The official newsletter of the Land Stewardship Project
Can agricultural research that benefits the public take place in privatized test plots and laboratories?
By Brian DeVore
Two years ago a consultant spoke at a public forum on the future of the University of Minnesota's Rosemount Agricultural Experiment Station and Research Center. He attempted to make the argument that the experiment station should be sold so it could be developed into residential subdivisions. After all, said the land use expert confidently, the people of Minnesota didn't need Rosemount's test plots and living laboratories because most agricultural research is "being done by private companies anyway."
The consultant didn't know it, but his hyperbolic statement pointed out exactly why public research facilities such as experiment stations are needed. Private industry is gaining control of ag research not so much by doing the field trials and experiments itself, but by bankrolling an increasingly higher percentage of the research done at this country's 76 land grant colleges. During the past two decades, private funding of research at agricultural land grant facilities has grown faster than state or federal support, according to the National Research Council. And this increasing private presence at publicly owned and operated colleges and experiment stations is diminishing this country's ability to do research that serves public needs, rather than a corporation's bottom line, say research policy experts.
"The entire agenda is switching away from public accountability," says Lawrence Busch, a Michigan State University rural sociologist who studies agricultural research trends.
The private industry's increasing presence on ag campuses doesn't bode well for sustainable agriculture in particular, say observers like Busch. After all, private companies want to develop products that can be sold to farmers, while much of sustainable agriculture promotes a reduction in inputs and a reliance on homegrown management abilities.
The real big man on campus
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Current Research Information System, in 1972 private funding supported 14 percent of all land grant ag research. By 1992, that share was 19 percent. Although no national statistics are available for 1998, it's suspected that private industry's chunk of the ag research dollar has continued to grow. For example, roughly 29 percent of the research budget at the University of Minnesota's agriculture college is now funded by private industry, says that institution's dean, Micheal Martin.
But private industry's influence goes beyond the 19, or 29, or whatever the percentage of its support is in a given year. For example, University of Wisconsin zoologist Warren Porter has been conducting research on the impacts of pesticides on biological systems for a decade and a half. His employers are supportive of his work, but some of Porter's colleagues are concerned about its controversial nature. "I've had people say to me, 'I wish you wouldn't do this research because it affects my ability to get research support from chemical companies,' " he says.
No wonder that little ag research in this country, no matter if it's publicly or privately funded, has much to do with sustainable farming. A USDA task force reported last year that out of thousands of ag research projects reviewed between 1993 and 1996, less than 5 percent of the research could be defined as related to sustainable agriculture systems. Organic agriculture fares even worse in the research community. Over a period of two years, the Organic Research Farming Foundation examined 30,000 projects in the USDA's Current Research Information System database. The analysis found only 34 research projects that specifically studied organic farming.
The good news
Despite such dreary statistics, it should be kept in mind that the majority of ag research funding still comes from public coffers. State legislatures in particular are key sources of such monies. That provides farmers and other citizens with a huge opportunity to influence what and how research is done, says Busch.
In recent years some minute cracks have appeared in the land grant armor, and a few smaller sustainable farmers have slipped through to get their research desires expressed. The creation within the past decade of entities like the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture at the University of Minnesota and the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University have provided a means for sustainable farmers to have a say in the research agenda.
Researchers complain that it's difficult to work on alternative agriculture when even sustainable farmers have a hard time defining what it is. To address these concerns, efforts have been made in recent years to collect information on what kind of research is needed to support sustainable farming methods. That's a key role of the new alternative swine administrator position in Minnesota.
This summer a measure that's part of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 is moving through Congress that could increase public participation in setting research priorities. It would require each land grant to establish a process for obtaining "stakeholder" - farmers, consumers, environmentalists, etc. - input on the use of certain USDA research funds.
Another positive trend is the continued growth of the USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program. University researchers and farmers alike say they have found the 10-year-old program extremely useful as a source of grants for research that is of direct practical use.
And as sustainable farmers join forces to create formal organizations, they are gaining the clout that comes with numbers. A 1995 survey of the membership of the Sustainable Farming Association (SFA) of Minnesota showed that one of the main reasons people joined the organization was because they were not getting help from University of Minnesota Extension. But, ironically, one of the perks of being a SFA member a few years down the road was the relationship the organization helped develop between sustainable farmers and Extension/university personnel, the survey found.
"The University is not a homogenous mass; there are individual people with interests in sustainable agriculture," says Minnesota vegetable farmer Greg Reynolds, who has invited researchers to his SFA chapter's potluck gatherings and is working with a university entomologist to encourage beneficial insect species on his farm. "It helps if you approach them as a group, and not just as individuals wanting attention."
Holding Swine Research Up To the LightAn animal scientist's unreported ties to industry highlights the importance of public accountability This winter it was revealed that the head of the prestigious University of Minnesota Swine Center had close ties with factory farm operations in the state. The scientist, Robert Morrison, eventually resigned as head of the Center, although he still maintains he had no conflict of interest. Still wafting in the air in the wake of his stepping down, however, are questions that get at the very heart of what the land grant mission is all about, and what role agricultural colleges and experiment stations can play in promoting a sustainable future. These recent events also offer a glimpse at what happens when private industry influences research both on an institutional basis and on the individual faculty level. But perhaps most importantly, the Swine Center controversy shows the critical role the public plays in holding land grants accountable. In December, western Minnesota farmer Nancy Barsness learned that Robert Morrison had a 10 percent interest in Canadian Connection, a hog production company that is suing New Prairie Township. As the township's zoning commissioner and clerk, Barsness has been at the center of a lengthy legal battle with the company over expansion of facilities, which include mega-lagoons. The owners - Morrison, Dennis Solvie and his son Dean - filed a lawsuit against the township in 1996 after they were turned down for a variance and use permits to build a five-barn hog facility to house 6,936 swine. The township maintains that the construction plan violates its rules governing conditional use permits and minimum setback requirements. The courts agreed with New Prairie - twice. Canadian Connection has filed an appeal, and a decision is due out in August. The court case has the potential to set a precedent for how rural communities address the local control issue, and both sides know it. In November, the Minnesota Pork Producers Association, which has expressed opposition to local control of hog factories, provided Canadian Connection with $8,000 from its legal defense fund. In addition, Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture Gene Hugoson, a supporter of factory farms, has filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the operation. Barsness also learned this winter that Morrison is on the board of governors of a southwest Minnesota meat processing company, which in turn is affiliated with the Pipestone System, a hog production network whose leaders have long promoted large-scale factory farming. University of Minnesota faculty are required to file disclosure forms when they seek outside funding for research. One question on these forms is: "Do any PERSONNEL associated with this proposed research application have an INTEREST in a COMPANY which may be affected by the research proposal?" In January, the Land Stewardship Letter obtained the forms Morrison filed for four outside funded research projects during the past several years. Funders included the Minnesota Pork Producers Association (MPPA) and the National Pork Producers Council (checkoff money collected from farmers and administered by commodity organizations like the MPPA accounts for as much as 40 percent of all private funding of ag research on college campuses). In addition, private companies Elanco Animal Health and Boehringer Ingelheim Limited provided funding for the animal scientist, according to the forms. Morrison, an expert on pseudorabies and other health problems that affect hogs raised in intense confinement situations, received $289,079 in funding through these four projects. On each of the forms, he checked the "no" box next to the conflict of interest question. In late winter, Barsness notified university officials about Morrison's financial interest in Canadian Connection and his relationship