For God’s sake, what’s wrong with this country?

Several years ago, independent testing found arsenic compounds in storebought chicken, including a certified organic brand. This is linked to a compound called roxaresone that’s added to chicken feed to — theoretically? – help keep confined poultry healthy.

Now, there’s a family in Utah with a backyard coop and two young kids with arsenic poisoning. Kids eat home grown chicken eggs (healthier, right?) and absorb arsenic.

Seriously: Ban roxarsone now. Full story at Grist.

Californians will be voting on marijuana legalization in the state in November, and the state NAACP has now endorsed the measure. Why does this matter for ag policy in the United States? I’ll tell you.

But first, because I don’t live in California and I work in corporate America, I want to be clear that I don’t use drugs. I don’t have any philosophical problem with drugs, they just don’t appeal to me. I hate that I even have to make that statement, but in America in the early part of the 21st century, I believe that I do. So that said, let’s talk about California and pot.

I spent several weeks in northern California in 2008 when I did a long spoken word tour (my spoken word promo site is here) and was startled to learn how much of the local economy out there is driven by pot growing and processing. While I’m sure the region is home to plenty of people who don’t partake, medical marijuana licensing has made growing and using pot incredibly open. It’s hard to explain this to fellow southerners, but pot is literally everywhere out there and the sanctions generally amount to a slap on the wrist, if authorities bother with that. I’ve also spent time in British Columbia, Canada, including on that tour, and it’s the only frame of reference I have, except that Canadians are even more relaxed about it because the DEA isn’t really involved in their day to day.

In Vancouver, it didn’t seem exceptional to see someone smoking a joint on the street. California is a little more discrete than that, but people (at least in the northern part of the state) routinely have a few plants growing in their gardens or in containers in their homes. And while ag work is usually thought of as laboring in fields and picking fruit all day, in that region a lot of the ag work, and a lot of well-paid seasonal employment, is teams of people sitting in rooms clipping leaves from dried bud.

You can throw all the moral arguments you want at this, but it’s reality. As long as pot is illegal in the US, this labor force will face intermittent criminal sanction while the task itself will continue unabated. If legalized, these workers would simply work (and pay taxes), and the commercial growers could operate openly (and pay taxes on their earnings), and Californians could just live their lives. The police would no longer be engaged in a perpetual conflict with the citizens they are sworn to protect, and the risk of corruption through bribery or police stealing from growers at traffic stops (both of these scenarios were described over and over again as I talked to people out there) would fade.

Feel however you want to feel about people who smoke pot. Your feelings have absolutely no impact on the untold millions of dollars generated in sales or the untold millions paid for low skill work like trimming bud. Your feelings do nothing about the millions of people who have been incarcerated in America over the years for possession of plant matter, and they certainly don’t do anything about the fact that this country — the land of the free — has the highest incarceration rate of any country on Earth.

Feel what you feel, but know that America’s stubborn insistence on waging a war against marijuana is a job killer, a career killer, a drag on the economy, a cost to every state’s prison budget, and a ridiculous waste of police resources that could be devoted to fighting real crime. Know that our obsession with pot has distorted the 4th Amendment to such a degree that citizens are never safe from state intrusion. Know that our society has used the drug war to create a public policy devoted to incarcerating minorities. Know that marijuana has never killed anyone, but the war against it has killed and caused permanent harm to many, especially young Americans, whose potential is often profoundly limited by a criminal record at what should have been the outset of their involvement in the labor market.

Feel whatever you feel, but the NAACP is right. Marijuana prohibition is a stupid and wasteful policy, and Californians would be wise to vote for repeal of an idiotic, misguided, and mean-spirited program of human suffering.

I finally had a chance to sit and read the article linked in the Tom Philpott piece I mentioned a few days ago. Heather Rogers provides a good overview of the issues facing small, sustainable farmers, and the whole thing is worth a read. Especially vital to learn was that one of my senators, Saxby Chambliss, overtly opposes USDA support for operations like these (Chambliss signed a letter with two other senators stating, “American families and rural farmers are hurting in today’s economy, and it’s unclear to us how propping up the urban locavore markets addresses their needs.” — I love how they’ve turned “small family farming” into “urban locavorism”, definitely a culture war dog whistle about those dastardly elites and their ridiculous eating habits.)

Rogers’ conclusions, as policy issues go, are roughly:

  • USDA extension help at the regional farming level
  • Regulatory changes tailored to small, localized dairy and meat processing
  • Support for local distribution
  • Tax changes to help farmers hire workers and keep/buy land

The regulatory issue is a big one, and has been addressed a little bit in other industries that confront an emergent small vs. large issue. In the renewable energy industry, hydroelectric power requires extensive review and permitting for operations larger than five megawatts, which makes sense since operating on this scale can require dam construction or rerouting waterways, to say nothing of the impact of huge turbines in fish and wildlife, impact to wetlands, and so on. There’s an emerging market for what’s known as micro-hydro, smaller, high efficiency turbine rigs that can operate in relatively shallow and even slow-moving waterways and which could provide a more decentralized energy infrastructure, especially in rural areas where a home, farm, or ranch may well have usable waterways on the property.

FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, spent a few years reviewing its guidelines and developed a less onerous (and less expensive) permit process for microhydro. (Full disclosure: I do freelance research and grant/permit writing for a small renewable startup from time to time.) The system isn’t perfect, but FERC and related agencies have taken important steps to support the notion of scaling down instead of scaling up, and given space for an emerging energy market to grow.

So there’s a model in place for how government can react, at least on the issues of small scale, locally focused dairies and abattoirs (i.e., slaughterhouses — I never know if I’m trying to conceal something potentially unpleasant when I get French with it.)

This is an interesting dynamic that’s playing out across many sectors in the economy. For a generation or two, American commerce has been scaling up to maximize efficiencies and regulations have been implemented to reflect massive-scale production, processing, and distribution. And in general, they’re effective. Americans don’t typically die of food-borne illness despite the fact that most of our food is processed and packaged in just a handful of plants — millions of bushels of produce all lumped together before being carted out to grocery stores nationwide. One infected batch could potentially sicken hundreds or thousands of people across a wide region. Tight regulations prevent that, and the costs associated with that are rightly considered a cost of doing business.

But when your scale is a few employees with low turnover instead of a few hundred with a lot of churn, and a few hundred or thousand customers instead of millions, and a handful of farms are supplying your operation, the equation is simply different. The regulations and guiding authorities for a restaurant kitchen and for a packing plant for processed food are not the same, but the goal is the same: consumer safety. So it’s up to consumers to insist that the regulatory environment recognize and accommodate scale.

As for me, I’ll be getting in touch with Senator Chambliss’s office to advocate for smaller government. He says he’s for that, but somehow that usually seems to mean smaller government for big corporations, and big government for the rest of us.

A couple of days ago, Tom Philpott put a great piece up at Grist called Why Eaters Alone Can’t Transform the Food System, noting that agricultural policy choices at the state and federal level are an overwhelming distortion in the food choices made by Americans (and globally, as we dump cheap food exports into world markets, undercutting the local ag economy).

It brought to mind a question I’ve been giving a lot of thought to for a while, namely: For what policies should food activists be advocating? I think most of us understand that corn subsidies are damaging human health, the environment, and distorting whatever passes for a free market around here, but if we were able to get the public to really demand a change, what should that change be?

Should ag subsidies be scrapped entirely? Do we want the subsidy system revamped to encourage local food chains and small production? What would that look like as a policy provision?

© 2010 Stacie Boschma All views expressed on this blog are mine. Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha