Farmworkers - Affirmative

Farmworkers Aff

1AC – FrameworkI value morality. The standard is maximizing expected net well-being – 2 warrants.First, government policy is constrained by limitations on resources. Any government decision must account for tradeoffs, which only utilitarian ethics can do. Mack 4 [“Utilitarian Ethics in Healthcare.” International Journal of the Computer, the Internet, and Management Vol. 12, No.3. 2004. Department of Surgery. Singapore General Hospital.] LADI

Medicine is a costly science, but of greater concern to the health economist is that it is also a limitless art. Every medical advance created new needs that did not exist until the means of meeting them came into existence. Physicians are reputed to have an infinite capacity to do ever more things, and perform ever more expensive interventions for their patients so long as any of their patients’ health needs remain unfulfilled. The traditional stance of the physician is that each patient is an isolated universe. When confronted with a situation in which his duty involves a competition for scarce medications or treatments, he would plead the patient’s cause by all methods, short of deceit. However, when the physician’s decision involves more than just his own patient, or has some commitment to public health, other issues have to be considered. He then has to recognise that the unbridled advocacy of the patient may not square with what the economist perceives to be the most advantageous policy to society as a whole. Medical professionals characteristically deplore scarcities. Many of them are simply not prepared to modify their intransigent principle of unwavering duty to their patients’ individual interest. However, in decisions involving multiple patients, making available more medication, labour or expenses for one patient will mean leaving less for another. The physician is then compelled by his competing loyalties to enter into a decision mode of one versus many, where the underlying constraint is one of finiteness of the commodities. Although the medical treatment may be simple and inexpensive in many instances, there are situations such as in renal dialysis, where prioritisation of treatment poses a moral dilemma because some patients will be denied the treatment and perish. Ethics and economics share areas of overlap. They both deal with how people should behave, what policies the state should pursue and what obligations citizens owe to their governments. The centrality of the human person in both normative economics and normative ethics is pertinent to this discussion. Economics is the study of human action in the marketplace whereas ethics deals with the “rightness” or “wrongness” of human action in general. Both disciplines are rooted in human reason and human nature and the two disciplines intersect at the human person and the analysis of human action. From the economist’s perspective, ethics is identified with the investigation of rationally justifiable bases for resolving conflict among persons with divergent aims and who share a common world. Because of the scarcity of resources, one’s success is another person’s failure. Therefore ethics search for rationally justifiable standards for the resolution of interpersonal conflict. While the realities of human life have given rise to the concepts of property, justice and scarcity, the management of scarcity requires the exercise of choice, since having more of some goods means having less of others. Exercising choice in turn involves comparisons, and comparisons are based on principles. As ethicists, the meaning of these principles must be sought in the moral basis that

implementing them would require. For instance, if the implementation of distributive justice in healthcare is founded on the basis of welfare-based principles, as opposed to say resource-based principles, it means that the health system is motivated by the idea that what is of primary moral importance is the level of welfare of the people. This means that all distributive questions should be settled according to which distribution maximises welfare. Utilitarianism is fundamentally welfarist in its philosophy. Application of the principle to healthcare requires a prior understanding of the welfarist theory as expounded by the economist. Conceptually, welfarist theory is built on four tenets: utility maximisation, consumer sovereignty, consequentialism and welfarism. Utility maximisation embodies the behavioural proposition that individuals choose rationally, but it does not address the morality of rational choice. Consumer sovereignty is the maxim that individuals are the best judge of their own welfare. Consequentialism holds that any action or choice must be judged exclusively in terms of outcomes. Welfarism is the proposition that the “goodness” of the resource allocation be judged solely on the welfare or utility levels in that situation. Taken together these four tenets require that a policy be judged solely in terms of the resulting utilities achieved by individuals as assessed by the individuals themselves. Issues of who receives the utility, the source of the utility and any non-utility aspects of the situation are ignored.

Second, because all experiences are subjective we must first determine our subjective experience before looking to other moral questions, and doing so requires phenomenal introspection. Sinhababu 08 [Neil, Assistant Professor at Department of Philosophy in National University of Singapore. PhD, University of Texas at Austin, 2008. “The Epistemic Argument for Hedonism.” http://philpapers.org/profile/259] LADI

Now I'll outline hedonism's answer to Joyce and Street's evolutionary debunking arguments, as promised in section 1.1. Phenomenal introspection is a process of belief-formation that evolved to be generally reliable, like visual perception. Knowing what one is experiencing seems to be important for perception, so creatures who couldn't know what their experiences were like would die without reproducing, having failed to form useful beliefs about their surroundings. So creatures who could reliably form true beliefs about their phenomenal states would be more likely to survive and reproduce. Hedonism withstands evolutionary debunking arguments via what Street calls a “byproduct hypothesis.” Since belief in pleasure's goodness is a byproduct of phenomenal introspection, which is selected for reliability, it's reliably caused even if other moral beliefs aren't.31 If all other moral beliefs are undermined by their origins in processes not selected for reliability, an evolutionary debunking argument could do the same work for hedonists that the argument from disagreement has done in this paper.32

Phenomenal introspection as the basis of determining subjective experiences logically leads to a hedonistic moral system. Sinhababu 08 [Neil, Assistant Professor at Department of Philosophy in National University of Singapore. PhD, University of Texas at Austin, 2008. “The Epistemic Argument for Hedonism.” http://philpapers.org/profile/259] LADI

One can form a variety of beliefs using phenomenal introspection. For example, one can believe that one is having sound experiences of particular noises and visual experiences of different shades of color. When looking at a lemon and considering the phenomenal states that are yellow experiences, one can form some beliefs about their intrinsic features – for example, that they're bright experiences. And when considering experiences of pleasure, one can make some judgments about their intrinsic features – for example, that they're good experiences. Just as one can look inward at one's experience of lemon yellow and recognize its brightness, one can look inward at one's experience of pleasure and recognize its goodness. 24 When I consider a situation of increasing pleasure, I can form the belief that things are better than they were before, just as I form the belief that there's more brightness in my visual field as lemon yellow replaces black. And when I suddenly experience pain, I can form the belief that things are worse in my experience than they were before. Having pleasure consists in one's experience having a positive hedonic tone. Without descending into metaphor, it's hard to give a further account of what pleasure is like than to say that when one has it, one feels good. As Aaron Smuts writes in defending the view of pleasure as hedonic tone, “to 'feel good' is about as close to an experiential primitive as we get.” 25 Fred Feldman sees pleasure as fundamentally an attitude rather than a hedonic tone.26 But as long as hedonic tones are real components of experience, phenomenal introspection will reveal pleasure's goodness. Opponents of the hedonic tone account of pleasure usually concede that hedonic tones exist, as Feldman seems to in discussing “sensory pleasures,” which he thinks his view helps us understand. Even on his view of pleasure, phenomenal introspection can produce the belief that some hedonic tones are good while others are bad.

Third, no act omission distinction for states since their implicit approvals of actions still entail moral responsibilitySunstein 05 [Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. The University of Chicago Law School. “Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life‐Life Tradeoffs.” JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 239. The Chicago Working Paper Series. March 2005] LADI

In our view, both the argument from causation and the argument from intention go wrong by overlooking the distinctive features of government as a moral agent. Whatever the general status of the act-omission distinction as a matter of moral philosophy,38

the distinction is least impressive when applied to government.39 The most fundamental point is that unlike individuals, governments always and necessarily face a choice between or among possible policies for regulating third parties. The distinction between acts and omissions may not be intelligible in this context, and even if it is, the distinction does not make a morally relevant difference. Most generally,

government is in the business of creating permissions and prohibitions. When it explicitly or implicitly authorizes private action, it is not omitting to do anything, or refusing to act. 40 Moreover, the distinction between authorized and unauthorized private action—for example, private killing—becomes obscure when the government formally forbids private action, but chooses a set of policy instruments that do not adequately or fully discourage it.

Fourth, moral uncertainty means we should prevent extinction Bostrom 12 [Nick Bostrom. Faculty of Philosophy & Oxford Martin School University of Oxford. “Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority.” Global Policy (2012)]

These reflections on moral uncertainty suggest an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential risk; they also suggest a new way of thinking about the ideal of sustainability. Let me elaborate.¶ Our present understanding of axiology might well be confused. We may not now know — at least not in concrete detail — what outcomes would count as a big win for humanity; we might not even yet be able to imagine the best ends of our journey. If we are indeed profoundly uncertain about our ultimate aims, then we should recognize that there is a great option value in preserving — and ideally improving — our ability to recognize value and to steer the future accordingly. Ensuring that there will be a future version of humanity with great powers and a propensity to use them wisely is plausibly the best way available to us to increase the probability that the future will contain a lot of value. To do this, we must prevent any existential catastrophe.

1AC – PesticidesPesticide use is rampant and harmful—current union protections are insufficientGhai 12 [(Devika, works for the Pesticide Action Network, which calls for a healthy, safe and fair food system that protects and promotes the health of farmworkers and their families), “Pesticides: A Labor Rights Issue,” ILRF, 8/13/12, http://www.laborrights.org/blog/201208/pesticides-labor-rights-issue?vid=7&page=1] LADI//DRD.Decades after Edward R Murrow’s Harvest of Shamedocumentary and John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, U.S. farmworkers still face many of the same problems: extreme poverty punctuated by substandard housing and lack of access to clean water, adequate food, healthcare, and education.¶ Farmworkers represent the backbone and marrow of our agricultural economy. Performing some of the most demanding manual labor in any economic sector, farmworkers are also one of the least protected groups from the harms they can experience on the job.¶ Farmworker unions are much stronger now than in the 1960s, yet most farmworkers do not benefit from union representation and harsh working conditions continue. Routine problems can include exposure to highly hazardous pesticides, abusive employers and even slavery.¶ Laws Don’t Protect Farmworkers from Pesticides ¶ Agricultural workers face greater threats from pesticide exposure—including acute poisonings and long-term effects such as cancer, birth defects and learning disabilities—than any other sector of society.¶ Farmworkers, and often their children, are regularly exposed to pesticides in many ways: mixing or applying pesticides; planting, weeding, thinning, irrigating, pruning, harvesting, and processing crops; or living in or near treated fields. Studies show that pesticides carried from field to home on parents’ clothing and skin put farmworker children at risk

No other regulation solves – illegal pesticide use is under-reported and poisoning is rampantChavez 02 [(Cesar, an American labor leader and civil rights activist who, with Dolores Huerta, co-founded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962), “The Words of Cesar Chavez,” 2002, https://books.google.com/books?id=QSJF8JJLePUC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=farmworker+union+lobby+pesticide&source=bl&ots=tGDBsxqIZ] LADI//DRD.

scientific studies? Birth defects. Sterility. Still births. Miscarriages. Neurological and neuropsychological effects. Effects on child growth and development. Cancer. Use of pesticides are governed by strict laws, agribusiness says. Growers argue reported poisonings involved only one (1) percent of California farm workers in 1986. But experts estimate that only one (1) percent of California pesticide illness or injury is reported. The underreporting of pesticide poisoning is flagrant and it is epidemic. A World Resources Institute study says 300,000 farm workers are poisoned each year by pesticides in the United States. Even the state Department of Food and Agriculture reported total pesticide poisoning of farm workers rose by 41 percent in 1987. Yet the Farm Workers aren't sincere when we raise the pesticide issue, grape growers complain. ¶ They won't admit that the first ban on DDT, Alchin and Dieldrin in the United States

was not by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1572, but in a United Farm Workers contract with a grope grower in 1967. Who will protect farm workers from poisoning if it isn't the farmworkers' union? The Environmental Protection Agency won’t do it. They’re in bed with the same agricultural and chemical interests they are sup-posed to regulate. It was an accident of history that E.P.A. got stuck with regulating pesticides. It happened after the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration—which is supposed to safeguard all American working people—refused to protect farm workers. The law won't do it. Agribusinesses lobbied mightily to exclude farm workers from federal job safety and health laws. And they won. You think the National Rifle Association wields a powerful lobby? They're pussy cats compared to organizations that lobby for agribusiness. Too many people still think of small family farmers—an image corporate agribusiness likes to promote. The American Medical Association tries to do the same thing, except most people don't believe doctors still make house calls. But we all know what farming is today in states like California: a $14 billion a year industry dominated by huge corporations—the state's richest industry. There has never been a law at the state or national levels that has ever been enforced for farm workers and against growers: child labor, minimum wage and hour, occupational health and safety, agricultural labor relations. How will agribusiness protect farm workers from pesticides? The agrichemical industry won't do it.

That causes massive biodiversity lossReigart 12 [(Routt, M.D. is Professor of Pediatrics at Medical University of South Carolina and has conducted university affiliated clinical trials since 1971. Routt is one of the nation’s top pediatric expert on pesticides. His research interests include children's environmental health issues, general pediatrics, and toxicology. Routt has been Chair of the EPA’s Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, a member of EPA/USDA/Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee and the FIFRA Science Advisory Panel, and CDC Chair for the Childhood Lead Poisoning Advisory Committee), “Impacts of Pesticides on Wildlife,” Beyond Pesticides, 2012, http://www.beyondpesticides.org/programs/wildlife] LADI//DRD.The impacts of pesticides on wildlife are extensive, and expose animals in urban, suburban and rural areas to unnecessary risks. Beyond Pesticides considers wildlife to be any organism that is not domesticated or used in a lab. This includes but is not limited to bees, birds, small mammals, fish, other aquatic organisms, and the biota within soil. Wildlife can be impacted by pesticides through direct or indirect applications, such as pesticide drift, secondary poisoning, runoff into local water bodies, and groundwater contamination. It is possible that some animals could be sprayed directly, while others consume plants or prey that have been exposed to pesticides.¶

Click the links below to quickly navigate our wildlife page:¶ Economic Impacts¶ Organic Systems¶

The Endangered Species Act and Other Laws¶ Litigation¶ Resources¶ Pesticide exposure can be linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, kidney and liver damage, birth defects and developmental changes in a wide range of species. Exposure to pesticides can also alter an organism’s behavior, impacting its ability to survive. In birds, for example, exposure to certain pesticides can impede its singing ability, making it difficult to attract a mate and reproduce. Pesticides can also affect a bird’s ability to care for its offspring, causing their young to die. For bees, even “near-infinitesimal” levels of systemic pesticides result in sublethal effects, impacting mobility, feeding behaviors, and navigation. ¶ Many deformations have been found after exposure to hormone-mimicking pesticides classified as endocrine

disruptors. The impacts of these chemicals include hermaphroditic deformities in frogs, pseudo-hermaphrodite polar bears with penis-like stumps, panthers with atrophied testicles, and intersex fish in rivers throughout the United States. Reproductive abnormalities have been observed in mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and mollusks at levels considered “safe” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).¶ Visit our Pesticide Gateway for more information about specific pesticides and their impact on wildlife.¶ Economic Impacts of Pesticides on Wildlife¶ The estimated economic costs of losses to biodiversity in the form of pollinator services, “beneficial” predators, birds and aquatic life are continually changing as more complex and comprehensive studies are published. Earlier studies estimated that the cost of losses to biodiversity might amount to more than $1.1 billion every year. Now, we know that the loss of biodiversity can cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Natural pest control, a fundamental agricultural service, is estimated to be worth $100 billion annually. The role of soil biota in increasing agricultural productivity is worth $25 billion annually. By 2009, the value of dependent crops attributed to all insect pollination was estimated to be worth $15.12 billion annually.¶ Other economic impacts can come from the recreational use of wildlife. US citizens already spend over $60 billion annually on hunting, fishing and observing wildlife, much of which is dependent on insects as a food source. Researchers have found that there is a steady decline in these insects due to pesticide exposure and an overall decline in biodiversity. It could be concluded then that, as beneficial insect populations decline, their ability to provide ecosystem services will also decline, impacting the available wildlife for hunting, fishing and observing. The demand for these recreational activities will stay constant while the supply (availability) will decline, causing an increase in dollars spent by US citizens for each year.

Biodiversity loss risks extinction - ecosystems aren’t resilient or redundant Vule 13-School of Biological Sciences, Louisiana Tech University (Jeffrey V. Yule *, Robert J. Fournier and Patrick L. Hindmarsh, “Biodiversity, Extinction, and Humanity’s Future: The Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Human Population and Resource Use”, 2 April 2013, manities 2013, 2, 147–159) LADI//DRD

Ecologists recognize that the particulars of the relationship between biodiversity and community resilience in the face of disturbance (a broad range of phenomena including anything from drought, fire, and volcanic eruption to species introductions or removals) depend on context [16,17]. Sometimes disturbed communities return relatively readily to pre-disturbance conditions; sometimes they do not. However, accepting as a general truism that biodiversity is an ecological stabilizer is sensible— roughly equivalent to viewing seatbelt use as a good idea: although seatbelts increase the risk of injury in a small minority of car accidents, their use overwhelmingly reduces risk. As humans continue to modify natural environments, we may be reducing their ability to return to pre-disturbance conditions. The concern is not merely academic. Communities provide the ecosystem services on which both human and nonhuman life depends, including the cycling of carbon dioxide and oxygen by photosynthetic organisms, nitrogen fixation and the filtration of water by microbes , and pollination by insects. If disturbances alter communities to the extent that they can no longer provide these crucial services, extinctions (including, possibly, our own) become more likely. In ecology as in science in general, absolutes are rare . Science deals mainly in probabilities, in large part because it attempts to address the universe’s abundant uncertainties. Species-rich, diverse communities

characterized by large numbers of multi-species interactions are not immune to being pushed from one relatively stable state characterized by particular species and interactions to other, quite different states in which formerly abundant species are entirely or nearly entirely absent. Nonetheless, in speciose communities, the removal of any single species is less likely to result in radical change. That said, there are no guarantees that the removal of even a single species from a biodiverse community will not have significant, completely unforeseen consequences. Indirect interactions can be unexpectedly important to community structure and, historically, have been difficult to observe until some form of disturbance (especially the introduction or elimination of a species) occurs. Experiments have revealed how the presence of predators can increase the diversity of prey species in communities, as when predators of a superior competitor among prey species will allow inferior competing prey species to persist [18]. Predators can have even more dramatic effects on communities. The presence or absence of sea otters determines whether inshore areas are characterized by diverse kelp forest communities or an alternative stable state of species poor urchin barrens [19]. In the latter case, the absence of otters leaves urchin populations unchecked to overgraze kelp forests, eliminating a habitat feature that supports a wide range of species across a variety of age classes. Aldo Leopold observed that when trying to determine how a device works by tinkering with it, the first rule of doing the job intelligently is to save all the parts [20]. The extinctions that humans have caused certainly represent a significant problem, but there is an additional difficulty with human investigations of and impacts on ecological and evolutionary processes. Often, our tinkering is unintentional and, as a result, recklessly ignores the necessity of caution. Following the logic inherited from Newtonian physics, humans expect single actions to have single effects. Desiring more game species, for instance, humans typically hunt predators (in North America, for instance, extirpating wolves so as to be able to have more deer or elk for themselves). Yet removing or adding predators has far reaching effects. Wolf removal has led to prey overpopulation, plant over browsing, and erosion [21]. After wolves were removed from Yellowstone National Park, the K of elk increased. This allowed for a shift in elk feeding patterns that left fewer trees alongside rivers, thus leaving less food for beaver and, consequently, fewer beaver dams and less wetland [22,23]. Such a situation represents, in microcosm, the inherent risk of allowing for the erosion of species diversity. In addition to providing habitat for a wide variety of species, wetlands serve as natural water purification systems. Although the Yellowstone region might not need that particular ecosystem service as much as other parts of the world, freshwater resources and wetlands are threatened globally, and the same logic of reduced biodiversity equating to reduced ecosystem services applies. Humans take actions without considering that when tugging on single threads, they unavoidably affect adjacent areas of the tapestry. While human population and per capita resource use remain high, so does the probability of ongoing biodiversity loss. At the very least, in the future people will have an even more skewed perspective than we do about what constitutes a diverse community. In that regard, future generations will be even more ignorant than we are. Of course, we also experience that shifting baseline perspective on biodiversity and population sizes, failing to recognize how much is missing from the world because we are unaware of what past generations saw [11]. But the consequences of diminished biodiversity might be more profound for humans than that. If the disturbance of communities and ecosystems results in species losses that reduce the availability of ecosystem services, human K and, sooner or later, human N will be reduced.

