New Report Documents Global Insect Decline and Calls for Reforming Industrial Agriculture
10 June
Popular
The new report points to various studies documenting insect loss, including 2018 research finding 41% of insect species are in decline and that one-third of all insect species are threatened by extinction. Wikimedia Commons
By Andrea Germanos
A new report released Tuesday draws attention to the worldwide decline in insects and calls for global policies to boost the conservation of both agriculture and the six-footed creatures.
<p>The publication, entitled<a href="http://www.foeeurope.org/insect-atlas" target="_blank"> <em>Insect Atlas</em></a>, comes from two progressive networks: Brussels-based Friends of the Earth and Berlin-based Heinrich Böll Foundation.</p><p>"The global loss of insects is dramatic," Heinrich Böll Foundation president Barbara Unmüßig said in a statement.</p><p>The report points to various studies documenting that loss, including 2018 research finding 41% of insect species are in decline and that one-third of all insect species are threatened by extinction. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) estimated that 10 percent of insect species are endangered, and another study cited in the new analysis found that at least one in 10 bee and butterfly species in Europe is threatened with extinction.</p><p>While there's no definitive count of the global loss of insects, <em>Insect Atlas</em> says the trend is unmistakable.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4MzIzNC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjEwMjQxOH0.EtO7AHP1ex1OAoQv5uEksP4WMI058toIbdDIVPU1t2k/img.png?width=980" id="95b6b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="db5cb1fb7efc7f13f0b05dae18c0ee5c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Insect Atlas. Bartz / Stockmar, CC BY 4.0
<p>That decline has major impacts on food. </p><p>"Three-quarters of the world's most important crops exhibit a yield benefit from pollinators: they contribute directly to around one-third of global food production," says the report.</p><p>The methods used for that production have a huge impact on insects.</p><p>"Alongside climate change and light pollution, the spread and intensification of farming is by far the most important cause of the global decline in insect numbers," the report adds.</p><p>This type of farming is dependent upon expanding pasture—often at the expense of destroying Indigenous land and wild animal habitat—and prioritizes monocultures and therefore insect-killing pesticides, the use of which has steadily increased for the past nine decades, the economic profits of which are predominantly flowing towards just four entities: BASF, Bayer, Syngenta, and Corteva. From the publication:</p><blockquote>What is more, the number of chemical products in use around the world continues to increase. And, their negative effects on the insect world are also becoming more and more evident. This is not just because a growing number of chemicals are being applied; the formulations are also increasingly effective and can be used more selectively<br></blockquote><p>Even when some nations ban certain pesticides over concerns, the chemicals' adverse impacts don't disappear; they just change locations. </p><blockquote>The developed world is waking up to the risks associated with the use of pesticides. The situation is different in the developing world: chemicals that are banned in Europe and North America are still used routinely to control pests. Stricter controls are needed, along with better information for farmers.<br></blockquote>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4MzIzOS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5Nzk1MTk5Nn0.P07MnWFqGtf6saMwIqod_QQ-VPe1lueUv1LlTx8PZ1s/img.png?width=980" id="2eaa0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="78dcbebf9c0f715d0d4e9bbb0e3573ee" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Insect Atlas. Bartz / Stockmar, CC BY 4.0
<p>Dismantling industrial agriculture, says the report, is essential. "There is no alternative: to protect insects, farming must become part of the solution. Not just for the sake of society, but also for the sake of farming itself—because it, too, needs insects."</p><p>"The evidence is clear: pesticide use is wiping out insect populations and ecosystems around the world, and threatening food production," Mute Schimpf, food and farming campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, said in a statement. </p><p>"A handful of corporations control the bulk of pesticide supply, and if left unchecked will continue to use their immense political influence to lock in a system of industrial farming which will continue to wipe out nature and destroy rural communities," she continued.</p><p>One area of reform that would address deforestation and the resulting insect habitat losses is curbing meat consumption and therefore the huge swathes of land on which genetically modified animal feed is grown. "If the developed world were to consume less meat and if agricultural products were no longer used as fuel," says the report, "the pressure on the land areas could be reduced considerably."</p><p>Insect Atlas lays out a number of solutions for global policymakers to pursue. They include:</p><ul><li>Gradually reducing the use of synthetic pesticides by 80 percent in EU agriculture by 2030, starting from 2020 and phase out exports of pesticides banned in the EU;</li><li>Radically reforming the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), including the phasing out of harmful untargeted direct payments, setting aside at least 50% of the CAP budget for environmental, nature, and climate objectives and support farmers in the transition to agroecology;</li><li>Phasing out harmful farming methods like growing genetically modified plants or introducing a new generation of genetically modified insects;</li><li>Taking urgent actions to achieve the targets suggested in the European Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies to increase organic farming;</li><li>Reducing the production and consumption of industrial meat and other animal products and supporting plant-based options; and</li><li>Cutting the overall EU demand for agrocommodities in order to reduce global deforestation.</li></ul><p>Schimpf spoke about those solutions and the report on <em>Euronews</em> Tuesday:</p>
<div id="8fdf8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="375c252c346fe9796c1409d1a05fb0eb"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1270286526702850050" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">What are the consequences for our food supply? "If we continue using pesticides so heavily, farmers will lose the… https://t.co/Kiz6VXe6Mc</div> — Friends of the Earth #BlackLivesMatter (@Friends of the Earth #BlackLivesMatter)<a href="https://twitter.com/foeeurope/statuses/1270286526702850050">1591694883.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Schimpf also drew renewed attention to the <a href="https://www.savebeesandfarmers.eu/eng" target="_blank">Save Bees and Farmers</a> European Citizens Initiative. It's centered on three key demands: a phase-out of the use of synthetic pesticides; measures to increase biodiversity; and support for farmers.</p><p>As of press time, the petition has over 355,000 signatures.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Alarming Decline of Insect Population Linked to Toxic Pesticides in ... ›
- Acting Now Could Save Bugs From Insect Apocalypse - EcoWatch ›
- Insect Populations Decreased 25 Percent Over Last 30 Years ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
USDA NRCS Montana
By Dipika Kadaba
The emergence of multiple pandemics in the animal agriculture industry over the past few decades, coupled with COVID-19's suspected origins in wildlife meat markets, has prompted renewed calls from experts to transform the global food system to prevent diseases harmful to humans.
