Living Democracy, Feeding Hope

Originally published by The Wire on 12/14/2015 Women working in their rice paddy fields in Odisha. Credit: Justin Kernoghan/Flickr On December 15, the world’s trade ministers will gather in Nairobi, Kenya, for the tenth attempt to craft a new set of trade rules under the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The so-called Doha Development Round (DDR), launched in Doha, Qatar, in 2001, promised to right the imbalance in previous trade negotiations that had favoured the United States, European countries, and other developed nations. Reforming unfair agricultural practices were at the centre of the Doha agenda. On the eve of the Nairobi ministerial, that agenda itself is under threat. The US, EU, and Japan have proposed jettisoning the Doha agenda and the progress made before negotiations broke down in 2008. They have dismissed commitments made two years ago in Bali, Indonesia, to resolve objections to India’s ambitious National Food Security Act as an unfair subsidy to farmers. Agriculture, it seems, is barely on the Nairobi agenda. Going along with the West would be a costly mistake for developing countries. They may well be facing a new era of low crop prices in which highly subsidised crop production in the US and other rich countries creates overproduction and dumping of cheap goods on global markets. If ever there were a need for new agricultural trade rules, now would be the time. Changing economic landscape US negotiators claim that economic growth in China, Brazil, India and other emerging economies changes the basis for the Doha framework, but what has really changed since the progress in Bali is the fall in global crop and commodity prices. This puts farmers back in the same economic squeeze they experienced between 1997 and 2005, when costs regularly exceeded returns from sales, and rich-country governments stepped in with subsidy payments to make up the difference. The other change since Bali is the passage of the 2014 US Farm Bill, which proposes to do just that. The bill expands support through subsidised crop insurance by adding a variety of additional insurance schemes designed to compensate farmers if prices or revenues fall below particular targets. According to projections from University of Missouri researchers, these programmes are almost certain to exceed commitments on the table in the Doha negotiations and probably will put the US in breach of its current WTO subsidy limits as well. Payments are expected to exceed $12 billion in the current crop year, well above levels in recent years. A history of dumping This low-price-high-cost scenario could well lead to a new era of agricultural dumping. The WTO commits nations not to export at prices below domestic prices or below prices in other export markets. Beyond this kind of discriminatory pricing, though, the WTO agreements also define dumping as exporting at below the costs of production. This was common practice for the US before the recent rise in commodity prices. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in the US estimated that from 1997-2005 the US exported soybeans, corn, wheat, rice, and cotton at between 12% and 47% below farmers’ costs of production. A study of US dumping in Mexico estimated the costs to Mexican producers from the resulting depressed crop prices at nearly $13 billion over that nine-year period. Unfair competition cost developing countries dearly, undermining local farm economies in favour of cheap imports. Since 2001, the world’s least developed countries (LDCs) have seen their agricultural trade deficits skyrocket from $4.6 billion to $22.3 billion in 2011 after crop prices shot up. The WTO’s current Agreement on Agriculture proved particularly weak in preventing dumping. One successful case was brought by Brazil against the US for price suppression in cotton. Brazil won the right to take countervailing measures against US products, but the government never did so, in large part because US policies were deemed to be locked in by the previous Farm Bill. Brazil and the US formally settled the dispute last year based on changes to the cotton provisions in the new farm legislation. A return to dumping? New research suggests the US is already exporting corn at below the costs of production. Farmgate prices this year have been $19/ton below production costs, with US exports priced at $165/ton. With Farm Bill support prices at $179/ton, US corn farmers stand to receive some $6 billion in government payments this year. New economic modelling by University of California researchers paints a particularly bleak picture for global cotton farmers. They find that the reforms in the 2014 Farm Bill to US cotton subsidies will not eliminate price suppression. They project that during the five-year life of the legislation, subsidies will average $1.5 billion per year, keeping 20% more land in cotton, increasing exports 29%, and lowering global prices 7%. The estimated cost to other cotton producers is $3.3 billion per year due to lowered prices and lost markets. Indian producers would lose an estimated $800 million per year. The so-called Cotton 4 countries of Africa – Burkina Faso, Mali, Benin, and Chad – would collectively see $80 million per year in lost revenues, a heavy blow to small-scale farmers in small economies. These cotton-dependent countries have been promised relief in the WTO for more than 10 years. WTO Nairobi needs to deliver on agriculture Instead of sidelining agricultural negotiations, the Nairobi ministerial should be deepening discussions of fair trade in agricultural products. India’s food security programme should be declared a legitimate use of public procurement, not derided as an unfair subsidy. Developing countries need the kinds of protections proposed in the Doha Round – Special Safeguard Mechanisms to protect farmers from import surges, and Special Product designations for crops critical to food security and rural development. But developing countries need much more as we enter a new era of low crop prices. They need meaningful protections against agricultural dumping by rich countries which can afford to subsidise their farmers.