with the MPPA (the Swine Center has a multi-page "special section" in each issue of the MPPA's official magazine and Morrison has served on its editorial advisory board). Barsness, a University of Minnesota-Morris alum, didn't like that a key researcher within the state's public university system was so closely aligned with private interests. She maintained that Morrison's connections were a conflict of interest, especially considering that a company he held a financial interest in was involved in a lawsuit. She also pointed out that the MPPA had lent financial as well as legal support (MPPA attorneys are listed on papers filed with the appeal) to the lawsuit. Since Morrison was serving in an advisory role with the commodity organization, wasn't that also a conflict of interest? University officials disagreed. "Our conclusion is that Dr. Robert Morrison has not violated University policy regarding conflict of interest," began a 30-page document produced by the office of the vice president for research. There were many reasons given for clearing Morrison of any conflicts of interest charges. However, it boiled down to this: Morrison's research did not stand to benefit Canadian Connection directly in financial terms. As a result, he was not required to disclose his interest in the company. It should be noted that the university's conclusions were released before it was revealed Morrison was on the board of governors of the meat processing firm. Chris Roberts, a university spokesperson, says university officials are aware that their conclusions won't satisfy everyone. "Did he violate regents policy? No," she says. "Is the university policy the right policy? You can argue that all day long." Morrison has said publicly he is "proud" of his relationship with Canadian Connection as well as the meat processing firm, and has nothing to hide. He has said it provides him with an accurate picture of the research needs of farmers and makes him a better animal scientist. There's no doubt Morrison's financial and professional ties to the hog industry make him more aware of what the research needs of mega-pork producers are. But what about the research needs of the small- and medium-sized farmers land grants are supposed to serve as well? University of Minnesota agricultural scientists have been busy in recent years researching, among other things, how to grind up dead pigs for disposal in lagoons and methods for reducing the odor emitted by multi-million gallon pools of manure. These aren't topics of interest to the average family hog farmer, says Monica Kahout, who produces about 1,000 pigs a year near Olivia, Minn. Michael Martin, dean of the university's college of agriculture, says he is aware that this incident has cast the institution in a bad light. That's why it was best that Morrison stepped down, says Martin. Morrison is a faculty member in the veterinary medicine college, and does not answer directly to Martin in that capacity. However, his activities as head of the Swine Center made him accountable to the ag dean. "I have a high regard for Bob as a scientist and as a person. But I think it was a mistake. I think it called into question . . . the viability and objectivity of the Swine Center," says Martin. "I do think it was close enough to the gray zone that whatever the legality is, it had an adverse effect on the way we are perceived and that in turn has an adverse effect on the way we can serve. I know to the public the perceptions are reality and I have to be concerned by that." Partially as a result of the Morrison incident, the Minnesota Legislature this spring gave the university more funding for alternative swine research. In addition, the university's disclosure policy has been expanded so that all department heads, not just college deans, must report annually any financial ties they have outside the University. Martin, as well as officials in the veterinary college and other university administrators, has made a commitment to create a Private-Public Committee to determine how to handle similar situations in the future. If anything, the Swine Center controversy may have highlighted the critical need for keeping as much research as possible in the public sector. Martin has been making that argument to state lawmakers every chance he gets. "If Morrison had been working for Monsanto producing the same kind of research, do you think we would have ever known what he owned? At least this gives us a chance to know." |
Sustainable Swine Research1998 Minnesota Legislature takes steps to foster alternatives For many farmers, the controversy that swirled around the Swine Center this winter and spring cast serious doubts on the ability, or willingness, of Minnesota's land grant system to conduct unbiased research into low-cost sustainable farming methods. However, the 1998 session of the Minnesota Legislature resulted in some major funding initiatives for alternative swine research at the University of Minnesota. Land Stewardship Project members and staff were key players in getting these initiatives drafted and passed into law. Faculty position The biggest legislative victory was the creation and funding of a new faculty position at the West Central Experiment Station in Morris. This position will be principally devoted to work on alternative animal production management systems with a focus on swine. It will be defined and filled in full consultation with the Alternative Swine Task Force, which is coordinated by the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture. In addition, the Morris experiment station received $400,000 in funding to establish a low input swine research facility and for setting up a swine production system based on the Swedish deep-bedded straw system. The Legislature also provided continued funding for the program director of MISA's Alternative Swine Production Systems Program. This position will manage and coordinate the development of information, education and research needs related to alternative swine production systems. It will also help develop financial analyses and case studies for alternative swine production systems and coordinate development of a plan for funding future research and education in this area. This position is funded partially by the $125,000 provided by the Minnesota Legislature in 1997. Moratorium Efforts to weaken a local community's ability to control large livestock facilities were fended off during the session. The Legislature also created a task force to study the state's livestock industry for three years. In addition, legislation to create a comprehensive moratorium on construction of hog facilities of more than 750 animal units was passed by the House of Representatives with the help of Minnesota Clear Water Action. LSP and Clean Water Action, as well as rural Minnesotans from throughout the state, supported such a moratorium in the belief it would provide time to determine the direction Minnesotans wanted their hog industry to head, says LSP organizer Paul Sobocinski. However, the Senate, with the support of Gov. Arne Carlson, gutted the measure. The Legislature did pass a watered-down moratorium on the construction of earthen lagoons for hog facilities, but in general lawmakers failed to hear citizen concerns about the need to limit huge concentrations of livestock, says Sobocinski. Citizen efforts pay off Sustainable swine production made significant strides during the 1998 legislative session because Minnesota citizens made it clear to their representatives they were upset at the direction industrial pork production was taking their communities, says Sobocinski. Rural and urban residents communicated their displeasure over the Swine Center scandal, the violations of air quality standards by several operations, and major fish kills caused by manure spills during the past 12 months. In addition, they provided lawmakers with information on alternative production systems that can prevent the onslaught of the environmental, economic and social problems connected with factory farming in the first place. LSP's Livestock Concentration Committee, working with Michael Martin, Dean of the University of Minnesota's college of agriculture, was able to present the Legislature with avenues for supporting sustainable farming methods, says Sobocinski. Key lobbying was also provided by Tim Rudnicki, formerly with the Minnesota Catholic Conference. "To their credit, members of the Legislature listened to these concerns. Representatives Henry Kalis, Gary Kubly, Doug Peterson, Ted Winter and Tom Osthoff in particular showed their commitment to family farmers," says Sobocinski. "On the Senate side, Steve Morse and Keith Langseth showed leadership in moving forward LSP's livestock initiatives." Schultz appointed to GEIS task force Mark Schultz has been appointed to a 24-member citizen advisory committee that will help guide a statewide study of the impacts of the changing livestock industry in Minnesota. Schultz is the director of the Land Stewardship Project's policy program. The study - called a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) - is an opportunity for the state to evaluate the environmental, economic and social benefits and costs of various possible paths for the development of livestock agriculture in the state, says Schultz. For more information and to provide input, contact Schultz at LSP's Twin Cities office. |
Alternative swine position filledJulie Tranquilla has joined the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (MISA) as administrator of a new Alternative Swine Production Systems Program. Tranquilla recently completed a master of science degree in rural sociology at Iowa State University and has a bachelor of science in agricultural science from Truman State University in Missouri. She has studied the impacts of hoop structures in hog production, and worked on a grass-based beef farm in Virginia. Tranquilla says she will work to determine what areas of sustainable swine research are in the greatest need of attention. She plans on getting input from farmers throughout the state. "I'm looking for farmers who are either using these alternative techniques or are interested in learning more about them," she says. Tranquilla can be reached at: 385 Animal Science Bldg., University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; phone: (612) 625-6224. |
By Chuck Hassebrook
We need to change the direction of agricultural technology. I'm not talking about stopping technology, I'm talking about steering it.
