corn

April 23, 2024

Not just Mexico – US worries over barriers to agricultural trade across the world

By Johnathan Hettinger

From Algeria to Vietnam, Norway to Nigeria, and the European Union to China, regulation of agriculture biotechnology by countries around the world is creating increasingly concerning barriers to US agriculture and technology trade, according to a recent report from the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR).

The report shows the US government is highly concerned about what it sees as inconsistent and unscientific regulation of farm chemicals and genetically modified crops that are widely used in the United States but are subjects of concern abroad. Farmers in the United States annually spray millions of pounds of pesticides that are banned in other countries, including the EU, China and Brazil.

Among other concerns, the US cites “excessive” requests for data on certain products and expresses frustration that the EU seeks to ban pesticides until they are proven safe, instead of approving pesticides until they are proven unsafe.

In a 394-page report, the USTR detailed a range of concerns with specific countries, including those related to its ongoing bitter battle with Mexico over genetically modified crops (GMOs).

Mexico has not approved a new genetically modified cotton variety since at least 2018, the report notes, despite the cultivation of GMO cotton in Mexico for more than 25 years “with no evidence of adverse impact on the environment, biodiversity, or animal or plant health.” US officials are continuing to press the country on the issue, just as they are on Mexico’s restrictions on GMO corn. The US has also battled with Mexico over its efforts to ban glyphosate weed killer, developed by Monsanto.

In another example cited in the report, the US government complains that Taiwan’s decision to ban genetically modified food in school meal programs is not based on science.

Yet, the document makes it clear that the question of science is also a concern in the countries at odds with the US. Many other countries have expressed concern with what they see as the United States’ lax pesticide laws, driven not by science but by corporate influence.

April 15, 2024

“It’s getting worse” – US failing to stem tide of harmful farm pollutants

By Keith Schneider

VENICE, LA. Kindra Arnesen is a 46-year-old commercial fishing boat operator who has spent most of her life among the pelicans and bayous of southern Louisiana, near the juncture where the 2,350-mile-long Mississippi River ends at the Gulf of Mexico.

Clark Porter is a 62-year-old farmer who lives in north-central Iowa where he spends part of his day working as an environmental specialist for the state and the other part raising corn and soybeans on hundreds of acres that his family has owned for over a century.

Though they’ve never met, and live 1,100 miles apart, Arnesen and Porter share a troubling kinship – both of their communities are tied to a deepening water pollution crisis that is fouling the environment and putting public health in peril across multiple US states.

Arnesen’s home lies near an oxygen-depleted expanse of the northern Gulf known as the “dead zone,” where dying algae blooms triggered by contaminants flowing out of the Mississippi River choke off oxygen, suffocating shrimp and other marine life.

Porter’s farm is positioned at the center of the Upper Mississippi River Basin where streams and other surface waters saturated with farm wastes flood into the big river, and contaminated groundwater permeates drinking water wells. Cancer incidence in Iowa is among the nation’s highest, and is rising.

The culprit at the center of it all is a colossal tide of fertilizer and animal manure that runs off fields in Iowa and other farm states to find its way into the Mississippi River. The same agricultural pollution problems are plaguing other iconic US waterways, including Chesapeake Bay and Lake Erie.

US farmers use more fertilizer and spread more manure than in most other countries, accounting for roughly 10% of global fertilizer use, behind China and India. But while the nutrients contained in animal manure and fertilizer are known to nourish crop growth, the resulting nitrogen and phosphorous that end up in waterways are known to create severe health problems for people.

A grand government plan to address the problem has cost taxpayers billions of dollars with minimal results so far, and nowhere is the problem more pronounced than in the Mississippi River Basin.

The reasons for the persistent pollution problem are multi-fold, including strong industry opposition to regulations to control the farm contaminants, and a perverse system in which some government programs incentivize farming practices that add to the pollution even as other government programs try to induce farmers to reduce the pollution.

“You’re talking about systemic dysfunction,” said Matt Liebman, professor emeritus of agronomy and sustainable agriculture at Iowa State University.

April 1, 2024

Mexico delays planned April 1 glyphosate ban

By Carey Gillam and Johnathan Hettinger

After standing firm for more than three years on plans to enact a ban on the weed killer glyphosate starting today, Mexican officials said they were delaying the ban.

Mexico is currently embroiled in a trade dispute with the United States over its unwillingness to accept genetically modified (GM) corn, typically altered to tolerate being sprayed with glyphosate and to manufacture toxins that repel pests, and Mexican officials have repeatedly stated that they consider both GM corn and glyphosate as threats to the health of the Mexican population as well as to the health of the environment.

