More from NPR: The link between antibiotic-resistent bacteria and livestock practices

Today's Salt story (here) notes a large government study of supermarket meat samples.  It says:

The findings, released through the joint program of the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, got little attention when they were published in February. But this week, the Environmental Working Group, which opposes some of the livestock industry's use of antibiotics, analyzed the government data and highlighted some of their startling implications in a report.
 

The link for EWG's report is here.  It says

that government tests of raw supermarket meat published last February 5 detected antibiotic-resistant bacteria in:

 

Further, EWG notes,

 

Today, pharmaceuticals sold for use on food-producing animals amount to nearly 80 percent of the American antibiotics market, according to the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming.

 

New research on "reducted sodium" food labels

A University of Toronto study suggest that consumers value reduced-sodium claims, even if food companies worry that consumers will stay away from low-sodium products.


See the story on NPR's Salt blog here.

Food Labels

What's in a Food label?

The FDA has strict regulations on what to put on a food label and the claims that can be made. The FDA requires that the package includes: name of food, net weight, name and address of manufacturer or distributor, ingredients listed descending by weight, nutrition info for specific nutrients per serving, and the presence of common allergens. The FDA allows 3 types of claims nutrient content, structure/ function, and health. Nutrient content claims describe a nutrient level or amount and must adhere to strict criteria for the following terms: free, high, low, lean, reduced, and good source of. Structure/ function claims describe how a nutrient or compound affects body structure or function and does not require FDA pre-approval.

Health claims to be made on a corresponding disease or condition require FDA approval which is a burden on the company to provide. These claims can be very costly for a company if they publish information on a product that is misleading. The company that makes Nutella Ferrero USA, Inc got sued for misleading consumers into thinking that it was a healthy nutritious breakfast food. The settlement included cost the company $3.05 million with $2.5 million to be divided among consumers who file a claim, the New York Daily News reported.  As part of the settlement, anyone in the U.S. who purchased Nutella between certain dates received $4 for a single purchase and up to 5 jars for a maximum award of $20 per household.

                                                           

The meaning behind some front-of-package symbols

Simple front of package (FOP) labeling symbols are voluntary but are more effective and especially valuable to populations with low literacy, low health motivation, and limited nutrition knowledge. Critical components: calories, saturated and trans fats, sodium, and added sugars. The symbol. For a package to display the USDA organic symbol it must contain at least 95% organic ingredients.

                  

Food, Diet, and Health

Americans tend to think of starvation and malnutrition as an issue that developing countries face. What people do not realize however is that many Americans are also malnourished, or over-nourished, causing an epidemic of heart disease, and diet related deaths across the nation. In the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” published by the U.S department of Agriculture and the department of Health and Human Services, the main component to the epidemic is a poor diet (lack of nutrients) and a lack of physical activity.

  

As stated, "Calorie balance is key to maintain a healthy weight." When consumers resort to eating a diet primarily based on heavily processed foods, they without a doubt are over consuming the number of calories their body needs on a daily basis. 

 The main foods and nutrients that most people need to increase in their diet are, to no one’s surprise, fruits and vegetables, including dark greens, red and orange vegetables, beans, and peas. 

According to "Dietary Guidelines for Americans", the top 5 diet related diseases are no mystery to current health professionals. Cardiovascular disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, and various types of cancer all contribute to the overall obesity in the nation and are some of the leading causes of death. 

The devil behind the diseases is no mystery to dietitians. It is not surprising that our nation is suffering from such chronic health diseases related to food. In fact, some of the most popular food consumed, coincidentally also has the highest number of calories. The top ten sources of calories for "overall" consumers above the age of 2 are: 

1. Grain-based desserts (cake, cookies, pies, sweet rolls (Twinkies), pastries

2. Yeast breads (including wheat bread)

3. Chicken and chicken mixed dishes

4. soda/energy/sports drunks (Gatorade, Red Bull, Coke)

5. Pizza

6. Alcoholic beverages

7. Pasta and pasta dishes

8. Tortilla, burritos, tacos

9. beef and beef mixed dishes

10. dairy desserts (ice cream) 

It is clear that Americans are not eating nearly enough of the foods which best provide the daily recommended vitamins and minerals that “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” suggest. Currently, Americans are eating 75% of the total calcium they should consume. It would not be very difficult to reach 100% calcium because it can be found it some of our favorite dairy products, and even dark green vegetables such as spinach or kale. The most difficult category of food where Americans are only consuming 15% of the recommended daily intake is whole grains. Part of the reason is consumers are often fooled by labels into thinking they are eating whole grains. Labels such as "wheat bread" or even "whole wheat flour" do not actually come from whole wheat grains. Some recommended whole grain foods are, brown rice, buckwheat, millet, quinoa, and whole oats. The difficulty in getting more of these foods into our diet is often price and availability at our local stores. Ironically, a lot of whole grain products are more readily available in more underdeveloped nations where the grains are considered a staple to one's diet.

