Editor’s note: This commentary is by John Klar, a Vermont grass-fed beef and sheep farmer, and an attorney and pastor who lives in Irasburg.
[T]he path of the Vermont Farm Bureau diverged from the representation of local Vermont farms long ago. But now the Vermont Farm Bureau has jumped fully into the arms of corporate chemical companies, and betrayed Vermont consumers as well. Vermonters must understand not only what the truth is about their food supply, but be informed about who is telling the biggest lies, so that they avoid being deceived by entities with charming names like “Vermont Farm Bureau,” which might better be labeled the “Vermont Corporate Farm Bureau.”
At a recent meeting between the Orleans County Farm Bureau and our area legislators, several examples of the misleading statements of this so-called “farm” entity were on display. According to the Newport Daily Express (“Multiple Ag Topics Discussed At Meeting,” Ed Barber, March 15, 2017), Farm Bureau member Frank Hadley called GMO-free “the next fad to affect the dairy industry.” Apparently the Farm Bureau wishes to dismiss legitimate concern about public and environmental health as a “fad,” rather than confront the truth about the failed “fad” of increasing corporate profits while compromising human health and the viability of small traditional farms by the use of chemical-dependent agricultural methods. Really, who wants to drink and eat chemicals when they don’t have to? But who profits when we consumers eat them? The answers to these questions are far from faddish.
A Vermont bill which would restrict the use of Round-Up was criticized by Orleans County Farm Bureau President Scott Birch, who reportedly said “… the issue is a lack of education. He said people associate Round-Up as being bad for the environment. But he said the chemical is less toxic than alternative treatment options.” I agree with Mr. Birch on all counts — there is a lack of education; people do (rightly) associate Round-Up with environmental harm; and Round-Up is indeed less toxic than DDT or Agent Orange. But that “less toxic” argument applies better to presidential elections than chemical toxins — unlike our 2016 election, we do in fact have other options, but the Farm Bureau wishes to paint this as a simple two-party race. In fact, organic farming is a third candidate, marginalized by the chemical peddlers at the Farm Bureau.
Cancer rates are increasing, especially in our young people (see “Colorectal cancer rates rising sharply among Gen X and millennials,” Laurie McGinley, The Washington Post, Feb. 28, 2017, in which the lead American Cancer Society researcher for the study described the magnitude of the increase as “just very shocking.”) Diet is a likely contributor, especially as our burgeoning food “industry” has long favored its profits over our health. The balance is further tipped against us omnivorous consumers because the government is charged with proving which new chemical additives are unhealthy, rather than the industries that feed us proving first that new chemicals are safe. This is particularly evident in the case of Round-Up.
The Farm Bureau’s argument is that Round-Up is “less toxic.” Of course, heroin is less toxic than cyanide, and marijuana is much less toxic than alcohol — but these are hardly arguments for their ingestion. Round-Up is causing the drastic loss of habitat for monarch butterflies, but that is certainly less toxic than removing their habitat with flame-throwers. California is moving to label Round-Up as a possible carcinogen, even as Monsanto claims in court that such a label “will absolutely be used in ways that harm Monsanto.” (“Warning Label on Round-Up Could Be Coming Soon In California,” Scott Smith, U.S.News & World Report, Jan. 27, 2017). But this is standard for corporations: RJ Reynolds fought cigarette labeling also — telling consumers that cigarettes will kill them hurt Big Tobacco’s profits.
Increasing evidence from numerous studies reveal that organic farming is less fuel-intensive, restores and enhances soil health, and can feed us. What won’t be fed so well is Monsanto’s profits. What won’t be fed so well is algae blooms in Lake Champlain.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified Round-Up as a “probable human carcinogen” more than two years ago, but the U.S. EPA has permitted the chemical, saying it has “low toxicity.” It seems that our EPA and the Farm Bureau both agree that Round-Up is toxic, they just disagree with the world’s “gold standard” for identifying carcinogens — the IARC. Of course, the IARC is not motivated by share prices; Monsanto very much is. Maybe that is responsible for recent charges that the EPA was influenced to minimize the dangers of Round-Up (“EPA Official Accused of Helping Monsanto ‘Kill’ Cancer Study,” Bloomberg Markets, March 14, 2017).
In view of such continuing revelations, the Farm Bureau’s “lesser-of-evils” assurances about the Round-Up so widely poured onto our Vermont soils just fails to comfort. But there is a bigger falsehood proclaimed by the Corporate Farm Bureau: Member Frank Hadley, at the recent meeting with our legislators, reportedly opined ““The public perception is that using GMO seeds will cause health problems,” Hadley said. Nine billion people are expected to populate the earth by 2050. If chemical treatments like Round-Up are banned, people will go hungry, he said.” Let us examine the truth of this matter.
The corporate world spends millions trying to create the misunderstanding that people think GMO seeds will cause health problems. Perhaps the seeds will cause problems — but that is by no means the chief objection. The public’s quite logical concern is with the chemicals these seeds are designed to require, and with the fossil-fuel-intensive industrial farming practices upon which they depend. Monsanto et al. would much prefer that we narrow our attention to the seeds rather than the horrific costs to nature and human health of these noxious by-products of their use. We Vermonters are not worried about GMO seeds polluting our soils and waterways: it’s the herbicides, pesticides, and diesel fuel we more strongly take issue with.
But where are the facts about people starving without chemicals sprayed onto their food and earth? There aren’t any — just the opposite. One could question the sanity of “feeding the world” with means that induce cancer. But the truth is that chemical farming is unsustainable and unnecessary. Increasing evidence from numerous studies reveal that organic farming is less fuel-intensive, restores and enhances soil health, and can feed us. What won’t be fed so well is Monsanto’s profits. What won’t be fed so well is algae blooms in Lake Champlain.
Consider: “A fair number of agribusiness executives, agricultural and ecological scientists, and international agriculture experts believe that a large-scale shift to organic farming would not only increase the world’s food supply, but might be the only way to eradicate hunger.” (“Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?,” worldwatch.org/node/4060). For another balanced survey of the truth, see “Will Organic Food Fail to Feed the World?,” David Biello, Scientific American, April 25, 2012.
Vermont’s “Farm” Bureau has become an anachronism, a corporate crony that continues to peddle poisonous falsehoods even as Vermont farmers and consumers are discovering the benefits to health and environment when we return to sustainable farming methods. Industrial interests — particularly chemical companies — misled us into contaminating our soils, waters and human health with their invasive toxins. Their products, and their misinformation, must be strongly challenged.
The Newport Daily Express article recounts Farm Bureau member Dan Demaine criticizing the creation of a regenerative soils program in Vermont, reportedly saying “Any time you spend on it is a waste of time.” Why would anyone take such a position, when soil erosion and water pollution are such enormous problems for Vermont? The answer is that a shift to sustainable farming will reduce purchases of chemicals, and the corporate dominance of our food supply. Sen. John Rodgers must be encouraged to support bills which create or support a regenerative soils program, notwithstanding (or because of?) the Vermont Corporate Farm Bureau’s opposition.
