Biotech Helping Feed Africa

Farmers benefit from biotech crops production

SPECIAL REPORT BY XINHUA CORRESPONDENT PETER MUTAI

NAIROBI (Xinhua) -- Continued progress on commercialization of biotech crops was witnessed in all three countries in Africa during the 2009 period.

According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Application (ISAAA), South Africa has increased its hectarage by 17 percent while Burkina Faso increased by 14 percent.

The three countries broader coverage is of strategic importance because it allows more African countries to become practitioners of biotech crops and be able to benefit directly from learning by doing, a practice which has been proved to be very important.

This is a remarkable achievement given that Africa is the continent with the greatest challenge on food production compared to other continents.

As South Africa continue to export their biotech agricultural products such as maize, researchers now say that Kenya too could be on the beneficiary list once it adopts the technology.

With the food insecurity already ravaging most parts of sub Saharan Africa hence forcing countries to import food mainly maize and beans, the application of biotechnology could be of a solution to pest and diseases that wipe out millions of crops yearly.     Read More

You certainly get a different perspective about biotechnology in countries where so many people are starving.  There are no Michael Pollan’s in Africa and the reason is that many people over there wonder where their next meal is coming from.  Having the luxury to choose food that was raised in a certain way is a very foreign concept to people in Africa.  Our country has the ability to help feed these people yet we have full-stomached protesters and activists that are trying to stop that from happening.  This is why Pollan’s line of thinking is so out of touch with reality, a reality that too many people live with every day. 

2010 Trailblazer Award Winners

When Joe Roybal called me late this summer to say that Stacy and I had been selected at BEEF Magazine's 2010 Trailblazer Award honorees I was pretty much speechless (which doesn't happen very often).  My first thought was that we probably weren't old enough to be a trailblazer in the beef industry!  Never had the thought crossed my mind that we would be considered for an award like this.  We didn't set out to win any awards when we started telling our story but we truly appreciate it. 

So a big thank you to Joe and everyone at BEEF Magazine for thinking of us!

Here's a link to the 2010 BEEF Magazine Trailblazer Award article.

Spreading the Misinformation of Food Inc.

Dave Stockdale
Sustainability Honcho
Cattle call
SFGate.com
I was enjoying a meat-centric meal at a local restaurant a few days ago with some friends when someone brought up the film Food, Inc. So we ended up discussing the dark side of meat production while...

I was enjoying a meat-centric meal at a local restaurant a few days ago with some friends when someone brought up the film Food, Inc. So we ended up discussing the dark side of meat production while enjoying our nicely prepared pastured beef short ribs. If you also saw this film, then what follows will not be new. And yet, it never hurts to remind ourselves of some of the issues and concerns.

As the aforementioned movie revealed for many previously unaware folks, the idyllic vision we have of cows grazing on open fields under blue skies is not a very realistic picture of cattle production today. While many cattle in the United States do begin their lives on relatively small, family-owned ranches with ample amounts of pasture or rangeland, the vast majority of cattle end their lives in large, overcrowded feedlots. In many feedlots, their diet switches to grains and other products such as flesh, bones, hooves, and feathers of other animals, chicken or cattle manure, stale pastry, ground cardboard, and even plastic hay.

Cattle are a ruminant (or cud-chewing) species, as are goats, sheep, and bison. Their specialized digestive system has evolved over millennia to digest the biodiversity of grasses found on pastureland. When ruminant animals such as cattle are fed a grain-based diet, it can cause them a range of health problems, so they are often administered antibiotics to fend off the diseases they might contract under these conditions. The cattle are also often given growth hormones to make them grow bigger faster.

Not all grain-fed cattle are subject to the worst feedlot conditions. Some feedlots are less crowded and are managed without the use of antibiotics or hormones. Some facilities feed their cattle only grain and other foodstuffs (a typical diet might include barley, corn, wheat, soy meal, sugar beet pulp, cane molasses and hay) without all the fillers and questionable by-products. Feedlots producing certified organic dairy products or beef must follow guidelines that include feeding the animals certified organic grain, avoiding antibiotics and hormones, and providing some access to pasture.