        

What’s probably saddest of all is the fact that foods that Americans should eat less of, or avoid altogether, are often the staples of almost every American meal. Sodium, saturated fat, refined grains, and calories from solid fats and added sugars are ingredients in which we exceed the recommended intake. The most difficult one to cut down on appears to be sodium, of which Americans consume an average of 149% of the recommended daily intake, in various foods. Sodium appears to be everywhere from baby food, to smoothies, to TV dinners. It is hard to escape, unless an honest effort is made. Calories from solid fats and added sugars can be controlled just by looking at the ingredients label of a product and making substitutions. Whatever types of food you enjoy the most, you can easily make accommodations in order to avoid added sugars.  An effective strategy is to avoid heavily processed foods. If you are craving something sweet, eat fruit with natural sugars as oppose to fruit snacks. If you are craving a big ball of butter, opt for nuts or nut butter.

 VS

While the people of the U.S struggle with food choices, our neighbors in western Europe are also following similar patterns, with some exceptions. Studies done on the Mediterranean diet (Spain and Greece) show that the people consume almost double the amount of caloric vegetables that the U.S consumes. Greece also consumes double the amount of fruit compared to people in the United States.

The statistics on the obesity epidemic are more than shocking. 72% of all adult men in the U.S are considered overweight or obese. Women come in at 64%. This means that 1 in every 3 adults are on the road leading to chronic disease and unexpected death.  The best response to our nation’s health problems would be for all Americans to improve our diets, consume a balanced calorie intake, avoid sugars and processed foods, engage in more exercise and take a serious look at what is on the shelves of our pantries. 

Food Labeling News: Whole Foods says it will label GM food

In Week 3, we covered GMOs, and so we know that U.S. regulatory bodies treat genetically modified food as "substantially equivalent" to non-GM food.  Therefore, unlike Europe, there is no requirement in the U.S. for GM labels.

According to Nation of Change,

Whole Foods Market (WFM) is being praised in the media for announcing that it will become the first U.S. grocery chain to require that genetically engineered (GE) foods in its stores be labeled, by 2018.

The whole story from Nation of Change is here.  And you should read it yourself and decide if the story has any biases to it.  Spoiler alert:  They think Whole Foods should adopt thiss policy soon than 2018.  You can also read Whole Foods' announcement direction from their web site here.

Another good reason to read it:  Next week -- Week 10, we will be talking about food labeling in class!

Week 7: The Role of Agribusiness in Food Systems

Agribusiness

Agribusiness is a field that integrates the business and economic sectors with food systems, food processing and farming. This overarching term encapsulates the corporations or businesses that impact the farming, machinery used in farming, agrichemicals, food processing, seed distribution ect. 

The practice of acquiring processed food products and distributing them is a large undertaking and involves interactions between many organizations. The United States government regulates large and small Agribusinesses and they are subject to EPA, OSHA, FDA and USDA regulations. These Agribusinesses also work hand in hand with farmers and larger distributors to transport and supply food all across the United States. 

                                      AGRIBUSINESS

http://www.secomsf.org/subpage.php?page=45

Corporations

Large agribusinesses impact the food systems in the U.S. greatly and provide the U.S. with many food staples. A large issue that some people have with large agribusinesses is that they dominate the market and control too much of the U.S. Ag sector. This is often an issue for these companies and result in court cases between farmers and the large corporation. These large corporations are often competing with smaller ones or small family run farmers who cannot keep up. 

