' /> Economic Sense | Dairy Today

Jul 25, 2014
Home| Tools| Events| Blogs| Discussions| Sign UpLogin

July 2008 Archive for Economic Sense

RSS By: Matt Bogard, AgWeb.com

Matt's primary interest is in the biotech industry and ag policy.


Jul 16, 2008

I recently came across ‘Unnatural Causes’ a 7 part documentary about racial and economic inequalities in public health. I have not watched it, but I did download the policy guide :


The main theme seems to be (that) ‘Building a social movement that can advocate effectively for more equitable social policies is critical to changing our economic, physical, and social environments so they can promote rather than threaten our health.’


On the surface, this does not seem so bad, but many of the policies they recommend in doing this show a lack of understanding of economic science and modern agriculture. Since economics is the study of our choices and how they are made compatible in a world of scarce resources, their neglect of economics leads them to adopt many policy recommendations that are incompatible with their stated goals.


Policy recommendation #9 : Improve Food Security and Quality, recommends among other things that we support ‘sustainable agriculture and local food production, especially organics.’


Now I don’t have a specific problem with organic food as long as it is not promoted at the expense of modern science and agriculture. Agriculture is a competitive industry and I believe that there is a niche for everyone including local/organic producers, but their explicit mention of organic and their failure to mention biotech options implies the exclusion of biotech.


This is not consistent with their goal of sustainability, considering the environmental, safety, and health benefits of biotech foods that organics could never provide such as the elimination or decreased use of toxic chemicals ( organics use harmful ‘natural’ chemicals like  copper sulfate and mercuric), decreased tillage ( which organics depend upon heavily) and improved biodiversity ( tillage and use of broadcast Bt in organic production is detrimental to non-target pests and ecosystems).


One example is Bt corn ( a biotech crop). Not only does it eliminate the use of millions of pounds of insecticide and save millions of gallons of fuel and water per year, but it also is safer for food consumption.  The use of Bt corn decreases fumonisin ( a fungal parasite) infestation by 80% compared to conventional and organic corn. Fumonisin is responsible for esphogeal cancer and neural disorders in infants.


Another example is Roundup Ready technology. Roundup Ready technology has allowed for glyphosate herbicide to substitute for 7.2 million pounds of other chemicals that are more toxic and persistent in the environment.


They also talk about reforming the ‘subsidy program’ that regards the producers of processed foods. They must be talking about nonrecourse loans. If they assume that these ‘subsidies’ lead to an increase in supply and result in cheap input prices for large processors, then they should wake up to see current commodity prices. 


Given that they also mention multiple times throughout the policy guide that they support increased taxes, I assume they would support doing away with non-recourse loan programs and instead increase the income and inheritance taxes on grain farmers. In place I’m sure they would like to implement actual subsidies for local and organic growers.


Let’s just hope this propaganda does not make it on the local news or into school curriculums.




Abelson, P.H. (1990) ‘‘Hybrid Corn.’’ Science 249 (August 24): 837.


Enterprise and Biodiversity: Do Market Forces Yield Diversity of Life?

David Schap and Andrew T. Young Cato Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 1999)



Michelle Marvier, Chanel McCreedy, James Regetz, Peter Kareiva

Science 8 June 2007:



‘‘Diversity of United States Hybrid Maize Germplasm as Revealed by









Agricultural Outlook ERS/USDA Aug 2006.


Jul 02, 2008
Usually I don't write posts this long, but in light of the coming Independence Day holiday, and the  recent supreme court decision, both the length and the subject matter of this post are an exception.
The second amendment reads as follows:
This language is very confusing to many, and for those that take it out of the context of history, and our founders writings about its purpose, many are led to believe that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to the militia, which in modern terms may be our military or national guard.
Note however, from the start, it does not state that ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE IN THE MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’
If we understand the plain language of the 2nd amendment, and especially if we look at it in the historical context in which it was written, we will see that the 2nd amendment is a compromise to forming a militia at all, due to the fears that the anti- federalists and the people at that time had of standing armies under the control of a centralized government.
We would see that well armed citizens are in fact a pre-requisite for the existence of the militia, as opposed to the view that the pre-requisite for citizens to be armed is that they be in the militia.
Federalist #29 and #46 give us context for this understanding. Federlist # 29 states:
This statement clearly distinguishes the militia or the army from the citizen, and implies that the citizens may be armed, and in fact it is absolutely necessary that they be armed to defend their rights if need be. It did not imply that the militia would defend our rights, but that ‘a large body of armed citizens would defend themselves from an army of any magnitude', and this would include the possibility that they may need to defend themselves from even the militia. While the militia may be composed of armed citizens, it was assumed that other armed citizens, not in the militia ,would hold it in check. This could not be so if there was no individual right to keep and bear arms.
In Federalst #29, we see that there is a notion that our national military be composed of armed citizens, called to duty when the need arises. Some feared that perhaps this loose collection of soldiers may not be strong enough to keep us safe, but also feared a large strong standing army. A compromise was introduced, such that a small select group of citizens should form a select militia, to train regularly, and in time of need be supplemented by drawing on the ranks of other armed citizens. As stated:
The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent…it will be possible to have an excellent body of well trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defence of the state shall require it.’
Would this small select militia be a threat to the liberties of the people? What about our national defense? Only if individual citizens had the right to keep and bear arms to supplement the small select militia and also to keep it in check would this work. In fact our founders were certain of the strength and power of armed citizens, drawing recently from the experience of a victorious war against England’s powerful military. Again going back to Federalist #46 it is stated:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans posses over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition……the military establishments in several kingdoms in Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.’
Again, a reason and reaffirmation that it was intended that the second amendment protect the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.
There is a distinction made between this select militia and citizens, a point made in the recent case DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER (2008):

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause ( the well regulated militia part)  announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part  , the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms." 

I will end my discussion with other quotes made by our founders and others discussing the constitution and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)
In the context of our history and our founder’s writings, we see that the clause regarding the militia fails to limit in any way the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. In this context the following statement is certainly equivalent to the one in question, being the 2nd amendment:
‘Because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, and because it both draws from the ranks of ,and its power is held in check by, armed citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’
Log In or Sign Up to comment



The Home Page of Agriculture