You might have heard about fossil fuel companies spreading disinformation about the causes of the climate crisis. But what about industrial agriculture companies spreading climate misinformation about food production? Ivy's guest, journalist Georgina Gustin, tells us who is telling the truth about the food you eat -- and who isn't.
Scientists have established that large-scale farming is one of the causes of climate change. Do you think that some of the forces behind big ag would want to hide the truth about their damage to the environment?
As a matter of fact, that's just what they're doing.
In this episode, Georgina Gustin a Washington-based reporter for Inside Climate News who has covered food policy, farming, and the environment for more than a decade, discusses who is behind this spread of misinformation, where you can find trusted sources of information about food and the climate crisis, and how you can create change for the better.
Listen to The Future of Food on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, at FutureX, or the Future of Food website.
Ivy Joeva:
I'm Ivy Joeva and this is Future of Food. My guest today is Georgina Gustin, a Washington-based reporter for inside climate news. Who's covered food policy farming and the environment for more than a decade. You might've heard about fossil fuel companies spreading disinformation about the causes of the climate crisis. But what about industrial agriculture companies spreading climate misinformation about food production scientists have established that large scale farming is one of the causes of climate change. Do you think that some of the forces behind big ag would want to hide the truth about their damage to the environment? As a matter of fact, that's just what they're doing in this episode. Georgina and I talk about who's behind the spread of misinformation. We'll discuss where you can find trusted sources of information about food and the climate crisis and how you can create change for the better. Here's my conversation with Georgina Gustin.
So Georgina, I'm just curious with all the work you've been doing. I personally just reading through some of what you've put out there. I find it really depressing and horrifying the amount of lies that were being told and that people are kind of buying hook line and sinker. I'm curious how you don't just get depressed and angry being the disseminator of all this.
Georgina Gustin:
Well, reading about climate change and specifically about climate change and agriculture, it definitely gets a little bit discouraging sometimes. But the thing about agriculture is that there are so many opportunities for transformative change. And so I sometimes get frustrated with the fact that those changes are being slowed. But, but they're, but the possibility is still is still there. And, and I feel like there are people with good intentions in this industry and, and, and working to change the system. So, you know, and there are some things about modern agriculture that work various that are very efficient and, and work very well. It's just a question of harnessing the good and, and disincentivizing the bad.
Well, and that's so upsetting because it's like the people, who are well intentioned don't seem to be winning this war.
Georgina Gustin:
I think the system has just over time been, become structured in such a way that it is very hard for small scale farmers who want to provide nutritious food in a ecologically sound way to thrive. The system is just sort of stacked against them.
Ivy Joeva:
If the pandemic, the pandemic is a reason to change it, right? Because we're exporting everything we farm. And if we can't rely on the imports because of COVID, that's going to be an even bigger problem to the food supply.
Georgina Gustin:
Yeah. I mean, what we're seeing with, with coronavirus is that it's, it's exposing vulnerabilities in our global food system. We're realizing that it's interrupting supply chains and that could be a problem for the way we consume the way we eat for sustenance. And, and what is really interesting actually is that these smaller farms they're a little more nimble and they can, they can respond better than say a giant Midwestern corn and bean grower because they only do those two things and those farms are heavily subsidized. And when the market larger firms, the larger farms, when the markets tank there they're in trouble, when the global markets get disrupted and the way that they are they're in trouble. Whereas, you know, I was just at the farmer's market here in DC a few weeks ago, and this one produce grower he'd already set up his farm stand in such a way that you didn't have to contact, come into contact with him.
Georgina Gustin:
And he was, he had bagged everything so that they were in shares. And you would just go and like grab the bag full of, you know, an assortment of vegetables and walk away. And, you know, it's a very small example, but it's, it's a way in which a small scale operation can be more nimble and respond. And, and a lot of local growers are providing CSA boxes or, you know, doing things like the, you know, at the farm innovative things at the farmer's market. And so that's, you know, that's just kind of a, again, a tiny example of how they can respond a lot more quickly than a large scale monoculture operation or a factory farm.
Ivy Joeva:
Why are they not supported? Like why is it that these large scale industrial farms are the ones that are being subsidized and supported when they're not even the ones that feed the people.
Georgina Gustin:
It gets into farm policy, again, going back 50 years where, you know, we figured out, or our farming predecessors figured out that you could grow these particular crops very efficiently and and on a very large scale, and in order to make money, you needed to grow more of them. And so these farms just got bigger and bigger and, and, and markets were set up in such a way that corn became important and soybeans became important. And and so it's actually quite complicated how we got to where are now, but in a way it's, it's, I guess the, the short of it is that those things that are easier to grow on large scales became the money makers. And the government stepped in to subsidize that form of agriculture.