Economist Stewart Smith found that by the year 2020 the farm share of food income for agriculture will be zero if current trend lines continue. A lot of that has to do with the decisions we've made over the past 50 years over how we've spent our agricultural research dollars. By and large we've used large amounts of public dollars to figure out ways companies could produce ever more expensive products to sell to farmers so that farmers could spend more money. And so today, for example, you have Pioneer and Monsanto doing a lot more to control weeds than many farmers do, and not surprisingly you have Monsanto and Pioneer getting paid a lot more than the farmers. Their share of the profit keeps growing, and the share of the profit of family farmers keeps shrinking.
But if we are going to do that, we need to change our approach to how we treat efficiency through agricultural research. For the past 50 years our researchers have basically looked at ways you could spend an extra dollar on purchased inputs so you could eliminate $2 worth of the farmer's time. That's not the only way to pursue efficiency. The other approach is to develop the knowledge by which farmers can use more of their management and more of their skills to manage their farm to avoid the problems we now have through purchased inputs. In other words, use research to find ways we can use an extra $1 worth of a farmer's time and management to replace $2 worth of capital and purchased inputs.
If there's one thing that gives me hope that this approach works, it's the hoop house for raising hogs. It's a technology that came out of Canada. You basically build up a wooden wall so high and then put a steel hoop over it and then a flexible, durable tarp over the top. Then you bed the hogs real deep using straw, corn stalks or other similar material. It takes about one-third of the capital per pig to put up one of these buildings as it does a confinement building. Now, it takes more time and it takes quality management. One of the reasons it takes more management is that what we have done with confinement is we've spent a lot of money to control the environment so we could put an employee out there and pretty much know what the conditions are going to be from day to day and the employee doesn't have to exercise much judgment.
In a hoop house you can't do that. You need to have someone in that building every day who's motivated, who understands what's going on and who knows how to exercise judgment based on the strengths of the family farm. That's the kind of technology we need to focus on.
One of the things that is the most remarkable about one of these systems is that we have spent literally hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars over the last 30 years perfecting the production of hogs in confinement. And virtually nothing on systems like hoop houses, and lo and behold you can still raise them as cheap in a hoop house, according to the studies. If we ever invested research dollars in these systems, improving and refining them, I think they'd beat the pants off confinement. That's what can happen if we turn around the imbalance in the research program. This is one thing we can do something about. Agriculture is the one industry where at least half of all research happens in the public sector. We don't have to rely on corporations to do all of our research. We have public institutions that have the responsibility to serve the public interest and we need to demand that they do so.
Chuck Hassebrook is director of the Center for Rural Affairs and a University of Nebraska regent. These comments are excerpted from a talk he gave at a recent Land Stewardship Project gathering for its southeast Minnesota members.
Great and Holy God you are like
the river of our soul creating variety
at every turn, new life around every bend
The flow of life is ever abundant from
one celled to organ bearing structures
like the wile large mouth and river hunting eagle.
Changing, growing evolving, flowing, overflowing,
freeing life to fulfill its purpose of more life, life abundant, flowing, evolving
river of our soul feed us with gifts of awe and wonder.
Majestic and powerful God you are like the
river of our hearts, in our midst and at our center
defier of the status quo, always moving, changing us, freeing us.
Leaving the banks of deity to flood our hearts,
our homes with the goodness of your healing, reconciling
presence, a presence as eminent and real as what flows in our veins.
Flowing, changing, evolving, - overflowing like Elijah's jar
and the Psalmist cup and your graceful cross changing our
hearts to be gentle partners and lovers of your creation.
Hidden and yet hounding God you are like the streams
of water that gather from unknown places flowing together
as one body, filled with purpose and expression of power.
In our deep search of details we cut through to what we
believe is elemental and foundational thereby missing your
wholiness and our relatedness.
Streams come together changing, growing, evolving, forming
a whole, overflowing, becoming more than we know, stay hidden, be mysterious great
Spirit of the streams and keep us humble and faithful.
- Amen
This is a prayer offered by LSP board member Larry Olson at Clean Up our River Environment's sixth annual meeting in February.
Have you got an opinion on land stewardship, the environment, agriculture or the state of our rural society in general? We welcome short letters to the editor or longer commentaries. All material must be signed and include a return address and phone number. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Contact: Brian DeVore, Editor, Land Stewardship Letter, 2200 4th St., White Bear Lake, MN 55110; phone: (612) 653-0618; fax (612) 653-0589; e-mail: bdevore@landstewardshipproject.org.
The Land Stewardship Project's Board of Directors has voted to spin off its 1000 Friends of Minnesota program into an independent organization.
The separation will be finalized no later than April 1999, says George Boody, LSP's executive director. In the meantime, 1000 Friends staff are developing a funding base and a structure for the new organization.
Since its creation in 1993, the 1000 Friends program has worked to raise awareness about the ramifications of unfettered suburban sprawl and the need for growth management in Minnesota. In addition, 1000 Friends program director Lee Ronning has worked with a dedicated group of staff and volunteers to fashion legislation that attempts to balance growth with conservation. One of its biggest accomplishments in recent years was the creation of the Minnesota Community Based Planning Act. This legislation, passed into law last year, sets up a voluntary framework and funding mechanism for communities to guide their growth.
Increasingly, initiatives such as the Community Based Planning Act require the full dedication of an organization that can focus on sustainable growth issues over the long term, says Ronning. As a result, LSP has decided to create a separate organization that will concentrate on growth management. Boody says LSP will continue to focus on its core mission of promoting stewardship of the land, but will also pursue initiatives in recently expanded areas such as rural community development and food system sustainability.
"LSP and 1000 Friends of Minnesota look forward to building our relationship and will continue to work closely together when opportunities arise," says Boody. "We wish Lee Ronning, her staff and the incoming 1000 Friends Board of Directors the very best." Ronning says 1000 Friends would not have been possible without LSP.
"On behalf of the 1000 Friends staff and steering committee, I'd like to thank LSP for boldly initiating this work and providing such a solid foundation for us to strike out on our own."
There will be special joint LSP-1000 Friends membership drive this fall. Watch future issues of the Land Stewardship Letter for details.
Ronning Picked for International Exchange
The Land Stewardship Project's Lee Ronning has been selected to be one of 12 U.S. citizens who will participate in a three-year European-American exchange program focusing on "Regional Environmental Issues in the Face of Globalization."
The exchange will consist of several study tours to Europe, beginning in July. Three states -- Minnesota, New Jersey and Maryland -- have been selected to be represented in the exchange program. It is sponsored by the Center for Clear Air Policy and the Heinrich Boll Foundation.
Ronning is director of LSP's 1000 Friends of Minnesota program.
Fuel-Injected Sprawl
What is urban sprawl? Various definitions have been used to describe this destroyer of farmland, natural areas and open space, but a particularly succinct description came out of a recent public forum in St. Paul, Minn.
"I think it's development that's designed as if people were cars," said Keith Bartholomew of 1000 Friends of Oregon. "I think we need development that assumes people are people."