But in a surprising reversal, less than a week before the ban was to kick in on April 1, government officials announced that glyphosate use could continue until other options for weed control are found. The move came amid reported heavy lobbying from powerful global agrochemical companies and pressure from US trade officials. Similarly, in 2019, Thailand backed down from a planned glyphosate ban after pressure from US officials and industry actors.

Fernando Bejarano, of the Pesticide Action Network in Mexico, said that the move comes after pressure from industry and US officials.

March 26, 2024

When measuring a farm’s carbon footprint – Britain has the right answer

By Dean Dickel

The key to achieving climate mitigation in agriculture depends on an accurate measure of carbon sequestration and emissions of major greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.

Mitigation measures so far have revolved around public and private programs that offer payment for practices such as cover crops and no-till planting that industry experts have determined sequester carbon in the soil.

Carbon markets have also been initiated that pay farmers for their conservation practices. Called carbon credits, the payments are used to offset greenhouse gas emissions the buyers produce as a part of their business operations. Those offsets are commonly used to achieve their own climate claims such as “net zero.”

A number of farmers are already participating in these “markets,” but some in the industry remain dubious. “These aren’t markets, they’re just schemes,” says Jeff Schahczenski, an economist with the National Center for Appropriate Technology.

Farmers enrolling in carbon market programs will usually need to sign relatively long-term contracts that include very specific requirements to continue to qualify for payments. “I would advise farmers to have these contracts looked over by a lawyer before signing,” Schahczenski said.

Current “carbon markets” have also drawn fire from organic farmers and others because they mostly reward “new practices” as incentives for farmers to adopt carbon-friendly methods, all the while farmers who are already using those practices, many of them for years, are wondering out loud: “What’s in it for me?” Some have asked how long they would need to go back to bad practices before they would qualify for reinstituting good practices.

Current carbon initiatives available to farmers do not generally consider carbon equivalent emissions for synthetic nitrogen and other fertilizers and pesticides.

In Britain, however, the amount of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide being emitted and how much carbon is being sequestered in the soil can be measured by a software program that has been in use there for about ten years.

corn christophe-maertens-v9r31Dxg0X0-unsplash (2)

March 6, 2024

Mexico’s precaution on GM corn safety is justified

By Lucy Sharratt

A Presidential decree has banned the use of genetically modified (GM) corn for food in Mexico. But the governments of the United States and Canada are using the US-Canada-Mexico trade agreement (USMCA) to challenge Mexico’s actions.

The purpose of Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn is to safeguard the integrity of native corn from GM contamination and to protect human health. The purpose of the US and Canadian challenge is to defend the interests of the biotechnology industry. The US and Canada want to force Mexico to open its market to all genetically modified foods and seeds. Canada is supporting the US challenge (as a third party in the dispute) even though Canada does not export any corn to Mexico.

Mexico has the right to restrict the use of GM corn. The US argues that Mexico’s actions are not based on scientific principles, but the government has sufficient science to justify its precautionary policies.

Our organization, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, is a large network of farmer and environmental groups that has been monitoring the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for over 15 years, and we support Mexico’s restrictions. We were one of two Canadian groups that were given permission to send expert comments on the risks of GM corn to the arbitration panel in this dispute, but in January, Canadian groups were uninvited at the request of the US government, supported by Canada, on the technicality that the dispute is just between the US and Mexico.

We published our analysis anyway, to show that Mexico’s ban is supported by the science. Research continues to find indicators of potential harm to humans from eating GM insect-resistant corn. The science also continues to warn of health impacts from exposure to the herbicide glyphosate, which is used in GM corn production.

Most GM corn plants are genetically modified to kill insect pests. The GM plants express a toxin from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that is known to harm the guts of specific types of insects but not others. Farmers have long used Bt as a spray to kill pests but the Bt toxins in GM crops are different from this natural Bt in structure, function, and biological effects. In fact, peer-reviewed studies across the scientific literature continue to find that Bt toxins in GM plants can harm insects (spiders, wasps, ladybugs, and lacewings, for example) that are not the intended targets.

February 27, 2024

Hardline US stance ignores non-GM corn opportunity for American farmers

By Ken Roseboro and Timothy A. Wise

United States commodity organizations have cheered on the US government as it tries to get Mexico’s restrictions on genetically modified (GM) corn declared in violation of our trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, arguing that it cuts farmers’ export markets and sales revenues. But what if Mexico’s modest restrictions could instead turn out to benefit US farmers who shift to premium non-GM corn markets as international corn prices fall?