Ivy Joeva:
This is a problem we've obviously been facing for a long time with way chemical agriculture is dominant in the United States and the destruction of the ecosystem and the resulting climate change from that. So if all of that hasn't done anything to change it. What do you think is finally gonna move the dial? You think that COVID is really going to be the thing that really wakes us up and has us supporting small farmers.
Georgina Gustin:
It is going to draw attention to how important regional diverse food systems are. I think there's going to be an ongoing battle over, or, or this might amplify the battle over that type of farming and, and, and the groups that represent those types of farmers who are hugely outnumbered and hugely outgunned in terms of their lobbying heft and their budgets and the, the larger corporate agribusiness, which we'll use this as an opportunity to say, in order to feed more people during times of crisis, we need our form of agriculture, California farms produce two thirds of our, our fruits and vegetables and nuts. I think that's the figure, but it's a big amount, the rest of the country, most of the rest of the country, we're just growing corn and soybeans and cotton. Obviously, California is it's the biggest agricultural state in terms of produce fruits, vegetables, and nuts. But the biggest overall agricultural products in this country are beef, corn, and soybeans. And California has some beef, but it's not like other States that have huge industries. And it's really the mid upper Midwest where corn and soy is grown that dominates U S agriculture and agriculture.
Ivy Joeva:
Why don't people know this? We talk a lot about soil health on the future of food. And we've talked a lot about regenerative farming, but I think the bigger question for you, cause you're really an expert in, in the media and, and the disinformation that people are consuming. Why, why is this such obscure knowledge? Why, why don't people understand the realities of the way food is grown here in America?
Georgina Gustin:
Well, I think there are a couple of factors. One is just so few Americans farm, they're so divorced from the farm. And so there's just a, there's just a huge distance between the way most of us consume and the source of what we consume. People just don't think about it. And a lot of times they don't really want to think about it. They think that, you know, chicken comes breaded and shrink wrapped, and you know, some things come in a can, they're just, they just don't think about farming and how food is produced. I think that's changing, but largely people don't think about it. And so second to that is, you know, the damage that our food system causes, people don't think about where their food comes from. They don't think about how it's produced and they don't think about the consequences of that production and the industry really wants it that way, because they don't want consumers all over their, you know, industry poking around looking under the hood and finding out that, in fact, what they're doing in large part is really detrimental to our natural world.
Georgina Gustin:
We know that farming is a very difficult profession and it's a very difficult industry and the policies that shape the way farmers farm have made it a lot more difficult to farm, I think in some ways. And they have also been very destructive from an environmental standpoint. The thing that's so interesting to me is that the biggest lobby group representing American farmers, the American farm Bureau Federation has for years, for decades pushed against any kind of climate regulation or any kind of environmental regulation. And there are farmers, the people they represent are victims of climate change. They're the ones on the front line. And yet they have said no climate change. Isn't a problem. They worked against the Kyoto protocol, which was a set emissions targets country by country. They worked against various other pieces of climate legislation that were, that were almost, that almost became reality. So it seems to me like the big lobbying interests representing farmers are, are working against farmers and are working against the, the environment that sustains the farm
Ivy Joeva:
Is the American Farm Bureau on the side of fossil fuel?
Georgina Gustin:
Well, they have ideological alignment. They historically, it's a conservative organization. They have bought into the thinking that any environmental regulation any kind of climate regulation is going to hit the farmers bottom line, it's going to impact their ability to make profits. Is that true though? No, I don't think that's true. If you perpetuate an industry that damages the climate and you need and you need a stable climate within which to grow food and, and, you know, have, have this industry thrive, it's, they're working at cross purposes. That's why we, my colleagues and I looked into that, why is this industry working against itself and why are they aligned with the fossil fuel industry? They have similar ideologies, there are fossil fuel dependent industry. They don't want prices of fossil fuel to go up and they see that any kind of regulation or the way they put it. Any kind of regulation would ultimately make prices go up and make it more difficult for farmers to make money. They sell diesel and through co-ops. So they have kind of direct interest and continuing to sell fossil fuels. I see. So they're really linked. They are, they are, they are.
Ivy Joeva:
So I'm, I guess, just a little flummoxed at how one or two lobbies could control the entire nation.
Georgina Gustin:
Most your average person sees they are very powerful. They have the ears of a lot of people in Congress who did not want to believe the truth about the scientific consensus around climate change. It was in their best financial interests to perpetuate a fiction about climate change.
Ivy Joeva:
But do politicians not see that. Can they not see, this is obviously a biased source of information.