Bartholomew's comment was appropriate, considering the title of the forum: "New Directions for Transportation: Containing Growth With Progressive Planning." The forum was part of a series of discussions this spring co-sponsored by the Land Stewardship Project and the Landmark Series. These discussions centered around the connections between sprawl and reliance on the auto, and what can be done to alleviate the problems associated with this relationship.
Minnesota took an initial step toward reducing reliance on the auto and auto-centered development during the 1998 legislative session when lawmakers voted to establish a light rail line from the airport to downtown Minneapolis.
LSP organizer Scott Elkins said initiatives like this fit in with the idea of the Community Based Planning Act, which LSP helped develop. Contained in the act is a set of goals, said Elkins, one of which is "that we should concentrate on moving people and goods, and not cars."
Trail gets $1.4 million
A multi-use recreational trail in the upper reaches of the Minnesota River Valley is one step closer to reality. The 1998 Minnesota Legislature appropriated $1.4 million for the trail, which would extend between the Minnesota communities of Wegdahl and Granite Falls.
Supporters of the trail had originally asked for $5.8 million, says Patrick Moore, an organizer in the Land Stewardship Project's western Minnesota office. The Legislature is requiring that $1.4 million to be matched from non-state funding sources within two years. A committee of local officials and residents has been formed to strategize on how to raise the money.
The trail initiative is a direct outgrowth of the Future of Flooding project, an initiative organized by LSP last year in an effort to develop alternative uses for flood plain land. Parts of the Minnesota River Valley were devastated by unprecedented flooding during the spring of 1997.
For more information, contact LSP's western Minnesota office at (320) 269-2105.
Attention LSP Members
We apologize if you recently received a membership renewal notice, even though you were already paid up. We are still working some kinks out of our database system. If you have any questions about the status of your membership, please contact Gina Scanlon at our Twin Cities office.
MSAWG Steward Award
The Land Stewardship Project was presented with a "Stewards of the Land" award during the 10th anniversary meeting of the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (MSAWG) in Rochester, Minn., recently.
Each year, MSAWG recognizes ones of its member groups for outstanding service to sustainable agriculture. LSP is a founding member of MSAWG.
New LSP Staffers
Karen Benson has joined the Land Stewardship Project's southeast Minnesota office as an administrative assistant. Benson lives in Rushford, Minn., and has worked as a dental assistant in the area. She is a graduate of Rochester Technical College and is currently attending Winona State University.
Brian Thill is a new community organizer in the southeast Minnesota office. A resident of Winona, Minn., Thill has a bachelor of science degree in resource management/environmental education and interpretation from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. He has worked as a wildlife education assistant for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Louise Arbuckle has joined LSP's Twin Cities office as an office assistant. Arbuckle lives in Forest Lake and studied dental technology at Northeast Metro Technical College and personal development through Dale Carnegie. She has worked as a dental technician and office manager.
Silas Patlove has joined LSP's western Minnesota office as an intern. A recent graduate of Oberlin College in Ohio, Patlove has degrees in environmental studies and music. He will be working with the Chippewa River Whole Farm Planning and Monitoring Team as part of his internship.
Support LSP Through the Minnesota Environmental Fund
Does your workplace give you the opportunity to contribute to the Minnesota Environmental Fund (MEF) through payroll deductions? The Land Stewardship Project is one of 17 organizations involved in MEF, a workplace giving federation founded in 1991. These local and statewide organizations work to preserve water and land resources, biological diversity and wildlife habitat. They strive to prevent human health problems caused by air, water and toxic pollution. They supply technical information needed by communities to make sound decisions on environmental issues, and they monitor government enforcement of environmental laws.
Employees who choose to contribute to MEF can designate all or a portion of their pledge to any one of the affiliate organizations, such as LSP. Employers withhold the payroll deduction contributions and send checks representing these gifts to MEF, which then distributes shares to affiliate organizations. Eighty-five percent of all dollars raised are given to the environment, with only 15 percent withheld for administration of MEF.
Charitable campaigns are usually held in the fall to coincide with other workplace giving programs, such as the United Way. If your place of employment does not include MEF in its workplace giving program, now is the time to ask the person in charge of campaigns to include it next fall. The MEF office will be happy to send written materials to your employer or have an MEF volunteer make a phone call or personal visit to the employer. For more information, contact Dana Jackson in LSP's White Bear Lake office, or call Eleanor Kittleson, executive director of MEF, at (612) 379-3850.
TV Provides Forum to Discuss Problems, Solutions in Farm-Based Communities
Western Minnesota residents had an opportunity to discuss the future of their rural communities during a pair of special televised town meetings in April.
Entitled "Rediscovering Our Rural Landscape," the programs were broadcast live from Pioneer Public TV in Appleton, Minn. Sponsored by the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (MISA), it featured a panel consisting of Don Wyse, director of MISA; Cornelia Butler Flora, director of the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development; Michael Duffy, an Iowa State University agricultural economist; and Richard Levins, a University of Minnesota Extension agricultural economist.
Carmen Fernholz, who hosted the program, was until recently one of three people who filled an endowed chair position in farming systems at the University of Minnesota. He farms near Madison, Minn. The Land Stewardship Project helped publicize the event. The first program examined how agriculture has impacted rural economics, natural resources and quality of life in rural communities. The second program explored options for making agriculture more economically, environmentally and socially sustainable.
Both broadcasts allowed viewers to phone in questions and comments. Levins told audience members that forums like this allow citizens, local officials and university personnel to get beyond the sometimes contentious debate that surrounds the future of rural communities: "Many, many times we complain about the agriculture we don't want. I hope we can use this opportunity to discuss the agriculture we do want." p
Survey: Residents of Washington & Chisago Counties Overwhelmingly Support Land Protection
Residents of two Minnesota counties threatened by sprawl are overwhelmingly in favor of protecting open space in their communities. In fact, they feel so strongly about this issue they are willing to support land conservation efforts with their pocketbooks, according to the results of a new survey released this spring. Eighty-five percent of those surveyed in Washington and Chisago counties agree that more open space needs to be protected. On average, 60 percent of those polled said they "strongly agreed" with such a notion. Those surveyed were particularly excited about conservation efforts that connect together already protected lands to create a "green corridor."
The telephone survey was conducted between March 31 and April 6 by Ridder/Braden, Inc., an independent polling firm. The survey consisted of interviews with 300 randomly selected voters from each county. The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 5.7 percent and is higher for subcategories of respondents. The survey questions were developed in conjunction with representatives of the Land Stewardship Project, the Trust for Public Land and other collaborators in the Green Corridor Project, a public-private initiative to preserve special land areas in Washington and Chisago counties.
These two counties are within commuting distance of the downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul. They have experienced significant loss of farmland and natural areas within the past few decades. They survey found that area residents place a particularly high value on protecting the three "w's" - water, woodlands and wildlife - from development. Two-thirds of the respondents said protecting these three resources was "extremely" or "very" important. And they are willing to put their money where their mouths are, according to the survey. In Chisago County, more than half the respondents said they would support a flat annual fee of $25 dedicated to the protection of open space. Washington County residents said they would support that fee at an even higher level: $35. The poll also found the majority supported a property tax increase of $1.50 to $2 per month per $100,000 in home value. And by a two-to-one margin, those surveyed expressed support for open space.
