptions and allowing the industry to externalize
its costs improves the health of the industry.47 Specifically, two leading economists and business experts, Michael Porter and Claas van der Linde, developed a theory that regulation can encourage innovation
and competition within an industry.48 Regulation can cause innovation by providing the needed incentive to invest in new technology.49 Specifically, by no longer exempting the agriculture industry from
environmental regulations and forcing the industry to be responsible for the costs of its pollution, regulation would incentivize innovation.50 Moreover, according to this theory, those innovations often become a
net-positive for the industry because the added revenue or cost saved from the innovation is greater than the compliance cost.51 The Porter Hypothesis theorizes that environmental regulation causes two types
of innovation.52 The key to the first type of innovation lies in converting the resources left over from the polluting activity into something of value.53 The second type of innovation involves improving resource
productivity by substituting less environmentally costly materials or better utilizing existing ones.54 The Porter Hypothesis also posits that environmental regulation improves the competitiveness of the regulated
industry.55 Increased competitiveness results from firms increasing the efficiency of resources used in the production process and from increasing product quality.56 Increasing the resource efficiency of
production involves decreasing the utilization of harmful resources.57 Due to the new regulation, the decrease in utilization of harmful resources decreases costs58 while also improving the company’s
competitiveness in the marketplace.59 Increasing product quality also results from reducing the negative environmental impact of those products.60 As global demand has shifted towards green products, so has
the desirability of environmentally friendly products, meaning that reducing producers’ negative environmental impact actually increases their perceived quality in the marketplace.61 Improving both resource
efficiency and product quality in turn promotes a market where firms compete to produce the most desirable environmentally friendly products.62 Overall, this kind of increased innovation and competition would
likely result in a higher national water quality, less burdensome financial costs to society, and healthier people.63 Part I of this Article explains the societal harms that agriculture’s water pollution causes, including
the negative financial ramifications and harms to human health. Part II examines the monetary and legal benefits policymakers exclusively provide to the agriculture industry. Part III considers the negative impact
of agricultural exceptionalism on innovation and competition within the agriculture industry. This Part also analyzes the improvement that would result if policymakers curtailed agricultural exceptionalism. Part IV
production processes utilized by conventional
agriculture “contribute various pollutants to surface water, including nutrients,
pesticides, and sediments.”64 Conventional agriculture, as used in this Article, is defined by the use of synthetic inputs like chemical
fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Conventional farmers use chemical fertilizers and
manure to boost crop growth, but crops cannot utilize all of the fertilizer and manure
applied.65 Thus, when farmland is saturated by rainfall, irrigation, flooding, or snowmelt,
unused fertilizer and manure are carried to surface water and groundwater.66 The surface runoff from
farmlands “carries manure, fertilizers, and pesticides into streams, lakes, and reservoirs, often causing unacceptable levels of bacteria,
nutrients, or synthetic organic compounds.”67 Testing of water in the United States verifies that runoff from agriculture is a serious problem68 and that
considers various solutions for limiting agricultural exceptionalism. A final Part briefly concludes. The
“[s]ediments from U.S. waterways are often heavily contaminated.”69 Testing for pesticides in water has been limited, yet, nearly half of states have reported its groundwater contains at least one agriculturerelated pesticide. 70 Further, a study by the U.S. Geological Survey “found one or more pesticide compounds in over [40%] of [untreated groundwater] samples.”71 It is no surprise then that “even the EPA
concedes that runoff from agricultural activities is the primary culprit for 48% of the ‘impaired’ waters in the United States.”72 In California, the runoff problem is even worse as agricultural pollutants comprise
Commodity crop production also results in soil erosion that
contributes to increased water pollution.74 Agricultural exceptionalism policies encourage farmers to maximize
their production of commodity crops so that they can receive more commodity subsidy
payments.75 As a result, commodity crops, such as corn, soybeans, and other subsidized annual crops, “ are often
approximately 75% of all water impairment.73
grown without rotating in other crops that can prevent erosion and replace vital
nutrients in the soil.” 76 This failure to take preventative measures likely causes more
erosion.77 Soil erosion is an environmental hazard because eroded soil contains nutrients and other pollutants that
can impair water quality to a significant degree.78
Absent subsidy reform, fertilizer excess creates dead zones in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Sewell ‘18 [Joshua; research manager for TCS, expertise in federal agriculture program
reform, the Army Corps of Engineers, and general government transparency, policy advisor for
The Heartland Institute; 4-29-2018; "Impact of U.S. Agriculture Subsidies on Water Quality", ;
https://www.taxpayer.net/agriculture/impact-of-u-s-agriculture-subsidies-on-water-quality/,
accessed 7-7-2021; RG]
Nitrogen Runoff Leads to Impaired Water Quality
Nitrogen runoff
from farmland has increased over time as more fields were planted to corn,
annual rotations were forgone, and more herbicides and fertilizer were used to squeeze the
highest yield out
of each acre. Excess nitrogen
has impaired water quality , particularly in the
Mississippi River Basin , and increased costs for taxpayers and communities and industries relying on clean water.
Agribusinesses often over apply nitrogen fertilizer when planning for ideal growing conditions even
though perfect conditions rarely continue throughout the entire growing year. Farmers also install drainage tile beneath
fields to
accelerate the rate at which water migrates from wetlands or low-lying parts of fields to nearby
water bodies. More acres then become suitable for cropland production even though there is a greater likelihood of
water pollution due to unfiltered, nitrogen-laden water reaching nearby rivers and streams
more rapidly . USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) warns that “tile [drains] are being installed faster than
conservation practices are being adopted to address the modified flow of water and nutrients.”[26] Pollution from tile drains is
also largely unregulated .
Drinking water pollution is so bad in Iowa that the Des Moines Water Works filed a lawsuit against three counties for failing to
adequately manage nitrogen run-off from farms. In 2015, the water utility reportedly spent an additional $1.2 million to operate a
special system to remove nitrates from residents’ water supplies.
Government data also shows that agribusinesses
[which] increases
are “ failing to apply best management practices
the risk that excess nitrogen
atmosphere.”[27] NRCS found that of
can move
all U.S. cropland, two-thirds
from the field to water resources
was failing
or the
to meet USDA’s criteria for
good nitrogen management.[28] Better timing and application rates are needed on a high portion of cropland acres in the
following watersheds: 86 percent of cropland in the Upper Mississippi Basin, 87 percent in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 82
percent in the Great Lakes watershed, and 93 percent in the Ohio-Tennessee Basin.[29] Since the greatest portion of drainage tile
has been installed on corn acres in the MS River Basin, concerns
Mexico’s hypoxic zone
are growing about effects on the Gulf of
and downstream costs for water treatment facilities, industries, and recreational users.”[30]
The
greatest concern lies with increased corn plantings since the number of corn acres failing to meet best
management criteria
acres fail
increased by 18 percent from 2001 to 2010; in addition, nearly
90 percent of manure-treated corn
to meet minimum nitrogen application standards .[31] If corn ethanol mandates and federal
subsidies that bias production for corn continue or are expanded,
the situation will only worsen
with taxpayers and
consumers bearing the brunt of the downstream costs.
Recommendations
For nearly a century, U.S.
agriculture subsidies have distorted markets , promoted risky planting
decisions, and supported corporate welfare at the expense of
taxpayers, consumers, and
the
environment . Subsidies promoting fencerow-to-fencerow crop production have resulted in millions of acres
of wetlands , native grasslands, and other sensitive acres being converted into crops that require large
amounts of fertilizer and pesticides . Water quality has suffered as a result of soil erosion
and runoff
of these contaminants into local drinking water supplies. Taxpayers cannot afford to shoulder the responsibility for
managing normal business risks or guaranteeing high government-set crop prices that encourage farmers to plant for Washington
instead of the market where individual farm businesses can navigate markets based on their own perception of market needs and
individual ability.
Reforming
economically wasteful and
major step in the right direction
environmentally harmful subsidies would be a
toward freeing farmers to plant for the market while creating
effective, accountable, transparent, and responsive
a more cost-
agricultural safety net.
Continued agricultural runoff in the Gulf of Mexico will cause extinction.
*taken from MPAs aff
Hendy 17 [Dr. Ian Hendy, PhD in Trophic Marine Biology, Research and Communication
Officer and Senior Scientific Researcher in Marine Ecology at the University of Portsmouth,
Institute of Marine Sciences Laboratories, “Gulf of Mexico 'Dead Zone' Is Already A Disaster –
But It Could Get Worse,” Phys Org, Aug 2017, https://phys.org/news/2017-08-gulf-mexico-deadzone-disaster.html]
Each summer, a large part of the Gulf of Mexico "dies". This year, the Gulf's " dead
zone " is the largest on record , stretching from the mouth of the Mississippi, along the coast of Louisiana to waters off Texas,
hundreds of miles away. Around 8,776 square miles of ocean, an area the size of New Jersey or Wales, is almost lifeless.
John Muir, the famed naturalist and early conservation campaigner, once said that: "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to
everything in nature is connected , and that no part of our
ecosystem exists entirely independently from any other.
everything else in the Universe." His point was that
It is perhaps no surprise then that ultimate
cause of the Gulf of Mexico's dead zone can be found many
miles inland . Fertilisers used by farmers then wash into the Mississippi River and
eventually into the sea, where nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus stimulate an
explosion in microscopic algae , creating huge "algal blooms".
The algae then die and sink to the bottom,
where they decompose. But the
same bacteria which decompose the algae also use the sea's
oxygen
leaving an "anoxic" ocean.
during the process,
Fish and other mobile sea creatures are able to escape the suffocating dead zone. Less lucky
however are the sponges , corals , sea squirts and other animals who live their lives fixed in one place on
the sea bed. Low
oxygen levels place them under great stress and we have seen huge
mortalities. Such losses will of course ripple up the food web , creating a negative chain
reaction of increasing mortality rates in larger and larger animals.
The "dead zone" has grown this year due to increased rainfall in America's Midwest washing ever greater amounts of nutrients into the Mississippi,
which ultimately end up in the Gulf. Not only is this
a huge conservation issue – the Gulf contains key
nursery habitats such as mangrove forests, sea grass beds and coral reefs that benefit
adjacent fisheries – but it also has huge consequences for the local fishing economy, particularly the shrimp industry.
Steps are under way to slow down the ecological disaster. Some farmers in the Mississippi basin are using large grassy zones along waterways in
order to soak up the agricultural fertilisers and filter out many of the nutrients before they make their way down the Mississippi to pollute the Gulf.
However, it remains to be seen whether such measures are effective – and
US farmers certainly need to greatly reduce
the nitrogen and phosphates they use.
In the century since Muir's death, things have sped up. A larger population demands more food which means more deforestation, more farmland and
more fertiliser. The
increase demand placed on our land is ultimately affecting the marine
environment.
These losses are unsustainable. The marine environment is integral for all life on earth ,
from an ecological and economic point of view. If we keep losing ecosystem services
such as coastal nursery habitats and spawning grounds at this current rate, it will not
just be an area the size of a state that is a dead zone, but the whole Gulf, or even whole
oceans.
Internals: Ag = Water Pollution
Ag exemptions from controls results in water pollution that collapses
marine ecosystems
Finney ‘21
(Bradley, federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee. Prior to becoming a clerk, he was an associate in the Houston office of Norton
Rose Fulbright, “Agricultural Law Stifles Innovation And Competition,” pg online @
https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2021/05/3-Finney-785-838.pdf //um-ef)
Such controversy exists because emissions of various agricultural pollutants into water
sources are causing changes to the environment that could permanently alter how
humans live 37 and threaten human health in devastating ways .38 This pollution is
wreaking havoc on water sources throughout the United States, creating areas in bodies of
water that are the size of multiple states in which living organisms cannot exist,39 causing
harmful health effects,40 and devastating local economies.41 This could be just the
beginning. Agricultural pollution stems from many sources, including fertilizers and
pesticides , animal excrement from livestock operations, and sediment loading from timber
operations.42 These pollutants add “ammonium, nitrates, nitrites, and phosphorous to
ambient water quality[, causing d]ownstream lakes and reservoirs [to] experience
eutrophication, algae blooms, and depleted oxygen, while rivers can be impacted by
excessive salinity, turbidity (from sediment), and toxicity, resulting in forever-altered
marine ecosystems.”43 The negative impact and financial burden of agriculture’s water
pollution on society are well-documented.44 Yet, legislation continues to largely exempt
agriculture from environmental regulation and allows it to externalize many of its costs.
Regulators ostensibly provide such special treatment to agriculture to ensure its
continued financial health, which in turn arguably ensures that cheap food is readily available
for the country.45 But such special treatment decreases water quality, as the environmental
regulatory exemptions provided to the industry allow it to pollute water sources.46
Internals: Industrial kills Biod
Industrial agriculture is the greatest cause of global biodiversity loss.
Ian Johnston 17, the environment correspondent for the Independent quoting Raj Patel, a
Research Professor in the Lyndon B Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas,
8-1-2017, "Industrial farming is driving the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth, says leading
academic," Independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/mass-extinctionlife-on-earth-farming-industrial-agriculture-professor-raj-patel-a7914616.html - MBA AM
Industrial agriculture is bringing about the mass extinction of life on Earth, according to a leading
academic.
Professor Raj Patel said mass deforestation to clear the ground for single crops like palm oil and
soy, the creation of vast dead zones in the sea by fertiliser and other chemicals, and the pillaging of fishing
grounds to make feed for livestock show giant corporations can not be trusted to produce food for
the world.
The author of bestselling book The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society and Redefine Democracy will be one of the keynote speakers at
the Extinction and Livestock Conference in London in October.
Organised by campaign groups Compassion in World Farming and WWF, it is being held amid rising concern that the
rapid rate of
species loss could ultimately result in the sixth mass extinction of life. This is just one reason why
geologists are considering declaring a new epoch of the Earth, called the Anthropocene, as the fossils of soon-to-be extinct animals will form a line in
the rocks of the future.
The last mass extinction, which finished off the dinosaurs and more than three-quarters of all life about 65 million years ago, was caused by an asteroid
strike that sent clouds of smoke all around the world, blocking out the sun for about 18 months.
Prof Patel, of the University of Texas at Austin, said: “The
footprint of global agriculture is vast . Industrial
agriculture is absolutely responsible for driving deforestation , absolutely responsible
for pushing industrial monoculture , and that means it is responsible for species loss.
“We’re
losing species we have never heard of, those we’ve yet to put a name to and industrial
agriculture is very much at the spear-tip of that.”
Speaking to The Independent, he
pointed to a “dead zone” – an area of water where there is too little oxygen for most marine life –
in the Gulf of Mexico that has grown to the same size as Wales because of vast amounts of fertiliser that
has washed from farms in mainland US, into the Mississippi River and then into the ocean.
“That
dead zone isn’t an accident. It’s a requirement of industrial agriculture
to get rid of the sh*t and the run-off
elsewhere because you cannot make industrial agriculture workable unless you kick the costs somewhere else,” he said.
“The story of industrial agriculture is all about externalising costs and exploiting nature.”
The Amazon and surrounding lands in South America are also under increasing pressure from soy plantations.
“Extinction is about the elimination of diversity. What happens in Brazil and other places is you get
green deserts — monocultures of soy and nothing else.
“Various kinds of chemistry is deployed to make sure it is only soy that’s grown on these mega-farms.
Reforming US subsidies is key to restore ecosystem health and prevent
biodiversity degradation.
Ruth Richardson 19, the executive director of Global Alliance for the Future of Food, David
Nabarro, a co-facilitator of the Nature-Based Solutions workstream at the UN Climate Action
Summit and a professor of Global Health at Imperial College London and director of 4SD. 10-82019, "Industrial food system is at the heart of biodiversity degradation and climate change,"
The Hill, https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/464868-industrial-food-system-is-at-theheart-of-biodiversity-degradation - MBA AM
The industrial food system — that we humans have designed and built — is at the heart of biodiversity
degradation , climate change, diet-related diseases, rampant inequality, supply chain
inefficiencies and more. But if redesigned and rebuilt, our food system can be turned on its head so that it’s the source of the climate-resilient
solutions we need, especially if we embrace nature- and people-based food and agriculture.
As we celebrate World Food Day on Oct. 16 and consider how a changing planet affects access to nutrition, food production and distribution, the need
for reform is clearer than ever. Up until now,
a narrow focus on energy and transportation solutions to
climate, while important, has prevented us from exploring and investing in indispensable
mitigation and adaptation strategies that come from land and nature, such as the rapid uptake of regenerative
agriculture and agroecology, using soil as a carbon sink, reducing food waste and adopting zero-deforestation policies and
commitments.
To do so, however, requires a food systems approach with a sharp focus on a number of critical priorities — not the least of which is governance,
policy and finance. The
economics of the food system is a particularly urgent priority . Unless we
quickly shift the economic signals and incentives away from harmful policies and
towards nature- and people-based solutions, we will not achieve the radical, transformative
change at scale needed at this critical juncture.
Take public subsidies.
Decades of subsidies in countries around the world have changed the landscape of farming and food
dramatically. These incentives are, largely and unequally, enjoyed by companies that have
perpetuated harmful practices such as intensive livestock farming, the excessive
promotion of ultra-processed food and chemical intensive agriculture.
Not only has this
resulted in huge negative environmental impacts like water pollution and
soil erosion, but the proliferation of cheap, subsidized commodities like soy and corn actively feed intensive beef production operations as well,
which emit almost 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions.
At the same time,
our subsidy regimes further support the increased consumption of cheap
processed foods , which are compounding health inequalities and driving dramatic rates
of diet-related diseases across the globe built on the promise of rock bottom prices. An urgent case for reforming food and farming
systems can also be made on the grounds of protecting human health.
By continuing to heavily subsidize particular crops, mainly corn and soy, as well as the industrial methods of
producing these crops, we are simply continuing to fund and incentivize the wrong
things. A recent report from the Food and Land Coalition (FOLU) highlights how just 1 percent of the $700 billion (£560bn) a year given to farmers
is used to benefit the environment, the rest goes toward high-emission cattle production, forest destruction and pollution from the overuse of fertilizer.
Reforming and redirecting public subsidies to invest in nature-based solutions would
have major benefits for ecosystem health and biodiversity , people’s livelihoods and wellbeing, and
climate mitigation . It would also have benefits for the future of farmers and businesses that are on the right side of history working to
amplify the positive impacts of their operations and eliminate the negative.
Markets are waking up to this opportunity: new business leaders are emerging within the food sector. Take, for example, Eosta, which is dedicated to
the production and importation of sustainable, organic, and fair-trade fruits and vegetables. They have relationships with over 1,000 growers in six
continents providing full traceability of their products, promoting true cost accounting, and building a sustainable market with consumers.
We are also seeing signs that investors are shifting their position and are reexamining how their money is being put to use. Around the world, private
sector capital, including philanthropic investment, is actively, creatively, and increasingly being invested in ways that offer financial, environmental, and
social returns. Take, for example, how 230 institutional investors (representing USD $16.2 trillion in assets) recently called on companies to take urgent
action in light of the Amazon fires. Another example is the McKnight Foundation, based in Minnesota, that is investing $5M of its philanthropic
endowment in Midwestern BioAg to help both large-scale and organic producers increase yields, boost profits and improve soil health, which, in turn,
restores water quality of and reduces agricultural runoff into the Mississippi River.
World Food Day is a powerful — and optimistic — moment to highlight the need for economic reform in the name of nature- and people-based food
solutions. Many activists and others recognize that
the climate emergency requires a sea change in the
financing of food systems — from public and private sources.
This involves redesigning and rebuilding food systems so that they deliver nutritious
food for all, climate stability, well-functioning ecosystems, prosperity of all who produce food (including
smallholders) and thriving rural communities. Those threatened by climate change need special attention to ensure that healthy
diets, livelihoods, communities and value chains are protected and resilient. Progress was made at the 2019 Climate Action Summit, raising awareness
of the power and potential of nature-based solutions, but there’s more to be done.
Ultimately, decision-makers recognize that food systems need to change course: more and more are
ready to grasp the opportunity and make it happen. Getting all the interests to agree on the shifts needed, and align, is not easy. Some will worry that
they are going to be left behind. It is vital that they are at the table, their concerns are heeded, and they are accompanied through change. The recipe
is difficult and contentious, but this is no excuse for inaction.
Solvency: Subs shift k Biod
Reforming US subsidies is key to restore ecosystem health and prevent
biodiversity degradation.
Ruth Richardson 19, the executive director of Global Alliance for the Future of Food, David
Nabarro, a co-facilitator of the Nature-Based Solutions workstream at the UN Climate Action
Summit and a professor of Global Health at Imperial College London and director of 4SD. 10-82019, "Industrial food system is at the heart of biodiversity degradation and climate change,"
The Hill, https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/464868-industrial-food-system-is-at-theheart-of-biodiversity-degradation - MBA AM
The industrial food system — that we humans have designed and built — is at the heart of biodiversity
degradation , climate change, diet-related diseases, rampant inequality, supply chain
inefficiencies and more. But if redesigned and rebuilt, our food system can be turned on its head so that it’s the source of the climate-resilient
solutions we need, especially if we embrace nature- and people-based food and agriculture.
As we celebrate World Food Day on Oct. 16 and consider how a changing planet affects access to nutrition, food production and distribution, the need
for reform is clearer than ever. Up until now,
a narrow focus on energy and transportation solutions to
climate, while important, has prevented us from exploring and investing in indispensable
mitigation and adaptation strategies that come from land and nature, such as the rapid uptake of regenerative
agriculture and agroecology, using soil as a carbon sink, reducing food waste and adopting zero-deforestation policies and
commitments.
To do so, however, requires a food systems approach with a sharp focus on a number of critical priorities — not the least of which is governance,
policy and finance. The
economics of the food system is a particularly urgent priority . Unless we
quickly shift the economic signals and incentives away from harmful policies and
towards nature- and people-based solutions, we will not achieve the radical, transformative
change at scale needed at this critical juncture.
Take public subsidies.
Decades of subsidies in countries around the world have changed the landscape of farming and food
dramatically. These incentives are, largely and unequally, enjoyed by companies that have
perpetuated harmful practices such as intensive livestock farming, the excessive
promotion of ultra-processed food and chemical intensive agriculture.
Not only has this
resulted in huge negative environmental impacts like water pollution and
soil erosion, but the proliferation of cheap, subsidized commodities like soy and corn actively feed intensive beef production operations as well,
which emit almost 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions.
At the same time,
our subsidy regimes further support the increased consumption of cheap
processed foods , which are compounding health inequalities and driving dramatic rates
of diet-related diseases across the globe built on the promise of rock bottom prices. An urgent case for reforming food and farming
systems can also be made on the grounds of protecting human health.
