
		" I heard it through the AgLine"

October 26, 2011

· Crowded Earth: How many is too many?

· E-Verify hiring system is a total loser

· Bill offered to prevent EPA dust regs

· Local, organic foods not always safer

· Texas teen a champ at tractor restoration

Crowded Earth: How many is too many?

(AFP via Yahoo! News) – Already straining to host seven billion souls, Earth is set to teem with billions more, and only a revolution in the use of resources can avert an environmental crunch, experts say.

As early as 1798, Thomas Malthus gloomily forecast that our ability to reproduce would quickly outstrip our ability to produce food, leading to mass starvation and a culling of the species.

But an industrial revolution and its impact on agriculture proved Malthus and later doomsayers wrong, even as our numbers doubled and redoubled with accelerating frequency.

"Despite alarmist predictions, historical increases in population have not been economically catastrophic," notes David Bloom, a professor in the Department of Global Health and Population at Harvard.

Today, though, it seems reasonable to ask if Malthus wasn't simply a couple of centuries ahead of the curve.

On October 31, the world's population is officially scheduled to hit seven billion -- a rise of two billion in less than a quarter century.

Over six decades, the global fertility rate has roughly halved, and amounts to a statistical 2.5 children per woman today.

But this varies greatly from country to country. And whether the planet's population eventually stabilises at nine, 10 or 15 billion depends on what happens in developing countries, mostly in Africa, with the fastest growth.

As our species has expanded, so has its devouring of the planet's bounty, from fresh water and soil richness to forests and fisheries.

At its current pace, humankind will need, by 2030, a second planet to satisfy its appetites and absorb its waste, the Global Footprint Network (GFN) calculated last month.

And through the coal, oil and gas that drive prosperity, we are also emitting greenhouse gases that alter the climate, potentially maiming the ecosystems which feed us.

"From soaring food prices to the crippling effects of climate change, our economies are now confronting the reality of years of spending beyond our means," GFN's president, Mathis Wackernagel, said.

French diplomat Brice Lalonde, one of two coordinators for next June's UN Conference on Sustainable Development, dubbed "Rio+20," said Earth's population rise poses a fundamental challenge to how we use resources.

"In 2030 there will be at least another billion people on the planet," Lalonde said.

"The question is, how do we boost food security and provide essential services to the billion poorest people but without using more water, land or energy?"

This is why, he said, Rio+20 will focus on practical things such as increasing cleaner sources in the world energy mix, smarter use of fresh water, building cities that are environmentally friendlier and raising farm yields without dousing the soil with chemicals.

But such options dwell far more on the impact of population growth than on the problem itself.

Braking fertility rates would help the human tally stabilise at eight billion and haul poor countries out of poverty, ease the strain on natural resources and reduce climate vulnerability, say advocates.

For some experts, voluntary birth control is the key.

Geoff Dabelko, director of the Environmental Change and Security Programme at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, cites Somalia as a case study of what happens when women have no access to contraception.

Racked by civil war and poverty, its population is projected to grow from about 10 million today to 22.6 million by 2050. It has the eighth-highest birth rate in the world and an average of seven children per family.

Even before the country fell into a full-fledged crisis, a third of its children were severely underweight, according to UNICEF. Ninety-nine percent of married Somali women have no access to family planning.

Many economists, though, argue that the answer lies more in reducing poverty and boosting education, especially of women.

A 2010 study in Colombia found family planning explained less than 10 percent of the country's fertility fall. The real driver was improved standards of living.

Even so, at summits that seek to shape Earth's future, tackling population growth head-on is almost taboo.

"When I attended the UN environment conference in Stockholm (in 1972), the No. 1 item on the agenda was out-of-control population growth," recalled Paul Watson, head of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a radical green group.

"When I attended the 1992 conference (in Rio), it wasn't even on the agenda. No one talked about it any more."

Demography was similarly absent from the UN's 2002 Johannesburg Summit, when Earth's population had climbed to six billion.

Why does "how many is too much" remain absent from the top tables?

One perceived reason is the opposition by religious conservatives to contraception or abortion. Politicians, too, may see no mileage in addressing an issue that will only cause them headaches and yield benefits several decades away.

But for some critics, population measures are synonymous with the mistakes of coercive sterilisation in India in the 1970s or China's "one child" policy, which has led to a gender imbalance in favour of boys.

E-Verify hiring system is a total loser

(BusinessWeek.com) – Two years ago the Asheville (N.C.) rumor mill lit up with speculation that local flower wholesaler Van Wingerden International was hiring undocumented workers. To ensure that he take on only legal employees, co-owner Bert Lemkes enrolled the $20 million business in E-Verify, a federal program that matches data on new hires, such as Social Security numbers, with government records.

Lemkes says E-Verify has made it harder to find enough workers for his 37 acres of greenhouses, especially during spring growing season, when he employs up to 350 people. Though the U.S. unemployment rate is stalled above 9 percent, business owners such as Lemkes say few native-born workers are willing to do tough jobs, leading employers to hire immigrants. “Those who want to work fail to pass E-Verify, and those that pass fail to work,” he says.