I’ll be in Mexico City September 3-5th for the first Global Conference on Money in Politics. Knowing that almost $400 million has already been raised for our presidential election that’s still a year away, I’ll be all ears. Spending in the U.S. presidential race alone almost doubled from 2000 to 2012 and is predicted to double again next year, reaching over $4 billion. So I want to find out how other countries are fighting for democracy against its corruption by powerful private interests. My learning began in a conversation with Secretary General Yves Leterme of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA ), a Stockholm-based organization of 28 member states. It is a co-sponsor of this historic conference with the Mexican Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary, OECD and others. From your global perch, in what recent breakthroughs do you see significant democratic progress? The balance between citizens and leaders is going in a positive direction. People just don’t accept cheating with the rules anymore! Social media is playing a big role in creating more transparency. Consider Tunisia. It is a difficult time for this new democracy—bordered by Libya, Algeria and challenged by terrorists—but despite a backlash, the country is trying to give rights to women and to stabilize its democracy after successful electoral processes . Tunisia is a true democratic breakthrough to emerge from the “Arab Spring.” Also, a number of countries are experiencing the peaceful transition of leadership as a normal part of life for the first time. Think of Nigeria and Senegal. And in Burkina Faso citizens stood up against an unconstitutional extension of mandate. Next may be Myanmar, where we’re working with both citizens and the government to make possible a smooth, peaceful transition. And in the opposite direction, what are the biggest democracy setbacks you see? Terrorism, clearly, is undermining democracy by forcing too many democracies to focus on security rather than furthering democratic development. But in the US and Europe, it is disengagement and disenchantment with the political process that threaten democracy. Democracy loses legitimacy because of money in politics. US election spending per capita is estimated to be 20 to 30 times more than in Germany, for example. Campaign spending is increasing in other countries, too. In the UK, political spending has increased three fold since 2010. Yet, the US is still the outlier. Another problem is that citizens are no longer engaging in democracy through traditional institutions. Lower voter turnout is a sign of disenchantment. Even among Croatians, voter turnout was only 20 percent in the first European Parliamentary election after the county joined the European Union in 2013. Also worrying is the trend of lower voter turnout among younger voters. I have learned from International IDEA that, unlike the US, there are rules democracies are enforcing to remove, or at least blunt, the influence of private wealth. What are these means? Many countries use a range of measures to ensure that private wealth and corporations do not determine electoral outcomes. However, private contributions also play a positive role and therefore, IDEA promotes enforceable rules that set maximum limits or enhance transparency. For example, most European countries ban anonymous donations, and worldwide almost half of countries limit the amount that can be donated to political parties and candidates. Two-thirds of countries also provide direct public funding to political parties. Of course, there are many ways to have a democracy, and IDEA is a non-prescriptive organization, meaning that we do not tell people how to do democracy in their countries. What do you think of the approach of governments offering citizens vouchers or tax credits to encourage citizens to contribute? Might this approach help to reconnect citizens to the electoral process? In our House of Representatives, a bill with a provision for citizen tax credits has 150 co-sponsors. Yes, the approach you mention can work. In general, public funding is effective if there are limits on what citizens and companies can donate. That way individuals can know they have real influence. However, such measures are only effective as part of comprehensive reform addressing other aspects of electoral democracy. I know International IDEA works primarily with governments, particularly emerging democracies. You also work with citizens, but how? An example is our work with citizens using IDEA’s democracy-assessment tools . Our Assessment of the State of Democracy enables citizens to evaluate the quality of their democracy, from service delivery—such as child care or sanitation—to avenues for citizens to hold elected officials accountable. Some governments are themselves encouraging citizen engagement. I was just in Mongolia where government is working to raise awareness that democracy is more than elections and has encouraged citizens to put these tools to work. Malawi is another example. Municipalities are also using these tools. Paris, for example, involves citizens in “participatory budgeting” where citizen assemblies can decide on how a share of the municipal budget is spent . The goal is inclusion and involvement in the administration of democracy. I am impressed by IDEA’s emphasis on gender equity as a key element of democratic equality and your encouragement of gender quotas as a means. It’s striking to me that the US Congress is only 20 percent female, which is below the world average of women in national legislatures and only half the share of many established democracies. What specific actions are enabling the move toward greater gender equity? No nation can thrive while putting aside 50 percent of the capabilities of its population. The under-representation of women in politics is a result of multiple forms of discrimination, often implicit, that women encounter in private and public spheres. Quota systems are very important. Also, in parliamentary systems, where candidates appear on lists for voters, a “zipper list” system mandates that every other person on the candidate list is a woman. In Tunisia, citizen pressure has produced a program for gender equality for the first time. While in some countries it can take a long time before these efforts see results, quota systems help to accelerate the change. In Bolivia and Rwanda already about half of elected politicians are female, partly thanks to this system. Please tell me more about how you see the role of civil society in helping to build and support true democracy? The quality of democracy depends on civil society not just standing outside and criticizing government. Civil society organizations need to truly interconnect with government. Citizens’ use of our assessment tools is an example. In some countries trade unions representing workers interconnect well with governments. Also, social movements sometimes become political parties. In India, for example, in Delhi state a social movement became the Aam Aadmi (Common man) Party and gave voice to a lot people for the first time. It turned out the established party. In Spain, Podemos, a movement against inequality, became a political party last year and already has the second largest membership among parties . These are positive developments. Finally, Secretary General, what is the most urgent message about money in politics that you believe the world needs to hear right now? That the equality of citizens is the essence of democracy and the role of money undermines that equality. Money in politics is endangering the legitimacy of democracy. Interested in learning more? Visit the Small Planet Institute for a helpful infographic from International IDEA and an SPI-made fact sheet which provides fascinating info from IDEA’s many publications on global democracy . Images courtesy of International IDEA and the UN Originally published by Huffington Post on 09/02/2015

Originally published by Earth Island Journal on 03/01/2016 The majestic half-dome of Yosemite. The psychedelic-colored hot springs of Yellowstone. The jaw-dropping ravines of the Grand Canyon…. Piles of plastic water bottles? Until recently, all of these – yes, plastic bottles included – could be considered iconic of our nation’s national parks. In the Grand Canyon alone, the park was recycling more than 900 tons of bottles a year, including plastic ones. But thanks to people-powered change, an estimated 75 national parks –about one quarter of the nation’s total – have now joined the movement to go plastic bottled-water free. The idea seems like common sense – and it is. Plastic water bottles create litter in our nation’s parks. And the production of the 50 billion plastic water bottles used every year in the United States, including in our nation’s parks, is a major environmental problem. As more and more national parks have kicked out plastic bottles, they’ve also found that adding water stations has increased access to water for visitors, promoting that all-important thing: hydration. But commonsense has a way of being perceived as anything but when it cuts into the profits of one of the biggest industries in the world: bottled water companies. When advocates started pushing for a ban on bottled water, the industry fought back big time. Through its trade group, the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), the industry fought the parks’ attempts to ban bottled water, even adding a rider last year to a Congressional appropriations bill. The rider, sponsored by Republican Representative Keith Rothfus, would have made it illegal for the National Park Service to spend federal dollars to implement or maintain bans on the sale of bottled water at any national park. (It seems no coincidence that Rothfus is cozy with the industry: Before proposing this rider, he had received a $1,000 contribution from the IBWA’s trade group and was a featured speaker at an IBWA event.) The advocacy group Corporate Accountability International, along with 19 other organizations, 30 members of Congress, and more than 350,000 people, worked together to call on Congress to block this rider. While these advocates won, defeating the attempt to undermine the National Park Services’ bottled-water-free movement, the industry succeeded in requiring that the government fund a study of the efficacy of the program. Yes, that means you and I – us, taxpayers – are paying for “research” to prove what national park rangers already know: Banning plastic water bottles reduces waste and helps the bottom line of parks around the country. Why all the hubbub about the ban? What I think really has the industry worried isn’t just that the bans successfully kick bottled water out of these iconic places, but that the bans spark a broader conversation about whether we really need bottled water in our lives at all – inside, or outside, park gates. Many of the parks, such as Grand Canyon, have created educational moments about the policy on their web pages and at their reusable water-bottle refilling stations. Park staff report families using the opportunity to reflect on sustainability and the environment – and how bottled water has no place in the equation. Lessons thousands now take home alongside their selfies at Old Faithful and memories of towering Tetons. On this, the centennial of the National Park System, it feels like the perfect moment to toast – with tap water, of course – this huge win on behalf of people and the planet.