In addition to the effects on animal health, the feedlot system also has some serious environmental impacts. Overcrowding of animals produces excessive amounts of manure that cannot be recycled on site. Runoff from this manure creates an excess of nitrogen in watersheds. Methane gas produced by cattle contributes to global warming. The large-scale industrial production of grain to feed the animals includes high usage of pesticides and herbicides and the widespread use of genetically engineered seed.

The feedlot system also has social consequences. As commodity prices for beef and dairy products are driven down, small family-owned ranches are often driven out of business. Those that do manage to stay afloat generally work on contract with a few large corporations, greatly limiting their autonomy, financial security, and opportunities for growth. Feedlots themselves can be toxic environments for the workers who operate them and smelly eyesores for the communities that house them. Slaughterhouses can be dangerous for workers when speed and production are considered more important than safety.

Keeping cattle on open rangeland or pasture from birth until death is an alternative to the feedlot system. Because cattle eat the diet that is biologically appropriate for them and their digestive systems, the health problems outlined above are eliminated. The negative environmental and social consequences are lessened too. Research is also showing that there are also significant health advantages to eating dairy products or beef from pasture-raised animals.

I don't eat animal protein every day, but when I do, I buy ingredients or seek out menu items that feature pastured animals whenever possible. It's my way of supporting a production system that I believe is better for me, the animals, and the planet. That fact that these products also taste better and have a more interesting texture to me is an added bonus!

This blogger from San Francisco learned everything about modern livestock production from watching the movie Food Inc. and is eager to share it.  Line by line you can go through this article and see how this mockery of a film has misinformed consumers.  For example, according to this guy every feedlot is overcrowded.  On more than one occassion he refers to overcrowded feedlots.  He also mentions that most family farmers and ranchers that raise beef are doing it for a large corporation.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The next time you don't feel like sharing your story consider the idea that this guy is eager to share your story for you and it's apparent that he's not concerned about the truth. 

Michael Pollan's $8 Eggs

Michael Pollan Thinks $8 For a Dozen Eggs Is a Bargain

• 8/5/10 at 11:40 AM

Sustainable food guru Michael Pollan continues his quest to convince us today that spending twice as much for stuff at the farmers' market should really be the new norm. He tells the Journal, "My little rule, 'Pay more, eat less,' is followed by a lot of people in the Bay Area," even though for most everyone we know it's still pretty much "pay more, eat more." He also argues, "Eight dollars for a dozen eggs sounds outrageous, but when you think that you can make a delicious meal from two eggs, that's $1.50." OK, sure, and we'll admit those Frog Hollow peaches are damn delicious, even at $3.90 apiece, but we still choke up as we hand over the cash.  Link

      Only Michael Pollan would think that paying $8 for a dozen eggs is a good thing for families in this country. While paying $1.50 for a meal of two eggs sounds reasonable for one person, think about what a family would have to pay just for eggs. Our family has five people in it. That would add up to $7.50 for a family meal of just two eggs per person. Anyone with growing children knows that a meal of just two eggs isn’t going to keep them full for long. Nor is it a complete meal. The problem is that if you base food costs off $8/dozen eggs, a complete meal could easily cost $10 per person. That would make our family’s daily meals cost around $150 per day. I suppose that sounds reasonable to Pollan as well and with the salary he makes going around the country scaring people about their food he can probably afford that. But most working families in this country cannot. Safe, affordable, nutritious food is something this country has done better than any other in the history of the world. Advocating for $8 eggs show exactly how out of touch with reality Michael Pollan is.  ~Troy

Agri-Women Share Truth About Food Inc.

American Agri-Women challenge message of movie Food, Inc.
By Drovers news source Monday, June 07, 2010

American Agri-Women is attempting to bridge the gap in the debate over food production. Food, Inc. is a documentary that aims to change the way America eats and the way American food is produced, but many in the agriculture world say the movie did not get it right. American Agri-Women wants to clear up misconceptions from the movie and continue the dialogue about America's food.

"Movies like Food, Inc. demonstrate how important it is that farmers share with consumers how food is produced. And as producers, we are interested in providing that information,” said American Agri-Women President, Chris Wilson. “Women in agriculture have a unique perspective because we are both producers and consumers. We help grow the food, and we also prepare it for our families to eat.”

