Protecting Sustainable Resources – Voting Sustainable With your Dollars and Sense

The issue of global warming has taken center stage lately due to the widespread popularity of An Inconvenient Truth, the Al Gore documentary that brings hard facts about environmental devastation caused by industrialization to the tip of our nation’s pollution-laden tongue. Armed with perfect timing, a coalition of nearly 30 states, cities, and environmental organizations are now challenging the Bush administration’s lack of regard for the environment in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA in the United States Supreme Court. This landmark global warming case will decide whether or not the Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the pollution causing global warming. Even in the great green state of California, where tailpipe emissions standards were adopted in the absence of federal standards to reduce global warming emissions from new vehicles by 30% in 2016, we are seeing and suffering from far too many examples of global warming, be it in the air we breathe, the water we so desperately rely on, the ocean’s rising temperatures, the droughts and heat waves, or the ever increasing rates of habitat loss and extinction sweeping the planet.

The Farallon National Wildlife Refuge off the coast of San Francisco, famous for housing the largest sea bird colony in the United States, has in the last two years experienced a devastating decline in the breeding success of nearly all of the 20,000 pairs of Cassin’s auklets who nest there. Researchers have performed annual counts of the Cassin’s auklets since 1967, and attribute this rapid decline directly to the recent rise of ocean temperatures from three to five degrees above average, causing a catastrophic domino effect in the marine food chain, and the potential to depress our entire global ecosystem. Global warming is just the tip of the melting iceberg, though. The U.S. food system uses approximately 19% of the total fossil energy burned annually, 1/3 of which is used for pesticide applications alone, while America’s cars account for 24% of total fossil energy used each year.

Environmentalism is a colossal topic, and even though there are more environmentalists now than ever before, the majority of us do not always have time for the full story. When looking into where our food comes from, it becomes clear that organic agriculture is at the root of environmentalism. And although many continue to ignore the threat of global warming, claiming it yet another plea by environmentalists to curb our industrialized nation’s status as the wealthiest, most advanced country in the world, we will all eventually be forced to take notice when the future of our food supply becomes threatened on a more obvious and serious level.

As scientists around the world predict the future of agriculture’s capabilities with global warming in mind, many important topics are being addressed that affect the global food supply, and therefore stability of life on our planet. According to a report from the IPCC Working Group III Subgroup on Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Systems (AFOS), a rise in average global temperatures of two to three degrees celsius over the next century will likely result in climatic zones shifting several hundred kilometers toward the poles and significantly reducing the land available for agriculture. A rise in sea level of approximately 0.3 meters will inundate coastal lands and increase salinity, and begin a gradual breakdown of certain ecosystems, thus leading to additional CO2 emissions, as well as increased pests, weeds, and ultraviolet radiation leading to reduced biomass and photosynthesis, again enhancing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. As Lester Brown, a 10-year policy advisor for the USDA and founder of the Earth Policy Institute, puts it, “The vast corn belt of the Northern Hemisphere, for example, will become hotter and dryer, and that change can’t be resolved by merely creating new corn belts further north, because the soils further north are not the same at all…. Each global increase of 1.8 degree Fahrenheit around the world will reduce grain yields like rice, wheat, and corn, by at least 10%.” Pollination fees also continue to rise, as well, as heat spells across the nation ruin nectar flows and wipe out honeybee hives, making it difficult for certain farmers, like California’s almond farmers, to successfully pollinate their crops.

The golden state of California is our nation’s cornucopia, and with a $30 billion agriculture industry that relies on climate and water alike, the politics of global warming and environmentalism have only just begun. This past summer, California’s 21-day heat wave created serious economic hardships, where in Fresno County alone, the beef, dairy, and poultry losses totaled $85 million after 20 days in a row of temperatures exceeding 100 degrees. In the San Joaquin Valley, thousands of cows dropped dead in the dilapidating heat. The warmer temperatures can alter our food system in a number of ways, from blossoms opening weeks too soon before being pollinated, to the increasing need for irrigation, and reliance on mountain snow packs that provide 75% of the West’s water. As experts from Stanford University predict the snow pack will likely melt too fast each spring and diminish by as much as 90% by the end of the century, scientists around the world are working on similar predictions addressing the food supply.