By continuing to heavily subsidize particular crops, mainly corn and soy, as well as the industrial methods of
producing these crops, we are simply continuing to fund and incentivize the wrong
things. A recent report from the Food and Land Coalition (FOLU) highlights how just 1 percent of the $700 billion (£560bn) a year given to farmers
is used to benefit the environment, the rest goes toward high-emission cattle production, forest destruction and pollution from the overuse of fertilizer.
Reforming and redirecting public subsidies to invest in nature-based solutions would
have major benefits for ecosystem health and biodiversity , people’s livelihoods and wellbeing, and
climate mitigation . It would also have benefits for the future of farmers and businesses that are on the right side of history working to
amplify the positive impacts of their operations and eliminate the negative.
Markets are waking up to this opportunity: new business leaders are emerging within the food sector. Take, for example, Eosta, which is dedicated to
the production and importation of sustainable, organic, and fair-trade fruits and vegetables. They have relationships with over 1,000 growers in six
continents providing full traceability of their products, promoting true cost accounting, and building a sustainable market with consumers.
We are also seeing signs that investors are shifting their position and are reexamining how their money is being put to use. Around the world, private
sector capital, including philanthropic investment, is actively, creatively, and increasingly being invested in ways that offer financial, environmental, and
social returns. Take, for example, how 230 institutional investors (representing USD $16.2 trillion in assets) recently called on companies to take urgent
action in light of the Amazon fires. Another example is the McKnight Foundation, based in Minnesota, that is investing $5M of its philanthropic
endowment in Midwestern BioAg to help both large-scale and organic producers increase yields, boost profits and improve soil health, which, in turn,
restores water quality of and reduces agricultural runoff into the Mississippi River.
World Food Day is a powerful — and optimistic — moment to highlight the need for economic reform in the name of nature- and people-based food
solutions. Many activists and others recognize that
the climate emergency requires a sea change in the
financing of food systems — from public and private sources.
This involves redesigning and rebuilding food systems so that they deliver nutritious
food for all, climate stability, well-functioning ecosystems, prosperity of all who produce food (including
smallholders) and thriving rural communities. Those threatened by climate change need special attention to ensure that healthy
diets, livelihoods, communities and value chains are protected and resilient. Progress was made at the 2019 Climate Action Summit, raising awareness
of the power and potential of nature-based solutions, but there’s more to be done.
Ultimately, decision-makers recognize that food systems need to change course: more and more are
ready to grasp the opportunity and make it happen. Getting all the interests to agree on the shifts needed, and align, is not easy. Some will worry that
they are going to be left behind. It is vital that they are at the table, their concerns are heeded, and they are accompanied through change. The recipe
is difficult and contentious, but this is no excuse for inaction.
Solvency: Reform Subs Solves
Reforming subsidies solves non-point source pollution.
Jonathan Cannon 8, Professor of Law, Director, Environmental and Land Use Law Program,
University of Virginia School of Law, 11/21/2008, A Bargain for Clean Water,
https://nyuelj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Cannon1.pdf, mba-gh
Subsidies for reducing non-point source pollution from agricultural land have several sources in
current federal law. Section 319 of the CWA authorizes appropriation of grant funds for state
management plans for addressing non-point source pollution.74 Much more generous funding is available under the
USDA-administered Farm Bill. The Farm Bill includes both commodity provisions, which seek generally to
support U.S. agricultural production, and conservation provisions, which seek to protect and restore ecosystem
services provided by farmland, such as clean water. Conservation programs that help reduce non-point
source pollution include both land reserve programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
which pay to take farmland out of production to protect the environment, and working land conservation
programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Security Program (CSP), which
provide payments for environmentally beneficial practices on actively managed farmland. The total annual USDA
conservation budget is over $4 billion, and significant portions of this are directed to water
quality. USDA programs under the Farm Bill “provide 86 percent of the total federal funding potentially available for water quality,
conservation, and watershed restoration projects.”75 EPA programs account for only about 10 percent of
federal funding available for these purposes.76 While some state funds also offer payments for water quality measures
on agricultural land, those funds too are dwarfed by the USDA program.
Despite the substantial leverage suggested by the amounts of the conservation funds flowing through USDA, observers
have rated the program unsatisfactory in producing cost-effective improvements in water
quality or other conservation benefits. Its identified shortcomings are consistent with what the theory
would lead us to expect from a centralized environmental subsidy program. As applied to water quality concerns, they
include: lack of strategic targeting of funds to areas of greatest need and greatest
opportunity for cost-effective improvements; emphasis on practices (e.g., implementation of
measures such as stream fencing) rather than on environmental performance (e.g., reductions in stream pollution); and lack of
robust monitoring, reporting, and enforcement.77 Although these shortcomings are predictable for this kind of program, they are not
irremediable.
Several reforms could improve the cost-effectiveness of the Farm Bill’s conservation subsidies in
addressing water quality concerns. First, conservation payments for water quality measures should be
targeted at impaired waters where non-point sources are significant contributors and
prioritized in order of the most costeffective reductions. Grant applications would be solicited from
landowners closest to the affected water body whose practices have the greatest impact
on water quality. Education and technical assistance would be concentrated on non-point source measures, such as
precision agriculture, that can be implemented “while maintaining or increasing profitability.”78
Second, emphasis should shift from practices to performance in an effort to obtain the
greatest water quality benefits at the lowest cost. This is not an easy shift, because establishing “[t]he causal
relationship between a specific [non-point source] practice and its effect on the environment is a notoriously difficult task.”79
Actual removal efficiencies vary with the particular characteristics of the land on which a
measure is implemented and with the effects of other control measures on that land and in the landscape or watershed more
Adaptive implementation at the watershed level
combination of measures best suited for particular settings.81
generally.80
could help
identify the
Solvency
Solvency
1AC Solvency Advocate
The aff’s reverse auction process incentivizes effective agricultural
practices that shifts land use away from inefficient and destructive
agriculture
Adler ‘13
(Robert, Interim Dean, James I. Farr Chair, and Professor of Law, University of Utah, S.J.
Quinney College of Law, “Agriculture And Water Quality: A Climate-Integrated Perspective ,” pg
online @ https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/8-Adler.pdf //um-ef)
2. Aligning Multiple Interests Simply reframing the question, of course, at best only takes us in a new direction with the potential to generate more promising solutions. Moving from the reframed question to one or
more
solutions also requires both a mechanism to match public and private interests and successful ideas on how
those interests should be aligned to achieve mutually beneficial goals. In previous work, I proposed a potential mechanism designed in part to achieve a better alignment of public and private interests in the
context of the massive public expenditures that have been devoted to agricultural water pollution control in recent decades. Without suggesting that this is the only possible approach to achieve this pairing of
interests—and indeed, I hope many more might be proposed—it can serve as an illustration of how this might be achieved. In Priceline for Pollution: Auctions to Allocate Public Pollution Control Dollars, 189 I
throwing huge amounts of public dollars at agricultural
water pollution control programs without adequate accountability or success measures.
None of those funding sources, of course, are free of guiding criteria or standards, but others have
critiqued them as inadequate and ineffective.190 It is possible, then, that the primary flaw in our previous
approaches to agricultural pollution is not that we have chosen to subsidize private
pollution control with public dollars rather than regulating farmers, but that we have
subsidized in an inefficient way with little or no effective means of measuring or even
requiring effective use of those funds. An alternative is to borrow a concept from the Colorado River Salinity Control Program, which also
devotes significant public funding to the control of both point and nonpoint source salinity pollution in the
critiqued our decades-old policy, under both Clean Water Act and Farm Bill programs, of
Colorado River Basin.191 In the early years of the salinity program, following the traditional methods it had used for decades for dams and other water projects, the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) selected salinity
reduction projects using a traditional public works model.192 Later, the USDA added its traditional federal assistance approach to subsidize farmers to reduce their salinity inputs into the system.193 Both internal
and external reviewers critiqued the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, and Congress adopted legislative reforms194 suggesting a “basinwide” approach to the salinity problem.195 As a result,
the
BoR, in cooperation with the Colorado River Basin states, shifted to a public auction
approach . Program funds are now allocated to those who can demonstrate that they can
reduce salt loadings to the river most cost-effectively, measured in cost per ton of salt
removed from the river, regardless of the source, after accounting for any risk that the project will not be implemented effectively.196 In the roughly decade and a half since BoR
adopted the auction approach, the cost-effectiveness of salinity reduction measures in the basin has improved dramatically.197 In my earlier analysis, I suggested using nutrient
and sediment pollution of the Chesapeake Bay as an experimental model for using the reverse
auction approach to tackle a more traditional but longstanding and intractable agricultural pollution problem.198 Rather than throwing public money at
anyone who can meet generic program criteria independent of cost-effectiveness or any other measure of accountability, under this approach agency officials
would solicit bids based on who can reduce more pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, or
sediment loadings at the lowest costs, again accounting for project risk.199 My intent in that analysis was not to argue that public funding is necessarily the
best approach to agricultural pollution control, but if we are going to continue to spend large amounts of public funds in that effort—particularly during a time of federal fiscal crisis—we certainly should do so more
interest in the public auction approach is building, as Pennsylvania is
considering legislation to adopt an auction model200 as part of its implementation of the EPA’s interstate Chesapeake Bay TMDL discussed above.201 This same strategy might also help us
to identify and prioritize funding for solutions to agricultural water pollution in ways that also help
agricultural producers adapt to the disruptive effects of climate change. One thing seems reasonably clear in this effort: Neither
farmers nor governments can solve the reframed problems laid out earlier on their own. It needs to be a partnership. And it is equally clear that, despite rhetorical claims
about the independent nature of small rural farmers, agriculture has been a privatepublic
partnership in the United States since at least the 1930s. The f ederal g overnment has
assisted farmers through direct subsidies, price supports, subsidized crop insurance,
international trade policies, and otherwise. Since Congress adopted the original New Deal agricultural programs, the real question has been about the
effectively and with more accountability. There is some indication that
a
reverse auction approach might help us to use climate change as an (admittedly counter-intuitive) opportunity to make this public-private
partnership work more effectively to reduce the water quality and other adverse environmental effects of
agriculture while also helping with climate change adaptation. To explore that option, we first need to consider accountability metrics
specific nature and terms of the public-private partnership, which has evolved considerably throughout its history,202 as opposed to whether it should exist at all. Although certainly not the only option,
equivalent to dollars per ton of salt (or nitrogen or phosphorus) that address multiple, hopefully consistent, goals. Although more difficult and more complex than programs designed to address individual pollutants
like salt or nutrients, it is quite possible to conceive of metrics that might be suitable. The following examples are presented simply as preliminary possibilities to llustrate the idea. All would require considerably
more refinement and are in no way intended to be exclusive. In a region facing expected reductions in precipitation and runoff, we might rank public investments based on predicted crop production per unit of
water used (e.g., tons of wheat per acre-foot of water applied). In this case, the mutually aligned goals would be to increase production efficiency while preserving scarce water resources in increasingly arid
areas. The accountability metric would provide incentives to develop more waterefficient production methods, while making public funds available to make the necessary investments in the most cost-effective
irrigation methods, crop changes, or other innovations. Similarly, in a region facing increasing weed growth or increased risks from insects or other pests, we could rank public investments by crop production per
unit of herbicide or pesticide use, perhaps weighted by the toxicity and mobility of each chemical in the environment. The mutually aligned goals would be to maintain production while reducing input costs and
reducing adverse effects on water quality and human health. Producers would have incentives to innovate weed control and pest control methods that either used lower quantities of chemicals, or chemicals that
were either less toxic or less likely to contaminate surface water, ground water, or other resources. Last, in a region in which crops are facing natural temperature limits, we might rank investments based on which
new crops or varieties can produce best in that region with lowest water quality or other environmental impacts. The mutually aligned goals would be to promote and support crop shifts that maintain or improve
production levels with lower environmental impacts, even if that means that different crops would be produced in different regions. Producers would have incentives either to develop or change to crops or crop
varieties better suited to changing weather conditions, or even to change production locations. Some of those solutions could be expensive, making the partnership and public funding approach particularly
desirable. One interesting advantage of using accountability metrics based on production relative to some relevant measure of environmental harm, as opposed to dollars per unit of pollution reduction, as is used
As a matter of basic
domestic farm policy, it may no longer be feasible from a fiscal, food supply, or
environmental perspective to continue to subsidize inefficient production of large
amounts of commodity crops, either for domestic consumption or for export. Rather than basing only certain
targeted provisions of the Farm Bill on water quality and other resource protection goals, as
well as any funding under the CWA or other federal and state environmental programs, this strategy
could be used to direct all ag ricultural subsidies , or at least a larger percentage of them, to production changes designed
for the salinity control program and proposed for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, is that it potentially opens up a wider scope of federal funding mechanisms.
simultaneously to help farmers adapt to climate change and
to
meet water quality
and other
goals . A particularly challenging problem inherent in this approach, however, is that so many different accountability metrics might be relevant in determining the sustainability of
agricultural production in the face of climate change, and some of those metrics might be internally inconsistent and subject to different value preferences or policy judgments. As just one example, if one
measures production relative to pesticide use as a way to avoid or reduce the likelihood
that farmers will adapt to increased pest risks by using more, or more toxic, pesticides,
that might provide an incentive to shift to g enetically m odified o rganism s . Some may believe that to be a
positive trend, while others may fear that it exposes humans, or the environment, to currently unknown or poorly understood risks. On the other hand, framing the question in
this way may force us to make the choices among competing values that will be
inevitable in deciding how to maintain or increase agricultural productivity in the face of climate change
without aggravating already serious water quality and other environmental problems . Agricultural water pollution
remains a serious problem that has not been mitigated on a nationwide scale despite four decades or more of effort. It has also been an intractable problem, in part
due to the longstanding policy impasse about whether the best approach to the problem
is to regulate farming practices more rigorously or to continue to encourage farmers to minimize their environmental impacts through education, public funding, and
environmental
other voluntary programs. Climate change is likely to exacerbate the water quality effects of a range of agricultural practices and to increase other associated environmental problems as well. At the same time,
climate change is likely to hurt U.S. agriculture itself, in ways both related to and entirely independent of environmental issues. As unsettling as those
dual realizations may be, if we integrate the two issues, they provide an interesting opportunity to
reframe the agricultural water pollution problem in a way that brings about an alignment of—
rather than a conflict between—traditional agricultural and environmental interests. Some of the
same strategies that will help farmers to withstand the production challenges presented by climate change, such as better pest management techniques, simultaneously could reduce the water pollution effects of
those activities. Accordingly, reframing the agricultural water pollution issue from a climate-integrated perspective may increase our chance of finding viable solutions and overcoming the longstanding policy
impasse in this area.
1AC/2AC Solvency
Status quo subsidies lock agriculture into industrial, destructive practices--but the plan solves by incentivizing the transition to regenerative
practices.
Fiona McBride 20, Research Fellow at the Berkley Food Institute and Center for Law,
Energy, and the Environment, December 2020, "Redefining Value and Risk in Agriculture:
Policy and Investment Solutions to Scale the Transition to Regenerative Agriculture," Center for
Law, Energy, and the Environment at UC Berkley Law School, https://food.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/12/BFI_ValueRisk_in_Ag_120920_Digital.pdf - MBA AM
II. Reform Crop Insurance
Growers looking to implement regenerative practices face high up-front costs and often
shoulder the full risk of this transition . When it comes to encouraging this shift , federal reform
efforts have most often focused on the Conservation Title in the Farm Bill, which rewards farmers for practicing conservation activities.
Crop
insurance has been overlooked in this context. To some degree, this policy choice is understandable: reform is difficult because
any changes to the risk model require formal proposals that are costly, work-intensive, and depend on robust actuarial data. But
it remains a
significant opportunity . Federal crop insurance is a $9 billion per annum program that covers over 350
million acres of agricultural lands in the United States, or 80 percent of arable acreage.22 If the RMA were to
recognize the lowered risk associated with regenerative farming, they could incentivize
more insured farmers to transition to regenerative farming , while widening eligibility for
regenerative growers who are not yet insured.
Existing crop insurance programs tend to favor largescale conventional growers
commodity crops like corn and soy. Conversely,
cultivating
lack of access to this insurance puts smaller , diversified ,
and regenerative growers at a disadvantage—and locks conventional farmers into their
current cropping patterns and practices that can be insured. The federal crop insurance
program can recognize the reduced risk of regenerative practices by adjusting their
insurance model to promote them. More specifically, the RMA could account for the greater yield stability and increase in crop
value23 of regenerative farms by expanding crop insurance access and lowering rates. Over the last five years, groups including the AGree Economic
and Environmental Risk Coalition and the NRDC have worked to reform crop insurance to drive broader adoption of agricultural conservation.24 The
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has also successfully achieved adjustments to the crop insurance program. They have strengthened the
recently established Whole-Farm Revenue Protection program, which allows diversified growers to insure their entire farm rather than just individual
commodity crops. They also worked within the US Department of Agriculture’s Farm Production and Conservation mission area (which includes NRCS,
RMA, the Farm Service Agency, and the Farm Production and Conservation Business Center) to refine the cover cropping termination guidelines.
Finally, they successfully advocated for the inclusion of cover crops in the crop insurance program’s “Good Farming Practices,” making it easier for
producers to use this practice without fear of jeopardizing their insurance coverage.25 The nonprofit Land Core has been working with actuarially
sound data on yield variability and recovery rates to create an independent modeling tool to determine risk for crop insurers and lenders. To be
effective, future efforts should occur in collaboration with existing coalitions spearheaded by AGree and other advocacy groups. Greater advocacy from
state legislators and governors to federal policymakers would be particularly effective at driving more rapid reform.
Current ag subsidies lock-in farmers into destructive practices and
financially forbid the transition to regenerative ag.
Jessica Mckenzie 19, a freelance journalist, formerly the managing editor of Civicist, 3-142019, "Regenerative agriculture saves soil, water, and the climate. The government actively
discourages it.," Counter, https://thecounter.org/regenerative-agriculture-cover-crops-no-tillusda/ - MBA AM
Cover crops and other regenerative agriculture practices are still pigeonholed as
conservation practices, not as good farming practices. But if farmers want crop
insurance, they have to play by the rules .
Last year, a few days before Christmas, Gail Fuller drove me out to the middle of a windwhipped field just north of Emporia, Kansas. “This is really where it started for me,” he said as
he climbed out of the truck, spade in hand. With a thunk, he drove the spade into the ground
and pulled out a hunk of earth, holding it up so I could see the texture, which he described as
like “chocolate cake” and “black cottage cheese.”
Pointing to a wriggling earthworm, a sign of good soil health, Fuller explained that conventional,
tilled fields would be too cold for earthworms to be that close to the surface. Tilling rips up and
compacts soil, compressing the air pockets that would otherwise insulate earthworms from
temperature extremes. But because Fuller never tills and maintains a continuous living root
system, which provides additional insulation, his field has earthworms year-round.
Fuller’s approach is part of the broader “regenerative agriculture” movement, a way of farming
that prioritizes soil health and has a host of other benefits, from carbon sequestration to
reducing nutrient runoff. In the mid-1990s, he stopped tilling his fields to improve water
retention , increase soil nutrients, and help counter erosion. In 2002, he began planting cover
crops, grains and legumes that cover land through the winter, and can help control weeds,
increase biodiversity, and capture carbon. Fuller also drastically cut down on his use of
herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer.
This long evolution has improved his farm’s health and profitability . But Fuller is one of
many regenerative farmers who feels that government policies have actively worked
against them .
In 2012, a historic drought year, Fuller’s approach to farming cost him a crucial crop insurance
payout: His insurance company denied his claim because days of harsh, dry winds prevented
him from terminating his crops in line with the government’s strict timeline. He spent almost two
years fighting for the money, and though he eventually won his case, he lost his operating line
of credit at the bank while he waited—and subsequently lost much of his land.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has delivered perfunctory messages
about the benefits of cover crops and other regenerative agricultural practices. But, for years,
the agency has effectively discouraged farmers from planting cover crops through
confusing and overly restrictive rules set by the Risk Management Agency (RMA), an
agency under USDA that determines crop insurance eligibility, a lifeline for many farmers. Fuller
and other producers have fought for those rules to be lifted, and the most recent farm bill
finally does away with the worst and most restrictive rules. Now, as long as farmers make a
good faith effort to terminate their crops according to USDA guidelines, they cannot be denied a
payout if drought or floods or other acts of Mother Nature impede their work. However, until
cover crops and other regenerative practices are branded by the government as good
farming , instead of merely good environmental stewardship, adoption will never reach a
critical mass.
In theory, the RMA is an independent government agency, a neutral arbiter of rules and
regulations. But multiple sources told me on background that they believe the agency
essentially publishes rules that the agribusiness industry supplies. And the industry
doesn’t want cover crops. Crop insurance companies are reluctant to introduce variables they
don’t understand and that might come with new risks; the broader agricultural industry has a
vested interest in farmers needing to buy its pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in everincreasing quantities. The use of cover crops threatens that demand.
The year Fuller’s insurance provider denied his claim, based on the RMA’s cover crop rules, the
country-wide drought was so bad that a crop insurance industry group has dedicated a web
page to it. Fuller began the long process of challenging the denial, but in the years that followed,
landlords gave his acres to farmers who could afford to put seed in, and who wouldn’t rock the
boat so much. Others sold off the land he had been farming and he didn’t have the money to
buy it back. Fuller struggled to afford the seed and fertilizer for the acres he still had.
“The upside is they pushed us to this, which is where we really wanted to be anyway,” Fuller
said. “So there’s really a lot of good to come out of it. We wouldn’t have had the courage to do
this without being broke and not having an option.”
“This” means pivoting away from commodity crops and moving toward a more
diversified approach to agriculture: a system where grass-fed cows, sheep, heirloom pig
breeds, and chickens rove a more biodiverse landscape. Many of Fuller’s fields are planted with
perennial plants and native grasses that he has let go to seed, which the ruminants graze on a
rotational basis. Fuller went from farming 3,200 acres of corn and soybeans in 2000, to just 400
acres in 2018, very few of them planted with commodity grains. And this way, for reasons I’ll
explain, he doesn’t need crop insurance in the first place.
“If you want crop insurance, you have to play by their rules.”
Farmers have been experimenting with different regenerative agricultural practices since the
late 1980s, although they might not have used that term back then. Steve Swaffar, executive
director of No-Till on the Plains, said that soil erosion was a major factor. Even though farmers
were following standard best practices, topsoil was still running off their fields. They began
looking for solutions. A few people pulled together a conference on alternative farming methods
in 1995, and soon the Kansas Crop Residue Management Alliance was established as a
nonprofit. The organization was later renamed No-Till on the Plains, a catchier rebrand that still
belies the broad scope of its mission, which is a systems-based approach to agriculture that
includes no-till, cover crops, crop rotation, and livestock integration.
