Living Democracy, Feeding Hope

Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) in the Republic of Niger , the Maradi Region. (Tony Rinaudo / Food Security and National Resources Team, World Vision Australia ) Originally publi shed on Truthout , September 17, 2019 “Food will be scarce, expensive and less nutritious,” CNN warns us in its coverage of the new UN’s Climate Change and Land report. The New York Times announces that “Climate Change Threatens the World’s Food Supply.” Reading these headlines, I’m tossed back to the late ’60s when our culture was gripped by what I came to call the “scarcity scare,” as Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb exploded into public consciousness spewing images of mounting hunger. Really? Are our unstoppable numbers dooming us? I had to know. Burrowing into the stacks of UC Berkeley’s agriculture library, it hit me: In fact, the scarcity scare was a distraction, and a dangerous one—diverting us from a most obvious fact: Food was then, and is now, abundant. We humans actively create the experience of scarcity no matter how much food we grow. Obsessed with a desire to share this discovery, in 1971 I wrote Diet for a Small Planet to expose and help transform our scarcity-creating food system. Yet today, we seem not to have learned. The world now produces more than enough food for each of us— 2,900 calories a day , roughly a third more than in 1961. And that’s just with the “leftovers”—with what remains after a third of the world’s cropland goes into feeding livestock, a practice that shrinks the calories available to us. At the same time, 821 million people — almost as many as in 1979-80 —lack sufficient calories. And, in recent years, even as record harvests generate “ grain glut ” the number has been climbing. This summer, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization revamped its hunger counts . To its “severe” food insecurity estimate of 821 million, it added a category “moderate food insecurity”; and reported that 2 billion of us— one-quarter of humanity —are food insecure. We’re either lacking calories we need or we’re unsure about our continued access to enough; or we’re forced to reduce the quality and/or quantity we eat just to “get by.” Intensifying the crisis is a related global trend: Calories and nutrition are parting ways as corporate, processed food floods the planet. Even two decades ago in rural India, I saw along the roadway whole groves of Eucalyptus trees whose trunks were painted with huge Pepsi ads. One result of this disconnect between eating enough calories and getting the nutrients we need is that more than a fifth of young children worldwide experience stunted growth, a condition bringing life-long harms; and a third of us suffer from anemia, doubling the risk of maternal death and, in infants, associated with ongoing mental and psychomotor impairment . That’s where a narrow focus on increasing food production, reinforced by the “scarcity scare,” has helped take us. Now, nearly half a century since my own life-altering aha moment, the UN’s new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, Climate Change and Land , has triggered another frenzy of worry about our food supply. Running over 1,500 pages, the report itself offers vital understanding of how the climate crisis threatens our food supply and quality; and, at the same time, how farming, eating, and food waste contribute between 25 percent and 30 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. (Livestock alone, I learned elsewhere, contribute 14.5 percent of such emissions globally.) The report also helpfully identifies ways that reworking our food system can become part of the solution to climate change. You’d think I’d be thrilled that a key takeaway in this new report is that cutting back on grain-fed meat would trim greenhouse gas emissions as well as lessen pressure on our food supply. After all, wasn’t the latter the whole point of my book Diet for a Small Planet? Well, no…and yes. First, the “no.” In my first book I sought to awaken readers to the destructive and inefficient channeling of so much land and water into livestock. Inefficient? Yes, very. As Americans, we imagine our farming as the best—the most modern and efficient. Yet, in large measure because of our meat-centered diets, as well so much corn going to agrofuel, it feeds fewer people per acre than does Indian or Chinese agriculture. Most important, I wanted my readers to see how the rules of our political and economic system were twisted to serve a minority, undermining food security. So, for me, choosing a plant-and-planet-centered diet became an act of rebel reason. I’d reframed the hunger crisis: Its root is not scarcity of food but scarcity of democracy. And I wanted my daily choices to reject the illogic of our anti-democracy system. On many levels, we still do not see this core truth. The IPCC report, for example, lays out five scenarios, two of which could eliminate malnutrition by 2050. Among the necessary ingredients to get us there it mentions “high income and reduced inequalities, effective land-use regulation, less resource intensive consumption [i.e. less grain-fed animal food], including food produced in low-GHG emission systems and lower food waste.” Together, taking such steps would constitute an about-face on multiple fronts—one that’s conceivable only in a democracy where public policies serve what our constitution’s preamble calls the “general welfare.” By democracy I mean both the small “d” variety: that includes community and worker empowerment; and I mean the formal, capital “D” variety, i.e., government accountable to citizens. First, consider the “small d” variety and climate solutions. Perhaps the most dramatic success story for me—and missing in the IPCC report—is the work of poor but empowered farmers cooperating to transform their lives and confront climate change in Niger, the world’s poorest country and mostly desert. In just a few decades, Niger’s farmers have rehabilitated 12.5 million acres by managing the natural regeneration of 200 million trees that sequester carbon, improve soil fertility, often double crop yields, as well as provide livestock fodder and firewood—all ensuring food security for 2.5 million people . Niger’s progress—led by small farmers together making and enforcing rules—has been celebrated as perhaps the largest regreening transformation in all of Africa. Now, many other nations are interested in adapting the approach; and related farming breakthroughs are arising in India and elsewhere. And, now to capital “D” democracy essential for governments to face the climate emergency and end needless hunger. Democratic government is under attack in much of the world, and here in the U.S. to a degree unprecedented in my lifetime. But something else feels new: a growing citizens’ Democracy Movement focusing on remaking the anti-democratic rules and norms that brought our nation to climate-denier status and even wider dysfunction. In Daring Democracy , Adam Eichen and I share stories of this movement that has changed our lives and is achieving vital breakthroughs, sadly missing from the headlines. In the 2018 midterm elections alone, many who’d never been politically engaged helped pass key democracy reforms in nine states, eight cities, and one county—ranging from those addressing gerrymandering to protecting voting rights. For me, the future of our precious Earth depends on more and more of us jumping in to achieve such system-correctives to what can accurately be called “privately held government.” But, now to my “yes”—to why I’m psyched that the IPCC report emphasizes