[Scpg] TRANSITIONS: ACRES,USA

[steven sprinkel]

T R A N S I T I O N S



by Steven Sprinkel



In ACRES,USA







September 2004





With the national election gathering momentum, we thought it appropriate to
research and report on the agricultural policies of the two major parties.
Is there anything promised that the sustainable agriculture movement can
take hold of? Like much of what is being said by Republicans and Democrats,
there seems pitifully little difference between the two parties, and that
the once-respected "farm vote" is being ignored.

But it was not always so. During the Democratic Party convention in July,
C-SPAN ( the excellent cable events service) treated us to a speech given by
Lyndon Johnson in 1960 during the Democratic convention in Los Angeles,
where John Kennedy was nominated despite an eleventh-hour run by
then-Senator Johnson. Johnson devoted much of his speech to farm issues and
the complex challenges faced by farmers then, promising specific remedies to
rural problems, like continuing to bring electric power and telephone
service to isolated farm families way off the grid.

In contrast, no speaker at the Democratic convention went any further than
to suggest that "family farms" need to be protected, which is repeated so
often by everyone and yielding such small action that the vanity of the
phrase is insulting. Similarly, the Democrats broad-brushed the Bush
administration's poor record on environmental protection without naming
anything specific. We did not hear anyone mention inadequate livestock
inspection to prevent Mad Cow, no criticism of efforts to limit Country of
Origin labeling, and predictably no complaint against USDA's unlawful
administration of the National Organic Program. On the other hand, the
Democratic convention was overtly and intentionally lean on criticism of the
Republicans on just about every subject, until Al Sharpton got a chance to
speak.

 Research on both political parties yields not a whole lot other than
two-dimensional, self-congratulatory claims, such as the president's
posturing on saving wetlands, which was just a photo-opportunity, and,
whereas, Republicans are strongly in favor of deregulating any federal
controls on industry and agriculture. The brazen allegiance to
conscience-less production at any cost can be measured in the lack of
enforcement we have seen on existing environmental laws, as well as
congressional inaction to further protect the whole environment, and
certainly ignoring wetlands.

Four years ago, in the 2000 Republican Party Platform, party leaders claimed
that they had "grave questions" about the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996, which has since not been fully implemented due to under-funding, and
they mysteriously reaffirmed the dubious virtues of  Newt Gingrich's Freedom
to Farm Act, which most independent farmers consider a serious misstep. The
latter legislation came to be known colloquially as the Freedom to Fail Act.
I can report with a touch of cynicism that the Republicans delivered on
their promises made four years ago.

The unacknowledged challenges to farming are not vague.  Fuel costs and
diesel supply, linked directly to political volatility in the Middle East,
which have been severely affecting farm profitability as well as consumer
food prices, was not addressed by Democrats and there is no reason to expect
the Republicans to bring it up since high oil prices are, for some reason,
of scant concern to them. Conversely, from sea to sea we have observed
truckers parking their rigs because they can not afford to deliver food and
feed at the given rates. Farmers are red penciling their field expenses
because it costs nearly twice as much to run equipment as it did two years
ago. Electricity costs are high. Even the California vegetable deal is a bit
sour- and if you have been observing wholesale prices, the notion of there
being scant inflation really appears ludicrous.

Anyone can laundry-list what goes unsaid, and probably why things go
unmentioned is a better story than what is being ignored. When TRANSITIONS
was being put together earlier this month, I hopefully launched a search for
connections between The HJ Heinz Company's investment in the organic food
sector and the environmental work by Mrs. John Kerry, also known as Teresa
Heinz. In service to the environment, Mrs. Heinz Kerry is the real deal. In
fact she is so highly regarded that she won the Albert Schweitzer Award from
Johns Hopkins University and the Humboldt Foundation last year, and has been
so influential internationally on water quality issues that she has served
as a delegate to both the Kyoto and Rio De Janeiro environmental summits.
But if you want her husband to be president, better keep a lid on that.

I instead need to  point out that there is no evidence that Mrs. Heinz Kerry
has influenced The Heinz Company's investment in the organic sector, even
though she is somewhat noted for preaching the cancer-preventative virtues
of an organic diet. Besides manufacturing its own organic tomato ketchup,
Heinz owns a twenty percent share in Hain. Hain, in turn, owns a lot of
labels the organic sector either produces for or buys to consume, including
Arrowhead Mills, Walnut Acres, Earth's Best ( baby food), Health Valley and
Rice Dream and West Soy.

All apparently not because of  Mrs. Heinz Kerry's preference. But she is not
the only progressive in her family. Her son Andre worked at one time as a
research assistant on Natural Capitalism, written by Paul Hawken and Hunter
and Amory Lovins, which was broadly applauded by many leaders of the
environmental movement when it was published three years ago. I mention this
to provide some depth to the commitment of Mrs. Heinz and her family, who
have long worked in the environmental field and do not come to it naively
nor without practice. Of course, when it comes to natural capitalism, the
very best example of commerce outperforming regulation is the organic
farming movement.

 I don't think that we can expect Andre Heinz to run the Forest Service
because he has a degree in Forestry from Yale-but, because John Kerry's
expanded family has some deep roots in the environmental movement it is fair
to assume that public policy will not favor private interests.

The National Democratic Party Platform refers to agriculture once, as
practiced in Africa. It mentions farmers on a number of occasions, but only
in reference to ethanol production and finally, Democrats promise to "ensure
that American farmers have a strong safety net and can achieve profitability
in the marketplace, and we will support incentives for farmers to use
conservation practices and sustainable farming methods."

OK. We will help them elaborate on this when they win the election. That is
something we can hope for.

However, Democrats seem to believe that one way to assure victory is to keep
the environmental excellence of Mr. Kerry's wife from the public view. Even
though various national polls indicate that a majority of Americans support
environmental protection, somehow the neo-conservatives currently in charge
of this place have made it so that environmentalists are odd, crazed, not
"one of us". Thus, little is being made right now of Mrs. Heinz Kerry's
pedigree as a defender of the environment.

But should Kerry and Edwards win in November, I think its safe to expect a
more progressive policy at the Department of Agriculture as well as at the
Department of the Interior.