Specifically – the plan results in a push to ban chlorpyrifosSchick 16 [(Tony, an investigative and data reporter for EarthFix, an environmental journalism collaboration led by Oregon Public Broadcasting in partnership with six other public media stations in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. He received his master's degree in journalism from the University of Missouri.), “Farmworker Groups Seek Ban on Pesticide,” PBS, 9/21/16, http://www.opb.org/news/article/farmworker-groups-seek-ban-on-pesticide/] LADI//DRD. Farmworker advocacy groups are pushing for a ban on a pesticide known to damage the nervous system, which they say poses an unacceptable risk to farmworkers and their families.¶

Twelve different organizations submitted a petition Wednesday calling for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to suspend the use of chlorpyrifos, a widely used insect killer. The EPA has been considering a ban on the chemical since October 2015, and the petition comes as the agency nears its deadline for a decision.¶ Chlorpyrifos is one of the most frequently cited causes for farmworker pesticide poisonings, according to the petition. In 2000, the EPA eliminated all home uses of the pesticide, but re-approved its use in agriculture. The agency’s own assessments have since found that many uses of the chemical put farmworkers at risk as well as contaminate some drinking water sources in heavily farmed areas. ¶ “There’s something wrong with that picture. I think it’s about time the consuming public understands that farmworkers are literally giving up their lives and are working with dangerous chemicals to put food on the American table.” said Ramon Ramirez, president of Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, Oregon’s farmworker union.¶ Chlorpyrifos has been used to treat everything from Northwest orchards and feed crops to golf courses and wood fences.¶ Scott Dahlman, a lobbyist for the farm and forest industries with Oregonians for Food and Shelter, says the chemical has been important in recent years to kill invasive insects that hurt the Northwest’s fruit crops. ¶

Dahlman called the petition for the ban “very unfortunate to see.”¶ The chemical kills insects by disrupting the nervous system. It blocks an enzyme that controls messaging between nerve cells. When that’s blocked, the nerves can’t send normal signals.¶ Research points to risks of nerve damage in humans, too, and the EPA’s latest assessment of the chemical shows a risk to workers who handle the pesticide.¶ Erik Nicholson, the National Vice President of United Farm Workers, based in Tacoma, said advocates like him have been working to ban chlopyrifos for years.¶ “It’s simply too dangerous. In spite of this information, EPA has failed to take the timely action necessary to protect farmworkers, to protect us consumers,” Nicholson said. “This is tremendously frustrating.”

Even trace amounts contribute to alarming rates of bee deathUniversity of Otago 16 [“Bees ‘dumb down’ after ingesting tiny doses of the pesticide chlorpyrifos,” ScienceDaily, 3/01/16] LADI//DRD.

In their study, researchers from the Departments of Zoology and Chemistry collected bees from 51 hives across 17 locations in the province of Otago in Southern New Zealand and measured their chlorpyrifos levels. They detected low levels of pesticide in bees at three of the 17 sites and in six of the 51 hives they examined.¶ Detecting chlorpyrifos was not a surprise. In 2013, Associate Professor Kim Hageman and her team from Otago's Department of Chemistry showed that chlorpyrifos was detectable in air, water, and plant samples even in non-sprayed areas of the country, because this pesticide has a high ability to volatilise and travel great distances. ¶ In

the laboratory they then fed other bees with similar amounts of the pesticide, which is used around the world to protect food crops against insects and mites, and put them through learning performance tests.¶ Study lead author Dr Elodie Urlacher says they found that chlorpyrifos-fed bees had worse odour-learning abilities and also recalled odours more poorly later, even though the dose they ingested is considered to be "safe."¶ "For example, the dosed bees were less likely to respond specifically to an odour that was previously rewarded. As honeybees rely on such memory mechanisms to target flowers, chlorpyrifos exposure may be stunting their effectiveness as nectar foragers and pollinators," Dr Urlacher says.¶ The study identified the threshold dose for sub-lethal effects of chlorpyrifos on odour-learning and recall as 50 picograms of chlorpyrifos ingested per bee, she says.¶ "This amount is thousands of times lower than the lethal dose of pure chlorpyrifos, which is around 100 billionths of a gram. Also, it is in the low range of the levels we measured in bees in the field."¶ The current study is the first to establish the threshold at which a pesticide has an effect on memory specificity in bees while also measuring doses in bee populations in the field, she says.¶ "Our findings raise some challenging questions about regulating this pesticide's use. It's now clear that it is not just the lethal effects on bees that need to be taken into account, but also the serious sub-lethal ones at minute doses," Dr Urlacher says.¶

That causes extinction.

Daftardar 15 [Ishan Daftardar; Why Bee Extinction Would Mean the End of Humanity; https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/bee-extinction-means-end-humanity.html; ScienceABC; 2015] LADI//WJ

Honey bees are going extinct because of excessive use of pesticides in crops and certain blood-sucking parasites that only reproduce in bee colonies. It’s true that the extinction of bees would mean the end of humanity. For many of us, honeybees are annoying. We think that their only purpose is to keep buzzing around and dropping their formic acid-laden stings on random people (this impression will certainly change when we stop getting spoonfuls of sweet honey in our morning cereal). The truth is, honeybees are crucial elements of our environment, and almost never get the credit that they deserve. If bees didn’t exist, humans wouldn’t either. Wonder Why? Out of the 100 crop species that provide us with 90% of our food, 70% are pollinated by bees (source). It’s that simple. Bees are the primary initiators of reproduction among plants, as they transfer pollen from the male stamens to the female pistils. bee polling The pollination process Since 2006, the population of bees has declined considerably (source). Pesticides, disease, parasites, and poor weather due to global warming have played a major role in this worrying decline. Why are bees going extinct? Bees are going extinct mainly because of two reasons: pesticides and parasites. Pesticides Since the end of World War 2, the use of pesticides in agriculture has increased exponentially. bees_chart_neonicotinoids This intense use of pesticides, known as neonicotinoids (a relatively new class of insecticides that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death), has had a major role in the bees’ decline (source). When bees are exposed to neonicotinoids, they go into a shock and forget their way home (sort of like the insect version of Alzheimer’s). Parasites Along with pesticides, parasites known as Varrao mites (also called Varrao destructors) are also responsible for their death (source). The Varrao can only reproduce in a bee colony. They are blood-sucking

parasites that affect adult and young bees equally. The disease inflicted by these mites can result in bees losing legs or wings, essentially killing them. beesfunn Effects of bee extinction Extinction of bees will affect plants, animals, availability of fuels, topography, clothing and of course, human life. Effects on plants Some plants are pollinated by wind, but that rate is very slow. Insects are the primary pollinators on the planet. Beetles and butterflies also pollinate, but bees are the most efficient insects for this purpose. Without bees, we wouldn’t be able to savor delicious apples, cherries, and many other fruits and veggies (blueberries, avocado, broccoli, most leafy greens, cucumbers, pumpkins, and many more). Almond trees would be among the first casualties. beepoll If bees went extinct, there would be a massive decline in the production of crops. Although crops like rice and wheat don’t require insect pollination, can people survive by eating rice and bread all their life? Effects on animals Herbivores, who depend on certain plant species, will be affected first. They would go extinct if plants ceased to exist. For example, many cattle used for milk and meat depend on alfalfa and lupins, both of which depend on insect pollination. If the cow’s food supply declines, then meat and milk production will decrease. This will seriously affect the human diet. Cows Credits:Kirill Livshitskiy/Shutterstock Due to the declining population of herbivores, tertiary carnivores will begin to suffer immediately. The only beneficiaries from this scenario would be scavengers (eagles, vultures, ravens etc.) Fuel Canola Oil Canola (Credits:JIANG HONGYAN/Shutterstock) Canola, which is grown to use as both a fuel and cooking oil, depends highly on pollination. It is also used to produce biofuel. If we were to run out of biofuel, we’d have to rely on fossil fuels completely, thus putting further pressure on the environment. Clothing Cotton is very reliant on pollination. The disappearance of bees will lead to a huge setback in cotton production, as it will significantly reduce our choices in clothes (good luck enduring the humidity of the tropical regions while wearing nylon attire). Topograhy Dry Land This will be a common sight if bees disappear (Credits:WichitS/Shutterstock) Since most plants would be unable to grow, grasslands would become barren and large-scale desertification will take place. Landslides would wipe out villages in one sweep. Ultimately, Earth will become one large plastic-laden desert. Effects of bee extinction on human life Less production of food crops will ultimately lead to worldwide famine[,]. Hunger and poverty will be very common. Freshwater will start drying up as well as, as there will be less trees for water retention to occur. With less water and diminishing food, humans will die of thirst and starvation. Fertility would also suffer a setback, followed by a drop in the rate of reproduction. Ultimately, we wouldn’t be able to sustain and would be forced into extinction within a few hundred years. Unless scientists build robotic bees to do the jobs that honeybees once did, we’re ultimately doomed. And although this isn’t the most serious repercussion, we would never again taste that sweet, savory honey that we forcibly steal from honeybees every day. The tragic irony of this is that by killing bees, we’re only hurting ourselves. Our survival depends on the health of the planet and its species, and unless we begin to face this fact, we will continue to contribute to our own demise. Unless we take drastic measures to save the bees, the planet’s survival is in doubt.

1AC – YieldsA massive labor shortage on farms is coming now and will spike food pricesPhilpott 17 [Tom Philpott, food and ag correspondent for Mother Jones. "Trump’s crackdown on immigration is terrible news for anyone who eats food," Mother Jones,

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/immigration-farm-workers-employment-trump/ 6-26-17] LADI//ZV

In the spring of 2011, Georgia’s fruit and vegetable growers faced a crippling drought. But it wasn’t for lack of rain; rather, their supply of farmworkers had dried up almost overnight. Typically, migrant pickers made their way north from Florida’s winter tomato fields into Georgia to harvest its Vidalia onions, bell peppers, and blueberries. But that year, “they just didn’t come,” says Charles Hall, executive director of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. The pickers avoided the state, leaving “crops in the field rotting.” What happened? Just after taking office that winter, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed a bill that, he vowed, would “crack down on the influx of illegal immigrants into our state.” Known in civil-liberties circles as Georgia’s racial-profiling law, House

Bill 87 encouraged local police officers to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of violating any regulation, including traffic rules, and imposed harsh penalties on anyone caught “harboring an illegal alien.” The governor probably didn’t intend for his signature immigration law to cost his state’s farm sector loads of cash. But his timing couldn’t have been worse. A shortfall of 11,000 workers—representing about 85 percent of peak employment—caused $75 million in crop losses that spring alone, with a total hit to the state economy of $103.6 million that season, according to a study by the University of Georgia. Neighboring Alabama passed an even more draconian law later that year, spurring its immigrant farmworkers

to exit en masse and costing the state up to 6 percent of its gross domestic product. Now, the entire country is governed by a chief executive who vows to make life miserable for undocumented immigrants. Pursuing what might be called his “bad hombre” theory, President Donald Trump swiftly made good on promises to ramp up deportations after taking office. Just as in Georgia, the rest of the nation’s farms lean heavily on the very group of people targeted by the president. According to the

American Farm Bureau Federation, the US harvest requires between 1.5 million and 2.2 million workers annually—and at least half of them are undocumented. Research by the Farm Bureau suggests that the federal immigration policy Trump is promoting could result in a massive farm labor shortage across the country, causing domestic fruit output to plunge anywhere from 30 to 61 percent and vegetable production to fall by 15 to 31 percent . Industrial-scale livestock operations and slaughterhouses

also rely heavily on immigrants, so meat production could tumble by as much as 27 percent. As a result, the

group concludes, US eaters are looking at food price hikes of 5 to 6 percent. That might not sound like much,

but it’s sure to squeeze families on a tight budget. So Trump’s efforts to save us from “bad hombres” is bad news for farms—and for Americans who are just trying to put dinner on the table. For years, the agriculture sector has grappled with farmworkers’ immigration statuses—but there are no easy fixes. After Georgia’s crackdown, Hall says, the state’s large growers eventually responded to the labor shortage by leaning on the H-2A immigration guest worker program, which gives migrants temporary visas without a path to citizenship. Indeed, the Trump family’s own Virginia vineyard applied to the US Department of

Labor for six H-2A visas in December, weeks before his inauguration. But Hall says the H-2A program has failed to keep up with Georgia’s labor demand—and as recently as the spring of 2016, large-scale Georgia farmers were again complaining of six-digit losses as crops rotted and requests for H-2A workers went unanswered. Even if the H-2A program were robust enough to “help growers sleep at night,” as Hall says, it wouldn’t exactly be a panacea for workers. In a 2013 report examining the program’s impact in the South, the Southern Poverty Law Center concluded that guest workers area “routinely cheated out of wages, forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low-wage, temporary jobs, and held virtually captive by employers.” If farmers and farmworkers face a tough row to hoe, what about eaters? Most US consumers likely didn’t miss the blueberries or bell peppers that rotted in Georgia’s fields—they could opt for those grown in California or Mexico instead. But Trump appears to want to take the spirit of the state’s immigration policy nationwide.

Despite the shortage, wages have failed to keep paceMartin and Jackson-Smith 13 [Philip Margin, Professor Emeritus, Agricultural and Resource Economics at UC Davis and Douglas Jackson-Smith, Professor of Water Security at Ohio State

University “Immigration and Farm Labor in the U.S.” National Agriculture and Rural Development Policy Center, Policy Brieff March 2013] LADI//AT

Hired farm workers are near the bottom of the U.S. job ladder. In 2010, the average earnings of crop workers were about $9 an hour, and median weekly earnings were only 60 percent of those of workers in comparable private-sector nonfarm jobs. Since hired crop workers work an average of just under 200 days per year, many are underemployed or unemployed for significant periods, reducing annual earnings. Farm employment often includes exposure to pesticides, poor sanitary conditions, long working hours, and other health risks, but only 18 percent of crop workers have health insurance benefits. Not coincidentally, farm worker households also have twice the poverty rate of nonfarm households and housing conditions among farm workers and their families (particularly for migrant workers) are often substandard. Rural communities with significant farm worker populations often struggle to provide adequate education and social services to address the needs of these residents. Between 2007 and 2009, the NAWS found that almost 30 percent of crop workers were born in the U.S. and 70 percent were born abroad, almost always in Mexico. Foreignborn and US-born workers were similar in many respects. Their average age was 36-37, and three-fourths were male, and 23 percent of foreign-born and US-born workers had household incomes below the poverty line (Rural Migration News). Foreign-born differ from US-born crop workers in legal status, education, and English. For example, 55 percent of foreign-born workers were unauthorized, only 13 percent completed high school, and only three percent spoke English well. Foreign-born crop workers were more likely to be hired by contractors and other intermediaries (17 versus 2 percent), more likely to be working in fruit, vegetable, horticulture (FVH) crops, and more likely to be filling harvest jobs. Average wages for foreign-born crop workers are lower than those paid to US-born workers. Although some farmers have increased worker wages and improved working conditions in recent years to retain hired workers, most have not raised worker compensation.