During our Democracy Spring march from Philly to D.C. to sit-in on the steps of the capitol this week, one of my favorite chants was “Money ain’t speech and corporations aren’t people!” The closer we got to Washington, the more I could feel marchers’ outrage that corporations powerfully influence governance, yet they lack several essential characteristics expected of citizens participating in our democracy. Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, many compelling arguments have piled up to challenge the bizarre notion that corporations deserve our constitution’s protection regarding political speech, protection in many ways comparable to that afforded real people. But during the extended thinking time of my 100-mile march, I became increasingly preoccupied with the most obvious objection: Corporations should not hold the political rights of persons because they can’t uphold the basic duties and responsibilities of citizenship expected of most Americans. Here are four: •One: Corporations can’t vote. •Two: Corporations can’t serve in the military to protect us, yet real people may be obliged not only to serve but to be willing to risk their lives for us. •Three: Corporations can’t sit on a jury, while most real people are penalized if they do not carry out this solemn and often-demanding obligation. •Four: And perhaps most important, corporations cannot honestly pledge allegiance to our nation, since they serve instead the interests of their shareholders. Perhaps Justice Stevens captured these points best in his dissent to the Citizens United ruling: ”Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established. ”Democracy Spring cries out against the Citizens United and other court decisions that equate political spending with speech and calls on Congress to begin the constitutional process of passing an amendment effectively reversing these decisions. Three-quarters of state legislatures must also pass the amendment. The proposed amendment would “distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.” It also includes language protecting “freedom of the press.” For immediate relief from corporate dominance in what I call “privately held government,” Democracy Spring also calls on Congress to pass legislation to modernize our voting process, restore and protect voters’ rights, enable candidates to compete for office using small-donor contributions matched by public dollars, and permit legislatures to set spending limits. In all this, point four above—corporations’ incapacity for loyalty to our nation’s wellbeing—is worth special attention. Consider these examples: Today, “corporate inversions” allow companies to avoid billions in taxes needed for our wellbeing by relocating their legal headquarters to lower-tax nations. “They effectively renounce their citizenship,” observed President Obama. In 2012, the Wall Street Journal noted that “at least 60 percent” of U.S. corporate cash stockpiles were held abroad. As The Economist recently noted, U.S. corporations are now collectively stockpiling roughly $800 billion each year, doing nothing with it to benefit our society. At the same time, workers’ share of the GDP nears an historical low. Moreover, let’s not forget that even as American lives are being sacrificed in war, U.S. corporations have been known to show no loyalty to our country. An example is U.S. corporate business with the Nazi regime in World War II. Our founders envisioned a republic of citizens attentive to, and participating in, self-government. Yet, corporate political influence, greatly abetted by Citizens United , crowds out the voices of even our most attentive citizens. Jefferson warned us of the danger. “If once they [citizens] become inattentive to the public affairs,” he once said, “you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves.” On my march from the Liberty Bell to our nation’s capital, I became ever clearer that our republic depends on the engagement of real citizens as equals shaping public matters; and that can’t happen as long as we citizens allow the conflation of spending and speech and corporations to be afforded the political rights of persons. Catching a cab in D.C. after our third day of civic action, my driver Samson, who emigrated from Eritrea 20 years ago, responded to my chatter about Democracy Spring: “Yes, there’s way too much money in politics, and the world needs America to be an example of democracy that works.” Obviously, he didn’t need much convincing. I’ll see him this Saturday at the rally! Please join Samson, me, and thousands more.— DemocracySpring.org ! Originally published by Huffington Post on 04/14/2016

Originally published on Common Dreams on 04/07/2016 Photo courtesy of the authors (This interview was conducted during the Democracy Spring march from Philadelphia to Washington, DC — part of a two week action to push for a more equal and representative democracy.) We are about sixty miles into our 140-mile march to Washington, D.C. from Philadelphia. How are you feeling? Exhilarated…and that’s after waking up at 4 am on a hard floor! Why are you feeling so exhilarated? At the risk of sounding cheesy, Democracy Spring is a moment I’ve hoped for all my life: Finding myself in a nurturing community that’s uniting people across issues, ethnic groups, genders, and backgrounds to tackle the mother of them all, our democracy deficit. We’re determined to create real democracy, one accountable not to Big Money but to the citizens. What could be more exhilarating than that? Before the march, I confess, I imagined most people moving along, ear buds in place, in their own worlds. But, no. Everyone’s talking and telling each other what brought them here. Each story I’ve heard — from the veteran to the MIT engineer, the teenager to the former Wall St. banker — is so engrossing that I forget to ask how many more miles to go! Day after day, I see everyone staying positive, being respectful, and welcoming each person who’s joining us. You’ve been writing about democracy for almost three decades. Is this sense of community new for you? The food movement, which I know best and respect deeply, has always felt like a vibrant, connected community. But honestly, I feared I’d never find that in the world of democracy. But my fear has evaporated here. In Democracy Spring, I sense a powerful community forming. It embodies the democratic spirit, in which our heads and hearts meet. We have long known the facts of our democracy crisis, but few of us have dared to hope that foundational change is possible. I have a strong sense that we’ll come to see Democracy Spring as more than an event. It might well become one historic marker of the budding democracy movement. So why has this community formed now? Because millions of Americans now get it! We must remove Big Money from politics to succeed on any issue we care about from racial justice to climate change. It’s the plurality of commitments within Democracy Spring that is our strength, not our weakness. Why is marching from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. so important? It makes the movement visible. No one can ignore one hundred and fifty people marching one hundred and forty miles. Hundreds of people from their cars and front steps are honking and waving at us, calling out, “Yes! Finally!” When people see us, I sense they see themselves in our action. Many are thanking us for representing them because they aren’t able to march for themselves. Everyone who sees us will likely tell their friends, “Hey, I saw people marching on the highway about money in politics!” And some will think: “Okay, maybe I don’t have to give up on real change.” In this way we’re fighting our one real enemy — despair. Also, the march is transforming all of those in it. At least it’s true for me! I will carry the stories I’ve heard forever as well as the community we’ve formed. Learning and standing up together for what we believe in is powerful. Taking this action, I feel myself becoming more convincing to myself. Don’t you think that can make me more convincing to others? Yeah, protest certainly can do that. For me, “protest” doesn’t really capture Democracy Spring. I think of what we’re hoping to embody as “civil courage.” I hope that doesn’t sound self-important, because all I mean is that we’re choosing to do something most of us have never done before to stand up for the good of the whole. We are not only naming the crisis, but we are also offering specific solutions. Can you tell me more about what you mean by “civil courage”? To me it’s the essence of democracy. For here is the human challenge: By nature we are so very social that we want desperately to fit in and to feel accepted. What’s toughest for most of us is to break with the pack — even when the wider group is heading into great danger. Civil courage means trusting one’s vision and saying to those who’ve given up or don’t see the danger: “I respect you, but I’ve got to go and stand up for what I believe is necessary for all to thrive.” It can feel scary. But the reward of acting with others for the good of all is great. It is hope itself. When my daughter Anna Lappé and I founded the Small Planet Institute, we chose this as our motto: “Hope is not what we seek in evidence, it is what we become in action together.” What’s the difference between the typical understanding of courage and civil courage? We all admire someone rushing into a burning building to save a stranger. That instantaneous response demonstrates enormous courage. Civil courage is different and often unheralded. It builds over time. It is built on human solidarity and often requires deep reflection. But in the end, you realize that in all of life, it’s not possible to know what’s possible, so you take the leap. It’s deeply patriotic. And that’s what I sense in the people around me: marchers making big sacrifices financially or otherwise to fight for all Americans. Many are even willing to sit-in at the Capitol on April 11th, risking arrest for the first time in their lives. I’m fortunate to have my family and friends behind me. But some people don’t. I admire them the most. Taking the leap to stand up for a future of dignity for all is civil courage. And for me, Democracy Spring embodies it. Are you hopeful that the Democracy Spring movement can flourish? It could be a turning point. Within it, we are creating a culture of engagement in which every person’s voice is respected; therefore everyone has dignity — a fundamental human need. In that spirit, as soon as Democracy Spring is finished, Democracy Awakening begins, in which over 200 groups are organizing teach-ins and other actions, including civil disobedience, to push for meaningful election and voting rights reform. All I know for sure is that right now, for the first time in my life, I feel I am a part of historic movement responding to three basic human requirements for life: connection , something I feel with everyone that is here; meaning , as getting Big Money out of politics is the most important issue of our time; and a sense of power , because together we are making a difference. So you can imagine how grateful I am to those who created Democracy Spring. It is changing me, it’s building my courage quotient, and I firmly believe that courage is contagious.