Michael Pressman, coordinator of the Green Corridor Project, says it was particularly encouraging to see how even poll respondents who were concerned about higher taxes supported some increases if they went toward funding specific, well-managed programs.
"As long as they feel they are getting their money's worth through specific programs, people will put forth the money to protect open space."
Public Forces USDA to Back Down on 3 Organic Rules
Tens of thousands of farmers, consumers and others concerned about the future of the organic food business owe themselves a collective pat on the back. A massive public outcry has forced the federal government to rethink how it will regulate the industry.
April 30 was the deadline for submitting comments to the U.S. Department of Agriculture on its proposed organic rules. The negative reaction against the proposals was unprecedented: More than 200,000 people flooded the USDA with cards, letters and e-mail messages during the four-month comment period. That broke all records for the number of comments submitted to the Agriculture Department on a proposed rule. As a result, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has decided to remove the three most controversial elements of the proposed rules: the allowance of irradiation, toxic sludge and genetically modified organisms in organic production.
This is a major victory for consumers, farmers, inspectors and processors, who have kept the pressure on the USDA since the proposed rules were announced in December. However, many controversial elements still remain in the rules, including production practices for livestock that allow confinement as well as the use of antibiotics and parasiticides. Some organic agriculture promoters are concerned that the USDA's jettisoning of the "Big Three" will only serve as a smoke screen for allowing dozens of other appalling practices to slip by.
Even though the official comment period is over for now, the more USDA and members of Congress hear about concerns that the final rules abide by commonly accepted organic production standards, the better. For a summary of the rules, an analysis of what's wrong with them and ways to contact the USDA, take a look at the Jan/Feb/Mar issue of the Land Stewardship Letter.
By Marsha Neff
For the past year the steering committee and staff of the Land Stewardship Project's southeast Minnesota office has been working hard to increase our membership. How? Nothing fancy. We have simply become very proactive about inviting supportive community members to join us at every opportunity. And our numbers are growing steadily.
But the Lewiston office is not content to merely add new members - our goal is to reach out and involve as many of our members as possible in building a stronger and more powerful LSP. Throughout 1997, the Southeast Steering Committee met regularly to develop strategies toward that goal. We capped off this year's work by holding two very successful membership meetings in the Minnesota communities of Stewartville and Lanesboro in December. We deliberately chose to meet in communities where LSP has not been active in the past. So we were quite pleased to have 50 members turn out, many of whom had never been to an LSP meeting. Steering Committee members Ed and Arlys Ellinghuysen, Joan Redig, Della Rupprecht and Pat Sheeler opened the meetings by sharing their recommendations for connecting and strengthening southeast Minnesota membership.
Then we asked participants to share their priorities for our work in the next couple of years. We were not surprised to hear members affirm support for LSP's traditional program work to promote sustainable agriculture, build links between farmers and consumers, increase profitability for sustainable farmers and help pass family farms on to a new generation of small producers.
But we were somewhat surprised to learn that one hot topic had motivated the vast majority of these members who came out on these cold winter nights. From all corners of the room farmers, rural residents and townspeople emphatically urged LSP to make anti-factory farm work a top priority. Members advocated grassroots organizing, public education and awareness campaigns, legislative and public policy work, and research to stop the expansion and better regulate large-scale livestock operations.
They encouraged LSP to "assert the right to be free of stink," "publicize the true costs of factory farms on roads, medical problems, fish kills, and soil, air and ground water," "broadcast the community, economic and family destruction caused by factory farms," "promote alternative hog production methods," and "challenge the University of Minnesota college of agriculture to shift its research and educational programming from industrial agriculture to sustainable agriculture."
The commitment of our members to help us put these words into action became clear on March 31, when this office experienced its largest annual meeting yet. Almost 100 LSP members came together in the St. Charles Community Center to select our new steering committee, meet the first round of prospective farmers in the Farm Beginnings program, and participate in a discussion of LSP programs and agricultural issues.
A highlight of the evening was a provocative speech on "The Future of Agriculture" by Chuck Hassebrook, director of the Center for Rural Affairs in Nebraska. Hassebrook made it clear that the next decade will be a critical one for the survival of family farms, rural businesses and communities. Now, more than ever, we need a strong LSP membership to address these challenges.
Marsha Neff is director of LSP's southeast Minnesota office and is our interim membership coordinator. See page two for an excerpt of Hassebrook's March 31 talk.
Minnesota hog producers gathered in Owatonna on April 29 to launch a campaign to end the mandatory pork checkoff. The Minnesota event followed a national recall kick-off in Des Moines earlier in the day. The campaign, which features a petition drive to call for a referendum vote on the checkoff, is being sponsored by the Campaign for Family Farms, a nine-state coalition of farm and rural groups, including the Land Stewardship Project. The Campaign favors making the checkoff voluntary.
For a referendum to be held on whether to end the mandatory pork checkoff, 15 percent of the nation's hog producers must sign a petition by April 1999. That will require signatures from approximately 21,000 farmers. Minnesota, the third largest pork producing state, has 10,800 hog farmers.
The pork checkoff is a mandatory tax collected on each hog sold. Money collected through the program, which was made mandatory in 1986 and is administered by the National Pork Producers Council, was originally intended to benefit all hog farmers through promotional and research efforts. However, in recent years the money collected and spent - $417 million since the checkoff became mandatory - has not provided real economic benefits to independent hog farmers, said Wabasso, Minn., pork producer Paul Sobocinski. He added that since the checkoff started, the U.S. has lost more than 207,000 hog farmers, 60 percent of all pork producers. NPPC officials say the success of the checkoff-funded "Other White Meat" campaign is proof the mandatory tax is successful. But Sobocinski said while there's no doubt promotional efforts have increased profits for packers, processors and retailers, little of that benefit has trickled down to the farm level.
"The real measure of this checkoff's effectiveness should be how much of the food dollar the hog farmer is receiving," said Sobocinski, who is also an LSP organizer. "Since the mandatory checkoff took effect, the price of pork per pound at the grocery store has gone up almost 30 percent, but the farmer's share of that pork dollar has dropped more than 10 percent, according to the USDA. This checkoff is putting money in somebody's pocket, but it isn't mine."
Olivia hog producer Monica Kahout said her family's operation has forked over approximately $10,000 to the checkoff since 1986. She said checkoff-funded initiatives such as research into how to reduce odors at mega-lagoons is of little use to her family.
"If I am forced to put in this $10,000 then I would think I would see some return, but I'm not," she said. "Fewer and fewer people are controlling more and more of the hogs, and I don't see the checkoff helping to change that statistic."
Many farmers apparently agree. A little over a month after the petition drive began, more than 5,000 signatures had been collected nationwide. Many of the petition cards were turned in with personal notes outlining farmers' dislike of the way the checkoff money was being collected and spent.
Pork producers who have marketed one or more hogs since Jan. 1, 1997, are eligible to sign the petition. Farmers who want to sign the petition or help distribute it to other producers should write the Campaign for Family Farms at P.O. Box 6321, Minneapolis, MN 55406, or call (612) 823-5221.
Remember those air quality tests Land Stewardship Project members conducted near large hog facilities in Minnesota's Renville County two summers ago? They have set off a chain of events, including legislation that required the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to do a better job of monitoring feedlot emissions and enforcing violations.