Only boosting wages can fill the gap – it overwhelms immigration factorsJ. Edward Taylor and Diane Charlton 13 [(Edward Taylor is Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Director of the Center on Rural Economies of the Americas and Pacific Rim (REAP) at the University of California, Davis; Diane Charlton is a PhD student in Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California, Davis.) Why are Mexicans leaving farm work, and what does this mean for US farmers?, Oxford University Press'S 3-8-2013] AT

Agriculture in North America traditionally has had its comparative advantage in having access to abundant low-skilled labor from Mexico. Around 70% of the United States hired farm workforce is Mexico-born, according to the National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS). Fruit, vegetable, and horticultural farms in the US have enjoyed an extended period of farm labor abundance with stable or decreasing real wages. However, new panel data reveal a declining long-term trend in the farm labor supply in rural Mexico. In coming years, US farmers will need to offer higher wages to induce new workers to migrate northward to US farm jobs. The Evidence Migration within Mexico and to the US increased in the years prior to the recession; however, with the onset of the recession there was a sharp decrease in migration to the US (see Figure 1). The combined shares of the workforce migrating to agriculture either within Mexico or to the US decreased between 2007 and 2010. In contrast, the percentage of the workforce working in the

Mexican non-farmwork sector grew steadily. Figure 1. Number of workers that migrate to each sector by survey round. Taylor, J.E., D. Charlton, and A. Yúnez-Naude. 2012. “The End of Farm Labor Abundance.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 34(4):587-98. Mexico is following the pattern of countries around the world: as its income rises, workers shift out of farm work into other sectors. Mexico’s per-capita income, adjusted for the cost of living, now exceeds $15,000 per year. Growth in Mexico’s non-agricultural employment began before the recession and persists now. As non-farm opportunities increase, the Mexican workforce will continue moving out of agriculture. Why do we see decreases in the supply of Mexican farm labor? The received wisdom in development economics is that the domestic supply of agricultural labor starts out being relatively elastic (i.e., abundant), but the farm labor supply shifts inward and becomes less elastic as countries’ per-capita incomes increase and people shift from farm to nonfarm jobs. In order to induce domestic workers to supply their labor to farm jobs, agricultural wages must rise apace with nonagricultural wages. This is all the more true if non-farm jobs bring non-pecuniary benefits compared to farm jobs and/or workers associate farm jobs with drudgery. Tighter border enforcement and drug-related violence along the border may deter migration, but our analysis suggests that for US agriculture their main effect is largely secondary, reinforcing a negative trend in rural Mexicans’ willingness to do farmwork. For example, after the “great recession” in 2008, the share of Mexican immigrants working in agriculture decreased more than the share working in non-agriculture. The recession had a large negative impact on construction and service jobs in the non-farm sector while labor demand in the farm sector remained steady and commodity prices rose. If unemployed workers in the non-farm sector sought jobs on US farms during the recession, then one might expect the supply of agricultural labor to increase. Data show that some immigrants did shift from non-farm to farm work after the recession, but more shifted from farm to non-farm in the US. If the decrease in immigration in recent years were the result of increases in border patrol or drug-related violence, then the decrease in farm labor supply should be similar to the decrease in non-farm labor supply, but the data show the opposite. US agriculture appears to be doubly adversely affected by the decline in the supply of immigrant labor and a shift in the Mexican labor supply away from farmwork. Implications for US agriculture A declining farm labor supply in rural Mexico and competition from Mexico’s farmers combine to raise the reservation wage of migrating to the United States—that is, the minimum US farm wage needed to induce new workers to migrate northward to farm jobs. US growers must look for substitute inputs to agricultural production as the supply of agricultural workers is declines.

Boosting wages fills the gap – solves immigration

Kreiger 17 [Lisa M. Krieger, Lisa M. "Can a Pay Raise Fix Agriculture Industry’s Labor Crisis in California? Yes and No." The Mercury News. The Mercury News, http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/30/can-a-pay-raise-fix-ags-labor-crisis-yes-and-

no/ 31 July 2017] LADI//BH.

GILROY – All over California, there’s a desperate labor shortage on farms, ranches, processing and packing houses. California farms produce a lot of food – but what and how much might surprise you But at Christopher Ranch — the nation’s largest producer of fresh

garlic and co-founder of this weekend’s Garlic Festival — every job is filled. Even now, at the peak of harvest season, all 600 of its packing and processing positions are claimed. Its simple yet oh-so-complex and controversial remedy: a pay increase. Faced with 50 empty positions last summer, in January it hoisted entry-level wages 18 percent, from $11 to $13 an hour — and applications flooded in, creating a wait list of 150 people.

Another increase is promised next year, to $15 an hour. Remarkably, costs stabilized. And business grew. As California moves towards a higher minimum wage, Christopher Ranch

offers a glimpse of the future that could be brighter for both workers and farmers, with a more reliable workforce, bigger paychecks and rising standards of living. Or it could be an isolated success story. At farms with greater price pressures, less brand loyalty and weaker market leverage, these

wages could break budgets — forcing agriculture to abandon a state with unparalleled soil, climate and crops. “We can’t beat everyone on price,” said Ken Christopher, 32, who pitched the idea first to his father, then his grandfather. “But we can beat them on

quality, customer service and dedication to corporate social responsibility.” When Christopher Ranch was founded in 1956, farmworkers were plentiful and wages stable. But now a combination of factors means fewer willing hands. The farmworker population is aging. Their children are getting college educations. In Mexico, there are new economic opportunities. The birthrate has declined. And it’s harder to cross the

border, both legally and illegally. Immigration reform has stalled in Washington, D.C., and President Trump has stepped up enforcement at the border, which had already tightened under former President Obama. “As migration drops, it becomes more important to keep the best workers around , so farmers are willing to do that,” said Jeffrey M. Perloff, a professor in the

Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California at Berkeley. Most visible is the decline of field workers, who are paid incentive or piece-rate wages,

such as $20 to pick a 1,000-pound bin of apples . This summer, shortages are reported from the walnut orchards of Solano County to the lily fields of Del Norte County and the

vineyards of Sonoma and Napa. Joe Del Bosque in Firebaugh, like some other growers, said he sometimes must leave melons in the field. But processors and packers — like Christopher Ranch, where workers clean, trim, crack, sort, peel, roast and puree 90 million

pounds of garlic every year — also face shortages. “When there are supply problems out in the field, you typically see that apply over to the first lines of production,” said Ryan Jacobsen, president of the Fresno Farm Bureau. “The problem in packing and processing is very reflective of what is happening out in the fields.” There’s no hard data on average earnings for California’s packinghouse

workers, but the job is a step up from field jobs, so it’s likely to be a bit above minimum wage, according to the Western Growers Association. Packinghouses in the Monterey-Salinas area typically pay $12.00 to $12.50 an hour, according to Lauro Barajas of the United Farm Workers. For Christopher Ranch, the crisis came to a head last summer, with 50 empty positions, or 10 percent of its workforce. “Our throughput went down. We turned away sales. We couldn’t get things made,” said Ken Christopher. Even worse, the

company had to bring in overtime workers, causing costs to skyrocket. Christopher, with an MBA from the University of San Francisco, heard about the “Fight for $15” movement to boost wages, and decided to

run the numbers. Concluding that they could afford it, he proposed the idea to his father, Bill Christopher, who studied economics at Stanford. Together, they pitched it to company founder Donald Christopher. “It was a little bit of a shock,” Ken Christopher recalled.

“But I showed them the math.” Workers say the pay raise helps stretch their tight budgets. “You can see it in your paycheck,” said Marcos Navarro, 23, a mechanical engineering student at San Jose State

University who previously worked at Kmart for $11 an hour. “It helps with rent, gas, living expenses and books.” Garlic peeler Jesse Ortega, 55, left his job as a cook in San Jose, where he made

$11 an hour but the days were short and unpredictable. “I’ve got five kids at home,” he said. “Now we can go places. Before we were stuck at home.” Some — like Jasmin Alvarado of Los Banos, Ilse Denise Torres of Hollister, and Ricard Bernal Salmaron of Seaside — say the extra money makes their longer commute worthwhile — and is better than what they can find near home. There was one surprise: Wage inflation for other positions, like forklift operators, mechanics and supervisors. When these 400 higher-skilled workers got news of the raise, they wanted one, too. So their $18 to $19 an hour salaries will climb above $20 in the near future. “It was an emotional response that I wasn’t prepared for. It was an unexpected cost,” said Christopher. “But we’re getting the labor we need.” The entire state will soon follow. California’s minimum wage rises by $1 an hour each January to $15 an hour by 2022, then will increase with inflation until 2024. Most farmers lament the increase, saying that labor costs are already rising rapidly due to the Affordable Care Act, paid sick leave and overtime rules. The cost of farming has risen 36 percent over the past five years; seeds, fertilizer, electricity and water have all become significantly more expensive, according to Tom Nassif, president and CEO of Western Growers Association. “Add an increase in labor costs to the mix and you will only accelerate a trend that we have been observing over the past decade — the shifting of hundreds of thousands of acres of current and future California farms to other states and countries,” he said. There are good reasons why the Christopher Ranch strategy might not work for other growers: The company is “vertically integrated” — it controls its product from seed to packaging — so it has options for cost-cutting that growers of commodity crops, such as tomatoes, do not. And consumers willingly pay more for this storied California brand, rather than cheaper Chinese or Spanish garlic. In contrast, commodity growers face lower brand loyalty and fierce price wars; global markets don’t care whether their fresh produce comes from California or somewhere else. Meanwhile, companies that pay premium wages just pull workers from elsewhere, said UC Davis agricultural economist Philip Martin. “They tend to cream off the best workers….It’s like when everybody

wanted to work for IBM.” Higher wages and rising labor costs are prompting farmers to pursue four strategies, which

Martin calls “stretch, substitute, supplement and satisfy.” Stretching the workforce with tools like conveyor belts or hydraulic platforms can boost productivity and make work easier. Substitution of workers with machines creates enormous labor-saving changes in

crops like corn, cotton and rice, although it’s harder with fragile fruits and vegetables. Supplementing the workforce with H-2A guest workers is another approach. The fourth strategy is to satisfy workers — taking steps to make them

feel wanted. Christopher Ranch offers on-site child care, college scholarships and pays all health insurance premiums. And — now — better pay. “Our goal is always to stay one step ahead,” said Christopher. “The last thing we want to have an eroding workforce and

be caught flat-footed. We want to stay competitive.”

US food prices hike affects global prices – causes political instabilityColeman & Alessi 12 [Isobel & Christopher, Senior Fellow and Director of the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Initiative; Director of the Women and Foreign Policy Program “U.S. Drought and Rising Global Food Prices” Council on Foreign Relations https://www.cfr.org/interview/us-drought-and-rising-global-food-prices 8/2/12] LADI // CW *brackets in original

How do rising U.S. food prices affect global food prices down the world’s food supply chain? Which areas of the globe are most at risk? There are many large food producers in the world. China is the largest wheat producer, but it is also the

largest wheat consumer. What makes the United States unique is that we are the largest exporter, so we produce about 35 percent of the world’s corn and soybean supply. Those two commodities are crucial in the food chain, because they are used for feed stock for animals. Around the world you have rising middle classes, a growing demand for meat and protein in the diet, and countries around

the world are becoming increasingly dependent on relatively inexpensive food stocks from the United States.

When you see a crop failure of the magnitude you have seen this summer, it flows through the whole food chain. You’re going to see the continuation of [political] instability driven in part by rapidly rising food prices. Right now you have American livestock producers taking their pigs and cattle to the slaughter house because they simply don’t have the food to be feeding them. So you’re going to see meat prices in the short term in the United States go down, but over the longer term you’re going to see rising meat prices; [experts] are predicting already 4 to 5 percent price increases in meat for the

next year. That flows through the whole food chain, [to] big-population countries that import a lot of food, such as the Philippines, Afghanistan, Egypt. And when you see rapidly rising food prices, of course it leads to

instability. We’ve seen [this] in the last five years across many of those countries , and you see rising food prices translate almost directly into street protests. You’re going to see the continuation of [political] instability driven in part by

rapidly rising food prices. In 2008, we had food protests across much of the Middle East, so governments are going to be very much on the alert for unrest and very sensitive to it. Egypt is already spending about one-third of its subsidies on food, and it is draining the Egyptian foreign exchange reserve to continue those subsidies. This combination of an already mobilized

population out on the streets demanding lots of different changes [in Egypt], and rising food prices is going to create a very unstable atmosphere.

Food price spike causes instability and civil war – the impact is millions of deathsArezki and Bruckner 11 [Rabah Arezki, Chief of the Commodities Unit in the IMF Research Department and Markus Bruckner, Professor in the Research School of Economics of the Australian National University. “Food Prices and Political Instability” IMF Working Paper, IMF Institute, 2011] LADI//AT *bracketed in original

It is often claimed by policy makers and the media that increases in international food prices put at stake the intra-state stability of the world's poorest countries. World Bank's President Zoellick for example claimed at the joint World-Bank IMF 2008 spring meeting that a drastic increase in food prices could mean "seven lost years" in the fight against worldwide poverty. At the same meeting IMF's managing director Strauss-Kahn expressed that "... the consequences [of food price increases] on the population in a large set of countries ... will be terrible ... disruptions may occur in the economic environment ... so that at the end of the day most governments, having done well during the last five or 10 years, will see what they have done totally destroyed, and their legitimacy facing the population destroyed also."2 The question of how and whether variations in the international food prices affect the intra-state stability of the world's poorest countries is therefore of clear policy relevance. Yet, little formal empirical evidence exists on the link between food prices and political and social instability. In this paper, we make an attempt to close this gap. We construct a country-specific food price index that is driven by the variation in the international food prices for a panel of over 120 countries during the 1970-2007 period. We use rigorous panel data techniques that account for both unobservable cross-country heterogeneity and common year shocks, and we identify the effects that international food price variations have on political and social stability from the within-country variation of the data. Our first main finding is that increases in the international food prices lead to a significant deterioration of democratic institutions in the Low Income Countries. A one standard deviation increase in the international food price index significantly reduced Low Income Countries' polity score by about 0.03 standard deviations on average. We document that this result is robust to different measures of democracy, time periods, and estimation strategies. To provide an explanation for the adverse effects of food price increases on Low Income Countries' political institutions, we document that food price increases significantly increase the incidence of intra- state conflict . In particular, we show that for the Low Income Countries increases in the international food prices significantly increase the incidence of anti- government demonstrations, riots, and civil conflict. In the High Income Countries, where the incidence of anti-government demonstrations, riots, and civil conflict is relatively low, increases in the international food prices did not have a significant effect on intra-state stability. International food price increases also did not significantly affect these countries' political institutions. Our empirical analysis therefore yields that the world's poorest countries, that arguably are the least responsible for changes in the international food prices, are strongest hit. Beyond informing the policy debate on the socio-economic effects of food price increases, our empirical results shed

novel insights on the academic debate on the effects of economics shocks on political institutions. Acemoglu and Robinson (2001, 2006) develop a formal theory of democratic transitions where transitory economic shocks can give rise to a “democratic window of opportunity”. Recent empirical evidence by Bruckner and Ciccone (2010b) and Burke and Leigh (2010) on the effects of rainfall shocks on democratic change in Africa has provided supportive empirical evidence for the Acemoglu and Robinson theory. Our paper complements these empirical studies by showing that externally driven changes in the international food prices significantly affect the likelihood of democratic change in the Low Income Countries. Our empirical results are broadly consistent with case study evidence such as Berger and Spoerer (2001) that show that food riots can induce significant political change. Our paper is also related to the literature on the determinants of state fragility. A large part of this literature has focused on civil war. This particular focus on civil war is understandable as these types of intra-state conflicts have killed and maimed millions of people (e.g. World Bank, 2003). We complement this conflict literature by focusing on the effects that food prices have on civil conflict risk – a focus that to the best of our knowledge is unique, as no paper has examined yet exclusively for food commodities the effects that variations in these international prices have on civil conflict risk.3 In addition to shedding novel light on the question of how international food price variations affect the likelihood of civil conflict in the world's poorest countries, we also examine more minor forms of intra-state instability, such as anti-government demonstrations and riots, which are of considerable interest in and of themselves from a political economy point of view.

Unstable states cause great power war.Grygiel 9 – George H. W. Bush Associate Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University (Jacob, “Vacuum Wars”, The American Interest July 1, 2009) LADI//RMT

The prevailing view of failed states is, to repeat, not wrong, just incomplete—for it ignores the competitive nature of great power interactions. The traditional understanding of power vacuums is still very relevant. Sudan, Central Asia, Indonesia, parts of Latin America and many other areas are characterized by weak and often collapsing states that are increasingly arenas for great power competition. The interest of these great powers is not to rebuild the state or to engage in “nation-building” for humanitarian purposes but to establish a foothold in the region, to obtain favorable economic deals, especially in the energy sector, and to weaken the presence of other great powers. Let’s look at just three possible future scenarios. In the first, imagine that parts of Indonesia become increasingly difficult to govern and are wracked by riots. Chinese minorities are attacked, while pirates prowl sealanes in ever greater numbers. Bejing, pressured by domestic opinion to help the Chinese diaspora, as well as by fears that its seaborne commerce will be interrupted, intervenes in the region. China’s action is then perceived as a threat by Japan, which projects its own power into the region. The United States, India and others then intervene to protect their interests, as well. In the second scenario, imagine that Uzbekistan collapses after years of chronic mismanagement and continued Islamist agitation. Uzbekistan’s natural resources and its strategic value as a route to the Caspian or Middle East are suddenly up for grabs, and Russia and China begin to compete for control over it, possibly followed by other states like Iran and Turkey. In a third scenario, imagine that the repressive government of Sudan loses the ability to maintain control over the state, and that chaos spreads

from Darfur outward to Chad and other neighbors. Powers distant and nearby decide to extend their control over the threatened oil fields. China, though still at least a decade away from having serious power projection capabilities, already has men on the ground in Sudan protecting some of the fields and uses them to control the country’s natural resources. These scenarios are not at all outlandish, as recent events have shown. Kosovo, which formally declared independence on February 17, 2008, continues to strain relationships between the United States and Europe, on the one hand, and Serbia and Russia, on the other. The resulting tension may degenerate into violence as Serbian nationalists and perhaps even the Serbian army intervene in Kosovo. It is conceivable then that Russia would support Belgrade, leading to a serious confrontation with the European Union and the United States. A similar conflict, pitting Russia against NATO or the United States alone, or some other alliance of European states, could develop in several post-Soviet regions, from Georgia to the Baltics. Last summer’s war in Georgia, for instance, showed incipient signs of a great power confrontation between Russia and the United States over the fate of a weak state, further destabilized by a rash local leadership and aggressive meddling by Moscow. The future of Ukraine may follow a parallel pattern: Russian citizens (or, to be precise, ethnic Russians who are given passports by Moscow) may claim to be harassed by Ukrainian authorities, who are weak and divided. A refugee problem could then arise, giving Moscow a ready justification to intervene militarily. The question would then be whether NATO, or the United States, or some alliance of Poland and other states would feel the need and have the ability to prevent Ukraine from falling under Russian control. Another example could arise in Iraq. If the United States fails to stabilize the situation and withdraws, or even merely scales down its military presence too quickly, one outcome could be the collapse of the central government in Baghdad. The resulting vacuum would be filled by militias and other groups, who would engage in violent conflict for oil, political control and sectarian revenge. This tragic situation would be compounded if Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two regional powers with the most direct interests in the outcome, entered the fray more directly than they have so far. In sum, there are many more plausible scenarios in which a failed state could become a playground of both regional and great power rivalry, which is why we urgently need to dust off the traditional view of failed states and consider its main features as well as its array of consequences. The traditional view starts from a widely shared assumption that, as nature abhors vacuums, so does the international system. As Richard Nixon once said to Mao Zedong, “In international relations there are no good choices. One thing is sure—we can leave no vacuums, because they can be filled.”6 The power vacuums created by failed states attract the interests of great powers because they are an easy way to expand their spheres of influence while weakening their opponents or forestalling their intervention. A state that decides not to fill a power vacuum is effectively inviting other states to do so, thereby potentially decreasing its own relative power. This simple, inescapable logic is based on the view that international relations are essentially a zero-sum game: My gain is your loss. A failed state creates a dramatic opportunity to gain something, whether natural resources, territory or a strategically pivotal location. The power that controls it first necessarily increases its own standing relative to other states. As Walter Lippmann wrote in 1915, the anarchy of the world is due to the backwardness of weak states; . . . the modern nations have lived in armed peace and collapsed into hideous warfare because in Asia, Africa, the Balkans, Central and South America there are rich territories in which weakness invites exploitation, in which inefficiency and corruption invite imperial

expansion, in which the prizes are so great that the competition for them is to the knife.7 The threat posed by failed states, therefore, need not emanate mainly from within. After all, by definition a failed state is no longer an actor capable of conducting a foreign policy. It is a politically inert geographic area whose fate is dependent on the actions of others. The main menace to international security stems from competition between these “others.” As Arnold Wolfers put it in 1951, because of the competitive nature of international relations, “expansion would be sure to take place wherever a power vacuum existed.”8 The challenge is that the incentive to extend control over a vacuum or a failed state is similar for many states. In fact, even if one state has a stronger desire to control a power vacuum because of its geographic proximity, natural resources or strategic location, this very interest spurs other states to seek command over the same territory simply because doing so weakens that state. The ability to deprive a state of something that will give it a substantial advantage is itself a source of power. Hence a failed state suddenly becomes a strategic prize, because it either adds to one’s own power or subtracts from another’s.