Originally published by Civil Eats on 03/03/2016 Three years ago, an explosion at a West, Texas fertilizer plant killed 15 people and injured another 260. In January, the Chemical Safety Board, the federal agency that investigates chemical disasters, released their final report . The conclusions are sobering: More than a thousand communities nationwide are home to similar fertilizer production facilities that store fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate—the agricultural chemical that caused the deadly explosion, and there are 80 facilities in Texas alone. Vanessa Allen Sutherland, the chairwoman of the agency, told reporters: “It’s possible for another type of incident like this to happen.” We’ve long heard from proponents of industrial agriculture—and the synthetic fertilizer industry driving it—that we need these products to feed the world. But is the risk of another West, Texas the price we have to pay for a well-fed world? More and more scientists have uncovered data that suggests it’s not. Take the recent study lead by Professor John Reganold at Washington State University (WSU). In a first-of-its kind effort, researchers there have analyzed studies covering 40 years of data comparing the “long-term prospects” of organic and chemical farming. In a peer-reviewed article released last month in Nature , Reganold and his team made a strong endorsement of organic farming. They wrote: “Organic agriculture is a relatively untapped resource for feeding the Earth’s population, especially in the face of climate change and other global challenges.” Organic systems are especially compelling, the authors note, when considering not only productivity, but also the environment, economics, and community well-being—the four pillars of sustainability. What’s perhaps most important to note about these findings is what they tell us about feeding our growing population. Researchers looking narrowly at yield-to-yield comparisons found that organic production systems have lagged behind those of chemical ones in most cases. But that science was based on historic data. And we can safely say the climate of 10 or 20 years ago is not the climate of today. With climate change will come greater extremes in weather and temperature—from droughts and floods, to unusual heat waves and cold snaps. And Reganold and his team found ample evidence that organic production fares better during these extreme conditions. For one, the WSU study found that organic agriculture had yielded more food “in severe drought conditions.” This was the case in large part because of the “the higher water-holding capacity of organically farmed soils.” The authors also note that organic farms “consistently have greater soil carbon levels, better soil quality, and less soil erosion compared with conventional systems” and they can withstand flooding better as a result. Organic farming production is also generally more energy-efficient, the researchers found. Keep in mind that the historic yield performance of organic systems is also a reflection of the knowledge and seed varietals of the past. Innovations in organic farming are ongoing and will certainly increase the performance of future organic farmers. Only a fraction of agricultural research worldwide goes toward organic agriculture. Investing in this research would reduce the yield gap. The WSU team also notes that those comparing these farming systems should take into account the other costs of chemical farming, including the ones beyond the “field boundaries.” Biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, and water and air pollution are all associated with conventional farming systems, but are often not accounted for in the studies they reviewed. What else is beyond those “field boundaries?” The industrial fertilizer supply chain. Widen the lens and you end up in places like West, Texas or any of the other 1,300 facilities that house potentially explosive chemical fertilizer components. Widen the lens even further and you end up at the industrial operations of BASF, Dupont, or other agricultural chemical producers. Places like Midland, Michigan , where Dow Chemical manufacturing has generated the highest levels of dioxin ever detected in waterways in the United States. These manufacturers have a powerful voice on Capitol Hill. Trade groups like the Fertilizer Institute, whose mission is to “protect, promote and represent the fertilizer industry from the point of production to the point of use,” lobby to promote the industry’s interest in the Halls of Congress. In 2015, the Fertilizer Institute alone had a lobbying budget of more than $8 million. The political influence of Koch Industries is also well documented, with millions spent to protect its business interests; Koch Fertilizer manufactures and distributes more than 13 million tons of nitrogen, phosphate, potash, and sulphur-based products through 90 facilities at locations across the United States and around the world. Meanwhile the citizens of places like West, Texas don’t have well-paid lobbyists to defend their interests. Nationwide, communities are at risk from an industrial accident at a fertilizer production facility. And countless other communities are affected by the industrial food supply chain, from Midland, Michigan to the many communities in the shadow of chemical manufacturing plants nationwide. But research like WSU’s recent survey of studies offers a clear reminder that it doesn’t have to be this way. We can feed the world without having to resort to risky agricultural practices and potentially explosive inputs.