<p>Industrial agriculture puts humans in contact with scores of animals in cramped conditions, which is ideal for disease transfer.</p>
<p>But that's only one of the health dangers it causes. Antibiotics are used ubiquitously in all kinds of large-scale agriculture, causing antibiotic resistance and environmental toxicity that studies show <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122845/" target="_blank">we're not prepared to combat</a>.</p>
<p>Watch our new video to learn more about issues arising from antibiotic use in agriculture.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5363447ee3ad107f98d95612dcc37888"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G8Q07BHRUwc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p><em><a href="https://therevelator.org/author/dipikakadaba/" target="_blank">Dipika Kadaba</a> is an ecologist who uses data visualization and design to communicate environmental issues in her role as The Revelator's visual storyteller. Her interdisciplinary work originates in her background in environmental health research as a veterinarian, a graduate degree in conservation science, and a lifetime spent creating webcomics and animations for fun.</em></p><p><em><em>Reposted with permission from <em><a href="https://therevelator.org/antibiotics-agriculture-environment/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>.</em></em><em></em></em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Here's Why Most Most of the Meat Americans Eat Is Banned in Other ... ›
- If Factory Farm Conditions Are Unhealthy for Animals, They're Bad ... ›
- 5 Dangerous Substances Big Ag Pumps Into Your Meat - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Mrs. Beatrice Sebyala stands within her crop of maize at her farm in Nakasongola, Uganda. Beatrice uses her farm as a demo and example for other farmers. Uganda is home to the most organic producers in Africa. In Pictures Ltd. / Corbis / Getty Images
Organic farmers in Africa face an arduous journey getting cropland certified, limiting exports and frustrating farmers who say ecological practices could increase food security while protecting the land.
<p>Just 2 percent of Africa's farmland is considered organic — seven times less than the global average, according to data from the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) — in a continent where natural agricultural and subsistence farming are widely practiced. Farmers who avoid <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/farming-without-pesticides-how-can-we-make-agriculture-greener/a-52216796" target="_blank">synthetic fertilizers and pesticides</a> but are unable to get organic certificates say their plans to export abroad are stymied by high costs, corruption and little government support.<em></em></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/organic-farming-certificate-africa/a-52352517?maca=en-VAM_volltext_ecowatch-28485-html-copypaste" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Deutsche Welle.</em></a></p>
<p>And then there's the bureaucracy.</p><p>"The ceiling is so high for smallholder farmers to be part of the international market," said Ara Nashera, a farmer near Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya who wants to get organic certification to sell chilies abroad. "When I looked last year at how many agencies I have to go through to start exporting, there were 53. You don't even know where to start."</p><p>Alfred Koleta, an organic farmer in the same region who is relying on sales of cassava to pay his children's school fees, said the complexity of the years-long process puts farmers off getting certified. "Unless you get someone to introduce you... it's quite challenging, it's quite tedious, because this process requires multiple agencies."</p><p>More than half of Africans are smallholder farmers and agriculture is a central pillar of economies across the continent. With Africa's population set to double by 2050 and its crops increasingly menaced by <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/un-warns-hunger-crisis-in-southern-africa-on-scale-weve-not-seen-before/a-52029274" target="_blank">extreme weather, soil erosion and desertification</a>, farming choices today will play a key role in the continent's food security.</p>
<p>"Conventional methods have been eating up arable land and making it barren," said Nashera. "If we waste land now, then food will be very expensive in the future and we'll have more people fighting for very little resources."</p><p>But scientists and farmers alike are divided on the benefits of organic farming.</p>
Fighting Hunger
<p>Conventional farming uses artificial fertilizers and pesticides, some of which kill wildlife and may damage human health, particularly in countries where they are poorly regulated or overused.</p><p><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/why-biodiversity-loss-hurts-humans-as-much-as-climate-change/a-48579014" target="_blank">A landmark report on biodiversity</a> published by UN-backed scientists last year found that converting land for intensive agriculture is one of the biggest drivers of wildlife loss and degradation of nature — and that this, in turn, endangers the global food system through the less of healthy soil, clean waterways and <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/insect-apocalypse-dying-ecosystem-species-loss-a-52160360/a-52160360" target="_blank">insects that pollinate plants</a>.</p><p>At the same time, organic farms typically require more land to achieve the same yield as conventional farms do, a <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1602638" target="_blank">review paper published in the journal Science Advances</a> in 2017 found, meaning an expansion of organic could accelerate climate change and worsen hunger. Without an increase in modern farming too, this could prove deadly in sub-Saharan Africa. About 20 percent of sub-Saharan Africans are undernourished, data from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization shows, and East Africa is in the midst of an "unprecedented" threat to food security from a locust plague that is set to worsen in coming months.</p><p>But for smallholder farmers with limited equipment and low yields, a switch to organic methods could even be a boon to harvests and reduce post-harvest losses. "The [technical] capacity is so low that if you go organic but have some good practices... you could even increase productivity," said Malick Kane, author of a report on financing organic farming in Africa and project coordinator at UNCTAD, the UN's trade think tank. "You wouldn't necessarily face a food security challenge."</p>
Access to Finance
<p>The area of organic farmland in Africa has doubled in the last decade to 2.1 million hectares, FiBL data shows, with the biggest organic centers in North and <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/feeding-east-africa-locals-skeptical-of-gm-crops/a-42385062" target="_blank">East Africa</a> and the crops they grow enjoyed the world over. In Kenya, nuts and coconuts dominate organic output. In Tunisia it is olives. Ethiopia and Tanzania are big coffee-growers, while in Uganda, home to the most organic producers in Africa, the crop of choice is cacao.</p><p>Despite some successes, farmers such as Nashera and Koleta, in Kenya, are caught in a bind between domestic markets not willing to pay a premium for organic food and wealthier regions to which they cannot export without expensive certification. A survey of African farmers by UNCTAD in 2016 found that a quarter of stakeholders thought access to finance had gotten more restrictive in the last five years. Only 13 percent said it had become more efficient.</p><p>But the industry is held back by more than just money, said Okisegere Ojepat, CEO of trade association Fresh Produce Kenya. A lack of crop-specific research and equipment, including understanding of weather patterns and pest control, is keeping farmers from innovating. Pushing for more organic farming without building technical capacity would not be sustainable in the long run, said Ojepat. "It is a double-edged sword."</p><p>Organic farmers looking to reach markets abroad are trying short-term fixes. To reduce the cost of certification — which requires paying auditors from Europe and North America to fly in and inspect farms — organic farmers could apply to be certified together, said Claire Nasike, founder of environmental educational charity the Hummingbird Foundation and an agroecologist at Greenpeace Africa, which has trained a network of farmers who are now applying to be certified as a group.</p><p>"The farmers are able to hold each other accountable," said Nasike. "If one person messes it up, the entire group's certification is cancelled."</p>From Your Site Articles
- 17 Food Heroes Who Are Making the World a Better Place - EcoWatch ›
- COVID-19 Is Hurting Kenyan Horticulture Exports ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
"It would be great to see all the candidates join Elizabeth Warren in taking the No Big Ag Money Pledge," said Citizens Regeneration Lobby's Alexis Baden-Mayer. Peter Blanchard / Flickr / ric (CC BY 2.0)
Food system justice and environmental advocates on Wednesday urged all Democratic presidential hopefuls to follow in the footsteps of Sen. Elizabeth Warren in signing a pledge rejecting campaign cash from food and agribusiness corporations.