That causes extinctionHeadley 13 [(Joshua, founder of Deep Green Resistance environmental movement) “BREAKDOWN: Industrial Agriculture” Deep Green Resistance May 12 2013] LADI//AT

No civilization can avoid collapse if it fails to feed its population, largely because continued pressures on the system will result in the disintegration of central control as global conflicts arise over scarce necessities. [6] This process can occur rapidly and/or through a gradual breakdown. A likely scenario of rapid collapse would be the breakout of a small regional nuclear war – such as between Pakistan and India – which would create a “nuclear winter” with massive global consequence s. If that could be avoided, then the threat of collapse will likely be more gradual through the continued decrease of marginal returns on food and essential services. As these crises continue to increase in frequency and severity, their convergences will usher in a period of prolonged global unrest. [7] This was directly seen as a result of the 2007-08 grain crisis in which many countries restricted exports, prices skyrocketed, and food riots broke out in dozens of countries. Many of those countries were located within the Middle East and are credited as the fundamental circumstances that gave way to the Arab Spring in 2011. This year the food price index is currently at 210 – a level believed to be the threshold beyond which civil unrest is probable. Further, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization is already reporting record high prices for dairy, meat, sugar and cereals and also warns – due to the reduced grain stocks from last year’s droughts – that prices can be expected to increase later this year as well. Another factor driving up the costs of food is the price of oil. Because the entire industrial agriculture process requires the use of fossil fuels, the high price of oil results in a corresponding rise in the price of food. The future of oil production and whether we have reached “peak oil” may still be a matter of contention for some, but the increasing reliance on extreme energy processes (tar sands, hydraulic fracturing, mountaintop removal, etc.) is a blatant indication that the days of cheap petroleum are over. This implies that costs for energy extraction, and therefore the price of oil and food, will only continue to rise dramatically in the foreseeable future. As the struggle for resources and security escalates, governments around the world will rely more heavily upon totalitarian forms of control and reinforcement of order, especially as civil unrest becomes more common and outside threats with other countries

intensify. However, this is also likely to be matched by an increase in resistance to the demands of the socio-political-economic hierarchies.

1AC – SolvencyThe United States Federal Government should amend Section 152 of the National Labor Relations Act to extend the definition of “employee” to individuals employed as agricultural laborers. The plan is key to boost bargaining powerReilly 11 [Jaclyn, graduate of Villanova University. “Agricultural Laborers: Their Inability to Unionize Under the National Labor Relations Act,” Penn State Law, https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Publications_Library/Agricultural_Laborers.pdf, 2011] LADI//JS

Since the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), agricultural laborers have been excluded form its protection to organize workers and form unions for the purpose of collectively bargaining with employers. Employees who engage in collective bargaining are able to band together to bargain with employers for better wages, a safer working environment, fringe benefits and other terms and conditions of employment.1 The NLRA protects this bargaining process and the parties involved. Agricultural laborers are one of only two classes of workers excluded from the protection of the NLRA.2 Although agricultural laborers are not protected under the NLRA because of their exclusion from the definition of “employee,” there is no mention that agricultural laborers are forbidden from forming unions.3 But without the protection offered by the NLRA, farmers do not have to recognize the union nor will they face any consequences in failing to so recognize in contrast with employers in other industries.4 This lack of protection leads to agricultural laborers not forming unions because of the backlash they could face from employers without any recourse to protect themselves from retaliatory practices or the general refusal of employers to bargain.5 While agricultural laborers have been excluded from the NLRA since the beginning, there are many reasons why this should no longer be so. First, these are marginalized workers subject to harsh working conditions and treatment and were the type of workers Congress intended to protect. 6 Second, agriculture is changing. The industry is no longer made up of only small family farms with few laborers outside the family working in the fields; rather, much of the food today comes from large vertically integrated companies who are more closely akin to industrial companies than small family farms.7 Third, the low wages and hazardous working conditions agricultural laborers are exposed to could be rectified through the use of a bargaining agent who could negotiate with employers for higher wages and greater safety standards. Lastly, farmers are granted the right to form associations to strengthen their position in the market.8 Granting farmers freedom of association while denying that same right to agricultural laborers seems a gross injustice that can only be resolved by allowing agricultural laborers to organize. If agricultural laborers were included under the NLRA, several problems may arise that would need to be addressed. Most notably, the competition created in the agricultural industry due to relaxed standards in immigration laws and the need for greater enforcement of those laws.

Unions solve for low wages and exposure to pesticides which independently boosts productivity Reilly 11 [Jaclyn, graduate of Villanova University. “Agricultural Laborers: Their Inability to Unionize Under the National Labor Relations Act,” Penn State Law, https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Publications_Library/Agricultural_Laborers.pdf, 2011] LADI//JS

The rate of pay agricultural laborers earn in return for their work would increase if these workers were able to organize and engage in collective bargaining with their employers. Agricultural workers in 2008 made between $8.64 per hour and $13.02 per hour.50 The hourly wage is relatively low, especially when compared to other occupations with the ability to unionize that require similar training and working conditions. For example, construction laborers in 2008 earned between $10.80 and $14.95 per hour51 and textile, apparel and furnishing workers earned between $9.14 and $18.15 per hour.52 While there is a wide range of earnings for anyone entering these three professions, the two professions that are able to unionize earn more per hour on a national level than the agricultural workers who are exempted form organizing under the NLRA. The low earnings of agricultural laborers as compared to other laborers supports a finding that the NLRA would benefit agricultural laborers and are the type of workers that were meant to be extended the right to organize. If agricultural laborers were afforded protection under the NLRA to engage in collective bargaining, the likely result would be that bargaining representatives would be able to negotiate with agricultural employers for higher wages that would lead to less of an earnings gap between agricultural laborers and laborers in other industries. There is one major similarity between the construction industry and the agriculture industry that would seem to tip the scales in favor of affording agricultural laborers the right to unionize under the NLRA. That is that both industries hire seasonally.53 The seasonal nature of agricultural work is often cited as a reason against unionization, but with the similarity in the construction industry and the ability of those workers to unionize, the seasonal nature of agricultural work should be a factor in considering whether or not to include these workers under the NLRA, but is not itself conclusive. If seasonal workers in other industries are able to unionize, the seasonal nature of agricultural work should not be a major point of opposition to allowing agricultural laborers the right to collectively bargain. Agricultural laborers are also subject to harsh conditions because of the work that they perform and should be able to organize under the NLRA in order to bargain with their employers for better working conditions. Agricultural laborers are not always provided with access to clean drinking water54 nor are there typically adequate restroom facilities for these workers to use.55 Unions can help workers to gain access to sanitary facilities and clean drinking water by bargaining for these necessities with the employers.56 By making these issues part of a collective bargaining agreement, unions will be able to hold employers contractually liable to follow such conditions and will thereby improve the conditions of employment for agricultural laborers who would otherwise be subject to sub-standard facilities. Another hazardous working condition that arises for agricultural laborers is the exposure to pesticides. Agricultural laborers may be exposed to pesticides that are carcinogens or other pesticides that affect the endocrine and/or hormone systems.57 Agricultural laborers, especially those who apply pesticides, are at a greater risk of acute pesticide poisoning which many times is more prevalent than it needs to be because

agricultural employers do not take the kinds of precautions necessary to prevent pesticide poisoning.58 Unions again can aid agricultural laborers by limiting such exposure through a collective bargaining agreement because unions would be able to bargain for certain safety precautions to be taken before workers are able to spray pesticides and can also ensure that safety gear is provided before spraying commences. Inadequate facilities and pesticides are two examples of the hazardous conditions that agricultural laborers are exposed to that could be cured through the right to unionize and collectively bargain with employers. Unions would be able to protect workers from such sub-standard conditions which in turn would lead to less illness and disease that agricultural laborers would be subjected to and would increase productivity on farms because field workers will not be slowed by sickness and would be able to work more as a result.

The plan decreases poverty without significantly increasing food pricesMartin 11 [(Philip, a labor economist at the University of California, Davis, is the author, most recently, of “Importing Poverty? Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural America”), “The Costs and Benefits of a Raise for Field Workers,” The New York Times, 9/30/11, https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/08/17/could-farms-survive-without-illegal-labor/the-costs-and-benefits-of-a-raise-for-field-workers?referer=https://www.google.com/&nytmobile=0] LADI//DRD.

Americans spend relatively little on food, and relatively little of what they spend represents the cost of farm workers. ¶ In 2009, the total food budget for the average household was $6,400, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey. About 60 percent of food spending was for food eaten at home. Of that, the largest expenditures were for meat and poultry, an average of $841 a year. Spending on fresh fruits ($220) and fresh vegetables ($209) totaled $429; the average household spent more on alcoholic beverages, $435. ¶ Even when packing costs for fresh produce are negligible — strawberries are packed directly into the containers in which they are sold, and iceberg lettuce gets its film wrapper in the field — farmers and farm workers receive only a small share of the grocery store sticker price. In 2006, farmers received an average of 30 percent of the retail price of fresh fruits and 25 percent of the retail price of fresh vegetables, so consumer expenditures on fresh produce meant $118 to the farmer. Farm labor costs are typically less than a third of farm revenue for fresh fruits and vegetables, meaning that farm worker wages and benefits for fresh fruits and vegetables cost the average household $38 a year.¶ Consumers who pay $1 for a pound of apples are giving 30 cents to the farmer and 10 cents to the farm worker; those spending $2 for a head of lettuce are giving 50 cents to the farmer and 16 cents to the farm worker. ¶ If the influx of immigrant workers were slowed or stopped and farm wages rose, what would happen to expenditures on fresh fruits and vegetables? A case study from 1966 could give us some idea. ¶ That year, the United Farm Workers union won a 40 percent wage increase for some table grape harvesters, largely because the end of the Bracero program had cut off a supply of Mexican workers. The average earnings of U.S. field workers were $10.07 an hour in 2009, according to a U.S.D.A. survey of farm employers. If pressure to verify employees’ legal status resulted in a labor crisis similar to the one in 1966 and a similar 40 percent wage increase, average hourly earnings would rise to $14.10. If this were passed on to consumers, the 10 cent farm labor cost of a pound of apples would rise to 14 cents, and the $1 retail price would rise to $1.04. ¶ For a

typical household, a 40 percent increase in farm labor costs translates into a 3.6 percent increase in retail prices. If farm wages rose 40 percent, and this wage increase were passed on to consumers, average spending on fresh fruits and vegetables would rise about $15 a year, the cost of two movie tickets. However, for a typical seasonal farm worker, a 40 percent wage increase could raise earnings from $10,000 for 1,000 hours of work to $14,000 — lifting the wage above the federal poverty line.

Plan attracts illegal immigrant farmworkers Lee 15 (Esther Yu Hsi Lee, Immigration Reporter, “Labor Unions Move To Protect Immigrants, Regardless Of Legal Status” ThinkProgress 3/26/15 https://thinkprogress.org/labor-unions-move-to-protect-immigrants-regardless-of-legal-status-11576ac69da2 7/26/17] LADI//CW

For a large part of their history, labor unions cast a wary eye on immigrant workers, worried that foreign workers would hurt the

leveraging power for members. But with a receding membership in recent times, unions are aggressively targeting the 22 million immigrant workers in the country, regardless of legal status, to join their

ranks. Some immigrants are especially eager to join unions because many who fear deportation believe that it would improve workplace conditions without retribution. And unions are taking immigrant needs straight to the bargaining table. In fact, some unions now have clauses in their contract that protect against the use of programs like E-Verify and I-9 that could prevent some immigrants from getting jobs in the first place. That controversial bargaining chip is one that unions, like Unite

Here, lobby for on behalf of undocumented immigrants who are the ones working in jobs that Ofello

Carrillo insists no one else is taking. “That’s something we typically advocate for,” said Carrillo, the communications organizer

for Unite Here Local 11 chapter. Other immigrant-friendly unions have similar stances to United Here, with the AFL-CIO adopting a position in 2000 “calling for blanket amnesty for undocumented immigrants and condemning immigration raids against organizing workers,” Talking Points Memo reported. Through the 1990s, unions were “anti-immigrant or at least anti-undocumented immigrant,” Talking Points Memo stated. But after a series of right-to-work legislation passed and lawmakers aimed to limit collective bargaining rights in Michigan and Wisconsin, labor unions looked to boost their memberships by accepting immigrants. Rallying around immigrants especially picked up steam in 2013 when immigration reform seemed like a real possibility. At the time, labor unions believed that a comprehensive reform bill would “boost living standards for low-wage workers currently vulnerable to exploitation, spur recruitment in growing industries, and bank goodwill with both union members and the public at

large,” Talking Points Memo explained. Carrillo said that “vulnerable” immigrants, especially those without status, need representation in the workplace because of rampant labor violations . Latinos and immigrants make up the vast majority of Unite Here’s 20,000-member strong union, which represents the hospitality and restaurant service industry in the Los Angeles and Orange County areas of California. Many members are undocumented. It’s ensuring people

aren’t abused or exploited. Carrillo cited farm work as an example of a job that no one wanted, including

the campaign that the United Farm Workers undertook in 2010, inviting U.S. citizens to replace immigrant farm workers. Only seven people ultimately took the offer to take a job in agriculture, a UFW press release stated. In one notable example of an American unwilling to take on farm jobs, talk show comedian Stephen Colbert worked on a farm for exactly

one day. During a House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security hearing, Colbert testified, “It seems like one of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers [sic] who come and do our work but don’t have any rights as a result. But yet we still invite them to come here and at the same time ask them to leave. […] Migrant workers suffer and have no rights.”

1AR Blocks

1AR – Organic Ag DAThe plan boosts labor productivityReilly 11 [Jaclyn, graduate of Villanova University. “Agricultural Laborers: Their Inability to Unionize Under the National Labor Relations Act,” Penn State Law, https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Publications_Library/Agricultural_Laborers.pdf, 2011] LADI//JS

Further, “farmers, planters, ranchmen, dairymen, nut or fruit growers” are able to form associations for the mutual benefit of all members.59 These associations allow their members to work collectively in preparing their products for market.60 These producers are also able to form cooperatives to market their products and maintain the “bargaining position of individual farmers” in order to prevent adverse consequences of overcrowding the market.61 These agricultural producers are free to engage in concerted activity for the mutual protection of the association’s members, but agricultural laborers are exempt from asserting these same rights.62 Agricultural producers are therefore able to become even stronger entities, further widening the differences in the bargaining positions between producers and agricultural laborers. The unionization of agricultural laborers would better equalize the bargaining position on each side affording laborers the protections they need against agricultural employers as they become more powerful through associations. Protection under the NLRA would also prove to have benefits for agricultural producers. The NLRA prohibits the use of secondary boycotts.63 Secondary boycotts are when a union forces a secondary employer to cease doing business with an employer who uses non-union workers.64 For example, a secondary boycott may involve a union picketing a grocery store that sells produce that was harvested by non-union workers.65 Secondary boycotts can be powerful as a way of getting the public to not buy certain products because of non-union workers being employed by companies. Under certain state laws that permit unions to organize agricultural laborers, these tactics can be particularly harmful because unions are already present and can easily picket food retailers to inform the public about current labor disputes. Because of the agricultural exception under the NLRA, agricultural producers are currently vulnerable to these secondary boycotts because there are no other laws in place to prohibit such actions.

Organic farming can survive higher labor costs – offset by price premiums and reduced input requirementsNink 15 [(Emily Nink, masters candidate of the Agriculture, Food and Environment program at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy in Boston) Study Reveals Organic Farming Is Financially Sustainable Around the World, Food Tank; June 2015] AT

A recently published meta-analysis of 44 scientific studies shows that organic farming is not only environmentally sustainable, but also financially competitive when compared to conventional farming. Organic sales grew 170 percent to US$63 billion from 2002 to 2011 worldwide, but the analysis’s authors note that organic agriculture currently occupies only 1 percent of global cropland. The good news is that there is room for organic agriculture to continue to spread, and the authors predict that profitability of organic farming will continue to outpace conventional models.

