Mandy Gunasekara joins the podcast to discuss this month’s policy focus: Saving The American Family Farm. We look at how activist-led farming policies are a recipe for famine and unrest. We also consider the “climate-smart ag” policies promoted by the Biden administration—everything from forced consolidation to consuming bugs—and how the push to slash emissions from the agriculture sector stands to cause more harm than good.
Mandy Gunasekara is the director of the Center for Energy and Conservation at Independent Women’s Forum. She is a veteran Republican climate and energy strategist, communicator, and environmental attorney. She is also a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a principal at Section VII Strategies, a boutique energy, environmental, and tax policy consulting firm.
TRANSCRIPT
Beverly Hallberg:
And welcome to She Thinks, a podcast where you’re allowed to think for yourself, I’m your host, Beverly Hallberg, and on today’s episode it is this month’s policy focus entitled, Saving The American Family Farm. We’re going to look at how activists led farming policies are a recipe for famine and unrest, and we’re going to look at the so-called Climate-Smart Ag policies that the Biden administration is promoting, everything from forced consolidation to yes, even consuming bugs, and how this push to slash emissions from agriculture stands to cause more harm than good.
And we have a wonderful guest on with us today. She is the author of the Policy Focus, Mandy Gunasekara. She is with us and she is the director of the Center for Energy and Conservation at IWF. She is a veteran Republican climate and energy strategist, communicator, and environmental attorney. She’s also a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and the principal at Section Seven Strategies, a boutique energy, environmental and tax policy consulting firm. Mandy, always a pleasure to have you on She Thinks.
Mandy Gunasekara:
Well, great to be with you, Beverly.
Beverly Hallberg:
So I thought we would first start with just setting the landscape for today’s American farm. I think we have a lot of nostalgia for farming of the past. We have these iconic images in our minds, but so much has changed, especially when we look at the business of farming. So can you first just set the stage how new practices and technology have really changed the farming landscape?
Mandy Gunasekara:
Yeah, certainly. One of the most obvious ways that it’s changed is the number of people required to be farmers, to support the number of people that actually need to be fed. And over the course of hundreds of years, farmers alongside the development of a range of technologies, have really landed themself in a sweet spot where they are extremely efficient. And each farm in America feeds on average 166 people per year. And so that is significantly different than how it started out where you had a lot more Americans covering and engaging in a lot more farming activity on smaller acreage and producing a lot less food in a less reliable manner. Everything I just said, it’s the complete opposite. You have less farms, but bigger farms with more acreage that use extremely efficient equipment that produce significant amounts of food that are produced not only a safe but reliable manner where American farmers literally feed so many aspects and so many people across the globe.
And so they’ve not only figured out how to refine the process of farming. One thing I do want to note, Beverly, a lot of the nostalgia around American farming is tied to that family farm experience. And we still today, even with the change in the landscape, the change in the technology and the size of the farms, most American farms over 80% are still family owned enterprises. So it’s still very common to walk out on a farm and see three generations of Americans working side by side, passing down learned wisdom that they’ve cultivated over hundreds of years on a family farm operation, but integrating that with advancements and the potential of modern technology.
Beverly Hallberg:
So when we hear people say that American farming as we knew it is dying, is that an accurate statement? I know you’re talking about the transition, but is the American farmer, think of that family farm, is it struggling now more than it used to?
Mandy Gunasekara:
No, I think that the American farmer today, they have a larger safety net, so to speak, when it comes to their operations. Now that doesn’t mean it’s a risk-free operation and it still requires a significant amount of heavy labor-intensive work where you’re going to get your hands dirty, you’re going to be dealing with livestock, you’re going to be dealing with large farming equipment. So a lot of those same experiences continue today. But the modern farmers have a lot more safety nets, whether it’s through the federal government or it’s through the application of modern technology. One of the most significant ways that farmers use technology is through the application of fertilizer. And that’s not only helped with the efficiency and the production of more food on smaller amounts of acreage, but it’s also reduced costs in some aspects.