Are small family farms and home gown products something of the past?

http://www.vintaga.com/Posters/World-War-I-United-States/19800947_NgfDBW/1556184700_VkzPsV2#!i=1556184700&k=VkzPsV2&lb=1&s=A

Dow AgroSciences
This corporation produce insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, fumigants, nitrogen stabilizers, seeds, traits and oils. Pest management on an individual farm basis is important in order to ensure that crops can stay viable for food processing. They use biotechnology and genetics to increase meal quality, drought tolerance and herbicide tolerance. Dow AgroSciences largest competitors are DuPont, Monsanto and Bayer CropScience AG and it has an annual sales figure of 758.9 million dollars. This competition is important when viewing the relationship between large agribusinesses. 

DuPont
Another large Ag company which competes with the aforementioned Dow AgroSciences is DuPont. They also manufacture genetically modified seeds and research crop management. They control the Pioneer company which distributes a large variety of grains such as corn, alfalfa, soybeans, rice and cotton. This company is very large and is involved in many industries including agriculture. 

Monsanto
Another large agribusiness, which has been in the media lately because of court cases, is Monsanto. These court cases involve the company and small farming productions which inadvertently used Monsanto genetically modified seeds to grow crops. This company has annual sales of 13,504 million dollars and is a company that focuses on genetically modified crops such as corn, cotton and oilseed. Most famously this company is known for creating roundup ready corn and soybeans which are resistant to the herbicide Roundup. 

ADM
Archer Daniels Midland company is a food processing company which processes corn, soybeans, wheat, cocoa and animal feed to name a few. ADM's largest competitors is Cargill and Ingredion which also process these agricultural products. ADM has a yearly annual sale of 89 billion dollars and is one of the world's largest producer of agricultural commodities. 

John Deere 
Another large Agribusiness which deals with the machinery part of agriculture  This business impacts the world of Food Processing because the amount of time and money extracting crops from the field changes how much the farmers are being paid by these large food manufactures. John Deere is one of the largest and most well know agricultural machinery producer. 

http://www.hutchpost.com/2012/10/30/adm-releases-earnings-report/

http://mascusblog.com/2012/02/07/more-used-john-deere-equipment-coming-to-mascus/http://abid-hussain.blogspot.com/2010/10/at-its-low-at-last-agrochemical-major.html

http://the.jhu.edu/hccn/2011/09/03/dupont-early-career-engineer-2/

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/logo-download.aspx

Are these companies beneficial or detrimental to the U.S. Food System?

Large agribusiness are needed to create a large volume of product at a fast pace but they can force smaller producers out of the marketplace as well as hurt small family farm operations. These large corporations supply smaller food manufactures and take a lot of the control away from consumers in regards to genetically modified crops. These businesses can be seen as the antithesis of traditional farming and food production and are often called corporate farming. Since a few companies control a large percentage of the market it is seen as monopolizing the market and creating price fixation for certain agricultural products. Some other arguments against these companies are that they focus heavily on the use of chemicals and artificially changing crops to increase yield. Smaller family farms or home gardens may be too difficult for the U.S. to sustain our growing need so large scale agribusiness is American's solution. 

http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/fact-sheets/how-corporate-control-squeezes-out-small-farms-8589942044

Food Safety Follow Up: Criminal Charges in the Salmonella in Peanut Butter Case

From NPR:

Four former executives from Peanut Corp. of America and a related company are facing federal criminal charges for covering up information that their peanut butter was contaminated with salmonella bacteria.

The charges are related to a nationwide outbreak of salmonella back in 2009. More than 700 people became ill, and federal investigators traced the source of the bacteria to peanut butter manufactured in Blakely, Ga., by the Peanut Corp. of America. The company is no longer in business.

More here:  link.

Organic tomatoes healthier?

NPR is reporting results from a new study that's good news for organic tomatoes:

A new study published in the journal PLOS ONE finds that tomatoes grown on organic farms were about 40 percent smaller than conventionally grown tomatoes. The upside? They pack more of a nutritional punch. The researchers found the organic tomatoes had significantly higher levels of vitamin C, sugar and lycopene.

Go here for the full story:  link.

Food Safety Part 2: Salmonella Recal Deemed Unnecessary

Blogger had trouble with Deanna's blog entry.  So I rebuilt it and split out the Salmonella recall story (below).  Fingers crossed: let's see if this works.  (--T.J.)