According to David Crowder, a co-author of the study, other meta-analyses of organic agriculture have focused mostly on yields. “But yields are really just one component of the actual economic performance of an organic-farming system,” Crowder says. Crowder jointly designed the research with a colleague, John P. Reganold, at Washington State University. M. S. Swaminathan of the Centre for Research on Sustainable Agriculture and Development in Madras, India, reviewed the paper.

Through a literature survey and data analysis, the study appraised the financial performance of 55 crops grown in 14 countries on five continents. The data included in the review spanned 40 years of production, representing a long-term analysis of the financial sustainability of organic farming. According to the authors, many factors can affect the profitability of organic farming, including crop yields; labor costs; price premiums for organic products; potential for reduced income during a transition period from conventional to organic production; and potential cost savings from the reduced use of nonrenewable resources and purchased inputs. The cost-benefit analyses incorporated all of these factors, and the authors concluded that organic agriculture is more profitable than conventional agriculture.

Organic price premiums are part of the reason that growth in sales has outpaced growth in organic land area. In the United States, consumers of organic produce pay a typical premium of 32 percent over conventionally grown produce. But the researchers found that even if premiums fall to lower levels as sales continue to grow, organic agriculture will likely keep its competitive edge due to consumer demand.

The authors note that the labor costs of organic farming are higher than conventional farming due to the need for mechanical pest control, creative approaches to marketing and selling of organic products, and labor-intensive practices such as weeding. However, the cost-benefit analyses provided by the study show that the economic benefits of farming organically offset these costs, such that organic farming is more profitable overall—the price premiums and the lowered need for costly pesticide and fertilizer inputs make up for these higher labor costs around the world.

Furthermore, the authors contend that the labor-intensive nature of organic farming has the potential to revitalize rural economies, providing an added economic benefit outside of the farm-level scope of the analysis. Organic farming can redistribute resources in rural areas and promote economic stability through job creation, according to the authors’ conclusions.

No water shortages – warming makes water more available Radford 08 [(Benjamin, Live Science Contributor) “The Water Shortage Myth,” Live Science, 6/23/08] LADI//DD

Our planet is not running out of water, nor is it losing water. There's about 360 quintillion gallons of water on the planet, and it's not going anywhere except in a circle. Earth's hydrologic cycle is a closed system, and the process is as old as time: evaporation, condensation, precipitation, infiltration, and so on. In fact, there is probably more liquid water on Earth than there was just a few decades ago, due in part to global warming and melting polar ice caps.

The problemsNo, there is plenty of water. The problem is that the vast majority of Earth's water is contained in the oceans as saltwater, and must be desalinated before it can be used for drinking or farming.

Large-scale desalination can be done, but it is expensive.But nor is the world running out of freshwater, either. There's plenty of freshwater on our blue globe; it is not raining any less these days than it did millennia ago. As with any other resource, there are of course regional shortages, and they are getting worse. But the real problems are availability and transport; moving the freshwater from where it is plentiful (such as Canada, South America, and Russia) to where it is scarce (such as the Middle East, India, and Africa). Water is heavy and costly to transport, and those who can afford it will always have water.

Water scarcity forces cooperation, not conflictAllouche 11 [Jeremy Allouche (Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK). “The sustainability and resilience of global water and food systems: Political analysis of the interplay between security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade.” Food Policy 36 (2011) S3–S8] AJ

In a so-called age of uncertainty, a number of alarmist scenarios have linked the increasing use of water resources and food insecu- rity with wars. The idea of water wars (perhaps more than food wars) is a dominant discourse in the media (see for example Smith, 2009), NGOs (International Alert, 2007) and within international organizations (UNEP, 2007). In 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared that ‘water scarcity threatens economic and social gains and is a potent fuel for wars and conflict’ (Lewis, 2007). Of course, this type of discourse has an instrumental purpose; secu- rity and conflict are here used for raising water/food as key policy priorities at the international level. In the Middle East, presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers have also used this bellicose rhetoric. Boutrous Boutros-Gali said; ‘the next war in the Middle East will be over water, not politics’ (Boutros Boutros-Gali in Butts, 1997, p. 65). The question is not whether the sharing of transboundary water sparks political ten- sion and alarmist declaration, but rather to what extent water has been a principal factor in international conflicts. The evidence seems quite weak. Whether by president Sadat in Egypt or King Hussein in Jordan, none of these declarations have been followed up by military action. The governance of transboundary water has gained increased attention these last decades. This has a direct impact on the global food system as water allocation agreements determine the amount of water that can used for irrigated agriculture. The likelihood of conflicts over water is an important parameter to consider in assessing the stability, sustainability and resilience of global food systems. None of the various and extensive databases on the causes of war show water as a casus belli. Using the International Crisis Behavior (ICB) data set and supplementary data from the Univer- sity of Alabama on water conflicts, Hewitt, Wolf and Hammer found only seven disputes where water seems to have been at least a partial cause for conflict (Wolf, 1998, p. 251). In fact, about 80% of the incidents relating to water were limited purely to governmental rhetoric intended for the electorate (Otchet, 2001, p. 18). As shown in The Basins At Risk (BAR)

water event database, more than two-thirds of over 1800 water-related ‘events’ fall on the ‘cooperative’ scale (Yoffe et al., 2003). Indeed, if one takes into account a much longer period, the following figures clearly demon- strate this argument. According to studies by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), organized political bodies signed between the year 805 and 1984 more than 3600 water-related treaties, and approximately 300 treaties dealing with water management or allocations in international basins have been negotiated since 1945 (FAO, 1978, 1984). The fear around water wars have been driven by a Malthusian outlook which equates scarcity with violence, conflict and war. There is however no direct correlation between water scarcity and transboundary conflict. Most specialists now tend to agree that the major issue is not scarcity per se but rather the allocation of water resources between the different riparian states (see for example Allouche, 2005, 2007; Rouyer, 2000). Water rich countries have been involved in a number of disputes with other relatively water rich countries (see for example India/Pakistan or Brazil/ Argentina). The perception of each state’s estimated water needs really constitutes the core issue in transboundary water relations. Indeed, whether this scarcity exists or not in reality, perceptions of the amount of available water shapes people’s attitude towards the environment (Ohlsson, 1999). In fact, some water experts have argued that scarcity drives the process of co-operation among riparians (Dinar and Dinar, 2005; Brochmann and Gleditsch, 2006). In terms of international relations, the threat of water wars due to increasing scarcity does not make much sense in the light of the recent historical record. Overall, the water war rationale expects conflict to occur over water, and appears to suggest that violence is a viable means of securing national water supplies, an argument which is highly contestable. The debates over the likely impacts of climate change have again popularised the idea of water wars. The argument runs that climate change will precipitate worsening ecological conditions contributing to resource scarcities, social breakdown, institutional failure, mass migrations and in turn cause greater political instabil- ity and conflict (Brauch, 2002; Pervis and Busby, 2004). In a report for the US Department of Defense, Schwartz and Randall (2003) speculate about the consequences of a worst-case climate change scenario arguing that water shortages will lead to aggressive wars (Schwartz and Randall, 2003, p. 15). Despite growing concern that climate change will lead to instability and violent conflict, the evidence base to substantiate the connections is thin (Barnett and Adger, 2007; Kevane and Gray, 2008).

1AR – Pesticides CPOnly stronger worker rights solves – underreporting stifles the efficacy of current legislationGhai 12 [(Devika, works for the Pesticide Action Network, which calls for a healthy, safe and fair food system that protects and promotes the health of farmworkers and their families), “Pesticides: A Labor Rights Issue,” ILRF, 8/13/12, http://www.laborrights.org/blog/201208/pesticides-labor-rights-issue?vid=7&page=1] LADI//DRD.

Even with dramatic underreporting, California data (Fields of Poison, 2002) on farmworker poisonings highlight the extent of the problem and demonstrate the regulatory system’s absolute failure to protect farmworkers.¶ Immigration Politics Keep Workers at Risk¶ As political rhetoric swirls around the issue of undocumented workers, little is done to address the dangers of pesticide exposure faced daily by families who cross the border to harvest US strawberries, apples or broccoli. Undocumented workers are less likely to seek medical care when exposed to pesticides, and almost never report poisonings. Whatever your political stance on immigration, the result of the current system is that hundreds of workers – many of them women and children - suffer from pesticide-related illnesses every year.¶ Thoughtful reform of U.S. immigration policies could be a major step toward acknowledging and addressing the shameful working conditions faced by thousands of migrant farmworkers every year.¶ Safe, Fair Food Benefits Farmworkers¶ A healthy, safe and fair food system would protect the health and serve the economic needs of farmworkers, farmers, rural communities and consumers. Shifting away from reliance on hazardous pesticides is a key step toward this goal. Also essential is bringing decision-making power back to the farm . Currently, corporate giants control everything from seeds and chemical farm inputs to the purchase, processing and marketing of farm products.¶ This tectonic shift is already well underway; as local markets grow, farmers demand more control of inputs and production on their own farms, and farmworkers experience and support the safer and healthier working conditions resulting from sustainable farming.

Counterplan gets rolled back by Trump and Pruitt – your cardFlitter 7/26 [Emily, Industry & Environment Correspondent. "U.S. senators seek ban on pesticide chlorpyrifos," Reuters, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-environment-pesticide-bill-idUSKBN1AA1QD, 7/26/17] LADI//CW

A group of Democratic senators hopes to ban a pesticide the U.S. government has greenlighted for use, according to a bill unveiled on Tuesday in a challenge to Republican President Donald Trump's push to loosen environmental regulations. The bill, introduced by Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, would outlaw chlorpyrifos, an agricultural insect-killer that has been found to cause brain damage in children. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency denied a petition to ban the chemical on March 29, and a federal appeals court on July 18 denied a petition by green groups to force the agency to reverse its decision and enact the ban. The bill is called the Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2017. Seven other senators are co-sponsoring it: Ben Cardin of Maryland, Kamala Harris of California, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Richard

Durbin of Illinois and Ed Markey of Massachusetts. Chlorpyrifos, produced by a variety of manufacturers, including a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, is listed as a neurotoxin by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. "Current regulatory safety standard for chlorpyrifos rests on five decades of experience in use, health surveillance of manufacturing workers and applicators, and more than 4,000 studies and reports examining the product in terms of health, safety and the environment," a Dow spokesman said on Tuesday. "Authorized uses of chlorpyrifos products, when used as directed, offer wide margins of protection for human health and safety." The EPA considered whether to ban it for roughly a decade before Trump appointed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a Republican from Oklahoma, to lead the agency. In denying the petition to ban chlorpyrifos, Pruitt said the EPA had previously relied on "novel and uncertain" scientific study methods to conclude the substance was dangerous. The agency said it was still reviewing the chemical's registration. "EPA will continue to evaluate the potential risks posed by chlorpyrifos as part of the ongoing registration review," said EPA spokeswoman Amy Graham. Trump and Pruitt have vowed to roll back environmental regulations they say are harming business growth in the United States.

Single pesticide regulation causes a shift to other pesticides with other problems – only a workers’ movement with broad pushes can solveTait 1 [Joyce, Director, SUPRA (Scottish Universities Policy Research and Advice) network, University of Edinburgh, “PESTICIDE REGULATION, PRODUCT INNOVATION AND PUBLIC ATTITUDES,” Journal of Environmental Monitoring, (2001) 3/4, 64N-69N, 7/31/17] LADI//CW

Pesticide regulation as an evolutionary process Since the 1960s when the regulation of modern pesticide-related risks was first seriously considered, regulatory systems have become gradually more stringent. At both national and international levels, in response to the concerns of scientists and, perhaps more often, members of the public, pesticide policy makers and regulators have pioneered approaches to regulation that were subsequently applied in other areas. The national and international systems that regulate the production and use of pesticides and the presence of pesticide residues in food have been developed in close interaction with multinational agrochemical companies. Indeed, in many important respects it has guided the evolution of the industry. One of the first major targets of regulatory attention was the organochlorine group of insecticides. The attribute of persistence in the environment had initially been seen as desirable from the farmer’s point of view because it prolonged the effectiveness of the active ingredient. However, demonstration of the accumulation of organochlorine insecticides in food chains and the resulting threats to many wildlife species saw the introduction of regulations to replace the organochlorine insecticides with other active ingredients1 . From that point, persistence in the environment was no longer seen as desirable and any new chemical with this property was likely to be eliminated from further testing at an early stage in the R&D process. The regulatory system evolved in a reactive manner to control the impacts of new chemical groups as they reached the market. For many of their uses, the organochlorine insecticides were replaced by the organophosphates and the greater acute toxicity of that group of chemicals focused more regulatory attention on the safety of spray operators. In moving from organochlorines to organophosphates, a trade-off was made

between environmental harm and human toxicity. The subsequent introduction of the pyrethroid insecticides with their generally lower human toxicity raised yet another set of regulatory issues because of their toxicity in the aquatic environment. Several more recent groups of insecticides now on the market are claimed to be much safer in many respects than their predecessors, for example abamectin (a low dose rate acaricide/insecticide, derived from natural products and produced by fermentation, which is useful in integrated pest management (IPM) programmes) and pymetrozine (an anti-feedant active against aphids and other sucking pests; also useful for IPM and integrated resistance management programmes), both produced by Syngenta. The history of pesticide regulation could thus be written in terms of a process of gradual replacement of one chemical group by another which often exhibited a different set of problems. Generally the properties of new active ingredients were well enough known to be anticipated by the regulatory system before they were introduced to the market. However, there were some unexpected impacts as, for example, with the toxicity to geese of carbophenothion which was introduced as a replacement for dieldrin seed dressings. Given the range of chemicals involved and the complexity of their potential interactions with the environment and food production systems, it is not a simple matter to demonstrate that this evolutionary approach to regulation is indeed leading to safer pesticides. It is often claimed that reduction in quantity of active ingredient applied to achieve a given effect means that newer pesticides are safer than their predecessors, but this could merely be an indication that they are more potent toxins. However, where research has taken account of a broader range of variables, it seems that the environmental and public health performance of pesticides is indeed improving2 .

Bans aren’t as efficient at deterring usage compared to direct costs to farmersZilberman et al 91 [David Zilberman, Andrew Schmitz, Gary Casterline, Erik Lichtenberg and Jerome B. Siebert. D. Zilberman, A. Schmitz, G. Casterline, and J. B. Siebert are in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720. E. Lichtenberg is in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of Maryland, College Park, MD, “The Economics of Pesticide Use and Regulation,” Science, New Series, Vol. 253, No. 5019 (Aug. 2, 1991), pp. 518-522, 7/31/17] LADI//CW

A complete ban of a chemical (or group of chemicals) is a uniform policy. Such a ban does not discriminate between situations where the elimination of a chemical would result in major or minor cost increases. In many cases, a substantial share of the environmental and health benefits associated with a complete ban can be preserved by introducing a partial ban or a restrictive-use policy. In such cases, pesticide use is allowed only in situations where substitutes are poor or nonexistent. For example, when parathion use in lettuce is permitted only for growers in California's central coast region, parathion use in the United States is reduced annually by more than 80%. The total economic cost of a partial ban drops below $0.5 million for the spring, summer, and fall seasons, compared to $17, $23, and $7 million (Table 1) for each of these seasons under complete bans. The price effect of this partial parathion ban is insignificant for all seasons, unlike a complete ban which leads to 5% and 9% price increases in the spring and summer. Pesticide fees or taxes can have effects similar to those of partial-ban,

limited-use policies. Fees increase pesticide prices, en- couraging farmers to become more selective in their chemical choices and to switch to other options as they become relatively more cost-effective. For lettuce, fees that raise the cost of parathion use by $30 per hectare are likely to have the same effect on the profit-conscious grower as the partial ban policy suggested earlier. Fees can restrict environmental and health risks below target levels at the least cost. Uniform pesticide regulation may be much more costly than fees in attaining policy targets. Furthermore, when the health costs of risk can be enumerated, the most efficient fee or tax policies are those that equate the incremental benefits of risk reduction to the incremental costs of reduced economic activities. It is advisable to use the proceeds of pesticide-use fees or taxes to finance R&D efforts when developing alternative pest-management practices, subsidizing their adoption, and addressing negative side effects from pesticide use.

1AR – Yields UniquenessFarmworker labor shortage getting worse now – terrible for economyBronar 15 – Ph.D and Partner, Edgeworth Econonics (Stephen G. A Vanishing Breed: How the Decline in U.S. Farm Laborers Over the Last Decade Has Hurt the U.S. Economy and Slowed Production on American Farms The Partnership for a New American Economy July 2015 http://www.newamericaneconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/PNAE_FarmLabor_August-3-3.pdf DOA 7/29/17) LADI//CW

In the last few years, many Americans have heard stories about the difficult labor situation faced by many U.S. farmers. Despite unemployment rates remaining high in some parts of the country, news reports have described farmers in Texas losing dozens of acres of carefully cultivated squash due to a lack of available field hands.1 In Georgia, blackberries have been left to rot in the field,2 while in California, asparagus and cantaloupe farmers have been forced to abandon fields of otherwise healthy crops, even during a time of drought when crop yields are unusually low.3 Past research from the

Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE) and the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform has found such labor challenges have created a frustrating reality in the U.S. farming industry: At a time when more Americans are trying to eat fresh and locally grown produce, farmers don’t have the labor they need to expand their operations and keep pace with rising demand. From 1998 to 2012 , in fact,

the share of American fresh produce that was imported grew by more than 79 percent .4 In this

report, we examine more closely the main source of the issue—the declining supply of labor available to American farmers. Although farmers cultivating labor-intensive crops such as fresh fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts have long

worried about the supply of available workers, few national studies have documented the scale of the decline in crop laborers that has occurred in recent years on American farms. In this report, we tackle that gap in the scholarship, relying on data from the National Agriculture Workers Survey, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Labor Survey (FLS), and the Census of Agriculture to produce robust estimates of how the agricultural workforce has shifted in the last decade. Our work presents a troubling picture for

American farms— and reiterates what many U.S. farmers have long known. In the last decade, as fewer young agricultural workers have come to the United States, the number of field and crop laborers available to farms has been rapidly declining. This drop has created a severe labor shortage in many key parts of the country vital to American farmers and iconic crops . It has also had an impact far

beyond rural America: The lack of workers has not only hurt the ability of U.S. farms to grow and expand, it has cost our economy tens of thousands of jobs in related industries like trucking, marketing, and equipment manufacturing. When the drought on the West Coast ends and crop

production returns to normal levels, the labor shortages documented here could be even more dramatic—producing greater economic pain for the region and the country as a whole .