Georgina Gustin:
Well then you have to get into the way our democracy has started to function and the way certain conservative elements have infiltrated the, you know, the media, it's a big prop, it's a larger problem than just then than just these lobbies or larger sort of phenomenon. And they stay in power. They keep their, their positions because they get money from these industries. That's the long and the short of it.
Ivy Joeva:
So where can people look for accurate information?
Georgina Gustin:
Well, look to the scientists and reputable media outlets that are reporting on science thoroughly and without bias and the right wing media will tell you that the mainstream media has got this all wrong. But the mainstream media or niche publications that, that cover issues that focus in on, on particular issues, those are going to be your sources of information, because they're talking to scientists. If they get things wrong, they have to correct them. And they're presenting a, the landscape of ideas, whereas publications on the left and the right publication, the pundits on the right have a lot of power, kind of a, an enduring power in this country. And they're just not right about the science and they're not listening to scientists.
Ivy Joeva:
So you're actually saying that the mainstream media would be a reliable source of information about this.
Georgina Gustin:
Well, when it comes to climate science, nothing from the Heartland Institute is going to, for example, is going to be accurate. It's a minefield. It really is difficult. But if you go to regional newspapers but particularly in newspapers, like the Washington post and the New York times, and, you know, a publication like mine that covers this in a very focused way, we are talking to the top scientists who understand this and have been doing it. I've been working on the science for decades. And we are reporting on we're reporting what those scientists say. And the New York Times has a fleet of people covering climate and the environment. So does the Washington Post there are, there are so many responsible journalists out there who are, who are covering this in an accurate way.
Ivy Joeva:
But if the mainstream media is covering this so well. And the Washington post the New York times, these have millions of readers. Why the ignorance around this?
Georgina Gustin:
I think, first of all, I think it's changing. I think more people understand that this is a, that climate change is a real problem that we are doing irreparable harm by continuing to burn fossil fuels. And I think voices like Gretta Turnberg has done a lot to capture public imagination around this issue. You're seeing the real effects of climate change happen. People are experiencing it in their lives. I think public understanding of the issue is changing and, and improving. And I also think that those media sources, while they're putting a lot of bringing a lot of attention to climate change, the media ecosystem as a whole has gotten so much smaller. There've been so many layoffs at, at, at newspapers around the country. The information source isn't as robust as it once was, but in recent years, those publications that I keep mentioning, they've doubled down on their climate coverage, they've expanded their, their climate reporting because of the urgency of the issue.
Ivy Joeva:
Why isn't it in the mainstream knowledge, how the role that agriculture plays in climate change?
Georgina Gustin:
A lot of it is because people are so disconnected from the farm, but I think when people do hear that the food system is responsible for 25% of global emissions that's globally and it's the entire food system. They're very surprised that I think in the whole universe of sort of climate coverage that has something that historically has been seen as you know, or has maybe not been at the forefront of, of the coverage. I think that is changing. And I think more people would tell you that they do understand that there are solutions in the soil and that farming is a contributor to greenhouse gases. And the food system is, is a big contributor to global warming. It was 1988 when, when James Hanson and co said to Congress, Hey, this is a problem. And that's when the division began. That's when, you know, the world became, that was the, kind of the big moment in this country where, where climate change and global warming got into the conversation.
Georgina Gustin:
And, and it has been incremental and slow since then inside climate news, my publication we've been covering climate change for 13 years. And you know, initially when we were covering climate change, people thought we were some sort of you know, had some kind of bias. And even 10 years ago in mainstream media sources, you were on, you know, various television programs. You would hear somebody with the skeptic possess skeptical position on climate change because they felt that they had to balance the story. And in fact, that was, did a huge disservice because as we know now there really isn't balance to this story. It is, it is a fact climate change is a fact. You don't need somebody in your story saying Oh, you know what well, there's this, and there are natural cycles. Well, no, those, that's not what we're talking about. I think people are public understanding is changing. I think media outlets have gotten better at covering climate change, although during the floods last year and the wildfires, if you watched any of the major network news channels, you would not hear anything about the links between those, those disasters and climate change.
Ivy Joeva:
Right, because people say this has been happening since Noah's Ark.
Georgina Gustin:
Or it's just too complicated to, to explain in a, in a, you know, one minute segment. But they, I think people turn to those television outlets and they have a responsibility to tell this story accurately or to, or to convey it fully. And I think that's improving, but it has not been good over the last 15 or 20 years. And that's why when publications like mine came along we were seen as kind of an, I should clarify. I wasn't around when this publication began, but you know, w it was considered sort of radical. And now it's, you know, mainstream media is, is covering this as an issue to a greater degree than, than it did 10 or 15 years ago. Although, you know, these prestigious publications they've covered the important stories related to climate for a long time whether people have been reading those stories and paying attention is another, is another matter.
