Viewed through the lens of U.S. political definitions, the Catholic Church is quite paradoxical in its value system.  Staunchly pro-life and holding traditional views toward women and homosexuals, the Catholic Church seems to be a natural fit for the Republican wing of the Republican party in the U.S.  However, the Church is also serious about promoting economic equality, peaceful solutions to world crises, is open to modern scientific thought such as evolution, and welcomes action to prevent climate change.  The Catholic Church is also extremely active in promoting health services (sans abortion) in the Third World.  One could reasonably argue that the Church is actually to the Left of the Progressive wing of the U.S. Democratic Party on these issues.  And so we are left with a paradox.

Even viewed through this seemingly contradictory lens, it was surprising for me to learn that the Vatican is considering developing a collection of environmental thou shall's and thou shall not's known as the "Environmental Ten Commandments".  It was even more surprising to read the Commandments being considered.  They range from mundane to truly radical and would probably not see the light of day even at the most Liberal caucus meeting you could find in the U.S.  Let's have a look.

From the Catholic News Service:

Welcome to your Edwards Evening News! I just got back from a weekend volunteering for the Edwards campaign in New Hampshire, so tonight we have my special report from the Granite State. I'll tell you about door-to-door canvassing, making phone calls to voters, putting up a really large sign, and a visit to a house party for Elizabeth Edwards. All this, and the rest of the Edwards news, in tonight's EENR.

Manchester, New Hampshire City Hall

Last week, I spent a few days working on an organic farm. I should admit right now, I use the word "work" loosely. I was probably more of a pest than a help, even though my intentions were good.

When I first got into blogging about food, I was primarily concerned with the foods we eat and how they affect our health. It was a bit of a revelation to me that our food actually comes from a farm, not a factory, and it grows in dirt, not plastic wrap. Agricultural policy is never something I thought I would care about, but I've learned that you can't separate issues of food consumption from the issues of food production.

Since I'm painfully aware of my ignorance when it comes to farming, I was eager (and a bit nervous) to spend a few days working on a farm. The opportunity presented itself when an organic farmer named Phil at my local market told me he participated in the WWOOF program (Willing to Work on an Organic Farm). He provides room and board in exchange for labor. After exchanging a few emails, the plans were in place.

"There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all." - Peter Drucker

The industrial revolution has elevated efficiency to a virtue in itself. Turned to food production, that has meant a model that favors as few people as possible producing as much as possible of one or a few things. More staple crops; industrial grade corn for corn syrup, wheat destined to be dehulled, unbranned, and bleached of anything good that remained after. It's all about the calories, and we produce a lot of them.

Meanwhile, those excess, low quality calories never seem to quite satisfy. There are snacks everywhere we turn, sugar in everything we buy processed, and this wash of calories is making this country sick.

The same goes for meats. Pasture raised, grass fed meat is healthier; lower in calories, lower in fat, and higher in Omega-3 fatty acids. Also, it tastes better and the texture is very nice. It's satisfying.

Yet efficiency demands abundance of those things that are easier to produce, and so between 1985-2000, the cost of soft drinks dropped by 23% and the costs of fats and oils dropped by 15%, while the costs of fresh fruits and vegetables went up by a whopping 38%. (Dan Imhoff, FoodFight: The Citizen's Guide to a Food and Farm Bill)

Many people looking at our agricultural market immediately leap to blame subsidies, and that's part of it. It's true that it's been the policy of the government since at least the Nixon administration to encourage farmers to get big or get out, and subsidies have been a large part of helping large farms outcompete smaller farms, often unfairly. Yet subsidies are also symptoms of a larger problem, and that is the concentrated and monopolistic middlemen of agribusiness, who no longer have to pay farmers enough to cover the costs of production.

Can you think of any other industry that routinely, as a matter of course, pays below production costs for their raw inputs? It's corporate welfare on a scale most people have never imagined. And it's all in service to efficiently concentrating production in fewer and fewer hands, while producing poorer and poorer quality food, and destroying even more of the environment. Yet it's a situation that Congress could begin to remedy without having to either stop subsidies or spend a lot of money.

DesmoinesDem's post about John Edwards below highlighted his rural strategy, which includes something that most people's eyes would slide right over: A ban on meat packer ownership of livestock.