<p>The Massachusetts senator, said advocacy group Friends of the Earth, is "leading the way."<em></em></p>
<div id="783fc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="NR54YP1579724062"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1220003866185490432" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: Elizabeth Warren has signed our #NoBigAgMoney pledge!
77% of Iowa Democratic caucus goers want candidate… https://t.co/A0VudN01tO</div> — Friends of the Earth (@Friends of the Earth)<a href="https://twitter.com/foe_us/statuses/1220003866185490432">1579706562.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"We applaud Sen. Warren for listening to voters that overwhelmingly support candidates rejecting Big Ag's money and influence," <a href="https://foeaction.org/news/elizabeth-warren-signs-no-big-ag-money-pledge/" target="_blank">said</a> Lisa Archer, food and agriculture director for Friends of the Earth Action. "We urge all presidential candidates to take the No Big Ag Money pledge and prioritize our families, farmers, food chain workers, our planet, and our democracy over Big Ag's profits."</p><p>The "No Big Ag Money Pledge" was launched last week. It <a href="https://foeaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/The-No-Big-Ag-Money-Pledge.pdf" target="_blank">states</a> (pdf):</p><blockquote>I pledge not to take contributions over $200 from large food and agribusiness corporation executives, lobbyists, and PACs and instead prioritize the health of our families, farmers, food chain workers, our planet, and our democracy.<br></blockquote><p>The document lists dozens of companies that fall under that category, including giants <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bayer">Bayer</a>, Caterpillar, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Tyson" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tyson</a>, General Mils, and Sodexo. Rejecting cash from those entities, says the coalition behind the pledge, would show that presidential candidates won't favor the interests of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/factory-farming" rel="noopener noreferrer">factory farms</a> over those of family farms.</p>
<p>If the opinion of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa serve as a guide, candidates would be wise to sign on to the plege.</p><p>According to a <a href="https://foeaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/LRP-Friends-of-the-Earth-Action-Iowa-Poll-Memo.F.2020.01.09.pdf" target="_blank">poll</a> (pdf) out earlier this month — commissioned to the Friends of the Earth Action and conducted by Lake Research Partners — 77 percent of these likely caucus-goers agree that presidential candidates should reject campaign contributions from Big Ag. Sixty-four percent also said they support breaking up the biggest food and agriculture corporations — a proposal backed by <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/03/27/elizabeth-warrens-plan-lift-family-farmers-includes-barring-big-ag-mega-mergers" target="_blank">Warren</a> and Democratic primary rival Sen. Bernie <a href="https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/revitalizing-rural-america/" target="_blank">Sanders</a>.</p><p>Make no mistake, Big Ag wields significant power. As Friends of the Earth outlined in a <a href="https://foeaction.org/news/coalition-launches-no-big-ag-money-pledge-targeting-presidential-candidates/" target="_blank">statement</a> last week,</p><blockquote>Currently in the United States, four corporations (many of them foreign owned) control 84 percent of the market for beef, 70 percent of the market for soy, 66 percent of the market for hogs, 80 percent of the market for corn, 59 percent of the market for poultry, 84 percent of the market for pesticides, and 60 percent of the market for seeds.<br></blockquote><p>The food and family farms groups say that campaigns not accepting contributions from these interests would be a step towards neutering their political influence. </p><p>"It would be great to see all the candidates join Elizabeth Warren in taking the No Big Ag Money Pledge," said Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of Citizens Regeneration Lobby. "It's time to stop agribusiness monopolies from using campaign cash and lobbying dollars to put a stranglehold on federal food and farm policy."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/22/2020-dems-called-follow-warren-supporting-no-big-ag-money-pledge" rel="noopener noreferrer">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Pexels
By Sara Amundson
It is no secret that moving legislation over the finish line in Washington, DC, has not been easy of late. However, members of Congress did come together to pass the 2018 Farm Bill—a massive public-spending package that funds agriculture, conservation and food policy. It was signed into law by President Trump on Dec. 20, 2018, just two days before the government shutdown began. While Big Agriculture with its factory farming model is not too kind as a general rule, the Farm Bill did right by animals in several important respects.
