"The paradox is there's this view that organic is elitist, it's expensive, it's a lifestyle choice for people who can afford it. As far as I'm concerned it's not elitist to believe, everyone should have the right to high-quality, nutritious food from sustainable farming systems. What's elitist is that a handful of corporations have got a vice-like grip on the farming systems and food."
Agro-chemical agriculture is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer through the government, organic farming isn't.
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture distributes between $10 billion and $30 billion in cash subsidies to farmers and owners of farmland each year. The particular amount depends on market prices for crops, the level of disaster payments, and other factors. More than 90 percent of agriculture subsidies go to farmers of five crops—wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton.2 More than 800,000 farmers and landowners receive subsidies, but the payments are heavily tilted toward the largest producers."
"In the US, most organic farmers and those transitioning to organic farming get no subsidies at all, or very few, while huge chemical-intensive corporate farms (10 percent of US farms) get the lion’s share (80 percent) of the nation’s $20 billion in crop subsidies every year. In France, an organic farmer receives, on average, 20 to 40 percent fewer subsidies than a conventional farmer. In 2003, the EU support for Organic Agriculture was 635 million euros, whereas the total Common Agricultural Policy budget amounted to 50 billion. This means that Organic Agriculture received 1.3 percent of the agricultural support, yet, at the time it represented 3.9 percent of the total EU agricultural area."
No doubt that Organic food is expensive, a few more points:
"Myth:
Consumers are paying too much for organic food.
Reality Not so:
Crop rotations, organic animal feed and welfare standards, the use of good
husbandry instead of agri-chemicals, and the preservation of natural habitats all result in organic food costing more to produce. Non-organic food appears to be cheaper but in fact consumers pay for it three times over – first over the counter, second via taxation (to fund agricultural subsidies) and third to remedy the environmental pollution (or disasters like BSE) caused by intensive farming practices."
So here is the actual conclusion: Organic food is cheaper than conventional.
Reality doesn't make it look like that, it's just a good elaborated illusion.
We buy our food that is genetically engineered; It is stuffed with pesticides, herbicides, chemical additives, hormones and we pay for it with our taxes, that's one reason why it's so cheap.
Other hidden costs in conventional food not included in the price are the negative environmental impacts, the clean up costs for polluting our water and soil, more and more billions from our tax money are taken away and the corporations are "obviously" not accountable.
We are spending the same amount of money if not more for this franken-food, we are destroying our Nature and health.
Here is one of my favorite quotes:
‘We need to learn the lessons
of the real cost of production. We need to
ask ourselves not just why organic prices are
so high, but why conventional prices are so low’
A. Wilson, Waitrose2
It says it all.
We must change those policies, the small local organic farmers will go out of business and the future of our self sufficiency will be lost with it. We can decide who and what to support with our money and our voice.
We can stop their domination, their control, their monopoly, WE CAN!
Evan Kopelson looks at the incentives to drive America to a low carbon economy, including a cap and trade system, and subsidies of clean energy investments. He looks at the pros and cons of each, and issues recommendations. Evan is president of Green Media Consulting Inc, and founder of Green Media News. He advises on issues of climate change, sustainability, corporate and personal responsibility.Evan Kopelson looks at the incentives to drive America to a low carbon economy,... more
Solar power technologies could generate 15 percent of America's power in 10 years -- and add 882,000 new jobs -- but only if Washington levels the playing field on subsidies, a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) says.
That means either rolling back fossil fuel subsidies, as President Obama proposed earlier this year, or increasing subsidies for clean energy, the association says.
Fossil fuels received $72 billion in total federal subsidies from 2002 to 2008, keeping prices artificially low, according to figures from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). About 98 percent of that went to conventional energy sources, namely coal and oil, leading to more emissions. The rest, $2.3 billion, was pumped into a new technology to trap and store carbon dioxide spewed by coal plants.
During that same period, solar got less than $1 billion, according to the SEIA, a trade group representing 1,100 solar companies across the nation.
Michele Bachmann has become well known for her anti-government tea-bagger antics, protesting health care reform and every other government “handout” as socialism. What her followers probably don’t know is that Rep. Bachmann is, to use that anti-government slur, something of a welfare queen. That’s right, the anti-government insurrectionist has taken more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts thanks to corrupt farming subsidies she has been collecting for at least a decade.
The Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress have made “reform” of the U.S. health insurance system one of their top priorities. The stated goals of this reform are covering the uninsured and slowing the growth of health care costs.
Critics of ObamaCare focus on the negatives it might generate, especially higher taxes and rationing. Many also question whether it will in fact bend the healthcare cost curve. These concerns are well taken, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. The ideal “reform” is not creation of a new government health insurance program but elimination of existing programs. Here’s why.