The Problem: Industrial Agriculture’s Aftermath

• “DDT is good for me” was a marketing slogan used when DDT hit the market in the 1940’s.
• In 1945, WWII bombers sprayed DDT over the entire town of Rockford, IL, to combat mosquitoes.
• By 1949 dairy farmers stopped using DDT because it showed up in milk products
• Oposphate insecticides, the most widely used pesticides in the United States, are known to be toxic to humans, birds, and mammals. Combinations of these toxins were used as nerve gas in the German concentration camps, and in the creation of Agent Orange.
• The pesticide industry started solely because excess WWII chemicals needed a new market. This move was carried out exclusively by the US government.
• Delta Airlines began as a crop spraying company after WWII.
• One quarter of all pesticide use occurs in homes and yards.
• Since 1989, pesticide use has increased 8%, or 60 million lbs. in the United States.
• 1 million American children ingest unsafe amounts of organophosphates from pesticide residue each year.
• 165 pesticides are known to be carcinogenic.
• Conventional farmers are 6 times more likely to develop cancer.
• 300,000 farm workers suffer acute pesticide poisoning each year in the United States.
• Throughout 1970-1990, agribusinesses’ prime years, the number of people going hungry increased 11% (does not include China, figures unavailable)
• During the last 35 years, global food production has grown 16%, yet 800 million people go hungry every day.
• 1961-2000 America lost an average of 41,333 farms a year.
• Over one-half billion people in rural areas are now landless, worldwide.
• 50% of urban population growth worldwide is attributed to migration, much of it forced, from rural to urban regions.
• Worldwide, there were 7 million farmers 70 years ago, now 2 million today, with the population having doubled.
• 83% of American farm households are below the poverty level.
• 2% of farms produce 50% of agricultural product sales.
• 95% of food is manufactured by corporations.
• The United States lost half of all topsoil since 1960, 17 times faster than nature creates it.
• 1.3 billion tons of manure from factory farms - chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones included - leach into the water supply each year.
• 75% of genetic diversity in agriculture has been lost in the last century.
• Mexico lost 80% of maize varieties since 1930.
• A USDA report from 2000 states there is no overall reduction in pesticide use with GE crops.
• In 1995, $7,242,190,850 in total USDA subsidies was given, with $4,679,764,533 going to “Commodity Subsidies”.
• In the USDA Subsidy program, $11 million was given to promote the Pillsbury Doughboy to foreign markets.
• A USDA report from 1998 reports family farmers made an average of $7,000/yr.
• The commercial seed business makes $23 billion/ yr.


Eating is Politics

For now, our nation’s agricultural dangers are still flying below the radar of the masses. Another pressing inconvenient truth is that industrial agriculture has a vested interest in keeping consumers ignorant of the struggle of small family farmers to stay on the land, the relentless environmental devastation and toxic pollution aftermath, the resulting increases of cancer, asthma, allergies, and neurological impairments and the widespread loss of habitat and species around the globe.

In 1987, the United States signed the Montreal Protocol, vowing to end the use of methyl bromide, a harmful pesticide, by 2005. America has since failed to meet that deadline, and as international tension still mounts 14 years after the treaty, the Bush administration hopes to disregard the international effort to protect the ozone when requesting approval to produce 7,071 tons of methyl bromide in 2008, an amount greater than all the other nations’ amounts combined. And in November, the Bush administration’s EPA went farther down the path of irreversible damage when declaring that toxic pesticides can be sprayed over and into waterways without first obtaining a permit, due to the fact that permitting would disrupt business. Within the last year, more than 9,000 EPA scientists and employees protested their own administration for pressuring them into rushed studies and cutting corners within their pesticide reports, and many top scientists have since resigned making public statements about the corruption of the very agency that was established to protect the environment. They demanded that toxic chemicals not be approved unless the EPA can prove with scientific evidence that certain pesticides will not harm neurological development in humans, but the EPA is unable to do that.