<p>First and foremost, animal advocacy groups and concerned citizens <a href="https://blog.humanesociety.org/2018/12/breaking-news-king-amendment-is-out-of-farm-bill-congress-includes-important-protections-for-animals.html" target="_blank">successfully worked to remove an anti-animal provision</a> that Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) added to the House version of the bill. Of greatest concern to animal advocates was that Representative King's amendment would have nullified thousands of duly enacted laws concerning puppy mills, horse slaughter for human consumption and extreme confinement of farm animals. In its overreach, however, King's measure also <a href="https://www.humanesociety.org/king-sensenbrenner-elimination-act" target="_blank">threatened to undermine child labor laws and fire-safe cigarettes</a>.</p><p>King repeats messages of "pro-states' rights" rhetoric, yet the legislation he introduces year after year threatens those very liberties. Recognizing that Americans care about the humane treatment of animals, Congress wisely opted to reject his dangerous amendment.</p><p>The Farm Bill <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/18/18146068/dog-cat-meat-illegal-farm-bill-animal-cruelty" target="_blank">also incorporated</a> legislation addressing pet protection and domestic violence, and the inhumane practice of slaughtering dogs and cats for human consumption, among other things.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/politics/paws-act-farm-bill/index.html" target="_blank">Pet and Women Safety (PAWS) Act</a> will extend current federal domestic violence protections to pets and empower people trapped in domestic violence situations to leave abusive relationships. Currently, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/politics/paws-act-farm-bill/index.html" target="_blank">only 3 percent of domestic violence shelters provide pet accommodations</a>, which can delay victims from leaving a dangerous environment. Pets can be a source of comfort and support, but tragically, abusers will frequently exploit the emotional bond between a victim and a pet to gain psychological control.</p><p>Congress also included elements of <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6720/text" target="_blank">The Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act</a> in the Farm Bill. Around <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/congress-doesnt-want-you-to-eat-your-dog-or-cat/" target="_blank">30 million dogs</a> and untold numbers of cats are victims of this brutal global industry every year, with animals often snatched off the street or stolen from loving families and subjected to unspeakable abuse only to end as someone's supper. In November, Humane Society International assisted government authorities in a <a href="https://tinyurl.com/ya2nrpuc" target="_blank">shutdown of the largest dog slaughterhouse in South Korea</a>. This bill will prevent this appalling practice from taking hold in the U.S., and strengthen the case for ending it worldwide.</p><p>There is much more to the Farm Bill, of course, and there are measures in it that give us pause. But in putting the King amendment out to pasture, and in taking up popular measures that had garnered tremendous bipartisan support, Congress has set a standard that we hope will continue in 2019. With the terrible threat of King's measure set aside, and these other priorities made law, Congress should advance a legislative agenda in 2019 that tackles other urgent challenges in humane work, based on the premise that any decent nation is good to the animals in its care. </p><p><em>Sara Amundson is the president of the <a href="https://tinyurl.com/ybl63pav" target="_blank">Humane Society Legislative Fund</a>.</em></p><p><em>This article was produced by <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute, and was originally published by <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/animals-scored-significant-victories-with-the-2018-farm-bill/" target="_blank">Truthout</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Animal rights ›
- Animals, Workers and Consumers Suffer Under USDA Slaughter ... ›
- Investigation Exposes Animal Abuse at U.S. Supplier to World's ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Pexels
By Brian Barth
If there is one thing Tuesday's elections reinforced, it is that city folks and country folks are firmly rooted on opposite sides of America's partisan divide. Farmers are traditionally a conservative bunch and they have flocked to President Trump, even when it is questionable that it's in their best interests to do so.
<p>The president's trade wars have caused the export value of certain crops, most notably soybeans (America's biggest ag export) to plummet. And his stance on immigration stands to have a profound impact on the cheap foreign labor that farmers rely on, which is already in short supply. These are but a couple of the issues that figured heavily in closely contested rural races.</p><p>Incumbents are listed first below, while the winner (where known at press time) is underlined.</p><h3>1. Heidi Heitkamp (D) vs. Kevin Cramer (R) – North Dakota Senate</h3><p>Heitkamp, the Democratic incumbent in this extremely rural state which exports huge quantities of soybeans to China, hoped that the farmers hurting from the President's trade war would help propel her to victory. If any farmers did jump ship, their numbers were not enough to overcome her opponent, a Trump protégé who has expressed support for the trade war.</p><h3>2. Jon Tester (D) vs Matt Rosendale (R) – Montana Senate</h3><p>This race remains too close to call—as of press time, the Democratic incumbent leads his opponent by a mere 1,000 votes. Tester is one of two organic farmers in Congress, so a loss here would be a major blow to the movement. If he wins, it will at least be in part due to his ability to connect with the state's many farmers and ranchers.</p><h3>3. John Faso (R) vs. Antonio Delgado (D) – New York 19th House District</h3><p>John Faso, a member of the House Ag Committee, which is heavily sympathetic to the interests of industrial agriculture, was always an odd fit with this Hudson Valley district, an area known as a mecca for organic farmers—one agricultural demographic that tilts heavily to the left.</p><h3>4. Steve King (R) vs. J.D. Scholten (D) – Iowa 4th House District</h3><p>Scholten's longshot campaign to defeat the notoriously racist incumbent leaned heavily on his family's deep farming roots in the area. He traveled the countryside in a used Winnebago converted into a campaign bus, often stopping at farms and grain elevators to ask for farmers' support. This transformed the race from a sure win for King—the district is extremely conservative—into a nail-biter. In the end, however, King squeaked out a victory.</p><h3>5. Jeff Denham (R) vs. Josh Harder (D) – California 10th House District</h3><p>This race remains too close to call—as of press time, the Republican incumbent leads his opponent by less than 1,500 votes. This Central Valley district is known as a haven of corporate agriculture, which typically tilts right. But it is also home to a large Hispanic population, which supplies the labor force for the farms. Whether the left-leaning immigrant community will tip the scales for the Democrat remains to be seen.</p><p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="http://modernfarmer.com/2018/11/five-midterm-races-where-farming-was-a-factor/" target="_blank">Modern Farmer</a>.</em><em></em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Read More
Show Less
The Orangutans in Indonesia have been known to be on the verge of extinction as a result of deforestation and poaching.