“When you put it all together, that’s when you get a complete farming approach that I think is
certainly superior from an environmental standpoint,” said Swaffar. “And we’re seeing more
and more evidence that it’s superior from an economic standpoint.”
Darin Williams, a Kansas farmer who grows a mix of corn, soybeans, and cereal crops on 2,000
acres, and incorporates practices like no-till and cover crops, says his input costs are
significantly lower than his peers. He needs less fertilizer and half as much herbicide; when
herbicides can cost anywhere between $20 to $40 per acre, the savings add up quick.
Even as evidence of the benefits of cover crops mounted, the government held onto
rules that discouraged their use. Although crop insurance is administered by private
companies, the federal government manages and subsidizes the industry , and sets the
rules that determine crop insurance eligibility . Most of those rules allow farmers to farm the
way they see fit, as long as that is within a fairly broad range of good farming practices; fertilizer,
pesticide, and herbicide use are all left to farmer discretion. But for years, the RMA dictated
how farmers could use cover crops by setting strict termination dates—dates that may not
make sense in a particular location or in a given year.
“If you want crop insurance, you have to play by their rules,” Swaffar said. “Many of the farmers
that come to our events would tell you, ‘If I didn’t have to follow those rules, I could be a
lot more productive and a lot more effective as a farmer,’ but because crop prices only
offer very slim profit margins for producers, they’re almost financially obligated to carry
crop insurance.”
For example: Last spring was unusually cold in Iowa. Sarah Carlson, the director of Strategic
Initiatives for Practical Farmers of Iowa, said that when it came time to plant soybeans, cover
crops across the state were barely two inches high. “Agronomically, they should have planted
soybeans as early as possible and let the cover crop grow until it reached about knee-height to
get weed control benefits from it,” Carlson said. But that would have been “off label” and against
RMA policy. Practical Farmers won a deviation for two farmers that allowed them to go off book
without jeopardizing their crop insurance. All that effort, Carlson said, was “a waste of time.”
“Farmers should be allowed to farm the way they feel is best,” Carlson said. “RMA should get
out of the agronomy business.”
In addition to making it overly onerous for farmers to implement cover crops in a way that works
for them, RMA policies have had the effect of scaring off farmers who might otherwise be
interested in cover crops.
Approximately 90 percent of the insurable farm acreage in the U.S. is protected by crop
insurance. Many farmers have to have it in order to qualify for operating loans from the bank.
Simply knowing that cover crops could impact eligibility has been enough to scare some
farmers away.
After Fuller was denied his crop insurance payout, he said farmers would come up to him during
events that he attended or spoke at, and say, “I’m not gonna do cover crops now,” or “I was
doing cover crops and I quit, because I can’t afford to lose my insurance.”
“So it did set the movement back, for a few years,” Fuller said.
While financial concerns can keep farmers from experimenting with cover crops and other
regenerative practices, some farmers try them when they fall on hard times, as a last resort.
“I don’t think you find many who actively said, ‘I just want to do this for the benefit of the climate
or the environment,'” said Mike Lavender, who works on food and environmental issues for the
Union of Concerned Scientists. “You typically find that people, for whatever circumstance, were
forced into and have found a way to make it work.”
Many of the farmers practicing regenerative agriculture, including cover crops, have begun to
self-insure; it’s not ideal, but the way the crop insurance industry works leaves them little choice.
What they have found is that cover crops and other regenerative practices have made them less
susceptible to yield variations from year to year.
Ryan Stockwell is the director of sustainable agriculture at the National Wildlife Federation and
helped Fuller win his crop insurance claim; he also farms 110 acres in Wisconsin, and forgoes
crop insurance entirely.
“As a farmer, I’ve been doing no-till, cover crops, and a diverse crop rotation for eight years
now, and I’m getting to the point where I’m not seeing any major yield variation that my
neighbors are experiencing,” Stockwell said. “So why should I pay $15 an acre for no return?”
Right now, crop insurance is based entirely on the county in which you live. The RMA calculates
risk that way because weather across a single county is fairly consistent, and weather is a huge
factor in farm yields from one year to the next. The comparison I heard over and over again was
that it’s like giving everyone who lives in the same neighborhood the same car insurance rate,
without a “good driver” discount.
Stockwell and others want the crop insurance industry to be restructured in order to take
practices that decrease yield variability—and therefore lessen risk for the insurance company—
into account. They want a “good farmer” discount for farmers who use practices that
stabilize yields, but that also have broader environmental benefits. By that logic,
regenerative farmers should be cheaper to insure.
“Instead of having a county average that defines your risk, regardless of practices that you use
in that county, instead we may see a larger geographic pool that they put people in, but there
would be a number of different pools within that geography,” said Stockwell. “So, it could be a
four, six, or eight county area, and they pool the farmers who have a two-crop rotation, or they
pool the farmers who have a three-crop rotation plus cover crops plus no-till.”
Solvency Extensions
Solvency: Auctions Good
Reverse auctions have empirical success in many sectors---avoids
bureaucracy and streamlines results
Adler 10 a Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of
Law (Robert W. Adler, Priceline for Pollution: Auctions to Allocate Public Pollution Control
Dollars (May 25, 2010). William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Vol. 34, No. 3,
p. 745, 2010, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1615589, smarx, ZRB)
Auctions are used in private markets to increase competition, maximizing revenues for goods such as real estate, automobiles, art, and antiques.10 With the advent of
eBay,11 Priceline,12 and other internet-based auction sites, the public at large is increasingly involved directly with the benefits (and potentially, pitfalls) of auction procedures.13 Auctions are even being used to
select lead counsel in class action securities litigation.14
Auctions are also used to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of government programs.
Auctions may provide the government with better, market-based information with which to allocate
resources, compared to regulatory processes in which agencies make allocation decisions based on other factors and sources of information—what one commenter referred to as “beauty
contests.”15 In addition, auctions may cost agencies less than competing regulatory procedures for
resource allocation.16 Governments routinely use competitive bidding or other auction procedures to sell various kinds of public resources, such as mineral resources, financial paper
(such as treasury bills), or public assets (such as surplus land) at higher prices.17 More recently, auctions have been used or proposed to allocate other kinds of public resources, such as radio spectrums or
broadcast licenses,18 internet domain names,19 and prospect patents.20 Similarly, governments increasingly use auctions as a procurement tool to obtain goods and services at a lower price and in a shorter
government agencies have been much slower than the private
sector to adopt this more efficient procurement tool because of “guaranteed operating funds” and an “entrenched bureaucratic
mentality and its penchant for doing things ‘the way we have always done them. . . .’”22
amount of time.21 Still, some have suggested that
federal government and some state governments have also used variations on auction processes in an effort to reduce
pollution more efficiently; i.e., to obtain more pollution reduction at the same cost as would be incurred to comply with
regulatory mandates, or to reduce the same amount of pollution at a lower cost.23 For example, the Clean Air Act’s “cap and trade” program employs auction processes to
reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions that cause acid rain.24 Various legislative proposals would also rely on auction
procedures to regulate GHGs through cap and trade or other mechanisms; some processes are already in place to do so internationally and regionally within the United
States, with varying assessments of their relative levels of success.25 Some of those programs explicitly use auction procedures
to sell carbon dioxide emissions allowances.26 Pollutant trading programs have been proposed, but used far less broadly, to control nonpoint source
The
water pollution.27
The purpose of this article is not to debate whether direct government spending or other forms of economic incentives are preferable to regulation or other options as a means of pollution control.28 However, the
federal spending
on large capital projects often proceeds under a “public works” model in which projects are selected based on political or other factors
rather than a competitive, performance-based process.30 This is often criticized as inefficient and potentially
ineffective.31
federal government has spent significant amounts of money on pollution control and environmental restoration in the past and is likely to do so in the future.29 Such direct
one example, however, in which the government has used auctions (competitive bidding) to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of direct spending for pollution control. In the cooperative federal multi-state effort to control salinity pollution in
the Colorado River, the most recent round of which is being funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (commonly known as the “stimulus package”),32
federal reclamation program dollars are bid out to projects that can demonstrate the most cost-effective
salinity reductions on the basis of dollars spent per ton of salt removed, combined with various ways to consider
risk of project failure and other factors.33 Although constrained thus far to a relatively limited set of circumstances, this program could serve as a model for other
There is at least
governmental spending programs for pollution control. For example, competitive bidding could be used to improve the effectiveness of nutrient reduction components of large aquatic ecosystem restoration
programs, such as the Chesapeake Bay Program or the Everglades restoration program. More generally, competitive bidding could significantly improve the cost-effectiveness of federal agricultural program
spending targeted at pollution control.
Reverse auctions empirically succeed where other incentive programs fail
Adler 10 a Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of
Law (Robert W. Adler, Priceline for Pollution: Auctions to Allocate Public Pollution Control
Dollars (May 25, 2010). William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Vol. 34, No. 3,
p. 745, 2010, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1615589, smarx, ZRB)
By the end of 1994 federal fiscal year, the federal government had spent $362 million on salinity control in the Colorado River basin, with plans to
spend an additional $430 million.226 By some measures, the money was well spent. Significant reductions in salt loadings had been achieved, and the
on-farm efficiency improvements
continued to be relatively more cost-effective than large, capital-intensive structural
projects, costeffectiveness in both programs was highly variable,228 and there was little to ensure that the program
as a whole was as cost-effective as possible.229 Moreover, a large percentage of the program spending continued to go
numeric salinity standards had been achieved consistently.227 However, while
to individual BOR projects approved by Congress on a case-by-case basis.230
Independent studies conducted by the BOR, the Department of Interior’s Office of the Inspector General (“IG”), the General Accounting Office, and
others all agreed that the existing program missed opportunities for more cost-effective salinity control. One of the IG
reports found that the traditional requirement for project-specific authorizing legislation impeded the flexible adoption of the most cost-effective salinity
federal government was
paying an excessive share of project costs because local irrigation districts had no incentive to
control the federal share of project costs, and due to inadequate accounting of the appropriate base costs to be incurred
by the farmers.232 The subsequent GAO Report found that the cost-effectiveness of the BOR salinity control projects was highly
variable, ranging from $5 to $138 per ton of salt removed.233 The cost-effectiveness of the USDA controls was generally less variable, and
controls, and recommended more flexible legislative authority. 231 Another IG report found that the
generally lower.234 Following these reports, the BOR conducted its own program review that reached similar conclusions, i.e., that it should consider
alternatives to purely federally-planned projects and allow nonfederal project construction; that it should consider proposals in the entire basin rather
than solely in pre-selected project areas; and that it should consider any salinity control projects proposed by any combination of public and private
entities, to be evaluated competitively based on a combination of cost-effectiveness and an assessment of project risk factors.235
In 1995, Congress again amended the Salinity Control Act to address these concerns.236 The statute now
authorized the BOR to develop a fully basin-wide program in which it could invite any public, private, or
mixed party to bid for salinity control funding
(in addition to the existing, specifically-authorized salinity control
projects).237 The BOR implemented this new authority in cooperation with the Salinity Control Forum through an open, competitive bidding process,
under which a committee comprised of federal and Forum officials select salinity control projects based on cost-effectiveness and project risk, i.e., the
degree of certainty that the cost estimates are realistic and that the project will realize its salinity reduction goals over time.238
The new competitive bidding program
controls
quickly
improved the costeffectiveness of salinity
in the Colorado River Basin. The BOR initially expected the average cost-effectiveness of controls under the new program to average
$50 per ton.239 After the initial four years of the program, however, selected projects averaged just over half of that estimate ($26 per ton), with a
range of $11 to $36 per ton, and slightly over a third of the average cost-effectiveness of controls under the previous program ($70 per ton).240
Moreover, although one might have expected costs to increase after the most cost-effective proposals were funded in the first year or two of the
program, cost-effectiveness actually improved
over the first four years of the program.241 In part, program
flexibility facilitated this improved cost-effectiveness by allowing cooperative efforts between public
and private entities
in ways that
generated enhanced project benefits 242 and enhanced efficiencies by
facilitating cooperative projects between the USDA and the BOR.243 The most recent request for proposals was issued in April 2009 with the help of
additional funding from the economic stimulus package.244
Solvency: Incentives Good
Incentive programs empirically solve pollution---incentives transform
industries to be environmentally friendly and inspires innovation
Adler 10 a Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of
Law (Robert W. Adler, Priceline for Pollution: Auctions to Allocate Public Pollution Control
Dollars (May 25, 2010). William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Vol. 34, No. 3,
p. 745, 2010, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1615589, smarx, ZRB)
The federal assistance approach in the salinity control program is based on a combination of educational, technical assistance,
and federal cost-sharing for improvements in on-farm infrastructure and practices (including
retirement of acreage that generates particularly high amounts of soil erosion or other sources of pollution), and has its origins in the tradition of federal
These kinds of
programs were initiated by the Soil Conservation Service (“SCS”) within the U.S. Department of Agriculture208 during the dust bowl era, and
have persisted through the current Farm Bill and both federal and state nonpoint source pollution
agricultural programs rather than in the capital project-oriented tradition of the BOR and other federal water development programs.
control efforts
for farmers under the CWA.
In Title I of the
1974 Salinity Control Act, in addition to the capital projects discussed above, Congress authorized
cooperative efforts by the BOR, the SCS, the WMIDD, and individual farmers (participating on a voluntary basis) to
improve on-farm irrigation efficiency and other practices in order to reduce salt contributions from irrigated agriculture.209
Irrigation on saline soils increases salinity loads to adjacent waters where excess irrigation water seeps through underlying saline soils.210 Those
inputs can be reduced by taking highly saline soils out of production altogether, similar to the federal Farm
Bill programs in which federal subsidies are used to encourage farmers not to farm lands that contain valuable
wetlands (the “swampbuster” program) or that contain highly erodible soils (the “sodbuster” program).211 In the lower basin salinity
control program, the BOR purchased acreage either to reduce existing salt loads or to prevent increases from new farm acreage, and withdrew
previously eligible federal lands from irrigable status.212
Alternatively, irrigation-induced
salinity can be reduced by improving the efficiency of irrigation
methods, for example, by replacing flood irrigation with more efficient sprinkler systems or drip
irrigation , by leveling fields, by lining irrigation canals and laterals both off-farm and on, and by installing water measurement and control
equipment and improved irrigation scheduling procedures.213 The higher the ratio of water actually consumed by the growing crops to the amount of
water applied, the less water is available to seep into the soils below.214 Farmers also benefit from those improvements because they use
less water per given crop yields, and because more efficient irrigation methods can result
in higher yields
and healthier crops.215 In the lower basin salinity control program, the BOR and the SCS (and later the NRCS) provided
technical assistance and education, and Congress supplied funding for a seventy-five percent federal cost share (with the remaining twenty-five
percent supplied by the farmers).216
before the program began
This program increased irrigation efficiency in the WMIDD from fifty-six percent
to a peak of seventy-seven percent
in 1985, and
an average of seventy-two
percent while the program was active .217 The onfarm efficiency program was later discontinued, however, although the
permanent improvements remain in place, and irrigation efficiencies in the district have varied between roughly sixty and seventy percent since
then.218
Solvency: 1AC/2AC Incentives/Shift
Shifting ag subsidies to incorporate sustainable practices shifts the U.S.
food system and solves the problems with the status quo farm bill
Eubanks ‘13
(William, Summer Faculty Member, Vermont Law School; Adjunct Associate Professor of Law,
American University Washington College of Law; Partner, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, “THE
FUTURE OF FEDERAL FARM POLICY: STEPS FOR ACHIEVING A MORE SUSTAINABLE
FOOD SYSTEM,” pg online @ https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/11-Eubanks.pdf //um-ef)
The successive farm bills have promoted larger and larger farms and the inherent
adverse consequences of monocrop production and market consolidation . Scholars have
noted how the stability of the Soviet Union “foundered precisely on the issue of food” as it tried
to force a transition to industrial agriculture.8 That policy contributed to the Soviet collapse
because the program “sacrificed millions of small farms and farmers,” but the system of
industrial agriculture “never managed to do what a food system has to do: feed the nation.”9
Indeed, with each passing farm bill, one can argue that the domestic farming and food
system is gradually moving towards its own failure to accomplish the fundamental
objective of feeding the nation, at least in terms of providing nutritious food grown in an
ecologically resilient manner that seeks to preserve our natural resources for the long term.10
One promising change that could mitigate the primary problems of industrial commodity
crop agriculture in the United States would be incentivizing sustainable agriculture to
assist in normalizing the market, and thereby closing the price gap in supermarkets
between the handful of heavily subsidized commodities and all other foods that receive
little or no financial incentives and thus appear more expensive than would otherwise be
the case in a free market . Although a truly free market without subsidies would be ideal,11
such as the system currently operating in New Zealand,12 the vast subsidy infrastructure
currently embedded in the farm bill would be difficult to pull out from under the feet of
farmers that depend on those subsidies to survive, and upon which farmers benefiting
from that system have made long-term machinery and other capitalized purchases based
on the assumption that such subsidies would continue to exist. Therefore, instead of
immediately eliminating the farm bill subsidies on which many farms now rely for
survival, Congress should instead shift a substantial portion of these subsidies —in
phases— to farmers implementing sustainable agricultural methods. Past and current
conservation programs often had a major flaw: they target only large commodity crop
growers . A more workable policy would be to offer a predetermined share of subsidy
incentives to all farmers based on their farming practices, irrespective of crops
cultivated or farm size. This would create a more just system than the current subsidy
framework that excludes 60% of American farmers from any subsidies whatsoever.13
Farmers who never see farm bill subsidies in our current system are typically those who
grow crops using environmentally sustainable agricultural methods and those who grow
most of the nation’s fruits, vegetables, and nuts, which are called “specialty crops” in the
farm bill, but are critical for good health . It should be noted that the two sets of farmers are
not necessarily the same. Growers in California provide a vivid example of the current failures of
the farm bill’s subsidy program to reward farmers for growing healthy food for our nation. With
nearly 81,500 farms, and nearly $43.5 billion in annual on-farm revenues, California is the
leading state in annual agricultural sales.14 Despite this, more than 90% of California’s farmers
receive no agricultural subsidies.15 Of the few Californian farmers that do receive farm bill
subsidies, most are cotton and rice farmers.16 Yet these subsidy-neglected California farmers
are invaluable to our nation’s agricultural system because the state contributes more than 15%
of the total U.S. agricultural market value and nearly half of all fruits, nuts, and vegetables.17 By
ignoring these farmers and precluding them from receiving farm bill subsidies, Congress is
prioritizing monocultures of corn, soybean, wheat, cotton, and rice at the expense of
sound agricultural, nutritional, and environmental practices .18 Sustainable agriculture,
however, can serve as a first step in changing these policies for the better. What is
“sustainable agriculture”? According to the scholar James Horne, sustainable agriculture
“encompasses a variety of philosophies and farming techniques . . . [that] are low chemical,
resource and energy conserving, and resource efficient.”19 Ironically (because it did little to
encourage such agriculture), the 1990 farm bill defined sustainable agriculture as: an integrated
system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over
the long term, satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance environmental quality and the
natural resources base upon which the agricultural economy depends; make the most efficient
use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm/ranch resources; and integrate, where appropriate,
natural biological cycles and controls; sustain the economic viability of farm/ranch operations;
and enhance the quality of life for farmers/ranchers and society as a whole.20 As most
agricultural experts note, it is important to understand that “[s]ustainable agriculture does not
mandate a specific set of farming practices.”21 Rather, sustainable practices vary from place to
place depending on the ecosystem, climate, and other factors, but “[t]here are myriad
approaches to farming that may be sustainable.”22 The more important overarching goal of
sustainable agriculture is the “stewardship of both natural and human resources . . . includ[ing]
concern over the living and working conditions of farm laborers, consumer health and safety,
and the needs of rural communities.”23 Despite the promise of sustainable agriculture to
solve the multifaceted ecological problems caused by farming, the farm bill has been
surprisingly silent on how to encourage farmers to engage in such practices. As early as
1994, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development chartered the Sustainable
Agricultural Task Force composed of agricultural experts to present strategies to alleviate the
problems that can result from ill-conceived farm policies.24 In the mid-1990s, the task force
outlined goals and made policy recommendations that were intended to serve as updates to the
farm bill the next time the legislation came up for reauthorization.25 In particular, the task force
reached consensus on nine key policy recommendations: (1) integrate pollution prevention and
natural resource conservation into agricultural production; (2) increase the flexibility for
participants in commodity programs to respond to market signals and adopt environmentally
sound production practices and systems, thereby increasing profitability and enhancing
environmental quality; (3) expand agricultural markets; (4) revise the pricing of public natural
resources; (5) keep prime farmlands in agricultural production; (6) invest in rural communities’
infrastructure; (7) continue improvements in food safety and quality; (8) promote the research
needed to support a sustainable U.S. agriculture; and (9) pursue international harmonization of
intellectual property rights.26 Since that time, Congress has reauthorized three farm bills (1996,
2002, and 2008), and is currently in the process of reauthorizing a fourth. Yet, these
recommendations have been given little, if any, consideration by Congress. After ignoring
such experts for nearly two decades, it is now time for Congress to listen to the
proponents of sustainable agriculture in order to address the environmental and health
problems triggered by the farm bill.
Solvency: Plan solves/regs fail
***The plan solves and regulations fail --- compliance, costs, information
and incentives for land-owners to shift practices
Mariola ‘9
(Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University, “Are Markets the Solution to
Water Pollution? A Sociological Investigation of Water Quality Trading,” pg online @
https://www.issuelab.org/resources/23372/23372.pdf //um-ef)
And what about payment schemes? Of the four classes of governmental
intervention, one might assume that payment schemes hold the greatest promise of
ensuring information exchange between government and regulators. After all, at their core markets are
simply an exchange of information about willingness to pay and willingness to accept. The market mechanism necessitates
a. Payment schemes
that each side reveal information to the other. Indeed, if set up carefully, payment
schemes can shift the information burden to the landowners . In the BushTender market, for example,
farmers now have an incentive to “self-identify” themselves as potentially valuable service providers.130 This can considerably lower the cost of
information gathering. As demonstrated above,
it is difficult to obtain the sort of information necessary to
precisely target a regulation , tax, or general subsidy. Payment schemes can create a mechanism to
shift the costs of providing this information, but the scheme must be carefully designed, for without the landholder’s
information, the government is at risk of overpaying. Without the government’s information, the landholder has little sense of the relative value of land
use change or how to optimize her service provision. There are four basic types of payment schemes to consider. The fundamental question in
comparing them is which results in the lowest cost per unit product (i.e., marginal improvement in water quality).131 The simplest type is general
subsidy. Decide how much you are willing to pay for certain types of land use measures that will increase service provision and work off of a “first
come-first served” basis or off a loosely prioritized scoring system such as the one used in the CRP.132 Such an approach has lower information and
administrative costs than other payment schemes described below and, when scientific uncertainty is greatest, may avoid errors of being too specific
and guessing wrong. It may also allow for a period of experimentation to see which sort of land management changes provide the most benefit.
