A sustainable approach to agriculture (1)

A Sustainable Approach to Agriculture A Sustainable Approach to Agriculture; Feed the hungry, Eliminate Chemical Usage, Provide Nutrient Rich Food, Revitalize the Land, Create Communities, Alleviate Health Problems and Conserve Water by Chris Vetrano

"When diet is wrong medicine is of no use. When diet is correct medicine is of no need." ~Ayurvedic Proverb

I took a trip to the Queens County Farm recently. It was a little before noon when I arrived. As I walk onto the property I noticed there was nobody around. I walked over to the information sign and grabbed a pamphlet.. I was wondering to myself how many people were at the malls or Best Buy, to be more specific. I began to think about what farming means to people. Our culture has lost touch with the land and it’s not without good reason, less than 2% of the population in the United States are farmers. Our farms are being taken over by Big Agribusiness, the food processing conglomerates, and big seed companies, such as Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, and Tyson Foods who completely dominate the industry. With the onset of the industrial revolution the farmer has slowly been removed from the equation. The modernization of agriculture over the last one hundred years has been fueled by the idea that we can produce more food faster, with technology, to supply the ever growing population. This, in itself, is a noble idea but riddled with unsustainable practices that have over the last century depleted the nutrients in our soils, wasted our water supplies, adversely affected the nutrient levels of our fruits and vegetables, “High nitrogen fertilizers accelerate growth so fruits and vegetables are marketable size, long before they have had time to absorb minerals or synthesize nutrients. Often foods are not allowed to develop to their full level of vitamins and minerals, which increases greatly during later stages of growth. Fruits and vegetables are often picked before they are ripe, or allowed to ripen during transit to the market, which greatly diminishes their vitamin or mineral content. Transportation and storage can also adversely affect nutrient content of fruits and vegetables as they can start to lose significant amounts of vitamins as soon as they are cut or harvested.”,[1] burned unimaginable amounts of fossil fuels, created Monocrop Farming (the planting of a genetically singular crop in a large area, limiting the varieties of fruits and vegetables cultivated) and the list goes on. All this, while the problem of hunger is still an issue, regardless of the technological advances we have made over that time. This is because poverty is the cause of hunger; it is not a shortage of food, as Biotech companies would have you believe. “The sharp increases in food prices that occurred in global and national markets in recent years, and the resulting increases in the number of hungry and malnourished people, have sharpened the awareness of policy-makers and of the general public to the fragility of the global food system” [2] Poverty in the United States and in developing countries is a direct result of the takeover of small local farms by Big Agribusiness. Small farmers and farm workers have lost their livelihood and large food chains are controlling the distribution “For a time, the farmer's cooperative he heads managed to sell vegetables to the chain, part owned by the giant Dutch multinational, Ahold, which counts Stop & Shop among its assets. But the co-op's members lacked the expertise, as well as the money to invest in the modern greenhouses, drip irrigation, and pest control that would have helped them meet

supermarket specifications.” [3] The same system that is meant to help increase the food supply is the one that is creating hunger. Without the money to buy food and the inability to produce their own, hunger is the end result.