Ulet Ifansasti / Getty Images News
Ulet Ifansasti / Getty Images News
By Edward Davey
The world is vastly underestimating the benefits of acting on climate change. Recent research from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate finds that bold climate action could deliver at least $26 trillion in economic benefits through 2030. This ground-breaking research, produced by the Global Commission and more than 200 experts, highlights proof points of the global shift to a low-carbon economy, and identifies ways to accelerate action in five sectors: energy, cities, food and land use, water and industry. Our blog series, The $26 Trillion Opportunity, explores these economic opportunities in greater detail.
<p>There's a "<a href="https://www.theforgottensolution.org/" target="_blank">forgotten solution</a>" for achieving major economic, development and climate gains—transforming the way the world feeds itself and manages its land.</p><p>At this week's UN General Assembly, members of the <a href="https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/" target="_blank">Food and Land Use Coalition</a> will meet with heads of state and CEOs to raise the profile of this issue and encourage greater action. They have new research to support their case. The <a href="https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018/food-and-land-use/" target="_blank">food and land use chapter</a> of the <a href="https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018/" target="_blank">New Climate Economy's Global Opportunities Report</a> sets out how decisive action on food and land use is at the heart of the inclusive growth story of the 21st century. The report finds that more sustainable food and land use business models <a href="http://report.businesscommission.org/report" target="_blank">could be worth up to $2.3 trillion</a>, and that they're critical to delivering a more climate-secure and resilient world.</p><p>Five areas offer the most opportunity for action:</p><h3>1. Avoid deforestation and close the forest frontier.</h3><p>The first-order priority is to end deforestation by closing the "forest frontier" or intact forests, to development. If the world fails to protect its remaining tropical forests, keeping global temperature rise to 1.5 or 2 degrees C (2.7-3.6 degrees F)—the level the international community has agreed is necessary to prevent the worst climate impacts—<a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/09/news-forests-climate-summit-sustainability/" target="_blank">becomes almost impossible</a>.</p><p>Increased support for protected areas, indigenous peoples' rights and better land use planning and enforcement are fundamental steps. Securing indigenous rights to land tenure <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2016/10/protecting-indigenous-land-rights-makes-good-economic-sense" target="_blank">makes strong economic</a> (as well as moral) sense. <a href="https://www.wri.org/publication/ending-tropical-deforestation-elusive-impact-deforestation-free-supply-chain-movement" target="_blank">Further progress</a> on the deforestation-free supply chain movement is also urgently needed, both in terms of scaling up implementation by companies that have already made commitments, as well as in <a href="https://www.tfa2020.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/47530_Emerging-markets_consumers_and_deforestation_report_2018.pdf" target="_blank">bringing new companies and markets on board</a>.</p><h3>2. Increase agricultural productivity.</h3><p>There are significant gains to be made in increasing agricultural productivity and ensuring greater uptake of <a href="http://www.fao.org/gacsa/en/" target="_blank">climate-smart agriculture</a>. Across the world, farming practices can be made much more efficient and resilient by providing training services for farmers, strengthening smallholder cooperatives and investing in state-of-the art farming techniques. The closure of the forest frontier provides farmers with the incentive to intensify their production on existing land. Reforming global agricultural subsidies, currently worth $519 billion per year, could also lead to vastly better outcomes from the farming system. For example, incentives for cattle expansion in the Amazon <a href="http://www.zerodeforestationcattle.org/" target="_blank">could instead be reformed</a> to support investment in forest restoration or raising livestock in harmony with forests and other ecosystems.</p><h3>3. Restore forests and landscapes.</h3><p>There is a <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/12/restoration-one-most-overlooked-opportunities-economic-growth" target="_blank">major economic prize to be won</a> in restoring degraded forests and agricultural land. By allowing degraded forests to recover to natural forest, supporting agroforestry and other strategies, restoration could lead to economic gains of $35–40 billion per year within 15 years, as well as a myriad of social and environmental benefits. There are a number of measures to spur public and private sector investment in restoration, including incentives from national governments and multilateral development banks providing "first-loss guarantees" to investors committed to restoration.</p><h3>4. Reduce food loss and waste.</h3><p>One-third of all food produced is lost or wasted along the food chain, costing the global economy an estimated $940 billion annually and producing about 8 percent of global emissions. If food loss and waste were a country, it would rank as the world's third-largest emitter after China and the U.S.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODY1NjA4MC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5NDcxMTU0Nn0.bkTwyuVvXzC8JB0teixw1mJJd9P7wiTPjHw0DE8QkuA/img.png?width=980" id="801cb" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3673d0023b15d11da32c294732445ff9" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p><p>Saving just one-quarter of the food currently lost or wasted would be equivalent to the amount of food needed to feed 870 million people annually. It also makes good business sense: Recent research found that companies investing in food loss and waste reduction saw a median benefit-cost ratio of 14:1. Coalitions such as <a href="https://champions123.org/" target="_blank">Champion 12.3</a>, which brings together executives from business, government and organizations, have a critical role to play here.<br></p><h3>5. Improve diets.</h3><p>A comprehensive global effort to address the double burden of malnutrition and obesity will be critical to securing better and more inclusive growth in the 21st century. Across the world, almost a billion people suffer from inadequate diets and insecure food supplies. At the same time, current trends towards diets high in processed foods, refined sugars, fats, oils and red meat have resulted in more than 2.1 billion people becoming overweight or obese. This increase in collective body mass is strongly associated with the increased incidence worldwide of chronic non-communicable diseases, especially type II diabetes, coronary heart disease and some cancers. If current trends continue, these chronic diseases are predicted to account for two-thirds of the global burden of disease. The global economic cost of obesity alone was estimated to be <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/in-the-news/the-obesity-crisis" target="_blank">around $2 trillion in 2012</a>, roughly equivalent to the global cost of armed conflict or smoking.</p><p>Public policy and private sector action can deliver major changes here, whether through the use of economic instruments <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/health/obesity-chile-sugar-regulations.html" target="_blank">such as a "sugar tax,"</a> the issuance of public health guidelines such as the Chinese government's <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/in-the-news/the-obesity-crisis" target="_blank">advice on reduced meat consumption</a>, or through innovative private-sector approaches such as <a href="https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/cool-food-pledge" target="_blank">The Cool Food Pledge</a>, <a href="https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/better-buying-lab" target="_blank">the Better Buying Lab</a> or <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/02/flavor-packed-burger-saves-many-emissions-taking-2-million-cars-road" target="_blank">blending mushrooms into burgers</a>.</p><h3>Better Economic Growth</h3><p>Action across these five areas would lead to better and more resilient economic growth. It would also make it more likely that the world will meet the <a href="https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/" target="_blank">Sustainable Development Goals</a> and the <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement" target="_blank">Paris Agreement on climate change</a>. Despite much progress, there is still a great deal to be done—and a massive prize to be won.</p><p><em>Main image: A worker carries a Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii) as being prepared to be released into the wild at Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Programme's rehabilitation center on Nov.14, 2016 in Kuta Mbelin, North Sumatra, Indonesia. The Orangutans in Indonesia have been known to be on the verge of extinction as a result of deforestation and poaching. Found mostly in South-East Asia, where they live on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, the endangered species continue to lose their habitat as a result of corporate expansion in a developing economy. Indonesia approved palm oil concessions on nearly 15 million acres of peatlands over the past years and thousands of square miles have been cleared for plantations, including the lowland areas that are the prime habitat for orangutans. </em></p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Lance Cheung / USDA
By Courtney Lindwall
The hyper-partisan farm bill, narrowly passed by the House of Representatives last week, contains dangerous handouts to the chemical industry and Big Ag. If enacted in its current state, the bill would have serious ramifications for small farmers, biodiversity, public health and America's hungry.