Farmworker labor supply is decliningBronar 15 – Ph.D and Partner, Edgeworth Econonics (Stephen G. A Vanishing Breed: How the Decline in U.S. Farm Laborers Over the Last Decade Has Hurt the U.S. Economy and Slowed Production on American Farms The Partnership for a New American Economy July 2015 http://www.newamericaneconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/PNAE_FarmLabor_August-3-3.pdf DOA 7/29/17) LADI//CW

To assess how the number of field and crop workers has declined in recent years, we rely primarily on the USDA’s Farm Labor Survey (FLS), which reports farm employment separately by broad occupations. The

survey finds that from 2002 to 2014, the total number of full-time equivalent field and crop workers hired by farms declined by 21.8 percent. In other words, the size of the workforce farmers had to draw from dropped

by more than a fifth. A drop was seen among both full-year field and crop workers and seasonal

workers involved in shorter harvest seasons. From 2002 to 2014, the number of full-year field and crop workers

dropped by 22.8 percent, while the number of full-year equivalent seasonal employees dropped by 18.5 percent. Of course, a drop in the total number of field and crop workers does not tell us the whole story, as a smaller pool of workers could be putting in more hours on the job. To answer this concern, we also examined this variable, looking at the number of hours worked by field and crop workers .19 Once again, we

found that in 2014, field and crop workers as a group put in roughly 80 percent of the hours they worked as recently as 2002. Specifically, we found that the aggregate number of hours worked by such farm employees fell by 22.4 percent. While the shortage is already dramatic in percentage terms, the figures are equally powerful when translated into the number of farm laborers missing from the 2014 labor force. Using FLS data and the U.S.

Census of Agriculture, we can estimate how the recent drop in the labor supply has impacted the total supply of full time equivalent field and crop workers in the country . Figure 1 indicates that between 2002

and 2014, the number of full-time equivalent field and crop workers in the United States declined by between 146,000 and 164,000 19 The Farm Labor Survey reports hours worked per week and number of employees in each of the four survey weeks per year. The results reported in Figure 1 are based on the average across all four weeks of the

survey. people.20 Even after excluding states in the Midwest—where mechanized agriculture is most likely to replace manual farm labor—the decline in full-time equivalent employment during the period was between 130,000 and 139,000 workers. That represented a decline of almost 20 percent in the parts of the country where the most labor-intensive crops are grown—a major shock to the supply of available field and crop workers.

Food prices are the highest in two years Daniels 6/30 (Jeff Daniels, 6-30-2017, "Global food prices around two-year high in June as meat, dairy and wheat climb," CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/global-food-prices-set-two-year-high-in-june-as-meat-dairy-wheat-climb.html)

International food prices soared to around two-year highs during June, fueled by higher prices for wheat, meats and dairy products such as butter. In fact, global meat prices have risen every month so far this year, and the gains have outpaced most other major food commodity groups, according to data released Thursday by a United Nations agency. Analysts say stronger global demand for meat is helping to keep prices strong. Beef is one of the fastest-growing meat categories in Asia, and the U.S. last month returned to shipping supplies to the Chinese market for the first time in 13 years. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's Food Price Index, global food prices are up 7 percent from a year ago and ahead 17 percent from a low set in early 2016 . The monthly index, which in June was up 1.3 percent from May, is a trade-weighted index which tracks prices of meats, dairy, sugar, cereals and vegetable oil in more than 80 countries. The FAO Meat Price Index is up about 10 percent from a year ago and June rose nearly 2 percent, marking its seven straight month of gains. Year-to-date, the meat index is up about 12 percent and is ahead almost 21 percent from its low set in early 2016.

1AR – Solvency CardsFarmworker unionization is effective at chilling corporation abuse and increasing wages by up to 38%Philip L. Martin , Department of Agricultural Economics, UC Davis J. R. Abele, Department of Agricultural Economics, UC Davis California Agriculture 44(6):28-30. Published November 01, 1990 http://ucanr.edu/repository/cao/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v044n06p28&fulltext=yes

Farmworker unions At least 15 unions have been certified as bargaining representatives for farmworkers in ALRB-supervised elections since ALRA enactment in 1975. Of the 1,125 supervised elections, 726 (65%) resulted in union certification. Almost two-thirds of those elections were held between 1975 and 1978. ALRB election and certification data indicate (1) that many unions were certified in only one election; (2) that two unions—the UFW and the Christian Labor Association (CLA) — account for 79% of all certifications; and (3) that 54% of all certifications were in two geographical areas, around Salinas and San Diego. Several unions were certified but no longer exist (e.g., the International Union of Agricultural Workers), and several new unions have yet to be certified in ALRB elections. Union success in translating certification victories into union contracts has been spotty. The dairy workers' unions, for example, have contracts with virtually all farms on which they are certified, while the UFW has contracts with fewer than 10% of the farms where it is certified (table 1). The four field worker unions report about 18,000 members on the 50 farms where they have contracts, an average 360 members per farm. Unemployment Insurance data show that 1,580 crop and livestock farms hired the equivalent of at least 50 year-round workers in 1988, and most of these large farms issued 150 to 400 W-2 earnings statements to individual workers for the year. About 325,000 workers earned $1,000 or more from California crop,

livestock, or farm-oriented agricultural service firms in 1988. Whether measured in terms of large farms with and without union contracts or of workers employed in California agriculture, farmworker unions represent only a small fraction of farm employment in California. Wages The wages of unionized workers outside the farming sector are 20 to 30% higher than the wages of comparable non-union workers , and the largest union wage effects are for young minority workers with little education who have been on the job less than three years. Because farmworkers fit this profile,

one might expect them to benefit disproportionately from unionization. One mid-1980s study of the effects

of farmworker unions on wages was based on Current Population Survey data, and found that unionized farmworkers in California earned 38% more than non-union workers during the 1970s. Three sources are available for year-by-year data on California farm wages. The USDA Quarterly Agricultural Labor Survey checks with about 1,200 California farmers, asking about the total wages and hours worked by various worker categories and then calculating an average hourly wage for field workers, piece-rate workers, supervisors, and so on. California's Employment Development Department (EDD) publishes a monthly tabulation of prevailing wages in various crops and counties using data collected by local agribusiness representatives. As a third source of farm wage data, the appendices to collective bargaining agreements list the wages negotiated for various job titles, such as general laborer and tractor driver. These three sources are imperfect. USDA data take a statewide average with no distinction for commodities or areas. Local agribusiness representatives use diverse techniques to obtain commodity and task-specific data for EDD. Neither USDA nor EDD data distinguish union from non-union wages. Finally, there is no complete list of union contracts in California agriculture. In 1976, USDA reported that field and livestock workers in California averaged $3.00 hourly, the equivalent of 56% of the average wage paid in California's non-durable manufacturing industries (table 2). General laborer wages in UFW contracts averaged $3.11 hourly, and the UFW wage was $3.10 in Central Coast vegetables (table 3). About one-third of the UFW contracts were in the Central Coast area. By 1988, USDA field and livestock wages were 86% higher ($5.57), but comparatively dropped to 55% of non-durable manufacturing wages. The average UFW hourly wage rose to $5.96 in 1987, a 92% increase over 1976 levels; and the UFW wage was $7.38 in Central Coast vegetables, which included almost two-thirds of the UFW contracts. These data indicate (1) that farm wages rose at about the same pace as nonfarm wages and (2) that the statewide UFW wage premium over average farm wages, as measured by USDA, remained in the range of 4 to 6%. Year-to-year wage changes indicate steady but uneven increases in farm wages between 1976 and 1985. After 1985, wage increases leveled off, and USDA figures for California piece-rate wages decreased. A comparison of USDA and UFW wage trends indicates that the average union wage premium for California was about 6% from 1975 to 1979, the period marked by high levels of union certification activity. After 1979, the average annual union wage premium rose to 16%, even though election and certification activity declined. An average of 200 elections were held per year, resulting in 153 union certifications per year between 1975 and 1979; only 33 elections and 28 certifications occurred on average per year after 1979. Why did the union wage premium rise after 1979 when union activity was declining? The best explanation seems to be that between 1975 and 1979, union activity had a statewide impact on farm wages, but after 1979, the unions influenced wages only in selected commodities and regions. This explanation is supported by USDA wage data. UFW wages rose more slowly than statewide average farm wages in the late 1970s, and then more quickly than other farm wages between 1980 and 1983. Since 1983, UFW wages have risen more slowly than statewide average farm wages. Statewide and

local effects These data paint the picture that during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the UFW set the pace for farm

wage increases statewide. The number of UFW contracts peaked at more than 100 in 1978, but as more employers realized that their workers were not likely to be organized, those employers offered wage increases that depended on local conditions; often, these wage increases were less than the UFW had achieved in bargaining. In the few commodities for which the UFW represented the majority of employees, average UFW wages continued to increase, but the UFW in the 1980s began to have less and less impact on statewide wage patterns. The UFW today represents the majority of workers employed in only one commodity, mushrooms. In 1977, the average hourly wage for UFW mushroom workers was $3.35, 4% more than the average fieldworker's wage as measured by USDA. By 1987, the average hourly wage for UFW mushroom workers was $6.71, 20% more than the average fieldworker's wage. The UFW helped to raise mushroom worker wages, but union activities had few spillover effects in non-union commodities in the 1980s. Vegetable wage patterns are similar. There were 33 UFW vegetable contracts in 1981, but only seven in 1987. The average hourly wage paid to general laborers on Central Coast vegetable farms with UFW contracts rose 61% between 1976 and 1979 and another 31% in the early 1980s, but only 5% between 1983 and 1987. UFW vegetable wages initially rose more quickly than all other vegetable wages in the Central Coast area, but as the union's number of vegetable contracts declined, so did the rate of increase in UFW vegetable wages.

Farmworkers - Negative

Pesticides CP

1NC – Pesticides CPThe United States Federal Government ought to ban the use of chlorpyrifos in agriculture.The bill that the Aff endorses was actually created as a response to the failure of the petition that your Schick evidence talks about – proves that federal legislation is key because the EPA and courts can’t ignore itFlitter 7/26 [Emily, Industry & Environment Correspondent. "U.S. senators seek ban on pesticide chlorpyrifos," Reuters, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-environment-pesticide-bill-idUSKBN1AA1QD, 7-26-2017] LADI//JS

A group of Democratic senators hopes to ban a pesticide the U.S. government has greenlighted for

use, according to a bill unveiled on Tuesday in a challenge to Republican President Donald Trump's push to loosen

environmental regulations. The bill, introduced by Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, would outlaw chlorpyrifos, an agricultural insect-killer that has been found to cause brain damage in children. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency denied a petition to ban the chemical on March 29, and a federal appeals court on July 18 denied a petition by green groups to force the agency to reverse its decision and enact the ban. The bill is called the Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2017. Seven other senators are co-sponsoring it: Ben Cardin of Maryland, Kamala Harris of California, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Ed Markey of

Massachusetts. Chlorpyrifos, produced by a variety of manufacturers, including a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, is listed as a neurotoxin by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

The ban works – empirically proven in residential settingsBanks et al 4 [Kenneth E. Banks, David H. Hunter, David J. Wachal, City of Denton Watershed Protection Program, 901A Texas St., Denton, TX 76209, USA, Institute of Applied Sciences, University of North Texas, P.O. Box 310559, Denton, TX 76203, USA, “Chlorpyrifos in surface waters before and after a federally mandated ban,” Environment International 31 (2005) 351-356, 7/31/17] LADI//CW

Collectively, the above findings suggest that the ban on most residential and outdoor uses of chlorpyrifos that was imposed on December 31, 2001 did affect surface water chlorpyrifos concentrations in the study area. From 2001 to 2002, the proportion of total number of samples containing chlorpyrifos concentrations above the method LLD decreased. However, concurrent monitoring of diazinon demonstrated that the total number of samples containing diazinon concentrations above the method LLD also decreased between years, although the number of sites exhibiting at least one measurable concentration of diazinon did not change significantly between years. Analyses of the numbers of sites exhibiting at least one measurable quantity of chlorpyrifos during the monitoring period showed a highly significant difference between years, indicating that chlorpyrifos was much less prevalent in surface waters in the year following the imposition of the ban. 4. Conclusion The occurrence of chlorpyrifos concentrations above detectable levels within the surface waters of Denton, Texas, USA significantly decreased from 2001 to 2002. Although monitoring of a similarly applied organophosphorus pesticide (diazinon) also showed decreases in the total number of concentrations above detectable levels between

years, the magnitude of change on a site-by-site basis was not significant between 2001 and 2002. Results presented in this paper indicate that the ban on chlorpyrifos imposed at the end of 2001 resulted in a decrease in chlorpyrifos occurrences within the surface waters of Denton. These results may be useful to researchers exploring relationships between land uses and water quality, water supply organizations, and government agencies examining the effects of environmental regulations.

Organic Ag DA

1NC – Organic AgOrganic sales are increasing now – but growth depends on low production costsPost and Schahczenski 12 [(Emily Post, NCAT Agriculture Specialist and Jeff Schahczenski, NCAT Agriculture Economist) “Understanding Organic Pricing and Costs of Production” The National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service 2012] LADI//AT

In recent years, growth in organic food sales in the United States outpaced growth in overall food sales despite the economic downturn (Nutrition Business Journal, 2010). Organic food sales grew 53% in the United States between 2005 and 2008 , from $13.8 billion to $21.1 billion (Richards, 2011). Increased demand is motivating some farmers to transition to organic production. Financial, health, and environmental benefits can be gained from transitioning to organic farming. These benefits are due to possible price premiums, growing value-added markets, and a reduction of the use of synthetic chemicals and fertilizers, which can reduce toxic chemical exposure and possibly reduce input costs. The key to profitable organic farming is to set prices for organic crops that exceed production costs, while being competitive in the market. This publication explores what is known and not known about organic pricing and the costs of organic production. The goal is to provide farmers and ranchers who are exploring organic production, transitioning to organic production, or are already organic producers with a better under- standing of the economic and market potential and challenges of organic farming.

Organic Price Premiums and Production Costs

There are several factors that motivate farmers to certify crops as organic: environmental stewardship lifestyle, family and personal health, as well as price premiums, all influence farmers to grow organically (Peterson et al., 2012). Although growing organically provides for certain lifestyle benefits and fosters environmental stewardship, farmers still need to know if organic price premiums are enough of an incentive to motivate organic certification. Of secondary importance is understanding how production costs compare between organic and nonorganic growing, in order to better evaluate the economic potential of both systems.

The plan substantially increases farms’ costs Jennifer Ifft and Travis Grout 17 [(Jennifer Ifft, Assistant Professor and Mueller Family Sesquicentennial Faculty Fellow in Agribusiness and Farm Management, and Travis Grout, Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University) State Labor Regulations and Labor-Intensive Agriculture, farmdoc daily June 15, 2017] LADI//AT

While the average U.S. farmworker has wages well above the legal minimum, the minimum wage can influence average farmworker wages. In most states, average farmworker wages have been at least $2 per hour higher than minimum wage, and this "gap" has been maintained throughout several minimum wage increases. The minimum wage will increase the government-calculated "adverse wage" for H2A guest workers and can tighten the overall U.S. agricultural labor market. Furthermore, some above minimum-wage workers may demand higher wages in response to the increase at the lowest end of the pay scale. In New York, we have heard many reports of increases in the overall pay scale for farmworkers in response to recent minimum wage increases. In addition to higher wages, state mandates on worker benefits and protections

raise the cost of labor to farmers. Again, such changes are happening in major fruit and vegetable states. Several states have extended paid sick leave or health insurance entitlements to agricultural workers. Most significantly, in 2016, California adopted new overtime regulations allowing farmworkers to claim overtime after 10 hours of daily work or 60 hours over a week. By 2022, overtime for agricultural workers will be based on an eight-hour day. Although California is the only major producer that has adopted overtime for agriculture to date, New York and Washington have seriously considered similar proposals. Given the magnitude of the increases to minimum wage in these states and other changes, it is inevitable that farm businesses producing labor-intensive crops or livestock will be affected . Where farm-level data is available, studies suggest that farms will face higher labor expenses. A 2017 study of New York apple growers, for example, found that labor already represented 40-50% of operating expenses and that the state's scheduled minimum wage increases would raise hourly labor costs by 43% between 2015 and 2021. If these increases were coupled with overtime rules similar to California's, New York farmers could expect 2021 wages to be 52-70% higher than in 2015 (Wells and Ifft, 2017). Further, increasing wages may change the economics of technology adoption for New York fruit farms. Another study found a nearly one-third increase in total labor expenses for New York dairies based on minimum wage increases. While these studies are based on partial budget approaches that don't reflect the dynamic adjustment to changing labor markets, these findings strongly indicate that pressure on wage levels will be a serious strain for many U.S. farms . The next decade will entail substantial transitions for labor-intensive agriculture across the U.S. In addition to various forces that are tightening access to immigrant labor, minimum wage and farm labor regulation will increase in several key states. The magnitude of labor costs increases will not be marginal and could alter the structure of fruit, vegetable and other specialty crop production, in addition to affecting some livestock farms. It is difficult to predict the impacts of such a large adjustment, but change is certain. This is a rich area for research with many unanswered questions. Several outcomes are possible, including accelerated mechanization and technological innovation; increased fresh produce costs and imports; and a continued squeeze on mid-size producers. There may be regional shifts in production patterns across the U.S. and in some places different production systems such as 'local foods' may become more competitive. Improved human resource management and labor productivity will be imperative. From a farm management perspective, paying a competitive wage, maintaining a safe and rewarding work environment, and doing what it takes to retain the existing workforce will be imperative. Private (i.e. equipment manufacturers) and public (i.e. cooperative extension) innovations will certainly play an important role in the coming transition. Farms will need to use a variety of strategies to adapt to the new farm labor market environment.

Those cost increases crush organic agAndrew Porterfield 15 [(Andrew Porterfield, writer, editor and communications consultant for academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences) Farmers abandoning organic farming despite lure of higher price premiums, Genetic Literacy Project 7-7-2015] LADI//AT

Aside from these perceptions, conventional farmers said they’d consider some organic practices if they paid off.