In his State of the Union, President Obama called for “reducing the influence of money in our politics.” Fantastic. He has heard the growing cry of the 85 percent of us who want big changes (with almost half of us wanting a complete rebuild!) in how America funds elections. Eighty-five percent? Yes, whether its climate change, economic inequality, or a biased justice system, Americans grasp that solutions depend on our tackling big money’s corruption of our political system. The President then told us that change “will depend on you”—that we citizens must “demand it.” And we are. We are building a citizens’ movement for democracy, and many of us will soon be taking to the streets: Starting April 2nd in a mass action called Democracy Spring thousands will march from Philadelphia to Washington D.C. If pending money-out-of-politics and voting rights legislation has not passed, on April 11th more than 1,500 citizens have already pledged to risk arrest in a non-violent sit-in at the Capitol. In this blog we share some powerful evidence of what works to reduce money’s corrupting influence, but first a bit about why Democracy Spring is necessary. Just a few numbers—very big and very small—capture the crisis it addresses: The aggregate cost of all federal races climbed from $4 billion in 2004 to over $5 billion in 2008 to more than $6 billion in 2012. The cost of the 2016 election is set to climb higher still. At the same time, the share of Americans footing these bills is minuscule and shrinking: By mid-fall 2015, a mere 158 families and their corporations had already contributed almost half, $176 million, of early money going to presidential campaigns. Think of it this way: A group the size of a high school marching band shaping the fate of the United States. The problem is that even though most Americans see this crisis, they don’t also perceive a big part of the solution there for us to grab: Public financing. It’s an approach our Supreme Court doesn’t object to and is used by a vast majority of global democracies where elections are commonly seen as a public good. In the United States, partial public funding through matching funds for presidential campaigns—conditioned on candidates accepting strict spending limits—began in 1976, triggered by the 1973 Watergate scandal. In its first year, public funds covered almost 60 percent of presidential campaign costs. But public financing was never increased to reflect ballooning private-campaign contributions; so in 2008 candidate Obama decided he would be greatly handicapped by the program’s spending limits and opted out. In Congress, bills to make public (or citizen) financing of presidential and congressional campaigns viable languish for lack of citizen action demanding a solution. They offer two approaches: One, matching systems in which the government funds (e.g. six to one) eligible candidates based on the number of small-money contributions they receive from constituents. Two, voucher systems, such as Seattle voters approved in 2015 for city council races, that give each registered voter a voucher worth a certain sum that can be used to support any candidate opting into the program. We’re convinced that if Americans see the benefits and speak up Congress will act.Benefits start with the obvious: Public funding means a financial elite will likely exert less power over public policy . Also, matching funds tied to the number of small donors motivates candidates to reach out directly to as many voters as possible—rather than only to those who can afford to show up at high-ticket fundraisers. (In Mitt Romney’s case, make that $50,000-a-plate dinners! ) Fortunately, the experience of three states and one city—Maine and Arizona since 2000, Connecticut since 2008, and New York City since 1988—gives us a taste of the many benefits of broad public financing: •Public financing increases the political participation of women and people of color. In Arizona, in 2004, the number of Latino and Native American candidates had nearly tripled compared to the pre-public financing period. Increased diversity has also been found in Connecticut, where 85 percent of the 2014 candidates in the general election relied on public financing to win their seats. In New York City, people of color comprised the majority of the city council in 2012. •With public financing, fewer races are uncontested because the system lessens incumbents’ funding advantage. •Also great for democracy, the range of viewpoints among candidates widens, giving voters more choice . In Maine, the number of candidates has doubled since Clean Elections began. Minnesota also deserves a shout out, as in 1976 it was the first state to adopt public financing, though more limited than the three states above. In all, 13 states plus 17 cities and counties have adopted lump-sum payments and/or matching funds for some offices. To encourage us further, consider this evidence of citizen enthusiasm... •72 percent of Americans favor small-money, public-matching funds, found a late-2015 poll . •Several public-financing ballot initiatives in 2015 succeeded—big time. In Maine, voters strengthened their existing law by increasing funds for public financing and expanding disclosure rules. In Seattle, residents overwhelmingly voted for public financing via a system providing voters four $25 vouchers each to support their candidates. (In 2014, Tallahassee passed similar rules, 2 to 1.) •When Connecticut’s legislature revealed it was considering a temporary suspension of public financing to help deal with a budget short fall, an immediate and vehement citizen backlash forced it to recant . But, naysayers say, money, like water, will always find an outlet. True, leaks happen, but that doesn’t mean we can’t turn off a gushing faucet! And there’s another source of energy for us. It’s Democracy Spring, with which we began. Seventy organizations have so far publicly agreed to join, and celebrities including Mark Ruffalo, Lawrence Lessig, and Cenk Unger have made the pledge. I, Frances, have signed on, too. Democracy Spring is poised to be one of the largest acts of civil disobedience in a generation—or what we prefer to call acts of civic obedience to what democracy requires of its citizens when it is under threat. Far from giving up, Americans are standing up for democracy as never before. All of us can pledge to press for reform and to vote only for those backing public financing. And we can join in Democracy Spring. There is no time to waste! Originally posted by Huffington Post on 01/13/2016

Originally published by The Washington Post on 02/04/2016 In her latest column for The Washington Post , “ The surprising truth about the ‘food movement,’ ” Tamar Haspel argues that the number of people who really care about where their food comes from, how it is grown and its impact on our health and the environment is surprisingly small. We think she’s wrong. As two people who talk to consumers, farmers and retailers every day about food buying choices, we can tell you that the level of awareness and concern for the food we are eating is higher than it has ever been — and shows in changing attitudes and in changing habits, too. But don’t take our word for it. Listen to food industry analysts like Scott Mushkin , who said last year: “To me, the biggest change is what’s going on with eating trends in the U.S. It’s stunning how much food patterns have changed.” His firm’s research found that the No. 1 one message of women surveyed was that they want to buy more fresh fruits and vegetables. Or look at indicators from the marketplace: Flagging profits at Walmart are a sign of the public’s changing attitudes toward food. The company was seen as a mortal threat to traditional food retailers when it entered the market, more than 15 years ago. Today, Walmart finds itself competing poorly with smaller stores offering fresh, local produce and even with other big-box stores, such as Costco, now the nation’s largest seller of organic food. Meanwhile, sales of regular soda in the United States have declined a jaw-dropping 25 percent in the past two decades . This, despite Coca-Cola’s spending $3.5 billion on advertising in 2014 alone and dispensing millions in charitable donations to woo the public and deflect concern about its most profitable — and least healthful — products. Those consumption trends are a reflection that Americans increasingly care about where their food comes from, how it is grown and the health and environmental implications of what they feed their families. Let’s be clear: These changes didn’t just happen. The shifts we are talking about are occurring as a result of the concerted work of dedicated advocates, activists and community-based organizations that are changing the marketplace and the food system. They are doing it not just through purchasing decisions but also by holding their elected officials accountable and demanding better food policy at local, state and national levels — all against the backdrop of billions in marketing by the processed-food and fast-food industries. I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a food movement to us. Yes, conventionally grown food still makes up the vast majority of what Americans buy on a daily basis. But that doesn’t reflect a lack of demand for organic food; it reflects a lack of supply. We’ve heard personally from the people who run large food companies that one of their biggest challenges is meeting the demand for organic fruits, vegetables, dairy and meat. And this brings up a very important point: The staggering gap between supply and demand reflects the regulations, policies, infrastructure — and even financial markets — that greatly favor conventional agriculture through billions of dollars’ worth of subsidies, generous insurance coverage, extensive research, technical help and even marketing assistance that make it difficult for farmers to transition to organic. The