CONTRADICTIONS

                  What are we, the people, supposed to think?  The Trump administration is literally whipsawing us with profoundly contradictory policies, making me wonder if the current executive branch has no anchors at all.

                   In the last few weeks, look at what's come out of the White House.  First, we have the glyphosate executive order, claiming that the herbicide is necessary for our nation's survival.  That's pretty extreme and utterly untrue.  Second, we have the White House siding with Bayer Corporation, which purchased Monsanto a few years ago, pulling out all the stops in the Supreme Court case involving states' rights regarding chemical labeling.

                  At issue was whether a state (in this case, California) could demand a stricter label than required by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The brand under discussion?  Roundup--glyphosate, the most ubiquitous and obnoxious herbicide in the world.  By now you know the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration and EPA, which it appears will make all the billions of dollars in lawsuits against Bayer for causing non-Hodgkins Lymphoma go away.  This saves Bayer many billions of dollars.  If the EPA says it's fine, then no state can say it's not.  Ongoing research is finding more and more harmful consequences from glyphosate. 

                  Realize the administration's effort and investment, then, to encourage the use of glyphosate and protect companies that make it from liability.  And to decapitate state efforts to offer a protective shield to their citizens.  This is all a large, large concessionary and catalytic handout to the chemical industry.

                  In profound contradiction to all this flurry of activity is the executive order signed Thursday essentially directing federal agencies to befriend regenerative agriculture.  For those of you who follow this blog, that was the photo op I was invited to attend; five farmers were invited; four made it in; I was cancelled at the last minute.

                  I'm glad I wasn't there.  After the weight of the glyphosate investment, and now with the advantage of hindsight, I see this regen ag executive order, which doesn't really do anything except say "let's be friends,"  more like kicking a dog and then trying to give it a bone.  After kicking the MAHA constituency in the teeth with both the glyphosate executive order and then the Supreme Court ruling, does the administration suddenly think it can curry favor with us by grinning over a "we love regen ag" order with four smiling farmers in the background to make a good photo op?

                  Sorry, Mr. Trump, I'm not stupid and I don't like being played.  I don't think for a minute the president is interested in compost over chemicals.  I do, however, think he likes entrepreneurism, small business, and fair markets.  That is why I actually think we have a better chance of a FOOD EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION to change the food/farm industrial/chemical complex than telling federal agencies to play nice with bugs.  Unleashing thousands of small farmers and homesteaders on their communities with unadulterated, value added convenience food like homemade canned beef stew and chicken pot pie would be a far bigger boost to regen ag than a toothless executive order.

                  I've lived long enough to see the non-chemical terminology co-opted multiple times.  It used to be natural, then sustainable, then organic, and now it's regenerative.  With every evolution of the terminology, the industrial complex figured out how to own the messaging.  Monsanto claimed it was the most sustainable because its chemicals and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) helped feed people, sustaining peoples' lives with dependable food.

                  The same thing appears to be happening with the word regenerative, as the language around this current executive order assumes chemicals are necessary.  While some in the movement claim this is a major victory, I see it as a Trojan horse, softening people like me toward a new position:  "Of course, some chemicals are necessary.  We just can't live without them and as long as they're put down with AI precision, we'll be fine."

                  This is the tenor of the regen ag executive order, and I smell a rat.  To see our side euphoric over such compromised language is disheartening.

                  Am I reading this wrong?