Salmonella Recal Deemed Unnecessary in Oregon and Washington. There was no recall for the salmonella outbreak in Oregon and Washington because there were no deaths and most people blamed it on the consumers rather than the poultry company. I agree that a recall in this situation was deemed unnecessary. If the chicken was sold under faulty conditions or became contaminated in the feed lot, then the poultry company would be to blame. The article states that salmonella is common in all chicken, not just Foster Farm products. This further proves that a recall was unnecessary for this outbreak. I agree that it must have been lack of education of food safety on the consumers’ end. A lot of people do not know how to wash their hands properly after touching meat.

Also, carelessly throwing raw poultry into a shopping cart on top of other foods is common. Unfortunately, not many people realize how unsanitary this is. Consumers should be wrapping the raw poultry in plastic bags that the grocery store supplies in the meat section of the store before placing it in their basket. They must also keep in mind to separate the raw poultry from their other items even though it is wrapped in plastic bags. Raw poultry juices can still leak out of a plastic bag if not wrapped correctly, so it is very important that you still keep it separated from everything else.

Food Safety

http://fillyourplate.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/food-safety-rating-system.jpg

The FDA versus the USDA                 

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that each year 1,000 people die from food-borne hazards in the U.S. The pie chart on page 5 shows that more food-borne illness outbreaks fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA than the USDA during the period 1990-2006. According to the second pie chart on page 5, the USDA has higher budgetary expenditures than the FDA for food safety programs and inspections by a total of $323 million dollars. The FDA actually inspects food processing facilities once every ten years rather than once every year. A frozen cheese pizza is inspected by the FDA while a frozen pepperoni pizza is subjected to USDA inspection. One of the FDA’s biggest problems is that it is empowered by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to intervene only when food is found to be adulterated or misbranded. This is a problem because the FDA does not receive clear mandates from farm-to-table when it comes to food safety.

                  

 








Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems are currently in place for seafood, juice, meat, and poultry products. HACCP helps prevent food contamination because it is a program of quality assurance and preventative process control. It is true that less than one percent of food imported into the U.S. is inspected. This percentage definitely needs to be increased because it leaves the U.S.’s food supply vulnerable to substandard foods from foreign countries. The August-September 2006 E-coli in bagged spinach outbreak was due to uncleanly processing facilities. The FDA does not have the power to order a producer to recall any food product found to be contaminated. Today recalls of contaminated food are voluntary.

 

Will the New Laws Help Increase Food Safety?

The mandatory produce and safety standards state that the new law will establish minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables. The new law does establish a mandatory inspection frequency for food facilities. The new law also gives FDA authority to issue a mandatory recall if a company fails to implement a voluntary recall after being asked by FDA. Under the enhanced product tracing abilities, the FDA is directed to establish a system that will enhance ability to trace both domestic and imported foods. Under Importer Accountability, the FDA will explicitly place the responsibility on importers to verify that their foreign suppliers have adequate preventative controls in place to ensure that the food they produce is safe. I think these laws will cause a huge decrease in outbreaks of foodborne illnesses across the U.S. I think the most useful law enforcements are those that have to do with imports because our country does not take it seriously.

More from NPR: The Phosphoros Footprint of Meat

Yesterday (while Thon was setting a new record for student-based philanthropy!), NPR was reporting ont the phosphorus footprint of meat.

...Geneviève Metson, a doctoral student in natural resource science at McGill University in Canada, did the math for you. She wanted to find out how much of the phosphorus that's mined and turned into supplements for animal feed or fertilizer to grow feed crops goes to the meat industry.

Pretty unsurprisingly, she found that meat consumption is driving much of the phosphorus use in the food sector. And, she argues in a paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the heavy phosphorus footprint of meat is good reason to eat less of it, given that phosphorous is a finite resource that might become scarce one day.
 

The full NPR story is linked here.  The research study is linked here.

More GMOs in the news!

GMO-related issuess continue to confronting farmers:

ON Feb. 18, NPR reported (link here) on a David-and-Goliath legal case that could upset Monsanto and other biotech companies.  Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman bought old, co-mingled, poor quality soybeans (some of which undoubtedly had Monsanto's Round-Up ready technology), and culled them for seed on a risky second-planting on fields were wheat was just harvested.

Monsanto took Bowman to court, and Bowman was ordered to pay Monsanto $84,000 for infringing the company's patent.
Bowman appealed. To the surprise of many, the highest court in the land agreed to hear his case. "I'm not a-gonna give in! Because I think I've done nothing wrong!" says Bowman.

Stay tuned to here what the U.S. supreme court has to say.  Any prognostications?