By forcing farmers into growing GMO products Monsanto is continuing to gain control over the world food supply. Today 93 percent of soybeans and 80 percent of corn in the U.S. grow from seeds genetically altered according to Monsanto company patents. It is also estimated that about 80 percent of food grown in the Nation is linked to Monsanto Co. “Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Saskatchewan Canada, whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's genetically engineered Round-Up Ready Canola by pollen from a nearby farm. Monsanto says it doesn't matter how the contamination took place, and is therefore demanding Schmeiser pay their Technology Fee (the fee farmers must pay to grow Monsanto's genetically engineered products). According to Schmeiser, "I never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract. If I would go to St. Louis (Monsanto Headquarters) and contaminate their plots destroy what they have worked on for 40 years - I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away.”[4] These types of lawsuits have been devastating to local farmers here and around the world. India recently has had a surge in farmer suicides related to Monsanto strong arming small farmers. “It is estimated that more than a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 years—the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history. A great number of those affected are cash crop farmers and cotton farmers in particular. In 2009 alone, the most recent year for which official figures are available, 17,638 farmers committed suicide—that’s one farmer every 30 minutes. While striking on their own, these figures considerably underestimate the actual number of farmer suicides taking place. Women, for example, are often excluded from farmer suicide statistics because most do not have title to land—a common prerequisite for being recognized as a farmer in official statistics and programs.” “These farmers and their families are among the victims of India’s longstanding agrarian crisis. Economic reforms and the opening of Indian agriculture to the global market over the past two decades have increased costs, while reducing yields and profits for many farmers, to the point of great financial and emotional distress. As a result, smallholder farmers are often trapped in a cycle of debt. During a bad year, money from the sale of the cotton crop might not cover even the initial cost of the inputs, let alone suffice to pay the usurious interest on loans or provide adequate food or necessities for the family. Often the only way out is to take on more loans and buy more inputs, which in turn can lead to even greater debt. Indebtedness is a major and proximate cause of farmer suicides in India. Many farmers, ironically, take their lives by ingesting the very pesticide they went into debt to purchase.”[5] The reason Monsanto has had such success in litigious matters is because they essentially own the government. These are a list of names associated with both ties to Monsanto and ties to the government since the Clinton administration. Toby Moffett, Monsanto Consultant and US Congressman; Dennis DeConcini, Monsanto Legal Counsel and United States Senator; Margaret Miller, Chemical Lab Supervisor and Dep. Dir. FDA, HFS; Marcia Hale, Director, Int'l Govt.

Affairs and White House Senior Staff; Mickey Kantor, Board Member and Sec. of Commerce; Virginia Weldon, VP, Public Policy and White House-Appt to CSA, Gore's SDR; Josh King, Director, Int'l Govt. Affairs and White House Communications; David Beler, VP, Gov't & Public Affairs and Gore's Chief Dom. Policy Advisor; Carol Tucker-Foreman, Monsanto Lobbyist and White House-Appointed Consumer Advisor; Linda Fisher, VP, Government & Public Affairs and Deputy Admin EPA; Lidia Watrud, Manager, New Technologies and USDA, EPA; Michael Taylor, VP, Public Policy and Dep. Commissioner FDA; Hilary

Clinton, Rose Law Firm, Monsanto Counsel and US Senator, Secretary of State; Roger Beachy, Director, Monsanto Danforth Center and Director USDA NIFA; Islam Siddiqui, Monsanto Lobbyist and Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Trade Representative.

Another issue is the US government subsidization of certain crops, paid for through taxes. “Farm subsidies are a controversial topic in many circles. The essence of a farm subsidy is giving tax dollars to farmers to help supplement their incomes, pay for equipment, and other farm costs.” [6]The U.S. Department of Agriculture distributes between $10 billion and $30 billion in cash subsidies to farmers and owners of farmland each year.[7] 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.[8] More than 800,000 farmers and landowners receive subsidies, but the payments are heavily tilted toward the largest producers.[9] This is great for the Big Agribusiness but small farmers can’t compete. If something happens to their crop they have no insurance to compensate for a loss. “Our current system encourages large agribusinesses to produce (or at least historically produce) an overabundance of single cash crops for export, while ensuring the decline of locally-focused, smaller producers and their biodiverse harvests.” [10] “The 2008 food price crisis has stimulated a renewed interest in using agricultural input subsidies to increase food production and achieve food security in developing countries. Studies by the International Food Policy Research Institute of returns to public investments in India have shown that subsidies for agricultural inputs, such as seeds, pesticides, fertilizer, surface irrigation, and electricity for groundwater irrigation, have indeed played an important role in achieving a Green Revolution in that nation. . Nevertheless, these subsidies have become subject to far-reaching concerns in India and other Asian countries because (1) they have outlived their original purpose of stimulating input use; (2) they benefit large-scale farmers more than smallholders; (3) they are a fiscal burden on the state; (4) they might crowd out more effective poverty-reducing public investments; and (5) they have negative environmental implications. Reforming these subsidy policies has turned out to be a major political challenge” “Following the food shortages and the political problems associated with food imports in the 1960s, the government of India put in place a set of policies to increase food production, which encouraged the production and consumption of fertilizer and the use of groundwater irrigation. Although the polices achieved the intended goal of enhancing food production and food security, the practice of subsidizing fertilizer and electricity use has become subject to increasing criticism during the past decade, for several reasons. The subsidies impose a rising fiscal burden on the state. Because these input subsidies are price subsidies, larger farmers benefit more from them than smaller farmers do, and more prosperous regions benefit more than poorer ones.”[11] The global agriculture system we have in place today has gone awry on almost every level. We have taken the natural and systemized it into an industrialized mechanism. We need a more systemic approach to agriculture in order to regain control of the foods we eat while combating the cost of transportation, and quality. The current farming models in place today, including CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) are not solving the problem, huge multinational companies are on the brink of gaining complete control over our food supply.