General subsidies, however, cannot meaningfully distinguish between those parties who can provide high value services and those who provide low
value services. This was the problem with the PSA program in Costa Rica. Indeed, given the opportunity, one would expect farmers to propose
changing the management of their least productive land which may or may not correlate with service provision.133 Does fencing off a particular stretch
of stream provide valuable services? A flat subsidy program cannot determine this, nor does it care. As a result, the program will almost certainly not
ensure value for money, nor will it likely spur farmers to think of service provision as a viable “crop.” While designed as a more tailored scheme (similar
to the reverse auction described below), in practice the CRP has effectively operated as a general subsidy, with loose scoring criteria and a none-toosecret clearing price. One could, of course, imagine a general subsidy scheme that effectively encouraged service provision (e.g., with more precise
requirements for eligibility) but, as with regulations and taxes, the information requirements to get it right would be considerable. In
contrast to
a subsidy approach, an ecosystem services payment scheme should start with the
assumption that different landholders can provide different levels of service and should
be compensated accordingly. One obvious mechanism for such targeted payments is
direct negotiation . The service beneficiary sits down with the service provider and strikes a deal. This is the approach used in the PSA
Program in Costa Rica and by Perrier Vittel in France. It has the advantage of allowing individually crafted agreements but can be labor intensive if
carried out with a large number of landholders. It also lacks the mechanism of farmers competing against one another to provide services and requires
the purchaser to assess accurately the landholder’s willingness to accept. Perhaps most important, because the negotiations will likely take place in a
serial fashion, it may be hard to develop a catchmentwide strategy for service provision measures if proceeding farm-by-farm. Reverse auctions are
used in the BushTender and Environmental Services Scheme models and rely on a publicized competition among landholders who provide sealed bids
to the government of how much they are willing to accept for changes in land use management. BushTender’s benefits include effectively
communicating goals to the target community, getting farmers to weigh the costs and benefits of land use changes (deciding for themselves which
actions to undertake), and changing the way landholders think about the benefits their land produces. Reverse auctions are also well suited to a
situation of monopsony, when there is only one buyer and many sellers and, based on the results of the BushTender pilot, would appear to provide the
ecosystem service of biodiversity from private lands in a far more costeffective manner than general subsidies. If there are few sellers, though, there
are potential problems of bid-rigging through collusion.134 A final option is to follow the New York City example of paying a third party, either local
government, an existing group such as Landcare, or a specially-created funding body rather than the landholders directly. While a reasonable strategy
for ensuring the proper disbursement of millions of dollars, this may be too administratively burdensome for smaller scale programs. Moreover, it simply
passes down the problems detailed above – the difficulty in determining how much to pay for particular actions.135 In the negotiation and reverse
auction approaches, the government lets the landholder know the non-market values of the land. This may prove a wise strategy because it provides
an opportunity for the landholders to internalize these values and lower the price they would be willing to accept for changing their land management
(as appears to have happened in the BushTender scheme). Conversely, though, this may cause the landholder to raise her price because of the now
realized scarcity of her service provision (as appears to have happened with land purchases in the Catskills). 2. Heterogeneous preferences and
service capacity Payment schemes are also attractive policy instruments because of heterogeneity in the target audience. The Sydney Catchment
Authority’s goal is deceptively straightforward – reduce nutrient runoff from land upstream of the Wingecarribee Reservoir at lowest social cost. The
target audience consists of landholders, mainly farmers. It stands to reason that, in the absence of significant government intervention, there will be a
normal distribution of land care practices in the catchment. The bell curve below, for example, shows the range of preferences for land stewardship.136
At one end will be those who will refuse to alter their land management practices unless forced to do so. They are balanced at the other end by those
who already manage their land in an environmentally sensitive manner and have no need for government inducement or sanction to do so. Most
farmers are in the middle of these extremes, willing to change their land uses to provide more services but concerned over the costs involved.137 To
display this in a concrete setting, those farmers who have put in place riparian fencing are to the right of the dotted line on the graph (though this could
just as easily represent farmers who have built swales to reduce erosion or barn drain systems to collect manure). We will assume that these
preferences are relatively stable over time. One might expect that the challenge for the policy analyst is how best to change the behavior of the middle
group of farmers – graphically, to shift the riparian fencing line to the left. Some instruments will prove more effective than others. As shown below, for
example, an information approach such as field visits and demonstration projects may increase the number of farmers who put in riparian fencing. But
it’s likely that a regulation requiring riparian fencing for farms with more than 100 head of cattle, for example, will target an even larger group. While
seemingly obvious, this kind of analysis is misguided if we care about efficiency. The proper analysis is more complicated because the potential
provision of services by landowners is also heterogeneous. Riparian fencing on some farms will be more effective in reducing algal blooms than
fencing on other farms, depending on distance from the reservoir, land slope, number of cattle, proximity to a watercourse, etc. Put simply, landscape
context matters. Indeed, one can expect a normal distribution of potential provision of services, as shown below. As a result, we
don’t really
care about changing the behavior of most of the farmers. This is an example of the “80/20 rule” so common in
business management. We may be able to obtain 80% of the desired result by focusing on 20% of
the actors
(the group circled above). The problem, though, is that a priori we often don’t know who these farmers are. Importantly, there is no
reason to think that those farmers with the greatest capacity for increased service provision are also those with the greatest preference for land
stewardship activities. In fact, the relationship is likely to be the opposite, since those who care most about land stewardship will likely have already put
in riparian fencing and thus have a low capacity to further increase their service provision. This is depicted below by combining the land stewardship
and potential for service provision graphs. If these figures accurately represent the distribution of land stewardship preferences and the potential for
regulation will likely be inefficient . To change the behavior
of the target 20%, prescriptive regulation will likely have to be significantly overinclusive, requiring land management changes for most of the farmers when only a
relatively small number are relevant. Making the regulation more restrictive will increase the number of target farms but,
equally, require costly land use changes in farms that contribute little to the problem. While one could imagine a regulation
that required riparian fencing for all landholders that contribute significantly to
eutrophication (e.g., requiring fences where runoff is above X kg per year and has a
travel time to the reservoir within 6 hours), we don’t often see regulations like this in real
life. Much more common are regulations that identify targets based on proxies such as
technology or size.138 In our case, that would present itself as applying to farms with
over 100 head of cattle or to lands adjacent to watercourses that feed into the reservoir.
This will help narrow the regulated audience, but still result in overbreadth. Financial
penalties are no better. One could imagine taxing farms per head of cow or as a function
of proximity to the reservoir, with taxes reduced if riparian fencing is in place. But this
will surely be overinclusive, as well. As with regulations, one could certainly imagine
increased service provision in a watershed, then
Pigouvian taxes on nonpoint pollution that contributed to eutrophication in the
reservoir, but the information burden on the government to generate this information
would be daunting . Depending on how the instrument is applied, one can see why in
some instances (and perhaps many), the social costs of taxing or regulating for discrete
service provision will be higher than necessary because they end up over-regulating
landowners who aren’t the source of the problem or the solution.139 Payment schemes will be overinclusive, as well, if operated as general subsidies. Directed payments, however, can be narrowly targeted to
those farmers (our circled 20%) who are interested in changing land use practices and have a
high potential for service provision. As noted above, this is the case because payments shift the information burden to the
landowners. Farmers now have an incentive to self-identify themselves as potentially valuable
service providers, hopefully as members of the targeted 20 %. Not only does this
considerably lower the cost of information gathering , but because farmers are being
paid, because money is on the line, one might expect the beneficiaries to pay more
attention to compliance than might be the case with the threat of regulatory or tax
compliance monitoring, thus lowering both compliance and enforcement costs .140 Indeed, if
the experience of BushTender is any guide, one can expect some farmers to lower their acceptance price.141
Solvency: Shifting Subsidies solves
shift funding to sustainable ag practices that level the playing field --causes a shift away from bad farming practices
Quintanilla ‘13
(David, Candidate for Juris Doctor at St. Mary's University School of Law, Class of 2013,
“Comment: A Bitter Policy Shoved Down Our Throats: How A Once Admirable And Necessary
Agricultural Program Has Resulted In Major Profits For Big Business And Major Frustration For
Others,” Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis, pg nexus//um-ef)
A. Legislative Reforms
Advocates of the current system, and frankly of many pro-business policies, often state that the
capitalist system should allow the free market to adjust itself if needed. 215 Advocates
argue that efficiency is not a bad thing, that profits are certainly good, and that updated science
and technology should definitely be used in modern day agriculture. 216 They claim that the
market allows purchasers to determine how important [*380] green and organic farming should
be. 217 The problem with this position is that the market, in this instance, is remarkably
skewed . How can one claim that the market allows purchasers to dictate how farm goods are
delivered to end users if certain products are given an unfair advantage in the form of
government assistance from the outset? This fallacy allows opponents of America's farm
subsidies to correctly respond that we are perpetuating a broken system by giving an
unfair advantage to the very individuals that need assistance the least.
In our representative democracy there is always an opportunity for change. In a country of 300
million people, it is often difficult to effect that change quickly, but with proper support, change
can be realized. America's agriculture subsidies are definitively outdated and counterintuitive.
Congress should redirect their objectives in the farm bill to target those who truly need
assistance and recalibrate the types of products that receive the greatest support. If
future farm bills reduced the maximum income level of those receiving subsidized assistance,
large corporations and wealthy individuals will be hindered from accepting taxpayer funding.
While there would no doubt be accounting changes on the part of corporations to reduce
balance sheet income, this process would begin the squeeze on those who should not be
the benefactors of farm subsidies.
Additionally, the commodities that collect the largest amount of subsidized assistance should
benefit America's farmers and the overall health of the nation. Championing corn 218 and
soybeans for their broad production capabilities works to increase large corporate farming profit
margins, but it does not assist American's environmental or physical health. 219 We should
invest in healthy agriculture with long-term benefits. Congress should also "shift a fair
portion of these subsidies to farmers implementing sustainable agricultural methods."
220
B. Supporting Sustainable Agriculture
Sustainable agriculture is another approach that would allow for a more localized farm
system and a reduced reliance on massive farm subsidies [*381] to large corporations.
221 Sustainable agriculture "is a response to the growing awareness that an agriculture that
degrades the natural environment and weakens the social fabric of society cannot meet
the needs of people over time, no matter how productive and profitable it may appear to be in
the short run." 222 Essentially, sustainable agriculture emphasizes meeting the needs of today
while ensuring productive farms in the future. 223 "Management-intensive grazing, integrated
crop and livestock farming, diverse crop rotations, cover crops, and intercropping" are all
practices utilized by the new American farmer. 224 60
If the government would incentivize small and large farmers to invest in these kinds of
farming methods, there would undoubtedly be important changes in the way our foods
are grown and processed. 225 As it stands, we are funding efficiency-based models of
farming, and in the process continuing to fail at updating our agriculture policy to a longterm approach that considers health, environment, and fairness. 226
Solvency: Things the plan could incentivize
Actions farmers could take to get the subsidies
Farm Bureau Financial Services ‘20
(“5 Ways to Minimize Agricultural Pollution on Your Farm,” pg online @
https://www.fbfs.com/learning-center/5-ways-to-minimize-agricultural-pollution-on-your-farm
//um-ef)
Agricultural pollution could end up causing injury or property damage that could cost a lot of
money to resolve. There are several ways to prevent accidents caused by pollution on the farm,
especially regarding nutrient runoff.
1. Add Conservation Buffers to Catch Runoff
Landscaping isn’t just for beauty anymore. Planting trees, shrubs and grasses along the edges
of your fields to add as a conservation buffer can help prevent any runoff. This is especially
helpful if you have a field that borders any body of water. These buffers will help absorb
nutrients that may run off or can help filter nutrients before they reach the water.
2. Implement Nutrient Management Techniques
An easy way to improve nutrient management techniques practices is by ensuring you are
applying the fertilizer in the right amount, at the right time of the year, using the correct method
and in the right spot. Accuracy can help prevent runoff from farm fields that could affect other
farms, livestock or water supply.
3. Control Livestock Access to Waterways
Installing fences along any streams, rivers or lakes to keep livestock out of them can
help restore the stream banks. It also prevents the livestock from dragging in nutrients or
other agricultural pollutants into the water. Make sure the livestock have access to other
sources of fresh water instead.
4. Minimize Tillage
Using a more conservative tillage schedule can help reduce erosion, runoff and soil compaction,
which helps reduce the chances of nutrients reaching waterways or non-owned land. Minimal
tilling is also beneficial in improving soil quality, reducing soil sheet erosion and reducing crop
establishment time and energy use.
5. Have a Manure Management Plan
Along with having an accurate nutrient management technique, having a manure management
plan is important to preventing agricultural pollution. Using manure is a common practice that
can help replace fertilizer application. The long-term benefits include an increase in soil
productivity in the long run. Your plan could include soil sampling and assessment, your
preferred nutrient management techniques, and investing in manure storage structures that can
help avoid the risk of spills and water contamination.
We have an industry-leading Ag Pollution Liability Coverage that can help protect you in the
case of a pollution accident. Contact your local Farm Bureau agent to learn more.
Solvency: Redirect Subs Key
Status quo subsidies lock agriculture into industrial, destructive practices--but the plan solves by incentivizing the transition to regenerative
practices.
Fiona McBride 20, Research Fellow at the Berkley Food Institute and Center for Law,
Energy, and the Environment, December 2020, "Redefining Value and Risk in Agriculture:
Policy and Investment Solutions to Scale the Transition to Regenerative Agriculture," Center for
Law, Energy, and the Environment at UC Berkley Law School, https://food.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/12/BFI_ValueRisk_in_Ag_120920_Digital.pdf - MBA AM
II. Reform Crop Insurance
Growers looking to implement regenerative practices face high up-front costs and often
shoulder the full risk of this transition . When it comes to encouraging this shift , federal reform
efforts have most often focused on the Conservation Title in the Farm Bill, which rewards farmers for practicing conservation activities.
Crop
insurance has been overlooked in this context. To some degree, this policy choice is understandable: reform is difficult because
any changes to the risk model require formal proposals that are costly, work-intensive, and depend on robust actuarial data. But
it remains a
significant opportunity . Federal crop insurance is a $9 billion per annum program that covers over 350
million acres of agricultural lands in the United States, or 80 percent of arable acreage.22 If the RMA were to
recognize the lowered risk associated with regenerative farming, they could incentivize
more insured farmers to transition to regenerative farming , while widening eligibility for
regenerative growers who are not yet insured.
Existing crop insurance programs tend to favor largescale conventional growers
commodity crops like corn and soy. Conversely,
cultivating
lack of access to this insurance puts smaller , diversified ,
and regenerative growers at a disadvantage—and locks conventional farmers into their
current cropping patterns and practices that can be insured. The federal crop insurance
program can recognize the reduced risk of regenerative practices by adjusting their
insurance model to promote them. More specifically, the RMA could account for the greater yield stability and increase in crop
value23 of regenerative farms by expanding crop insurance access and lowering rates. Over the last five years, groups including the AGree Economic
and Environmental Risk Coalition and the NRDC have worked to reform crop insurance to drive broader adoption of agricultural conservation.24 The
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has also successfully achieved adjustments to the crop insurance program. They have strengthened the
recently established Whole-Farm Revenue Protection program, which allows diversified growers to insure their entire farm rather than just individual
commodity crops. They also worked within the US Department of Agriculture’s Farm Production and Conservation mission area (which includes NRCS,
RMA, the Farm Service Agency, and the Farm Production and Conservation Business Center) to refine the cover cropping termination guidelines.
Finally, they successfully advocated for the inclusion of cover crops in the crop insurance program’s “Good Farming Practices,” making it easier for
producers to use this practice without fear of jeopardizing their insurance coverage.25 The nonprofit Land Core has been working with actuarially
sound data on yield variability and recovery rates to create an independent modeling tool to determine risk for crop insurers and lenders. To be
effective, future efforts should occur in collaboration with existing coalitions spearheaded by AGree and other advocacy groups. Greater advocacy from
state legislators and governors to federal policymakers would be particularly effective at driving more rapid reform.
Current agriculture subsidies impede the transition to regenerative
agriculture.
Arohi Sharma 19, policy analyst at the National Resource Defense Council, MA from Harvard
University, July, 2019, "How U.S. Agricultural Subsidies Degrade Land and Soil," Food Tank,
https://foodtank.com/news/2019/07/opinion-how-us-agricultural-subsidies-degrade-land-andsoil/ - MBA AM
On May 6th, the
United Nations released a summary of its Global Assessment on Biodiversity. The report finds that 23 percent
of the world’s agricultural lands are less productive than five years ago, even though global food
production has increased. How is that possible? In refreshingly bold language, the report comments on how agricultural
subsidies catalyze land degradation and biodiversity loss . Policy makers need to
consider how agricultural subsidy policies incentivize agricultural practices that harm
species and ecosystem health . This is the case in the United States, where the federal
government spends billions on agricultural subsidies through the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP). The
current structure of the FCIP fails to address the environmental and public health effects of
producing commodity crops intensively. Furthermore, the current structure of the FCIP does
not incentivize farmers to change their farming practices to more regenerative, soil
building methods. Instead of subsidizing degenerative agricultural practices through the FCIP, the federal government
should financially reward farmers who employ farming techniques that build soil health.
The Global Assessment states, “Harmful economic incentives…associated with unsustainable practices of fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture (including
fertilizer and pesticide use) …are often associated with [the] overexploitation of natural resources.”
Healthy soil is alive. One teaspoon of healthy soil has more life than there are people on the earth! The soil supports life like microorganisms, bacteria,
fungi, algae, and earthworms, and these microbes are critical because they provide nutrients, carbon, and water to plants. When the microbes in our
soil are well-fed and supported, our soil and our plants are healthier. Our
soil ecosystem is the greatest concentration
of biomass anywhere on the planet, and when the federal government pays crop
insurance subsidies without considering the practices that are used to grow those crops,
our soil microbiome pays the ultimate price. Our soil microbes matter because they:
Sequester Carbon : The microbes in our soil all need one thing to live: carbon. Our plants
pump excess carbon from the atmosphere into the soil to support microbial health and biodiversity. All the
microbes in the soil consume carbon, but when soil is contaminated by toxic pesticides, fungicides, and
insecticides, the harsh chemicals, microbes cannot thrive. Fewer microbes in the soil mean fewer organisms
to consume and sequester carbon in the soil. By spraying crops with harmful chemicals, we reduce the soil’s capacity to act as a carbon sink.
Retain Water and Use it more Efficiently: Mycorrhizal fungi, a critical component of the soil microbiome, provides nutrients
and water to plant roots. Mycorrhizal fungi, only found on living plant roots, build intricate highways through soil
so plants can access nutrients and water from faraway places, providing water security
during droughts. Impressively, healthy soil can hold up to 20 times its weight in water. When industrial agricultural
practices encourage farmers to till, to rip living roots out from the soil so their crop rows look “clean,” or to fallow
their fields and skip a growing season, mycorrhizal fungi populations are not supported.
When mycorrhizal fungi populations are not supported, soil cannot sequester as much water, and our crops are less resilient during drought.
Keep Our Food Healthy: When plants photosynthesize, they break down water and convert the energy from the sun to form sugars. Whatever sugars
the plant doesn’t use, it pumps into the soil to feed the microbes and fungi. In return, the fungi provide nutrients like organic nitrogen, phosphorous,
calcium, and zinc to the plant. Diverse fungi species help plants access a variety of nutrients, and this nutrient exchange keeps our plants healthy and
nutrient-rich. Monocropping, an industrial agriculture practice supported by agricultural subsidies, does not support mycorrhizal fungi diversity, so the
nutrient density of our fruits and vegetables suffers. The lack of biodiversity above ground affects the biodiversity below ground.
Unfortunately, the U.S.’ subsidized cropping systems do not support microbial health.
Almost one-third of the 320 million acres of harvested cropland in the U.S. is used to produce corn, and
another one-third is used to produce soybeans. Most of the corn and soybean crops are not
grown for human consumption—they are exported or used as feedstock for livestock production—but
they constitute two of the most heavily subsidized crops in the US. The table below breaks down the
types of degenerative practices that are supported by federal government subsidies. These degenerative practices do not support healthy soil, and in
fact, destroy the soil microbiome. The percentages represent the percentages of total corn or soy acres that employ specific degenerative practices.
For example, 97 percent of all corn acres in production apply synthetic fertilizers.
Chemicals and synthetic fertilizers promise short-term boosts in crop yields, but the
overapplication and reliance on
chemicals and synthetic fertilizers for commodity farms create inhospitable soil
conditions for soil microbes. Tillage rips apart the plant roots that feed our soil microbes. When soil is directly exposed to the sun,
moisture evaporates faster and soil temperatures increase, reducing microbial activity.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) advocates for regenerative agricultural systems that support microbial
biodiversity and soil health. The organization’s campaign to reform the FCIP aims to make it easier for
farmers who practice soil-building techniques to access the FCIP. States are also stepping up to the challenge and
implementing innovative crop insurance programs that reward farmers for adopting regenerative agricultural practices like cover cropping. NRDC also
worked with a diverse coalition of agricultural and business groups to successfully pass the Soil Health Demonstration Trial provision in the last Farm
Bill. The provision will reward farmers for adopting soil-building practices that sequester carbon in the soil. These efforts exemplify how governments
should flip the status quo and reward stewardship.
The Global Biodiversity Assessment is clear: Governments must reconsider the types of
agricultural systems that are supported by taxpayer dollars. For the last five years, the U.S. government
spent an average of US$9 billion in crop insurance subsidies through the FCIP . A significant portion of these federal
subsidies goes to commodity farms that employ agricultural practices that degrade soil
health, like nondiverse crop rotations, heavy fertilizer and pesticide use, and tillage. The billions of dollars of subsidies
paid by the federal government should not support degenerative agricultural practices. For
the sake of soil health, farmers should be rewarded for treating their farms as biodiverse, microberich ecosystems. Policy should incentivize soil building practices like crop diversity, cover crops, crop rotations, integrated livestock
management, and no-till.