Ivy Joeva:
Well, because our attention spans are so short. Now everything needs to be, like you said, like in a one minute little package, and we're lucky if people watch the whole thing through that, but why is it that people are so suspicious? You know, I don't even want to say this out loud, but there's this notion that mainstream media is bought and paid for. And if that's the case with things like pharmaceutical companies, why wouldn't they just be bought and paid for by the oil companies and the farm lobbies? Why would we trust them? Yeah,
Georgina Gustin:
It's a very complicated question, but I think there's, there have been very effective groups that have worked to discredit the media, and there's an inherent suspicion of, of bias. And, and that's, you know, it's good for people to be skeptical and to be careful about what, where they're getting their information. But I, I think it's really dangerous to assume that journalists are in the pockets of corporations.
Ivy Joeva:
It's the news organizations, like, what are the journalists going to be allowed? What stories are they going to be assigned? What stories are they going to be allowed to cover? What angles are they going to be told to portray?
Georgina Gustin:
Sure. I mean, if you look at Fox News, climate change, isn't real. So they are owned by a company, run by a family that has historically aligned with, you know, this position, that climate change isn't real, they're, they they're, they don't cover it in a real way. And, and although, you know, maybe that's going to change. I don't know, but I can tell you that I, you know, I've been a reporter for a long time. I have never, ever wants. And, and nor have my colleagues been told that they need to change a story to fit a narrative and we make mistakes, but we correct them. And if we make too many mistakes, we don't have a job. And if we don't correct the narrative, we're in trouble because we have to, we have to earn the trust of the public. And I honestly, I think it's a very complicated field, but I think that there are interests at work that, that wants you to believe that what you hear on this particular story is lies.
Ivy Joeva:
What can an your average person do to start to be part of the change? Like what, how would you recommend, is there a way that they can eat that would help support small farmers? Cause I think a lot of times, one of the reasons why we avoid looking at this big issue of climate change is because it's just overwhelming and we feel powerless. So how can your average person help?
Georgina Gustin:
Well, I mean, there, there, there are so many ways. One is vote, you know, vote in your local elections, vote in your you know, stay elections, pay attention to these issues. If they matter to you and see where candidates align, but you can support local farmers. If that's the way that you want an eat, eat, and there's a lot. And, you know, some would say that's elitist and farmer's markets are expensive and we don't all have access to them. That's true. But that's improving. If you want to support a sustainable food system, you need to support farmers, markets, CSS, and smaller farms. It's not always easy to do because our food system is pretty entrenched and monolithic. But yeah, I would say, I would say, you know, kind of vote with your fork and vote.
Ivy Joeva:
Do you think the Farm Bureau has a role in that, like the fact that people are not really as much aware of the impact on the way our food is grown.
Georgina Gustin:
I think the Farm Bureau has pushed against environmental regulation, climate regulation, because it doesn't want any kind of limitation, you know, regulations on, on its farms. And, and to that degree and to, you know, in that vein, it has behooved them to perpetuate the idea that farms are not part of the problem that the American farmer is the best steward of the land, which is something you hear a lot and that they are working hard to feed and clothe the American the world. And they have hung on to these soundbites in a way that in a way that these stories have really stuck in, in our national consciousness of what a farmer is. And they've really used the farmer as a kind of straw man to perpetuate the status quo the way they want to do business.
Ivy Joeva:
What it's like, because people, when people think of a farmer, we think of small farmers, we don't think of giants, multi acre, you know, these, these places that are spraying chemicals and using machinery. And that's not what people think of when they think of a farmer. So their, their image of a farmer is somewhat of a lie.
Georgina Gustin:
Yeah, it is. I mean, the American farmer doesn't look like that. The majority of the American farmer, you know, majority of American farmers don't look like that they're highly sophisticated, multi, you know, thousands and thousands of acres. They are corporate operations and you know, but they've used this idea of the farmer by the big red barn with a rolling green field and the black and white cows they've used that to their political advantage. That's not what the farm looks like anymore,
Ivy Joeva:
Giving this wholesome image of farmers as these, you know, small family farms with the happy cow in the backyard and all of that. But at the same time touting this idea that their way of doing things is more sophisticated that when we're using quote unquote advances, this is more sophisticated as opposed to recognizing that there is an intelligence and innate sophistication in regenerative practices that are really not thoughts that story's not being told as much.