E-Verify can be used only to check immigration status after a worker is hired, not to screen job candidates or check on existing employees. Lemkes says he has had to fire more than 60 recent hires. Although E-Verify’s proponents argue the unemployed will replace the undocumented, Lemkes says that hasn’t happened. “Without comprehensive immigration reform, [verification requirements are] going to kill agriculture,” he says.

At its launch in 1997, E-Verify was voluntary, and today about 300,000 employers—less than 5 percent of U.S. companies—use it. As states strengthen sanctions against illegal immigrants, 18 have passed laws making the program mandatory for certain employers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In five states—Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee—all employers are required to use it or will be by 2013; in three others, all but the smallest companies will have to use it by then. On Sept. 21 a congressional committee passed a measure by Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) that would require use of E-Verify by all U.S. businesses, including those with just one employee.

Some farmers, contractors, and restaurant owners who rely on foreign-born labor argue that a patchwork of regulations will prompt undocumented laborers to cross state lines or work for employers who pay them off the books. Small companies will be particularly burdened by E-Verify because they lack dedicated human resources staff to manage the system, says Rebecca Smith, an attorney at the National Employment Law Project. While businesses with fewer than 500 workers employ about half the U.S. labor force, if the program were mandatory those companies would bear 99 percent of the $2.7 billion in costs for E-Verify (mostly paying their own staffers or consultants to do the searches), Bloomberg Government estimates.

Opponents worry that more full-timers will be registered as contract workers by companies seeking to avoid E-Verify, cutting payroll tax revenues. “You bring on E-Verify, that simply pushes more illegal immigrants over to employers who are willing to misclassify them as independent contractors,” says Norm Adams, a Houston insurance broker who helped defeat legislation that would have mandated use of E-Verify in Texas. “The more E-Verify laws we have in this country, the more payroll taxes we’re going to lose.” A 2008 Congressional Budget Office report estimates that requiring E-Verify nationally would cut federal tax revenue by more than $17 billion.

In Arizona, where E-Verify became mandatory in 2008, the program has caused worker shortages across industries from construction to food service, says Julie Pace, an employment lawyer in Phoenix. “They can’t find the workers,” Pace says. “It’s a big cost that is not captured in the use of E-Verify.” Still, she supports making the program mandatory nationwide so all employers share an equal burden, which could prompt Congress to create a “logical and reasonable guest worker program to really meet the labor needs of this country.”

The bottom line: Small businesses may bear 99 percent of the cost of using E-Verify, a program that checks whether new hires may work in the U.S.

Bill offered to prevent EPA dust regs

(AFBF) WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Farm Bureau Federation is urging members of the House to support a bill that would exclude from federal regulation dust that occurs naturally in the course of normal farming activities.

Arizona Farm Bureau Federation President Kevin Rogers testified on behalf of AFBF to a subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce regarding H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. Rogers called for passage of the bill, noting, “It makes common sense amendments to the Clean Air Act, to prevent federal regulation of natural occurrences and naturally occurring dust from normal farming operations, unless there is a substantial evidence of adverse health impacts.”

Rogers pointed out that unlike other types of particulate matter that are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, dust is naturally occurring in rural areas.

“Further, unlike other types of particulate matter where the links to health effects are well-established, there is considerable uncertainty about whether or not dust from rural activities adversely affects human health,” Rogers said. “The bill would not prevent regulation of dust in rural areas if the scientific data on adverse impacts to human health becomes more evident,” he added.

Planting and harvesting crops, livestock moving from place to place and people driving down dirt roads are just a few of the ways dust occurs naturally in rural areas. Regulation of naturally occurring dust is a concern for America’s farmers and ranchers because it could restrict normal farming activities like these, making it more costly to produce food.

Local, organic foods not always safer

WASHINGTON (AP) — Shoppers nervous about foodborne illnesses may turn to foods produced at smaller farms or labeled "local," ''organic" or "natural" in the hopes that such products are safer. But a small outbreak of salmonella in organic eggs from Minnesota shows that no food is immune to contamination.

While sales for food produced on smaller operations have exploded, partially fueled by a consumer backlash to food produced by larger companies, a new set of food safety challenges has emerged. And small farm operations have been exempted from food safety laws as conservatives, farmers and food-lovers have worried about too much government intervention and regulators have struggled with tight budgets.

The government has traditionally focused on safety at large food operations — including farms, processing plants, and retailers — because they reach the most people. Recent outbreaks in cantaloupe, ground turkey, eggs and peanuts have started at large farms or plants and sickened thousands of people across the country.

"While it's critical that food processors be regularly inspected, there is no way the Food and Drug Administration would ever have the resources to check every farm in the country, nor are we calling for that," says Erik Olson, a food safety advocate at the Pew Health Group. "Unfortunately, there are regulatory gaps, with some producers being completely exempt from FDA safeguards."