It sounds counter-intuitive, but it might just be true. The math is pretty simple. Despite all the bluster about Mexico’s February 2023 restrictions on GM corn, they affect a very small share of US exports. After negotiations with the US government over a more restrictive 2020 decree, Mexico dramatically limited its revised order, exempting GM feed corn from any mandated reductions. The restrictions apply only to the use of GM corn in tortillas and other products minimally processed for direct human consumption.

The restrictions were intended mainly as precautionary measures for a population that consumes more such corn products than anyone else on the planet. The corn for tortillas, and the minimally processed flour for tamales, enchiladas, and other Mexican staples, are overwhelmingly non-GM white and native varieties from Mexican producers.

Before the decree, Mexico was importing only about 600,000 tons of white corn from the US each year, a tiny share of the 16.5 million tons of US corn it imported last year. That means that barely 3% of US corn exports are potentially affected by Mexico’s restrictions. But the share is actually closer to 1%, because only an estimated half of US white corn are GM varieties, and barely half of US white corn exports are destined for Mexico’s tortilla industry, according to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports.

So just 1% of US corn exports are potentially affected by Mexico’s policies. From the beginning, the Mexican government has asserted that its revised and less restrictive decree has little impact on American growers. They are right, and the US in the formal presentation of its complaint did not even attempt to quantify how many US farmers are affected.

And here’s the thing: Those who are affected can always switch to non-GM white food-grade corn and export to Mexico’s tortilla industry.

US farmers who do that could earn premium prices, ranging from $0.25 to $0.50 per bushel for non-GM white corn, according to industry sources. Such premiums could be particularly attractive right now to farmers who saw corn prices fall more than 30% last year.

US trade officials have preferred not to discuss non-GM opportunities for U.S. farmers, but some farmers and grain suppliers would welcome them.

December 15, 2023

“We can’t sit back” – Amid climbing cancer rates, Iowa health officials eye farm chemicals

Faced with a startlingly high cancer rate in the key US farm state of Iowa, public health leaders are taking the politically precarious step of acknowledging that preventing disease necessitates cutting exposure to potentially cancer-causing chemicals, including those used in agriculture.

In a departure from other state cancer prevention programs, which rarely address environmental risk factors for cancer other than radon, a known cause of lung cancer, Iowa is working to better understand and make the case for limiting exposure to pesticides, commercial fertilizer, and animal manure used and generated by Iowa agriculture, among other environmental contaminants.

“These broader array of environmental risk factors are absolutely there for cancer. But they’re not paid attention to in state cancer control plans,” said Molly Jacobs, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, who is working with Iowa health authorities. “It’s quite unique that Iowa has addressed this as a priority in their plan. I applaud Iowa for taking on this task of thinking much broader and bigger, and changing this paradigm.”

The work to address environmental factors to reduce cancer cases began earlier this year and is being undertaken by the Iowa Cancer Consortium. It’s a 21-year-old, 650-member coalition of public health professionals, researchers, and health providers focused on controlling cancer. The consortium is led by Dr. Mary Charlton, an epidemiologist at the University of Iowa College of Public Health who also is research director of the Iowa Cancer Registry, which collects cancer data on Iowa citizens.

The consortium has launched an Environmental Task Force and a five-year plan for cutting public exposure to “environmental carcinogens.”

Farmers, agricultural executives, and state lawmakers have spent decades resisting any changes in farm practices that reduce the use of chemicals and nutrients, saying the inputs are needed to ensure ample food production.

But public health advocates say evidence tying the farm pollutants to disease is too strong to deny.

“We can’t sit back and say, ‘Wow. Somebody may not like this.’” said Kamyar Enshayan, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Education at the University of Northern Iowa. “Knowing what we do know, it’s just prudent that we support practices and systems that require significantly less fertilizer and pesticides.”

2023-10 Farm Bureau KSchneider-00455-Edit-2500

November 1, 2023

“What we’re up against” – North Dakota towns fight Farm Bureau to try to keep water clean

By Keith Schneider

DEVILS LAKE, ND – When Clark Steinhaus first heard about a plan to build a feeding operation for 2,499 hogs near the shoreline of North Dakota’s largest natural lake, he was alarmed. As chair of Pelican Township’s board of supervisors, Steinhaus worried the manure generated by so many hogs could easily contaminate area waterways, including 160,000-acre Devils Lake and its 375 miles of shoreline.

His concerns were not surprising given the fact that each year, US industrial-scale feeding facilities – the standard for American meat and dairy production – generate, store, and spread millions of gallons of untreated liquid feces and urine across farmland. Mammoth dairy, hog, poultry, and beef cattle operations are notorious across Corn Belt states for fouling the air with rank odors and contaminating surface and groundwater with toxic nitrates, phosphorus, and bacteria.