reality is the demand for organic is growing by leaps and bounds, limited only by the ability for supply to match it. The demand for fresh, local and organic is seen clearly in the popularity of the nation’s farmers markets. Haspel argues that this popularity is waning, citing figures of plateauing sales. But other evidence points to a different story. Data from the USDA’s farmers market manager survey conducted last year found a bump in business: Among the more than 8,400 markets nationwide, 61 percent of those surveyed reported increased traffic; more than half reported increases in year-on-year sales. Because the USDA survey she looked at is done only once every five years, Haspel’s data was from 2007 to 2012, which, as you might remember, coincided with the country’s crippling recession, when the number of Americans struggling with hunger shot up by 12.8 million and consumers stopped spending. Sales of lots of things — homes, cars, refrigerators, even food — felt the effects of the economic downturn. The change in the kind of food we buy isn’t happening just at grocery stores and farmers markets. Between 2006 and 2012, for example, there was a 430 percent increase in farm-to-school programs , reaching more than 4,000 school districts across the country with locally sourced food in school meals. The number of regional food hubs that connect farmers with wholesale, retail, institutional and individual buyers also grew by almost 300 percent during that time. That kind of growth doesn’t just happen. It takes organized, committed parents, teachers, food-service directors and administrators. It takes city planners, business, farmers, restaurateurs and retailers coming together. These changing attitudes toward food are reflected in public opinion. A poll conducted last fall by bipartisan team Lake Research Partners and Bellwether Strategies for the Plate of the Union campaign found that voters are overwhelmingly concerned that not all Americans have access to healthful, affordable food and want to see policymakers take bold action to remedy it. The food movement we are part of is a movement made up of farmers and farmworkers, of teachers and public health officials, of policymakers and chefs, and of everyday Americans from all walks of life. Despite what opinion writers such as Haspel say, they care about labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs), farmworker rights and the effects of chemicals used to grow their food. Big change never comes easily, and it never happens quickly. Along the way there will always be those who doubt it’s happening at all. But we can see it happening across the country — in grocery stores, in school cafeterias, on family farms. And even in the halls of Congress.

Originally published by Down to Earth on 02/23/2016 Director General Roberto Azevedo and Chair of the Tenth Ministerial Conference, Amina Mohamed, mark the conclusion of the WTO conference, which resulted in the adoption of the “Nairobi Package” Credit:WTO In a self-congratulatory tone, lawyer and politician Amina Mohamed (who also served as the Chair of the Tenth WTO Ministerial Conference) called the recently-concluded World Trade Organization’s (WTO) negotiations “a turning point for world trade”. In her opinion piece in The Daily Nation she wrote that the international trade body “is now pointed in the right direction”. With the general council of the WTO meeting Wednesday for the first time after the Nairobi Ministerial, most observers expect a stormy session with the developing countries likely to take on Director General Roberto Azevedo for his non-transparent role by which the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration (NMD) was drawn up. The fate of the Doha Development Round (DDR) and the Doha issues now hangs in balance with the US, the EU and other developed countries expected to make a concerted push for new issues and a new architecture in view of the NMD. Sadly, Mohamed’s apology echoes the triumphalist interpretation of the US negotiators, who claim they have effectively killed the DDR. Unfortunately, Mohamed did not lead the WTO’s first African ministerial in the right direction on development issues so urgently needed by the countries in the continent. She turned the institution back to the time when rich countries set the agenda and wrote the agreements. Let’s examine her claims to success. Analysis of Mohamed's assertions First, she asserts that Nairobi achieved an “…outlawing of export subsides in developed and developing countries by 2018 and 2023 respectively…” This is a half-truth as the Nairobi agreement merely put a cap on the existing levels of support. Fiscal considerations had led the EU to stop much of its export promotion earlier and the US has not acceded to putting binding restrictions on most of its export promotion. This is just a pyrrhic victory for developing countries and not a game-changer, let alone a “valuable leveling of the playing field”, as Mohamed added. Perhaps the most egregious misreporting of the Nairobi outcomes was that the ministers had agreed to end agricultural subsidies. Mohamed feeds the misperception by ignoring that domestic agricultural subsidies, which are by far the most trade-distorting, were not even allowed on the table by the rich countries. In fact, they are at the core of the Doha agenda that was actively resisted by the US and others. The cotton issue The same misrepresentation sits behind her second assertion regarding the contentious issue of cotton. Mohamed writes that the ministers, “…decided on the prohibition of export subsidies immediately by the developed countries.” This is not significant. Far more important are domestic subsidies, especially those provided by the US. Recent studies have shown that the 2014 US Farm Bill, far from eliminating trade distortion in cotton, will continue it, raising the US cotton exports to 29 per cent above their reasonable market levels and suppressing global prices by 7 per cent. That will cost the world’s other cotton producers an estimated $ 3.3 billion per year in lost revenues. Most important, Africa’s long-suffering C-4 cotton producers are projected to lose $ 80 million a year. The Nairobi outcomes left those damaging programmes intact, untouched, and, in fact, not even discussed them. The third assertion is that Mohamed states that the Nairobi package, “…reaffirmed the Bali decision on public stockholding for food security purposes….” This is technically correct, but she fails to note that the developing countries, including India, were pushing for a permanent solution on the public stockholding issue. Non-resolution of this, two years after Bali, in fact betrays the promises made there and subsequently in Geneva. Reaffirming the “peace clause” on the existing programmes is hardly an advance for an issue of such concern for so many developing countries. The IT agreement Then comes the Information Technology agreement, which is a plurilateral agreement, but even the host, Kenya, was not a signatory to it. Surely if this was such a great deal for the developing countries, Mohamed could have easily prevailed on her own government to get on board. But truth be told, elimination of tariffs on IT products has limited benefits for African and most other developing countries. It may lower the consumer cost of some IT products, but will also eliminate needed tariff revenues. In any case, the main beneficiaries will be the more developed countries which manufacture IT products. Another achievement touted by Mohamed is the LDC (least developed countries) package and the extension of “duty-free, quota-free” access of LDC products to rich countries. Any celebration by the LDCs on that count, without looking at the exempted tariff lines, would be premature. In reality, most key products, such as textiles remain excluded, so close to 90 per cent of the goods exported by LDCs will not be covered by the deal. Undermining the Doha round The most enduring myth that Mohamed seeks to create about the Nairobi ministerial is also the most dangerous. She claims that the continuity of the Doha Round mandate has been adequately addressed to by the agreement’s acknowledgment of “polar positions” on the issue. By this Mohamed adds insult to injury. The fact is that for the first time the consensual nature of the WTO decision-making process—one country, one vote—has been cast aside to allow a few rich countries to undermine the Doha Round in Nairobi. She claims that no new issues can supplant the remaining Doha issues without the agreement of all members, but those members now know that any further discussion of, say the US cotton subsidies, will be conditioned on their willingness to negotiate on investment or one of the other “new issues” so central to the rich country’s agenda. Developing countries will now have an uphill task to negotiate in Geneva without the set of principles and the framework that the Doha Round provided. In this sense, Mohamed is perhaps right when she says that as chairperson, the “outcome was not fatal for the WTO”. But it may have been fatal for the interests of developing countries and for any hope that trade rules, written by and for rich countries and global corporations, will not trump the interests of the poor and marginalised communities across the world. Nairobi may well go down in history as the graveyard of development issues in the WTO, and Mohamed as the chairperson of the ministerial can scarcely avoid her responsibility as the undertaker of this endeavour. India, on the other hand, has a chance to redeem itself in the General Council meeting by standing up to the developed countries, having initially buckled under pressure to developed nations in Nairobi. This time it has less credibility having acquiesced to the non-transparency at the ministerial by joining the small group of five countries, which ultimately scripted the downfall of the DDR.

