GRAIN SILOS
Image: Lester Lefkowitz Getty Images
Throughout U.S. history there have been leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, who have supported the advancement of science and the protection of health and the environment and who have taken care to inform their policy decisions with the best scientific advice. After the midterm elections in November, it looked as though this tradition might take a backseat in the new Congress. For example, Representative-elect Jon Runyan, Republican of New Jersey, said in the aftermath of the election that to balance the federal budget one could cut “all the money we spend on frivolous research projects ... studying mating tendencies of fruit flies, stuff like that—is that really necessary?”
It is. The study of disease (for which fruit flies are essential tools), and scientific research in general, boosts economic growth, creates jobs and often ends up saving taxpayers money, as do improving infrastructure, supporting small farmers and promoting green energy. These are issues on which both parties could and should find common ground. Here is what we think should be top priorities of Congress and the Obama administration during the next two years.
Farm subsidies. The nation’s agricultural policy is due for an update in 2012. This gives Congress an opportunity both to cut spending and to help the environment. Federal subsidies now mostly reward large farms for planting monocultures of corn, soybeans, wheat and rice. Much of that food goes to factory farms, where tightly packed animals provide a breeding ground for infectious diseases and produce vast quantities of waste that poses an environmental hazard. The current system devours fossil fuels, depletes the soil and pollutes waterways. It also makes high-sugar foods and beef artificially cheap, contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemic. Through a transition in the way subsidies are allocated, the government should encourage a progressive return to sustainable, integrated farming, which alternates commodity crops with legumes and with grass for pasture.
Climate change. Opponents of proposals to cap carbon emissions argue that such measures would be a drag on the economy. But action on climate change is simple prudence. Doing nothing carries risks that outweigh the cost of phasing out emissions. Politicians should accept that calculation because the science that supports it is strong. They should also consider adopting sensible, market-friendly climate and energy measures. Options include the bipartisan “cap and dividend” bill proposed by Senator Susan M. Collins of Maine and Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington State—a revenue-neutral approach that would auction carbon permits and return the proceeds to taxpayers—and a low-carbon-electricity standard, which would give states more options for generating clean power.
Smoking. In 2004 the U.S. signed the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which encourages measures to reduce smoking. Seven years later the U.S. Senate has yet to ratify that document. It should. Despite a recent move to require more graphic warning labels, the U.S. is still one of only a handful of nations that are not required to adopt anti-smoking programs or counter the increased marketing of tobacco products in the developing world. Also, as Brianna Rego describes in this issue [see “Radioactive Smoke”], the Food and Drug Administration now has the authority to regulate tobacco and could begin to use it by making cigarettes free of highly toxic substances such as the radioactive isotope polonium 210.
Protecting the Internet. The monopoly power of Internet providers, reinforced by a regulatory quirk, is putting the democratizing and liberating effects of new media at risk. Nine years ago the Federal Communications Commission classified broadband Internet access as an “information service” rather than a “telecommunications service”—in effect, ruling that broadband was more akin to a single information source rather than an essential conduit through which the 21st century communicates. As a consequence, the agency lacks the authority to prevent Internet providers from screening what information we can or cannot access online. The FCC should reverse this decision and ensure the Internet stays free and open.
This article was originally published with the title A Political Wish List.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentYour commentary, "A Political Wish List," contains the line: "This gives Congress an opportunity both to cut spending and to help the environment."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.
As a science magazine, you should be aware that the U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. This means that unlike such Monetarily Non-Sovereign governments as Greece, Ireland, Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, you and me, the federal government has the unlimited ability to create money. In fact, the very act of paying federal bills creates money ad hoc. Further, a growing economy requires a growing money supply. Not only is federal spending necessary for economic growth, but increased federal spending is necessary.
When federal deficits have not grown, we have had recessions and depressions. See: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/introduction/
Monetary Sovereignty is the basis for the science of economics (just as arithmetic is the basis for algebra.) Those who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty simply cannot understand economics.
If you would like to learn more about Monetary Sovereignty and the science of economics, before writing more on this subject, go to: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/monetarily-sovereign-the-key-to-understanding-economics/
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
As an agriculture producer, it is quite natural for me to also be highly interested in science. I usually enjoy reading your content, however, I am quite dissatisfied with this particular statement made "Much of that food goes to factory farms, where tightly packed animals provide a breeding ground for infectious diseases and produce vast quantities of waste that poses an environmental hazard. The current system devours fossil fuels, depletes the soil and pollutes waterways. It also makes high-sugar foods and beef artificially cheap, contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemic."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to know the unbiased source you used to draw these conclusions? I would just like a reply, before I bring this to the attention of the entire agriculture sector, who I'm sure will be a little bit unfriendly in their response.