The Global Biodiversity Assessment calls out the dangerous trajectory of current agricultural subsidies. We’ve hit the snooze button too many times on
subsidy reform, and it’s time for our policymakers to wake up to biodiversity losses perpetuated by this broken system.
Regenerative agriculture is the key to clean, efficient water use---bad
agricultural subsidies impede the transition.
Emily Folk 20, a sustainability and agriculture writer, 8-10-2020, "Regenerative Agriculture Is
the Key to Increasing Access to Clean Water," Farming Secrets,
https://www.farmingsecrets.com/regenerative-agriculture-is-the-key-to-increasing-access-toclean-water/ - MBA AM
Water scarcity affects over 700 million people globally, and that number is only expected to rise due to a warming climate. Without clean water,
communities cannot thrive. Certain industries, like fossil fuels and manufacturing, are significant water polluters, and their impact on the environment is
easy to see. But what about how we grow our food?
Agriculture has a water problem as well. Over 70% of the global freshwater supply is used for agricultural operations. With
the threat of climate change and more areas experiencing water scarcity, agriculture
plays an essential role in improving water access. As a type of sustainable agriculture, regenerative
agriculture is key to increasing access to clean water.
Regenerative agriculture works to rebuild the soil, regenerating ecosystems so that more
water can be stored, more carbon can be sequestered and pests can be managed naturally. Soil health is directly
linked to water health. With many farms relying on groundwater for irrigation, regenerative agriculture can help
store water in the soil without the need for expensive equipment or complicated
technology.
Agriculture and Water Pollution
Agriculture is a major
contributor to water pollution, but it is also one of the least environmentally regulated
industries.
Water scarcity is directly linked to food insecurity, making agriculture a key player in access to clean water.
Most agricultural water pollution is known as nonpoint source pollution, making it more difficult to identify. Nonpoint source pollution can include
herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, and excess fertilizer that run off the soil, into waterways, and into drinking water.
Globally, most farms are still small and family-run. However, a
handful of large corporate farms are responsible
for the majority of water use and are often not held accountable for their impact.
For example, less than 3% of farms in the United States have an annual income above $1 million but are responsible for 42% of production, and the
majority of water usage. In less developed countries, small farmers often lack the proper infrastructure for irrigation, relying on waterways rather than
groundwater. In areas with intense dry periods, this system is subject to serious fluctuation.
Soil runoff and erosion is a key player in water pollution and groundwater depletion. This
is where incorporating regenerative agriculture principles can be transformative.
Regenerative agriculture utilizes various techniques, such as cover cropping, that help rebuild
healthy soil structure so that it is more resilient to varying weather patterns.
Regenerative agriculture methods can be applied to large commercial farms or small family farms
without infrastructure.
Strategies such as managed livestock grazing and reduced tillage are inexpensive
solutions that not only help farmers increase their yields and reduce the need for
irrigation, but also impact the global clean water supply.
Incentivizing Change
So why don’t all farms practice regenerative agriculture? Unfortunately,
the lack of adoption is purely economic.
crop insurance is a necessity to
protect against losses throughout the season. In the United States especially, many farmers have not turned a profit in
For most farmers, especially farmers who grow commodity crops like corn and soybeans,
years, and have more debt than ever before.
The ability to leverage subsidies and crop insurance is the only way many farmers are getting
by , at least for now. Regenerative agriculture practices, like cover crops, can threaten a farmer’s
ability to qualify for insurance, even if the growing practice could save their crop.
The issue here is that many sustainable farming practices like cover crops and reduced tillage are seen simply as conservation practices, not standard
farming practices. Farmers may receive a nice pat on the back for utilizing conservation practices, but they are not seen as responsible or effective
growing methods, at least generally.
Most of the agricultural industry relies heavily on pesticides, which contribute significantly to water pollution. But as
long as the
economic drive for using chemicals is there, it will be difficult to sway the market
towards a more regenerative system.
Regeneration and Climate Change
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, agriculture will be a key player in improving not only food security for a
warming planet but also sustainability. Sustainability efforts must include agriculture as a key player if we are going to improve access to clean water.
Utilizing
regenerative agriculture practices such as cover crops, managed grazing, and reduced tillage are directly linked
with healthier soil, which results in a healthy water supply.
Regenerative agriculture can improve soil fertility, store carbon and help restore groundwater reserves for irrigation.
Clean water will be increasingly harder to find in the coming years, and regenerative
agriculture is key to increasing access to it.
Current ag subsidies lock-in farmers into destructive practices and
financially forbid the transition to regenerative ag.
Jessica Mckenzie 19, a freelance journalist, formerly the managing editor of Civicist, 3-142019, "Regenerative agriculture saves soil, water, and the climate. The government actively
discourages it.," Counter, https://thecounter.org/regenerative-agriculture-cover-crops-no-tillusda/ - MBA AM
Cover crops and other regenerative
agriculture practices are still pigeonholed as conservation
practices, not as good farming practices. But if farmers want crop insurance, they have
to play by the rules.
Last year, a few days before Christmas, Gail Fuller drove me out to the middle of a wind-whipped field just north of Emporia, Kansas. “This is really
where it started for me,” he said as he climbed out of the truck, spade in hand. With a thunk, he drove the spade into the ground and pulled out a hunk
of earth, holding it up so I could see the texture, which he described as like “chocolate cake” and “black cottage cheese.”
Pointing to a wriggling earthworm, a sign of good soil health, Fuller explained that conventional, tilled fields would be too cold for earthworms to be that
close to the surface. Tilling rips up and compacts soil, compressing the air pockets that would otherwise insulate earthworms from temperature
extremes. But because Fuller never tills and maintains a continuous living root system, which provides additional insulation, his field has earthworms
year-round.
Fuller’s approach is part of the broader “regenerative agriculture” movement, a way of farming that prioritizes
soil health and
has a host of other benefits, from carbon sequestration to reducing nutrient runoff. In the mid-1990s, he stopped tilling
his fields to improve water retention , increase soil nutrients, and help counter erosion. In 2002, he began planting cover
crops, grains and legumes that cover land through the winter, and can help control weeds, increase biodiversity, and capture carbon. Fuller also
drastically cut down on his use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer.
This long evolution has improved his farm’s health and profitability . But Fuller is one of many
regenerative farmers who feels that government policies have actively worked against
them .
In 2012, a historic drought year, Fuller’s approach to farming cost him a crucial crop insurance payout: His insurance company denied his claim
because days of harsh, dry winds prevented him from terminating his crops in line with the government’s strict timeline. He spent almost two years
fighting for the money, and though he eventually won his case, he lost his operating line of credit at the bank while he waited—and subsequently lost
much of his land.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has delivered perfunctory messages about the benefits of cover crops and other regenerative
agricultural practices. But, for years, the agency has
effectively discouraged farmers from planting cover
crops through confusing and overly restrictive rules set by the Risk Management Agency (RMA), an agency
under USDA that determines crop insurance eligibility, a lifeline for many farmers. Fuller and other producers have fought for
those rules to be lifted, and the most recent farm bill finally does away with the worst and most restrictive rules. Now, as long as
farmers make a good faith effort to terminate their crops according to USDA guidelines, they cannot be denied a payout if drought or floods or other
acts of Mother Nature impede their work. However, until
cover crops and other regenerative practices are
branded by the government as good farming , instead of merely good environmental stewardship, adoption will
never reach a critical mass.
In theory, the RMA is an independent government agency, a neutral arbiter of rules and regulations. But multiple sources told me on background that
they believe the agency essentially publishes rules that the agribusiness industry
supplies. And the industry doesn’t want cover crops. Crop insurance companies are reluctant to introduce
variables they don’t understand and that might come with new risks; the broader agricultural industry has a vested interest in farmers needing to buy its
pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in ever-increasing quantities. The use of cover crops threatens that demand.
The year Fuller’s insurance provider denied his claim, based on the RMA’s cover crop rules, the country-wide drought was so bad that a crop
insurance industry group has dedicated a web page to it. Fuller began the long process of challenging the denial, but in the years that followed,
landlords gave his acres to farmers who could afford to put seed in, and who wouldn’t rock the boat so much. Others sold off the land he had been
farming and he didn’t have the money to buy it back. Fuller struggled to afford the seed and fertilizer for the acres he still had.
“The upside is they pushed us to this, which is where we really wanted to be anyway,” Fuller said. “So there’s really a lot of good to come out of it. We
wouldn’t have had the courage to do this without being broke and not having an option.”
“This” means pivoting away from commodity crops and moving toward a more
diversified approach to agriculture: a system where grass-fed cows, sheep, heirloom pig breeds, and chickens rove a more
biodiverse landscape. Many of Fuller’s fields are planted with perennial plants and native grasses that he has let go to seed, which the ruminants graze
on a rotational basis. Fuller went from farming 3,200 acres of corn and soybeans in 2000, to just 400 acres in 2018, very few of them planted with
commodity grains. And this way, for reasons I’ll explain, he doesn’t need crop insurance in the first place.
“If you want crop insurance, you have to play by their rules.”
Farmers have been experimenting with different regenerative agricultural practices since the late 1980s, although they might not have used that term
back then. Steve Swaffar, executive director of No-Till on the Plains, said that soil erosion was a major factor. Even though farmers were following
standard best practices, topsoil was still running off their fields. They began looking for solutions. A few people pulled together a conference on
alternative farming methods in 1995, and soon the Kansas Crop Residue Management Alliance was established as a nonprofit. The organization was
later renamed No-Till on the Plains, a catchier rebrand that still belies the broad scope of its mission, which is a systems-based approach to agriculture
that includes no-till, cover crops, crop rotation, and livestock integration.
a complete farming approach that I think is certainly superior
from an environmental standpoint,” said Swaffar. “And we’re seeing more and more evidence that it’s
superior from an economic standpoint.”
“When you put it all together, that’s when you get
Darin Williams, a Kansas farmer who grows a mix of corn, soybeans, and cereal crops on 2,000 acres, and incorporates practices like no-till and cover
crops, says his input costs are significantly lower than his peers. He needs less fertilizer and half as much herbicide; when herbicides can cost
anywhere between $20 to $40 per acre, the savings add up quick.
Even as evidence of the benefits of cover crops mounted, the government held onto
rules that discouraged their use. Although crop insurance is administered by private companies, the federal
government manages and subsidizes the industry , and sets the rules that determine crop insurance eligibility.
Most of those rules allow farmers to farm the way they see fit, as long as that is within a fairly broad range of good farming practices; fertilizer,
pesticide, and herbicide use are all left to farmer discretion. But for years, the
RMA dictated how farmers could use
cover crops by setting strict termination dates—dates that may not make sense in a particular location or in a given
year.
farmers that come to our events
would tell you, ‘If I didn’t have to follow those rules, I could be a lot more productive and
“If you want crop insurance, you have to play by their rules,” Swaffar said. “Many of the
a lot more effective as a farmer,’ but because crop prices only offer very slim profit
margins for producers, they’re almost financially obligated
to carry crop insurance.”
For example: Last spring was unusually cold in Iowa. Sarah Carlson, the director of Strategic Initiatives for Practical Farmers of Iowa, said that when it
came time to plant soybeans, cover crops across the state were barely two inches high. “Agronomically, they should have planted soybeans as early
as possible and let the cover crop grow until it reached about knee-height to get weed control benefits from it,” Carlson said. But that would have been
“off label” and against RMA policy. Practical Farmers won a deviation for two farmers that allowed them to go off book without jeopardizing their crop
insurance. All that effort, Carlson said, was “a waste of time.”
“Farmers should be allowed to farm the way they feel is best,” Carlson said. “RMA should get out of the agronomy business.”
In addition to making it overly onerous for farmers to implement cover crops in a way that works for them, RMA
policies have had the
effect of scaring off farmers who might otherwise be interested in cover crops.
Approximately 90 percent of the insurable farm acreage in the U.S. is protected by crop
insurance. Many farmers have to have it in order to qualify for operating loans from the bank. Simply knowing that cover
crops could impact eligibility has been enough to scare some farmers away.
After Fuller was denied his crop insurance payout, he said farmers would come up to him during events that he attended or spoke at, and say, “I’m not
gonna do cover crops now,” or “I was doing cover crops and I quit, because I can’t afford to lose my insurance.”
“So it did set the movement back, for a few years,” Fuller said.
While financial concerns can keep farmers from experimenting with cover crops and other regenerative practices, some farmers try them when they fall
on hard times, as a last resort.
“I don’t think you find many who actively said, ‘I just want to do this for the benefit of the climate or the environment,'” said Mike Lavender, who works
on food and environmental issues for the Union of Concerned Scientists. “You typically find that people, for whatever circumstance, were forced into
and have found a way to make it work.”
Many of the farmers practicing regenerative agriculture, including cover crops, have begun to self-insure; it’s not ideal, but the way the crop insurance
industry works leaves them little choice. What they have found is that cover crops and other regenerative practices have made them less susceptible to
yield variations from year to year.
Ryan Stockwell is the director of sustainable agriculture at the National Wildlife Federation and helped Fuller win his crop insurance claim; he also
farms 110 acres in Wisconsin, and forgoes crop insurance entirely.
“As a farmer, I’ve been doing no-till, cover crops, and a diverse crop rotation for eight years now, and I’m getting to the point where I’m not seeing any
major yield variation that my neighbors are experiencing,” Stockwell said. “So why should I pay $15 an acre for no return?”
Right now, crop insurance is based entirely on the county in which you live. The RMA calculates risk that way because weather across a single county
is fairly consistent, and weather is a huge factor in farm yields from one year to the next. The comparison I heard over and over again was that it’s like
giving everyone who lives in the same neighborhood the same car insurance rate, without a “good driver” discount.
Stockwell and others want the crop insurance industry to be restructured in order to take practices that decrease yield variability—and therefore lessen
risk for the insurance company—into account. They
want a “good farmer” discount for farmers who use
practices that stabilize yields, but that also have broader environmental benefits. By that
logic, regenerative farmers should be cheaper to insure.
“Instead of having a county average that defines your risk, regardless of practices that you use in that county, instead we may see a larger geographic
pool that they put people in, but there would be a number of different pools within that geography,” said Stockwell. “So, it could be a four, six, or eight
county area, and they pool the farmers who have a two-crop rotation, or they pool the farmers who have a three-crop rotation plus cover crops plus notill.”
Redirecting subsidies to small farms and environmentally safe ag solves
environmental contamination, human health, and sustainability of ag
Bove ‘21
(Tristan is an International Studies and Chinese graduate of DePaul University. He has
experience researching the impacts of humanity's relationship with the environment, and how
states can successfully implement strategies for sustainable development. His current interests
revolve around the developmental policies that can reconcile equitable economic growth with
pathways to a net-zero future. He can be contacted at tristan.bove[at]earth.org, “The Cost of
Subsidising Agriculture,” pg online @ https://earth.org/agriculture-subsidies/ //um-ef)
How to Direct Subsidies Towards Agriculture
Government subsidies towards agriculture can be either direct or indirect. Direct subsidies are
often specifically targeted at farmers, through direct payments, crop insurance or low-interest
loans. They can often involve the participation of the private sector, especially when a subsidy is
meant to provide crop insurance and enlists the services of private insurers.
Indirect agriculture subsidies are more complex. They involve financing sectors or industries
that are not strictly related to farming, but are nonetheless critical to a successful agricultural
output. Indirect subsidies are rarely counted in total agricultural subsidisation estimates, but play
an important role when discussing the environmental and social impacts of government
subsidies.
A particularly salient example of external and indirect agricultural subsidies are global water
subsidies, which are extremely important to crop farmers. Water, like other natural resources, is
becoming progressively more expensive and scarce as global demand grows and climate
change affects supply. Cheap and accessible water is clearly a pillar of any stable society, and
governments have responded by increasing their water subsidies, which totalled USD$320
billion in 2019.
Indirect subsidies make up a significant portion of the external costs that go into crop and
livestock production, and yet they go unaccounted for in tabulations of sector subsidies, further
masking the externalised environmental and social impacts. These external costs add up, and
despite the claim that subsidies are created to serve the interests of low-income members of
society, they tend to only exacerbate existing inequalities through environmental degradation
and misallocation of resources.
Agriculture Subsidies and Inequality
How agricultural subsidy funds are allocated is where these programmes become problematic.
Only 1% of global agricultural subsidies are directed towards initiatives that benefit the
environment and preserve ecological services. The majority of agricultural subsidies go towards
deforestation, cattle production and intensifying the use of polluting fertilisers.
While subsidisation is often framed as a benefit for lower income consumers, the goal of
agricultural subsidies is exclusively to make the industry more productive, and the positive
social impacts that do exist tend to disproportionately benefit producers and wealthier members
of society.
The case of water subsidies is a strong example. Ostensibly meant to support the poor, water
subsidies have in reality benefitted the wealthiest multinational corporations and landowners of
the agricultural sector, and have damaged the equitable allocation of water resources. Making
water cheaply available to farmers has led to overuse, increased water scarcity and widened
wealth gaps, as water subsidies provide more benefits to wealthy landowners rather than
tenants or small-holder farms.
agriculture subsidisation
Fig. 2: Water and sanitation subsidies allocation by household income level across 10 diverse
countries. On average, the wealthiest 10% of households receive 39 percent of subsidisation
benefits; World Bank; 2019.
Similarly to fossil fuel subsidies, agricultural subsidies tend to benefit the highest spenders in an
economy. A 2019 study highlighted this inequality by investigating the divergent ways
agricultural subsidies in the form of co-payments benefitted different socio-economic groups in
Bhutan. The subsidy provided individual households with agricultural equipment, seeds and, in
some cases, machinery. The study found that only 35% of poor households received seed and
sapling subsidies, while 52% of wealthy households received seed subsidies and 39% received
sapling subsidies. Additionally, co-pay subsidies for more expensive products such as
machinery disproportionately benefitted wealthier communities, since low-income households
were still required to take out a loan to pay their portion of the co-pay.
Agricultural subsidy programmes are framed as a social tool to benefit smallholder and family
farms. However government programmes do not facilitate the efforts of small farms to form
coalitions and delegations that can represent their interests before lawmakers. Small farmers
therefore tend to hand over their representation to agribusiness lobbies, who despite claiming to
fight for small farms, quietly push legislation that supports the interests of corporations and
commercial mega-farms.
For instance, lobbies have successfully pushed for subsidies that at least partially cover the
costs of agricultural machinery, products that are too expensive and often impractical for
smallholder or family farms, but are necessary and even economical when spread out over
many acres of land and many animals. Additionally, agricultural subsidies tend to support cattle
production or long-lasting commodity crops, such as wheat, soybeans, corn, cotton, rice and
grains used for animal feed, all favourites of commercial mega-farms. Subsidies are rarely
directed towards healthier components of human diets, such as fruits and vegetables.
agriculture subsidies
Fig. 3: 10 most heavily subsidised agricultural commodities in the US in 2016; US Department
of Agriculture; 2019.
Incentivising the production and consumption of commodity crops, and withholding subsidies
from fruits and vegetables has a direct and detrimental impact on public health. A 2017 study in
the US evaluated the effect that various policy measures could have on reducing the rate of
cardiovascular disease in the country. The study found that the most effective policy measure in
isolation would be to increase subsidies towards fruits and vegetables and reduce their market
price by only 10%. Doing so could potentially prevent or postpone up to nearly 160 000 deaths
by cardiovascular disease in the US by 2030. The study also found that, if combined with
targeted policies based on individuals’ participation in food programmes, a small fruits and
vegetables subsidy could reduce disparities in cardiovascular disease death between different
socio-economic groups by 6%, potentially increasing the number of lives saved by 2030 to 230
000.
This last study highlights a critical social, financial and health disparity that exists in most
countries with agriculture subsidies. Low-income households often cannot afford unsubsidised
fruits and vegetables, and instead resort to less healthy, unethically produced and
environmentally harmful meat and dairy products. In 2012, fruits and vegetables consumption
among low-income individuals in the UK had fallen by 30% compared to 2008 levels, while
purchases of mass-produced and processed meats such as bacon had risen significantly. A
2019 study found that, in large urban spaces in the US, the dietary quality of individual
households was directly proportionate to income level, as higher income households spent
much more on fruits and vegetables, and were only outspent by low-income groups in the
purchases of frozen and prepackaged foods.
The Real Cost of Meat and Subsidy Reform
The social disparities imposed by inadequate pricing of healthy versus unhealthy products does
not stop at subsidisation. For consumers, meat and dairy products often carry ulterior hidden
costs that can dwarf subsidies.
In American lawyer David Robinson Simon’s 2013 book ‘Meatonomics,’ the author estimates
that the US meat and dairy industry externalises USD$414 billion annually. This means that
animal producers have shifted the vast majority of their costs onto consumers through other,
external means. Consumers may not spend a high price for animal products at the supermarket,
but taxpayers extensively subsidise the meat and dairy industry by covering the sector’s hidden
costs in environmental damages and healthcare costs. Considering taxation costs paid by
consumers and subsidies paid by governments, a standard Big Mac hamburger from
McDonalds with a market price of $4 actually costs the consumer closer to $12, tripling the cost
paid in externalities.
Of the USD$414 billion total, only a small amount comes from government subsidies. The
largest meat and dairy externality by far is healthcare costs, which alone account for USD$314
billion. Just like indirect subsidies, these costs are simply taxpayer money going into making
meat and dairy products cheaper for the consumer and more profitable for producers.
us animal food production
Fig. 3: Total externalised costs of US animal food production; Meatonomics; 2013.
The externalities of the unsustainable aspects of the agricultural industry are deeply rooted in
economic and political conventions, as well as consumer behaviour. To alleviate the costs paid
by consumers, improve the community health standards among low-income households and
mitigate the environmental impact of the agricultural industries, governments must do what they
can to facilitate more sustainable consumer behaviours. This can at least be initiated through
subsidy reform.
Any successful subsidy reform in the agricultural sector will need to shift incentives from large
corporations to focus on the needs of smallholder and family farms. Current trends in
agricultural subsidisation prioritise livestock production and commodity crops grown by
commercial farmers, which tend to be the most damaging to environmental quality and
community health.
The EU’s current agricultural subsidisation scheme is a good indicator of exactly what countries
should not be doing. Essentially, the EU grants more in subsidies the larger a farm is, therefore
inevitably providing more benefits to large commercial farms. The EU scheme has been widely
criticised for contributing to a decline in the market presence of smallholder farms, and for
incentivising monocultures of commodity crops that are easy to scale, but harmful to soil health
and inefficient in providing for human needs relative to their environmental impact. Particularly
egregious is the fact that subsidies are allocated simply based on the amount of land owned by
farmers, and not the amount of land that is actually being utilised to produce goods.
