May 24, 2011:
The Elephant on Open Space Land
Ewell Culbertson of Pachamama Farm ( see “Cast of Characters” below) has been piping up in recent meetings, and with a very specific message: Let’s start talking about the elephant in the room. For the better part of the first few months of meetings, the CPAG panel has been studying up on all things ag and as far as Ewell and others are concerned, all of this talk of soil and water and erosion is great, but it’s distracting from the real issue: GM (genetically modified) seed.
In some ways, I agree. The education piece is important, but it will behoove this group to keep the most difficult aspects of the discussion at the forefront of the conversation so the meat of the issue can be considered while people are learning about the science that shapes other parts of the policy. That being said, there are still months of conversation to come and I don’t think it’s terribly distracting to have a fully educated panel. Ewell may wish that they could zero on just this one hot topic, but the reality is that his hot topic is connected to all of these other aspects of the policy. Farmers who want to keep farming using genetically modified seed are going to say that they should be able to do so because it allows them to prevent soil erosion and remain economically sustainable. In order for the commissioners to make their decision about that defense, what do they need to know about? Soil erosion and agricultural economics.
Sitting through these meetings I’ve been itching to throw my journalistic impartiality to the wind and tell people what I really think about it all. Just ask my friends and family, opinions are what I do best… So I’m going to take moment here to out an elephant of my own. Something I’ve learned through this process is that the county is already doing a lot with farmers to mitigate erosion and improve soil health. But none of that will matter if we use chemicals and genetically modified seeds that could one day render that land toxic and useless. In acting like there is no alternative, and pretending these farmers are doing the best they can as stewards, we are wasting our time, money, and precious natural resources.
The reason I have been following this process is to give community members (including myself) some insight into what we are doing with the conserved agricultural land that we are paying for. Yes, it’s true that there are some huge farms on this land, which are tended by farmers who want to use GM crops, and feel it is the best way to farm that land. And yes, we need that land to be farmed. But are we certain that if these farmers won’t farm the way Boulder County residents want them to, that there will be no one else who will take on the challenge of farming in a responsible way that aligns with our community’s priorities?
It seems cruel at first to ask these farmers to change their livelihoods based on differing philosophies. But philosophies have been challenged before and that is what keeps a society progressing. Change is not easy and it often results in those who don’t want to conform having to make difficult choices. But it simply isn’t always about the money. Pardon me if that sounds idealistic, but it’s true. I make choices not based on money all of the time. When given the choice between local eggs, without hormones and antibiotics that I buy at the farmer’s market, which cost me $5, and the $2 eggs at the supermarket, I choose the ones that align with my values and priorities. One of the panelists, Emily Priscoe from Aurora Organics began saying something similar this week. She said, in so many words, that she had the luxury of making her own personal shopping choices, but then she implied that we shouldn’t impose such choices on our farmers, as if that would be unfair and that it’s different. But in this situation I beg to differ. If we were talking about privately owned land, then perhaps I would have to reconsider, but we aren’t. We are talking about publicly owned, conservation land. Technically, it is her land, and my land. So why shouldn’t my philosophy and my priorities be reflected in how that land is used?
Some might say for practical reasons, like economics. We have to be sensitive to these people. They have families. This is their livelihood. They are our neighbors. We don’t want them to go broke. And then there is the idea that there is no way to farm commodity crops in a sustainable way without GM seed. To put it bluntly, this has been proven to be incorrect countless times across the country. It just takes work, flexibility and innovation.
As for the economics, I don’t want to put anyone out of their life’s work either, but for one there is a rumbling that commodity payments are about to shift at the federal level. So the way these farmers are making a living may be about to change dramatically anyhow. This could be an opportunity to get ahead of the curve. I don’t recommend this lightly. I realize it isn’t an easy choice. But if the county set it up so that farmers could be supported through the process of switching over their crops to non-GMO and they could still make a decent living doing so, I see no unfairness in it.
There are plenty of examples in our history when farmers were told that they could no longer use certain chemicals no matter how much stronger it made their crops (DDT, for example). And outside the realm of agriculture Americans have often opted for regulating industries for the health and wellbeing of the environment, ecosystems, and human populations. This is nothing extreme or out of the ordinary.
Throughout these meetings there has been, and will continue to be, talk about how complex this issue is, but in the end it is simply about priorities and doing everything we can to make sure those priorities are supported. What I do recognize is that no one is a monster here and there is no easy answer, obviously, but innovation isn’t always easy. Yes, we are asking a lot of these farmers, we are asking a lot of our officials, we are asking a lot of our county budget, and we are asking a lot of our Open Space staff. But to their credit, I think they’re up to the task, should they choose to accept it.
One last thing before I go. I wanted to give a quick rundown of who is on the panel and what they are bringing to the table through the process.
Cast of Characters (Cropland Policy Advisory Group)
- Richard Andrews – Runs Andrews Family Organic Farm, a CSA vegetable farm
- Keith Bateman – Conventional farmer using BCPOS land to grow various commodity crops.
- Ewell Culbertson – Runs Pachamama Organic Farm, a market vegetable farm in Boulder County
- Jeannette Hillery – has served on the City of Boulder’s Water Resources Advisory Board and the Boulder County Public Health Board
- Dan Lisco – Rancher and farmer on BCPOS land
- Emily Prisco – From Aurora Organic Dairy
- Dea Sloan – Boulder County resident who has worked as a consultant connecting agricultural producers with companies interested in agricultural produce.
- Jane Uitti – Works for the county commissioner’s office in policy making on various committees. Was the staff representative for the Commissioners for the 2002 decision to permit GMO Corn on BCPOS land.
- Jules Van Thuyne, Jr. – Farms on BCPOS land and has been the president of the Colorado Farm Bureau. Also one of the six farmers who requested to grow GM beets in 2009 and member of the committee that recommended to permit GMO Corn on Boulder County Open Space in 2002.
This is a very thought provoking article. One that it would definitely be great if everyone who planted a seed could adhere to the thoughts expressed here. With no herbicides, no pesticides (poisons) on mother earth.
I also attended the latest BCPOS meeting. The county commissioners have taken on a herculean and critically necessary task of establishing agriculture policies for open space use. A large percentage of the issues identified here would be resolved very quickly if the off the cuff comment made by one of the panelists was addressed. He asked: “What was the intent of the voters who agreed to the sales tax to purchase open space?” Since the nominal fee for small agriculture was not removed in the last election, clearly the voters have opinions. A social media survey of Boulder County voters would provide a quick and dirty answer to the question, as well as insight into the voters’ thoughts on open space agriculture use.
The very issue with this process is that the wishes of the public are not be considered.