Starting this week (June 1) in Washington, DC, the National Corn Growers Association and its affiliated state associations are rolling out a $1 million ad campaign to boost corn's tarnished image. It's targeted at lawmakers in the nation's capital, the people who control corn's fate in terms both of environmental regulation and the lavish and increasingly hard-to-justify federal subsidies for the ubiquitous crop, which have totaled $73.8 billion in taxpayer dollars since 1995.
With growing public awareness of the toll that America's massive corn crop takes on human health and the environment, it's no mystery why the corn lobby would attempt an expensive PR makeover. The ad campaign makes dubious assertions about corn's environmental benefits as well as the misleading claim that "95% of all corn farms in America are family-owned."
Other than wrapping itself in the Stars and Stripes, there is nothing more blatant that the industrial agriculture lobby does to bolster its image than invoking the long-gone image of the pastoral American Gothic farm. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, however, the largest five percent of corn farms in America grow nearly 30 percent of all planted corn, and the largest 20 percent account for 60 percent of all corn acreage. Whichever way you slice it, there are thousands of large, plantation-scale corn factories dotting the American landscape, family-owned or not. And family ownership does not necessarily equal small. Agricultural supply giant Cargill is family-owned. So are the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Minnesota Twins.
The tired old refrain that farmers are America's original environmentalists is just as hard to swallow. Here are some data points to consider when you see a corn growers' advertisement touting their environmental credentials:
- According to the Environmental Protection Agency, (2000) "agricultural nonpoint source (NPS) pollution was the leading source of water quality impacts on surveyed rivers and lakes, the second largest source of impairments to wetlands, and a major contributor to contamination of surveyed estuaries and ground water."
- According to the 2007 National Resource Inventory (NRI), produced by USDA's National Resources Conservation Service to document erosion from cropland, there has been no progress in reducing soil erosion in the Corn Belt since 1997. The growers have wrongly cited the NRI to tout their supposed environmental achievements, but the data tell a different story. For example, the NRI shows that an average-sized Iowa farm loses five tons of high quality topsoil per acre each year. That adds up to 68 million tons of soil washing into our waterways each year from the 13.7 million acres of corn planted in Iowa alone.
- According to the U.S. Geological Society, fertilizer runoff from corn and soybean crops in just nine states is the leading cause of hypoxia -- lack of oxygen -- in the Mississippi River Basin and Gulf of Mexico. Hypoxia causes the Gulf's Dead Zone to swell to the size of New Jersey every summer and kills millions of fish and other aquatic life, seriously damaging the ecosystem as well as the fisheries economy. No one even wants to contemplate what will happen when the Dead Zone, swollen large with toxic farm runoff, combines with the Gulf oil spill.
- According to a National Wildlife Federation report this year, the corn ethanol gold rush has been responsible for plowing up thousands of acres of pristine wildlife habitat (and prime carbon sequestration vegetation) and converting it to corn production. The Jan. 13 document concluded: "Our research shows that native grassland is being converted into cropland at an alarming rate throughout the Prairie Pothole Region... as a result, populations of sensitive wildlife species are declining significantly in areas with high increases in corn plantings."
In terms of size and subsidies, corn leads all other crops in the United States, and that makes for a lot of polluted runoff and a big bite out of the federal budget.
If the corn lobby is serious about changing the conversation on corn's environmental impact, they should be using their money and power to persuade Congress to dramatically increase funding for conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Reserve Program when lawmakers take up the 2012 farm bill.
Instead, as the corn growers' news release announcing the ad campaign reads: "The coalition will meet with media, members of Congress, environmental groups and others to talk about what's ahead: how U.S. farmers, using the latest technologies, will continue to expand yields and how this productivity can be a bright spot in an otherwise struggling economy."
EWG can hardly wait to get our invitation to hear how the corn growers are going to boost their image with environmentalists by growing more corn.
Follow Donald Carr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DonEWG
I agree that farmers are generally good stewards of the land - they have to be. But as farms get bigger and bigger and there is ever more focus on producing more, more, more, some of that stewardship is lost. The small farms of the past that had varieties of crops did not need the same amount of fertilizers and pesticides because the systems regenerated their nutrients and resisted pests better. And as a taxpayer, I don't understand why big farmers making a lot more money than I do should get subsidies. If small farmers are having a hard time making it, let's direct the money to them instead.