Some EU officials are attempting to push through legislation that would set aside up to 30% of
subsidies for farmers who have demonstrated to be moving towards sustainable farming
practices such as agroforestry and organic farming, although attempts so far have been
unsuccessful. Environmentalists and some countries have criticised the EU for its staticity and
lack of ambition in moving away from its current model. The scheme has been so derided in
some circles, that British observers who opposed Brexit have vocally welcomed the opportunity
for the UK to distance itself from the EU’s agriculture subsidies.
In the long term, governments need to implement alternative economic indicators that are better
equipped to reflect the real cost of unsustainable products. In the short term, however, shifting
subsidies and making fruits and vegetables more affordable to lower income households can
have a substantial effect in adjusting behaviours, by giving consumers more freedom of choice
in what to purchase and eat.
Nobody needs to become vegan, but study after study has proven that lowering calorie intake
from animal products by even moderate amounts and replacing it with plant-based protein can
lower mortality rates substantially by reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease, type-2
diabetes and certain types of cancer. Health risks are exacerbated by cheaply produced
processed meats, which the World Health Organisation considers in the same carcinogenic
category as asbestos. Adjusting market prices through more targeted subsidisation strategies
can make these healthier diets more affordable and accessible to low-income households and
individuals, while also minimising the environmental impact of the agricultural sector.
Policymakers have evaluated the possibility of implementing market mechanisms to better
reflect the social and environmental cost of meat. On the more extreme end, a meat tax has
been discussed in countries with a high rate of meat consumption, although this proposal has
been criticised as excessively regressive and restrictive. A more moderate proposal would be to
apply carbon taxes to the agricultural sector, which would be able to more accurately reflect the
costs of highly emitting meat and dairy producers, and tax these producers accordingly.
While consumer behaviour will need to be adjusted, current subsidisation policies limit options
for low-income households, and consumers pay disproportionate costs in external and
unaccounted for healthcare costs and environmental losses. By shifting subsidies to support
smallholder and family farms, and specifically targeting farms that engage in sustainable
farming practices, governments can incentivise innovation, promote equality, mitigate
environmental impacts and significantly improve public health standards.
Solvency: Subs = Shift
Subsidies incentives solves – empirically proven.
Kleinman et al. 15 (Peter Kleinman is the research leader at the USDA-ARS, University Park, USA. His research
investigates the interactions between land management and landscape processes that control the transfer of nutrients from land to
water. His speciality is in the study and management of phosphorus.; Andrew Sharpley is a distinguished professor at the Division of
Agriculture—University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. His research investigates nutrient cycling (primarily phosphorus) in soil–plant–
water systems in relation to water quality, which includes the management of animal manures, fertilizers, and crop residues and role
of stream and river sediments in modifying water quality response to agricultural conservation.; Paul Withers is a professor of
Geography at Bangor University, UK. His main research focus over the last 20 years has been the cycling, transfers, impacts and
management of phosphorus in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Currently, he is involved with developing sustainable systems of
food production, diffuse pollution and eutrophication control, and the coupling of C, N, and P cycles across the land–water interface.;
Lars Bergström is a professor at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. His research interests include mitigation of
agricultural non-point source pollution of plant nutrients and pesticides, and water quality management.; Laura Johnson is a
research scientist at the National Center for Water Quality Research at Heidelberg University, Tiffin, USA. Her research is in the
field of watershed nutrient export and stream biogeochemistry, currently with focus on phosphorus loading from non-point sources
that feed into Lake Erie.; Donnacha Doody is a Principal Scientific Officer at the Agri-food and Bioscience Institute in Northern
Ireland. His research focuses on the identification of soil and landuse management variables controlling nutrient loss from soil to
water and the development of mitigation measures to decrease impacts on water quality.; “Implementing agricultural phosphorus
science and management to combat eutrophication”; AMBIO; Febuary 15, 2015;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4329145/) Accessed 7/11/21//eleanor
Despite initial concerns that the restrictions placed by the court case would force poultry
growers out of the litigated watersheds, poultry farmers have adapted to the P-based
regulations , in part through subsidies supporting manure export. As a result, this case
study represents an important example of the potential for farmers to overcome the
impacts of mandated manure application restrictions. However, beef farmers (primarily cow-calf) in the
area have suffered from the loss of a cheap and plentiful source of N in poultry litter that has enabled profitable cattle production on
local pastures. The export of poultry litter under the litigated settlement has produced a slow decline in beef herd size and pasture
productivity, coupled with an increased potential for erosion due to worsening pasture conditions with declining fertility. In
order
to maintain the economic viability of all farming enterprises, not just the poultry farms, it has
become clear that the nutrient management planning process must go beyond
addressing poultry litter application rates and environmental risk and include educational
efforts to help farmers develop sustainable whole-farm operations. In the time following
implementation of court-mandated nutrient management changes, there has been a slow but
constant decrease in the concentration (mg L−1) of total P in baseflow of the Illinois River as it flows
from Arkansas into Oklahoma (Fig. 4). Since 2003, required P-risk nutrient management has decreased
litter applications to area pastures (Fig. 3) and water treatment plant upgrades have
reduced point source inputs of P, making it impossible to isolate the impact of litter
export on P loadings to the Illinois River (Haggard 2010). Annual variations in flow have served to hide the effect of lower
concentrations (mg L−1) of P in baseflow on watershed P losses (kg ha−1). However, concentrations have
decreased a third compared with pre-2003 (from 0.29 mg L−1 in 2002 to 0.07 mg L−1 in 2010; Fig. 4), leading to
directional trends that provide hope to agricultural and conservation communities alike.
Voluntary and regulatory experiences in the UK Phosphorus loadings to freshwaters of the United Kingdom (UK, comprising
England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) are a major water quality concern; for example in England and Wales, P is the
largest single contributor to poor ecological status in rivers and lakes (EA 2013, 2014). Across the UK, under the European Union
(EU) Water Framework Directive, targets
of annual average concentrations of reactive P in rivers
and total P in lakes and reservoirs have been set to help reduce eutrophication and
achieve good ecological status (e.g., Ryder and Bennett 2010). Agriculture is a major contributor
and is currently targeted for P mitigation (McGonigle et al. 2012; EA 2014; Zhang et al. 2014). However, very
different approaches to achieving agricultural P loss controls are used in Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland), where
implementation programs are largely voluntary, versus Northern Ireland, where national regulations are applied
across all of agriculture, but have
a specific focus on P with regard to farm P budgets and fertilizer
use. Great Britain’s targeted, voluntary/coercive approach In Great Britain, specific measures to reduce P
pollution have been targeted to ‘sensitive’ watersheds only, using a largely voluntary
approach to implementation with knowledge transfer programs and financial incentives to promote
adoption
(McGonigle et al. 2012). Farmers in Great Britain are bound by the Water Resources Act 1991 (or Scotland’s Water
Environment Regulations of 2011) not to cause general water pollution. In addition, under the EU Nitrates Directive to reduce N
leaching, farmers face regulatory limits on manure N inputs and closed periods for spreading manures which may also help to
To receive EU subsidies , farmers in Great Britain must
undertake an annual soil protection review, comply with setbacks, or no spread zones,
around watercourses (including ditches) and adopt good nutrient management, all of which are
expected to help reduce P loadings to water. For example, farmers are guided not to apply
more total P than will be removed by crops in the rotation where soil test P
concentrations are already high (Olsen P > 26 mg L−1; Defra 2010). However, there exists no specific regulation of
reduce P inputs and/or P losses in runoff.
P use in agriculture in Great Britain. In effect, the current approach is to wait to see how these general ‘best practice’ measures and
gentle coercion under cross-compliance will mitigate watershed P losses before regulatory controls are considered (McGonigle et al.
2012).
Subsidies incentives cause farmers to adopt better nutrient management
practices.
Kleinman et al. 15 (Peter Kleinman is the research leader at the USDA-ARS, University Park, USA. His research
investigates the interactions between land management and landscape processes that control the transfer of nutrients from land to
water. His speciality is in the study and management of phosphorus.; Andrew Sharpley is a distinguished professor at the Division of
Agriculture—University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. His research investigates nutrient cycling (primarily phosphorus) in soil–plant–
water systems in relation to water quality, which includes the management of animal manures, fertilizers, and crop residues and role
of stream and river sediments in modifying water quality response to agricultural conservation.; Paul Withers is a professor of
Geography at Bangor University, UK. His main research focus over the last 20 years has been the cycling, transfers, impacts and
management of phosphorus in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Currently, he is involved with developing sustainable systems of
food production, diffuse pollution and eutrophication control, and the coupling of C, N, and P cycles across the land–water interface.;
Lars Bergström is a professor at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. His research interests include mitigation of
agricultural non-point source pollution of plant nutrients and pesticides, and water quality management.; Laura Johnson is a
research scientist at the National Center for Water Quality Research at Heidelberg University, Tiffin, USA. Her research is in the
field of watershed nutrient export and stream biogeochemistry, currently with focus on phosphorus loading from non-point sources
that feed into Lake Erie.; Donnacha Doody is a Principal Scientific Officer at the Agri-food and Bioscience Institute in Northern
Ireland. His research focuses on the identification of soil and landuse management variables controlling nutrient loss from soil to
water and the development of mitigation measures to decrease impacts on water quality.; “Implementing agricultural phosphorus
science and management to combat eutrophication”; AMBIO; Febuary 15, 2015;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4329145/) Accessed 7/11/21//eleanor
Of the case studies reviewed here, Sweden
represents the most tightly regulated setting for agricultural
P-based management, with a great portion of the costs related to P mitigation measures
covered by subsidies. Agricultural P management in Sweden coupled to eutrophication of the Baltic Sea is today, to a large extent,
driven by the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), an international accord that was devised in 2007 after P was implicated as the main cause of
cyanobacterial blooms in the Baltic Sea (Boesch et al. 2006). Despite generally low intensity of land use, Swedish agriculture is estimated to account
for 40–50 % of the total anthropogenic P loads from the nation’s Baltic watersheds (Brandt et al. 2009). To meet the targets prescribed in BSAP and
achieve the P load reductions required, national regulations related to e.g., spreading of animal manure (limited to 110 kg P ha−1 over a 5-year period)
and the EU Water Framework directive need to be followed. In addition, a voluntary advisory program (‘Greppa näringen’), which was introduced in
2000 to give farmers in sensitive areas free individual support, has helped to reduce agricultural P losses at a cost of about $4 million USD year−1. A
P mitigation programs is to pay farmers for conservation and nutrient
management measures they adopt. Since 2000, subsidies have been available through the Swedish Rural
Development Program, which is partly funded by the EU, to compensate farmers for carrying out certain
practices to reduce both N and P losses. Practices qualifying for such subsidies
especially related to P include conservation buffer zones for highly erodible soils,
constructed wetlands, and, perhaps most notably, organic crop production, which is a
central theme of Swedish
subsidy to help reduce environmental disturbances in general. In recent years additional
mitigation strategies have been included, such as the installation of drainage
management practices on tile drains and ditches, i.e., ‘controlled drainage’. Subsidy of
water quality mitigation practices has helped to spur adoption of practices aimed at
preventing P losses from agriculture,
but has not removed some of the profound obstacles encountered under less-
regulated, less-subsidized settings. Although many practices promoted for water quality protection have widespread support in the agricultural
community, artificial drainage represents as much of a sacred cow in Sweden as it does in Lake Erie. About 50 % of arable land in Sweden is tile
drained, especially those soils with high clay content. As with Lake Erie, artificial drainage is imperative to allow field management operations to be
performed as early as possible in spring and to protect crops from flooding. However, because artificial drainage is seen as such an essential part of
agricultural infrastructure, few in the agricultural community have to date been willing to open discussion on options for limiting new drainage or
removing drainage to control non-point source pollution. Instead, other measures
to improve soil structure such as
liming of clay soils and tile-drainage backfills to increase P adsorption to the soil matrix
have been tested with good results (Ulén and Etana 2014). Also, grass buffers along rivers and open
ditches have been emphasized and perhaps even over-implemented in Sweden, especially when viewed
through the lens of P mitigation. Grass buffers are used as a multifunctional tool in agricultural landscapes around the world,
providing many ecosystem services other than the regulation of nutrients and sediments (Stutter et al. 2012). For P, buffer zones are thought to be
effective in promoting sedimentation and retention of sediment-bound P, but their efficacy in preventing dissolved P loss has been widely questioned
(Dorioz et al. 2006). Indeed, when buffer zones are bypassed with concentrated flow pathways or when the P-binding capacity of the soils is largely
saturated, they can range from ineffective to a source of P (Uusi-Kämppä and Jauhiainen 2010). Even so, from 2000 to 2006, Swedish
farmers
received about $3 million USD year−1 in subsidies to install and maintain riparian buffer
zones, with an estimated reduction in watershed P loads of 6 tons year−1, equivalent to a
total P removal efficiency of $500 kg−1 year−1. National debate over the cost effectiveness of buffer zones as P
mitigation tool is largely stifled by the amount spent on agricultural subsidies in Sweden for organic agriculture, effectively turning buffer zones (or any
other P mitigation efforts) into a sacred cow for Swedish taxpayers. Recently, an evaluation of the Swedish Rural Development Program concluded
that programs to reduce agricultural non-point source pollution with specific practices such as buffer zones were much more cost-effective than
national subsidies for organic crop production, for which Swedish farmers received $75 million USD year−1 from 2000 to 2006. In fact, it can be argued
that subsidies
for P mitigation practices, regardless of their cost effectiveness, help to
offset the P losses from organic farms, which are sometimes greater than from
conventional systems (Aronsson et al. 2007). When Sweden’s P mitigation programs are evaluated
on the basis of water quality alone, without considering cost, there is cause for cautious optimism.
Downward trends in P concentrations in large rivers in agricultural areas of southwest
Sweden have been noticed, although, the picture is somewhat diverse with increasing trends in some rivers (Fölster et al. 2012).
Thus, implementation of mitigation strategies in Sweden has had a slight beneficial effect on
reducing agricultural P losses, but it is too early to draw any general conclusions.
And, integrating environmental costs into federal policy is essential
Hunter et al ‘17
(Meagan E. Schipanski, PhD Department of Soil and Crop Sciences @ Colorado St. Mitchell C.
Hunter, American Farmland Trust, Richard G. Smith, Lesley W. Atwood, David A. Mortensen,
BioScience, Volume 67, Issue 4, April 2017, Pages 386–391,
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix010 //um-ef)
Achieving both production and environmental goals will require shifts in US agricultural
policy. Current policy heavily favors production, including through crop insurance and
revenue- and price-based subsidy payments for commodity crops. These programs carry
only minimal environmental requirements, which provide limited protection against
erosion and the loss of some wetlands and grasslands, but fail to target nutrient loss, air
quality, GHG emissions, and other concerns. Conservation incentive programs help
producers implement many environmentally beneficial practices, but they are not
structured to produce maximum benefits. Moreover , many environmental regulations
currently exempt agricultural activities. To bring US policy in line with future needs,
producers who receive subsidies should be required to meet more stringent
environmental standards, conservation programs should be reformed to tie payments to
quantified outcomes (Winsten and Hunter 2011), and effective regulatory backstops
should be instituted to control the most environmentally damaging practices. Quantitative
targets can help guide these policy efforts and promote effective collaborations among
researchers, farmers, government agencies, and civil-society groups. The Danish government's
pesticide strategy, which aims to reduce pesticide loads by 40%, is one promising example of
using quantitative targets to collaboratively set agroenvironmental policy (DME 2013). The
goals of sustainable intensification extend beyond aggregate production and
environmental performance. Additional policy efforts are needed to manage food
demand by reducing food waste (West et al. 2014) and shifting diets (Davis et al. 2016).
We must also halt cropland expansion (Cunningham et al. 2013) and ensure that the world's
poorest people have secure access to nutritious food (FAO et al. 2015). Total land in agriculture
has risen since 2005 in Africa, South America, and Asia (supplemental table S6; FAO 2016),
indicating continued land conversion at the expense of native ecosystems, and conversion
continues in the United States as well (Lark et al. 2015). Approximately 795 million people are
hungry today, despite adequate global food production, because poverty, lack of infrastructure,
poor governance, natural disasters, and political unrest restrict food access (FAO et al. 2015).
These problems must be addressed even as production increases and pollution plummets.
Solvency: Farm Bill
U.S. subsidies exclusively governed by the Farm Bill
USDA ‘21
(US department of Agriculture, “Overview,” pg online @ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farmeconomy/farm-commodity-policy/ //um-ef)
U.S. agricultural policy—often simply called farm policy— generally follows a 5-year
legislative cycle that produces a wide-ranging “Farm Bill.” Farm Bills, or Farm Acts,
govern programs related to farming, food and nutrition, and rural communities, as well
as aspects of bioenergy and forestry . The most recent of these Farm Bills, the Agricultural
Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill), authorizes policies in the areas of commodity
programs and crop insurance, conservation on agricultural lands, agricultural trade
(including foreign food assistance), nutrition (primarily domestic food assistance), farm credit,
rural economic development, agricultural research, State and private forestry, bioenergy,
and horticulture and organic agriculture. The 2018 Farm Bill replaces the 2014 Farm Bill, in
place from 2014 through 2018. A general overview of the 2018 Farm Bill can be found in the
ERS web report The Agricultural Act of 2018: Highlights and Implications. Further details on
crop commodity policy and crop insurance programs under the Farm Bill are available in this
topic page. Other ERS topic pages provide access to further details on Farm Bill provisions
related to Dairy, Livestock, Sugar, Conservation Programs, Nutrition Assistance (Child Nutrition
Programs, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), WIC Program), Rural
Development Policy, Agricultural Science Policy, Bioenergy, Horticulture (Fruit & Tree Nuts,
Vegetables & Pulses), Organic Agriculture, Local Foods, and Beginning & Disadvantaged
Farmers. The U.S. Farm Bill modifies standing legislation across the full range of policy
areas that it governs, which can vary from Farm Bill to Farm Bill, depending on policy
concerns at the time. In some cases, particularly for commodity, conservation, and rural
development programs, new Farm Bills extend, revise, and replace provisions of
previous Farm Bills. In other cases, provisions of a new Farm Bill extend, revise, and replace
language in laws regulating areas that overlap Farm Bill authorities, including food and nutrition,
food safety, trade, credit, research and extension, forestry, food safety, organic production,
pesticides, and crop insurance. In all of these cases, provisions of previous and related
legislation not altered by a new Farm Bill remain in place. As a result, some programs and
regulations affecting U.S. food and agriculture policy may be governed by legislation other than
the current Farm Bill.
Solvency: Plan’s Money
Here is where the plan’s money comes from
USDA ‘21
(“Farm Bill Spending,” pg online @ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farmcommodity-policy/farm-bill-spending/ //um-ef)
The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Act) consists of 12 titles
governing a wide range of policy areas related to food and agriculture. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the total cost of the 2018 Farm Act
would be $428 billion over the 5-year period 2019-23. Nutrition programs account for
about three-fourths of this total, with projected outlays for crop insurance, conservation,
and commodities representing nearly all the rest.
Embed this chart
Download larger size chart (2071 pixels by 1700, 120 dpi)
The 2018 Farm Act authorizes two kinds of program funding:
Mandatory funding. Programs authorized with mandatory funding are provided funds
as needed (or to a statutory level) through the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) and are not subject to annual appropriations decisions by Congress. Spending is
not constrained by annual limits. Government costs under these programs may vary
from year to year, depending on program-participation levels and economic conditions.
Congress can alter mandatory-funding levels at any time through new legislation, but
there is no automatic reconsideration during the life of the Farm Act. Examples of Farm
Act programs provided with mandatory funding include the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), and most commodity and conservation programs.
Discretionary funding. Programs authorized with discretionary funding may be funded
up to the level provided by legislation, but Congress may change the funding level each
year for these programs. Once program expenditures reach the level appropriated for
that year, no additional funds can be spent unless Congress provides new
appropriations. Many research and rural-development programs, for example, are
funded in this way.
CBO projections include only programs authorized with mandatory funding in the Farm
Act.
Four policy areas dominate projected spending under the 2018 Farm Act:
Nutrition. Mandatory nutrition-program spending is projected to account for more than
75 percent of 2018 Farm Act outlays. Details on food and nutrition-assistance-program
spending can be found at ERS Ag and Food Statistics: Charting the Essentials, Food
Security and Nutrition Assistance.
Crop insurance. Under the 2018 Farm Act, crop-insurance-program expenditures are
projected to comprise almost 9 percent of total outlays over 2019-23. These
expenditures include support to crop-insurance companies for delivery and
underwriting, as well as subsidies for farmer premiums.
As prices for several major commodities have fallen from their peaks in 2012-13,
premiums and subsidy expenditures have correspondingly dropped, since premium
calculations depend in part on expected prices and subsidies are a set percentage of
the premium. Since their introduction in the 1990s, revenue-based insurance policies
have increased to the extent that they represent the largest share of enrolled acres.
Embed this chart
Download larger size chart (2072 pixels by 1701, 120 dpi)
Embed this chart
Download larger size chart (2071 pixels by 1719, 120 dpi)
Conservation. Mandatory conservation-program expenditures are projected to account
for about 7 percent of outlays under the 2018 Farm Act over 2019-23. Details on
conservation-program spending are provided on the ERS website topic
page Conservation Programs: Background.
Commodity Programs. Commodity-program payments are projected to make up just
over 7 percent of outlays under the 2018 Farm Act over 2019-23. As in the previous
Farm Act, commodity payments can respond to changes in yields and market prices, a
feature which adds uncertainty to total outlays. For this reason, producers may receive
higher or lower payments than the levels projected by CBO.
Embed this chart
Download larger size chart (2072 pixels by 1720, 120 dpi)
Data sources:
USDA, Economic Research Service farm income data includes calendar year data,
historical and forecast, on direct Government payments.

U.S. Farm Income and Wealth Statistics, Government Payments provides an
interactive database on direct Government payments by program for the United States
and individual States. ERS Government-payments data are reported on a calendar-year
basis, rather than the fiscal-year basis used by the Congressional Budget Office. ERS
does not include crop-insurance data in its Government-payments tables.
USDA, Risk Management Agency (RMA) program data are available by crop year and
reinsurance year, historical and most-current years. Crop insurance-program cost and
performance data are available on a crop-year basis.

RMA Summary of Business Application provides an interactive database (updated
weekly) of crop insurance-policy characteristics and performance by commodity, State,
insurance type, and both crop year and reinsurance year.