The FDA, which oversees the safety of most of the U.S. food supply, often must focus on companies that have the greatest reach. A sweeping new egg rule enacted last year would require most egg producers to do more testing for pathogens. Though the rule will eventually cover more than 99 percent of the country's egg supply, small farms like Larry Schultz Organic Farm of Owatonna, Minn., would not qualify. That farm issued a recall last week after six cases of salmonella poisoning were linked to the farm's eggs.

A new food safety law President Barack Obama signed earlier this year exempts some small farms as a result of farmers and local food advocates complaining that creating costly food safety plans could cause some small businesses to go bankrupt. The exemption covers farms of a certain size that sell within a limited distance of their operation.

Food safety advocates unsuccessfully lobbied against the provision, as did the organic industry. Christine Bushway of the Organic Trade Association, which represents large and small producers, says food safety comes down to proper operation of a farm or food company, not its scale.

"How is the farm managed? How much effort is put into food safety?" she asks. "If you don't have really good management, it doesn't matter."

Smaller farms do have some obvious food safety advantages. Owners have more control over what they are producing and often do not ship as far, lessening the chances for contamination in transport. If the farm is organic, an inspector will have to visit the property to certify it is organic and may report to authorities if they see food being produced in an unsafe way. Customers may also be familiar with an operation if it is nearby.

But those checks aren't fail-safe. The FDA has reported at least 20 recalls due to pathogens in organic food in the last two years, while the Agriculture Department, which oversees meat safety, issued a recall of more than 34,000 pounds of organic beef last December due to possible contamination with E. coli.

Egg safety is equally ambiguous. While many people like to buy cage-free eggs, those chickens may be exposed to bacteria on the grounds where they are roaming.

So what can a consumer do? Experts say to follow the traditional rules, no matter what the variety of food. Cook foods like eggs and meat, and make sure you are scrubbing fruit and cleaning your kitchen well.

Do your part, and hope for the best, the experts say.

"Labels like organic or local don't translate into necessarily safer products," says Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "They are capturing different values but not ensuring safety."

Bushway of the Organic Trade Association says one of the best checks on food safety is the devastating effect a recall or foodborne illness outbreak can have on a company's bottom line.

"It's just good business to make sure you are putting the safest products on the market," she says.

Texas teen a champ at tractor restoration

(The New York Times) – Ryan Haass of Devine, Tex., was named on Thursday night the 2011 Delo Tractor Restoration Competition Grand Champion. Held this year in Indianapolis, the event, founded in 1995, has indeed been called the “World Series of teen tractor restoration.”

The competition is sponsored by Delo, Chevron’s commercial and industrial motor-oils brand. Delo products are marketed toward multiple industrial markets, including agriculture.

Channing Reeder, a Chevron spokesman, said in a telephone interview that several former contestants went on to apply skills obtained through their restoration projects in their careers, with a few having become professional antique tractor restorers.

Mr. Haass, 18, intends to pursue a career in mechanical engineering, Mr. Reeder said.

“It’s priceless. You’re giving these kids an opportunity to grow, both from the mechanical aspect and more so, maybe just personally,” Mr. Reeder said.

Mr. Haass, representing the Devine Future Farmers of America, was the third Haass to compete in the contest, with his brother Randolph and sister Amie having each earned the title of Reserve Champion in past years. Mr. Haas already has seven tractor restorations under his cowboy belt and is a fixture of restoration competitions in his home state. This year, he chose his grandfather’s 1969 Case 530, which his grandfather bought new.

After years of farm duty, the tractor was in serviceable, but extremely rough condition, said Mr. Haass in a telephone interview.

“The overall look wasn’t terrible, but the internals of the tractor were just completely worn out,” he said.

Unlike some collectors in the car world, whose hands may only be sullied by ink from signing checks, the teenagers in the Indianapolis competition complete nearly all the necessary work themselves, in keeping with the judges’ expectations.

Dennis Rupert, a judge at the competition, grew up restoring and showing antique tractors with his father and uncle, who themselves took up the hobby in the ’50s. In a telephone interview, Mr. Rupert said that because shipping every tractor to Indianapolis would be logistically difficult and cost prohibitive, judges expect contestants to provide extensive documentation for every step of the restoration process.

Photos, videos and expense reports comprise much of the information, but it ultimately falls to the contestants to decide how to best present their work. Judges are known to submit the teenagers to polite yet intense questioning on the finer points of an engine rebuild or carburetor adjustment.

“We’re looking to ensure that the kids did the work and that they understand what they did,” Mr. Rupert said. “In other words, that they gained a heap of knowledge from doing this project.”

After his win, Mr. Haass’s excitement was evident, even over the phone. When asked how it felt to be the first member of his family to take home the Delo Tractor Restoration Competition Grand Champion trophy, he laughed and said, “I’m still kind of shaking a little bit.”

End Transmission