Unfortunately, the film does not portray agriculture accurately. It suggests the food supply is dominated by corporate farms. However, the 2007 edition of USDA Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report, found that 98% of farms in the U.S. - more than 2.1 million - are family owned and operated. The truth is, according to Wilson, millions of family farmers work hard every day on their farms and ranches to bring us the food on our tables. Wilson and her family live on a farm of their own near Manhattan, Kansas. Read More

The absolute best way to correct the misinformation being spread about agriculture is for farmers and ranchers to personally set the record straight. Hollywood movies like Food Inc. are more concerned about the money they can generate rather than sharing the truth. People want to know the truth and they want to hear it from the people that grow their food. If you don’t want Michael Pollan or Wayne Pacelle telling your story for you then you better stand up and do it yourself.

Modern Ag Can Feed The World

Attention Whole Foods Shoppers
Stop obsessing about arugula. Your "sustainable" mantra -- organic, local, and slow -- is no recipe for saving the world's hungry millions.
BY ROBERT PAARLBERG MAY/JUNE 2010

From Whole Foods recyclable cloth bags to Michelle Obama's organic White House garden, modern eco-foodies are full of good intentions. We want to save the planet. Help local farmers. Fight climate change -- and childhood obesity, too. But though it's certainly a good thing to be thinking about global welfare while chopping our certified organic onions, the hope that we can help others by changing our shopping and eating habits is being wildly oversold to Western consumers. Food has become an elite preoccupation in the West, ironically, just as the most effective ways to address hunger in poor countries have fallen out of fashion.

Helping the world's poor feed themselves is no longer the rallying cry it once was. Food may be today's cause célèbre, but in the pampered West, that means trendy causes like making food "sustainable" -- in other words, organic, local, and slow. Appealing as that might sound, it is the wrong recipe for helping those who need it the most. Even our understanding of the global food problem is wrong these days, driven too much by the single issue of international prices. In April 2008, when the cost of rice for export had tripled in just six months and wheat reached its highest price in 28 years, a New York Times editorial branded this a "World Food Crisis." World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned that high food prices would be particularly damaging in poor countries, where "there is no margin for survival." Now that international rice prices are down 40 percent from their peak and wheat prices have fallen by more than half, we too quickly conclude that the crisis is over. Yet 850 million people in poor countries were chronically undernourished before the 2008 price spike, and the number is even larger now, thanks in part to last year's global recession. This is the real food crisis we face.

What's so tragic about this is that we know from experience how to fix the problem. Wherever the rural poor have gained access to improved roads, modern seeds, less expensive fertilizer, electrical power, and better schools and clinics, their productivity and their income have increased. But recent efforts to deliver such essentials have been undercut by deeply misguided (if sometimes well-meaning) advocacy against agricultural modernization and foreign aid.

In Europe and the United States, a new line of thinking has emerged in elite circles that opposes bringing improved seeds and fertilizers to traditional farmers and opposes linking those farmers more closely to international markets. Influential food writers, advocates, and celebrity restaurant owners are repeating the mantra that "sustainable food" in the future must be organic, local, and slow. But guess what: Rural Africa already has such a system, and it doesn't work. Few smallholder farmers in Africa use any synthetic chemicals, so their food is de facto organic. High transportation costs force them to purchase and sell almost all of their food locally. And food preparation is painfully slow. The result is nothing to celebrate: average income levels of only $1 a day and a one-in-three chance of being malnourished.