<p>Leaders in the Senate are promising a better bill that supports sound agricultural policies. Well, senators, here are seven lowlights in the House bill that deserve special attention. Get your red pens ready!</p><h4>1. Weaker Pesticide Laws</h4><p>The farm bill would bar local governments from adopting pesticide laws that are stronger than the federal government's—something particularly concerning, considering the Trump administration's penchant for <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/court-allows-epa-continue-delaying-toxic-pesticide-ban" target="_blank">delaying and rolling back</a> public health protections.</p><h4>2. Contaminated Drinking Water Sources</h4><p>It would repeal the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/trump-administration-goes-after-clean-water" target="_blank">Clean Water Rule</a>, which clarifies which waterways are covered by the Clean Water Act's pollution control and cleanup programs. The rule helps protect streams that contribute to the drinking water supplies for one-third of all Americans.</p><h4>3. More Polluted Waterways</h4><p>Companies would no longer need a permit to spray hazardous <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticides</a> directly into waterways that Americans use for swimming, fishing, and drinking—even though this is precisely the sort of high-risk scenario the Clean Water Act is meant to prevent.</p><h4>4. Toxic Giveaway</h4><p>The bill would weaken restrictions on <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/bit-good-news-ozone-layer" target="_blank">methyl bromide</a>, a highly toxic pesticide that has caused around <a href="http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/haloxyfop-methylparathion/methyl-bromide-ext.html" target="_blank">1,000 documented human-poisoning incidents</a> and contributes in a major way to the depletion of the ozone layer. Past administrations wanted to phase out methyl bromide by 2000, allowing its use only in emergency events. The current farm bill would more broadly define what "emergency" means.</p><h4>5. Hungry Kids and Families</h4><p>The measure unacceptably targets some of the country's most vulnerable populations, such as families dealing with food insecurity. The farm bill would <a href="https://www.timesunion.com/7day-state/article/Faso-SNAP-work-requirement-is-in-House-passed-13018683.php" target="_blank">restrict the available nutritional assistance</a> under the SNAP program, commonly known as food stamps, and could cause nearly a million Americans to lose eligibility. It also would weaken low-income kids' access to fresh fruits and vegetables in their schools.</p><h4>6. Wildlife at Risk</h4><p>The Endangered Species Act currently requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service before approving a chemical that could harm protected species—a rule that helped ban DDT and bring species like bald eagles back from the brink. The farm bill trashes the requirement, putting endangered species, including pollinators like the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/rebecca-riley/dont-poison-farm-bill-or-endangered-species" target="_blank">rusty patched bumblebee</a>, at risk of deadly pesticide exposure.</p><h4>7. Goodbye, Small Farms</h4><p>The bill eliminates the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/allison-johnson/farm-bill-can-make-or-break-organic" target="_blank">Conservation Stewardship Program</a>, which promotes whole farm stewardship and sustainability in rural communities. To add insult to injury, it would allow mining and drilling on lands in the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, which is supposed to help preserve agricultural lands as working farms.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Senate's Farm Bill Moves Forward—But What Is It, Anyway? ›
- Farm Bill With Huge Giveaways to Pesticide Industry Passes House ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
It started with a call from actress and animal rights activist Natalie Portman to author Jonathan Safran Foer. The latter had recently taken a break from novel-writing to publish 2009's New York Times best-selling treatise Eating Animals—an in-depth discussion of what it means to eat animals in an industrialized world, with all attendant environmental and ethical concerns. The two planned a meeting in Foer's Brooklyn backyard, and also invited documentary director Christopher Dillon Quinn (God Grew Tired of Us) over. The idea was to figure out how to turn Foer's sprawling, memoiristic book into a documentary that would ignite mainstream conversations around our food systems.
