Reason.tv - Topics

Rawesome Foods Raided... Again!

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 09:00:00 EDT

A little more than a year ago, Rawesome Foods, a health food co-op based in Venice, California was the target of an armed raid by several agencies, and the resulting video went viral.

On August 3, 2011, Rawesome experienced another multi-agency raid, but this one resulted in the arrest of the establishment's owner James Stewart.

Stewart, and Sharon Palmer, the farmer who supplies him with raw goat milk, are being held on bails in excess of $100,000 and are each charged with four felonies and several more misdemeanors. Some examples of the charges are "processing unpasteurized milk," "improper labeling of food," and "improper egg temperatures."

The government has kept pursuing Stewart and his club for years, despite a lack of any reports of illness or injury from consumption of his foods. Rawesome members argue that they are part of a private club, not subject to government regulation, and that they are being persecuted for their alternative lifestyles.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office would not comment for this video, but offered this press release and also released a list of the charges against Stewart and Palmer.

Reason.tv covered the first Rawesome raid in 2010 here.

Approximately 3:30.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Sharif Matar and Alex Manning.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

Veronique de Rugy Discusses Farm Subsidies on Bloomberg TV

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:00:00 EST

According to some U.S. policy makers, there is a global food crisis that can only be solved through massive government subsidies to farmers and other agricultural producers. In her weekly appearance on Bloomberg TV, Reason columnist Veronique de Rugy explains the truth about the so-called food crisis by separating economic fact from economic myth.

Myth 1: Because of the financial meltdown, and its repercussions on aid, the scale of hunger that we see now is unprecedented; more people face starvation related to disasters than ever before.

Fact 1: In fact, while unacceptably high, starvation deaths per year have been declining for the past 60 or 70 years. Better publicity, grain market integration, and work by aid agencies have decreased human deaths during each food crisis since the late 1950’s.

Myth 2: Congress says farm subsidies insure a food supply for the US and for the World.

Fact 2: U.S. farm subsidies have exacerbated the balloon in world food prices. In fact, economists have found that abolishing domestic subsidies would actually lower world prices for these crops.

Myth 3: Farm subsidies are necessary to bolster farmers' incomes in order to alleviate poverty in the United States.

Fact 3: That rationale made some sense in the 1930s but it doesn’t today. Despite the fact that farm households are doing as well or better than other households, farm households are still targeted for billions of dollars in government payments.

For additional information, see de Rugy’ s article "Is There a Global Food Crisis?"

Approximately 4.05 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and make sure to subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive updates on new content.

Agricultural Subsidies

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 07:00:00 EST

"The government is bailing out the banks...but who's going to bail out the government?" asks Texas cotton farmer Ken Gallaway, a vocal critic of agricultural subsidies that cost U.S. taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars a year in direct payments and higher prices for farm goods.

Agricultural subsidies were put in place in the 1930s during the Great Depression, when 25 percent of Americans lived on farms. At the time, Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace called them "a temporary solution to deal with an emergency." Those programs are still in place today, even though less than 1 percent of Americans currently live on farms that are larger, more efficient, and more productive than ever before.

Consider these facts. Ninety percent of all subsidies go to just five crops: corn, rice, cotton, wheat, and soybeans. Two thirds of all farm products—including perishable fruits and vegetables—receive almost no subsidies. And just 10 percent of recipients receive 75 percent of all subsidies. A program intended to be a “temporary solution” has become one of our government’s most glaring examples of corporate welfare.

U.S. taxpayers aren’t the only ones who pay the price. Cotton subsidies, for example, encourage overproduction which lowers the world price of cotton. That’s great for people who buy cotton, but it’s disastrous for already impoverished cotton farmers in places such as West Africa.

U.S. farm programs cost taxpayers billions each year, significantly raise the price of commodities such as sugar (which is protected from competition from other producers in other countries), undermine world trade agreements, and contribute to the suffering of poor farmers around the world. It’s bad public policy, especially in these troubled economic times.

"Agricultural Subsidies: Corporate Welfare for Farmers" is hosted by Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie and is approximately 8.30 minutes long. The producer-writer is Paul Feine and the producer-editor is Roger Richards.

For an audio podcast version, go here.

For more videos in Reason.tv's award-winning Drew Carey Project series, go here.

Ethanol

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Ethanol advocates claim that the biofuel is a cheap, renewable energy source that reduces pollution and our dependence on foreign oil. It sounds too good to be true—and it is.

Ethanol, especially the corn-based variety, is bad for taxpayers, bad for consumers, bad for the environment, and horrible for the world's poor. In fact, even environmentalists are critical of ethanol subsidies these days. The ethanol craze has distorted markets and increased the price of food worldwide. The only people who still support ethanol subsidies are the ethanol producers—and politicians from both sides of the aisle. Together, they make sure the subsidies keep coming.

In a recent interview about the current food crisis, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said, "If part of our problem is that the Chinese are going to eat meat and you've got to have corn and soybeans to feed the Chinese their meat, then why isn't it just as legitimate for the Chinese to go back and eat rice as it is for us to change our policy on corn to ethanol?"

Let them eat rice? So that American taxpayers can continue to pay people to turn corn into fuel?

Silly senator, corn is for food.

This seven-and-a-half-minute video explores the case against ethanol subsidies. Hosted by reason's Nick Gillespie and featuring Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey, it was produced by Paul Feine and PF Bentley.

For an audio podcast version, go here.