I want to start my comments with something one of our young Future

Farmer leaders from my district said to me when they visited the

Capitol. He said, There is good and bad in everything.
Many of the changes in Agriculture over the last few years have been
praised as advances and improvements but when we look at the big
picture we see the shadow of those changes. Industrial agriculture has
pushed many small and medium sized farmers out of farming, last year
400 small farms were lost, our streams, lakes and water ways are filling
up with poisons and sediment, people are leaving the land and farming is
becoming more and more dangerous. We hear more and more about
letting our policy be guided by science but science is multifaceted and
dependent on asking the right questions with the right perspective.
I am willing to accept that my ideas can have a downside to the things I
support and I think the best side of the democratic process helps us with
this concern. We must work together to get it right. But although there
have been overtures and theres been talk about reaching out to our side
and an effort to try to show that we want it all I have not seen much
actual inclusion and Im going to talk about my concerns some of which
Ive mentioned and about what was left out of this bill and why I think
that might have been the case. I dont want to fault chair Hamilton as
for the most part he has been encouraging all sides to put their bills
forward. However, as I have experienced in the past many of my ideas
for advancing what I would call the big picture in agriculture dont get a
hearing. I have introduced bills that would eliminate certain chemicals
that are harmful to pollinators we know without pollinators there are
many plants we depend on that cant produce the food we rely on.
Caring for pollinators provides a context for the big picture
recognizing the need for diversity and the role nature plays in making
the systems of nature work.
I have introduced bills to educate young and beginning farmers in new
ways and provide them with financial assistance, also bills to give

training to college students interested in learning about organic and

sustainable farming. It seems to me that for some reason bills promoting
organic and sustainable practices are a threat to conventional Ag and it
would seem my proposals are undermined or pushed aside.
I have introduced bills promoting organics and organic production, to
meet the growing demand for organic products. We are now, having to
import organic corn from places like Romania to meet the demand for
organic chickens.
The last few sessions I have introduced bills that would establish a food
council for talking about Health, Food production and the environment
all at once so we could look at the big picture. The commissioner of
Public Health released a study explaining that our health and the cost of
health care are related to the environment we live in and the hazards
around us. From cancer to obesity and diabetes to asthma and autism we
are making ourselves sick. But it seems that is a discussion that we dont
really want to have.
I do want to acknowledge that there are a few things in this bill, which
do show Chair Hamiltons willingness to hear and include some of our
ideas, although without funding them. You will find mention of
Forever Green an initiative I introduced several years ago that funds U
of MN research on perennials and cover crops that can be money-makers
for farmers at the same time protecting the soil and water. We heard
excellent testimony from brilliant young researchers who described their
work to use plants instead of chemicals to protect the soil and increase
yields. There is a bio-fuels bill, which looks to encourage cellulosic
ethanol production from non-corn organic material in addition to corn
stover.
Before the start of the 2015 session I attended an Outstate legislators
forum in Mankato. The Land, magazine covered the forum but made no
mention of my being there. Other legislators talked about the need for
focus on greater Minnesota and attracting farming ventures to Minnesota

the conversation moved quickly to the MPCA and citizen board decision
and the 9,000-cow dairy. Several complained about the long process of
approving startups including a mining operation in Northern MN. But
Rep. Clark Johnson said, we need to get it right even if it takes awhile
and commented how important it was to protect our water we cant rush
through the questions about practices that cast a dark shadow on our
environment. Sen. Rosen was insistent that the loss of the huge dairy
would cost thousands of jobs and in earlier press statements had alleged
that the farmers who requested the EIS on the proposed big dairy and
manage a 300 cow diversified dairy could not be called real Ag.
I wrote a letter indicating my surprise at this allegation and stood up on
behalf of small and middle-sized family farms. My letter resulted in a
good number of those farmers calling my office thanking me and
wanting to tell their stories. One farmer talked about how difficult it was
to compete with the huge farms but sad to see what they did to the
landscape. He wanted me to know how what was efficient for the
corporations was not necessarily efficient for the farmer. Another
wanted to talk about buffers and how to make them work and the
problems tiling caused because the landscape wasnt suited for corn and
soy. He said farmers needed to know how to work with their land and
each landscape was different. Another said he wished wed never gotten
started with all these chemicals, theres really no need for it. I can get
just as good a yield with my organic corn as any of them and their
killing their soil. I remembered a farmer showing me the difference
between chemically treated soil and organic soil. The nitrated soil blew
away like dust, the organic soil was loose but moist and clumped with
organic material. These farmers dont like the Farm bill because it
incentivizes conventional corn, soy and cotton, and offers no protection
to farmers who farm organically or intersperse their crops with cover
crops. Another farmer in his 80s said he made a good living on a small
diversified farm with 40 hogs. Put his kids through college. A small
livestock producer can make it because they dont have all the debt and