For many farmers, organic practices as a whole do not always translate to higher profits. One of the obstacles is the same thing faced by conventional farmers, including those who use genetically modified seeds: what farmers see as over regulation. A study by the University of California found that 38 percent of organic farmers listed regulatory burdens as their chief challenge.

“These included paperwork and record keeping for certification, inspections, finding a third-party certifier, and the cost of certification,” the study said.

The certification process is quite involved. Under the USDA National Organic Program (NOP), any applying farm must go through a transition period of three years, during which it cannot sell any product as certified “organic.” However, the farm is supposed to be changing its practices to organic during this time. Once certified, a farmer has to pass inspections, and document that his or her farm is following all the rules governing organic farming.

Input costs are not cheap, either, sometimes exceeding those for conventional farming. Labor costs can be significantly higher for organic farming . For example, many conventional farmers grow GMO Bt crops, which require almost no insecticide spraying while organic farmers with pest problems must spray their crops regularly, which requires extra labor. Any conventional farmers growing herbicide tolerant crops have to weed far less, another labor saving innovation over organic farmers.

One organic farmer in a California study told researchers “This is all labor. I’ve had a few partners that backed out once they saw they had to spend $1,800 an acre weeding spinach compared to $150 an acre in conventional.”

Meanwhile, an organic farmer in Ventura County, California, told the researchers that “when I farmed conventionally, I had six employees on 300 acres. Now that I’m farming organically, I have 15 employees on 30 acres.”

A shift to organic ag is key to solve water crisisPretty 6—Professor of Environment and Society at University of Essex [Jules Pretty, Agroecological Approaches to Agricultural Development, Background Paper for the World Development Report 2008, November 2006] LADI

Widespread appreciation of the ` global water crisis’ recognizes that scarcity of clean water is affecting food production and conservation of ecosystems. By 2025 it is predicted that most developing countries will face either physical or economic water scarcity. Water diverted from rivers increased six fold between 1900 and 1995, far outpacing population growth. Increasing demand for fresh water now threatens the integrity of many aquatic ecosystems, and their associated environmental services. As agriculture accounts for 70% of current water withdrawals from rivers, so improving the productivity of water use in agriculture is a growing challenge. The potential for increasing food production while maintaining water-related ecosystem services rests on capacity to increase water productivity (WP), i.e. by realizing more kg of food per unit of water. Sustainable agricultural practices may do this by: i) removing limitations on productivity by enhancing soil fertility; ii) reducing soil evaporation through conservation tillage; iii) using more water efficient varieties; iv) reducing water losses to

unrecoverable sinks; v) boosting productivity by supplemental irrigation in rainfed systems; and vi) inducing microclimatic changes to reduce crop water requirements (23). We calculated changes in WP for field crops in 144 projects from the data set (Table 5) based on reported crop yields and average potential evapotranspiration (ETp), for each project location during the relevant growing season. Actual evapotranspiration (ETa) was assumed to equal 80% of ETp, and ETa to remain a constant at different levels of productivity. Pg. 19

Water crises cause escalating global conflictRasmussen 11 [(Erik, CEO, Monday Morning; Founder, Green Growth Leaders) “Prepare for the Next Conflict: Water Wars” HuffPo 4/12] LADI//AT

For years experts have set out warnings of how the earth will be affected by the water crises, with millions dying and increasing conflicts over dwindling resources. They have proclaimed -- in line with the report from the US Senate -- that the water scarcity is a security issue, and that it will yield political stress with a risk of international water wars . This has been reflected in the oft-repeated observation that water will likely replace oil as a future cause of war between nations. Today the first glimpses of the coming water wars are emerging. Many countries in the Middle East, Africa, Central and South Asia -- e.g. Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Kenya, Egypt, and India -- are already feeling the direct consequences of the water scarcity -- with the competition for water leading to social unrest, conflict and migration. This month the escalating concerns about the possibility of water wars triggered calls by Zafar Adeel, chair of UN-Water, for the UN to promote "hydro-diplomacy" in the Middle East and North Africa in order to avoid or at least manage emerging tensions over access to water. The gloomy outlook of our global fresh water resources points in the direction that the current conflicts and instability in these countries are only glimpses of the water wars expected to unfold in the future. Thus we need to address the water crisis that can quickly escalate and become a great humanitarian crisis and also a global safety problem. A revolution The current effort is nowhere near what is needed to deal with the water-challenge -- the world community has yet to find the solutions. Even though the 'water issue' is moving further up the agenda all over the globe: the US foreign assistance is investing massively in activities that promote water security, the European Commission is planning to present a "Blueprint for Safeguarding Europe's Water" in 2012 and the Chinese government plans to spend $600 billion over the next 10 years on measures to ensure adequate water supplies for the country. But it is not enough. The situation requires a response that goes far beyond regional and national initiatives -- we need a global water plan. With the current state of affairs, correcting measures still can be taken to avoid the crisis to be worsening. But it demands that we act now. We need a new way of thinking about water. We need to stop depleting our water resources, and urge water conservation on a global scale. This calls for a global awareness that water is a very scarce and valuable natural resource and that we need to initiate fundamental technological and management changes, and combine this with international solidarity and cooperation. In 2009, The International Water Management Institute called for a blue revolution as the only way to move forward: "We will need nothing less than a 'Blue Revolution', if we are to achieve food security and avert a serious water crisis in the future" said Dr. Colin Chartres, Director General of the International Water Management Institute. This meaning that we need ensure "more crop per drop": while many developing countries use precious water to grow 1 ton of rice per hectare, other countries

produce 5 tons per hectare under similar social and water conditions, but with better technology and management. Thus, if we behave intelligently, and collaborate between neighbors, between neighboring countries, between North and South, and in the global trading system, we shall not 'run out of water'. If we do not, and "business as usual" prevails, then water wars will accelerate.

2NR – ModelingThe US is key to global agricultureWFP 10 [World Food Prize, “Chicago Council Wins Grant to Expand Global Agricultural Development Initiative,” Dec 23, 2010, pg. http://www.worldfoodprize.org/index.cfm?nodeID=24667&action=display&newsID=11003]

A number of policy developments indicate that the United States is beginning to recognize the transformational role agriculture can play in addressing the challenge of global poverty: President Obama called for a doubling of U.S. support for agricultural development in 2010 at the G-20 summit in April 2009; the U.S. Administration rolled out its initial strategic and implementation thinking on the Feed the Future initiative in May 2010; and both the House and Senate have considered legislation to enhance support for agricultural development. However, to ensure these advances are realized in a way that can have a tangible impact on global poverty during a time of economic uncertainty, further policy innovation, sustained political and financial support, and accountability of U.S. policy for ag ricultural development and food security is needed . “U.S. leadership is key to ensur ing ag ricultural development receives the long-term policy attention and resources needed to reduce global poverty and hunger over the long term,” said Glickman. “The next three years will be critical in determining whether the new U.S. impetus for leadership in ag ricultural development and food security will become a prominent, effective, and lasting feature of U.S. development policy .” Over the last two years, food security has risen to the top of the agenda of global issues that need urgent national and international attention . Prompted by the food price crisis of 2008, the increase in the number of people living in abject poverty rose to over 1 billion in 2009, and the need to nearly double food production to meet global demand by 2050, world leaders are giving new attention to agricultural development in poor regions and the sufficiency and sustainability of the world’s food supply. “Agricultural development is the essential first step to alleviate extreme poverty and hunger in developing nations,” said Bertini. “We have the knowledge, tools and resources necessary to solve global hunger, but what is needed is sustained momentum in U.S. policy toward supporting agriculture as a poverty alleviation tool.”

2NR – Labor Costs KeyHigh labor costs are the key factor in food productionWheat 15 [Dan, Central Washington Reporter at U.S. Capital Wheat. “Some worry as more production moves outside” U.S. Capital Press. http://www.capitalpress.com/Nation_World/Nation/20150618/some-worry-as-more-production-moves-outside-us. June 18, 2015] LADI//FZ

In its survey, Western Growers found that 27 of its member companies were farming almost 114,000 acres and employing more than 23,500 workers

outside the U.S. They were growing 25 crops including asparagus, avocados, berries, melons, lettuce, greens, peppers, beans, tomatoes and broccoli. Overall, they represented a potential loss of nearly $1 billion annually in direct economic activity for California . Most of the exodus was to Mexico, chiefly the Baja Peninsula, the San Luis and Mexicali valleys and the Guanajuato and Sonora areas. True numbers were greater because the survey did not include all growers who had moved operations out of the U.S., the report said. Hank Giclas, senior vice president of science and

technology at Western Growers, said the survey has not been updated but that the numbers are greater now. Labor and regulatory costs remain the top reasons, but filling production gaps, providing year-round supply, California’s drought and the loss of irrigation water to federally-protected Delta smelt are also contributing factors, he said. “More (food production) seems to be shifting out of California than I’m comfortable with, ” Giclas said. “I look at California as the epicenter

for fresh fruits and vegetables in the U.S. and world. I see people closing up shop and moving to other areas. I’ve seen it through the course of my career (25 years

at Western Growers). It’s disheartening and we have to think about potential impact on prices and availability if we are not masters of our destiny, so to speak.”

Collectivism K

LinkThe UFW has attempted to reorganize the landscape so that farmworker union members are at the forefront of risk assessment, but the approach to regulation centered on union movements inevitably fails and only detracts from a legislative focusWald 16 [Sarah D., Ph.D. of American Studies (formerly American Civilization) from Brown University, “The Nature of California: Race, Citizenship, and Farming since the Dust Bowl,” University of Washington Press, 2016] LADI//JS

This strategy fit with the UFW's larger goal of shifting power to the union and to workers. Sociologist Ulrich Beck argues that modern society is a “risk society," a social order structured around risk. In this risk society, relations of definition are relations of domination; those who are dominant in society are

those able to define risk.‘°4 With pesticides, farmworkers engaged in a Gramscian war of position, attempting to transform power relationships by claiming their right to define risk in their own terms. The UFW sought to situate themselves, not growers or state regulators, as the true experts about pesticide risks. In doing so the UFW deployed as much scientific evidence as they could find. Pamphlets and speeches relied heavily on the testimony of experts and scientific studies, engaging in a strategy that Stacy Alaimo sees as common to groups struggling to make

visible the too-often invisible consequences of trans-corporeality.‘°5 However, UFW testimony of pesticide danger also depended on farmworkers’ embodied knowledge, their direct knowledge of the consequences of pesticide exposure.‘06 UFW materials show farmworkers combatting the powerful legitimacy of state and grower expertise with their

own combination of science and bodily knowledge. The UFW emphasized not just the need for pesticide regulation but for the participation of workers in the decisions that growers made about pesticides. ‘°7 The UFW

contracts may not have promised transparency for consumers, but they did substantially increase transparency for workers. The union sought to recognize the uneven landscape of risk farmworkers faced and to shift the power of the social structure toward farmworkers. Federal regulation of pesticides alone, especially given UFW fears of lax

enforcement, had the potential to weaken consumer concern without significantly reducing worker exposure or increasing worker power. What were the consequences of the UFW's strategy of aligning consumer and worker self-

interest? Sociologist Jill Harrison has critiqued the UFW’s approach, arguing that coding protections for workers into union contracts renders such safeguards vulnerable if the union falters. Indeed, the UFW

succeeded in gaining a significant number of contracts only in the 197os and only in California. Harrison contends that urging consumers to purchase union grapes to protect themselves from pesticides detracted from a focus on federal regulation, a particularly problematic development given the simultaneous growth of an organics market. According to Harrison, the rise of an organic consumers' market emerged from a 19605 libertarian ethos that problematically dovetailed with the rise of neoliberal economics strategies that privatized environmental goods as privileges to be purchased. organic produce allows safe food to be an environmental good that some can afford,

while others must consume toxins. Harrison challenges this focus on elective certification rather than regulation; she presents certifications such as organic as being unable to protect workers and consumers equally. What if, she asks, regulations outlawed the worst of all pesticides for all food production, protecting everyone?

Case Answers

PesticidesHead of the EPA Scott Pruitt ignores union movements and refuses to ban chlorpyrifos Willingham 3/31 [Emily, written for the Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Everyday Health, Forbes, Slate, Grist, The Scientist, MIT Tech Review, and American Scientist, "What We Know About Chlorpyrifos, The Pesticide The EPA Thinks Is Bad But Won't Ban," Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2017/03/31/what-we-know-about-chlorpyrifos-the-pesticide-the-epa-thinks-is-bad-but-wont-ban/#2ccf4ce5181f, 3-31-2017] LADI//JS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this week reversed course on a recommendation to ban the

widely used pesticide chlorpyrifos (trade name Lorsban) and denied a petition to arrest use of the pesticide on crops. Confusingly, the agency had recommended in 2015 that the chemical, already

banned for application in homes in 2001, be banned for use on crops, as well. That proposal has now been spirited away under the anti-regulatory guidance of the EPA's new administrator, Trump appointee Scott Pruitt. No doubt, more such looking away from the evidence lies in our nation's future.

Nonunique – dozens of other countries use chlropyrifos Lerner 2/3 [Sharon, environmental reporter for The Intercept, “Protect Our Children’s Brains” New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/opinion/sunday/protect-our-childrens-brains.html, 2017] LADI//CW

The outcome supported by the report, which would amount to a ban on the use of chlorpyrifos on food, would be a reversal of

decades of agricultural policy. Some six million pounds of chlorpyrifos are used each year on more than 50 crops in the United States, including corn, soybeans, asparagus, peaches, strawberries, apples, broccoli, onions, walnuts and cranberries. Chlorpyrifos is used in about 100 countries . In an emailed statement, Dow AgroSciences, the largest producer of chlorpyrifos products in the United States, said that it “strongly disagrees with E.P.A.’s proposal to revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances,” which it described as based on “flawed” research. The company also noted that “authorized uses of chlorpyrifos products offer wide margins of protection for human health and safety, when used as directed.”

The most toxic pesticides are no longer used – current regulations on toxicity are sufficientPeterson 14 [(Greg, a 2013 graduate of Kansas State University where he majored in Agricultural Communications and

Journalism), “Chemical Usage in Agriculture,” The Peterson Family Blog, 10/01/14] DRD. The most toxic pesticides are no longer used. Agriculture has transitioned to using safer chemicals. Most used today have very low toxicity. ¶ When pesticides were first introduced, farmers were using chemicals that were very toxic. Those pesticides have long since been removed from application and today have been replaced by safer (less toxic) ones like glyphosate. Glyphosate (the most popular herbicide in agriculture) is the least toxic agro-chemical on the list. This is one of the

reasons farmers have used it so much instead of other chemicals over the years. Another reason is because glyphosate resistant plants (GMOs) were developed so that farmers could control weeds post emergence with a safer chemical like glyphosate. Household items more toxic than glyphosate include baking soda, table salt, Tylenol, and caffeine.¶ “The science and our understanding of chemical risk evolves and EPA

continues to reevaluate each pesticide’s safety every 15 years. EPA’s continuous reevaluation of registered pesticides, combined with strict FQPA standards, major improvements in science, and an

increase in the use of safer, less toxic pesticides, has led to an overall trend of reduced risk from pesticides.” – E.P.A.

The concentration of pesticides used on crops is too low to cause harmPeterson 14 [(Greg, a 2013 graduate of Kansas State University where he majored in Agricultural Communications and

Journalism), “Chemical Usage in Agriculture,” The Peterson Family Blog, 10/01/14] DRD. Pesticides (like any substance) are not dangerous if consumed at a low enough rate. Just because a pesticide residue is detected in food, does not mean the food is unsafe. ¶ As mentioned in part 3 of this

blog, when farmers spray crops the spray is very diluted and only a very small amount of active ingredient is used per acre. Of that amount, most is activated by the plant/soil, does its job, and becomes non-active and unable to do any harm. There is always a possibility that a very small amount will not activate and will persist and could possibly make it into the food supply as a residue.¶ Therefore, it is true that very small amounts of pesticides may remain on fruits, vegetables, grains, and other foods. This is why you see a lot of information on the internet about “pesticide residues” in our food.