I generally enjoy your writing greatly, however, just wanted to bring this highly biased statement to your attention, so you could perhaps address the issue.
Thank you.
I too would like to see their sources. Peer reviewed, no less. I recently (1/6/2011) listened to an NPR program in which one of the guests made this point (I'm paraphrasing): we wouldn't be here discussing environmental degration, organic farming, etc., etc. if it weren't for conventional agriculture. Even medical advances could not allow 7 billions of people to survive. We need food first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wont deny your concerns with this article are warranted, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that a portion of the agricultural industry is a drain on the economy. It seems to me you took this article a little too generally. The fact of the matter is that improvements can be made to decrease spending and improve all those other conditions as well. If it's not perfect it can be improved, and nothing is perfect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agreed with this article entirely, at least in the sense that all these are pressing issues needing attention. Education would actually be my number one, because that's where EVERYTHING starts, you must have the knowledge before making wise decisions. If we could increase the knowledge of our general population, they would be able to make better decisions when they vote for people, as well as just better everyday life decisions. Political interest groups need to be disbanded, or some form of regulation put in place to severely limit their power. The EPA specifically is run by a bunch of morons who care more about the money they receive than the truth behind the science they are given. The insecticide known to be toxic to honey bees is a perfect example of this. (http://www.naturalnews.com/030921_EPA_pesticides.html)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo really, if we want to solve these other problems, we need to educate the public about EXACTLY what the government is doing and what needs to be done to ACTUALLY fix the problem. Without better education nothing will ever change. The media is too sly and the propaganda is too thick for the general populous to decipher the truth. Climate change is a perfect example of this: everyone KNOWS their cars emit toxic chemicals. Logically you'd think they'd also make the connection that eventually, regardless of if it is really doing anything yet, it will do something. Well that something may not in fact be a bad thing, but most likely it is. Nature was well balanced for current life on Earth before we started destroying that balance. Humans have tipped the scales, and if history tells us anything, nature will rebalance itself in a very violent and destructive manner. Again, education and common sense seem to be the most lacking feature of the average American, but it's the media and political interest groups that are to blame for all that propaganda.
"I would just like a reply, before I bring this to the attention of the entire agriculture sector, who I'm sure will be a little bit unfriendly in their response."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, you're threatening to bring the political wrath of the agricultural sector down on Scientific American because they dared suggest we take concrete steps to deal with problems that they have been documenting in their pages for years?
Read the articles in the back issues of the magazine to find citations for these studies. Manure spills from factory farms happen all the time and kill thousands of fish and pollute rivers and streams. Blanket use of antibiotics in animal production causes disease by increasing the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The epidemic of diabetes and obesity is caused by lack of activity and poor diet -- generally overconsumption of sugars, mostly derived from corn.
Giant chicken farms house thousands of sick birds and are breeding grounds for salmonella infections. Filthy cattle and dairy barns and sloppy slaughterhouse practices are the sources for countless E. coli outbreaks. Fertilizer runoff from farms in the Mississippi watershed goes into the Gulf of Mexico and creates huge dead zones.
It's not just giant agro-business practices that cause disease (the recent strain of swine flu may have come from a factory farm), but small-farm practices in Asia may have contributed to the avian flu epidemic. If farmers insist that we have absolute 100% incontrovertible proof that their farming practices are to blame for certain problems, the only result will be more kids dying from consuming tainted milk, meat and eggs.
Scientific American is not demanding that farms be shut down. They're just saying that farms should be cleaned up, taken off the government dole, and that society pay the true cost for products that are hurting us in the long run.
There is no doubt that the cheap food policy pursued by the US government for the last 60 years has resulted in vast economies of scale. In my lifetime I have seen the 100 acre producer vanish, and the number of 1000 acre producers almost vanish. During the 1980s, 1500 farms a week were declaring bankruptcy, most of them operations that were too small to survive. Large operations have allowed the adoption of automation that allows ever shrinking numbers of farmers to produce ever increasing amounts of food. Crops like corn and soybeans have become industrial feed stocks, not primary food sources. Production of ethanol from corn leaves the protein untouched, and produces millions of tons of brewer's grains that can replace up to 1/3 of cattle feed rations. To avoid the expense of drying the brewer's grains, they need to be fed wet, which means short haul trucking. This puts animal feeding operations in the vicinity of ethanol plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe negative effect of feed lots has been greatly exaggerated by the animal rights movement. The Clean Water Act treats feed lots as point sources of pollution. They are required to build treatment systems just like cities. Accidental sewage discharges are rare and usually subject to substantial fines. In my area, farms are typically fined $50,000 to $100,000 for discharging manure during flood events. I am not aware of any non-flood related events.