The standard argument for subsidizing health insurance holds that applicants for insurance know whether they are healthy or unhealthy, but insurers cannot tell which applicants are which. Under this “asymmetry of information,” insurers must offer the same premium to everyone, but then only the unhealthy want to purchase insurance. This “adverse selection” of applicants means private insurance might not arise or might only serve a portion of the market.The Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress have made “reform”... more
What a disgrace. Yet, our military defense budget is obscene. So please Obama, don't continue talking and saying you are going to work on 'reversing this trend' when this is more than just a trend for one, and you then sign bills giving more money for defense spending and wars. A country's character is defined by its priorities. We need to work a lot harder on ours.
And by all means, please keep on appointing Monsanto insiders as well to show how much you truly care for the poor and the environment.What a disgrace. Yet, our military defense budget is obscene. So please Obama,... more
Today in Rome started the FAO summit, the UN organization which has its international headquarters in Italy and that deals with food and agriculture in the world. Absent almost all the leaders of rich countries, the nations that should provide financial resources to FAO to combat world hunger. Absent from embarrassment, apart from our premier who must be present as the leader of the host country, and also because notoriously immune to shame. http://www.inaltreparole.net/en/world/faofame161109.htmlToday in Rome started the FAO summit, the UN organization which has its international... more
The House voted in favor of the most ambitious climate-change bill in history but will the long list of concessions cripple it’s best intentions?
According to the New York Times, Representaitve Henry A. Waxman of California, co-authored the revolutionary climate bill but was forced to coerce the delegation with billions of dollars in promises in order to get the votes he needed to pass the bill through.
Utility companies seemed to make out the best from the hundreds of pages of special favors written into the bill. Big Coal made an especially big haul as they were granted the go-ahead to build new coal-burning power plants without shouldering new costs. They also walked away with billions toward free pollution permits and the development of carbon capture technology to help meet future pollution targets.
While President Obama agrees the bill isn’t an exact science, he does believe it represents an extraordinary step for the nation.
For a close examination of the new climate bill, check out some of the following links:
House passes bill to address threat of climate change (NY Times)
With something for everyone, climate bill passed (NY Times)
Obama: “Cynical claims” attacking energy bill (Associated Press)
Photo by The Official White House PhotostreamThe House voted in favor of the most ambitious climate-change bill in history but will... more
I found this to be very interesting. This is the only actual comparison of the actual amounts involved that I have ever seen-------and it paints an entirely different picture than the one painted by conservatives who oppose renewable energy because it is subsidized.
My only reservation about the study is that it is not broken down into more speciic groups. I think that some fossil fuels are much worse than others, and not all renewable energy options are good choices either.
Still, I think this is good information to have handy.I found this to be very interesting. This is the only actual comparison of the... more
For those of you willing to sign up to a 2-year subscription plan through Verizon, $150 suddenly becomes enough to snag a Gateway LT2016u netbook...For those of you willing to sign up to a 2-year subscription plan through Verizon,... more
If a letter from a presidential aide is to be believed, President Barack Obama is set to make an audacious call to end fossil fuel subsidies at the United Nations on Tuesday.
A letter (PDF) from Michael Froman, an aide to Obama, setting out the White House’s climate change priorities ahead of the Copenhagen summit, states that “eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would help energy markets work better and improve our energy security.”
That leads DailyKos blogger RLMiller to conclude that Obama “will ask the G-20 countries, including our own, to end the hypocritical practice of billions of dollars of subsidies to dirty, carbon-emitting fuels while preaching to developing countries about their carbon emissions.”
In making such a call, Obama would be echoing the arguments of many environmental groups, as well as the United Nations Environment Program, which last year called for the “scrapping” of the subsidies.If a letter from a presidential aide is to be believed, President Barack Obama is set... more
It’s not easy, but it starts with entrepreneurs and executives like me and you. The biggest problem is, as much as we think the government helps small businesses and start-ups, the government actually harm entrepreneurs’ long-term objectives. Ever wonder why, with all the money provided through loans and grants, most startups fail within their first 5 years?
Lots of these failed startups can be attributed to inexperienced entrepreneurs entering into an already competitive marketplace. Some of these entrepreneurs lack management skills, others didn’t take the time to formulate a thorough business plan, analyze the market and competition, or bring enough capital to the table. Many entrepreneurs actually bring too much “capital” to the table; but they do so in the form of loans which they ultimately cannot pay back (this is where I reiterate the importance of a thorough business plan). Outside lack of planning the single biggest threat to a small businesses success is the government.
I know, I know. Grants, government-backed loans, the Small Business Administration--all of these things are meant to help entrepreneurs; not bankrupt them. But what about government subsidies and bailouts to failing companies? These policies hurt entrepreneurs more than the government programs in place to help them.
Government subsidies are killing America. Subsidies, by definition, support a failing business with tax payer money. This immediately removes any incentive of the failing business to rethink their strategy or develop new revenue streams. Think about it: if the government paid you to fail, would you change your business strategy? Of course not.
Alister & Paine, INC. specializes in digital media auditing, buying and B2B Marketing.
Alister & Paine is a digital magazine covering business, lifestyle and human interest topics.Want to save the economy?