RMA Program Costs and Outlays provides annual tables, by crop year, of Government
costs and outlays for the Federal crop-insurance program.
AT: No Bidders
Peer-funding solves---it’s a win-win for the bidder and the farmer
Adler 10 a Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of
Law (Robert W. Adler, Priceline for Pollution: Auctions to Allocate Public Pollution Control
Dollars (May 25, 2010). William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Vol. 34, No. 3,
p. 745, 2010, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1615589, smarx, ZRB)
Second, the salinity program depends on the assumption that enough people or institutions
will have a sufficient incentive to bid for program control dollars to generate both a
vigorous market (adequate competition) and enough overall pollution control. Assuming that
polluters will not bid for control projects based on altruism alone, program participants must
perceive an adequate profit or other incentives to justify participation, especially given the
considerable cost of designing a project and preparing a bid, coupled with the risk of losing in
the bidding process.265 Salinity control per se mainly reduces downstream externalities rather
than benefitting the farmers directly.266 Controlling other forms of pollution, however, such
as pesticide contamination of groundwater, may benefit the bidders themselves if they use
the otherwise contaminated water for personal or other uses.267 Absent such direct
benefits, however, polluters still may participate in the program if the pollution control projects
confer incidental benefits on the participants, such as enhanced productivity.268 In the
salinity program, for example, farmers who propose to reduce salinity through irrigation
efficiency improvements may reduce their water costs, be able to use that water for additional
crops, or see higher crop yields due to healthier plants.269
Alternatively, entrepreneurs who are positioned to design and implement pollution
controls at a sufficiently low cost relative to other bidders might reap profits to the extent
that they can bid above their actual project costs but still low enough to win a project
award.270 To some extent, this has occurred in the salinity program where firms can achieve
better efficiencies due to large economies of scale.271 It also might occur where entrepreneurs
develop innovative new control methods—one of the intended benefits of this kind of program—
or where profits can be made by pollutant trading with point sources or others who face
higher marginal pollution control costs.272
AT: How determine plan
Consulting the USDA for determining low pollution/sustainable practices
Shifting ag subsidies to incorporate sustainable practices shifts the U.S.
food system and solves the problems with the status quo farm bill
Eubanks ‘13
(William, Summer Faculty Member, Vermont Law School; Adjunct Associate Professor of Law,
American University Washington College of Law; Partner, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, “THE
FUTURE OF FEDERAL FARM POLICY: STEPS FOR ACHIEVING A MORE SUSTAINABLE
FOOD SYSTEM,” pg online @ https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/11-Eubanks.pdf //um-ef)
A. Why a Fundamental Shift Will Work: Sustainable Agriculture Already Exists on a Small Scale
Of the nearly $20 billion in annual farm bill subsidies, 84% currently goes to the five primary
commodity crops of corn, rice, wheat, cotton, and soybeans.27 Shifting a sizeable portion of
these subsidies (billions, not mere millions of dollars) to farmers who implement sustainable
farming practices would greatly impact the market by bringing down the supermarket prices of
sustainably farmed goods, which are almost invariably more laborintensive. Additionally, this
nudges up supermarket prices of foods based on industrial-farmed corn and soybeans to a level
that would more closely reflect the market prices that would appear in the absence of the heavy
subsidies that artificially deflate market prices of corn and other commodities. A critical step
would involve tapping into the knowledge of scientists, experts from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA), nonprofit advocates, farmers, and other key stakeholders in order
to set specific standards of what constitutes a sustainable agricultural practice for
purposes of receiving these incentives.28 Although this approach would require time to
reach consensus among those varied interests, it is clear that such incentives would
better protect the natural environment and the public’s health than continuing to
maintain the status quo. Indeed, this expert panel could use the Conservation Stewardship
Program’s grading system as a starting point for discussion.29
AT: What types of ag allowed?
Here are the types of ag shifts that would happen from the plan
Eubanks ‘13
(William, Summer Faculty Member, Vermont Law School; Adjunct Associate Professor of Law,
American University Washington College of Law; Partner, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, “THE
FUTURE OF FEDERAL FARM POLICY: STEPS FOR ACHIEVING A MORE SUSTAINABLE
FOOD SYSTEM,” pg online @ https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/11-Eubanks.pdf //um-ef)
Agricultural methods that could fall into the category of sustainable agriculture for
subsidy purposes are no-till farming, cover cropping, crop rotation, residue mulching,
elimination of most or all agrochemical fertilizers, significant reduction per acre of water
usage, nitrogen fixing through on-farm manure use, measurable energy reduction per
acre farmed, greater use of integrated pest management, contour farming, and increased
direct sales from farm to consumer to reduce transportation.30 Each of these farming
practices promotes sustainability by eliminating harmful inputs in the soil, reducing
pollution in our ecosystem, or preventing some other harmful result. Not only would these
practices create a healthier environment in which to live, but they would also almost certainly
produce a healthier food product for the consumer, thereby allowing us to address public health
concerns such as obesity.31
AT: Only Organics/No GMO
Wouldn’t have to just be organics --- could include methods that protect
the environment
Eubanks ‘13
(William, Summer Faculty Member, Vermont Law School; Adjunct Associate Professor of Law,
American University Washington College of Law; Partner, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, “THE
FUTURE OF FEDERAL FARM POLICY: STEPS FOR ACHIEVING A MORE SUSTAINABLE
FOOD SYSTEM,” pg online @ https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/11-Eubanks.pdf //um-ef)
Because many Americans associate the sustainable practices listed above with “organic”
agriculture, it is necessary to tackle the controversial “organic” certification label under the
USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP), the existence of which might or might not be included
as one of the many factors entitling a farmer to subsidies under any new incentive system.
Since it is uncertain how an expert panel would define the conditions for eligibility to a new farm
subsidy system, a producer that is USDA-certified organic might be automatically eligible for
such a program on the basis that organic certification denotes certain of the practices listed in
the previous paragraph, consistent with the NOP’s implementing regulations. On the other hand,
however, an expert panel might decide—in part due to the fact that inputs for certified
organic foods can change over time pursuant to regulation—that instead of granting
eligibility based solely on organic certification, all farms, including organic producers,
must demonstrate the on-farm practices and techniques carried out to achieve ecological
protection in order to satisfy the eligibility requirements for the program. Historically,
farmers have generally grown and raised organic products using sustainable agricultural
methods, which are then certified by an entity that has been authorized by USDA to ensure that
the regulatory labeling standards are satisfied.32 There is a very important and distinct
difference, however, between sustainable agriculture and organic agriculture:
Sustainable agricultural practices always have the goal of protecting public health and
preserving the environment because sustainability is its very foundation.33 In contrast,
since what constitutes “organic” produce is a construct of federal regulation, the
standards imposed may be ecologically protective, but also may not reflect sound
agricultural, environmental, or health-based decision making because of the influence of
agribusiness or other interested parties that lobby the agency and its National Organic
Standards Board to modify standards.34
Add-ons
Industry Add-ons
US Leadership A/O
Subsidy-focused ag policy undermines US leadership across crucial
organizations.
Kimberly Ann Elliott 17, a non-resident fellow with the Center for Global Development, 2017,
"Global Agriculture and the American Farmer: Opportunities for U.S. Leadership," Brookings
Institution Press, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt1hfr0v4 - MBA AM
a vibrant American
agricultural sector is critical to global food security. The United States has abundant land,
universities with top-notch agricultural research programs, and farmers with access to capital and
the latest technologies. Those farmers will remain major producers and exporters of a range
of commodities. Even with all those advantages, however, American farmers are vulnerable to the vagaries of weather and other
Even as the U.S. feed the future initiative helps to develop the agricultural sector in poor countries,
unexpected supply or demand shocks. So there is a role for government to help farmers manage the risks that markets cannot.
But the
U.S. government, like others around the world, supports the ag riculture sector at levels far
beyond what is socially optimal, or what other sectors receive. Unbeknownst to many, these subsidies go
disproportionately to larger, richer farmers and only a few crops receive the bulk of the
support—mainly grains, oilseeds, sugar, and dairy, rather than fruits and vegetables. The total value of that support is also difficult to know
because it comes in a variety of forms, many of which are not as transparent as those in regularly debated farm bills. In addition, some
support is the result of the government’s failure to regulate the production of negative
spillovers from agriculture.
Overall, U.S. policies affecting agriculture impose substantial costs on other Americans in their
roles as consumers and taxpayers, as well as those downwind or downstream that suffer negative health or environmental consequences from farm
activities. And, since
the United States is a leading agricultural producer and exporter, its policies
have a disproportionate effect on the rest of the world, particularly for the poorest countries that cannot afford to
protect or subsidize their own farmers. The direct subsidies that Congress provides in the farm bill
further depress global commodity prices when those prices are already low. They shield
American producers from declining revenues and push the costs onto producers
elsewhere. Moreover, some of the highest duties in the U.S. tariff schedule apply to agricultural products, including sugar, peanuts, and other
commodities, that are key developing country exports.
While these traditional agricultural support policies generally focus on the supply side, biofuel policies support farmers by increasing demand for their
output. This raises global prices and helps developing country producers. But U.S. and European Union policymakers ratcheted up their biofuel policies
at the worst possible time, just as commodity prices were rising for other reasons. These policies were important contributors to the price spikes that
roiled global markets in 2007–08. These agricultural and biofuel policies shield American farmers from low prices, but it is at the expense of increased
uncertainty for poor producers and consumers in developing countries. Over the longer run, U.S. and other rich countries’ trade-distorting
agricultural policies distort decisions about what to produce and where, often to the
detriment of developing countries.
Beyond these market effects, developing countries and their citizens are also the most vulnerable to the effects of global spillovers from U.S.
agricultural policies, including climate change and antibiotic-resistant infections. A growing body of research shows that food-based biofuels are doing
little to help mitigate climate change, and could be making it worse. U.S. policies to discourage farmers from routinely administering medically
important antibiotics to healthy animals are both quite recent and relatively weak, despite the rapid spread of antibiotic-resistant infections.
Thus, across
a range of areas, U.S. policy favors the narrow interests of the agriculture and
related sectors over those of other American citizens and the poor and vulnerable in
developing countries. The inability to overcome these entrenched interests also
undermines U.S. leadership in the G8 , G20 , World Trade Organization , and other
forums as the international community struggles to address the global issues of food
security, climate change, and antibiotic resistance. Moreover, these policies remain entrenched despite the fact that
farmers are a tiny share of the population and the average farm household income has been higher than that of the typical non-farm household in
every year since 1996.1
The top 10 percent of recipients accounted for 77 percent of total commodity payments between 1995 and 2014. In 2012, according to the Census of
Agriculture, more than 60 percent of American farms received no government payments at all.2 How has the system evolved this way?
Manufacturing Add-on
Water pollution guts manufacturing --- undermines the economy
Finney ‘21
(Bradley, federal law clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee. Prior to becoming a clerk, he was an associate in the Houston office of Norton
Rose Fulbright, “Agricultural Law Stifles Innovation And Competition,” pg online @
https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2021/05/3-Finney-785-838.pdf //um-ef)
4. Many Businesses Are Reliant on Clean Water Clean water is required for the success
of many industries.211 Significant portions of the tourism industry, as well as many
manufacturers, restaurants, and breweries, rely on unpolluted water to function212 and
must use their own resources to filter polluted water.213 Water filtration is often
expensive,214 and a significant portion of that expense is likely caused by conventional
agriculture’s water pollution.215 Therefore, the industry’s water pollution financially
burdens many businesses . Many tourism areas are uniquely reliant on clean, unpolluted
water to bring tourists to oceans, lakes, rivers, and mountains.216 For these regions, clean
water supports the success of the economy as a whole,217 while polluted water cripples
these local economies and sometimes hurts the entire region or state’s economy.218
Warming/Coop Add-on
Ag collapse ensures no chance of warming solvency
Goldstein and Oken 4/22/21
(Gordon M. Goldstein is an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
From 2010 to 2018, he was also a managing director at Silver Lake, the world’s largest
investment firm in the global technology industry.“America’s New Challenge: Confronting the
Crisis in Food Security,” pg online @ https://www.cfr.org/blog/americas-new-challengeconfronting-crisis-food-security //um-ef)
Biden administration has encouraged the world with its renewed commitment to the Paris accord and the goal of combatting the
existential challenge of global climate change. But that bold objective will not be achieved without a
comprehensive parallel American exercise of leadership to confront the crisis in food
security. Such a strategy is imperative on a global basis and critical to U.S. domestic policy. The challenge of food security will require
leveraging advances in tech nology and demand policy innovation within the U.S.
government and deep cooperation between the public and private sectors. If not tackled comprehensively and effectively, failure to mitigate the
crisis in the sustainability of our global food supply chain will devastate the multilateral
The
effort to arrest climate change . The global dimensions of food instability are staggering. As the global population
grows to a projected 10 billion in 2050, with a concurrent growth in income, overall food requirements are
forecast to increase [PDF] by more than 50 percent. The demand for resource-intensive foods like meat and dairy is projected to
grow by 70 percent. The crisis in food sustainability displays a disturbing daily cadence. The world has lost 1,000 football fields worth of forest every hour, almost 30 million
acres annually. According to a recent scientific study, climate change has diminished global food productivity by more than 20 percent over the past 60 years. If crop and
the world’s
most populous and wealthy countries contribute the most to the crisis in food
sustainability. Roughly 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are clustered in four countries—the United States, China, India and Brazil. Since
pasture yields continue to grow as projected, by 2050 agricultural land will need to increase by an area nearly twice the size of India. Not surprisingly,
1990, roughly 24 percent of global Greenhouse Gas Emissions can be attributed to the food system and our disproportionate reliance on livestock. Further exacerbating the
United States suffers from its
own acute national challenges. Estimates suggest 23 million people live in so-called “food deserts”—low-income areas with poor
problem is the methane produced in the agriculture industry, which is ~30 to ~80 times as deleterious to the environment as carbon dioxide. The
access to healthy food. The pandemic, which has led to over 50 million Americans facing food insecurity, has illustrated the weakness in our food system and supply chain
resiliency. Americans in lower income segments spend 30-40 percent of their income on food. The food security crisis in the United States has recently prompted the Biden
United States has historically used
food policy to strengthen its relationship with friends and allies through initiatives such as the U.S. Food for Peace Program,
administration to propose tens of billions of dollars of new federal assistance to American families at risk. The
the 1960’s “Green Revolution” or the so-called “Third Agricultural Revolution” which featured research and technology transfers that significantly increased agricultural
increasing U.S. influence worldwide. The United States is once again
poised to use its rich history of innovation in foreign agricultural policy to both enhance
its influence with friends and allies where food insecurity is a major issue—the Middle East, Africa, and
emerging economies in Asia. These include some of the same countries that China is courting through its “Belt
and Road” initiative, which seeks to construct a massive infrastructure network around the world. The United States should leverage its
private and public sources of capital and innovation, in partnership with new and incumbent players in the corporate community, to accelerate
the transition to global food sustainability. Advances in emerging technologies hold the
promise to both alleviate the food crisis and amplify American influence abroad. The next
era of food sustainability will be influenced by breakthroughs in global technology such as fifth
generation telecommunications, robotics, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology. Specific areas of technology investment that will contribute to
higher levels of productivity and efficiency in food generation with a decreased impact
on the environment encompass initiatives in agricultural biotechnology, such as genetics, microbiome, breeding
and animal health; alternative food products, including plant-based forms of alternative protein, which are surging in popularity and adoption; farm management
systems, including sensing and data analytics software; farm robotics, including automation and drone based monitoring; and new farming
production globally while feeding millions and
structures, such as indoor farming and aquaculture. In addition, the Biden administration needs to drive tax, investment, regulatory
and subsidy policies that encourage the increased flow of capital into the transition to
viable food sustainability strategies, including investment into cell-based and plant-based meats; the wider
implementation of regenerative ag riculture practices , including agribusiness marketplaces and farm robotics,
mechanization and equipment; and, finally, the reduction of waste throughout the food value chain. The companies and countries that are
the leaders in these areas of innovation will not only strengthen global food supply but
also capture the intellectual property, information and data that is embedded in the
global food supply chain. In addition to addressing an urgent global challenge, American innovation in food security
would support the goals of the Strategic Competition Act of 2021, bipartisan legislation crafted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that seeks to counter
China’s growing economic and geopolitical and technology competition with the United States.
Regenerative Ag Add-ons
Health Add-on
Ag subsidies boost unhealthy crops --- guts U.S. public health
Quintanilla ‘13
(David, Candidate for Juris Doctor at St. Mary's University School of Law, Class of 2013,
“Comment: A Bitter Policy Shoved Down Our Throats: How A Once Admirable And Necessary
Agricultural Program Has Resulted In Major Profits For Big Business And Major Frustration For
Others,” Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis, pg nexus//um-ef)
1. Health Related Risks
The way agriculture subsidies are employed, certain crops are rewarded more than
others. The outcome is that we now subsidize cheap, unhealthy foods while not allowing
for subsidized growth of healthier fruits and vegetables. 164 The effects of this
backwards policy are tremendous. Our nation is facing a severe obesity disorder of a
magnitude never before experienced in history . 165 Approximately one-third of Americans
are overweight 166 and we are compounding the problem by incentivizing cheap, unhealthy
foods. 167 Big agri-businesses continue to receive higher [*370] and higher profit margins,
while most conscious Americans often find themselves forced to choose between cheap,
subsidized foods and healthy, unsubsidized foods. 168 In the hugely popular documentary film,
Food Inc., author Michael Polan asks,
Why is it that you can get a Cheeseburger at McDonald's for $ .99 cents, and you can't even
get a head of broccoli for $ .99 cents? We've skewed our food system to the bad calories, and
it's not an accident. The reason that those calories are cheaper is because those are the ones
that are heavily subsidized. 169
It seems counterintuitive that the government subsidizes products used for unhealthy foods on
one hand, but on the other hand requires mandatory, albeit weak, healthfulness standards for
student lunches 170 and nutritional labeling for better informed decisions. 171
[*371] Continuing the same policies will only allow for a more severe health problem in
America. The current public policy of the United States "encourages obesity at the expense of
sound nutritional practices [by] compelling farmers to ignore other crops such as fruits,
vegetables, and other grains." 172 Moreover, the higher cost associated with these
unsubsidized, yet healthier foods, puts them financially beyond the reach of low-income
Americans - a growing segment of our adult and youth population. 173 Giving advantages to
unhealthy products has tremendous long-term economic and social costs, but in the short-term,
the advantages perpetuate a system whereby the big companies are allowed a higher profit
margin and the average American is left with a hard choice and the bill.
Industrial Ag Add-on
Industrial ag outweighs nuclear war – causes extinction, happening now,
goes unnoticed
Gray, cooperative economic development worker, 15
(Heather, Comparing Nuclear War with Industrial Agriculture,
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/23/comparing-nuclear-war-with-industrial-agriculture/)
It might seem a strange comparison to some, but over the years in my work in agriculture in the United States, as well as internationally, I can’t help but
compare the devastating impact of a possible nuclear war to industrial agriculture. Both can have ruinous impacts on the planet, our environment and
Nuclear war would
accomplish its devastation immediately then leading to calamitous long-term effects. Industrial agriculture
our human health in the short and long term (in the case of industrial agriculture this is already happening).
accomplishes its devastation certainly at a slower pace and also with long-term effects. I
think
it is because of its “slow” destruction of our natural world, most of us are not as
alarmed about industrial agriculture
and its impacts as we should be. The fact is, we thankfully have not had a full-scale
nuclear war but we do, as mentioned, have the on-going dangerous ramifications from industrial agriculture. What is industrial agriculture? It is known
as intensive agriculture with considerably higher inputs per acre compared to traditional farming. Some aspects of industrial agriculture include the use
of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and patented seeds by corporate agribusiness (GMOs referring to “genetically modified organisms”); use of
synthetic nitrogen-based fertilizers; use of chemical laden pesticides; use of huge farm equipment; factory farms for animals that are abusive to the
animals and feed them with growth hormones and antibiotics that then has an appalling effect on humans (i.e. anti-biotic resistance and much more).
Some alternatives to the industrial agriculture model are: diverse production with many different crops to prevent outbreak of disease and to encourage
beneficial insects; use of traditional seeds not genetically modified; no use of poisonous chemicals; as much as possible, and importantly, the
maintenance and support of small independently owned family farms and/or cooperatively owned land and farms that do not require huge machines for
production; free range settings for animals; individuals in urban and rural areas growing their own healthy foods. Industrial agriculture is supported and
largely created by corporate agribusiness after WWII and some of the largest and most detrimental corporate agribusiness companies today include
the pesticide and GMO corporations known as the “Big 6” that are: BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto, and Syngenta. They
are so called (the Big 6) because they dominate the agricultural input market — that is, they own the world’s seed, pesticide and biotechnology
industries. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), corporate concentration of the agricultural input market
“has far-reaching implications for global food security, as the privatization and patenting of agricultural innovation (gene traits, transformation
technologies and seed germplasm) has been supplanting traditional agricultural understandings of seed, farmers’ rights, and breeders’ rights” (Source
Watch). Regarding industrialized food and its impact here is an example: “Like much of the industrialized world, the US is in the midst of an alarming
obesity epidemic: the prevalence of obesity in US adults in 2009-2010 was 35%, while 60% of Americans are now classified as overweight. With the
obesity epidemic comes chronic diseases, such as Type II diabetes, heart disease, and stroke, all of which have been linked to the so-called “Western”
diet: a diet full of high fat and processed meats, carbohydrate- and salt-laden junk food, and sodas sweetened with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)”
(Sustainable Table). As with an increase in the destructive power of nuclear bombs after WWII by the U.S. and Russia, so to after WWII there was an
increase of destructive methods and ideas leading to dire ramifications on humans and the environment with the growth of industrial agriculture after
WWII. This was primarily the use of chemicals and manipulation of seed genes and DNA. Adversaries in Nuclear Arms Race and in Industrial
Agriculture In the nuclear arms race there are countries and political and economic interests that battle each other that have in the past been
considered adversaries such as the United States vs Russia. Corporate agribusiness has two major the enemies or adversaries and they are nature
and independent family farmers throughout the world who save seed. Nature? Rather than working with nature, scientists chose to “fight” it as with
chemicals to destroy weeds. This is but one example. Scientists destroy the integrity of many of our traditional seeds by genetically modifying them.