Superweed Solutions?  A follow-up to our Dave Mortensen's presentation and discussion on GMOs...

A Feb. 14, 2013, NPR piece offers a futuristic solution to superweeds:  using robots! One source suggests that it's not such a far-fetched idea.

Week 6: Agriculture and the Environment

The Greenhouse Hamburger

Nathan Fiala’s article, The Greenhouse Hamburger, made many points that I had only been vaguely aware of, until now, and I was surprised to learn the truth about the environmental impact of beef production. I did not expect livestock production to yield such a large quantity of atmospheric greenhouse gases, but, according to the figure titled The High (Greenhouse Gas) Cost of Meat, it outranks almost all well-known sources of CO₂, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and other gases that negatively affect our environment.

When most of us think of greenhouse gas production, our first thought is usually of massive traffic jams and factory smoke stacks spewing clouds of pollution into the air. In reality, one of the highest sources of greenhouse gas emissions comes from something more like this:


http://inmessycursive.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/hamburger-fridays/

I was not expecting livestock production to be second, just below energy production, on the ranking of greenhouse gas cost. There is so much in the media about reducing the environmental impact of our vehicles, from hybrid cars to carpooling, and about the impact of industry on our atmosphere, that these aspects of our culture overshadow the facts about the environmental impact of our diets.

Based on this article, one would interpret that concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) systems are good. Fiala says that CAFO systems are “not the cleanest production method in terms of CO2-equivalent greenhouse emissions”, but that they are better than most, according to implications from FAO data, and are economically efficient.

 

http://www.epa.gov/Region7/water/cafo/index.htm

CAFO systems are often chosen because they are so efficient, but there is also a great deal of opposition to them largely because of animal cruelty issues and the environmental impact of such concentrated waste production. The Environmental Protection Agency describes the parameters of CAFO systems and explains some negative effects of these system, including, for example, nutrient runoff decreasing levels of dissolved oxygen in nearby bodies of water and hurting the fish population. Another source, CAFO: the Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories, paints a much harsher picture of animal cruelty through the use of these systems, and I think it is worth checking out in order to see all sides of the argument of CAFO systems.
http://www.epa.gov/Region7/water/cafo/cafo_impact_environment.htm
http://www.cafothebook.org/index.htm

Can We Feed the World & Sustain the Planet?

In the second source, Can We Feed the World and Sustain the Planet?, Jonathan Foley lays out his 5 part plan to reduce environmental change while providing food for a growing population.
The aspects of our environment that have been adversely impacted by agriculture include, but are not limited to:

• Destruction of vital ecosystems: 25 to 70% of prehistoric grasslands, savannas, deciduous forests, and rainforests have already been transformed by agriculture
• Excessive consumption of fresh water: irrigation accounts for 80 to 90% of water used and not returned to the watershed, and rivers are drying up
• Contamination of fresh water: fertilizer runoff creates toxic "dead zones" at the mouths of major rivers and is harming the fish population
• Greenhouse gas emissions: the previous article discussed much of this, but greenhouse gas production from agriculture accounts for about 35% of all emissions

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/95/233523196_a4abdd1b24.jpg

The figure on page 64 uses different colors and sizes of shapes to compare the current state of our agricultural system to the goal state. The red and blue (food access and food production) must grow to provide for the increasing population and to feed the already huge population of hungry people we have currently. The yellow (environmental damage) must shrink dramatically. The present size of the yellow shape does not even fit within the graph, and reducing it is imperative to the future wellbeing of our population and planet.

All 5 of the solutions are very much intertwined and important for meeting the goal of sustainable agriculture, so it is difficult to pick which would be the most promising. However, between evidence from the first article and data from this article, the idea of shifting our diets away from meat, especially beef, seems simple, practical, and effective.
Only about 60% of all crops produced actually feed people; 5% are used for biofuels and industry and the remaining 35% is animal feed. If everyone on the planet switched to an all-plant diet, we could see a 50% increases in total calorie supply. Humans don’t need meat to be healthy, and it takes so much more of the world’s resources just to raise a cow from birth to maturity and then slaughter it and cook it, that it makes more sense to eat plant sources of protein like legumes or nuts. The reality of this situation, unfortunately, is that meat is so ingrained in our culture that making this dietary shift is much easier said than done.

http://www.iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/cow-toy-car-stuck-head-1259518194w.jpg

 

Another solution that I find quite sensible is the goal to reduce food waste. The food has already used fertilizer, water, and other resources in its production, so for it to actually make it to its final destination of nourishing a person should be a primary goal of those looking to improve the agricultural system. These two solutions focus on fixing the problem of hunger with the resources we already have, rather than actually changing farming practices, but they would reduce the need to expand farm area into important ecosystems.
It is imperative that changes be made in global agricultural practices because if these guidelines can be successfully implemented, we could see a healthier world and be able to feed the growing population.