If we are going to get serious about solving global hunger, we need to de-romanticize our view of preindustrial food and farming. And that means learning to appreciate the modern, science-intensive, and highly capitalized agricultural system we've developed in the West. Without it, our food would be more expensive and less safe. In other words, a lot like the hunger-plagued rest of the world. Read More

This article does a nice job of highlighting how modern agriculture has the ability to wipe out hunger on this planet. While most of us take our everyday meals for granted, many people on this planet have never enjoyed that luxury. They are still farming the way we did in this country 100 years ago. The scary thing is that we have several people who have made themselves famous by advocating that the best thing the US could do is go back to farming that way. We are fortunate to provide so many choices for our consumers but the mentality that eliminating our technological advances in agriculture is the only way to go will only lead to more hungry people. ~Troy

Food Inc. Follow-Up in KS

KLA President Defends Conventional Ag In Follow-Up To “Food, Inc.”
05/05/2010 08:58AM
CattleNetwork.com
Article Link

Public broadcasting affiliate KTWU- Topeka has produced a one-hour television program to air tonight at 9:00 as a follow-up to the controversial “Food, Inc.” KLA President Mark Smith served as a member of the diverse six-member agriculture panel discussing food issues on “Taking Stock: Perspectives on Food Production in Kansas.” The program was moderated by WIBW Radio Farm Director Kelly Lenz. Other panelists included Kansas Farm Bureau President Steve Baccus, Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Josh Svaty, Kansas Rural Center Executive Director Dan Nagengast, natural foods supplier Diana Endicott and former Kansas Gov. John Carlin.Smith, a Wallace County rancher, criticized “Food, Inc.” for presenting an inaccurate picture of American agriculture.

In response to the movie disparaging hard-working farmers and ranchers, Smith explained how today’s conventional ag producers deliver more safe, nutritious food using fewer natural resources due to advanced technology. Smith deflected the movie's criticism of confined animal feeding operations by talking about the quality care cattle receive in a feedyard. He said cattle spend most of their lives on grass, followed by a short 130- to 150-day period eating a balanced feed ration that produces flavorful beef demanded by consumers.

“Taking Stock” will air on all Kansas public television stations tonight following the system’s national airing of “Food, Inc.” at 7:00 p.m. In addition to providing industry sources to present the accurate story of modern beef production, NCBA, KLA and other affiliate groups are driving consumers to www.explorebeef.org, where many of the common misperceptions in “Food, Inc.” are corrected with accurate information. For more information visit www.kla.org.

As we travel around the country speaking to groups, we show them who is out telling their story and ask the question “Is this who want doing that?” If you don’t like who is speaking for you or what they are saying then you have to do it yourself. The Hollywood movie “Food Inc.” has opened the door to many discussions about agriculture. Unfortunately those involved with this movie were more interested in scaring people about their food than they were in sharing the truth. This means we need to. It’s great to see these Kansas producers taking back their story. Even more importantly though is the need for us to not let the truth get hijacked in the first place. It’s not easy but if all of us do something everyday to share the truth about ag we can do it.

Ag IS Sustainable

Defining Sustainable Agriculture
May 4, 2010 10:00 AM, By Kent Thiesse
Corn and Soybean Digest

“Sustainable agriculture” is a phrase that has been around for decades; however, it has recently been receiving increased emphasis by businesses, organizations and political leaders. USDA’s Ag Outlook Conference a couple months ago focused on sustainable agriculture, as did the Minnesota Agri-Growth Council annual meeting in October 2009. If you ask 100 people to define sustainable agriculture, you will likely get 100 different responses. Every person, business and organization seems to have its own definition of sustainability,as it relates to agriculture.

A more recent definition of sustainability is meeting the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. That definition is quite complex, and can have a wide-range of interpretations. Most university experts and business leaders see sustainable agriculture as being sustainable environmentally, economically and socially. The environmental and economic aspects of sustainability have been around for decades, even centuries, in agriculture. The social aspect of sustainability is a newer concept that is gaining more and more focus in many developed countries in the world, including the U.S.

As mentioned earlier, the concept of sustainable agriculture has existed for decades, and has been emphasized in farm bills as well as other federal and state legislation. Consider some of the agricultural facts and improvements from the past few decades that are related to economic, environmental and social achievements:

· Farmers today grow five times as much corn on 20% less land than they did in 1930.

· In 1940, one U.S. farmer produced enough food and fiber for 19 people, compared to production for 155 people today.

· From 1987 to 2007, average corn productivity increased by over 40%, and has increased at even more rapid pace in recent years.

· Corn producers grow 70% more corn/pound of fertilizer than they did in the 1970s.