The bottom line is not to demonize farmers, but to encourage the right practices that protect the soil and water for everyone. I appreciate that this article calls for more action on farm conservation measures rather than simply more corn.
It is interesting how it is now so fashionable to bash farmers at every turn. I hope I see the day when building houses on all this good farm ground catches up with this country and we can no longer feed ourselves and have to rely on imports. If you like being dependent on foreign nations for energy, you will absolutely love it when they control our food supply too.
At the end of the day, a farmers goal is to make a living. I guess if the EWG wants to pay me to sow my farm to grass and sit in the shade all day I will quit growing corn, until then I have some payments to make.
Corn is a high-input, high-output cereal in terms of kernel mass per acre. My problem with corn is its nutrient content per kernel mass. It's low in protein, low in soluble fiber, low in omega-3 alpha-linolenic acid, and high in omega-6 linoleic acid. The product is economical but low quality.
Barley, oats, and wheat are considerably more nutritious. Barley in particular is also better suited to sugar refinery because of its enzymatic properties when germinated. Corn requires externally synthesized enzymes from bacillus and streptococcus bacteria.
Hemp doesn't require herbicides or pesticides, and it's not as demanding on water and nitrogen. It also blows corn and most other crops away in terms of nutrition and yields extremely well. If we're going to plant annual monocultures, hemp is an outstanding candidate.
We can feed ourselves on corn. But it's not doing any wonders for our health and well-being.
What I'd like us all to remember is that people who work for the EWG have a job that is built around negativity. I'm sure glad I don't have that sort of profession.
Farmers are not all small and family owned. However, I can assure you if you want to meet an environmentalist in the truest form....come meet a 5th generation farmer. Meet a person who makes their living off that land and has a son he'd like to pass it to. Farmers are a different breed than 50 years ago. Most farmers have encouraged their kids to become well educated, well informed and progressive. We have all come to the realization at some point that family farms are a dying breed, and the only way to save them is by being environmentally friendly and progress-oriented.
Mr. Carr, your information is certainly biased. Unfortunately, you seem intent on telling a one-sided story. I hope you will make an effort to meet some of your adversaries. You might find that you actually like them, admire their efforts to preserve the environment and want to look deeper into the data you so fondly reference.
I understand how reading our policy pieces could make farmers who are good stewards feel uncomfortable. It's true that there are thousands of farmers out there who make protecting the land and water their priority. It's the lobby organization's positions and assertions who we analyzed, however, and their position is simply disingenuous. As I said in the piece, if the NCGA was truly about protecting the environment first, then they would make it their priority to get more funding in EQIP and CRP and maybe forgo some of those lavish direct payments.
Instead we get billboards in the Metro.
Yep, we do get tagged with negativity. I guess we should just turn out the lights and hope the last duck pond isnt drained, the last clean stream isnt polluted with atrazine, and the last taxpayer penny from the treasury isnt hoovered up by a 10k acre mega farm.
I appreciate you conceding there are good farmers. The problem I have is with your generalizations. I'm sure you're not terribly concerned with my opinion. However, reading such biased material, while getting the attention of some, loses credibility. There are '10k mega farms' that are great stewards. As with any sector, there are good and bad...but most of our farmers are good stewards. Most farmers would welcome more CRP...it limits production on poorer land which actually helps corn prices. EQIP needs some work but farmers are willing to consider it too..they like the conservation aspect of it, believe it or not.
The farm lobby is dwarfed by the energy lobby...would they be labeled 'mega-lobbyists'.? One million dollar campaign? Seriously... How much money does your organization throw at agriculture?
We have a very efficient system that results in some of the cheapest and safest food in the world. Are there things that can be improved? Of course there are. If people such as yourself would use your education and communication skills to work with this great nations' farmers...instead of against it, maybe positive change would be the result. Problem is, you're making generalizations and assumptions that are sure to alienate the people you challenge. You don't seem interested in facilitating any positive change...you seem more interested in painting farmers to be some sort of monster. Maybe taking a more positive approach to solving a problem could be considered at some point.
It's no secret. In fact, it is considerably more open and honest than most environmental groups, some of which go to great lengths to hide their funding sources and connections.
Perhaps you should look at how NCGA operates. Look at all the issues that NCGA -- and, therefore, corn farmers -- support. You might be surprised that farmers also support conservation programs provided they are operated correctly and fairly.