"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people." Henry Kissinger

Sustainability

Let’s begin with the word sustainability. Sustainability is defined as the capacity to endure. In ecology, the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. There are many levels of sustainability. In an agricultural environment we must calculate all the efforts in and compare it to all the energy out, and what effect, positive or negative, it has. With this information we can determine whether something is sustainable and to what degree it is sustainable. That is where the many variables come into play and we lose perspective on the facts. In other words when we hear that a company is sustainable or they are using sustainable practices we don’t necessarily know to what degree their being sustainable. So when you hear the word sustainable you should always be asking yourself, to what degree?

Sustainable practices in Agriculture go back to ancient civilizations, it is nothing new. What is new is the world we live in.

Population growth is one factor which has increased and we must adjust accordingly to meet the needs of the people, while still focusing on overall sustainability. Today we are supplied with our produce and meats from the grocery store. Most of which is produce by Big Agriculture. It is trucked, flown, and shipped from all over the world according to what is in season at the time and where it is in season. “On an average our food travels 1300 miles from farm to market shelf. Nearly every state buys 90 percent of its food from out of the state. Through irradiation, our food is bombarded with the equivalent of 233 billion chest x-rays to kill bacteria and extend shelf life.” [12] Already you can see that the effort involved has opened up a can of “unsustainable” worms. These practices are the catalyst for higher prices for produce from other countries, with a product of lesser quality. We are creating more problems trying to solve the existing problem. This approach to farming is very reminiscent of our approach to war in the United States. Big Agribusiness has essentially targeted the essence of our sustenance, with atomic bombs of a genetic kind. “Industrial agriculture views the farm as a factory with "inputs" (such as pesticides, feed, fertilizer, and fuel) and "outputs" (corn, chickens, and so forth). The goal is to increase yield (such as bushels per acre) and decrease costs of production, usually by exploiting economies of scale. The purported benefits of this industrial approach are well known: low food prices for American consumers, cheap feed for animal factory farms, a potential energy source to replace foreign oil, and substantial exports to foreign markets. But the environmental costs of this approach are considerable. And it is not the only method of agriculture. A sustainable approach, based on understanding agriculture as an ecosystem, promises sufficient produce without sacrificing the environment. For sustainable agriculture to thrive, the policies that foster industrial agriculture will need to be refocused.” [13]

We have lost touch with the land and we are now losing touch with the food it provides us. We cannot let scientists in a lab determine what we are eating, we should be determining that. This crisis should be a major concern for every single person on this planet. The moral implications alone are enormous. We are essentially altering the fabrics of life without any concern for its effects on us or the land. “What's wrong then with the "advance" of genetic engineering? No doubt, with hybridizations conscious life is manipulated. But living organisms continue to make some primary genetic decisions amid limited selections.” “The implication is that biotechnology involves vital moral issues in regard to the whole of life in nature.” [14]

The only solution to this problem is to bring the farm back to the people. As you will see, by the end of this paper, if we keep it simple, there is a way to accomplish this and also solve hunger problems across the globe.

Farming Techniques The history of farming has evolved over the last century, as was mentioned previously. Over farming the land and monoculture farming, pesticide use, and genetically modified organisms are some of the more ecologically devastating. Unfortunately, of all the practices used today, these are the most widely used by Big Agribusiness. Other more eco-friendly practices include Permaculture, Certified Naturally Grown and Aquaponics.