Originally published by Food Tank on 12/18/2015 Trade ministers from around the world are concluding a contentious week of negotiations in Nairobi, Kenya under the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Doha Development Round. Thus far, there is no indication that Pope Francis, when he was in Nairobi three weeks earlier, blessed the Kenyatta International Convention Center where the summit will take place. Given the intransigent tone of the U.S. and other developed country representatives, a papal blessing may be the only thing that can produce an outcome worthy of the WTO’s current mandate to promote development. The United States is demanding nothing less than the ending of the Doha Round. A welcome shot in the arm came earlier this week from Dr. Hilal Elver, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, who issued a statement urging negotiators to deepen their commitment to achieving the development objectives of the Doha Round. She called it “profoundly troubling” that a “handful of countries” are calling for an end to Doha. Trade rules and the right to food The Special Rapporteur’s sharply worded statement highlights the importance of fair trade in achieving the U.N. mandate for governments to promote “the progressive realization of the right to food.” Trade rules can – and do – undermine food security in developing countries in a number of ways, and many of those issues are at the center of the WTO’s agriculture negotiations. Trade rules allow excessive levels of “domestic support” for their farmers by rich countries, which results in the “dumping” of cheap, subsidized commodities on developing country markets. WTO rules, strictly applied, can threaten legitimate food security programs, such as the public procurement of staple food crops at administered prices (to benefit poor farmers) for distribution to the poor at subsidized prices. Many countries, including the WTO host government of Kenya, maintain such programs. India’s vastly expanded food security program came under fire from the United States and a few other countries, which used arcane WTO calculations to inflate the estimated subsidy implied by such programs. The conflict almost prevented agreement in Bali, Indonesia two years ago. Such conflicts between trade rules and the right to food prompted a public dust-up in 2011 between then-WTO head Pascal Lamy and then-Special Rapporteur Olivier De Schutter. De Schutter had issued a briefing note identifying the many ways in which WTO rules undermined the right to food. As a human right, De Schutter argued, the right to food should take precedence and trade rules should promote rather than impede its realization. The subsequent attack on India’s National Food Security Act (NFSA) only highlighted De Schutter’s point. India’s National Food Security Act (NFSA), approved in 2013, seeks to reach hundreds of millions of poor farmers with better prices while providing basic foods to fully two-thirds of the nation’s people. It represents a huge step toward achieving the right to food, which had been formally upheld by the Indian Supreme Court. United States farm policies under fire The United States led the calls in Bali to question India’s food security measures, calling them – apparently with a straight face – an unfair subsidy to India’s farmers. The hypocrisy of that charge was only made more stark by the passage the following year of the new U.S. farm bill. Though claiming to reduce “trade-distorting” subsidies, the bill may well end up increasing them. Early projections suggest that commodity payments to farmers will be around US$12 billion, higher than in recent years. There is little doubt that U.S. cotton subsidies will have such a “price-suppressing” effect. A recent study estimated that removing the new subsidies to cotton, which were supposed to be WTO-compliant, would reduce U.S. exports by 29 percent while raising prices 7 percent. The costs of lowered prices and lost markets to other cotton producers were estimated at US$3.3 billion per year, US$16 billion over the five-year life of the farm bill. India, the country the United States accuses of unfairly subsidizing its farmers, would be one of the hardest hit, with lost cotton revenues of US$800 million per year. The so-called Cotton 4 West African countries – Mali, Chad, Benin, and Burkina Faso – which had been promised “expeditious” action on U.S. cotton subsidies fully ten years ago, now face losses collectively of US$80 million per year. Will the WTO abandon development? U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, in a bold stroke of hypocrisy, opened his speech to the WTO plenary calling on trade representatives “to move beyond the cynical repetition of positions designed to produce deadlock.” Deadlock, of course, is exactly what Froman wants so he can start shaping the WTO in the image of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement far more to the liking of the U.S. negotiators. This is no time to abandon the development mandate embodied in the WTO’s Doha Round. More than one hundred WTO member countries issued a statement challenging the call to end the negotiations, citing Doha’s many unmet promises. The African group issued a statement with India and other developing country allies demanding the reaffirmation of the Doha mandate. Special Rapporteur Hilal Elver agrees. She particularly urged the removal of rich country policies that “hamper efforts by developing country governments to increase domestic food production, particularly by smallholder farmers whose families are among the world’s hungry.” If rich countries are permitted to jettison the Doha Round and put their own priority issues on the table instead, we’ll be looking at what the late great U.S. baseball legend Yogi Berra called “déjà vu all over again” – a few developed countries setting the agenda and writing the rules in their own interests. That history is what prompted the present effort to seek greater equity in the WTO. It should not be abandoned.