In April, a series of tests conducted by the MPCA turned up what those original citizen-testers already knew: large livestock facilities can be hazardous to your health. During a three-week testing period, six out of 11 feedlots tested produced hydrogen sulfide levels that exceeded state health standards. In one case, the H2S levels were 600 times the state standard. Four of the facilities house hogs. They are owned respectively by ValAdCo, Churchill Cooperative and Neal Johnson, all in Renville County, and Holden Farms in Rice County. Also found to exceed state standards was the Golden Oval chicken facility in Renville County and the Excell Dairy feedlot in Marshall County. The hog and dairy facilities store manure in large open pits. The chicken facility stores manure underneath the barn in an enclosed system.
LSP member Julie Jansen, who lives less than two miles from the ValAdCo facility that tested high, helped kick off the campaign to closely examine air emissions from the livestock factories after she and her family started suffering from symptoms indicative of overexposure to hydrogen sulfide. She says it is good to see state environmental officials confirm findings that at first they dismissed out of hand.
MPCA official say they will have to conduct more extensive tests over several 24-hour periods to determine if state law is being violated by the facilities. At press time, the ValAdCo facility had been found in violation as a result of further testing. It remains to be seen what, if any, legal action will be taken against facilities that violate hydrogen sulfide standards.
SAWG releases livestock paper Sustaining Land, People, Animals & Communities: Policy Principles for Sustainable Development was released in May. This is a policy paper produced by the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (MSAWG). The Land Stewardship Project is a founding member of the 16-member MSAWG.
The paper includes policy positions on: research and education, technical and financial assistance, credit and tax policy, marketing, and regulation of concentrated livestock operations. Copies of the paper are available by calling (202) 547-5754, or by contacting Brad DeVries.
Ethics award given to LSPer
Land Stewardship Project member Diane Halverson has received the 1998 Geraldine R. Dodge Humane Ethics in Action Award.
Halverson, of Northfield, Minn., has long worked to promote the humane treatment of farm animals. Recently, she developed The Pig Picture, a documentary on factory farming. She was also instrumental in creating Pastureland Farms, the first-ever U.S. Department of Agriculture approved "humane label" for pork.
By Scott Elkins
The Community-Based Planning Act of 1997 (CBPA) is coming of age in Minnesota.
The law, which was developed by the Land Stewardship Project, creates a framework for sustainable planning based on goals related to, for example, environmental and farmland protection, as well as affordable housing. Working under the auspices of the CBPA is voluntary, and communities that agree to adhere to its goals will receive financial and technical support in doing their comprehensive planning. This law provides an opportunity for communities to avoid the kind of haphazard planning that creates cross-border conflicts between local units of government. It also helps residents and officials take a long view of what they want their communities to look like.
Many observers were surprised by the rapid passage of such significant legislation in 1997. The passage was so rapid, in fact, that there were concerns a significant backlash would develop once pro-sprawl forces caught their breath. It turns out those concerns were justified.
Early on, two members of the Minnesota House of Representatives - William Kuisle of Rochester and Bruce Anderson of Buffalo Township - spent taxpayer dollars to send out a manifesto of opposition to the CBPA to every county and township elected official in the state. While the manifesto and the use of taxpayer dollars was condemned by the Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning, it was only the first swipe from opponents of the act. Early in the 1998 session three separate bills which would repeal the entire CBPA were introduced in the House and the Senate. As the session wore on, other proposals and amendments were put forward to substantially weaken the act.
Opposition to the CBPA culminated in a Land Rights Task Force meeting held in Minneapolis in February. A number of speakers at the conference condemned the CBPA as state control of local land-use decisions, an inflammatory - and patently false - allegation. Many participants at the meeting were subscribers to an electronic newsletter which circulates postings tying the CBPA to a supposed United Nations plot for "one-world government."
Despite the forceful and frequent attacks, CBPA survived the session with relatively minor amendments (see sidebar). Interestingly, none of the final changes reflect any of the input of the Advisory Council, which spent the fall of 1997 traveling to 24 public meetings and listening to the thoughts of more than 1,000 Minnesota citizens. LSP's Lee Ronning, among others, was a member of that Advisory Council.
What does this all mean? It means that word about the CBPA and what it can do for local communities needs to be spread across the state. LSP will be working toward that goal by organizing meetings throughout Minnesota during the rest of 1998. We'll be inviting local citizens and elected officials to hear notable panelists talk about how sound land use planning, with the help of the CBPA, can help communities achieve economic development, environmental protection and social equity. As always, the emphasis will be on grassroots participation.
As the year progresses, we'll keep you informed about where and when these meetings will take place. In the meantime, if you'd like copies of our information sheets on the CBPA, please contact me at our Twin Cities office.
Scott Elkins is an organizer with LSP's 1000 Friends of Minnesota program. He can be reached at (612) 653-0618.
Changes made to the CBPA in the 1998 Omnibus Bill
- By Jim Hightower
HarperCollins, New York
1997
279 pages
$23.00
Reviewed by Terry Van Der Pol
Rambunctious and raucous; rocking and frolicking; outrageous and irreverent. It's all in there! Jim Hightower is a veritable quote machine.
Hightower, the former Texas Commissioner of Agriculture, takes the reader on a wild ride through modern American culture and consciousness in There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road But Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos. His humorous quips and colorful metaphors serve the reader and the message well. Without them, like a bitter pill without the cherry coating, it would be pretty hard to get down.
In his criticism of the modern Democratic Party, Hightower scolds, "Sure [politics is the art of compromise] - compromise is essential to democracy and all that. But one doesn't come out of the chute compromising; ride that bucking, twisting bull for all you are worth first! Reach your compromises honestly after you've given it your best shot." He takes his own advice well in crafting this work, wading into some of the most serious issues of our time. No compromise. No apology. It's class war - a battle for no less than control of America. "America's true political spectrum does not run from right to left - but top to bottom," he writes.
The ride opens with a portrayal of the extent corporations have invaded our public schools through the proffer of "free curriculum." We've all heard of Channel One TV, a commercial, advertisement-based broadcast offered to schools. But there's plenty of other examples of public education being put up for sale, such as a science curriculum that includes an "experiment" testing whether Prego or Ragu canned spaghetti sauce is thicker, complete with a coupon for free Prego Sauce.
"The true symbol of today's America," Hightower posits, "is no longer Old Glory, but the Corporate Logo." Thus is coined the new term that serves as the draft horse for his theme - "corporatism." One area hit particularly hard by this corporatism is the environment. Hightower dismisses the conventional wisdom that environmentalism is off the radar screen of the average American "Joe Six-Pack." Environmentalism is not the domain of elites; the Great Unwashed majority cares deeply about safe food, clean air and water. Hightower's experience as the (elected) Texas Commissioner of Agriculture and growing up rural focuses his analysis squarely on industrial agriculture. In this section he addresses the confinement livestock industry, the culture of pesticide use (thanks to an extended successful run of corporatism), food disparagement laws and mad cow disease. He decries the habit of industrial agriculture externalizing its costs ("Well poisoning is not even marked down as a cost!") and the elevated role of science ("Science is not truth, and it often errs"). The message, according to Hightower, is clear. "All together now: We don't want your damn poisons in our food, in our water, in our babies!"
A linchpin of Hightower's depiction of American consciousness under attack by corporatism is his description of the corporate takeover of the media; the well documented scramble for control of newspapers, publishing houses, radios and television. The Westinghouse buy-out of CBS, General Electric's purchase of NBC, Disney's ownership of ABC, and the Time Warner conglomerate have resulted in news and information that is just another "consumer product," sold to us by corporations whose budgets rival the economies of most countries.