However, these residues decrease considerably as crops are harvested, transported, exposed to light, washed, prepared and cooked. Because of this, the amount of pesticides found in the food and water you drink

would be (and is) incredibly small. Based on the toxicity chart above, you would have to consume hundreds of pounds of food each day to reach a toxicity level of pesticides that would be dangerous to your health. The reason for this is because the chemicals would be so incredibly diluted by the time they reach the food supply. The EPA is responsible for managing our exposure to pesticide residues here in the United States. There are specific regulations that have been put in place to keep the level of synthetic pesticides found in food hundreds of times below what could harm you. (Source: EPA)¶ There are also many natural pesticides consumed by humans each day that are just as toxic or more so to humans, but are still below the rate that

would be considered dangerous to our health:¶ “About 99.9 percent of the chemicals humans ingest are natural. The amounts of synthetic pesticide residues in plant food are insignificant compared to the amount of natural pesticides produced by plants themselves. Of all dietary pesticides that humans eat, 99.99 percent are natural: they are chemicals produced by plants to defend themselves against fungi, insects, and other animal predators. We have estimated that

on average Americans ingest roughly 5,000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides and their breakdown products. Americans eat about 1,500 mg of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than the 0.09 mg they consume of synthetic pesticide residues.” – Dr. Bruce Ames (Source: California Berkeley)¶

No bee death – studies on bee death are inconclusive and are better explained by alt factorsEntine 17 [(Jon, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project), “Do Neonics Hurt Bees? Researchers and the Media Say Yes. The Data Do Not.” Slate, 6/30/17] LADI / DRD

These headlines seem to reflect a line included in the abstract of the study itself: “These findings point to neonicotinoids causing a reduced capacity of bee species to establish new populations in the year following exposure.”¶ Sure sounds like a bummer for the

bees. One problem: The data in the paper (and hundreds of pages of supporting data not included but available in

background form to reporters) do not support that bold conclusion. No, there is no consensus evidence that neonics are “slowly killing bees.” No, this study did not add to the evidence that neonics are driving bee health problems. ¶ Unfortunately, and predictably, the overheated mainstream news headlines also generated a slew of even more exaggerated stories on activist and quack websites where undermining agricultural chemicals is a top priority (e.g., Greenpeace, End Times

Headlines, and Friends of the Earth). The takeaway: The “beepocalypse” is accelerating. A few news outlets, such as

Reuters (“Field Studies Fuel Dispute Over Whether Banned Pesticides Harm Bees”) and the Washington Post (“Controversial Pesticides May Threaten Queen Bees. Alternatives Could Be Worse.”), got the contradictory findings of the study and the headline right. ¶ But based on the study’s data, the headline could just as easily have read: “Landmark Study Shows Neonic Pesticides Improve Bee Health”—and it would have been equally correct. So how did so many people get this so

wrong?¶ This much-anticipated two year, $3.6 million study is particularly interesting because it was primarily funded by two major producers of neonicotinoids, Bayer Crop Science and Syngenta. They had no involvement with the analysis of the data. The three-country study was led by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, or CEH, in the U.K.—a group known for its skepticism of pesticides in general and neonics in particular. ¶ The raw data—more than 1,000 pages of it (only a tiny fraction is reproduced in the study)—are solid. It’s a reservoir of important information for entomologists and ecologists trying to figure out the challenges facing bees. It’s particularly important because to date, the problem with much of the research on neonicotinoids has been the wide gulf between the findings from laboratory-based studies and field studies.¶ Some, but not all, results from lab research have claimed neonics cause health problems in honeybees and wild bees, endangering the world food supply. This has been widely and often breathlessly echoed in the popular media—remember the execrably reported Time cover

story on “A World Without Bees.” But the doses and time of exposure have varied dramatically from lab study to lab study, so many entomologists remain skeptical of these sweeping conclusions. Field studies have consistently shown a different result—in the field, neonics seem to pose little or no harm. The overwhelming threat to bee health, entomologists now agree, is a combination of factors led by the deadly Varroadestructor mite, the miticides used to control them, and bee practices. Relative to these factors, neonics are seen as relatively inconsequential. ¶

No impact to bee extinction – the overwhelming majority of crops do not require animal pollinationPalmer 15 [(Brian, Palmer covers daily environmental news for NRDC. His science writing has appeared in Slate, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and many other publications), “Would a World Without Bees Be a World Without US?” NRDC, 5/18/15] LADI / DRD.Look at the data differently, though, and it's clear why the misattributed Einstein quote is a bit of an exaggeration. Approximately

60 percent of the total volume of food grown worldwide does not require animal pollination. Many staple foods, such as wheat, rice, and corn, are among those 28 crops that require no help from bees. They either self-pollinate or get help from the wind. Those foods make up a tremendous proportion of human calorie intake worldwide. Even among the 87 crops that use animal

pollinators, there are varying degrees of how much the plants need them. Only 13 absolutely require animal pollination, while 30 more are “highly dependent” on it. Production of the remaining crops would likely continue without bees

with only slightly lower yields. So if honeybees did disappear for good, humans would probably not go extinct (at least not solely for that reason). But our diets would still suffer tremendously. The variety of foods available would diminish, and the cost of certain products would surge. The California Almond Board, for example, has been campaigning to save bees for years. Without bees and their ilk, the group says, almonds “simply wouldn’t exist.” We’d still have coffee without bees, but it would become expensive and rare. The coffee flower is only open for pollination for three or four days. If no insect happens by in

that short window, the plant won’t be pollinated. There are plenty of other examples: apples, avocados, onions, and several types of berries rely heavily on bees for pollination. The disappearance of honeybees, or even a substantial drop in their population, would make those foods scarce. Humanity would survive—but our dinners would get a lot less interesting.

No impact to biodiversity lossMaier 2012 [Donald S. Maier- Moral and Environmental Philosopher Aristotle & Company. “What’s So Good About Biodiversity?”. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics VOLUME 19 (August 2012).] LADI

The component set of species has undergone transformation due to human influences . The

component set of ecosystems has been concomitantly transformed. This is a matter of humanity’s transformation of “the lay of the land” and of its biogeochemistry. It is the major point of the concept of anthropogenic biomes (mentioned in Sect.

5.3 , The moral force of biodiversity), none of which existed 70,000 years ago. The biomes from that past time are now extinct, like many of the species that occupied them, and partly on account of the extinction of those species. In other words, whatever biological conditions have sustained life over the last 200,000 years have also sustained so many changes in life that the planet now is hard to recognize as a later biotic and environmental version of its former self. This is a serious blow to the supposition that biodiversity, just as it was at some point arbitrarily selected within the interval of human tenure, was essential to sustaining life from that point onward.

YieldsIncreased US food production leads to food dumping which hurts local farmers in developing countries.Pham 13 [Phong, writer for Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “Food Dumping: Is It Necessary” The Borgen Project, https://borgenproject.org/food-dumping-necessary/, Dec. 29, 2013] LADI//YZ

In poor countries, agriculture is the biggest economic factor. “In developing countries, agriculture continues to be the main source of employment, livelihood and income for between 50-90% of the population,” and in Africa, almost

70% of people rely on farming as their main source of income. If third world countries want to erase poverty, investing and stabilizing agriculture are extremely important. When other countries are providing excessive food support, they increase the food supply when food demand remains the same. This situation decreases the food price in the local market because local farmers have to compete with foreign food aid in the market. Since the price for food decreases, the farmers do not have the ability to reinvest the profit into their land and their crop.

Squo solves – current raising wages causes shift automation.Blake 1/18 [Cary, associate editor with Western Farm Press, has 32 years experience as an agricultural journalist. “Farmworker decline, higher wages trigger specialty crop mechanization” Western FarmPress, http://www.westernfarmpress.com/immigration/farmworker-decline-higher-wages-trigger-specialty-crop-mechanization, Jan 18, 2018] LADI//YZ.

With farm wages on the uptick, what are farmers doing in response to higher wages? They are using the H-2A program, Hertz says, noting a 106 percent increase in national H-2A certifications by the Department of Labor since 2001. Workers certified in fiscal year 2016 grew to 165,000 H-2A workers, up from 80,000. Certifications have doubled since 2011 in Florida, North Carolina,

Georgia, California, Arizona, and Washington. In addition, farmers are turning more to mechanization where possible. Hertz says, “They (farmers) keep saying this crop cannot be mechanized and that crop can’t be mechanized. Sure enough a few years later someone figures out a way to do it . I expect that will continue.” “Partial mechanization” is another way farmers can deal with the labor shortfall-wage increase, including the use of partial hydraulic platforms in orchards where farmworkers don’t have to climb up and down ladders, or to shorten the distance that workers carry heavy produce. Hertz says partial mechanization is on the rise, helping farmers embrace productivity while containing labor costs. “Interestingly, farmers as always are endlessly inventive and they have managed through changing productivity for finding ways to increase productivity,” Hertz said.

US-born workers don’t solve the issue – they take the same farm roles as existing foreign farmworkers and don’t fill migrant and seasonal jobsBronar 15 – Ph.D and Partner, Edgeworth Econonics (Stephen G. A Vanishing Breed: How the Decline in U.S. Farm Laborers Over the Last Decade Has Hurt the U.S. Economy and Slowed Production on American Farms The Partnership for a New American Economy July 2015 http://www.newamericaneconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/PNAE_FarmLabor_August-3-3.pdf DOA 7/29/17) LADI//CW

Given that many outside agriculture often argue that unemployed, U.S.-born workers should be filling American farm jobs, it is worth examining this issue by presenting information about the role U.S.-born workers

played filling field and crop positions during the period examined in this study. According to the NAWS data, in the 1998-2002 period, about 20 percent of field and crop workers were born in the United States. By 2008-2012, that figure had risen to roughly 27 percent. As discussed in Section III, this occurred during a period when overall employment of field and crop workers dropped by more than a fifth. Using the distribution of field and crop workers by

foreign-born status from the NAWS, we estimate that the increase in employment of U.S.-born field and crop workers offset only 2.7 percent of the decline in field and crop workers that occurred between 2002 and 2014. Our findings echo what growers often say anecdotally—that many native-born workers are unwilling or unable to do farm jobs. In California, the state that saw the greatest decline in full-time equivalent field and crop workers, U.S.-born farm laborers played a very different role. In the 1998–2002 period, U.S.-born workers made up 3.26 percent of California’s field and crop workforce. By the 2008–2012 period, that figure had risen only marginally, growing to 3.67 percent. That growth in the share of field and crop workers born in the United States, however, only occurred because of the

dramatic decline in the number of foreign-born workers coming into California in the 2002 to 2014 period. In reality, the total number of U.S.-born field and crop workers in California from 2002 to 2014 declined by 31.8 percent. That means that in the state where they were arguably needed most, native-born workers played no role offsetting the labor decline—in fact, they only exacerbated it. The U.S.-born farmworkers who have entered agriculture in recent years are also not likely to have filled the labor-intensive field and crop jobs that are the focus of this study.

U.S.- born field and crop workers tend to gravitate towards the same types of semi-skilled tasks that often attract the most experienced foreign-born workers.42 Native-born farmworkers are also unlikely to fill migrant-farming jobs, seasonal jobs, and the “follow the crop” jobs that have typically been filled by recent foreign-born arrivals. As Figure 6 demonstrates, just 12 percent of all the field and crop workers employed in migrant-farming jobs in 2008 to 2012 were born in America. Another interesting consequence of the recent slowdown in the arrival of immigrant farmworkers: The data shows that today’s field and crop workers are significantly aging. Figure 5 shows that 38.2 percent of foreign-born workers in 1998–2002 were age 25 and under, and only 14.2 percent were older than age 45. By 2008–2012 the fraction of foreign-born field and crop workers age 25 and under had dropped to 20.7 percent and the fraction of foreign-born workers age 45 and above had nearly doubled to 27.1 percent. The aging of the workforce is a worry to many U.S. farm owners: Unlike other industries, where older workers may be capable of producing more due to their increased experience, studies have consistently found that farm workers pick and process less as they age, likely due to the physically strenuous nature of the work.43 One study, for instance, found that the productivity of farm workers overall peaks at around age 35

or 45, and declines steeply afterwards.44 The aging of field and crop workers also poses the threat that in the coming years, retirement may worsen the labor shortage described in this report still further.

Alt cause – aging workers and undesirability of farm workers are the cause of farm labor shortage.Mohan 7/21 [Geoffrey, part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning breaking news team and currently a reporter for Los Angeles Times. “As California’s labor shortage grows, farmers race to replace workers with robots,” Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farm-mechanization/, July 21, 2017] LADI//YZ.

Now, the $47-billion agriculture industry is trying to bring technological innovation up to warp speed before it runs out of low-wage immigrant workers. California will have to remake its fields like it did its factories, with more machines and better-educated workers to labor beside them, or risk losing entire crops, economists say. “California agriculture just isn’t going to look the same,” said Ed Taylor, a UC Davis rural economist. “You’re going to be hard-pressed to find crops grown as labor-intensively as they are now.” Driscoll’s, which grows berries in nearly two dozen countries and is the world’s top berry grower, already is moving its berries to table-top troughs, where they are easier for both human and machines to pick, as it has done over the last decade in Australia and Europe. “We don’t see — no matter what happens — that the labor problem will be solved,” said Soren Bjorn, president of Driscoll’s of the Americas. That’s because immigrant farmworkers in California’s agricultural heartlands are getting older and not being replaced. After decades of crackdowns, the net flow across the U.S.-Mexico border reversed in 2005, a trend that accelerated through 2014, according to a Pew Research Center study. And native-born Americans aren’t interested in the job, even at wages that have soared at higher than average rates. “We’ve been masking this problem all these years with a system that basically allowed you to accept fraudulent documents as legal, and that’s what has been keeping this workforce going,” said Steve Scaroni, whose Fresh Harvest company is among the biggest recruiters of farm labor. “And now we find out we don’t have much of a labor force up here, at least a legal one.”

Stated bluntly, there aren’t enough new immigrants for the state’s nearly half-million farm labor jobs — especially as Mexico creates competing manufacturing jobs in its own cities, Taylor said. He has calculated that the pool of potential immigrants from rural Mexico shrinks every year by about 150,000 people. Not surprisingly, wages for crop production have climbed 13% from 2010 to 2015 — a higher rate than the state average, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis of Labor Department data. Growers who can afford it have begun offering savings and health plans more commonly found in white collar jobs. And they’re increasingly turning to foreign guest workers, recruiting 11,000 last year, which is a fivefold jump in just five years, The Times found. None of that will solve the problem, economists say. Changing what we grow and how we grow it is all that’s left. Response has been uneven, at best. Vast areas of the Central Valley have switched from labor intensive crops such as grapes or vegetables to almonds, which are mechanically shaken from the tree. The high-value wine grape industry has re-engineered the bulk of its vineyards to allow machines to span the vines like a monorail and strip them of grape clusters or leaves. Fresno’s raisin industry, however, has a tougher problem to solve on a tighter profit margin. To fully mechanize, it may have to change not just its vineyard design, but the grape variety itself, much like the tomato industry developed a tough skinned Roma to withstand mechanical harvesters. When labor shortages and price shocks hit in the early 2000s, growers altered vineyards so that machines could shake partially withered Thompson seedless grapes onto paper trays, a method that can slash more than 80% of labor costs, according to U.C. Davis researchers.

No food shortageMock 3/19 [Sarah, Washington Correspondent who reports on rural and ag issues, 3-9-2017, "Farmers Don’t Need to Feed the World – Startup Grind – Medium," Medium, https://medium.com/startup-grind/farmers-dont-need-to-feed-the-world-744354c0c02c] LADI/JS

There is a misconception out there that farmers are responsible for feeding the world. Maybe it comes from the broken-record references to the “doubling of food production by 2050 to feed 9 billion people”, or the changing consumer culture that demands to know who, exactly, grows food. Or maybe it’s just a desire to pass responsibility down to the source. But

wherever we got this idea   —   it’s wrong. The reality is that farmers are already growing more than enough

calories to feed the world. And it’s likely that, with rapidly changing, global consumer preferences, the food we produce, and how we produce it, will need to change many times before the nine billionth human takes her first breath.

No impact to food price increaseBarret and Bellemare 11 [Christopher B. and Marc F., CHRISTOPHER B. BARRETT is the Stephen B. and Janice G. Ashley Professor in the Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management and in the Department of Economics and Associate Director of the David R. Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future at Cornell University. MARC F. BELLEMARE is Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Economics at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, 7-12-2011, "Why Food Price Volatility Doesn't Matter," Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2011-07-12/why-food-price-volatility-doesnt-matter] LADI//JS

Since volatile food prices do not necessarily harm poor consumers, it does not make sense to blame volatility for increased poverty or political unrest. In a recent statistical analysis, the FAO food price index and an indicator of political unrest were positively correlated. But a measure of food price volatility and political unrest had a strong negative correlation. Although the food price spikes that occurred in the late spring and early summer of 2008, at the end of 2010, and

at the beginning of 2011 coincided with political unrest, increases in food price volatility more commonly occurs after, not before, patches of political unrest. So, although commentators and politicians frequently blame food price volatility for human suffering and political unrest, they are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the problem. Perhaps not coincidentally, their emphasis on tempering price volatility favors the same large farmers who already enjoy tremendous financial support from G-20 governments.

SolvencyFarmworkers don’t want or need unions to protect themPatterson 14 [Matt, columnist at Washington Post 12-26-2014, "Farmworkers and the New Civil Rights Struggle," California Policy Center, http://californiapolicycenter.org/farmworkers-and-the-new-civil-rights-struggle-decertification-of-bad-unions/] LADI//JS

On August 26, 2014, more than 1,000 angry farmworkers stormed a state labor board office in Visalia,

California. For more than three hours, the mostly Latino, mostly immigrant crowd chanted for justice, carrying signs and wearing brightly colored shirts that advertised their cause. Protests are nothing

new in labor relations, of course. But these workers were not union members agitating for higher wages or better conditions. These workers, employed by the Fresno-based Gerawan Farming, Inc., were angrily denouncing California labor authorities for forcing them into a union, the United Farm Workers (UFW). They were protesting collusion between labor bosses and government bureaucrats to impose collective bargaining contracts on them against their will. They were voicing their rejection of the union. They already had high wages and excellent working conditions , they said. They didn’t need

the union, and wanted to dissociate themselves from the union.

Undocumented workers would undercut union efficacyReilly 11 [Jaclyn, graduate of Villanova University, “Agricultural Laborers: Their Inability to Unionize Under the National Labor Relations Act,” Penn State Law] LADI//JS

Before agricultural laborers could be considered “employees” under the NLRA, many concerns would need to be addressed. Labor advocates who believe it is time that these workers were granted the right to

freedom of association would have to be able to reconcile the right to unionize with the reality that many farmers today are hiring undocumented immigrants for lower wages than what union members would be willing to earn for the same work. The exception under IRCA as well as its current enforcement strategy would need to be reconsidered before agricultural laborers could be considered employees under the NLRA. Congress would therefore have to take these two federal statutes into account before any progress can be made for agricultural laborers to collectively bargain with their employers under the protection of the NLRA. Agriculture remains a very

powerful industry in this country and they have many concerns over agricultural laborers being able to unionize. Farmers do not want to be subject to a loss in profits because their workers have gone on strike and refuse to harvest crops. This concern coupled with the impact it would have on the nation as a whole could undermine agricultural laborers attempts to be protected under the NLRA. Economic weapons that unions possess could potentially be detrimental to farmers and their crops, which in turn would affect consumer access to a wide variety of food products that consumers enjoy today.

Increasing farmworker wages doesn’t increase the number of workersJacoby 12, [Tamar, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of small business owners advocating immigration reform, 4-17-2012, "Without Immigrant Labor, the Economy Would Crumble," New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/08/17/could-farms-survive-without-illegal-labor/without-immigrant-labor-the-economy-would-crumble] LADI//JS

Just raise the wage, you say, and an American would take the job? Not necessarily, and very unlikely if it's a farm job. Farmers have been trying that — for decades. They raise the wage. They recruit

in inner cities. They offer housing and transport and countless other benefits. Still, no one shows — or stays on the job, which is outdoors and grueling and must get done, no matter how hot or cold or otherwise

unpleasant the weather. And of course, at some point, there are limits to how high a wage a grower or dairy farmer can pay before he is forced out of business by a farmer who produces the same commodity in another country, where the labor actually is cheap.