It is clear we cannot always rely on government, including the EPA, to make the best decisions about our health, our food, and our future. The only solution that seems to work is for consumers to educate themselves about the facts of food production and vote for the future of farming and vitality of our environment with their dollars and sense, shifting the market toward organic foods and sustainable products. In the words of Alice Walker, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. There is no one else coming.”

Solutions - Supporting Organic Farming and Sustainable Living

Organic farming, sustainable living, and conscious consumerism is a grassroots effort creating major shifts in economics and the start of what is materializing into a successful revolution backed by informed choices, environmental solutions, and commerce. Individuals who do not vote consciously with their dollars and sense continue to support industrial agriculture as well as its effects. The solution is to vote for certified organic, for as stated in the National Organic Program rule, a certified organic operation “must maintain or improve the natural resources of the operation, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife.”

Solutions – Improving on Excessive Energy Consumption

As listed in the Organic Center Report of 2006: Impacts of Organic Farming on the Efficiency of Energy Use in Agriculture, the U.S. food system uses approximately 19% of the total fossil energy burned annually, while organic farming systems reduce fossil energy inputs by one-third due to the absence of toxic chemical pesticides and nitrogen fertilizer applications. One of the main conclusions of the study is that fossil energy use in organic corn production was 31% lower than conventional corn production, with organic soybean production energy use being 17% lower than conventional. If only 10% of all U.S. corn were grown organically, we would save 4.6 million barrels, or 200 million gallons, of oil each year.
The way we feed livestock in the United States significantly contributes to energy loss because it takes 45 million tons of plant protein annually to produce only 7.5 million tons of animal protein in the form of meat, milk, and eggs. Organic methods prove better again when beef cows feed on organic pasture, a method which requires only half as much energy as grain-fed beef production. Also, when compared to conventional, two organic milk production systems in Sweden and Denmark showed that 29% and 35% less fossil energy per unit of milk, respectively, could be achieved, a marked improvement.

Solutions – Reducing Toxic Pesticide Pollution in Water, Air, Land, and Human Bodies

This one is simple, organic agriculture does not use toxic chemical pesticides, period. When you make organic purchases, you are an instrumental warrior in the fight for a more sustainable, less toxic world. By purchasing organic products in California alone, you will help stop California’s pesticide use increase of 40% per year, or an increase of 7.2 million pounds of pesticides used each year. It is estimated that from 1991-1998, California agriculture dumped more than 1.5 billion pounds of harmful pesticides on the land. Voting organic with your dollars also seriously decreases the amount of raw sewage sludge that is applied to crops fields and cuts down the risks of food borne diseases like E.coli. Studies have shown that organic food is more nutrient rich and beneficial than non-organic food, and eating organically could greatly reduce your risks of cancers, neurological disorders, and other serious health problems. A study from the University of Washington in Seattle concludes that children consuming an almost exclusive organic diet almost immediately eliminate exposures to dangerous pesticides know to disrupt neurological development. Through purchasing organic foods and in turn supporting organic farming practices, consumers are directly funding and advancing a revolution of solutions, the end to toxic chemical pesticides and fertilizers in our environment, and the beginning of healing the planet and ourselves.

