Greenwashing Corn

Starting this week (June1) in Washington, DC, the National Corn Growers Association and its affiliated state associations are rolling out a $1 million ad campaign to boost corn’s tarnished image. It’s targeted at lawmakers in the nation’s capital, the people who control corn’s fate in terms both of environmental regulation and the lavish and increasingly hard-to-justify federal subsidies for the ubiquitous crop, which have totaled $73.8 billion in taxpayer dollars since 1995.

With growing public awareness of the toll that America’s massive corn crop takes on human health and the environment, it’s no mystery why the corn lobby would attempt an expensive PR makeover. The ad campaign makes dubious assertions about corn’s environmental benefits as well as the misleading claim that “95% of all corn farms in America are family-owned.”

Other than wrapping itself in the Stars and Stripes, there is nothing more blatant that the industrial agriculture lobby does to bolster its image than invoking the long-gone image of the pastoral American Gothic farm. According to the US Department of Agriculture, however, the largest 5 percent of corn farms in America grow nearly 30 percent of all planted corn, and the largest 20 percent account for 60 percent of all corn acreage. Whichever way you slice it, there are thousands of large, plantation-scale corn factories dotting the American landscape, family-owned or not. And family ownership does not necessarily equal small. Agricultural supply giant Cargill is family-owned. So are the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Minnesota Twins.

The tired old refrain that farmers are America’s original environmentalists is just as hard to swallow. Here are some data points to consider when you see a corn growers’ advertisement touting their environmental credentials:

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, (2000) “agricultural nonpoint source (NPS)  pollution was the leading source of water  quality  impacts on  surveyed rivers and lakes, the second largest source of  impairments  to wetlands, and a major contributor to contamination of surveyed estuaries  and ground water.”

- According to the 2007 National Resource Inventory (NRI), produced by USDA’s National Resources Conservation Service to document erosion from cropland, there has been no progress in reducing soil erosion in the Corn Belt since 1997. The growers have wrongly cited the NRI to tout their supposed environmental achievements, but the data tell a different story. For example, the NRI shows that an average-sized Iowa farm loses five tons of high quality topsoil per acre each year. That adds up to 68 million tons of soil washing into our waterways each year from the 13.7 million acres of corn planted in Iowa alone.

- According to the US Geological Society, fertilizer runoff from corn and soybean crops in just nine states is the leading cause of hypoxia – lack of oxygen — in the Mississippi River Basin and Gulf of Mexico. Hypoxia causes the Gulf’s Dead Zone to swell to the size of New Jersey every summer and kills millions of fish and other aquatic life, seriously damaging the ecosystem as well as the fisheries economy. No one even wants to contemplate what will happen when the Dead Zone, swollen large with toxic farm runoff, combines with the Gulf oil spill.

- According to a National Wildlife Federation report this year, the corn ethanol gold rush has been responsible for plowing up thousands of acres of pristine wildlife habitat (and prime carbon sequestration vegetation) and converting it to corn production. The Jan. 13 document concluded: “Our research shows that native grassland is being converted into cropland at an alarming rate throughout the Prairie Pothole Region… as a result, populations of sensitive wildlife species are declining significantly in areas with high increases in corn plantings.”

In terms of size and subsidies, corn leads all other crops in the United States, and that makes for a lot of polluted runoff and a big bite out of the federal budget.

If the corn lobby is serious about changing the conversation on corn’s environmental impact, they should be using their money and power to persuade Congress to dramatically increase funding for conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Reserve Program when lawmakers take up the 2012 farm bill.

Instead, as the corn growers’ news release announcing the ad campaign reads: “The coalition will meet with media, members of Congress, environmental groups and others to talk about what’s ahead: how U.S. farmers, using the latest technologies, will continue to expand yields and how this productivity can be a bright spot in an otherwise struggling economy.”

EWG can hardly wait to get our invitation to hear how the corn growers are going to boost their image with environmentalists by growing more corn.