There is no doubt that agriculture is changing rapidly. I never imagined a time when the moldboard plow would become a museum piece, but it has been almost replaced by less energy intensive implements and practices. If people are willing to pay substantially more for food, our large, centralized system of agriculture can be replaced by smaller farms employing many more field workers. In 1950, food consumed about 30% of the family budget. Today it consumes about 9%. The government cheap food policy has been a resounding success. You might want to think twice about being so eager to pay the true price of your food.
"It also makes high-sugar foods and beef artificially cheap, contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemic."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo your solution (if one could call it that) is to make beef and sugar too expensive for everyone? Or just the poor? Or maybe just the middle and lower classes?
Where do you end this? Maybe outlaw beef and sugar altogether since its such a bad thing. While we are at it lets outlaw all things that cause diseases.
Certainly we need to improve food production standards. But engineering food production to control Americans diets is unethical.
Most Americans cant afford beef as it is. Most low income and even middle class house holds are underfed. Yet Americans are not healthier because they cant afford food for their families.
Your proposal is highly unethical; meaning that the result would cause starvation. But if your goal is to eliminate the middle and lower classes then I can see how you would think that it would be a good idea to raise the price of food in general. Because once you get your foot in the door Im sure you have many other radical ideas to dictate.
Apparently, the use of the word, "political" in the title has brought about commentary containing political threats, and even attempts to use the presently politically popular ad hominem attacks, rather than scientific discourse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will not address these, and suggest that others not bother to do so, as when addressed, commentary on websites fast degenerates into complete waste of space.
I would remind commentators that they are reading "Scientific American", and not political american - Scientific American's goals are to suggest that science-based inquiry be used as a method to understand political policy.
There is no other agenda, and no "solutions" proposed.
I would hope that comment moderators would erase infl;ammatory attempts, and inaccurate argument such as assertions that SA editors proposed threatening solutions, when, in fact, they did not.
What they did was encapsulate results of numerous studies in a way they felt readable to nonscientists.
If you wish to attack their style or failure to reference, please go ahead, although commentators will easily find quantitative studies backing each item on the wish list.
"Here is what we think should be top priorities of Congress and the Obama administration during the next two years."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article from the editors is not science. They have already come to their conclusions, and are wishing to promote their political talking points. Hence itemizing them as they have done.
The above quote makes leaves no room for debate. They are telling us that based on their assertion these things are the most important. Not to mention that they put themselves on a biased standing, by saying: "Opponents of proposals to cap carbon emissions argue that such measures would be a drag on the economy."
They effectively wrote a dogmatic political statement. I am not sure how it can be viewed as anything else.
This website and their magazine reaches many people. The editors are using the opportunity to express their political views. While discrediting the vehicle that gave them the chance.
"It also makes high-sugar foods and beef artificially cheap, contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemic." Yes, you could say that denying people food, will reduce the rate of obesity. But is it ethical to price certain foods so that only the wealthy may consume them?
But go ahead and chastize us with your lordy position.
Are there not an mods here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Crops like corn and soybeans have become industrial feed stocks, not primary food sources."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis comment made earlier is so true! Some consequences (mixed with comments) are:
Meat is artificially cheap.
Too much meat (and especially "unnaturally fat meat" is unhealthy.
You do not need meat to avoid starvation. (Note: I am not a "rabid" vegetarian/vegan.)
"The economies of scale" earlier comment roughly translates to the fact that we (and US farmers are the worst) convert, at negative efficiencies wrt energy, fossil fuels into food. Consider tractor fuel, "unnatural fertilizer and pesticide" production, food transport energy requirements, water pumping etc.
Much habitat area is unnecessarily taken away from "wildlife."
Unnecessary food transport and production (and monoculture) serves to introduce and propagate "alien" biology ("weeds" and "bugs") to their unnatural environments.
I have not gone into the pollution aspect as it has been commented on previously.
The origin of farm subsidies was partially due to the disproportionate political representation that rural areas enjoy(ed) (in the "first world") and is now perpetuated by unfair "corporate" political clout.
Your assessment of energy efficiency in modern agriculture is wildly inaccurate. Modern farming methods save fuel. The fuel waste comes from meat production and over use of pesticides and fertilizer. Large agro corporations have a strong profit incentive to reduce watering, pesticide and fertilizer use where ever they can and still produce the same or greater volume of food. They also have the money to implement the better methods where smaller farmers can't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA number of toxins have been introduced into the food supply by way of soft skinned fruit. As far as I can tell this threat is equal to or greater than the toxins introduced through meat. New methods of monitoring fields have been pioneered in california where water use is dramatically reduced as well as use of pesticides and herbicides. Corporate farmers are the ones coming up with these methods not small operations.
As the article states, congress can help the spread of better methods by allocating funds to support modernization and cut off bad operators.