Now, I want to caveat that because farmers still struggle with the cost of doing business, and anytime you see an increase in the cost of energy other than labor, the cost of energy tends to be one of the highest cost components of working on a farm. When you see an increase in the price of energy, especially diesel and natural gas, which is directly tied to the cost of fertilizer, it makes it much harder for the farmer to work out their balance sheets, so to speak.
Beverly Hallberg:
What about when the government does often suggest what farmers should grow, whether there’s more subsidies they get for growing soybeans or corn? How has that changed the landscape of farming?
Mandy Gunasekara:
Well, certainly the government has an oversized influence on what farmers or farming. One example is soybeans and corn. A lot of farmers have significantly shifted from, I’ll characterize it as a more boutique farming experience to really investing in and cultivating a lot of these massive cash crops by virtue of federal government preferences. So the federal government says they’re going to pay you more to plant X, Y, and Z. A lot of farmers will take that deer for a variety of reasons. But it’s the federal government, why is it that they’re encouraging certain types of crops over others? In the instance of corn, for example, there’s a program called The Renewable Fuel Standard where America takes a portion of the corn produced in the country and turns it into fuel, and it’s created this massive subsidy, this massive program that actually influences what farmers are planting versus what perhaps the food demands would otherwise require. So there’s a significant impact and influence from the federal government on how farmers choose what they’re going to grow and how much of it.
Beverly Hallberg:
You talked about just how energy policies can impact farmers specifically when it comes to diesel fuel. I always think it’s quite laughable when you think about farmers using Evs, electric vehicles to work on their farms. But it’s not just that. There is also this idea of having Climate-Smart Agriculture. So there is a Department of agricultural initiative. You talked about this in the policy focus, which by the way, people can go to iwf.org and get that policy focus, but it’s called Climate-Smart Ag, and this is an initiative that promises to cut US agricultural emissions while still keeping up with food production. Tell me a little bit about this initiative and is it working?
Mandy Gunasekara:
Yeah. So Climate-Smart Ag, it sounds innocuous, maybe it sounds like something good. What the Biden administration has proven very good at doing is labeling things or marketing things. So they sound good, but they kind of misrepresent what they’re actually doing. And this is the case with Climate-Smart Ag. What they’re pushing at the end of the day is this wholesale transition of how farmers go about farming produced harvest and harvest the food. And then there’s also alternatives. You alluded to this earlier, but there’s efforts to change what you and I eat with this push towards bugs as a protein source. And we can get more into that later. But with regard to Climate-Smart Ag, the USDA is pushing this initiative, basically they’re saying, “Here’s a pile of money farmers. If you partake in these experimental actions where we, the bureaucrat, think you’re going to not only be better at farming, but you’re going to reduce your overall environmental footprint, here’s a pot of cash that you get to have a portion of.”
And so USDA is pushing these practices that are more aligned with what you would call natural solutions or green farming, meaning going back to how farming was done so many years ago when farmers were more susceptible to changing weather patterns. And we had a much less reliable food system to feed this country and the rest of the world. So Climate-Smart Ag is trying to push these ideas that farmers have rejected for a long time because they haven’t proved beneficial on the food front, and they haven’t necessarily proven beneficial on the environmental front. They’re also pushing some of these policies that are extremely experimental, and the only reason farmers are willing to potentially buy in is because it comes with a massive federal subsidy on top of it. But the problem is we’ve seen how this plays out and it is not good.
Sri Lanka is exhibit A on why a country and farmers should not embrace this natural approach. One of the things that’s a part of Climate-Smart Ag is reducing the use of chemical-based fertilizers because chemical-based fertilizers are a product of natural gas, which is a fossil fuel. And as part of President Biden’s war on fossil fuels, he wants to restrict derivative industries that rely and justify the continued use of natural gas. Fertilizer is one of it. So let’s go to Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka embraced this natural farming or this plant smart ag approach in their country. Their leaders banned the use of chemical fertilizers. This all happened in 2021. And what happened is something anyone in their right mind could have predicted is that the natural fertilizer didn’t produce the same amount of crops and they produced 60% less of their staple crop, which is rice, not just staple for their economy, but also feeding local people. So you had famine, economic unrest, and at the end of the day, the entire country imploded with their top leader fleeing the country as the consequences of embracing natural solutions when it comes to farming actually played out. So it’s a really bad idea. The Biden administration is trying to rebrand it here in the United States. But again, they’re pushing techniques that US farmers have largely rejected for many years because they’ve proven unreliable and unhelpful in continuing to put out safe, reliable and environmentally aware food products in the United States.