· Reduced tillage and improved farm management practices have reduced soil erosion by about 43% in the last twenty years, while soil lost per bushel of corn produced has dropped by 69% during that same period of time.

· Carbon emissions per unit of output in crop production have dropped by one-third in the past 20 years, while energy used per unit of crop production has decreased by 60%. Read More

One of the frustrating things I hear being said about agriculture today is that farmers and ranchers need to change in order to be sustainable. There is this mentality being perpetuated by the likes of Michael Pollan and others that current farms and ranches, most of which are several generations old, aren’t sustainable. Not only is this not correct, but it’s also insulting. No one knows more about sustainability than those in agriculture. Not only do we set yearly goals, but I have never met a farmer or rancher that didn’t hope to be able to pass their business on to the next generation. So for those who want to claim ag needs to start being sustainable, well, they are late to a party that started many generations ago. ~Troy

Pollan's Visit to Michigan State Univ.

Food expert raises stir at MSU
Author opposes production practices university supports
Matthew Miller • mrmiller@lsj.com • April 13, 2010

EAST LANSING - Amanda Sollman's question was pointed.

"You're currently standing in the state with the highest rate of unemployment in the country," the Michigan State University agriscience major said, "and a lot of the way that you propose we consume and produce food, whether that's more local, organic, mostly plants, that will inevitably result in higher food prices.

"How do you justify a group of people who can afford these luxuries driving food policy and food production practices for those who can't?"

She was speaking to Michael Pollan, food writer, author of such books as "The Omnivore's Dilemma," "In Defense of Food" and, most recently, "Food Rules.," and perhaps the nation's most influential critic of how we eat and how we grow our food.

The simple fact of Pollan's appearance at MSU - he spoke Monday night at the Wharton Center, and did an hourlong question-and-answer session open only to students that afternoon - was enough to cause ripples in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Read More



Food 'Fight' Comes to MSU
Famed food author Michael Pollan spoke at MSU Monday, but not everyone agrees with his views.
Posted: 11:27 PM Apr 12, 2010

What better way for famed food author Michael Pollan to make his point to a crowd at MSU Monday, than to bring along some groceries.

"This bread has 38 ingredients in it," Pollan said Monday.

Pollan's view -- which he's written about in several books -- is that Americans have lost their relationship with food because it's become over-processed, and thus, less nutritious.

"I agree with what he says," Judy Lindberg, who came to the speech Monday, said. "I like the natural food idea."

The author has also been very critical of the agriculture business as a whole, arguing the food industry does not have the best interests of the public at heart. Pollan spoke to a group at Google headquarters in 2008.

"They load it up," He said in 2008 of manufacturers. "Salt your own food, fatten your own food. You'll do a better job."

Not surprisingly, being MSU is one of the first land grant institutions, several students disagree with Pollan, farmers even came to campus Monday to dispute Pollan's views.

"I view Pollan's food policies as an elitist point of view and man kind, and Americans will pay the price if we follow his policies," Trent Loos said.

Loos, a 6th-generation farmer from Nebraska, also spoke with students Monday. He said he agrees with Pollan's natural view of food, but also says there's nothing wrong with using science to mass produce it, the very thing many MSU students study.

"I see his message as a slap in the face to great land instirutions, like MSU, across the country," Loos said. Read More


As these two articles allude to, Michael Pollan continued his “food scare” tour at Michigan State yesterday, carefully avoiding any critics of his plan to roll back the clock on American agriculture. As usual, he doesn’t seem concerned at all with the fact that his ideas will lead to one-half the population going hungry. That was the estimation of Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Norman Borlaug. And he freely admits that the food that will be raised will be much more expensive. People need to get passed the polished surface of his presentations and books and dig into the meat of what he is proposing.

Pollan Tells Students to Go Vegan to Reduce Climate Change

Author Michael Pollan to speak on the 'drama on your plate'
Kelly Folkers
Issue date: 4/6/10

Humans need over 100 food compounds to be healthy, yet three crops dominate the American diet. Corn, wheat and soy comprise approximately 80 percent of Americans' diet, and author Michael Pollan has some problems with that.