Originally published by TIME on 11/26/2015 Just five years ago, many would have considered it impossible to pass a $15 minimum wage in this country. Today, nine cities, counties or states have passed policies for $15 an hour or more. Many others are contemplating similar measures. Several years ago even the most diehard labor activist would have considered it pie-in-the-sky to imagine mass action by the low wage workers of Walmart, the largest corporation in the world. This Black Friday, thousands of Walmart workers and their supporters will take to the streets again to demand $15 an hour and full-time hours. As we gather around the table today, we are connected to this movement whether we realize it or not. Paleo or vegan, gluten-free or omnivorous, your dinner has been brought to you by likely hundreds of the 20 million people who work along the food chain: from meat packers to truckers, grocery clerks and farmworkers. Perhaps no other day is so clearly a reminder of how out of whack are the values of our food chain. While healthy, safe, affordable food is likely high on all of our lists of important things, those making sure such food is on our tables are among the most exploited, overworked and underpaid. According to research from the Food Chain Workers Alliance , a national network of 25 food worker organizations representing over 300,000 workers, 86 percent of all food workers are either paid below the minimum wage or below a living wage. A full 23 percent of food workers are paid less than the minimum wage with tipped employees receiving a trifling $2.13 an hour under federal law. It’s not just poor wages; it’s also dangerous working conditions. Workers on conventional farms are exposed to a barrage of toxic chemicals, many of which have been associated with a variety of cancers and hormonal and neurological problems. Studies published by the California Cancer Registry have found that farmworkers have higher risks of lymphomas and leukemia , as well as brain, stomach, prostate and cervical cancers. Workers across the food chain are at risk. Meat processors, for example, are injured on the job at two and a half times the rate of the national average—a reality that has gotten worse as the industry has pushed out organized labor and workers have lost protections. In his devastating book The Chain , journalist Ted Genoways details the dangerous conditions on pork processing floors in the Midwest where line speeds force workers to work harder and faster, leading to a range of health concerns. It’s no surprise to us that worker protections are key to food safety. We have seen time and time again that workers who don’t have union protection are afraid to speak up about food safety violations for fear of losing their jobs. And in one survey of Alliance members , 53 percent reported going to work sick because they lacked paid sick days or protection for an illness-related absence. In fact, four out of five workers surveyed reported either not having paid sick days or not knowing whether they did—which generally means they do not. The call for higher wages for food workers is often met with concern about skyrocketing food prices. We understand the worry. After all, 45 million Americans—that’s more than the entire population of Canada—rely on government support to feed their families. But data shows meaningful improvement in worker wages need not translate into significant increases in food prices. In one study from UC Berkeley , if Walmart raised its minimum wage to $12 per hour, the cost to the average shopper would be just 46 cents per trip. In another study, researchers found that a 40 percent increase in restaurant workers’ minimum wage raised prices by less than 3 percent. When the Coalition of Immokalee Workers secured a big win for its Florida tomato pickers, they were able to double members’ income with only one penny more per pound of tomatoes. Even if growers passed on the entire raise to consumers, we believe most would be willing to pay a penny more per pound for fairness. How can we know workers are paid and treated fairly? There are more and more ways to do so. The national network Restaurant Opportunities Centers United and RAISE, an association of industry leaders, are developing a cadre of “high-road” restaurants championing living wages, basic benefits and fair promotion policies. The new label, Food Justice-Certified , will be another tool to assure worker fairness. And while the organic certification is not a labor standard—there are no provisions for wages or working conditions—choosing organic-certified food does guarantee that farmers and farmworkers aren’t exposed to toxic pesticides in the field. As we dig into our meal today, we do so at a moment when there is a sea change afoot in food, from a system built on exploitation to an emergent one built on respect and fairness. One day soon, we hope, all of us will be able to dine with the peace of mind that everyone along the food chain was treated with dignity. To get there will take all of us: food workers and concerned eaters, united together. As workers take to the streets and diners nationwide call for higher wages, we’re more confident than ever that we will.

Drawn from World Hunger: 10 Myths, by Frances Moore Lappe and Joseph Collins. It’s a “protein factory in reverse!” I declared more than forty years ago in Diet for a Small Planet . In my outburst, I was targeting livestock—especially cattle. But little did I imagine in 1971 just how this “factory’s” capacity to shrink our food supply would multiply. Today, worldwide, three-fourths of all agricultural land, including pasture, is used to produce animal products. But from all this, what do we get? Just 17 percent of our calories. That’s what I mean by “shrink.” To understand why humans get so little, consider livestock’s “take”: About half the world’s calories from crops don’t go to people. Instead they go primarily to feed livestock—which consume a third of the world’s grain and 85 percent of soy—as well as into agrofuel production and other industrial purposes. Let this sink in. Then note also that all livestock are not created equal in their capacity to shrink our food-resource potential. Beef wins the inefficiency prize: Of the calories that cattle eat in feed, humans get a measly 3 percent in the beef we eat. The following table reveals the big differences in the capacity of livestock to convert what they eat into calories we eat. Dairy, for example, is about thirteen times more efficient than beef, chicken about four times. Given this extreme inefficiency, it shouldn’t surprise us that livestock-centric U.S. agriculture—viewed by many as the pinnacle of efficiency—actually feeds fewer people per hectare, 5.4, than the less meat-focused Chinese, 8.4, or Indian, 5.9. What a contrast to the presumption of America’s great agricultural superiority! But, of course, livestock were not always shrinking our food supply. Throughout human evolution animals have converted grass and other things we don’t eat into high-grade protein we do eat—a big boon for humans. But over time we have remade livestock into nutrition disposals. This we can change. Worldwide, converting just half of crops fed to livestock into crops for humans could yield enough food for two billion people or be converted to carbon-storing forests. Looking at the impact of what we eat from another angle, what would be the result of shifting modestly from beef to other animal foods? Replacing even a fifth of the beef eaten globally with the more efficient pork or poultry would reduce the total agricultural area needed for all to eat in 2030 by about the same amount—a fifth—find scientists at Sweden’s Chalmers University of Technology. “Water Guzzlers” Beyond this loss of potential food energy, there’s another waste built into livestock production that’s taking on ever greater importance: water waste. Just as climate change is making water more precious, livestock production is using ever more of it. First note that nearly 70 percent of freshwater used by humans goes into irrigation, and much of it is used on crops and pasture for livestock—the big water guzzlers. In drought-plagued California, for example, meat and dairy account for almost half of the state’s entire water footprint. Nearly a fifth of its irrigation water goes to just one feed crop, alfalfa. So even as water scarcity worsens, every year 100 billion gallons of California water in the form of alfalfa go to China for meat production there. In all, a pound of beef uses : •almost fifty times more water than growing a pound of vegetables •about forty times more water than potatoes and other root crops •about nine times more water than grain. More than half of water used in the entire Colorado River basin, reaching six states including California, “is dedicated to feeding cattle and horses,” reports the Pacific Institute. Or consider this: One could bathe daily for more than a month with the water used to produce a pound of beef! Why would a smart species actively shrink its food supply and waste ever-more precious fresh water? Originally published by Huffington Post on 11/10/15