This is what Sen. Wellstone said when he supported a packer ban in 2002. That provision went down to defeat and wasn't included in the 2002 Farm Bill, but his comments are still just as applicable:

... Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., backed by groups like the Minnesota Farm Bureau and National Farmers Union, says this [livestock industry ownership] concentration is a recipe for monopoly.

"We know what these packers do," Wellstone said. "They buy when prices are low, and then if the prices should go up they sell to keep prices low. It's like a cartel. They're basically jacking the independent producers around and they're basically using their power to pretty much dictate prices. And that's unacceptable."

... "The problem for our independent (farmers) is that it's like you have an auction to go to and you only have two or three people to sell to. You don't get a very decent price," Wellstone said. "Well, that's what's happening now as these packers are controlling more and more of the market. Our independent producers are put at a severe disadvantage." ...

The packer ban is a very important issues to rural districts where agriculture predominates, and his championing of it has been cited as one of the reasons why the very progressive Wellstone was able to draw on such a broad base of support. This year, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) is expected to reintroduce a version of the 2002 competition reform and packer ban as one of several supporting Senators, and in concert with Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA).

Consider calling your Senators to ask them to support Harkin's competition reform and the packer ban. The Senate is going to be voting on their version of the Farm Bill in September, and none of the reforms made it into the House version in July. Your support would be greatly appreciated by everyone who cares about this issue.

It'd be nice if we didn't have to wait to get it until we get a new president.

Late Thursday night, the House Agriculture Committee unanimously passed a farm bill that can only be described as astoundingly unresponsive to widespread calls for reform. That bill may be considered by the full House as soon as this week. Now that the farm bill is out of committee, Nancy Pelosi is the most important player in the process. Speaker Pelosi and the House Rules Committee have to choose - and that choice will say much about how they intend to govern. It brings to mind a question Al might ask - Does the House leadership stand with the people or the powerful?

Speaker Pelosi will effectively decide the outcome of the floor debate. That debate should be held after all Americans have the opportunity to make their voices heard regarding the farm bill that has been passed by the Agriculture Committee- and that means delaying floor consideration of the farm bill until after the August recess. After that, the Speaker has three options.

Option 1: She can live up to the repeated promises of the newly elected majority and allow for a full, open, and honest debate. Option 2: She can short-circuit debate, severely curtail or eliminate the number of amendments for floor consideration, and generally run the House in the same fashion as her predecessors. Option 3: She can support real reform on the central issue of farm policy- ending million-dollar subsidy checks to mega-farms.

The third option appears to be highly unlikely. Here is Pelosi's three part statement regarding the just-passed-out-of-committee farm bill:

"The Farm Bill represents a critical first step toward reform by eliminating payments to millionaires,

Not so fast. The Committee's sham reform proposal lowered the adjusted gross income limit on farm program payments to a still-astonishing $1,000,000. And if you're married the limit is $2,000,000. Are we supposed to be pleased by this? Who in their right mind thinks this is actual reform?

Contact Pelosi and tell her to reject the Ag Committee's false reform.

Saturday morning, August 4, at 9:15 AM, YearlyKos will hold its first ever food panel! If that sounds good, keep reading - the news gets better and better!

I would be overwhelmed with joy if we had even ONE of the spectacular four panelists we've got. If you're standing up, sit down before you read the rest. The good news just doesn't end. (I'll add that I really DID fall out of my chair when I found out about one of our panelists. In my defense though, it was a barstool and since I've got short legs those things aren't always easy to sit on.)

After dishing about the panel, I'm also going to include other details about the presence of sustainable food and agriculture at YearlyKos at the bottom of this diary.

Washington, D.C. - "A sound compromise that no one is satisfied with, but nevertheless represents real reform." - From Rep. Collin Peterson's (D-MN) opening statement today on the 2007 Farm Bill.

The first House Agriculture Committee markup session on the 2007 Farm Bill began with Rep. Collin Peterson's opening statement, followed by everyone else's. Peterson said that Americans were fortunate to enjoy low, stable food prices, and food that meets the highest standards of quality and safety.

No markup, or voting on specific amendments, actually took place during today's session. The last changes to the legislation weren't made until late last night, and today was the first chance most members got to see the final versions, though Rep. Peterson said that the changes were minor in comparison to the version released a little over a week ago.