Solutions - Increasing Biodiversity

The National Organic Program requires that organic producers promote ecological balance and conserve biodiversity. Increasing biodiversity can reduce farming costs for insect, rodent, and weed control by farming in harmony with nature’s natural predators by increasing habitat for beneficial insects and mammals to thrive in. Biodiversity farming measures will also improve water quality by implementing vegetative filtering methods to decrease the amount of harmful sediments in the water, naturally. According to a Wild Farm Alliance proposal, promoting biodiversity on the farm will also lead to more efficient pollination by creating habitat for native pollinators, natural enemy insects, and predatory birds and bats, as wild pollinators are now valued at an estimated $4-7 billion annually in the United States alone. Economic values will also be realized when native plants are used to displace weeds. And, as the Wild Farm Alliance report states, “When riparian vegetation and wetlands are safeguarded and restored, they can help to filter runoff and recharge dwindling groundwater supplies, which can equate to the alleviation of water quality fines and a reduction of pumping taxes, and to abundant clean water for future agriculture and community uses.”

Solutions - Protecting Waterways from Conventional Agriculture

It’s obvious that decreasing and eventually eliminating toxic chemical pesticide and fertilizer use in agriculture will lessen the amount of harmful toxins, sediments, and nutrients in our waterways, but what is actually being done about it? The USDA has the Conservation Security Program, a funding program that supports conservation stewardship on private agricultural lands by rewarding producers and thus increasing the use of conservation practices. The State of Washington is now funding farmers in the Skokomish watershed to switch over to organic farming practices in hopes of improving water quality through the reduction of harmful nutrients entering the watershed. The Skokomish watershed supports large runs of salmon as well as the state’s oyster industry, and the projected goal is to prove that fish die-offs in recent years can be directly attributed to high levels of dissolved oxygen and nitrates that leach into the water from nearby conventional farms.


The CCOF Foundation’s Going Organic project is being funded by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). What was launched as a pilot project funded by the Heller Foundation and CCOF, Inc. in 2003, has now grown into a groundbreaking effort to convert 5,000 acres of land to organic production within three years. By sampling water quality at three locations throughout the drainages that comprise the irrigated agricultural lands draining into San Pablo Bay, the Bay Area Delta, and within the Central Valley from the Sacramento-Lower Thomes Basin to the Tulare Lakes Basin, pesticide measurements will be assessed and compared. The goal of the project is to prove that implementing organic farming practices will mitigate pesticides, sediments, and nutrient runoff in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. As Fred Thomas, the Going Organic Project Coordinator, states, “The Going Organic project received significant funding from the California State Water Resources Control Board in 2005 because it recognized organic farm practices as beneficial for water quality in Basin Plan Management Measure 3.” The Going Organic project is underway, transitioning 5,000 acres within Regions 2 and 5 to organic-track production, transferring technology and information via seminars and mentor farmer-trainee relationships, and monitoring three organic drainage study sites for water quality improvements.

Numerous other research and funding opportunities are underway through organizations such as the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), ATTRA, The Rodale Institute, the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE), and the Organic Center, to name a few. As the research and conclusive evidence begins to mount on the side of organic agriculture and sustainable living, the worth of this progressive movement will have numerous opportunities to make its case, being armed not only with perfect timing, but with the voices of informed consumers worldwide.

Solutions – Promoting Progressive Environmental, Agricultural, and Food Policies

There are many ways to change the world. No matter your position, there is an avenue to express it; this is America, after all. By staying informed and in the loop about environmental, agricultural, and food politics, and by becoming involved in organizations like the Center for Food Safety, you can ensure your voice is heard at a legislative level near you, be it locally, federally, or internationally. The organic community was successful in keeping “the big three” out of organic standards in 1997, with the largest public outcry to the USDA (280,000 voices) ever recorded in history, and in 2006 the environmental and food community defeated California Senate Bill 1056 (aka the Monsanto Bill), which died in committee without a vote, due to the relentless opposition from a community intolerant of GE and GMO crops. We will eventually be successful in shaping and molding a more progressive world and a more sustainable future for ourselves and our families, but we’ve got a long road ahead.


Above all else, the most immediate possibility for progressive change can only be achieved through economics. Vote for change, for sustainable agriculture, for less toxic water, for biodiversity, for your health and mine, for the end of GE and GMO crops, for decreasing energy consumption and global warming gasses; vote for it all with your conscious dollars and sense.