“We got documentation from the pig boys’ engineers that said they’re going to build a 12-foot deep pit under the facility – four-inch concrete, no rebar, only wire mesh. No rubber lining,” said Steinhaus. “They were going to store millions of gallons of manure in that pit. Yeah. Water pollution is a concern here.”

The three-member Pelican Township board unanimously rejected the construction permit application in 2019, deciding it did not meet requirements of the applicable zoning ordinance.

The seemingly straight-forward decision on behalf of a tiny township that is home to only 23 residents came back to haunt Steinhaus, miring the township in litigation and dragging it into a sweeping campaign by the American Farm Bureau Federation to upend local zoning rules that aim to curtail industrial-sized animal agriculture across the United States.

The North Dakota Farm Bureau’s lawsuit against Pelican Township was one of three such lawsuits filed in North Dakota, and among many brought across US farm country as the Farm Bureau levers the courts, legislatures and elected leaders to impede regulation of large-scaled animal agriculture and the foul odors and mammoth waste stream that results.

Five years into its livestock expansion campaign, the Farm Bureau is steadily peeling away important state statutes that make this possible.

“Look at what we are up against,” said Steinhaus. “We have 23 residents in Pelican Township – 23 people live here. We were selling tickets to raffle for cash to pay our lawyers.”

August 25, 2023

Advising farmers on fertilizer, universities add to water pollution woes

By Keith Schneider

WINONA, Minn. – Corn drapes every curve and rise here in Winona County, Minnesota – seemingly endless fields of grain that contribute to the food, fuel and finances of a robust US agricultural economy.

But the bucolic landscape belies a dark and dangerous truth: Much of the groundwater in the porous limestone beneath this area of southeast Minnesota is contaminated with some of the nation’s highest levels of nitrates – harmful pollutants released into the environment by the use of nitrogen chemicals and livestock manure as fertilizer on farmland.

Close to 200 wells in the county have been contaminated with nitrates at levels higher than what is considered safe, according to state officials and in parts of Winona County, half of all households have nitrate-contaminated drinking water. It’s frightening data for area residents because nitrates are linked to a range of health problems, including heart and lung problems and certain cancers. Nitrates are known to be particularly dangerous for babies.

Crop and livestock production accounts for roughly 70% of the state’s nitrate pollution, according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, a fact that recently led a coalition of 11 state and national environmental groups to petition federal regulators to investigate.

The groups are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect residents of Winona and seven other southeast Minnesota counties from “imminent and substantial endangerment” caused by nitrate contamination. The agency’s regional office has begun to interview state officials.

The issue is not unique to Minnesota. State and federal data show that since 1990, nitrogen spread on fields in ten major US corn-growing states has increased 26%, with more nitrogen than ever pouring off the land and into US waters.

July 23, 2023

How “Big Ag” pollutes America’s water, and makes money doing it

By Keith Schneider

It’s been 33 years since an Iowa State University agronomist named Fred Blackmer thought he’d struck gold for Midwestern corn farmers. Using a fairly simple three-step method, Blackmer developed an analytical tool that could accurately tell farmers exactly how much fertilizer their fields needed to produce abundant harvests each season.

The analytics Blackmer perfected showed not only how much fertilizer the corn crops would need to meet production targets, but also exposed how much could be wasted. Blackmer ultimately determined that farmers were applying a staggering 500 million excess pounds of nitrogen each year, a practice that not only wasted farmers’ money but also wreaked havoc on the environment as the nitrogen not taken up by plants drained from farm fields to contaminate rivers, lakes, and streams.

Despite what Blacker saw as obvious benefits to producers, not to mention the environment, his method failed to gain significant traction in farm country. Farmer allegiance to the propaganda pushed by the so-called “Big Ag” chemical industry and aligned academic institutions left Blackmer’s common sense approach on a shelf gathering dust. He died in 2006.

State and federal data now show that since 1990, nitrogen spread on fields in Iowa and nine other major US corn-growing states has increased 26%, with more nitrogen than ever pouring off the land and into US waters. Demand for corn is high, both to supply ethanol refineries and to feed industrial livestock operations that add to water contamination themselves through manure runoff, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

In Iowa alone, according to state research, farmers apply about 2 billion pounds of commercial nitrogen annually to corn fields, and much of it is ending up in waterways that flow all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, worsening the conditions in a 6,500-square-mile “dead zone” where the waters are so oxygen-deprived that they can’t sustain marine life. Iowa contributes almost a third of the nitrogen scientists say causes the dead zone.