can take care of the land more responsibly. These giant farms lock you
into debt and allow others to take your freedom away from you. It was a
mistake for the government to encourage them and to let corporations
own farms and own seeds. Another farmer said the reason North
American farmers avoided troubles of political turmoil of South
America is because we have had smaller farmer owned operations as
opposed to big plantations, which were another ages factory farm.
My first teaching job was in western Minnesota in farm country and
farmers were eager to show off their land and were proud of the work
they did and quick to learn from each other. Not all were happy with the
ways they were being encouraged to change their farms many liked a
mix of things but were willing to try different things. Sugar beets were
becoming popular and a new farmer-owned processing plant had come
in. But other farmers were not so quick to change.
Years later I found myself walking on the organic dairy owned by Dave
Minar. Dave explained how the birds, the bugs, the manure, the soil and
the grasses and the cows all interacted and worked together improving
the pasture. Dave said, he used to be a conventional farmer using
chemicals on his farm but the chemicals made him sick so he quit and
has learned a lot about how nature and its delicate balances can take care
of so many problems. Most of us have no knowledge of how the delicate
balance of micro-organisms works all around us. Without them we
couldnt digest our food, babies are born with healthy microbes that their
mothers shared with them. Scientists who study these things speculate
that although we may have ten trillion cells we are home to one hundred
trillion microbes. We have 20,000 genes and 2 to 20 million microbial
genes. Most helpful some potentially could turn on us.
This is what makes chemicals, antibiotics and pesticides so dangerous
we dont know what they are destroying; we dont know the long term
effects. Not only does the big machinery combined with chemicals
allow one farmer to farm more acres but it kills microbes and bugs in the

soil they are clearing the Landscape, and as these farm practices and
farm work are changed by industrial agriculture but also how farm life
and the enjoyment of farm life has changed. Fewer and fewer people
means, shrinking towns and closing schools and the loss of a creative
society that supported that way of life. Farming is no longer safe for
young people. We need sustainable farms and sustainable farming farming that does not spoil the water or deplete the soil or deplete human
beings.
Several bills before the Minnesota House this year have a certain bent to
them, which to an onlooker may well have the result of further clearing
the landscape of family farmers. Efforts to protect industrial agriculture
from having to adjust to the needs of their neighbors; removing of
protections for pollinators because they implicated chemical companies;
Civilization started with agriculture but as we look at many of the first
civilizations they were ravaged not by invading forces but by over use
and misuse of the soil, a lack of understanding of how to repair and
regenerate the soil. Soil scientists warn us that we have about 60 years
left of good top soil if we dont do something about soil loss through
erosion.
Starting in the 70s farmers have been encouraged to grow as much as
they could - ignore surpluses and focus on selling in the world market.
Then they were encouraged to specialize and get bigger. They were
encouraged more and more to give control of their farms to the chemical
and equipment dealers signing up with big distributers and committing
themselves to overwhelming debt, which in a time of falling prices and
an economic downturn becomes unsustainable.
Reducing chemical use across the board means reducing the impact of
big money on agriculture much of Federal Ag policy is heavily
influenced by corporate interests and not in the interests of farmers.
Prior to World War 2 there were few farmers that farmed with chemicals
and they could be successful. However after World War 2 and the