For me, this is where the ride gets pretty scary. Hightower describes a sign he saw held aloft along Broadway in New York:
| Consume Watch TV Be silent Work Die |
Ouch. We will continue to consume, watch TV, work and die, concedes Hightower. But, "we do not have to keep silent."
Hold on, here - pull over to the side of the road a minute. If so much of what we are consuming is the mind numbing, propagandist pabulum corporate America is spoon-feeding us through control of the media, political commentary, education, food, recreation, work and TV, do we have an alternative to silence? With "corporatism" so pervasive, as the balance of the book argues, can we resist complete cultural captivity? The answer, according to Hightower, is a resounding "yes." He demonstrates a deep and abiding faith in the American people's common sense, intuitive sense of fairness and wisdom; allowing that "on the progressive side of politics, where our forces are short of button-pushing power and long on numbers and diversity, getting everybody organized is about like trying to load frogs in a wheelbarrow." But his conclusion is that the people are natural allies: "As Jesse Jackson puts it, "We might not have come over in the same boat, but we're in the same boat now."
Hightower's observations and analysis are well rooted in the experiences he's gathered growing up the son of a small Texas town's newspaper editor, hosting a radio talk show called "Live from the Chat 'N Chew," serving as a state Commissioner of Agriculture, and being the populist conscience of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." ("America doesn't need a third political party, we need a second one," he quips.) His thesis, though hard hitting, is woven with a thread of optimism.
In response to a query from the New York Times about where he gets his material, Hightower responds, "I'm a faithful reader of the comics and sports pages, I'm on the road and talk radio a lot constantly rubbing up against the funny bones of the hoi polloi."
It is apparent to me that his appreciation of what "the people" have to say goes far beyond rubbing up against funny bones. It also goes beyond the retention of stories and quips. He engages us, he likes us, he trusts us, and he believes in our wisdom.
Terry Van Der Pol is an organizer in the Land Stewardship Project's western Minnesota office.
By Vandana Shiva
South End Press, Boston
1997
148 pages
$13.00
Reviewed by Dana Jackson
We live in an era so full of rhetoric about free markets and globalization that the capacity to make a profit is considered to be a basic human right, cited as justification for practically any kind of activity not legally forbidden, even if it infringes on the freedom, integrity or well being of other people or communities. We have long given ourselves permission to exploit and desecrate the natural world in our insatiable demand for "natural resources" to build the artifacts of culture. Anything can become a commodity if we perceive a market for it.
Even with this cynical perspective, I'm shocked by the extremes to which these assumptions are applied through genetic engineering and patents on life forms. For example, in the introduction to her new book, Vandana Shiva reveals that Myriad Pharmacy, a U.S. based company, patented the breast cancer gene in women in order to get a monopoly on diagnostics and testing.
How is it that one person or corporation can claim ownership of the inherent design of a human being? Shiva explains that this is because of Eurocentric notions of property and piracy that are the foundations on which the intellectual property rights laws of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and World Trade Organization have been framed. Transnational corporations, through intellectual property rights, have extended colonization and piracy to the "interior spaces, the genetic codes of life forms from microbes and plants to animals, including humans." Also, Western powers assume the right to "take" cultural, indigenous knowledge from "undeveloped" countries and claim exclusive rights to its application in manufacturing a product. This is what Shiva calls "Biopiracy."
This slender book, marred only by a plethora of acronyms, is a no-holds-barred condemnation of the international patenting system legalized in the agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights. A well-known feminist and activist in international affairs, Shiva travels around the world lecturing and writing about development strategy, the environment and international affairs as they relate to biological diversity, indigenous knowledge and biotechnology. In this book, as in speeches she gave at the University of Minnesota last fall, Shiva has honed her critique into concise, dense, stinging statements. For example: "Patents are not necessary for developing a climate of invention and creativity. They are more important as an instrument of market control."
This market control doesn't just apply to Third World countries. U.S. farmers face the real possibility of seeing all plant and animal seedstock locked up through patents. Such patents will not only make certain resources economically unattainable to family farmers, they will also ensure that only innovations Monsanto and Pioneer think are viable will be perpetuated.
Shiva strongly believes that patents negate scientific creativity and the free exchange of ideas. She's qualified to speak about this issue: She directs the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy in India and has academic credentials as a physicist and ecologist.
Despite her professional pedigree, in Biopiracy, as well as in a previous book, Monocultures of the Mind, Shiva denounces Western reductionist science for replacing diversity with homogeneity in forestry, agriculture and fisheries. Biodiversity is the local common resource of indigenous people, lost when timber companies, using "scientific forestry," harvest mixed species and replace them with monocultures. Not only are diverse medicinal and nutritional plant resources destroyed, but the knowledge of their cultivation and use, often the responsibility of women, withers. Whereas knowledge of medicinal plants and seeds have been exchanged freely as a living heritage within communities, the intrusion of intellectual property rights causes knowledge to be withheld from people so that a few may profit from using or selling it.
The prime example of expropriating common, local knowledge for corporate profit is the patenting of neem, a beautiful tree native to India which has been used for centuries as a biopesticide and a medicine. Since 1995 over a dozen U.S. patents have been taken out for neem- based solutions and emulsions, four by the U.S. company W.R. Grace, which plans to establish a manufacturing base in India, with Indian companies supplying the raw material. Patents are granted based on novel, modern extraction processes. Shiva maintains that the value of the product is dependent upon its source, not in the technological tinkering. The same tinkering with another tree would not produce biopesticides.
Vandana Shiva is also critical of agreements to compensate Third World countries for the information they pass on to pharmaceutical companies about indigenous plants used for medicine. The exploration of genetic and biochemical materials that have commercial potential is called bioprospecting. A well-known example is the payment of $1 million from Merck Pharmaceuticals in 1991 to the National Biodiversity Institute of Costa Rica for the right to keep and analyze plant samples gathered from national Costa Rican rain forest parks. Shiva says that those selling prospecting rights never had the rights to biodiversity in the first place, and people in local communities were never consulted. The patenting process combined with bioprospecting will displace indigenous life-styles and economics with a system that does not respect either biological or cultural diversity.
"We need a transition to an alternative economic paradigm that does not reduce all value to market prices and all human activity to commerce," writes Shiva.
Some Indian farmers are doing that, defying international agreements on property rights, declaring that farmers have a right to produce, exchange, modify and sell seed. It's no accident they are using the seed as their rallying point. Shiva holds up the seed as a symbol of freedom, replacing Gandhi's spinning wheel: "In the seed, cultural diversity converges with biological diversity. Ecological issues combine with social justice, peace and democracy."
Dana Jackson is the Land Stewardship Project's associate director.
Protecting Your Community's Natural Resources: A Land Protection Tool Box for Local Government is a step-by-step practical guide to effective tools for protecting land. This 128-page handbook details how local communities can create land protection programs using land acquisition, donated conservation easements, purchase of development rights (PDR), and transfer of development rights (TDR). This manual concludes with a glossary of terms. Some of the nation's leading authorities on land protection helped put this publication together for the Green Corridor Project. This initiative is an independent network of seven local public and private organizations, including the Land Stewardship Project, working to protect land in Minnesota's Chisago and Washington counties.