choosing plant-and-planet-centered diets and how my democracy obsession relates to what I put into my mouth. Consciously eating what is good for my body, for others, and for our planet is a choice that changes me—daily. It keeps me in a relational world, reminding me that the only choice I don’t have is whether to change the world. I know that every act and inaction sends out ripples. Someone is always watching. I often think of it this way: Making positive daily choices based in consciousness of connection doesn’t “change the world,” but the process changes me. I become more convincing to myself, so maybe I become more convincing to others: a stronger agent in the collective struggle to change the world. Just this morning, a stranger approached me to tell me that my first book had started her on a “new path.” Who knows, but I can hope her experience has been similar to mine. I want a world where we all can experience such power. And in working for a fairer, inclusive democracy, we are enabling more and more of us to have this satisfaction: that of making choices that are both good for us and the planet. So, yes, I’m psyched that the IPCC report includes plant-and-planet-centered diets as part of the solution, and we need not let fear trap us into another regressive scarcity scare that obscures the crises’ roots in anti-democratic economic and political rules. Instead, we can work to ensure that personal choices we can make to align with nature fortify our determination to dig still deeper, aware that fighting for real democracy is fighting for tackling climate change and the end of hunger. __________ Frances Moore Lappé is the author of nineteen books, beginning with Diet for a Small Planet. Most recently, she is co-author with Adam Eichen, of Daring Democracy, Igniting Power, Meaning, and Connection for the America We Want . She is cofounder of the Cambridge-based Small Planet Institute . Follow her on Twitter: @fmlappe

Grim as the UN’s latest climate report is, it doesn’t confront the dangerous, government-hijacking power of agribusiness. Originally Published on Wired, August 28, 2019 Agrochemical giant Monsanto, which already sells half of Malawi’s commercial corn seeds, is trying to prevent farmers from saving seeds from their last harvests. EDDIE GERALD/GETTY IMAGES The latest UN climate report has made waves in the food world. "Climate Change Threatens the World's Food Supply" blared the New York Times. Focused on "Climate Change and Land," the report is a welcome reminder of just how destructive our current food and agricultural policies are to the land, and how that both contributes to climate change (23% of global greenhouse gas emissions) and threatens the natural resource base on which current and future food production depends. Based on my research for Eating Tomorrow, I offer my take on the report in Wired magazine: "Climate experts have sounded yet another dire alarm, this time aimed straight at our stomachs. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report, on “Climate Change and Land,” warns that meeting the challenges of our climate crisis requires urgent changes in our food systems. ...Grim as it is, the report may be overly optimistic because it doesn’t sufficiently address the power of agribusinesses...." (...read the article at Wired ...)

Across America, local governments are leading the way with some of the most progressive transitions in the nation. Originally Published on Common Dreams , August 8, 2019 Green cities powered only by renewable energy sources—save money, their health, and our planet. (Photo: Eviart / Shutterstock.com) More than one in five Americans —that’s over 70 million of us—now live in a place committed to 100 percent carbon-neutral electricity—including 131 towns and cities, seven states and Puerto Rico. With a Republican-controlled Senate and White House making federal action on climate change look less likely by the day, many hope that states and cities can help pick up the slack. And such hope is not in vain. The seven states already committed to carbon-neutral electricity—including two of the top nine carbon-emitters, California and New York— represented 14 percent of national emissions in 2016 . With new clean-electricity bills being introduced in blue states such as Massachusetts, New Jersey and Illinois , further progress is expected soon. Moreover, the clean-electricity transition is hardly limited to liberal bastions. Pennsylvania, a purple state with a Republican-controlled legislature for the last eight years , is expected to have a 100 percent renewable-electricity bill introduced in its Senate for the second session in a row. The bill’s sponsor is Republican state Senator Thomas Killion, and among co-sponsors are four more Republicans also breaking rank. All states with legislation now on the books have set mid-century targets; and New York, the state with the most expeditious transition plan, is not only mandating victory by 2040 for 100 percent carbon-neutral electricity, but has committed to its whole economy being carbon-neutral by 2050 . Alongside this progress, across America, local governments are leading the way with some of the most progressive transitions in the nation. And with cities producing over 70 percent of carbon emissions globally , and just 100 cities contributing almost 20 percent of emissions , local municipalities can have a remarkable impact. Currently, out of the 131 cities and towns that have passed 100 percent carbon-neutral electricity legislation—many in states that are not taking action—80, including Washington, D.C., and Chicago, have pledged to meet this goal before 2040 . What’s more, there are already a handful of trailblazing cities and towns currently 100 percent powered by carbon-neutral electricity . This group of pioneers includes Aspen, Colorado; Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown, Texas; Greensburg, Kansas; Rock Port, Missouri; and Kodiak Island off the coast of Alaska. And, surprisingly, Republican mayors led two of these advances. Georgetown, Texas, population 70,000, sits in the center of a red state, and wind and solar provide most of its carbon-neutral electricity. Last month, a new solar farm the size of roughly 950 football fields began electrifying the town. Interviewed by Frontline , Mayor Dale Ross, who marshalled the renewable transition, explained the city’s motivation to move to 100 percent renewable electricity . It was for “long-term cost certainty,” he stressed. The move was “first and foremost…a business decision.” Greensburg, Kansas—another red city making a green transition—suffered tornado devastation in 2007, causing roughly half of the city’s 1,500 residents to flee. But, amid destruction, Mayor Bob Dixson saw opportunity. The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that Kansas offers the “ third highest potential for wind energy in the U.S. ” So, Mayor Dixson took action, and soon Greensburg was the second city in the country, after Burlington, Vermont, to achieve 100 percent renewable electricity. At the national level, climate action has, tragically, become a political litmus test. So, let us spread the word that at the state and local level—fortunately—Americans across party lines are acting with courage and common sense to save money, their health, and our planet. Note to readers: It’s important to take care in not equating "100% renewable energy" and "carbon free" energy. Some states consider forms of biomass, e.g., wood and trash burning, to be renewable, but biomass produce carbon emissions. On the flip side, some count nuclear as "carbon free," but it is not renewable.