Beverly Hallberg:
I want to pick up on a word that you said there. You said safe food. What about those individuals who hear this phrase that you use chemical fertilizer and they get worried? They say, “Well, of course we shouldn’t have chemicals and fertilizer because the chemicals will seep into the food.” What do you say to those who think we do need to have more of an organic, natural way of farming?
Mandy Gunasekara:
Yeah, look, the pesticides are a gift to people who may or may not be on the cusp of starvation or famine because it’s made the productivity of our agricultural sector so much greater. And having formally served at the US Environmental Protection Agency, there is an entire office of people who are dedicated to regulating the use of pesticides if mishandled or if misapplied. Yes, pesticides could pose a threat to human health in the environment, but they are extremely regulated and it’s to the benefit of the farmer to appropriately handle and appropriate apply these chemical-based fertilizers that when used appropriately produce safe to consume and safe to produce, because you’ve got to think about the farmers who are applying it as well, and significantly more food than what we had in the past.
So it is a balance, Beverly. You can’t just go out there and misapply or misuse pesticides or fertilizers and not think there’s going to be some sort of consequence. But what we’ve cultivated is a balanced application where we get to use the benefits of chemical-based fertilizers and pesticides without creating any unintended harm. And the food produced by virtue of either chemical-based fertilizers or chemical-based pesticides, they are safe to consume.
Beverly Hallberg:
And we also talked about emissions, agriculture emissions. Can we unpack that a little bit? First of all, when you look at the emissions of agriculture, what does that account to or what does that percent? And is it something we should be concerned about?
Mandy Gunasekara:
Yeah, so in the United States agriculture or farming emissions account for about 10% of total greenhouse gases. Globally, agriculture accounts for about 33% of greenhouse gases. So as with anything, yeah, we need to pay attention to it, let’s figure out ways to make the process more efficient. But when it comes to farmers, I like to call them our original environmentalist because their livelihood truly depends on cultivating from the land or livestock, but also taking care of the land and livestock. And so they truly have been on the front edge of this necessary environmental balance and integrating cutting edge technology to reduce emissions. What we have today, I was looking at the stat, whether we’re talking about pork, whether we’re talking about beef, whether we’re talking about traditional crops like corn and soybean. They’re produced today with a significantly lower emissions profile. Farmers have produced most of these units of foods emission profile.
I’m going around a lot of terms here. But they’ve reduced emissions affiliated with the production of this type of food and crop and livestock by 24%. So they’ve been producing more while reducing the emissions overall. And it’s because they figured out the necessary balance. And I do think they will continue to improve this process, but it’s going to come from the farmers. It’s not going to come from the federal government that pretends like it’s trying to help the farmer with a pot of cash, when in reality they’re just trying to transform the way that farming is done so that it aligns with the leftist approach, which means less actual food, more fake or factory made food, which creates a whole other host of potential issues.
Beverly Hallberg:
I think the factory creative food is such an interesting side of this. So the plant-based beef, the fake meat that we often see, it’s coming also from the same people who are saying that you shouldn’t use chemical fertilizers and pesticides, that everything has to be natural, but yet they don’t want us to have natural meat. They want that to be made in a lab. How do they use those two different lines of logic and say that it adds up at the end of the day?
