A Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper
Even though the Terrace Hill crowd will burst an aneurysm over the idea, it’s officially time Iowa has one of those warnings like on cigarette packages: “Caution: Living in Iowa is Hazardous to Your Health!”
The problem isn’t just that Iowa’s water carries way too many farm field pollutants (we’re all tired of hearing about nitrates), although that’s part of it. It’s not just that Iowa has way too many people dealing with cancer; or just that jobs in agriculture, meat packing, construction and manufacturing can be dangerous; or just the dangers of health care deserts in many areas of Iowa. And it’s not just that climate change is making Iowa’s weather more dangerous. The problem is all of those things and more.
The biggest danger living in Iowa, though, is a power structure that doesn’t give a damn. Don’t forget that Republicans have been in charge for a decade. These problems have all grown much worse on their watch. We can only conclude they want things this way. They’re okay with Iowa’s economy being tied for dead last in the country; with a cancer epidemic; with streams and lakes that aren’t fit to drink or recreate in; with being a state where no one wants to stay — especially our best and brightest! Otherwise, they’d do something besides making excuses, gaslighting and acting like they’re powerless to change things.
As a long-time farmer, it gives me great pains to admit that nothing is going to change until we change the way we farm. (Remember, the Polk County water quality report concluded that 80% of nutrients were from farm fields.) Tragically the problem is beyond the scope of what can be changed just in Iowa. The problem is national, and requires a national solution — and that requires a significantly different farm bill. Now is not the time for a weak-kneed, reheated continuation of the 2018 bill. No, we need a transformative change, one that rewards stewardship and responsibility — not another Farm Bureau freedom-to-farm/production-for-production’s sake extension.
After spending more than three decades as a volunteer, working with organizations and agencies to advance conservation, I can only conclude that the current commodity-centered ag policy is the core of the problem. Existing conservation efforts are historically underfunded by Congress, pillaged by this administration, and treated as an illegitimate stepchild by too many land owners. None of us like change unless it’s our idea. And yes, there’s a whole raft of multi-national forces who will fight tooth and lobbyist to protect the status quo. That’s why we need to be haranguing the six do-nothing Republicans we sent to Congress, so they know we expect them to do some heavy lifting, not just continue to let corporate and commodity lobbyists write the bill.
What would a transformational farm bill look like? I’m not sure, but it would start with not subsidizing all-out production. That means a cap on how much subsidized crop insurance any farmer can get — say limited to 800 to 1,000 acres. And it means rolling back the cap on how much federal payments any farm entity can receive, with meaningful controls of large farms gaming the system on paper to circumvent the limits. And it means some kind of conservation compliance — basically proving your stewardship. And it means re-directing tax dollars from crop insurance subsidies to reward meaningful conservation.
The best conservation efforts are little more than rearranging deck chairs, so long as the primary ag policy focus is on production. Right now, about one of every two bushels of corn (and a growing share of soybeans) are going into our tanks. We’re literally killing ourselves for ethanol and biodiesel. Tapping the brakes on production will mean some of the marginal acres put into production when prices were high can be returned to grasslands, — or other uses less likely to continue polluting our streams.
Farmers are being squeezed by high costs and trade-war sabotaged commodity prices. For farmers like me, the idea of not producing all we can is frightening, unless there’s assurance everyone is cutting back. Low prices are the market’s way of saying there is too much. Reducing commodity production across the board is the quickest way to raise prices, but will take a well-designed program of carrots and sticks.
As farmers, we’ve long been warned that we could wear out our welcome with taxpayers. We need to remember that less than 2% of the U.S. population farms. It behooves us to be more proactive in our stewardship. All the glossy, commodity check-off funded PR commercials are only irritating our dashing urbanite neighbors, unhappy because their water bill is sky-rocketing, and they’re told nobody really knows what caused their cancer.
Those of us who farm must recognize how maddening and powerless it is for our urban neighbors to pay for problems we create. And urban Iowans need to understand that many family farmers feel trapped and victimized by the current system. Everyone should agree that the critical starting point must be safeguarding our democracy. Democracy is about more than who is in office — it’s about each and every one of us having the ability to control our lives.