A new study shows that the class of insecticides called neonicotinoids poses significant threats to insects, soil and water ‘Neonics are not only considerably more toxic to insects than other insecticides, they are far more persistent in the environment.’ Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo Originally Published on The Guardian , August 7, 2019. More than 50 years ago, Rachel Carson warned of a “ silent spring ”, the songs of robins and wood thrush silenced by toxic pesticides such as DDT. Today, there is a new pesticide specter: a class of insecticides called neonicotinoids. For years, scientists have been raising the alarm about these bug killers, but a new study reveals a more complete picture of the threat they pose to insect life. First commercialized in the 1990s, neonicotinoids, or neonics for short, are now the most widely used insecticides in the world. They’re used on over 140 crops, from apples and almonds to spinach and rice. Chemically similar to nicotine, they kill insects by attacking their nerve cells. Neonics were pitched as an answer to pests’ increasing resistance to the reigning insecticides. But in an effort to more effectively kill pests, we created an explosion in the toxicity of agriculture not just for unwanted bugs but for the honeybees, ladybugs, beetles and the vast abundance of other insects that sustain life on Earth. What we now know is that neonics are not only considerably more toxic to insects than other insecticides, they are far more persistent in the environment. While others break down within hours or days, neonics can remain in soils, plants and waterways for months to years, killing insects long after they’re applied and creating a compounding toxic burden. The new study , published in the science journal PLOS ONE and co-authored by one of us, designed a way to quantify this persistence and combine it with data on the toxicity and total pounds used of neonics and other insecticides. For the first time, we have a time-lapse of impact: we can compare year-to-year changes in the toxicity of US agriculture for insects. The results? Since neonics were first introduced 25 years ago, US agriculture has become 48 times more toxic to insect life, and neonics are responsible for 92% of that surge in toxicity. Looking at this toxic time-lapse, another interesting detail emerges: there’s a dramatic increase in the toxic burden of US agriculture for insects starting in the mid-2000s. That’s when beekeepers began reporting significant losses of their hives. It’s also when the pesticide companies that manufacture neonics, Bayer and Syngenta, found a lucrative new use for these chemicals: coating the seeds of crops like corn and soy that are grown on millions of acres across the country. These seed coatings now account for the vast majority of neonic use in the US. Neonics are “systemic”, meaning they are water soluble and therefore taken up by the plant itself, making its nectar, pollen, and fruit – all of it – toxic. Only about 5% of a seed coating is absorbed by the plant, the remainder stays in the soil and can end up in rivers, lakes and drinking water with its runoff causing harm to wildlife and, as emerging evidence shows, to people. This study comes on the heels of the first analysis of global insect populations, which found 40% of species face extinction, with near total insect loss possible by century’s end, driven in part by pesticides, with neonics a particular concern. For all of this harm, farmers get few, if any, benefits from neonic seed coatings. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency , they provide “little or no overall benefits to soybean production”, though nearly half of soybean seeds in the US are treated. Similar analyses have found the same for corn, yet up to 100% of US corn seeds are treated. All this risk without reward has led some regulators to take action. The European Union voted to ban the worst neonics in 2018. But the US government has so far failed to act. Chemical company lobbying can explain much of this inaction. Bayer, maker of the most widely used neonics, spent an estimated $4.3m lobbying in the US on behalf of its agricultural division in 2017. Not only has the EPA stalled scientific review of neonics, last year, the Fish and Wildlife Service reversed an Obama-era ban on use of these dangerous insecticides in wildlife refuges. Congress could change this. Democratic representative Earl Blumenauer’s Saving America’s Pollinators Act would ban neonicotinoids and other systemic, pollinator-toxic insecticides. The bill has 56 co-sponsors, but faces a major hurdle clearing the House agriculture committee given that the chairman representative, Collin Peterson, a Democrat from Minnesota, counts Bayer and the pesticide industry’s trade association, Croplife America, among his t op contributors . Beyond a ban, we need a concerted effort to transition US agriculture away from dependence on pesticides and toward ecological methods of pest control. We already know how to do this. Research shows that organic farms support up to 50% more pollinating species and help other beneficial insects flourish. And by eliminating neonics and some 900 other active pesticide ingredients, they protect human health, too. More than five decades ago, Rachel Carson warned that the war we are waging against nature with toxic pesticides is inevitably a war against ourselves. That is as true today as it was then. For the sake of the birds and bees – and all of us – this war must end. _____________ Kendra Klein, PhD, is senior staff scientist at Friends of the Earth US Anna Lappé is the co-founder of two national food and sustainability organizations and is working on a book on pesticides and our food

Photo by Joel Drzycimski on Unsplash Originally Published on Real Food Media , July 25, 2019 This piece is an abridged excerpt from the Iowa chapter of my book, Eating Tomorrow: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Battle for the Future of Food , which was the July 2019 book selection by Real Food Reads, which published this excerpt along with a podcast interview. In the beginning — 1926 — Agribusiness created corn, or so it proclaimed. It hadn’t, of course: 7,000 years earlier, the Mesoamerican gods had beaten them to it. What Agribusiness actually created thousands of years later was hybrid corn, and it declared that hybrid corn was the only corn that mattered. And Agribusiness saw that it produced a lot and, most important, farmers had to buy it every year. And it was good, for Agribusiness. On the second day, Agribusiness separated the land from the water, expanding drainage tiles under millions of acres of farm-belt swampland. And the land was good, especially for long straight rows of hybrid corn. On the third day, with way too much corn, Agribusiness created pigs and commercial feed made up of corn and soybeans. Agribusiness saw that more corn and soybeans were good, and that meat was even better, because it took five (or even ten) pounds of grain to create a pound of meat. On the fourth day, Agribusiness created animal prisons, which it called hog farms even though they were factories. It moved the animals into the factories. The new feed companies could buy all the cheap corn and soybeans, and the factories could buy the feed, creating two commercial transactions where before there had been none. And they would spread far and wide, and so would the millions of gallons of their concentrated manure. And Agribusiness held its nose at the putrid odor and said it was good, proclaiming its own genius for creating such a costly commercial nutrient cycle from the natural one it had destroyed by moving animals off the farms. On the fifth day, Agribusiness created an army of lobbyists, and it would be called the “farm lobby” even though it lobbied for corporations. This army persuaded the US Congress to outlaw government measures to ensure fair prices for farmers, decent prices for consumers, and controls on production so supply would not exceed demand and agricultural land would not be farmed to exhaustion. And it was good, for Agribusiness: the high production was good for seed, chemical, and other input-suppliers; the low prices were good for animal factories and other processors. On the sixth day, laden with way too much corn fetching rock-bottom prices, Agribusiness created ethanol to power our cars. And it commanded that the fuel