Mandy Gunasekara:
Well, it’s inconsistent, and I think it’s the result of some savvy marketing on the side of Team Biden and some of their marketing friends. But this is really interesting, Beverly. I saw this and it piqued my interest. So as the lab grown meat was being cultivated and it’s being submitted for approval by various agencies for consumption here in the United States, the regulators weren’t sure if lab grown meat should be characterized as a food product or as a pharmaceutical product because right now the process is such that it’s essentially grown in the same way that certain types of drugs are grown. And so those are very clearly fall into the pharmaceutical category versus food. So it’s just interesting to think about those who want to eat clean, so to speak, should probably steer clear of lab grown meat because it has a lot of unnatural processes in it that are required to produce it.
And the other thing too is folks try to dismiss and say, “Well, we’re doing this because it’s better for the environment.” That may not be the case either because the process, especially for lab grown meat, I’m not talking about Impossible Burger and some of the plant-based alternatives. I’m talking about lab grown meat specifically. I just want to be clear here. It requires so much energy to actually grow it to where it’s some unit of desirable consumption, that it actually takes more energy to make the fake lab grown meat than it does to just raise cows responsibly and then take them to the slaughterhouse and turn them into the various products that we consume nationwide.
Beverly Hallberg:
And what if we have a listener right now who has a child who’s in middle school or high school, and that child comes home and says, “Mom or dad, we need to stop eating meat in order to save the environment.” What do you say to this myth that one must not eat meat if they want to save the earth?
Mandy Gunasekara:
Yeah, I think it’s having that conversation with your kids saying, “Well, what did you hear?” They can come to IWF and they can look this up. And all the information that we’re putting into the policy focus is well-cited. There’s also some really good sites on the American Farm Bureau, which represents farmers from all over the country. There’s a lot of really good information. But at the end of the day, yes, meat production has some impact on the environment. But what’s the benefit? The benefit is access to a healthy source of protein that is necessary for a healthy way of life, and also not only consuming that here in the United States, but sharing that globally.
So not eating meat isn’t going to improve the environment. It’s actually going to potentially create protein loss and all the problems that go along with not consuming meat in your daily life. Yes, you can take supplements for that, but that’s a personal conversation. You shouldn’t do it for purposes of the environment because actually raising cattle in the way that farmers know how to do and then the harvesting process that they go through to get a steak or a hamburger on the table, it’s significantly improved over the course of time to the point, like I said, our farmers are producing more with a lower emissions of profile, and this will only continue.
Beverly Hallberg:
And something that we’ve seen in the past few months, past few years is this push to get Americans and also people internationally to eat bugs. That they have these insects, they’ll put them on menus, try to encourage people to eat them as it’s good for the environment. Is this gaining any traction and where did the stem from?
Mandy Gunasekara:
Yeah, it’s interesting. It’s an idea from the left that they want to end the beef industry. They want anyone in the world to stop eating meat. And so what they’re trying to do is shut down those industries, but they do understand that our bodies need protein to survive. So they’ve been trying to come up with alternatives and they have landed on bugs. So this really comes from the United Nations. They have a number of various climate initiatives, but one is focused on transforming the entire food supply. And under that umbrella, they’ve found alternatives to the meat industry, and they’ve really been pushing this idea of bugs and insects.
I don’t think, Beverly, it’s really taking off. Everyone I’ve talked to and I personally find it pretty disgusting, but I wouldn’t be surprised that some major marketing push trying to re-characterize just sprinkle a little bug protein on your salad and you’ll be good to go. I wouldn’t be surprised if something like that comes out and it does start to catch on one way or another. But all that being said, if someone wants to put the product out there in a natural market situation, let the consumers respond and cultivate demand. Don’t force it via government mandates or put it out there at the same time that the federal government is busy using their resources to shudder the development and cultivation of natural meat, which is what the majority of consumers actually prefer to consume.
Beverly Hallberg:
And something that you’ve been talking about throughout all this today is really that we need to rely on farmers to solve any issue that we may have when it comes to agriculture, not necessarily just looking at scientists, but yet it seems that it is the international community, international leaders who are focused on just simply shutting down farms. How are they going about this? And is this something even in this country that we should be worried about?