 

http://www.elementalreiki.com/node/699

 

 

 

 



TedTalks: Johan Rockstrom

fast forward to 15:00 (or watch the whole thing!)

Freakonomics: The Illogic of Farm Subsidies, and Other Agricultural Truths

An interesting Q & A style article featuring agricultural economist Daniel Sumner. Check it out:
The Illogic of Farm Subsidies, and Other Agricultural Truths

Week 5- Biofuels

Food or Fuel?

In the rush for bioenergy, the world has turned to food for production of ethanol.
Pros:

• Reduced Greenhouse Emissions
• Energy independence
• Sustainability

However these benefits come at a economic, social and environmental cost.
Cons:

• Increasing the price of basic food staples
• Hurting the world's poor (37 countries now in a food crisis)
• Environmental damage from fertilizer runoff and nutrient erosion

Is it worth it?

Although I felt the article was rather biased against using food for fuel, I agree with the author that the cons outweigh the pros. Food is already a scarce resource in other countries and it's gluttonous to convert it into fuel while countries such as Bangladesh, Haiti, and Egypt are having food riots. Though the process is marketed as sustainable since food can regrown, the need for food is ever increasing with population and the practice is not suitable in the long run.

(http://www.wri.org/stories/2008/08/food-or-fuel-the-bioenergy-dilemma)

(http://www.cartoonmovement.com/depot/cartoons/2011/01/ZxOaqfzvTYafpU3l0ZJmMA.jpg)

Local Biofuel

Bionol Clearfield LLC, an ethanol plant, began operating in  Clearfield, PA a few weeks ago. Clearfield  is located slightly west of central Pennsylvania.

http://clearlyahead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Clearfield-County-Map.png

“For its corn supply, the ethanol plant has an agreement with Lansing Trade Group, which is headquartered in Overland Park, Kan. currently, up to 75 percent of its corn is off trucks coming from Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio, Schmidt said.” 

This is beneficial since the corn supply is staying relatively local rather than importing from the corn belt in the Midwest.  Assuming that Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio can keep up with the demand, it will probably be helpful for the farmers in the region.

(http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/6331/pennsylvania-ethanol-plant-now-producing/)

'

(http://media.philly.com/images/600*450/20110828_inq_ethanol28z-a.JPG)

Biofuels in Europe

The European Union (EU) proposed an end to "first generation" biofuels in Europe. It turns out that due to indirect land use change these biofuels were actually worse than the fossil fuels that they were replacing. By converting land to be more biofuel efficient, the environmental benefit was lost. In response to this the European Union is pulling funding for biofuels in 2020 that do not have "substantial greenhouse gas savings".

Biofuel supporters are upset because they feel that the proposed bill will severely reduce the number of biofuels produced. It was argued that the funding would be severely hurt since investors won't be interested after what happened to the first generation.

On the other side, environmentalists are upset as well. They feel that the EU should have done more to restrict these first generation fuels. By delaying until 2020 the issue was compromised rather than outright corrected.  It was quoted that the government chose to be "precisely wrong rather than roughly right."

The incoming "second generation" of biofuels should be much better for the environment. They will only be subsidized if there is at least a 45% increase in carbon emission savings.In addition, they will also use less food. The requirement has been stated that at least 40% of the fuel should come from non food & feed sources. 

(http://www.energyrefuge.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/biopact_europa_biofuels_potential.jpg)

Corn Ethanol

Chances are that there is some ethanol in your gas tank right now. It is estimated that 95% of all U.S. gasoline contains ethanol. This gasoline blend helps to oxygenate the fuel as well as reduce air pollution. 

In addition to the ethical controversy of producing corn ethanol, opponents of corn ethanol argued that it cost more energy to produce than was yielded. However, studies using updated data have shown otherwise. The production of corn ethanol  does, in fact, produce a net gain in energy (meaning it has a positive energy balance). 