  • CornShucker

    So let’s just quit growing, harvesting and processing corn completely? Who’s with me!? We really don’t need it. Not that many products are made from it. It’s too toxic to the world and our environment. We can all grow our own corn and make our own corn flakes and beer!

  • Mike H.

    Assuming you’re kidding, right? You shouldn’t be if you are…commercial agriculture in this country is enough to make me vomit. The reason so many products are made from it is because it has a monopoly on farming across the nation! And no one is saying quit everything but mono-crop agriculture is destructive to all parties. I eat and grow my food as locally as possible, and its amazing how much could be done if awareness as opposed to counter-awareness (see above) was raised.

  • D.Boone

    What’s strange is that those so called Farmers consider themselves, strong,independent,rugged type,yet their the ones who will give up their independence for a Government Handout.Everyone should know that Farmers are controlled and grow crops that gets them the most taxpayers money,and you’d be surprised the small amount they pay in taxes because of all the wretoffs.

  • gary ommen

    I do not feel the tax payer should be responsible for eliminating the damage farmers have done to the envirment. this should be a cost of doing business. It would help if the government would stop subsidising them. Also they should payback the taxpares money. It suould not be a gift.

  • cheap

    You guys at all curious what the price of alot of your day to day goods would become if farming wasn’t subsidised at all?
    Oil and gas fluctuate because of the risk in their industries… If farming was 100% risk on the farmers shoulders you would be astonished at what food prices escalated to.

  • perma!

    If the food we consume didn’t travel half way around the world to get to our supermarkets, the true cost of food would be much lower, food wouldn’t be lost in transport, and food prices wouldn’t fluctuate with the price of oil.

    The fact is we need to rethink the whole industry if we want to have food security, unaffected by the “invisible hand” of the market.

  • Michael

    Wow are you guys out of date. Way back in the Reagen Administration the “Freedom to Farm” bill decoupled corn production from ANY government payments. What is left is more like an insurance policy against crop failure for farm folks.
    The EPA is also out of date. The largest source of water pollution is our cities, especially our roofs and streets which push all of the gunk we drop on the street and spew the air into our water.
    Wow, we lose that much soil! Baloney! Iowa would not be able to produce anything with erosion like that. All the soil would be gone is just a few years.
    Many Universities have been looking for the source of all of that fertilizer run off and , SURPRISE, more and more the answer is the run off from farms is cleaner than the water from “natural” sources and cities.
    Where are they finding those acres that the NWF says are being plowed up? Farmers have to make do with fewer acres every year to produce the food for the world. The prairie potholes were plowed up years ago and are being brought back into wildlife production by farm folks. It’s against the law to drain a pothole the size of your living room today.
    Sorry, but using information from the 1930′s to make policy for 2010 just doesn’t wash.

  • Michael

    Hey, don’t you know how to use spell check? If you are going to comment, at least spell check your stuff. Then you will not come off looking like an idiot. If you cannot spell or construct a coherent sentence we have to expect that you did not do your research and are just spouting the “facts” of some other idiot.

  • Don Carr

    Michael — thanks for stopping by.

    Freedom to Farm was supposed to wean corn farmers off of subsidies. But like this guy, they continue to send checks to farmers who historically grew corn no matter if they need it or not. Automatic and fixed.
    http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=006298768

    That’s just wrong to say that in places like the Chesapeake Bay, the Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf of Mexico that the pollution from urban sources outweighs ag. That would mean the USGS is wrong too. And according to USDA, Minnesota alone has lost 260,000 CRP acres in the past five years. What do you think happened to them?

  • Chris

    The 2007 energy farm bill and the 2008 farm bill claimed that they wanted to encourage cellulosic ethanol production. But instead of making ethanol out of the grasses in the prairie pothole region, they are plowing them up to plant corn. Who is working on cellulosic ethanol? Anybody?