Editor’s note: This op-ed is by James H. Maroney Jr., who has a master’s degree in Environmental Law & Policy from Vermont Law School and is a former farmer.
The rather dramatic failure last Tuesday of Washington’s GMO labeling bill (the vote was 54.8 percent opposed to labeling, 45.2 percent for) casts a pall across the prospects of success for similar efforts in other states, especially little states like Vermont.
Initiative 522 was the most expensive contest in Washington history, bringing in $22 million in donations, according to The Seattle Times. Those opposing the initiative included the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow Agro-Sciences and Bayer Crop Science. The largest supporters for the initiative were Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps and the Center for Food Safety respectively, while 30 percent came from individuals in the state of Washington.
In 2012 a similarly brutal battle failed in California where litigants spent $37 million; the final vote was 51.4 percent opposed and 48.6 percent in favor.
The rationale for labeling according to its supporters has been personal health and the “right to know what’s in our food.” But no one has ever demonstrated that ingesting GMO food presents any health risks; and over 90 percent of processed foods on American grocery store shelves already contain GMOs. This being undeniable, what is it that food consumers really want?
Consumers, who overwhelmingly buy conventionally raised food because it is cheaper than traditionally raised food, want government to assure them that conventional food is safe. This is a contradiction of federal policy and of conventional agriculture’s fundamental precepts. Conventional agriculture drives oversupply in order to keep consumer prices down; to accomplish this, it must dispense toxic chemicals into the food chain and externalize its residues into the water and atmosphere. The paradigm cannot accomplish these goals without toxic chemicals and toxic chemicals cannot be applied without poisoning the air and water.
Conventional i.e., chemical and energy intensive, agriculture was invented after World War II to boost farm yields and reduce costs. Consumers were told that farmers applied toxic chemicals in minute concentrations and that residues from petroleum-based herbicides and artificial NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) fertilizers would dissipate harmlessly in the fields. The “miracle of American agriculture” worked as advertised: U.S. farm production quickly rose threefold and farm costs fell proportionately. Early adopters were making profits.
But this was no miracle. Farm and food prices fell threefold — in 1947, 27 percent of the average American worker’s earnings went for food while today the family spends just 9 percent, a threefold difference. Worse, as late adopters bought in, the rural economy found itself making a massive transfer of wealth to urban consumers and those who manufactured and sold the chemicals — even worse, the toxic residues were accumulating in the lake. This much about conventional agriculture’s economic, environmental and social costs has been long known, if not fully acknowledged.
But today, it is not the half. We now learn that conventional agriculture is responsible for 20 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions. If we include the diesel fuel burned for transportation from farms to processing plants and the electricity for sorting, processing, lighting, cooling, and heating, the impact from agriculture rises to between 25 and 30 percent of the United States’ carbon footprint.
The major contributor of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from agriculture is not the 1,500 miles that consumers popularly believe food must travel from farm to plate. It is the extraction from deep in the earth of carbon, in the form of petroleum, and its release into the atmosphere as CO2 during combustion in farm tractors and from fertilizer plants; it is the formation and release of nitrous oxide (N2O), which accounts for 84 percent of global N2O emissions.
N2O — a far more stable and 300 times more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 — is a consequence first, of the application of synthetic, petroleum-based NPK fertilizer to agricultural fields and second, to the gas escaping off cropland conventionally left bare nine months of the year. These two practices, long accepted by Vermont’s Agency of Agriculture, are hugely destructive of Vermont’s soil, atmosphere and water — and they are unnecessary.
The conventional farmers’ belief is that the level of macro-nutrients in the soil determines the crop-worthiness of a patch of land. All agriculture depends upon the presence of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in the soil, which, when insufficient, all farmers must replenish. But conventional NPK soil amendments ignore soil carbon, which can only be built up by biological processes, the process is thwarted by the very amendments — artificial fertilizers — conventional farmers believe are necessary for a good crop.
We all remember from our high school biology classes that in photosynthesis, plants use the sun’s energy to convert atmospheric CO2 and water to sugar, and the subsequent release of oxygen back into the atmosphere, a process called primary production. Marine biota use the same process to make food from the dissolved CO2 in the oceans.
Meanwhile, two other important exchanges are underway: fossil fuel burning and land use. Industry, power plants, and automobiles consume fossil fuels in the form of coal, oil, natural gas, and gasoline. This process goes only one way: from industry to the atmosphere. Land use encompasses a host of human activities including urban development, agriculture, deforestation, and reforestation, all of which absorb or transpire CO2. All these processes together comprise the carbon cycle.
The accompanying diagram shows the carbon cycle with the mass of carbon, noted in gigatons of carbon (Gt C), in each sink and for each process, if known. The amount of carbon being exchanged in each process determines whether the specific sink is growing or contracting.