banning of chemical weapons, chemical companies needed to find new

uses for their chemicals. They looked to agriculture as a new market for
their products. It wasnt until Rachel Carson described what was
happening to birds that things began to change. Every step of the way
the rich chemical companies fight at every turn to undo or weaken
government controls claiming that these are industry-tested chemicals
that do not harm people. Government agencies and government policies
that should protect us are constantly undermined by the powerful
chemical industries.
I recently read a book Poison Spring, by former EPA official, E.G.
Vallianatos, explaining how powerful the chemical industries are
blocking the EPA at every turn from enforcing or investigating
violations of our environmental laws. Departments in the 70s did little
more than defend industry even more blatantly than they do today . . .
President Nixon responded in 1970, the great question of the seventies
is, shall we surrender to our surroundings or shall we make our peace
with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done
to our air, our land, our water? Clean air, clean water open spaces
these should once again be the birthright of every American. Today,
although progress has been made we remain under the control of the
chemical and corporate lobbies that control government policy and hold
farmers hostage. The chemical industry has wined and dined farmers
over the years convincing them of easier management and greater yields,
and being able to patent seeds to further restrict the independence of
individual farmers.
We are however learning from independent science more and more
about how nature works. The genome project and the epi-genome
project teach us that nature interacts and communicates in ways that if
we learn to listen and observe we can make peace with nature and put
away our destructive chemical weapons and learn to grow all the food
we need to survive and at the same time preserve our soil and clean our
air and water.

Science when separated from the big picture gives us false answers often
shaped by influence of moneyed interests. But science that is integrated
with the way nature evolves and the cycles it observes can be used to
provide us with the food we need and maintain our environment.
Supporting farmers in Minnesota is a bipartisan issue. We often hear
how we should support all kinds of agriculture and I agree. Whether
Republicans or Democrats controlled the Ag committees, weve been
united in our goal to make sure farmers in Minnesota thrive. However,
just like you cant fit everything you might want to eat on your plate,
sometimes you have to make choices about what you put on your plate
or what kind of farming we support on the land.
We have seen policies at both state and federal levels that try to address
concerns about making sure farmers can continue to provide us food we
need. Im concerned about what appears to be a disturbing trend
dividing farmers and legislators alike. Were told, that in order to help
farmers succeed, we should support real farmers and real farmers are
farmers that operate bigger and bigger farms.
Over the history of farming weve seen times when farms get big and get
small depending on conditions. But getting bigger is frequently
described as a trend that makes economic sense. But economic sense for
whom? Thats a question that rarely gets asked. Farmers of all sizes I
talk to have different opinions, its my sense those who manage to
remain small have fewer risks and are more likely to weather, like the
wheat stalks that bend with the winds of change. They also appear to me
to be able to be closer to the land and more sensitive to how it is used
and how use affects their neighbors and the environment. Processors of
farm products tend to like dealing with bigger farms and influence
policies to make it harder for smaller operations to survive. But we see
this trend means fewer people on the land and fewer customers
supporting rural economies. It makes me concerned about how we best
grow economic development in greater Minnesota.

The recent pattern weve seen in the agriculture committees has been
unsettling. Were encouraging the creation of ever larger industrial scale
operations that may offend their neighbors and arent going to have the
added public benefits of clean and healthy air, water and soil we see
when we encourage smaller farming practices.
The future of farming in Minnesota shouldnt be one where we have
fewer and fewer farmers acting as stewards of the land. Its a simple
notion, but encouraging more farmers is better for everyone by
improving our economy and our environment.
I have no allusions that my statement here will change our current
practices though it concerns me that more attention is not given to risks
we take by continuing them. It is my intent here to give voice to farmers
who rarely have a voice yet contribute to agriculture and our well being
as a state and a nation.
Finally, I am concerned that we not hold up the Avian Flu provisions in
the omnibus bill and would like to see them move in a stand-alone bill.