DTN Editor Endorses Locavore Agriculture

Sort of. The link requires registration. Here's his conclusion:

Some Americans are willing to pay more for locally grown food. Surveys say so, and I believe them. At least some of the time and for some foods, I am willing to pay more. As more and more people patronize farmers markets and prefer local foods at the grocery store, some farmers will see profit in diversifying to meet the demand.

But transform agriculture? Somehow, I don't see it. The future will likely offer more opportunities for different approaches to agriculture to exist side-by-side; local food can co-exist with larger operations serving larger geographies. It will not do away with large, specialized farms. Even if their numbers grow, locavores are likely to remain a trendy minority. For most of us, the rule will be everything in moderation.

An "Exclusive" House Ag Committee

Prof. Pollan has suggested making the House Ag committee "exclusive" (i.e., so important a member can only be on one).

Here's a piece which explains what's involved and why it may not work.

Another of his suggestions is separating nutrition (i.e., food stamps) and agriculture in the appropriations process, in order to facilitate cutting costly farm programs. He argues food stamps are safe in a Democratic Congress. Given his premises, I still think he's wrong--the food stamp/farm program linkage has, over the years, benefited both sides. Rural blue-dog Dems and Republicans, who once were deficit conscious and will return to that state at noon on Jan. 20, always oppose food stamps.

I too well remember my feelings in 1965, when it seemed liberals were destined to dominate forever. That dream quickly ended. Even though it's hard for young whippersnapper Dems to realize now, their dominance now will surely end, sooner or later. So I'd advise Pollan not to advocate structural changes now based on the assumption of a Democratic Congress.

Transparency and Obama

Why doesn't the Change site carry the prepared testimony of the cabinet nominees? Looked for Vilsack's testimony from yesterday--not available.

Transparency in USDA

I've blogged on this before, but the Environmental Working Group has an article from the Salina Journal. The issue is the extent to which FSA/NRCS information is publicly available--the 2008 farm bill inserted a prohibition on releasing data:

From the end of the article:

"When we got wind this was going to be inserted without any debate, we heard from two camps in the FSA," Cook said. "One saying they didn't agree with it, and thought we ought to know -- while another side helped draft it."

The privacy provision was inserted in conference committee, after both the House and Senate had approved different versions of the bill. Conference committees generally work out compromises between those different versions, but can also insert new provisions, which Cook said is what happened in this case.

Although I don't always like EWG's stands, I'm in favor of transparency here. (Though, inconsistently, I don't like the idea of private entities making bucks by serving as middlemen with the government.)

So Much for the Powers of the USDA Secretary

This excerpt from Chris Clayton's post on Vilsack's hearing tells all:

Southern lawmakers from Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., to Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., stressed to Vilsack that he needs to understand he represents all of agriculture. To that end, these senators emphasized that USDA right now has gone too far in writing rules for the farm bill that will adversely affect southern agriculture. Lincoln said USDA's rules are "completely out of the ballpark from what our intent was."

Bread and (Breast) Milk

From a New Yorker article on breast milk (author Jill LePore will take questions at the New Yorker site):

"(A brief history of food: when the rich eat white bread and buy formula, the poor eat brown bread and breast-feed; then they trade places.)"

How Government Changes

Ezra Klein discusses the background to Cass Sunstein's new post. What's interesting is over the course of 25-30 years it's become accepted on all sides that the President's OMB should have control over regulations. It's a common practice: one party does an innovation which the other attacks. But when the roles switch, the innovation starts to become more acceptable. Soon it becomes an established practice.

A Little Love for Comerford

Tom Philpott at Grist gives a little love to the existing White House eating arrangements, and chef. Nice to see.

Outstanding Conservationist--Could Her Child Follow?

Article on the outstanding conservationist in Minnesota. She's been farming 53 years and milks 32 cows. I wonder, though, whether she's a good role model for the future. Could the next generation make their living * on 250 acres of dairy beef/calf operation?

*"living" defined as a modern life, frugal but with many mod cons, and the possibility of college for the kids.

What the article doesn't say is how many years she's been getting up at 4 a.m. to milk those cows and who's handling the milking while she's gadding about in the big city of St. Paul, MN.

Here a Scam, There a Scam, Everywhere a Scam

Though this doesn't rank with Mr. Madoff's scam, Treehugger reports at least one manufacturer of small wind turbines grossly exaggerated its potential output.

Just a reminder that people are con artists in every walk of life, from Wall Street to Green Street.