Mandy Gunasekara:
Yeah. And where this has really played out in a big way and captured a lot of headlines as the Netherlands, you may have heard of the Dutch Farmer Revolt. Well, what ultimately happened is that the United Nations, the bureaucrats and the so-called scientists, there are categories of scientists, some of them are actual scientists, but then there are the ones that are more activists aligned and misuse or misrepresent scientific work to prove a point. But a lot of those more activists aligned scientists reside at the United Nations, and they’ve set these standards and forced them down on countries by virtue of the Netherlands being a member of the European Union or the European Commission. So they’re more susceptible to these layers of bureaucracy and this problematic standards coming from the UN.
One of them was aimed at reducing ammonia emissions, and what they basically instituted was an unworkable plan where the ultimatum was stated by the leading Dutch agricultural official, basically the equivalent of the Secretary of Ag in the United States, where they said, “Not all farmers are going to be able to continue operation.
Actually, a third of them are just going to have to cease to exist.” And so they put out this ultimatum either comply or go out of business. And so what captured the headlines where the farmers revolting against this because they found it offensive, not only the standards that were being set, but the lack of considering all the progress that had been made because of the work the farmers had already done. And farming in the Netherlands truly is one of the industries that is the pride of the country.
And so that’s the way it happens. You have some bureaucrats setting unrealistic standards. You have officials with power over the various industry players, be it through permitting or taxes or whatnot, and they go out there and say, “Either you can comply with the standard or you can no longer operate.” And the concepts of those are captured under Climate-Smart Ag. All the policies right now, or most of the policies right now that apply to the ag community are voluntary. But we’re just one administrative action away from the federal government under Team Biden from making them mandatory. And then that’s where a lot of these additional problems will ensue.
Beverly Hallberg:
And in addition to executive orders that can come from the Biden administration, we do have our congressional leaders that are looking at the Farm Bill. So this fall, they will be looking at how they should define the US agriculture policy for the next five years. There’s always a lot of debate about the Farm Bill. A lot of conservatives tend to have issues with what the farm bill ends up being. It’s a very pricey bill that we have. It’s a lot of money. What should we be looking for good food policy within the Farm Bill?
Mandy Gunasekara:
Yeah, I think, look, first, it’s putting the farmers first. It is called the Farm Bill. We need to prioritize the needs of farmers and diminish the wants of activists. Any of the policies need to be in partnership with actual farming associations and actual farmers. I say that because there are associations in Washington, DC, and elsewhere that pop up that may have farmer in their label, but they don’t actually represent any tangible farming interests that they’re essentially a front group or a shell organization.
But when it comes to environmental policies, our leaders need to make sure that any standards or any programs put in place are evidence-based. We need to ensure that if we are encouraging farmers to partake in certain types of activities, that there is evidence to support that those activities work so that it’s worth it. It’s again, a delicate balance for farmers to stay operational, be successful, and make a profit. And if they are forced to invest in processes that render their farm useless or unprofitable, it creates significant problems. So at the end of the day, it’s focusing on the farmer, making sure any policies actually will work and setting any standards or new innovative ideas, making sure that there’s evidence to back up that they are actually going to work in terms of reducing the relative environmental footprint and reducing overall emissions.
Beverly Hallberg:
And because there are so many faulty narratives out there, I think this is such an important policy focus. So people, once again, you can go to iwf.org. It’s called Saving the American Family Farm. And Mandy Gunasekara, thank you so much for joining us once again and for all your work on this.
Mandy Gunasekara:
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Beverly Hallberg:
And thank you all for joining us. Before you go, IWF wants you to know that we rely on the generosity of supporters like you. An investment in IWF fuels our efforts to enhance freedom, opportunity, and wellbeing for all Americans. So please consider making a small donation to IWF by visiting iwf.org/donate. That is iwf.org/donate.
Last, if you enjoyed this episode of She Thinks, do leave us a rating or a review, it does help, and we love it if you shared this episode so your friends can know where they can find more She Thinks. From all of us here at IWF, thanks for watching.