For instance, the ocean absorbs 2.5 Gt C more from the atmosphere than it gives off to the atmosphere. All other things being equal, the ocean sink is growing at a rate of 2.5 Gt C per year and the atmospheric sink is decreasing at an equal rate. But for the last century, other things have not been equal: fossil fuel burning is increasing the atmosphere’s store of carbon by 6.1 Gt C each year, and the atmosphere is also interacting with vegetation and soil. Furthermore, land use is changing: urban populations are increasing, as are applications of petroleum products to agricultural lands.
The carbon cycle is very complex and exceedingly difficult to measure; each process has an enormous impact on the other processes. If primary production drops, then decay into the soil drops. This does not mean that decay from the soil to the atmosphere will also drop and thus balance out the cycle so that the store of carbon in the atmosphere will remain constant; it could continue at its current rate for a number of years, and thus the atmosphere would have to absorb the excess carbon being released from the soil.
In high school biology class, our experiments were conducted in a little glass terrarium, set on the windowsill and covered with Saran Wrap. But the carbon cycle operates on all the green plants and on all the atmosphere and on all of the oceans on the planet. Leaving row crop farm fields bare nine months out of the year has a major impact upon this vital process and contributes to enormous terrestrial carbon loss, in the form of CO2, into the atmosphere. This increase of atmospheric carbon may, or may not, stimulate the ocean to increase its uptake of CO2. But this much is certain: there is a fixed amount of carbon in the world and the carbon cycle is a closed system. It all has to be somewhere and, at present, there is far too much coming out of the earth and far too much going into the atmosphere. Agriculture has the capacity to bring this system back into balance; but it won’t unless the government alters course and leads agriculture to adopt new methods.
Vermont has historically supported her farms and the Legislature has a number of programs — Vermont Housing & Conservation Board, Farm Viability Program, Vermont Land Trust, Farm to Plate, Save the Working Landscape Enterprise Fund, Vermont Sustainable Agriculture Council — all intended to “support agriculture and protect water.” These programs, many formed by statute, cost Vermont taxpayers approximately $60 million to $80 million per year. They provide limited assistance to the many small farms in Vermont’s agricultural industry.
But incontestably, Vermont agriculture is predominantly dairy (80 percent of agricultural gross sales of approximately $500 million) and Vermont dairy is predominantly conventional (80 percent of the remaining dairy farms are conventional). This means that $60 million to $80 million per year goes predominantly to the 800 pound gorilla in the room: conventional dairy.
Conventional agriculture must continuously expand production and consolidate its smaller competitors and it must apply more toxic chemicals to keep production up; therefore, by supporting conventional dairy, the state is actually funding the two problems — saving farms and protecting water — its agricultural policies are all intended to address.
The data are incontestable: the number of dairy farms in Vermont has dwindled from 11,200 in 1947 to about 925 today, an attrition rate of 92 percent — and the flow of nutrients into the lake is undiminished: Over the last 20 years, phosphorus concentrations across most of the lake segments remain well above their established, annual targets.
Conventional Vermont dairy is the state’s second largest industrial contributor to global greenhouse gasses, ahead of the entire transportation sector and behind only electrical and heat generation. For a generation at least, Vermont taxpayers have authorized the Legislature to allocate $60 million to $80 million per year to “save farms and protect the water” and another $140 million over the last decade for “Clean and Clear”; and the most conspicuous result of these expenditures has been the endurance of both problems.
Those who want GMO food labeled say they have a right to know what’s in their food. They also have an obligation to get the facts right. So here in a nutshell are the facts. Whatever consumers fear about GMOs isn’t in the food: it’s in the air we all breathe and the water we all drink. It is the money, going into the pockets of those who manufacture and sell the seeds and out of the pockets of those in the rural economy.
There are exceptions to every rule and of course there are exceptional conventional farmers; but the fault is not with the farmers, it is in the paradigm. GMO agriculture doubles down on conventional agriculture. The farmer applies the same amount of artificial petroleum-based fertilizer as before but the GMO manufacturer has manipulated the seeds so that the plant can resist the toxic herbicides the farmer, as before, sprays onto his fields to kill weeds. The result is yet lower costs and yet higher yields, which are both extremely appealing to farmers. But higher yields for individual farmers drive farm prices down for them all, driving farm attrition and rural economic decay.
Conventional farming depends upon expansion, which means that conventional practitioners must apply more petroleum-based fertilizers and herbicides to their fields, which means more water pollution, which costs Vermont taxpayers hundreds of millions for clean-up efforts that can’t work because they do not attack the problem at its source.
GMO food, as its supporters correctly contend, is not a health issue. Not unless you consider that drinking the water into which toxic chemicals have been purposely injected is not healthy and unless you believe that driving farm income down by transferring wealth out of the rural economy into the pockets of seed manufacturers and urban food consumers is unhealthy.