be made from corn, even though corn was the least efficient crop to make it from. And it was good, for Agribusiness. On the seventh day, with corn prices at record highs and wreaking havoc with poor people overseas, and with every inch of even marginally farmable Iowa land brought into production, Agribusiness rested. Agribusiness surveyed its good works and ordained that a temple should be anointed to honor its wisdom and good fortune. And so the World Food Prize Hall of Laureates was transformed into that temple, with offerings from the faithful. Forevermore, they would gather, on World Food Day even though they no longer produced food, for an annual ritual of worship and adoration. Now, so deep into such a profound devolution, it was difficult to say which part of that genesis story was the real problem. For many Iowans, the immediate problem was their polluted drinking water. To defend themselves from the toxic effluents of Agribusiness’s creations, they created the world’s largest de-nitrification plant to protect Des Moines’ drinking water from the nitrates, E. coli, and potassium-laden sediment that flowed downstream. These flowed all the way down the Mississippi to a “dead zone” the size of New Jersey in which all the sea life created on the Hebrew God’s fifth day had been asphyxiated.

Let’s face it: The U.S. is not feeding the world Originally published on Heated x Mark Bittman , July 22, 2019 For the third straight year, U.N. agencies have documented rising levels of severe hunger in the world, affecting 820 million people. More than 2 billion suffer “moderate or severe” food insecurity. During the same period, the world is experiencing what Reuters called a “global grain glut,” with surplus agricultural commodities piled up outside grain silos rotting for want of buyers. Obviously, growing more grain is not reducing global hunger. Yet every day, some academic, industry, or political leader joins the Malthusian chorus of warnings about looming food shortages due to rising populations and strained natural resources. For example, here’s Richard Linton, dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at North Carolina State University, sounding the familiar alarm: “We’ve got to find a way to feed the world, double the food supply,” he said . “And we all know if we don’t produce enough food, what the outcome is: it’s war, it’s competition.” “How will we feed the world?” calls the preacher. “Increase our bounty,” responds the choir. There is so much wrong with that answer. And even with the question, which is profoundly arrogant. How will “we” feed “the world?” We know who we mean when we ask that question: rich countries, with high-yield seeds and industrial-scale agriculture. The United States thinks it’s feeding the world now. It is not. More than 70 percent of the food consumed in developing countries, where hunger is pervasive, is grown in those countries, the majority of it by small-scale farmers. Those farmers are the main people doing the feeding now. And they’re only using 30 percent of agricultural resources to do it. (That means industrial agriculture is using 70 percent of the resources to feed 30 percent of the population.) There is no “world” out there, passively waiting to be fed. Most of the hungry are small-scale farmers or live in farming communities. They aren’t waiting for food handouts; they are actively — often desperately — trying to feed their families and their communities. But the world already grows more than enough food to feed 10 billion people, which is nearly 3 billion more than we currently have. Why do we keep getting it so wrong, acting like growing more commodity crops will end hunger? … Read the full article on Heated …

In September 2014, a U.S. official from The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimated that half the weapons available on El Salvador’s black market were made in the United States.( Wes Bausmith / Los Angeles Times ) Originally published on Common Dreams , July 23, 2019 Each month tens of thousands of migrants arrive at our southern border. They’re “seeking a better life”…right? Isn’t that why families leave loved ones to trek vast distances facing untold dangers? Certainly, it’s the story that fits our cherished image of our nation as a land of opportunity like none other. Recently, though, I felt ashamed that I—someone who wants to believe she’s well informed—had overlooked a key piece of my own responsibility, or, more precisely, my own and my nation’s culpability. Certainly, I’d long been aware of numerous US policies that have long hindered positive development in the region to our south. In Guatemala in 1954, for example, the CIA deposed democratically elected president Jacobo Árbenz. In Nicaragua, from the ‘50s through the ‘70s, the U.S. backed the Somoza family dictatorship, and then in the ‘80s we funded right-wing forces attempting to overthrow a government enjoying wide popular support. I’d also known that immigrants’ hopes of escaping desperate poverty weren’t the whole story. I knew that many arriving at our southern border were fleeing threats of violence against them and their children. For some, it’s guns in the hands of gangs that make staying put impossible. “Even suspicion of being loyal to a rival gang is a death sentence,” reported The Associated Press earlier this month. The link between homicide and migration is captured in this startling ratio from the Inter-American Dialogue in 2018: In Honduras, a 1 percent increase in homicides drives up migration by 120 percent . On some level, I had grasped that fear—legitimate fear—was a driver of migration. But what I had not, and certainly should have, grasped is our nation’s central role in generating fear by allowing a flood of US weapons to continue across our southern border. The flood into Mexico alone includes “[m]ore than 212,000 illegal firearms” from the U.S. each year owing to “straw purchases,” observes the Los Angeles Times . Central America is hardest hit. There, gun laws are comparatively strict, yet “homicide rates are among the highest on earth.” In El Salvador, with the world’s highest rate, almost half of weapons found at the country’s crime scenes are from the U.S. officials here estimate. During the 1980s, El Salvador was “the single largest recipient of U.S. military hardware and weaponry in the Western Hemisphere,” and, after its civil war ended in 1992, “the guns, grenades and bullets linger, as do their murderous effects,” write Robert Muggah and Steven Dudley in the Los Angeles Times . And Mexico? The country has only one gun store . Located in Mexico City, it is guarded by the army. Seventy percent of guns seized in Mexico were originally sold in the U.S.—most of them in Texas, California, and Arizona according to the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “Once in Mexico, these weapons end up in the hands of drug cartels or get shipped to gangs in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador,” says The Associated Press. In Honduras, “armed holdups on public transportation are a regular occurrence, where nearly half of the unregistered weapons originated in the U.S.,” reports the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “The number of firearms smuggled from the United States was so significant that nearly half of American gun dealers rely on that business to stay afloat,” reported the University of San Diego in 2013. Yes, this horrific story is being reported, but where is the public outrage? We hear endless calls for more resources to stop illegal entry at our border. But where are the calls to stop the massive illegal transfer of weapons fueling the very violence that drives innocent people to leave their homes? In 2016, the National Rifle Association (NRA) spent nearly $70 million to help elect Donald Trump and other Republicans, a sum much larger than the group reported to the Federal Election Commission. ” As gun-industry money directly benefits our politicians, they have little incentive to reduce the industry’s power and its harm to innocent people. Only we citizens have the power to stop money-driven politics and its deadly consequences. We each can use our voices to spread the word of our nation’s culpability in this horrific violence. And, we can use our votes to move forward reforms loosening money’s grip, including NRA dollars, on our democracy. Unless we do, we all have blood on our hands.