First let’s discuss over farming the land. Over farming the land can have a negative effect on soil. The depletion of nutrients in the soil eventually causes the land to become unfertile; this will produce a product of lesser quality. By rotating crops we eliminate this problem. Otherwise we must then over fertilize to compensate for nutrient loss in the soil. The only problem with that is, we have now changed the PH of the soil with all the chemicals being used. The proper PH for a plant to have maximum nutrient uptake is between, 6.5 and 7. Again we can see how keeping things simple we eliminate the need to continually masking and/or compensate due to our tampering. The most natural approach will always be the most sustainable.

The second practice we need to understand is Monoculture Farming. Monoculture Farming is growing one crop over many hundreds of acres. By planting one crop we lose the diversity of plants in that area and all the animals and insects associated with such an environment. The goal behind this method is to gain better control over the crop. The adverse effects on the environment far outweigh the goal. Diversity in the crops is essential in creating a natural sustainable environment. “In seven years of experiments, University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman and colleagues have pried into the hidden interactions among plant species. After three years, experimental results suggested that land planted with many species produced more vegetation than land with one or a few species. Greater vegetative production means higher returns from land and expands its ability to store carbon as biomass, rather than atmospheric carbon dioxide.” “The researchers found that no plant species growing by itself could do at all as well as some mixtures of several species. This disproved the" sampling effect" conjecture, which said that effects of diversity came solely because there would be a species which, although growing alone, could perform as well as all diverse mixtures of species, Tilman said.” [15] Pesticide use in agriculture is an increasing global concern on our health and on the environment. Eighty percent of all United States pesticide use was in agriculture according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory organizations, non-profit organization, and International organizations have had an impact in controlling the use of these chemicals and use of conventional pesticides decreased about three percent from 2002 to 2007 and eleven percent from 1997 to 2007. The total number of pounds used in the United States decreased by approximately eight percent from 1.2 to 1.1 billion pounds from 2000 to 2007. The dollar amount spent is still staggering, in the United States, pesticide sales were approximately $12.5 billion at the user level, which accounted for thirty two percent of the nearly $40 billion world market in 2007. Pesticide use in the United States was 1.1 billion pounds in 2007, or twenty two percent of the world estimate of 5.2 billion pounds of pesticide use. Herbicides remained the most widely used type of pesticide in the agricultural market sector.

Among the top 10 pesticides used in terms of pounds applied in the agricultural market were the herbicides glyphosate, atrazine, metolachlor-s, acetochlor, 2,4-D, and pendimethalin, and the fumigants metam sodium, dichloropropene, methyl

bromide, and chloropicrin. This information is from a recent report released by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 2006 and 2007 Market Estimates ” which illustrates graphically historical trends and levels of use over the last 20 years.

So let’s put all of this into perspective. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in many common herbicides and is the active ingredient in the herbicide ‘Roundup’ which is sold by the agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto. Monsanto is the world’s leading producer of glyphosate. Genetically modified crops are marketed by Monsanto to reduced labor and financial savings by simplifying and reducing the costs of weed control. The reality of this is quite the opposite, with increasing health worries, the impact on the environment and biodiversity and the development of weed resistance it has sparked new concerns. The biggest is weed resistance. It seems nature has outsmarted the scientists by becoming resistant to glyphosate but if the USDA approves Dow Chemical’s application seeking approval of a controversial genetically engineered corn that is resistant to the hazardous herbicide 2,4-D, we can be sure the effects will be equally devastating to our already sensitive ecosystem. In a letter recently sent to the USDA in April 2012, over 140 groups and more than 365,000 citizens from across the country are urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reject the application; it stated “American agriculture stands at a crossroads. One path leads to more intensive use of old and toxic pesticides, litigious disputes in farm country over drift-related crop injury, still less crop diversity, increasingly intractable weeds, and sharply rising farmer production costs. This is the path American agriculture will take with approval of Dow’s 2,4-D corn, soybeans and the host of other new herbicide-resistant (HR) crops in the pipeline. Another path is possible, but embarking upon it will take enlightened leadership from USDA.” [16] Genetically Modified Organism (GMO), an organism into which has been inserted through genetic engineering one or more genes from an outside source (either from the same species or from an entirely different species) that contains coding for desired characteristics, such as herbicide resistance or an antibacterial compound. There has been much concern in recent years with health related issues connected to consumption of GMO foods and labeling of them. “Recent studies have revealed that Bacillus thuringiensis corn expresses an allergenic protein which alters overall immunological reactions in the body. Although Agri-biotech companies do not accept the direct link between the GMFs consumption and human health problems, there are some examples given by the opponents. For example: The foodborne diseases such as soya allergies have increased over the past 10 years in USA and UK and an epidemic of Morgellons disease in the US. There are also reports on hundreds of villagers and cotton handlers who developed skin allergy in India”[17]“Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies (Domingo, 2007). The scientific community may finally be able to critically evaluate and discuss all that information, which was not possible until now. Scientists know quite well how different may be the information published in reputed international journals, which has been submitted to peer-review processes, from those general comments/reports not submitted to this selective procedure.”[18] Another concern is the labeling of GMO foods. The FDA currently requires labeling of GE foods only if the food has a significantly different nutritional property; if a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present