(http://perc.org/sites/default/files/2011/05/ethanol-corn.jpg)

Agricultural Policy

What role does the U.S. government currently play in agriculture?

Like many things in the 20^th century, U.S. agriculture has undergone a huge transformation.  There are new practices, advanced machinery and farms have drastically changed their structure.  It may seem strange then to learn that most of agricultural policy is built around an act that was passed in 1933. The Agricultural Adjustment Act was the first act passed that gave aid and support to farmers.  The U.S. was in the beginnings of being crippled by the Great Depression and the government knew that farmers were some of the hardest hit.  Agricultural policy has evolved and changed since then.  Instead of providing high price supports the government has switched to direct government payments.  These payments are paid to farmers when market prices fall below a certain price, determined by historical production levels.  

Are the government programs right? 

This issue has been a hot topic for years and especially during the past election.  Some feel that farm subsidies are too high and that government doesn’t have the money to support them.  I believe however that they are critical to stabilizing businesses in an extremely variable market. Prices are going up in some industries but as grain prices rise for example, so does cost of feed, which will cause issues to the livestock industry.  The world can’t survive without food so farming operations and this government program, in my mind, should be a pretty high priority for the U.S.

http://growthforce.org/images/uploads/home-flag.jpg

 For more information you can see the USDA website: http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/259572/eib3_1_.pdf

How have government farms subsidies impacted the United States and the world?  

Americans see the impact of subsidies every night when they sit down at their dinner table to eat supper.  Farm subsidies provide farmers the buffer they need when prices are too low and farms would otherwise go bankrupt.  Subsidies have allowed the U.S. and the world to have food all year.  A social impact on the United States and the world is that farm subsidies get a lot of political criticism.  With the government debt rising, many are pointing their finger at farm subsidies and calling for them to be no more.  Below you can see a cartoon published to show what some think of the “over-spending” on farm subsidies. 

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgj72Su8vlLG6zEUn0uuFbn7NC1_JqWGzWXMWxBfRrqBcrayjzrDZkbVOOHJEWPJvCAD7eQRU1XkEaJEoFImrJED1Jjcj4kyvtT0jYvIRDLc4q5DIxYnrtOhcCff-XlcHkNaSszKnzgcmsY/s1600/farm+bill+cartoon.jpg

What would be the implications of eliminating subsidies?

Though many could argue several other implications, or even argue that these are not valid, I believe that these are the ten best implications of the elimination of farm subsidies. 

The following come from Dr.Sumner’s report: http://aic.ucdavis.edu/research/farmbill07/aeibriefs/20070515_sumnerRationalesfinal.pdf

1. Chronic low farm prices.

2. Chronic high variability in farm prices.

3. Farm and rural poverty.

4. Chronic high variability in farm income.

5. Chronic low rates of return for farm investments.

6. Without subsidies, rural asset values would fall or otherwise be too low.

7. Chronic slow rural development, dwindling rural populations.

8. Low environmental quality of rural landscape and environmental spillovers outside rural areas.

9. Chronic imbalance of power favoring commercial buyers of farm goods over farmers.

10. Without farm subsidies, food prices for Americans would be too high. 

What is the CAP?

The CAP began operating in 1962, with the Community intervening to buy farm output when the market price fell below an agreed target level.  How it differs from the United States subside program is that the CAP program is for the entire European Union.  This means that some countries are benefiting more than others.  Also, every countries production is different so it can sometimes be difficult to allocate the funds. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11216061

Is the CAP viewed in the same light as U.S. subsidies?  

 

I would have to say for the most part it would appear so.  Subsidies are a big debate any time there is economic unrest and in Europe there is no exception. The CAP program is blamed for widening the gap and not allowing developing markets to compete in the global market.  The program keeps farms going and that makes it hard for emerging markets to enter the market at a competitive price. As with U.S. subsides, there is discussion of doing away with them and even CAP supporters say that reforms do need to be made. 

 What’s the latest news regarding the U.S. Farm Bill?

With the coming of a new year, like many programs, the Farm Bill is in jeopardy of expiring.  If the bill would expire it would mean millions of dollars lost.  It also would mean that the law would revert to the 1949 law, which would be high price supports.  Those high price supports would mean sky rocketing prices for consumers.  However, crisis was adverted and an extension was granted.