Why do you believe farmers feel like they need to do campaigns like this in D.C.? Is it, perhaps, because organizations such as yours perpetuate lies and myths about agriculture and trash the hard work and efforts of anyone and everyone who stands in your way regardless of their production practices? By spinning lies and fear mongering, EWG gets their name in the paper and checks in the mail. That's the bottom line.
Click through to some of the data -- some, like the NRI data, don't jive with what he's saying. And he's taken quotes out of context and linked to "studies" that when examined closely don't have the conclusions he's trying to push.
Typical "brownwashing" from an "environmental" group.
I'd love if if you'd provide specifics on how my conclusions and assertions are taken out of context. The NRI clearly shows that there has been no progress on soil erosion since 1997. Did USGS suddenly decide that corn and soybean run off was not the major cause of the Dead Zone? Is corn not the most heavily subsidized crop?
And yes, guilty as charged. EWG wants to help as many people (esp children) as possible from ingesting neuro toxins in the form of pesticides on their food. I know. Terrible.
Using USDA and EPA facts as you suggest clearly shows that no progress has been made on soil erosion since 1997. We're basically looking down the barrel of a lost decade in terms of protecting the soil that your customers need to grow more corn. Instead of copping to that fact you want to gloss over it and claim it as a benefit -- the same way you're trying to use the gulf oil spill to boost corn ethanol even though the ethanol boom helped wreck the gulf in the first place.
Taxpayers have financed corn production to the tune of $78 billion and the reward they get are cheap Doritos, massive profits for agribusiness, thousands of acres of prime wildlife land plowed under, and heavily polluted water.
Apology accepted.
Whatever you are claiming that corn production has done to the gulf would be no where near what this oil spill has done. The thought of comparing the supposed "dead zone" and the gulf oil spill is completely absurd.
What exactly do you have against farmers? It's people like you that take our countries food production for granted. America's farmers produce the safest, most abundant and inexpensive food in the world.
By the way, what tarnished image do farmers have? Have you ever met a farmer? Been to a farm? Or do you simply write these negative articles riping on America's backbone from your concrete jungle?
Just because you live in the country and dig in the dirt you are not immune from reason.
Massive profits to agribusiness??? I have farmed for 24 years, my wife works as a speech therapist, only one year has my income come close to hers, where are all these massive profits and huge direct payments? I think the payments per acre on cotton and rice are actually much higher than those for corn.
The country wants cheap Doritos, that is why there is a farm program to begin with.
How much water pollution can be traced back to lawns and golf courses, got any figures for that?
At EWG we do more than offer critiques of agribussiness lobby techniques. For example, here is an analysis we just did bolstering your assertions about on farm and off farm income:
http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2010/05/farm-income-data-debunks-subsidy-myths/
We agree that the current maze of subsidy programs is doing little to help small operations make it while just another handout for big farms.
And the to say that the farm program was started for cheap Doritos (as opposed to the historical record of their implementation post great depression) is as zany as their Mountain Dew flavored chips: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doritos
I'm sure there is plenty of a pollution from lawns and golf courses. Agriculture's contribution, according to EPA and USGS, however, is much much larger.
To call the corn "revolution" pro-environmental is silly. If it were:
--it would be arguing to use subsidies to provide food diversity, rather than dumping the money solely into commodities
--conservation plans would be mandatory for every farm, and subsidy payments based on certified annual compliance
--GMO options would be studied much more thoroughly, and would not be given precedence over traditional varieties
-etc.
To cast the "progress" you cite as "good and positive" is outright misleading. Soil is not being saved. A strip of land six miles wide from Omaha to Davenport came out of CRP in Iowa alone in recent years. That is land that is marginal to start, diluting gains made by other programs. It is land that was not farmed extensively until monocropping and GMO corn became federal policy--at the urging of the Corn Grower's, among others. Pesticides are down, today, but resistant varieties of weeds due to poor GMO policies are only likely to erase those gains in the future as stronger chemicals are needed to kill new weeds. Fuel use, likewise, is down today, but is likely to also go back up as more field management is required to combat resistant weeds. The technological progress you cite is pure illusion.
Trying to claim EWG is misleading people with an argument that is 10 times more misleading is hardly a way to make your point.