(e.g., a peanut protein in a soybean product); or if a food contains a toxicant beyond acceptable limits. Recently, in the state of California on May 2 2012, it was an historic day as 971,126 signatures were delivered to the 58 county registrars throughout the state to insist that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require labeling of GMO foods. Also on March 12, 2012 forty-five U.S. representatives and ten U.S. senators signed a letter to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg in support of a legal petition that asks the FDA to require labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods. “We write to you in support of a recent legal petition supported by over 400 organizations and businesses, to protect consumer rights and prevent consumer deception by requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods. FDA's regulatory regime for food labeling is inadequate and uses l9th century concepts to regulate 2lst century food technologies.” [19] This brings us to the topic of sustainable agriculture and three most effective practices; Aquaponics, Permaculture, and Certified Naturally Grown (CNG) farming. “Aquaponics is an integrated aquaculture (growing fish) and hydroponic (growing soilless plants) system that mutually benefits both environments. Aquaponics uses no chemicals, requires one tenth or ten percent of the water needed for field plant production and only a fraction of the water that is used for fish culture. The waste from fish tanks is treated with natural bacteria that converts the waste, largely ammonia, first to nitrite and then to nitrate. The fish waste absorbed by plants is pumped to a bio-filter system as a nutrient solution for the growing plants (Grow Bed). The only external input to the system is food for the fish. Both systems complement each other as a single unit, not as separate units. Once the system is initialized the water stays Ph balanced and remains crystal clear. The water is recycled with a small amount of water added weekly to compensate for what is lost by evaporation and transpiration by the vegetables. Aquaponics is the future of home gardening and commercial fresh food production.”[20] The yields per 3 acres produce 1,000,000 pounds of food each year according to Growing Power, a national nonprofit organization, Aquaponics farm in Chicago. By using a vertical grow system (stackable pots), with an Aquaponics system, you can yield even more per acre.

“Certified Naturally Grown (CNG) is a non-profit organization offering certification tailored for small-scale, direct-market farmers and beekeepers using natural methods. CNG was born of a commitment to healthy food and healthy soils, and grew out of the belief that we could create something uniquely valuable to small farmers and the communities they feed. CNG was founded when the National Organic Program (NOP) took effect in 2002. Our certification model encourages collaboration, transparency, and community involvement. Our programs are based on the highest ideals of organic farming, and the requirements are reasonable. CNG farms don't use any synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides or GMO seeds, just like organic farms. Certified Naturally Grown is an independent program not affiliated with the NOP.”[21] This is what most people think organic farming is, although organic farming still uses synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, only in lesser quantities. CNG is beyond organic, in that its standards are even higher than those set by the USDA's National Organic Program for organic certification.