The company has courted ethical foodies, but how sustainable is this meat alternative? Originally Published on Medium , July 22, 2019. Impossible Foods — maker of the veggie “ burger that bleeds” — is the latest darling of the food-tech world. Its stardom is driven largely by its claims that the burger is better for the planet than the real thing: But what’s actually in its signature patty raises big questions. Despite these questions, Forbes has given it glowing coverage; The New York Times has served up front-page column inches. Katy Perry, Questlove, and Jay-Z are all investors . And the company is already shorthand for a dot-com wunderkind. At a recent tech conference I attended more than one pitch led with “We are the Impossible Foods of…” This status comes from a PR arsenal, of course, a novel product, yes, but also from the company’s explicit courtship of the ethical foodie, tapping a new generation of eaters who want to ensure the food on their plate helps the planet. In its very mission statement, Impossible Foods claims it will “drastically reduce humanity’s destructive impact on the global environment” by using plant-based proteins. But just because it’s not meat, doesn’t mean it’s a planetary panacea. To be clear, I’m all for Impossible Foods top execs calling out the environmental impacts of industrial livestock production. My mother, Frances Moore Lappé has been ringing these alarm bells for nearly fifty years, starting with her 1971 Diet for a Small Planet . And ten years ago, I wrote a book about the food sector’s impact on climate change and the significant role of industrial livestock. But while others have raised health concerns over Impossible Foods’ genetically engineered heme protein or environmental concerns over its energy-saving estimates, I’m alarmed about the company going all in on genetically engineered soy. Impossible Foods CEO claims its sourcing of genetically engineered soy is a reflection of the company’s “ commitment to consumers and our planet, ” but the troubling track record of just such soy is at odds with that commitment. This is no small quibble: This is about fact-checking a company raising millions of investor dollars on its eco-claims, but ultimately, this is about being clear about what food we should be producing, and eating, to the save the planet. New evidence is revealing we are teetering on the edge of an era of massive extinction, propelled in large part by the very pesticides and practices used with genetically engineered crops like that soy destined for Impossible Burgers. In a groundbreaking new study, researchers estimate that 40 percent of insect species face extinction — and we could be looking down the barrel of total insect population collapse by century’s end, primarily as the result of the agricultural pesticides and mega-monocultures of industrial agriculture. Designed specifically for intensive chemical use, genetically engineered crops are key drivers of this impact. The introduction of genetically engineered crops has led to a massive increase in the use of pesticides globally. Planted for the first time in the mid-1990s, nearly all of these crops to date have been engineered to either express an insecticide, resist an herbicide, or both. Today, 94 percent of soy is genetically engineered, mostly to be resistant to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup. Prior to the introduction of these “Roundup-Ready” crops, farmers had to be judicious about using weed-killer; but Roundup-resistant crops meant farmers could spray more and more often — and they did. From 1990 to 2014 , the amount of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, jumped from 7.7 million pounds to 250 million — a 1,347 percent increase with most of that used on genetically engineered crops like the soy in those Impossible Foods burgers. Today, glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world. There is mounting evidence about the ecological impact of this boom. In China, researchers found that glyphosate exposure led to honeybee larvae deaths. In the United States, studies have connected Monarch butterfly decline with glyphosate use, particularly as milkweed on which the butterfly depends has been decimated. Another study found Roundup use resulted in a 70 percent decline in the “species richness of tadpoles.” And yet another found that the herbicide adversely affects “soil and intestinal microflora and plant disease resistance” and is “toxic to a range of aquatic organisms.” (Photo: evilpeacock/flickr) Then, there’s the human health impacts of the pesticides used on genetically engineered soy, specifically glyphosate-based weed-killers. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s cancer research agency issued a declaration based on a review of peer-reviewed literature that glyphosate was a probable cause of cancer. Just last month, a California jury awarded $2 billion in punitive damages and economic losses to a California couple suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had used glyphosate-based herbicides for decades. It was the third legal loss for Bayer, which recently purchased Monsanto, the world’s largest producer of Roundup. More than 13,000 cases are pending. Growing genetically engineered crops, and the agrochemicals used in concert with them, affects more than just those handling pesticides. We’ve seen this on the Hawaiian island of Kauai`i, for example, which is ground zero for the development and testing of genetically engineered seeds. There, the fields abut schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods in communities that have seen spikes of asthma, cancers, and birth defects linked to drift and runoff from pesticides. Impossible Foods’ embrace of genetically engineered soy comes at the same time a new wave of these crops enters the market, posing a new set of risks. As weed resistance to glyphosate has grown — now with more than 40 glyphosate-resistant weed species and counting — companies have been genetically engineering soy to resist other herbicides like dicamba and 2,4-D , chemicals with long track records of toxicity and ecosystem concerns . Many farmers across the Midwest have already been devastated by crop failure as a direct result of drift from these pesticides. Consumers are increasingly seeking “health and wellness claims,” twenty percent more than in 2016, found a recent poll by L.E.K. Consulting. These conscientious consumers are driving the boom in plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy and products raised without toxic chemicals . Impossible Foods’ spin is trying to tap this planet-friendly public sentiment, but its commitment to genetically engineered soy belies a growing body of evidence that these crops are harming, not helping, the planet. In an era of a climate emergency and biodiversity crisis, we need to be working, with ever greater urgency, to eliminate our dependence on toxic pesticides — not doubling down on it.