"Humans are omnivores and need to eat a variety of different things," said Pollan, a food expert and the author of the bestselling books In Defense of Food and The Omnivore's Dilemma. Pollan, who considers himself a nature writer, will speak in Swasey Chapel on April 14 at 8 p.m. as the closing speaker for this year's campus theme of consumption.

Pollan's interest in studying food and where it comes from originated during childhood. He cultivated a vegetable garden at a young age, and his professional interest in food seemed to naturally follow his personal love for growing food.

"I focus on the messy places where the human and the natural intersect," Pollan said. "It was almost a matter of time when I would write about food. Our eating is how we change the world the most, everything from the landscape to how we grow food."

"Meat is the biggest food issue in terms of climate change," Pollan said. "If you are a meat eater, removing meat from your diet you would cut your carbon footprint by 25 percent."

Pollan also described the various ways that college students can make a difference in being greener with food consumption. Read More

Here is Pollan on his vegan push again. Remember that this is the same guy that made up the statistic that going vegan would do more to reduce climate change than dumping your SUV. He got called out on that make-believe statistic yet he continues to spew more misinformation. The livestock industry is only responsible for less than 3% of greenhouse gas emissions in this country. So how could going vegan cut your carbon footprint by 25%.

Here’s the issue. Pollan has built his empire on scaring people about their food. He did this by ignoring science and ignoring most people’s desire to grow enough food to feed everyone. Unfortunately for him, you can’t fool everyone all of the time. With his plan, more than half the planet would go hungry. Do you think hungry people really care about their carbon footprint at that point? The good news is that we can accomplish both goals. We can feed everyone AND continue to be more efficient. It just means that we need to listen to the experts in food production rather than journalism teachers.

Affordable Nutrition

Cheap Foods That Are Good For You
Rebecca Ruiz, 03.16.10, 4:00 PM ET
Forbes.com

Every few months, the food cognoscenti start touting a new super food for its ability to ward off disease. Hot foods in recent years include wild salmon ($15 a pound and packed with omega-3 fatty acids), antioxidant-loaded leeks ($3 a bunch), and the exotic açaí and goji berries (as much as $20 and $40 per 16 ounces, respectively). These foods are packed with nutrients but can send your grocery bill into the stratosphere.

You can get all the nutrition you need for much less money if you shop carefully. A cup of cooked navy beans has a similar amount of protein as 3 ounces of salmon, and is loaded with more magnesium, phosphorous and potassium. One large orange has almost seven times the amount of vitamin C and more fiber than a cup of raw blueberries, at a small fraction the berries' price this time of year. A $3 bunch of dark green, leafy kale is a big nutritional improvement on watery iceberg lettuce--but broccoli has just as many nutrients at half the price.

These are comparisons that Adam Drewnowski, the director of the Center for Public Health Nutrition at the University of Washington, has focused on in recent years. To help ordinary Americans who don't have unlimited budgets, Drewnowski has created an index ranking the most affordable healthy foods, ones that are packed with essential nutrients.

Drewnowski favors basic foods that are widely available year-round. His approach is the opposite of one taken by Omnivore's Dilemma author Michael Pollan, who has championed unprocessed, locally grown foods. “These foods give you maximum nutrition per dollar,” Drewnowski says.

Many items that rank high on his list, including milk, broccoli, beans, and tomato juice, won't surprise anyone. Others are a little more curious: Eggs make the cut despite their high cholesterol content because they are cheap and packed with protein and nutrients. Potatoes (skin on) also do well. And a few items on the index are jaw-dropping. If you believe Drewnowski, hamburger is a health food. He maintains that its high levels of protein and affordable price outweigh its huge saturated fat content. Read More

Common sense continues to show that eating a balanced diet which includes items such as meat, dairy and eggs is not only healthy but also affordable. As is typical, the reporter tries to plant a seed of doubt in everyone’s head, however no one can argue that these are very nutrient dense food. Think of them like tasty vitamins.

Food Inc. Is More Fantasy Than Documentary

What If Food Inc. Takes Home An Oscar?
03/02/2010 02:02PM
CattleNetwork.com

You may not care much about the Academy Awards, but this Sunday (Mar. 7) may be worth a bit of your time; at least pay attention to the “Best Documentary “ category.