“Permaculture is an ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of our lives. Permaculture teaches us how build natural homes, grow our own food, restore diminished landscapes and ecosystems, catch rainwater, build communities, take care of waste and much more. The philosophy within permaculture is one of working with rather than against nature, and of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than premature and thoughtless action. Permaculture

design techniques encourage land use which integrates principles of ecology and applies lessons from nature. It teaches us to create settings and construct ecosystems which have the diversity, stability, and the resilience of natural ecosystems. In the spirit of sustainability, it also teaches us to allow natural and designed ecosystems to demonstrate their own evolutions.” [22]“Permaculture was developed in Australia in the late 1970’s by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren. It has since grown into an international grassroots movement. Permaculture is a unique blending of traditional practices and scientific knowledge, of ageless wisdom and innovative ideas, of time-tested strategies and useful information from around the world. Demonstration sites span the globe.” [23] Permaculture addresses all the current problems in agriculture and goes with nature not against it like the current Big Agribusiness model of industrialized farming. “American agriculture is at a crossroads. We have achieved remarkable productivity, but have not addressed some consequences of our current agricultural practices. The costs of soil erosion, water pollution, economic uncertainty and the demise of the family farm have yet to be completely assessed. There is a growing awareness that we must profoundly shift our thinking and practices.

Rather than exploiting natural resources until they are gone, we must learn to understand nature, share in her abundance, and help to guide the process. Many people are realizing that in addition to considering short term gains, American agriculture must focus on reinvesting in the future.” [24] These are a few of the solutions we can implement to solve the current food crisis. The farming models presented are key in realigning agriculture with nature. The last model that could completely revolutionize agriculture, in suburban areas around the world would be to return the farm to our own backyards. Implementing these farming techniques to a backyard setting is the most sustainable way we can feed ourselves and our communities in the future. The days of large farms are going to be a thing of the past. Smaller farms will still play an important roll but the industrial model of farming will extinguish. An organization could be set up to introduce communities to the specifics of the “Backyard Program”, which would be tailored the specific environmental and social needs. If a small percentage of homes could lease a ten foot by ten foot space to the community it would be a sufficient amount for food production. Each family that donated property could receive fifty percent of the food yielded from the plot of land they leased. The remaining fifty percent could be sold locally (within one mile) at a farmers market or it could be carted around the neighborhood, essentially going door to door, reducing costs and carbon emissions. Those profits would pay the salaries of the farmers. The number of houses each community has participating will determine many things although the percentage of houses needed would be very low. This model will provide the absolute freshest food at much lower costs. It will reduce the need for transportation while eliminating the use of fertilizer, pesticides, and GMO’s. The positive economic impact this will have can provide new avenues for the development of similar systems in more remote and impoverished areas thought the world. The benefits to the land are the diverse environments we will be creating within our communities. The replenishing of the soils by composting within the communities would also cut down on the waste that is sent to our landfills.

Communities can be culturally infused through the localization of the farm in their own backyards. Our food will not be from a foreign land, we can have fresh fish, fruits, vegetables, and grains, which would provide the community with the nourishment it needs to be healthy. Our communities can begin to learn about food and the importance of controlling the ability to produce food for it. By reconnecting to the land each of us can individually play a part in the restructuring of the current farming model and the revitalization of the food system with a systemic approach.

“There is, of course, a gold mine or a buried treasure on every mortgaged homestead. Whether the farmer ever digs for it

or not, it is there, haunting his daydreams when the burden of debt is most unbearable .” Fawn M. Brodie

Masanobu Fukuoka's Natural Farming and Permaculture Fukuoka believes that natural farming proceeds from the spiritual health of the individual. He considers the healing of the land and the purification of the human spirit to be one process, and he proposes a way of life and a way of farming in which this process can take place. "Natural farming is not just for growing crops," he says, "it is for the cultivation and perfection of human beings."

Works Cited

1.

Wilbert, Catherine. "The Case for Supplementation." Official Website of Catherine Wilbert, N.D. 9 Apr. 2009. Web. 11 May 2012. .

2.

"How to Feed the World in 2050." How to Feed the World in 2050. Ed. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 9 Oct. 2009. Web. 9 May 2012. .

3.

DUGGER, CELIA W. "THE FOOD CHAIN: Survival of the Biggest; Supermarket Giants Crush Central American Farmers." THE FOOD CHAIN. The New York Times, 28 Dec. 2004. Web. 3 May 2012. .

