Why Organics are Expensive & Monsanto's GMOs are Cheap
Ever wonder why organic foods are relatively more expensive and sometimes hard to find, while Monsanto and biotech-derived junk foods are cheap and omnipresent?
It's because of a federal law known as the Farm Bill that uses billions of dollars of our tax money every year to subsidize factory farms, biotech crops, and chemical agriculture.
The Farm Bill is also a major reason why obesity, diet-related disease and health care costs are skyrocketing. It's partly why food production is responsible for more than half of greenhouse gas emissions and farm run-off is fouling drinking water and creating dead-zones in the ocean.
The current Farm Bill is set to expire and be re-written this year. We have an opportunity now to press Congress to cut corporate welfare and enact agriculture reforms that would create jobs, clean up the environment, strengthen sustainable local food systems and make healthy food available to everyone.
Senate Ag Committee Votes to Harm Environment, Starve Hungry, and Help Rich Farms
2012 Farm Bill: Healthy Food Not Corporate WelfareOrganic Consumers Association, May 9, 2012
For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's 2012 Farm Bill Page
At the end of April, the Senate Agriculture Committee marked up their version of the 2012 Farm Bill, passing the Orwellian-titled "Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012," by a vote of 16-5.
"A farm bill that cuts programs for the hungry and the environment to help finance a new entitlement program and unlimited insurance subsidies for the largest and most profitable farm operations should not be called a 'reform' bill." That was the, Senior Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources of the Environmental Working Group.
summed it up this way: "[The Senate Agriculture Committee] voted to eliminate the wasteful "direct payments" subsidy program when the five-year farm bill expires at the end of September. But it offset much of the savings by expanding subsidies for federal crop insurance. Rife with opportunities for fraud and abuse, this program hurts small farmers and distributes resources upward in the income scale even when it works as designed."
Ferd Hoefner, Policy Director for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, offered this criticism:
"By failing to place limitations on crop insurance subsidies and to re-attach soil erosion and wetland conservation requirements to crop insurance programs, the Committee has failed to do the full reform that is needed. ...
"...the Committee failed to provide adequate funding for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, thus limiting critical resources that new farmers need to succeed."
"The Committee did not fund the rural development title, nor did it make needed improvements in farm to school programs. It also limited the funding for programs targeted to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
"We ... echo Sen. Brown's (D-OH) concluding statements: without a strong investment in rural development programs we will miss the opportunity to truly make this bill a jobs bill."
Writing on the opinion page of the San Francisco Chronicle, Ken Cook, president, and Kari Hamerschlag, senior food and agriculture analyst, of the Environmental Working Group issued this call to action:
"[I]f eaters and taxpayers don't speak up, we'll get agribusiness as usual. On April 18, Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee voted to slash $33 billion from the food stamp program while leaving farm subsidies unscathed.
"The subsidy lobby is pushing a new $33 billion entitlement program to guarantee the income of profitable farm businesses. That's on top of $90 billion in subsidies for crop and revenue insurance policies.
"And after getting its grip on your money, for the next five years, the subsidy lobby will regretfully inform you that nothing is left to invest in healthier eating, hungry kids or clean water. They'd value nothing more than your silence in response."
EWG's proposals are fleshed out by Hamerschlag in her post, "Subsidy Buffet for Agribiz, Table Scraps for Good Food":
"[T]he committee ... cut $4 million from organic research funding (to $16 million a year) and cut funding to support Beginning Farmers in half, to $10 million. Never mind that we have a serious shortage of young farmers and the average age of all farmers is hovering around 57. ...
"According to a recent Government Accountability Office report, simply capping crop insurance premium subsidies at $40,000 per farm could yield as much as $10 billion in savings over 10 years. This would be nearly enough to spare conservation and anti-hunger programs from the proposed cuts while affecting just 4 percent of the subsidy recipients, who currently collect more than 30 percent of the total!
"According to the same report, reducing the average crop insurance premium subsidy by 10 percent might save another $10 billion over 10 years. This would be more than enough to significantly pay down the deficit and cover the modest $200 million annual cost of the Local Farms, Food and Jobs bill and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher bill.
"A portion of that subsidy savings could also be used to not just restore but actually double funding for organic agriculture, reinstate funding for the socially disadvantaged farmer program cut by the committee and double the number of low-income schools participating in the Fruit and Vegetable Snack program."
Investing in organic creates jobs. According to the Organic Trade Association, organic farming creates 21 percent more jobs than industrial agriculture.
Learn more at the Organic Consumers Association's campaign page:
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)