Rural Iowa — and even many urban centers — are now sacrifice zones where people don’t matter to the outsiders here for greed and profit. Too much of the wealth created by our current farming systems go out of state to large — often foreign —- corporate packers, grain merchants, seed, chemical, fertilizer and machinery manufacturers. So long as they meet their sales targets, they don’t care how toxic Iowa’s water and air are. They don’t live here. If Iowans are sick or hungry, or angry at their neighbors, it’s not their problem. That’s how you get a last place economy.
As farmers, our voices advocating for a change to a transformative new farm bill should have a strong impact. But since all Iowans are affected, everyone’s voices are urgently needed. The chance of our requests falling on deaf ears is high, so our resolve needs to be strong. We all have a stake in getting real change made. Please join us in calling for it now.
John Gilbert, Iowa Falls farmer
I got to meet and talk with Betty Kiboko earlier this year when my wife and I played music for an immigration reform meeting at UMC this spring. Bright, informed and more than willing to openly discuss her experiences coming to America, especially the middle of the heartland, and some of the biases that she and her husband encountered, Betty led a discussion panel that gave a rational, common sense approach to the fears and hopes that many immigrants encounter. I was more than glad to take part in the session.
Law-abiding immigrants don’t want criminals in their lives, per the testimonies of many immigrants at this session (something I’ve always known, but it was great to hear again). Law-abiding immigrants want to do this in society legally and “by the book.” Generational Americans who have had families in the U.S. may or may not get this. Immigrants that I have interviewed for newspaper articles in the past know the hard, costly and sometimes frightening road to legal status. How did we get to this point as Americans where we have a polarizing immigration problem? Blame it on the past up to today, where the dawn of industrialization needed cheap labor and we got it any way that we could, humanly or inhumanly possible. Where laws were changed through the decades to accommodate or hinder certain immigrants from obtaining work status, never or barely achieving equal rights, and working to death before labor laws came into play and made protection for workers somewhat sensible. Again, and this is straight from local, long time business owners and common folks from our workforce who are immigrants, they wish to do things the right way. Let’s get out of the way and help anyway that we can. Legally, it can be a process, if not a roadblock these days. From a humanitarian aspect, that’s something, as Rev. Mel Hauser likes to say, that we can all get behind.
In a former life, I nebulously wrote in my op-ed newspaper column that I figured we could eradicate racism in a couple generations, given how things might progress. I was wrong. We never will — bias is a trait inherent in every race, class, gender and strada. We all got to work at it. The question is if we can stop acting like third graders on the playground arguing over who won the game during recess and just do it. Believe me, given my job roles over the past 50 years, it’s a hard mission to undertake.
The late John Lewis said that our differences in race, gender and class are maybe more an expression of the broad creativity of our Creator than they are an indicator of our value and worth in society. This is not an indoctrination of any political party, just a simple humanist fact.
Common sense in these matters? Yes. Empathy? Not an outdated concept.
Mick Polich, Storm Lake
Wanted: A candidate for governor with a solid plan for reforming agriculture in Iowa and the guts to say it out loud.
This candidate will say that it is possible to feed our people and make a living without destroying our state. This candidate for governor believes in small, diverse farms and the dignity that comes with hard work and just compensation for that work.
This candidate will advance policies that support agricultural practices that result in regeneration of the soil, access to clean water and economic opportunity for those willing to do the work. The science exists for us to do this, but the GMO corn and chemical companies lobby extensively against it.
We cannot reform agriculture in Iowa without leadership that is willing to stand up to these industrial giants. And we cannot do it without dignifying hard work with just compensation for that work. Do we have someone with the integrity and strength of spirit to lead agricultural and economic reform in Iowa?
And, Iowans, if this person takes the courage to step up, do you care enough about your children and grandchildren to vote for change and do the work these changes require?
Jan McGinnis, Marshalltown
It’s time to update pastor Martin Niemoller’s post WWII confessional on the rise of fascism. “First, they came for the immigrants. And I did not speak out. Because I was not an immigrant. Then, they came for the transgender. And I did not speak out. Because I was not transgender. Then, they came for the comedians.” Then everyone stopped laughing.
Jim Walters, Iowa City
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here