It’s not easy, but it starts with entrepreneurs... more
And people think we will pay with cap and trade or a carbon tax? Why then aren't the same people crying about the huge amounts of money taxpayers are left holding the bag for by these loans given to energy/coal companies they don't pay back? THEY DESERVE TO BE TAXED.And people think we will pay with cap and trade or a carbon tax? Why then aren't... more
LEAKED GOVERNMENT LETTER by a highly reliable government source marked HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – FOR YOUR EYES ONLYLEAKED GOVERNMENT LETTER by a highly reliable government source marked HIGHLY... more
Already over-exploited fishstocks continue to be depleted. The Us taxpayers provide commercial fishing subsidies that contribute to overfishing, environmental pollution and climate change,.
U.S. taxpayers doled out more than $6.4 billion in subsidies to the commercial fishing industry between 1996 - 2004, possibly accelerating the ongoing collapse of fish stocks worldwide and adding to the devastation of large ocean fish species.
U.S. subsidies, calculated for the first time by Renee Sharp, director of Environmental Working Group's California Office and renowned fisheries economist Ussif Rahid Sumaila, director of the Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia, amounted to 21% of the $31 billion U.S. commercial fish harvest between 1996 - 2004.
Some kinds of subsidies can be good, if they encourage conservation and careful management of fishery stocks etc. But, there is general international consensus that some other kinds of subsidies can contribute significantly to the depletion of ocean fish.
The Sharp-Sumaila study published in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management and supported by the Lenfest Ocean Program has determined that direct federal and state subsidies to commercial fishing operations totaled $6.4 billion and averaged $713 million annually between 1996 - 2004.
50% more boats than needed to bring in the fish...
There is ample evidence that the U.S. commercial fishing fleet has over-exploited marine fish stocks, in some cases to the danger point. An April 2008 report entitled “Excess Harvesting Capacity in U.S. Fisheries” and published by the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) found that 12 of 25 U.S. commercial fishing operations it examined had 50% more boats than needed to bring in each operation’s total fish catch for the year. Having too many boats is one component of overcapacity.
The logical result of overcapacity is overfishing, meaning, that more fish are harvested than can be naturally replaced. Reports on the current status of U.S. fish stocks are bleak. According to NMFS data, in 1997, 32% of the nation’s 269 monitored fish stocks were considered over-fished, meaning seriously depleted. In 2007, a decade later, 24% of 190 monitored fish stocks were still categorized as over-fished, and another 17% were deemed subject to overfishing.
The global situation is similar: In 2004, the last year for which subsidy data were available, the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that the proportion of over-exploited and depleted world fishery stocks approached 25%, up from 10% in the mid-1970s.
44% of Federal & State subsidies support fuel costs.
Although fishery management failures have long been recognized to play a key role in the growing problem of overfishing and overcapacity, more recently a consensus has emerged that government subsidies to the fishing industry are also an important contributor
Fishing subsidies also have significant environmental impacts that stretch beyond the sea. EWG’s calculations showed that fully 44 percent of federal and state subsidies between 1996 and 2004 went for fuel for fishing fleets.
Supporting fuel costs has may not have only helped promote the needless expansion of commercial fishing operations, it has also likely caused wasteful fuel consumption, air and water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions that exacerbate global warming.On The Hook: Commercial Fishing Reaps Billions
Already over-exploited fishstocks... more
The government has announced new plans designed to boost electric car sales, under which drivers will be offered subsidies of up to £5,000.The government has announced new plans designed to boost electric car sales, under... more
The real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (AKA Liquid Corn) declined by 23 percent.
The Farm Bill essentially treats our children as a human disposal for all the unhealthful calories that the Farm Bill has encouraged American farmers to overproduce.
The public health community has come to recognize it can't hope to address obesity and diabetes without addressing the Farm Bill.The real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40... more
The CATO Institute explains the problems with the growth of agricultural subsidies over the years, especially while the number of farms in the U.S. continues to decrease. It explains how protectionism has hurt consumers while government sponsored ethanol has increased the price of agricultural commodities here as well as overseas. Most subsidies go to big business pushing out small farm competition distorting the market while helping corporate farms bulk up on excess profits. For more information on liberty please visit Michael Shanklin’s youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/shanklinmikeThe CATO Institute explains the problems with the growth of agricultural subsidies... more
Behind America’s dollar hamburgers and 72-ounce sodas is a key ingredient that quietly fuels our fast-food nation: corn. In King Corn, recent college graduates Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis leave the east coast for rural Iowa, where they decide to grow an acre of the nation’s most powerful crop.
"The apple juices and the grape juices that are canned and they say 'sweetened,' that’s going to be a high-fructose corn syrup. And then you look down the meats — beefs, porks, chickens. You feed them corn and that gets turned into their biomass that we consume."Behind America’s dollar hamburgers and 72-ounce sodas is a key ingredient that... more
What we eat effects our health. That is becoming clearer with every year we read about increases in diabetes, obesity, allergies, and other illnesses. A sound naturally oriented food policy across the board that works towards sustainable development and environmental engineering of food crops is the best healthcare policy we could have. This also includes labelling foods in America to disclose GMO ingredients.What we eat effects our health. That is becoming clearer with every year we read about... more