1.

"Organic Consumers Association · Campaigning for Health, Justice, Sustainability, Peace, and Democracy." Organic

Consumers Association: Millions Against Monsanto . Web. 11 May 2012. .

2.

"Highlight from the Center: Nov.21, 2011: UNICEF Podcast Featuring Prof. Philip Alston about Rights of the Child and Education." CHRGJ at NYU Law: Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University School of Law . Ed. Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. Web. 11 May 2012. .

3.

"Understanding Farm Subsidies." Financial Web. Ed. Financial Web. Web. 2 May 2012. .

4.

Budget of the United States Government: FY2010, Historical Tables, Table 3.2. This is spending on budget function 351, which peaked at $33 billion in 2000.

5.

Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven, “Farm Subsidies at Record Levels As Congress Considers New Farm Bill,” Cato Institute Briefing Paper no. 70, October 18, 2001.

6.

"Farm Income and Costs: Farms Receiving Government Payments." ERS/USDA Briefing Room. Web. 11 May 2012. .

7.

"Local Foods - Think Locally and Act Neighborly." Om Organics - Features. 11 May 2012. Web. 11 May 2012. .

8.

Birner, Regina, Surupa Gupta, and Neeru Sharma. "The Political Economy of Agricultural Policy Reform in India Fertilizers and Electricity for Irrigation." International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). International Food Policy Research Institute, 2011. Web. 11 May 2012. .

9.

Wilbert, Catherine. "The Case for Supplementation." Official Website of Catherine Wilbert, N.D. 9 Apr. 2009. Web. 11 May 2012. .

10.

"Industrial Agriculture: Features and Policy." The Union of Concerned Scientists. Ed. The Union of Concerned Scientists. 7 May 2007. Web. 6 May 2012. .

11.

Batalion, ND, Nathan. "50 HARMFUL EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS." Genetically Modified (GM) Food, Genetically Modified Organisms, Genetic Engineering, GM Food Crops, Engineered GMOs, Genetically Altered Foods.

2009. Web. 11 May 2012. .

12.

University Of Minnesota. "Diversity Of Species Triumphs." ScienceDaily, 26 Oct. 2001. Web. 11 May 2012

13.

"Re: Docket No. APHIS-2010-0103 (Petitions, Plant Pest Risk Assessments, and Environmental Assessments; Availability: Dow AgroSciences, LLC, Corn Genetically Engineered for Herbicide Tolerance)." Panna.org. Apr. 2012. Web. 9 May 2012.

14.

Maghari, Behrokh Mohajer, and Ali M. Ardekani M. Ardekani. "Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns." Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology .::. AJMB. 2 July 2011. Web. 11 May 2012. .

15.

Domingo, J. L., and Bordonaba J. J. Giné. "Environment International." May 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2012.Volume 37, Issue 4, May 2011, Pages 734–742

16.

"The Honorable Margaret Hamburg Commissioner Food and Drug Adminishation." Centerforfoodsafety.org. 12 Mar. 2012.

Web. 9 May 2012.

17.

"SoCal Aquaponics." Aquaponics. Web. 11 May 2012. .

18.

Varon, Alice. "About Us Page." Http://www.naturallygrown.org/. Certified Naturally Grown. Web. 9 May 2012.

19.

"Sustainable Living, Practical Learning." Permaculture Institute. Web. 11 May 2012. .

20.

Cruz, Sandy, and Jerome Osentowski. "What Is Permaculture?" Http://www.crmpi.org/. Web. 11 May 2012. .

21.

Cruz, Sandy, and Jerome Osentowski. "What Is Permaculture?" Http://www.crmpi.org/. Web. 11 May 2012. .

22.

"Sustainable Living, Practical Learning." Permaculture Institute. Web. 11 May 2012. .

23.

23Cruz, Sandy, and Jerome Osentowski. "What Is Permaculture?" Http://www.crmpi.org/. Web. 11 May 2012. .

24.

24. Cruz, Sandy, and Jerome Osentowski. "What Is Permaculture?" Http://www.crmpi.org/. Web. 11 May 2012. .