<p>The fruit of that discussion is now open in select theaters. Narrated by Portman, <em>Eating Animals </em>begins with the simple question about how much we really know about the food on our plates. The film succinctly traces the history of farming from its small-scale, agrarian roots to the rise of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/factory-farming">large-scale industrialized farming</a>—which incidentally started in 1923, when Delaware housewife Celia Steele accidentally ordered 500 rather than 50 chicks and experimented with keeping them inside and maximizing their productivity, thus creating the first "broiler house." This planted the seed that resulted in today's proliferation of industrial livestock operations, through which huge agribusinesses pit contracted farmers against one another to produce ever more Chicken McNuggets, KFC and cheap grocery meat. The film follows several farmers—including a factory farmer running one such operation (which he describes as a "treadmill of debt"), a rancher who raises heritage turkeys, an Iowan raising the healthy hogs that end up on conscientious foodies' plates and others. All sources are united in their desire to bring farming back to its roots in the American heritage, and away from its polluting, health-endangering and increasingly inhumane state. Early on in the film, Portman, quoting Foer's writing, states that whereas farmers used to profit by working in concert with nature, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-ag">Big Ag's</a> goal is to calculate "how close to destruction we can keep the environment without losing it altogether."</p><p><em>Eating Animals</em> isn't necessarily out to expose the cruelty that feeds so much of American life; in fact, much of its content is devoted to pastoral footage of happy animals that are beloved by their farmers and granted great pre-slaughter lives. Yes, other footage does reveal massive stacks of chickens in battery cages, the Pepto-Bismol pink fecal hog lagoons of North Carolina, and the many antibiotic-doused animals that have been bioengineered to grow obese and lame during their few weeks of existence. "They've calculated how close to death we can keep an animal without killing it," Portman intones. However, <em>Eating Animals</em> doesn't offer what so many activists and whistleblowers already have: a blow-by-blow account of the horrors of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) or what happens inside slaughterhouses.</p><p><span></span>That's because this film isn't presenting the horrors of industrialized farming as news, <em>per se</em>, but rather urging audiences to consider what they already know to be true. <em>Eating Animals</em> conveys a great deal of compassion for the farmers themselves, many of whom would not be able to survive today's economy if not for being the pawns of mega corporations like Tyson and Smithfield. It also reveals the ways in which lawmakers funded by Big Ag have passed statutes that institutionalize the cycle of producing and consuming cheap, factory-farmed meat. </p><p><span></span>That said, pro-vegetarian propaganda this film is not. While Portman is a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/vegan">vegan</a> and Foer, a credited producer, is vegetarian, Quinn is a omnivore, which the others saw as an asset. After all, <em>Eating Animals</em> doesn't posit that consuming meat is intrinsically bad, but rather that the circumstances surrounding it—environmental degradation, increased use of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/antibiotics">antibiotics</a>, "ag gag" laws, and animal-tending practices developed to be as cost-efficient as possible—are becoming overwhelmingly urgent. Americans are consuming more meat than we were when Foer published the book; what's more, our animal product-intensive eating habits are proliferating throughout the world. As the global population is expected to balloon to nine billion in the next 50 years, industrial farming—which already accounts for 50 billion animals raised for food—is only poised to further explode. </p><p><span></span>This film offers an objective look not only at the debate over eating animals, but also discusses ways in which we can sustainably raise animals and avoid the inherent problems of factory farming. It also brings in Temple Grandin to discuss some positive changes the industry has made. To learn more about the years-long process of creating this complex, unsettling, and absorbing film, Sierra called up director Christopher Dillon Quinn.</p><p><strong><em>Sierra</em>: The film seems to be only loosely based on Foer's 2009 book. Can you talk about that adaptation process?</strong></p><p><strong></strong><strong>Quinn</strong>: During that first meeting with Jonathan and Natalie, I made it clear that I wanted to, as Jonathan did in the book, create a personal case for why food matters from a family standpoint. We decided not to go down the same road Jonathan had in the book, which started with family stories about his grandmother, but I still wanted to follow subjects very closely, so that through their eyes, you start to see the bigger picture. The part of the book that probably captivated me most were the many open letters from farmers themselves, where Foer just let them say what they wanted. I sought to expand those narratives. So we followed subjects like one such farmer from the book, Frank Reese, the Kansas rancher raising heritage turkey breeds that have been around for centuries. It was fascinating to follow these farmers and see the contrast, because by and large, the chicken we eat today has been hybridized by genetic companies to become broad-breasted birds designed that can create as much white meat as possible, and whose bodies are compromised in such a way that they start to break down in just a couple of weeks.</p><p><strong>Who was your intended audience?</strong></p><p><strong></strong>We wanted to cast a wide net, but it's hard because a lot of people don't want to look under the hood and really think about where their meat, dairy, and eggs come from. We didn't want to wag the finger and tell people not to eat meat, but rather to portray the food industry from as many angles as possible so that anyone could watch it and find value in it. It's why audiences see how the contract farmers are under the thumb of a very large, vertically integrated system that holds many in debt their whole lives—it's not just the animals suffering. And of course, there's nothing else on the planet that causes more environmental degradation than raising animals for our food, so that's pertinent to absolutely everyone. Everybody knows something's wrong with our food system and that compromises are made, so hopefully this film offers a way to ultimately make some choices. </p><p><strong>What was the most difficult part of making this film?</strong></p><p><strong></strong>It forces you to adapt and change, and nobody likes that—I certainly didn't! I've opted out of commodity meat altogether, but I was at an event recently honoring Frank Reese and I was happy to eat his bird when it was put on my plate. The other was the visceral reaction I had to really seeing where my milk, my butter, my cheese come from. But the film is really meant to help facilitate those difficult conversations around whether you want to support a system that takes so much from our environment and society, and gives so little back. With the world's population set to explode, this is kind of the most pressing thing we have to address—we don't have enough water or resources to keep feeding people like this—and I so I like to think this film could be a starting point for a conversation that could result in real change.</p><p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/eating-animals-drives-home-where-our-food-really-comes-natalie-portman-jonathan-safran-foer-chistopher-dillon-quinn" target="_blank">SIERRA Magazine</a>.</em><em></em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Human activity, including domesticating livestock, has had a major impact on earth's biomass. Malcolm Morley~commonswiki
A first-of-its-kind study published Monday shows that, when it comes to impacting life on Earth, humans are punching well above our weight.
The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the first ever comprehensive census of the distribution of the biomass, or weight of living creatures, across classification type and environment. It found that, while humans account for 0.01 percent of the planet's biomass, our activity has reduced the biomass of wild marine and terrestrial mammals by six times and the biomass of plant matter by half.