To Costica Bradatan, “ Democracy is for the Gods ” is dangerously misleading. Democracy, understood as an ever-evolving practice, is the only social form able to meet the deepest human needs beyond the physical: Our need for power (having a “say”), meaning, and connection in community. Yet, Costica Bradatan claims democracy is unnatural, painting humans as essentially cutthroat and thus no different from “the animal realm.” He ignores anthropologist's findings that we are in fact the most social species, evolving to our dominant role in large measure because of our especially evolved capacities for cooperation, empathy, fairness. We have what it takes. However, to continue the journey of democracy requires using our big brains and acknowledging that we humans—virtually all of us—evolved with both positive as well as evil capacities (especially for “othering”). What shows up depends on the social conditions we ourselves create. So we can’t blame human nature. And, what brings out the best in us? History reveals at least three conditions: a wide and fluid dispersion of power, transparency, and a culture of mutual accountability (in contrast to today’s blaming)—in other words, democracy. So why is our democracy in such trouble today? One, we’ve narrowed the three conditions to apply uniquely in the political realm—of course, still far from realization—when they apply to economic and social life as well. One result? Today, 80 percent of Americans together must make do with less total wealth than that held by the richest 1 percent, a concentration of power undermining well-being and distorting our political decision making Two, many Americans swallow Bradatan’s portrayal of democracy as a “frigid affair” of “dull responsibilities” that can’t compete with authoritarian fervor. So wrong. Tens of millions of Americans in the growing Democracy Movement are fighting for essential reforms, from voting rights to gerrymandering and more. And in the process, they’re feeding themselves, experiencing the three essentials for human thriving—power, meaning, and connection. What could be more thrilling? Sincerely, Frances Moore Lappé

Feature Image Courtesy of Markus Winkler on Unsplash Originally Published on Food Tank , Tuesday, July 9, 2019 Recently, the High Level Panel of Experts of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released its much-anticipated report on agroecology. The report signals the continuing shift in emphasis in the UN agency’s approach to agricultural development. As outgoing FAO Director General Jose Graziano da Silva has indicated , “We need to promote a transformative change in the way that we produce and consume food. We need to put forward sustainable food systems that offer healthy and nutritious food, and also preserve the environment. Agroecology can offer several contributions to this process.” The commissioned report, “Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition.” Two years in the making, the report makes clear the urgent need for change. “Food systems are at a crossroads. Profound transformation is needed,” the summary begins. It stresses the importance of ecological agriculture, which supports “diversified and resilient production systems, including mixed livestock, fish, cropping, and agroforestry, that preserve and enhance biodiversity, as well as the natural resource base.” It is not surprising, of course, that those with financial interests in the current input-intensive systems are responding to growing calls for agroecology with attacks on its efficacy as a systematic approach that can sustainably feed a growing population. What is surprising is that such responses are so ill-informed about the scientific innovations agroecology offers to small-scale farmers who are being so poorly served by “green revolution” approaches. One recent article from a researcher associated with a pro-biotechnology institute in Uganda was downright dismissive, equating agroecology with “traditional agriculture,” a step backwards toward the low-productivity practices that prevail today. “The practices that agroecology promotes are not qualitatively different from those currently in widespread use among smallholder farmers in Uganda and sub-Saharan Africa more broadly,” writes Nassib Mugwanya of the Uganda Biosciences Research Center. “I have come to conclude that agroecology is a dead end for Africa, for the rather obvious reason that most African agriculture already follows its principles.” Nothing could be further from the truth. As the new expert report shows, and as countless ecological scientists around the world can attest, agroecology brings much-needed innovations to prevailing smallholder practices. With a long track record of achievements in widely varying environments, the approach has been shown to improve soil fertility, increase crop and diet diversity, raise total food productivity, improve resilience to climate change, and increase farmers’ food and income security while decreasing their dependence on costly inputs. The failing policies of the present The predominant input-intensive approach to agricultural development can hardly claim such successes, which is precisely why international institutions are actively seeking alternatives. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is the poster child for the promotion of input-intensive agriculture in Africa. At its outset 13 years ago, AGRA and its main sponsor, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, set the goals of doubling the productivity and incomes of 30 million smallholder households on the continent. There is no evidence that approach will come anywhere near meeting those worthy objectives, even with many African governments spending large portions of their agricultural budgets to subsidize the purchase of green revolution inputs of commercial seeds and synthetic fertilizers. National-level data , summarized in the conclusion to my book Eating Tomorrow , attests to this failure: Smallholders mostly cannot afford the inputs, and the added production they see does not cover their costs. Rural poverty has barely improved since AGRA’s launch; neither has rural food insecurity. Global Hunger Index scores remained in the “serious” to “alarming” category for 12 of the 13 AGRA countries. Even in priority crops like maize and rice, few of AGRA’s 13 priority countries have seen sustained productivity increases. Production increases for maize in Zambia have come as much from shifting land into subsidized maize production as from raising productivity from commercial seeds and fertilizers. There is no evidence of improved soil fertility; in fact, many farmers have experienced a decline as mono-cropping and synthetic fertilizers have increased acidification and reduced much-needed organic matter. Costly input subsidies have shifted land out of drought-tolerant, nutritious crops such as sorghum and millet in favor of commercial alternatives. Crop diversity and diet diversity have decreased as a result. A recent article in the journal Food Policy surveyed the evidence from seven countries with input subsidy programs and found little evidence of sustained—or sustainable—success. “The empirical record is increasingly clear that improved seed and fertilizer are not sufficient to achieve profitable, productive, and sustainable farming systems in most parts of Africa,” wrote the authors