This, rather than the society listening to and adhering to small farmers worldwide who know how to work with nature to produce healthy food, prevent
plant disease and maintain the integrity of the soil, such as through diverse crop production and by saving seeds. Independent family farmers who save
seed? The other major enemy of corporate agribusiness is the millions of independent family farmers throughout the world who save seed. In fact,
throughout the world corporate agribusiness is trying to establish laws that will not allow farmers to save seed that farmers have done since the dawn
of agriculture, some 12,000 to 10,000 years ago. I am sure it seems extraordinary that small independent farmers who save seed are considered the
adversaries of these huge companies, but they are. Corporate agribusiness tries to marginalize independent farmers to have total control of the seed
industry. We allow this at our peril. Soil and climates vary throughout the world. Farmers know this. They thankfully save these traditional seeds to
accommodate to their soil and climate. Our independent farmers worldwide are our “geniuses” rather than the scientists serving at the behest of
corporate agribusiness that try to undermine independent farmers and control them. Nuclear War/Industrial Agriculture and Life’s Basics The impact of
both of these destructive operations (impact of a nuclear war and industrial agriculture) can be divided into four stages: Instantaneous; Near
What are our primary needs in order to live? We need
food, water, and oxygen. And the quality of the food, water and oxygen we intake are tantamount to the quality of our lives and health
overall. All three of these are presently compromised under industrialized agriculture and would
Immediate; Short Term; Long Term. But first some basics!
be as well as a result of a nuclear war. Impacts of Nuclear War Governments have been engaged in politics to prevent a nuclear war since the United
States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. So far, thankfully, this prevention has been successful. In 1995, I visited
Hiroshima, Japan and visited the museum about the atomic bombing and its impact. The sad memories and effects linger. The effects of the atomic
bomb in Japan were devastating. Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000-166,000
people in Hiroshima and 39,000-80,000 in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day. During the following months, large
numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness and malnutrition (Wikipedia). The bombs dropped
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had 15 kilotons (Little Boy) and 21 kilotons (kilotons) respectively. After WWII and the subsequent Cold War both the U.S.
and Russia developed far more powerful nuclear bombs that were ultimately detonated. These were the 15,000 kiloton nuclear bomb in the U.S. and
the 50,000 kiloton bomb in Russia that was 3,333 larger than what was dropped on Hiroshima (Visual News). Below is a brief summary of the likely
impacts of a nuclear bomb that in the short and long term catastrophically effect being able to live in the first place on the planet but also our three
basic needs: food, water and oxygen. All three would be compromised at untold levels given the tremendous power of the “advanced” nuclear bombs –
3,333 times larger than the Hiroshima atomic bomb. But below is a scenario from the experts. Instantaneous People in the open where the bomb drops
would be vaporized immediately. Near Immediate 90% of the people in buildings, shelters etc. would be killed immediately due to blast, heat and fires.
Survivors close by the bomb site are another story. “…most of these will suffer from fatal burns, will be blinded, bleeding from glass splinters and will
have suffered massive internal injuries. Various individual fires will combine to produce a fire storm as all the oxygen is consumed….People in
underground shelters who survive the initial heat flash will die as all the oxygen is sucked out of the atmosphere” (The global health effects of nuclear
war). Short Term There would be sizeable radiation fall-out in the surrounding areas. “The effects of exposure to high levels of radioactive fall-out
include hair loss, bleeding from the mouth and gums, internal bleeding and haemorrhagic diarrhoea, gangrenous ulcers, vomiting, fever, delirium and
terminal coma. There is no effective treatment and death follows in a matter of days.” The surrounding water becomes polluted with radioactive
contamination (The global health effects of nuclear war). Long Term There would be dramatic effects on the climate throughout the planet affecting the
ozone layer, rain patterns, unstable temperatures and an enormous impact on food production. “A nuclear conflict involving as few as 100 weapons
could produce long-term damage to the ozone layer, enabling higher than “extreme” levels of ultraviolet radiation to reach the Earth’s surface, new
research indicates (see GSN, March 16, 2010) (NTI). (For more information about oxygen and the ozone layers go to “The global health effects of
nuclear war“.) As the scenario suggests that much of the planet would be impacted in the long term – our soil polluted, our water radiated, our oxygen
compromised through plant loss, “healthy” water loss and ozone protection loss. Impacts of Industrial Agriculture Interestingly enough, the modern 20th
century industrial agriculture started after WWII and it was relative to bombs. Nitrogen had been used for making bombs and after the war it was no
longer needed for this purpose. Here’s more about nitrogen after the war and its use in industrial agriculture: “At the conclusion of World War II the
world’s and United States’ major chemical companies such as Dow, Shell and Du Pont found themselves with huge inventories of nitrogen used for
making bombs during the war. Many of these chemicals and others produced for the war effort were soon packaged for agriculture for use here at
home and as one of the not coincidental cornerstones for the so-called “green-revolution” abroad…. Along with this dramatic increase in chemical
fertilizer and herbicides in the post war decades, there as been an explosion in what the chemical industry euphemistically calls “pesticides” or “plant
food” but which in fact are often highly toxic and deadly chemical poisons” (Krebs). Below is a brief summary of the impacts of industrial agriculture that
in the short and long term catastrophically effect our three basic needs: food, water and oxygen. Instantaneous Relatively soon after the introduction of
contemporary industrial
agriculture techniques, such as what Al Krebs referred to above as “pesticides” or “plant food” but
which in fact are often highly toxic and deadly chemical poisons,” we witnessed the loss of soil
integrity,
our health being impacted, lower crop yields in some instances and farmer economic dependency on corporate agribusiness. Natural
and organic producers of food will say that what’s most important for growing healthy food is the soil – it’s all in the soil. In the south, the brilliant black
agriculturalist George Washington Carver was a savior in that regard. He taught us that cotton production yields were down because of what cotton
production did to deplete the soil of its minerals. He encouraged a rotation of cotton with legumes (peanuts, soy, etc.) to fix nitrogen in the soil. As
Atlanta’s urban farmer Rashid Nuri will say, “Carver saved the South.” Indeed! By use of chemical laden pesticides and fertilizers, industrial agriculture
was immediately undoing all the wisdom offered from Carver. We’ve gone back to square one! Here’s the difference of plant based vs synthetic-based
nitrogen: The route that nitrogen follows in and out of soil and plants is called the nitrogen cycle….Plants such as beans and other legumes absorb
nitrogen from the air, fix it into their system, and make it available to other plants. Many of sustainable-agriculture companion-planting arrangements
are based on nitrogen-fixing plants… Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is made from factory-produced ammonia. It is often combined with other synthetic
nutrients to create compound fertilizers. Ammonia fertilizer produces quick growth effects on plants and has a detrimental long-term effect on the soil,
plant and animal ecosystems. The excessive use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer distorts the natural nitrogen cycle. Rivers in the northeastern United
States receive up to 20 times the natural level of nitrogen, and nitrates are the leading source of global air pollution (Bonnyhome). Monsanto’s
“Roundup Ready soybean seeds” became available in 1996. These seeds were genetically modified to resist Roundup. “Roundup” is the name the
Monsanto Company called its product “glyphosate” – an herbicide used to kill weeds. In discussion with an agricultural specialist in the south, who was
at first encouraging farmers to use these seeds, found that in the second and third year crop production, the yield was considerably reduced. The
farmer’s overall production was compromised and the agricultural specialist discouraged the farmer from using the Roundup Ready soybean seeds in
the future. As soon became apparent, what was being attempted was dependency of farmers on the corporate agribusiness companies rather than
what might benefit the farmer or non-farmers as well. It has appeared to be, for all intents and purposes, about greed. Near Immediate Not long after,
one of the dramatic impacts of corporate agribusiness with patented seeds, largely requiring pesticides and/or fertilizer, was, as mentioned, the
dependency of farmers on the agribusiness companies, such as Monsanto. Prior to that, farmers had been relatively independent. Because of this new
technology and dependency on corporations being forced on farmers through laws, insidious incentives and patented seeds, in the U.S. and
throughout the world, farmers have gone into debt in ways they have never before. Never, until the 20th century, have farmers had to be reliant on
corporate agribusiness and this has led to huge numbers of suicides. “In the U.S. the rate of farmer suicides is just under two times that of the general
population. In the U.K. one farmer a week commits suicide. In China, farmers are killing themselves daily to protest the government taking over their
prime agricultural lands for urbanization. In France, a farmer dies by suicide every two days. Australia reports one farmer suicides every four days.
India yearly reports more than 17,627 farmer suicides. — (Newsweek 2014)” (Huffington Post). Here is more of a scenario from India: “In the last 20
years, nearly 300,000 farmers have ended their lives by ingesting pesticides or by hanging themselves. Maharashtra state – with 60,000 farmer
suicides – tops the list. The suicide rate among Indian farmers was 47 percent higher than the national average, according to a 2011 census. Forty-one
farmers commit suicide every day, leaving behind scores of orphans and widows. In a country where agriculture remains the largest employment
sector, it contributed only 13.7 percent to the GDP in 2012-13. Agricultural investment in India is a big gamble. Farmers usually take out bank loans
against land to buy seeds and fertilizer, pay salaries, and acquire irrigation equipment. Local moneylenders often take the place of banks and boost
interest rates year after year, creating a debt-trap for the farmers who rely on crop success – and prayers – for loan repayments” (Al Jazeera). Much of
the problem here is also because of the complicity of government and corporate agribusiness to require huge mono-crop production of grains, soy and
corn, etc. As Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz said in the 1970’s, “Get large or get out”. As a result of this demand for large-scale
corporate agriculture primarily for export crops, thousands of small farmers were forced off the land. We as a society have been suffering all the more
since then! In the meantime, the increased use of pesticides and fertilizers begins to filter into water tables, rivers and ultimately the ocean, as well,
After a few years with increased use of fertilizer,
herbicides and pesticides, along with the selling of food laden with these poisons, we
have begun to see the deterioration of the health of the U.S. and world population eating
making the water less safe and healthy. Short Term
this food.
In addition, the likes of scientists linked to Monsanto and others think they can dominate nature. They can’t. Monsanto’s roundup has
been used to kill weeds. However, “Nearly half (49 percent) of all US farmers surveyed said they have glyphosate-resistant weeds on their farm in
2012, up from 34 percent of farmers in 2011” (Mother Jones). This has been nature’s response – “superweeds”. This requires, then, a higher
We are also witnessing “ superbugs ” developing in
response to these chemicals that is also impacting the beneficial insects such as
honeybees and butterflies. We need bees for pollination and we are witnessing a huge
concentration of chemicals to address these superweeds.
loss of these bee colonies throughout the U.S. and the world.
The health problems resulting from industrial
agriculture are immense, and we learn more about this every day. “Pesticides used in the production and processing of conventionally grown fruit,
vegetables, and grains are a significant health concern. Pesticides have been linked to a number of health problems, including neurologic and
psychological problems, cancer, and other diseases. These health risks are borne not only by consumers, but by farmworkers and communities near
industrial farms. Children are especially susceptible to the harmful effects of pesticide residues due to their lower body mass and higher rates of
consumption of affected products. In children, pesticide exposure can cause delayed development; disruptions to the reproductive, endocrine, and
immune systems; cancer; and damage to other organs” (Sustainable Table). Regarding oxygen, as the Union of Concerned Scientists has wisely
noted: “Chemical
fertilizers are running off the fields into water systems where they
generate damaging blooms of oxygen-depleting microorganisms that disrupt
ecosystems and kill fish”
(Union of Concerned Scientists). Long Term As stated earlier, industrial agriculture is engaged in a battle
with nature and in some areas, such as water, it has been difficult for nature to strike back at the pollution as in the superweed scenario. Here is an
example of pollution of water that we are now witnessing in the long-term use of the intensification of chemicals in agriculture. “Based on data
submitted by polluting facilities themselves, the group’s report uses information from the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory for 2012, the most recent
data available. Major findings of the report include: * Our nation’s iconic waterways are still threatened by toxic pollution – with polluters discharging
huge volumes of chemicals into the watersheds of the Great Lakes (8.39 million pounds), the Chesapeake Bay (3.23 million pounds), the Upper
Mississippi River (16.9 million pounds), and the Puget Sound (578,000 pounds) among other beloved waterways. * Tyson Foods Inc. is the parentcompany reporting dumping the largest discharge of toxic chemicals into our waterways, with a total of 18,556,479 lbs – 9 percent of the nationwide
total of toxic discharges. Of the top ten parent-companies by total pounds of toxics released, four are corporate agribusiness companies (Tyson Inc.,
Cargill Inc., Perdue Farms Inc, and Pilgrims Pride Corp.). * Corporate agribusiness facilities, the report also finds, were responsible for approximately
one-third of all direct discharges of nitrates to our waterways, which can cause health problems in infants and contribute to “dead zones” in our waters.
For example, pollution in the Mississippi River watershed has contributed to the massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico” (Environment America).
Thanks to industrial agriculture we are also seeing the destruction of rain forests for
intensive crop production and cattle. This also has a dramatic greenhouse gas effect
that the world can ill afford.
“Clearing and burning rainforests releases vast amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide,
methane, ozone and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. Each year, deforestation contributes 23-30% of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
according the Rainforest Action Network. This is more than double the emissions of all the world’s cars and trucks combined. When you save 2.471
acres of rainforest it cleans 1 ton of CO2 from our air” (Save Your World). At the beginning of this article, I referred to what we humans
to survive being food,
need
water and oxygen. All of these are being threatened by industrial
agriculture. With the current industrial agriculture model in place, it is not known how long we can go on destroying our natural habitat, our
water, pollute our air and continue to survive on the planet at least with any semblance of good health. Certainly our health will continue to be
compromised and all to help corporate agribusiness raise more money for itself. To observe the health impact of industrial agriculture and other
pollutants please examine the map below from the World Health Organization and witness where most of the cancers are located as of 2012 – largely
in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. And the west thinks it has a superior system that it wants the rest of the world to emulate?
They, the western government and corporate leaders, must be fools! Summary Atlanta urban farmer Rashid Nuri says regarding the current trends,
“Mother earth will be fine, it doesn’t need us humans. It’s been here for millions of years. The problem is that we won’t be able to live on it because we
will have destroyed the environmental conditions on the planet we humans need in order to live.” As stated above, nuclear
war would be
and industrial agriculture is catastrophic for our continued, as well as a possible “healthy”, existence
on the planet by compromising our food, water and oxygen we humans need in order to live. Yet, in spite of all, the efforts over
time are focused on preventing nuclear wars, which is important of course, but it needs to include
ending the detrimental practice of industrial agriculture – and in the above I have just touched the surface.
---Industrial Ag kills Biod
Industrial agriculture is the greatest cause of global biodiversity loss.
Ian Johnston 17, the environment correspondent for the Independent quoting Raj Patel, a
Research Professor in the Lyndon B Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas,
8-1-2017, "Industrial farming is driving the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth, says leading
academic," Independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/mass-extinctionlife-on-earth-farming-industrial-agriculture-professor-raj-patel-a7914616.html - MBA AM
Industrial agriculture is bringing about the mass extinction of life on Earth, according to a leading
academic.
Professor Raj Patel said mass deforestation to clear the ground for single crops like palm oil and
soy, the creation of vast dead zones in the sea by fertiliser and other chemicals, and the pillaging of fishing
grounds to make feed for livestock show giant corporations can not be trusted to produce food for
the world.
The author of bestselling book The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society and Redefine Democracy will be one of the keynote speakers at
the Extinction and Livestock Conference in London in October.
the rapid rate of
species loss could ultimately result in the sixth mass extinction of life. This is just one reason why
Organised by campaign groups Compassion in World Farming and WWF, it is being held amid rising concern that
geologists are considering declaring a new epoch of the Earth, called the Anthropocene, as the fossils of soon-to-be extinct animals will form a line in
the rocks of the future.
The last mass extinction, which finished off the dinosaurs and more than three-quarters of all life about 65 million years ago, was caused by an asteroid
strike that sent clouds of smoke all around the world, blocking out the sun for about 18 months.
Prof Patel, of the University of Texas at Austin, said: “The
footprint of global agriculture is vast . Industrial
agriculture is absolutely responsible for driving deforestation , absolutely responsible
for pushing industrial monoculture , and that means it is responsible for species loss.
“We’re
losing species we have never heard of, those we’ve yet to put a name to and industrial
agriculture is very much at the spear-tip of that.”
Speaking to The Independent, he
pointed to a “dead zone” – an area of water where there is too little oxygen for most marine life –
in the Gulf of Mexico that has grown to the same size as Wales because of vast amounts of fertiliser that
has washed from farms in mainland US, into the Mississippi River and then into the ocean.
“That
dead zone isn’t an accident. It’s a requirement of industrial agriculture
to get rid of the sh*t and the run-off
elsewhere because you cannot make industrial agriculture workable unless you kick the costs somewhere else,” he said.
“The story of industrial agriculture is all about externalising costs and exploiting nature.”
The Amazon and surrounding lands in South America are also under increasing pressure from soy plantations.
“Extinction is about the elimination of diversity. What happens in Brazil and other places is you get
green deserts — monocultures of soy and nothing else.
“Various kinds of chemistry is deployed to make sure it is only soy that’s grown on these mega-farms.
Obesity Add-on
Only the plan’s subsidy reform solves the obesity epidemic---the CP fails to
incentivize crop diversification.
Caroline Franck et al. 13, MSc from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
and Research Assistant at Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Sonia M. Grandi, MSc
from McGill University and Research Coordinator at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical
Research, Mark J. Eisenberg, MD, MPH, tenured Professor of Medicine at McGill University and
a Staff Cardiologist at the Jewish General Hospital. 2013, "Agricultural Subsidies and the
American Obesity Epidemic," American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(13)00320-6/pdf - MBA AM
Subsidies Today
Forms, Facts, and Figures
Commodity price supports provide vital inputs to U.S. agriculture: U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) total subsidies for 2010 were estimated at 4$15 billion. 30 In their absence, Colorado, one of the major
agricultural states, would see 75% of its farms at a deficit. Similarly, Montana would have zero net farm income.31 Today, the aim of agricultural
subsidies is to protect farmers against risks inherent to their trade while ensuring minimum economic prosperity and stability.32 This support comes
predominantly in three program forms: commodity, risk management, and disaster assistance.32
Of the commodity programs, direct payments are the least defensible, as their allocation rests on a farm’s history of production, irrespective of that
farm’s current output.33,34 Countercyclical payments are equally questionable: When national target farm prices drop below a given market threshold,
qualifying producers receive a payment based on their farm’s historical yield.32 Farmers may sell their crops for a below-target price, but they might
These farmers would be eligible to receive
countercyclical payments in addition to their market profit if the average county crop
price was below the mandated target price.34 These payments thus provide strong
still earn a moderate-to-large profit derived from the sheer size of the crop.
incentives for overproduction in a climate of low market prices.
The Subsidy Debate
American agricultural policy has traditionally failed to offer incentives or support for fruit and
vegetable production.1,7,35 Farmers are penalized for growing “specialty crops” (such as fruits
and vegetables) if they have received federal farm payments to grow other crops.3 In other words, federal farm subsidies
promote unsustainable agriculture while also failing to reward good stewardship.12 Further,
although farmers may generate higher marketplace revenue from fresh produce, substantially lower economic security
makes growing fruits and vegetables a risky proposition in an already risky industry. 23
Subsidies also have resulted in fewer farms and diminished ag ricultural diversity .13
Large farms often devote their entire capital and experience to producing one or two
commodities, leaving smaller players to be regularly winnowed out at the profit of corporate farms and contractors.7,11 In 2001, large farms,
which constitute 7% of the total, received 45% of federal subsidies, whereas small farms, constituting 76% of the total, received 14% of total
payments.36 Between 2003 and 2007, the top 10% of subsidized farmers received an annual average of $68,030, whereas the bottom 80% averaged
$2312.37 Disproportionately allocated subsidies (Table 1) have contributed to forcing hundreds of small, biodiverse farms out of business at the profit
of industrialized food processing.13
Arguments Against Subsidies’ Contribution to Obesity
The importance of the deleterious effects of commodity subsidies on health remains a topic of contention. Some industry professionals maintain that
federal farm subsidies have not substantially contributed to the increasing prevalence of obesity in America.17 A few major points are raised to this
effect: First, the imposition of acreage set-asides is believed to have minimized the pricedepressing effect of subsidies by means of reduced
production.38 Second, the share of the cost of commodities in the retail price of food products is relatively small; therefore, cheap commodities could
not meaningfully contribute to reducing retail prices.18,20,38,39 In addition, food consumption patterns do not usually change significantly in response
to small price changes.38,39 The prevalence of obesity is also much lower in some countries that also provide relatively large subsidies to farmers,
such as Japan, South Korea, and France.38 Consequently, if farm subsidies have had an impact on consumption and obesity in America, many
experts consider it to be extremely mild.38,39
Those who believe subsidies do not contribute to obesity point to agricultural research and development (R&D) as being responsible for the downward
trend of commodity prices.27,38 Production-promoting inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides have provided additional crop insurance, whereas
varietal improvements and new crop breeds have extended production seasons.20,27 Between 1980 and 2000, the proportion of each food dollar
allocated to farmers dropped from 31% to 19%, leaving 81 cents of every dollar spent on food to go toward non-farm-related expenditures including
processing, packaging, transport, and marketing.40 Industrial farming is essential to the food industry, particularly in the context of a growing world
population41; by industry standards, the abundant provision of cheap food is likely to remain a viable business venture.27,38,41
Arguments for Subsidies’ Contribution to Obesity
Additional points must be considered in the subsidy debate. In absolute terms, the
claim that acreage setasides have
slowed production and have minimized the price-depressing effect of subsidies38
undermines the reality that productivity is steadily increasing. According to the USDA’s Economic Research
Service, production between 1948 and 2009 increased at an average rate of 1.64%. 42 In 2009, the
USDA reported record-setting corn yields, at 165.2 bushels per acre.43
In addition, although
the share of commodities in the retail price of food may be small, it is
problematic to focus solely on consumer behavior in response to price change.28 Large-scale food
processors benefit from savings subsequently passed on to consumers,3 and thus have
a role to play in shaping the American diet. Low-cost commodities and inputs enable
restaurants and retailers to increase calorie density at a negligible cost3,44; consequently, although
R&D is primarily responsible for increased farm output, subsidiary payments sustain the impetus to
overproduce. 28,45
Finally, international comparisons based on ecologic data are subject to confounding and should not be relied on to draw causal conclusions in the
current agricultural policies are at odds
with health policy. To argue that changing the subsidy system would have little impact on
obesity is unhelpful in considering the broader public health impact of a healthy
nutritional environment.
American context. Irrespective of the magnitude of subsidies’ effects on obesity,
Do Subsidies Need the Axe or Reform?
Projected estimates of the effect of elimination of all subsidies are a slight reduction of
cereal and bakery product consumption, for an average annual decrease of 1451 calories per capita, compared with a
decre