The price of this handbook is $14.75 ($13.25 for LSP members; Minn. residents add 6.5 percent for sales tax). Add $2.25 for shipping and handling. For a copy, send a check payable to Land Stewardship Project to: LSP, 2200 4th St., White Bear Lake, MN 55110. Call (612) 653-0618 for more information.
Preserving Family Lands
If you care about the future of your family's land, two books being offered through the Green Corridor Project may be for you. Preserving Family Lands - Essential Strategies for the Landowner and Book II - More Planning Strategies for the Future, cover all aspects of avoiding estate tax problems when attempting to preserve land for future generations.
Written by tax attorney Stephen Small, these books are invaluable tools for landowners who are in a situation where their land has become so valuable it has to be sold to pay the estate tax. The first volume (99 pages) provides an introduction to: conservation easements, income and estate tax benefits available for donations of conservation easements, estate and gift tax rules, gifts by will and gifts of remainder interests, and appraisal issues and information about potential donee organizations. Book II covers: how the basic estate and gift tax rules work; why you should never put family land in a corporation; basic rules about partnerships and trusts; when charitable remainder trusts, private foundations and life insurance may be useful planning tools for landowners; and what every landowner should know about estate planning.
The cost is $5 for the first book, $6 for the second one. Add $2 for book rate shipping and handling; that $2 will cover shipping either one or both books (Minn. residents add 6.5 percent to cover sales tax). Send a check payable to the Land Stewardship Project to: LSP, 2200 4th St., White Bear Lake, MN 55110. Call (612) 653-0618 for information on bulk orders.
Southeast Minnesota Food Directory
The Land Stewardship Project's southeast Minnesota office is now offering free copies of the 1998-1999 edition of the Southeast Minnesota Farmer-to-Consumer Directory. Produced by LSP and the Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota, this booklet lists farms in southeast Minnesota that offer everything from sustainably produced vegetables and meat products to bed and breakfast services.
To order, contact: LSP, 180 E. Main St., PO Box 130, Lewiston, MN 55952; phone: (507) 523-3366.
New organic certification handbook
A new publication is available for anyone interested in certifying organic crop acres in Minnesota. Organic Certification of Crop Production in Minnesota is a user-friendly guide produced by the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and the University of Minnesota Extension Service.
This 40-page handbook is written by organic consultant and trained organic inspector Lisa Gulbranson. While focused on certification in Minnesota, the concepts apply across the region. The handbook discusses the decision of whether to become a certified organic producer, leads the reader through a step-by-step description of the certification process and provides sample certification forms to use on farms.
For a copy, send $5 (that covers shipping; Minn. residents add 7 percent sales tax; make check payable to University of Minnesota) to: U of M Extension Service, Distribution Center, University of Minnesota, 1420 Eckles Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108-6069. To order by credit card or for information on bulk orders, call 1-800-876-8636 (Twin Cities: 624-4900).
JULY 9-12 - Mississippi River Basin Alliance Conference, St. Louis, Mo.; Contact: (612) 870-3441
JULY 15 - Applications available for North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education grant proposals (preproposals due Sept. 11); Contact: (402) 472-7081
JULY 17 - Development of mating disruption & mass trapping strategies for apple leafminer control in orchards, La Crescent, Minn.; Contact: Bernie & Rosanne Buehler (507) 895-4832
JULY 19 - Grass & forage-based finishing of beef & pork, including consumer taste testing & education, Lake Superior Meats Cooperative, Carlton, Minn.; Contact: (218) 727-1414
JULY 19-22 - Animal Production Systems & the Environment: An International Conference, Des Moines, Iowa; Contact: (515) 294-4202
JULY 21 - Field day & whole farm planning workshop, Dewane & Anne Morganis farm, Park Rapids, Minn.; Contact: (218) 732-4866 Comparison of frost seeding to impaction seeding using sheep in CRP & wooded hillsides, Rushford, Minn.; Contact: James Scaife (507) 864-2896
Land Stewardship Opportunities for Women Landowners Conference, featuring sessions on easements, gifting land, lease agreements, cash rents, wetlands & prairie plantings; Mankato, Minn.; Contact: Cathi Fouchi, (507) 389-6257
JULY 23-24 - Churches & Land Issues: Convocation for Discernment & Action '98 - Social, Economic, Spiritual Concerns, Sinsinawa, Wis.; Contact: Churches' Center for Land & People, (608) 748-4411, ext. 805
JULY 25 - Marketing of chickens, eggs & bologna, Arlene & Mel Hershey, St. Charles, Minn.; Contact: (507) 689-2988
JULY 27 - Leadership seminar for all Minnesota Sustainable Farming Association board reps & alternates, chapter chairs & chapter coordinators, Bethlehem Lutheran Church, St. Cloud, Minn.; Contact: Scott Williams, Institute for Policy Studies, (202) 234-9382
JULY 28 - Evaluating kura clover, birdsfoot trefoil & grazing alfalfa for forage persistence, Jon Luhman farm, Red Wing, Minn.; Contact: (612) 388-6789
JULY 29 - What You Need to Know to Raise & Market Organic Meat, 10:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m., Ralph & Marianne Zerbe & John Jordan farm, Houston, Minn.; Contact: LSP (507) 523-3366
JULY 30 - What You Need to Know to Raise & Market Organic Meat, 10:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m., Craig & Joanie Murphy farm, Morris, Minn.; Contact: LSP (320) 269-2105
AUG. - Streambank rehabilitation using cattle (date to be announced), Ralph Lentz farm, Lake City, Minn.; Contact: (612) 345-2557
AUG. 6-7 - Grazing class co-sponsored by LSP & the U. of Minn., Preston, Minn.; Contact: Dennis Johnson (320) 589-1711 .
AUG. 7-8 - Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group meeting, Stratford Ecological Center, Delaware, Ohio; Contact: Mark Schultz (612) 653-0618
AUG. 8 - Conversion of CRP ground to pasture for beef & hogs, Preston, Minn., Contact: (507) 689-2988
AUG. 12-13 - Profitable farming workshop, featuring farm management specialist Doug Gunnink; Best Western Apache, Rochester, Minn.; Contact: LSP (507) 523-3366
AUG. 14 - Diversified farm tour & noon hog roast, Warren, Elinor & Ray Roberts farm, Hewitt, Minn.; Contact: (218) 462-2396
AUG. 22 - Buckwheat, Tom & DeEtta Bilek farm, Aldrich, Minn.; Contact: (218) 445-5475
AUG. 27 - Clean Up our River Environment (CURE) general meeting, Montevideo, Minn.; Contact: Lynn Lokken, LSP (320) 269-2105
SEPT. 1 - Tour of alternative swine research, Rhodes, Iowa;.Contact: ISU (515) 484-2703
SEPT. 12 - Livestock production on pasture & water quality monitoring, Steve Stassen farm, Kerkhoven, Minn.; Contact: Jim & LeeAnn Van Der Pol (320) 847-3432
SEPT. 19 - Run, Ride & Row the Minn. River Basin; Contact: Stephen Hansen (612) 361-6591
SEPT. 20 - Annual CURE Minnesota River Revival, Watson Sag, Watson, Minn.; Contact: LSP (320) 269-2105
SEPT. 23, 24 & 25 - Minnesota Chapter of American Planning Assoc. Annual Conference, featuring a presentation by LSP's Lee Ronning, Bemidji, Minn.; Contact: Teresa Hyde (612) 349-2648
Check the Calendar for the latest on upcoming LSP events.
Back to top