Georgina Gustin:
I really feel like the idea of regenerative farming is becoming more sort of, I think it's part, part of the conversation a little bit more than, than it certainly was, you know, five or 10 years ago. And, but it, again, it's this, it's this battle between farmers who advocate and farmers and, and advocacy groups and, and researchers who advocate for that type of farming system versus the giant power of, of corporate agribusiness. And, you know, people don't understand the wisdom of that kind of farming or, or understand what it is even because it's a drop in the bucket relative to the way farming works in this country, to the extent that any, you know, a person knows anything about farming at all. I think if every farmer in this country were to farm in ways that were, that, that are, that create resiliency in the soil that are regenerative, we would go a long way towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. We're not doing that largely we're farming on, you know, massive tracks of land very thin economic margins and with little incentive to farm in ways that are regenerative.
Ivy Joeva:
I guess the question is for people that are listening to this, and it's starting to sound pretty, you know, you're saying things are going in a positive direction, but it's also pretty dire. The circumstances you mentioned that people can vote and people can help change this with their votes. So for someone who might not be knowing how to go about that is, is it these national elections that are most important when it comes to supporting, changing the agricultural system?
Georgina Gustin:
Well, if you look at the, all of the democratic candidates in this year's field had farming and or climate change as part of their policy platforms, that was kind of amazing. That has never happened before. And Joe Biden, while some environmental groups are not entirely happy with his platform, discusses net zero, you know, aims for net zero emissions and agriculture. That is a conversation that wasn't happening four years ago or eight years ago, whether these things actually do happen remains to be seen because the corporate interests in place are very powerful and it's gonna, you know, they want things to remain as they are. So yes, you're right. It is, it is a very difficult thing to try to turn around. But I think that the fact that you have presidential candidates using terms like soil carbon, that's quite remarkable, really it is kind of, it's an improvement.
Georgina Gustin:
And the fact that more people know about these things is, is also, you know, w more people know about these issues is also an improvement. Basically the way we eat, which is to say that we destroy habitat in order to grow food in the last year and a half, there have been major international UN reports, and they are clear on this. We need to reduce our meat and dairy consumption. And that is the single livestock production is the single largest driver of deforestation. And deforestation is the single biggest loss of habitat. And I think that the science is pretty clear on that. That is being warred over by the beef industry. Of course not surprisingly, it's an existential threat to them, but if you listen to experts on this, they'll say, okay, the whole world doesn't need to become vegan. What we need to do is reduce our meat and dairy consumption, especially in developed countries.
Ivy Joeva:
But the problem being that 90% of the meat we have access to is from these concentrated animal feeding operations.
Georgina Gustin:
Yeah. I mean, I think, and I should, yeah, I should, I should be clear about it. What I meant was PR you know, livestock protein or animal based protein, but our way of eating in this country, which is so glorified, the steak and the hamburger, because we're a rich country, and those are rich people's foods. And so, you know, aspirationally, everybody wanted to eat steak. And then, you know, we mechanized it in such a way that, you know, we have all these fast food outlets or they're totally animal protein dependent. So our way of thinking about food is not combining a pulse with, with a vegetable or combining pulses in unique ways to come to get a complete protein. That's just, we don't get that are always eating, is, you know, a piece of meat and a starch and a vegetable. So it's ingrained in our way of eating.
Georgina Gustin:
And people cannot think outside of that because they're so accustomed to this notion that food is this particular way. And it's easy. It's easy to throw a piece of meat on the grill and throw a salad together. It's when you hear people say, you know, they're going to take my burgers away in response to these reports that I just mentioned. People will be like, Oh, they, you know, when they want to take my hamburger away and, you know, they want to make us all vegans and that's not what's happening. It has just become so political. It's so ingrained that, you know, a steak is, you know, an American, right? And that you should have it, you know, cheaply shouldn't be cheap. It should be more expensive, but, you know, we want cheap. We want these, you know, what should be extravagant foods. We want them cheap. And we get them cheap because of the way our system is subsidized.
New Speaker:
Yeah. And our health is definitely paying the price for it.
Georgina Gustin:
That is true.
Ivy Joeva:
Georgina, thank you so much for joining us on future food today. Thank you for the wonderful work you're doing to eliminate what's happening with our system of agriculture and really help get that information out to the public.
Georgina Gustin:
Thank you. Thanks for having me.
Ivy Joeva:
Thanks for listening everyone. Visit us online at futurefood.fm. Subscribe on Apple podcasts, or listen to us wherever you get your podcasts and put the power to save the planet on your plate and on your playlist. I'm Ivy Joeva. Future of food is produced by Lee Schneider. Music by Epidemic Sound. We're part of the FutureX podcast network.