in the conclusion. Agroecology: Solving farmers’ problems Branding agroecology as a backward-looking, do-nothing approach to traditional agriculture is a defensive response to the failures of Green Revolution practices. In fact, agroecological sciences offer just the kinds of innovations small-scale farmers need to increase soil fertility, raise productivity, improve food and nutrition security, and build climate resilience. Do these innovations sound backward looking to you? Biological pest control – Scientist Hans Herren won a World Food Prize for halting the spread of a cassava pest in Africa by introducing a wasp that naturally controlled the infestation. Push-pull technology – Using a scientifically proven mix of crops to push pests away from food crops and pull them out of the field, farmers have been able to reduce pesticide use while increasing productivity. Participatory plant breeding – Agronomists work with farmers to identify the most productive and desirable seed varieties and improve them through careful seed selection and farm management. In the process, degraded local varieties can be improved or replaced with locally adapted alternatives. Agro-forestry – A wide range of scientists has demonstrated the soil-building potential of incorporating trees and cover crops onto small-scale farms. Carefully selected tree varieties can fix nitrogen in the soil, reduce erosion, and give farmers a much-needed cash crop while restoring degraded land. Small livestock – Reintroducing goats or other small livestock onto farms has been shown to provide farmers with a sustainable source of manure while adding needed protein to local diets. Science-driven production of compost can dramatically improve soil quality. These innovations and many others are explored in depth in the new U.N. report, the full version of which will be available in English in mid-July, other FAO languages in September. Those advocates of industrial agriculture would do well to read it closely so they can update their understanding of the sustainable innovations agroecological sciences offer to small-scale farmers, most of whom have seen no improvements in their farms, incomes, or food security using Green Revolution approaches. Many farmers have concluded that the Green Revolution, not agroecology, is a dead end for Africa.

Let’s drop the false narrative of "unaffordability." Once seeing the Green New Deal not as a choice but an investment in life itself, funding streams appear that were before invisible—many wielding the power to make our economy fairer, too. (Photo: @skenigsberg/Twitter) Originally published on Common Dreams , June 28, 2019 Despite ridicule by Republican leaders, calls for a Green New Deal resonate with 80 percent of Americans. Building on the vision laid out by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Ed Markey, now Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren have weighed in with their versions. Americans love the idea of taking on the climate crisis, but three-fourths of us also worry about paying the bill. So, we started looking for answers and have some heartening news to share. But first, a stark reality. Doing little or nothing could cost hundreds of billions annually by the end of the century, experts warn; and even that feels optimistic to us, given the multitude of climate-related variables likely to harm our health, infrastructure, agriculture, and so much more. Bottom line: To avoid immeasurable catastrophe, we now know we cannot heat the planet above 1.5 ℃ over preindustrial levels, says the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And that means getting serious fast: Slashing global, human-caused CO2 emissions 45 percent by 2030, compared to 2010 levels, and reaching net-zero by 2050. Once we grasp this reality, the mundane question—“How do we cover the cost?”—suddenly becomes profound. To begin, we question the term “cost.” It’s typically used for what we pay for goods and services, which usually bring short-term benefits. But when educating our children, buying a home, or starting a business, another term seems apt—“investment.” Similarly, with climate chaos on the horizon, a Green New Deal is clearly an investment. A Green New Deal will pay for itself in the long run and bring short-term benefits as well—to our nation’s health, ecosystems and beyond. Not only can a Green New Deal mitigate further climate-caused economic losses, but it can generate economic growth through harnessing clean energy, with wind and solar already substantively cheaper than many fossil fuels. So, how big does America’s investment need to be? Well, some economists and engineers are already busy crunching the numbers. Stanford civil and environmental engineer Mark Jacobson’s estimates that reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 would require an investment in the range of $350–$500 billion per year. And University of Massachusetts environmental economist Robert Pollin, who prepared “green new deals” for the states of Washington and Colorado, arrives at a higher figure: roughly $600 billion annually over thirty years, or about 2 percent of GDP per year. Note that these estimates are well in the ballpark of what our nation has spent per year in times of crisis. FDR’s first New Deal in 1933, for example, is estimated to have been quite a bit more; in fact three times more as a percentage of GDP, coming to about 6 percent at the time . And the Second New Deal, in 1935, reached nearly 7 percent. Note that these investments were made over six to seven years, a shorter duration than a Green New Deal will entail. Now, with some sense of scale, let’s turn our gaze toward sources for funding. Once seeing the Green New Deal not as a choice but an investment in life itself, funding streams appear that were before invisible—many wielding the power to make our economy fairer, too. They include no-brainer steps at the IRS, and popular, progressive tax proposals, to name just a couple. Our nation’s wellbeing depends on the IRS doing a bang-up job in securing public revenue for our essential needs. Yet, Congress cut the agency’s budget by $2 billion , or 18 percent , between 2010 and 2017. The number of auditors fell to a level not seen since 1953 , when our economy was one seventh its current size. These cuts made a bad situation much worse, as the IRS’s “tax gap”—what’s owed but uncollected—was already huge. Between 2008 and 2010, an average of $405 billion went uncollected annually , rendering a pitiful “net compliance rate” of under 85 percent. Assuming this low rate continued, in 2017 roughly $640 billion went uncollected. That’s a sum in the ballpark experts predict a Green New Deal demands. Illegal tax evasion not caught by the IRS is one thing, but trillions more are legally untaxed because corporations and individuals hold them overseas. By the end of 2016, 322 of Fortune 500 companies held $2.6 trillion in off-shore wealth , avoiding a whopping $767 billion in taxes, reports the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (“ITEP”). To that sum, add $200 billion in tax revenue uncollected each year from individuals holding their assets abroad, as reported by renowned tax-haven economist Gabriel Zucman. And note that in an earlier era, corporations contributed much more to the public purse. In 1943, corporations were responsible for about 40 percent of