<p>"I would hope this gives people a perspective on the very dominant role that humanity now plays on Earth," lead researcher and Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel professor Ron Milo told <a href="https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. </p><p>According to the study, human impacts are due to the combined effects of the agricultural and industrial revolutions. In particular, the domestication of livestock has caused a shift in the relative biomass of different species of mammals. </p><p>Humans account for about 36 percent of the biomass of all mammals. Domesticated livestock, mostly cows and pigs, account for 60 percent, and wild mammals for only 4 percent.</p><p>The same holds true for birds. The biomass of poultry is about three times higher than that of wild birds.</p><p>"It is definitely striking, our disproportionate place on Earth," Milo told The Guardian. "When I do a puzzle with my daughters, there is usually an elephant next to a giraffe next to a rhino. But if I was trying to give them a more realistic sense of the world, it would be a cow next to a cow next to a cow and then a chicken."</p><p>The study further broke down the human impact on terrestrial and marine mammals. Compared to the time before the human-abetted extinction of large megafauna, wild earth mammal biomass has decreased sevenfold. Marine mammal biomass has decreased fivefold due to commercial whaling and other exploitative hunting practices. Fish biomass has also fallen around 15 percent. </p><p>Humans and their livestock have increased the total biomass of mammals by a factor of four and they outweigh all vertebrates besides fish.</p><p>Milo told The Guardian that the results had encouraged him to reconsider his eating habits.</p><p>"I would hope people would take this [work] as part of their world view of how they consume," he said. "I have not become vegetarian, but I do take the environmental impact into my decision making, so it helps me think, do I want to choose beef or poultry or use tofu instead?"</p><p>When it comes to the biomass of all life on earth, humans and their livestock are barely a blip. They only account for 8 percent of total animal biomass, while arthropods account for 50 percent. </p><p>Overall, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/animals/" target="_self">animals</a> have nothing on the other other kingdoms. Plants dominate, accounting for about 80 percent of all of the earth's biomass, followed by bacteria at about 15 percent. </p><p>Since most plants are terrestrial, the study found that most of earth's biomass is found on land, but most animal biomass is found in the oceans. </p><p>Biomass is different from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/biodiversity" target="_self">biodiversity</a>—insects, for example, contain a wide variety of species but account for a tiny percentage of biomass. </p><p>Researchers calculated biomass in gigatons of carbon and compiled data from a wide variety of studies to reach their conclusions. </p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Monsanto lost its bid to overturn Arkansas' ban on dicamba, a controversial weedkiller linked to extensive damage to famers' crops in the state as well as several other states.
The agribusiness giant makes a version of the herbicide called XtendiMax that's paired with its seeds that are genetically engineered to resist the product. DuPont Co. and BASF SE also sell their own dicamba-based formulations.
<p style="">
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza dismissed Monsanto's lawsuit Friday citing a recent Arkansas Supreme Court ruling which held that the state cannot be made a defendant in court.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="45bee" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9MD24X1576661844"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="964627285562281985" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Official AAD Statement: “Today, Judge Piazza, an AR Circuit Court Judge, dismissed the lawsuit that Monsanto filed… https://t.co/jF94LDkKAe</div> — Arkansas Department of Agriculture (@Arkansas Department of Agriculture)<a href="https://twitter.com/ARDeptofAgricul/statuses/964627285562281985">1518820041.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p style="">
"We are disappointed in the court's decision to dismiss our legal challenge of the plant board's restrictions, and we will consider additional legal steps that might be appropriate," Scott Partridge, the company's vice president of global strategy, told the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/02/16/us/ap-us-herbicide-dispute-arkansas.html" target="_blank">Associated Press</a> in a statement. "We look forward to the day when Arkansas growers can benefit from the latest weed-control technology on the market."
</p><p style="">
The AP further reported:
</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
"Among other arguments, Monsanto claimed that the state did not consider the economic impact of the ban. The company also challenged the makeup of the 18-member board, arguing a state law that gives private groups such as the state Seed Growers Association power to appoint members violates Arkansas' constitution. Piazza said he wouldn't going to rule specifically on the request for a preliminary injunction in case his dismissal ruling is appealed and sent back to his court."
</p><p style="">
Monsanto—which expects farmers to plant <a href="https://www.agriculture.com/crops/soybeans/monsanto-expects-its-dicamba-tolerant-seeds-on-40-of-us-soy-acres" target="_blank">40 million acres</a> of dicamba-tolerant soybeans and 6 million acres of a cotton version across the U.S. this year—sued the Arkansas State Plant Board over its decision to ban the herbicide's sale and use between April 16 and Oct. 31. The regulators made the decision <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/arkansas-dicamba-2488282344.html">after receiving nearly 1,000 complaints</a> last year over dicamba damage.
</p><p style="">
The powerful and drift-prone herbicide has been blamed for damaging more than three millions of acres of non-target crops across the country. Other states such as Tennessee and Missouri—Monsanto's home state—have also imposed temporary bans or restrictions on the use of dicamba to curb further damage.
</p><p style="">
Although dicamba has been around for decades, Monsanto, DuPont Co. and BASF SE sells new formulations of the herbicide that's said to be less drift-prone and volatile than older versions when used correctly.
</p><p style="">
Monsanto has long defended its product, blaming growers for using older versions of dicamba or not following directions on the new product label.
</p><p style="">
The controversy will not die anytime soon. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticide-drift-lawsuit-xtendimax-2534117304.html">On Friday</a>, public interest organizations representing farmers and conservationists made their legal case in a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Monsanto, challenging EPA's approval of Monsanto's XtendiMax pesticide.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="60522" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3WNETF1576661845"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="965422492608180224" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">'Dangerous Drift-Prone Pesticide' Threatens Millions of Acres, Hundreds of Endangered Species: Farmers and Conserva… https://t.co/1FVTSNy2HW</div> — Zen Honeycutt (@Zen Honeycutt)<a href="https://twitter.com/zenhoneycutt/statuses/965422492608180224">1519009633.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Read More
Show Less