A majority of Vermonters want GMO food labeled. GMO food is already in over 90 percent of the processed food on American grocers’ shelves. But labeling does not get fertilizers and herbicides out of the predominant farm paradigm, it does not prevent the federal government from setting milk prices below the average Vermont dairy farmer’s cost of production and it does not enjoin seed manufacturers from profiting by hollowing out the rural economy.
This fact pattern presents health-conscious and right-to-know food consumers with a no-brainer: organic food addresses both concerns.
Organic farming does not permit GMOs and since organic farming also prohibits the use of artificial herbicides and fertilizers and adheres as closely as humanly possible to natural processes — like mechanical weed control and crop rotation — organic food is as healthy as humanly possible. What is more, organic farmers actively want consumers to know what is in their food and the answer is only what the Creator put in it. As if that weren’t reason enough to rethink the health and right-to-know strategies, organic farming is already codified in federal law (The Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.A. § 6501-22)) and organic food is clearly labeled. Why reinvent the wheel?
In 2009, an overwhelming number (like 97 percent) of respondents told the Council on the Future of Vermont that they support agriculture. Three hundred of these people filled the Vermont Statehouse two years ago in support of the bill to label food that contains GMOs. Vermont has an incredible opportunity to help its farmers meet this demand.
Vermont has a predominately Democratic Legislature and a progressive governor. But the governor’s agriculture policy is indistinguishable from his predecessor’s. The Vermont Agency of Agriculture supported conventional farmers in the rBST fight against Monsanto in 1992 and it took no position in the 2013 Vermont Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act (H. 722). VAAF&M is captured by the industry it was formed to regulate and because 80 percent of Vermont agriculture is conventional dairy, the agency supports conventional dairy. Besides, the bill was written to exempt milk and dairy products, so the administration’s and the agency’s work was done well before the vote.
The Legislature is also predominately Democratic but it is agnostic on the difference between conventional and organic agriculture. VAAF&M has known for two generations that conventional farming is responsible for 55-60 percent of the pollution flowing into Lake Champlain every year but the Legislature still allocates the $60 million to 80 million per year for a spate of programs to “support agriculture and protect the water” even as farm attrition empirically proceeds at the rate of 5-8 percent per year and even as pollution in the lake attributable to conventional dairy rises every year.
This is about to stop. In 2010, the EPA revoked Vermont’s TMDL, a measure of how much pollution the lake can absorb every year and still meet federal water quality standards. Right now, the lake is receiving 815 metric tons of nutrients from three sources: agriculture (55-60 percent), stormwater runoff (35-45 percent), and inadequate municipal wastewater treatment plants (5 percent). The EPA gave DEC until October 2013, which is past, to redesign our TMDL; so far as I know, Vermont has no plan at the ready.
I am not qualified to submit a plan for stormwater runoff or wastewater treatment plants. But because agriculture is the main source of water pollution in the state, here is my recommendation:
The public believes without justification that Vermont is the Green State and consumers in upscale urban markets are poised to pay premiums for food that is certified to be GMO free, that does not permit the application of 80 million pounds of petroleum-based fertilizers to its farm fields and that does not tolerate the pollution of its water and atmosphere. Vermont can become the place most people believe us to be. But our agricultural sector cannot take advantage of this opportunity while the legislature supports conventional farming.
As a first step in the right direction, the Legislature must repeal agriculture’s broad exemption from Land Use regulations (1967) and in Act 250 (10 V.S.A. § 6001, et. seq., 1970). It must open the Accepted Agricultural Practices rules (1996) — which were not written to protect the water but to shield the industry — to judicial review. The Vermont Legislature must gradually phase out all state support for conventional agriculture, including Current Use and the purchase with tax dollars of so-called “conservation easements” by the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board and the Vermont Land Trust. The receipt of these benefits must be contingent upon being, or in the process of converting to certified organic. The phase-out should extend over a period of 25 years, with interim goals every year or two, to allow those farmers, who either cannot or do not want to convert to realize their legitimate investment expectations.
It is understandable that conventional farmers will object to these proposals. But the fault is not with the farmers, it is with the paradigm: the incontrovertible evidence is that irrespective of individual operators, or the geography or slope of their land, or the quality of their soil, the conventional paradigm has brought us (and farm communities all across the country) overproduction, low prices, farm attrition, rural economic decay and lake pollution. If that is not enough reason to withdraw support from the paradigm, the Vermont Legislature allocates $60 million to $80 million of the taxpayers’ money every year — plus $140 million over the last ten years — to a failed attempt to address water pollution, which could be halved immediately for a fraction of the cost and a dollop of political courage.