federal tax revenue, but by 2018 their share had dropped to 6.1 percent. And in 2018, alone, corporate tax revenue fell 31 percent—a “more precipitous decline than in any year of normal economic growth in U.S. history,” says the ITEP. Americans are catching on. Sixty-six percent of us believe corporations pay too little in taxes, and over 80 percent want corporations to pay as much on foreign profits as they do domestically. Once we listen to the American people and take seriously proposals like Sen. Sanders’ Corporate Tax Fairness Act —which would end the loophole allowing U.S. corporations to defer taxes on overseas income—investing in a Green New Deal is do-able. Wealthy individuals can also contribute their fair share. Seventy-six percent of registered voters believe the wealthiest Americans should be paying more in taxes, according to a Politico poll. And even Fox News reported that 70 percent of Americans, including 44 percent of Republicans, want higher taxes on those earning over $10 million per year. From the late 1940s to the early ‘70s, the wealthiest Americans paid a somewhat higher effective tax rate than they do today . The sky did not fall. In fact, Americans of all income levels doubled their real family income. This is why leading economists, including Nobel Prize-winning Paul Krugman, advocate a higher top marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans , such as that floated by Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on income over $10 million. Furthermore, with today’s top 1 percent capturing over 20 percent of the nation’s income, more than double what it was from the early ‘50s to the ‘70s , basic fairness demands we take these steps. Done well, our investments will benefit those most hurt by climate chaos as we expand meaningful, well-paid work in clean energy and sustainability—from manufacturing and installation to restoring our landscapes and so much more. So, let’s drop the false narrative of “unaffordability.” As we citizens step up—so that our democracy answers to our good sense and our needs—America has the resources to meet our historic challenge in ways that are not only life saving but life enhancing.

Image Caption: Protestors gathered in the NY state Capitol two years ago to advocate for the CCPA, which remains stalled in the Legislature. | Photo by Zach Williams Originally Published on Salon , June 17, 2019. The Green New Deal is the policy du jour — and rightly so. Climate change threatens the future of life, and its fires and floods are already upon us. Thankfully, many politicians are now taking up the climate challenge, spurred no doubt by historic environmental activism erupting across the nation. So, too, voters want action. Registered Democrats now say climate change is their top issue , certainly a hopeful sign given that in 2016 climate change was on the Democrats’ back-burner. Another sign of hope? A handful of states aren’t waiting for national leaders to act. New York is one such state. Well before the Green New Deal exploded onto the national stage, a diverse coalition — including environmental justice organizations, labor unions, and community leaders typically focused on housing, economic empowerment, and racial injustice — crafted the Climate and Community Protection Act (CCPA) . This bill takes decarbonizing our lives seriously and proposes solutions in which those most hurt by climate change are also those who will most gain. And, after years of on-the-ground activism, it has a real chance of passing this year. The CCPA weaves together climate, jobs, and justice in three key ways. First, it sets a 2050 binding deadline for moving the entire economy — not only the electricity sector — off fossil fuels. Second, the CCPA mandates the investment of 40 percent of state climate-transition funds directly in communities on the front lines of the climate crisis and environmental pollution — typically communities of color and low-income communities. Finally, the law would ensure that green jobs subsidized by the state come with fair labor standards — a prevailing wage and assurance that the new jobs are accessible to underrepresented communities. With a goal of decarbonizing New York state’s entire economy, the CCPA would be the most ambitious climate plan in the nation. A handful of states have committed to 100 percent clean electricity , and others are considering similar steps, but none set such standards for all sectors of the state’s economy. Clean electricity is no doubt necessary, but electricity only represents approximately 20 percent of New York state’s emissions and 28 percent of our nation’s emissions. Action truly commensurate with the scale of the climate crisis requires expansive decarbonization. New York, in passing the CCPA, would set a bold, new benchmark for state-based reform. For many Americans, it’s difficult to feel agency — a sense that one can contribute meaningfully — to combat a crisis as massive and complex as the climate crisis. Indeed, after decades of a dominant ideology that denigrates government’s role as problem solver, it takes imagination to believe that we can muster democratic public action to address this crisis. But the CCPA is one potentially transformative first step; and, in the process of fighting for it and winning, we can inspire others to shed hopelessness and act. A new study by Penn State researchers shows that bystanders at the 2017 March for Science and the People’s Climate March experienced increased feelings of “collective efficacy.” In other words, courage is contagious. A deeply related crisis is that of our democracy itself. In writing "Daring Democracy: Igniting Power, Meaning, and Connection for the America We Want," we observed that the crises of big money in politics, extreme partisan gerrymandering, and voter suppression often seem so dire that Americans can feel powerless to make a difference. They are tempted to tune out instead of turning out. Focusing on solutions has the opposite impact. In chronicling Americans fighting back and winning real reforms, while inspiring others to join them, we ourselves were energized and more determined than ever. So, tackling the climate crisis requires a parallel reframe, from hopelessness and inaction to a sense of possibility and organizing for concrete solutions. And now is a moment of historic possibility. Legislators are running out of time to pass CCPA, as New York’s legislative session is scheduled to end on Wednesday. But make no mistake: If Democrats want to save our collective future, they have the power. After all, the party holds the majority of New York Assembly and Senate seats as well as the governorship. If the CCPA fails to pass, Democrats will be solely responsible. The rest of the country is now looking to New York. Will it become a beacon of hope in the Anthropocene? We certainly hope so. ______________________________________________________________________________ Frances Moore Lappé is the author or co-author of 19 books about world hunger, living democracy, and the environment, beginning with the three-million copy Diet for a Small Planet in 1971. Adam Eichen is an American author and activist focused on highlighting the emerging democracy movement in the United States. Eichen and Lappé co-authored Daring Democracy: Igniting Power, Meaning, and Connection for the America We Want (Beacon Press, 2017).