Nominated for an Oscar is Food Inc.-- The film that “lifts the veil on our nation’s food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that has been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government’s regulatory agencies USDA and FDA.” That’s a promotional line from the film that appeared in theaters for most of last summer.

While you’re not fooled by Food Inc. carrying the label “documentary”, most of the viewing public takes it more literally. The common logic is-- in order for a film to be set apart as a documentary, it has to be truthful—Food Inc. is a documentary, therefore Food Inc. must be truthful.

Between the theater release and DVDs, millions of people have already seen this movie. Too often they walk away believing American farmers are greedy, reckless with food safety and the environment and are forcing unhealthy products upon the public—and U.S. regulators are supporting all of it.

The film is filled with mistruths and misrepresentations. “Our nation’s food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, and the safety of workers and our environment.” Organic is the only sure choice, is one of the messages drilled home. Another tells consumers that they are the only hope to drive change, because the regulators and corporations are in control and don’t care. Read More

It’s troubling that we have so many high-profile people in the many different types of media that are more concerned about personal wealth through activism rather than journalism. Real journalists provide all of the information and allow people to form their own opinions. Wealthy activists like Pollan provide only what he wants his audience to know about and then tells them what to do with it. If Food Inc wins an award this weekend, we will need to view this as an opportunity and motivation to do a better job of sharing the real story of production agriculture.

Who Do We Trust?

Who do you trust to tell you the truth about food safety?
Posted Tuesday, February 16, 2010, at 2:00 PM
By Marcia Gorrell

Is our food safe or not?

Are today's farmers feeding and taking care of their animals properly?

It seems to come down to who you trust.

Do you believe the family farmers who have spent their whole lives producing food? The farmers who have built modern farming techniques, step by step, generation by generation -- building on the lessons, failures and successes of those who farmed before them?

Do you believe the scientists or researchers who have spent their entire careers studying animals, nutrition and food safety? Do you believe the USDA or the FDA who are tasked with making our food supply safe?

I have as much suspicion as anyone when it comes to the government, but in the case of food safety, I can't argue with the results.

Of course, if you don't believe those people -- or me -- you can believe the reports like the one recently by Katie Couric of CBS News. It blamed antibiotic use in animals for the rise of antibiotic resistance in humans.

If she would have contacted farmers and veterinarians, as I did, she might have found out there are two sides to every story.

Again, if you don't believe me, you might believe Michael Pollan, the journalism professor from the University of California-Berkeley, who has become a self-appointed "food expert" but has never spent time actually raising food or feeding an animal day after day.

Recently Pollan was on Oprah, spouting his oft-repeated line that corn is not a natural food source for cows (and ruminants) and that we are force-feeding the foodstuff causing them to become sick.

According to Pollan, in order to feed cattle corn, we have to also feed them antibiotics.
For most farmers, that statement is so laughable they can't believe someone would actually believe it. In fact, most don't think it is worth a response. Read More

As we travel the country and share the experience we had with Pollan, I continually remind our audiences that they are the experts in the discussion of food production. Pollan is a journalism teacher. Unfortunately, he has discovered that he can make himself quite wealthy by trying to frighten people about our food supply and demonizing the farmers and ranchers who raise it. For some reason, people would rather be scared about our food rather than hear the truth. Nice job of sharing this story with your readers Marcia.

Africa Needs Modern Farming

African Farmers Urged to Innovate to Offset Climate Change
February 09, 2010, 02:11 AM EST
Businessweek
By Sarah McGregor

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Africa’s failure to embrace modern farming methods is a greater impediment to food production than global warming, according to the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

Adopting this approach would help the continent offset possible temperature increases of as much as 3 degrees Celsius (37 degrees Fahrenheit), it said, citing conclusions made by computer modeling.

Africa emits less greenhouse gas than any other continent, though it will likely be the hardest hit by climate change because of its dependence on basic agriculture and a lack of funds to adapt to weather extremes.

“Even with a climate-change scenario, Africa could probably double food production with modern techniques,” Cooper said.

One key way the region can prepare for the future impact of climate change is by distributing government-subsidized fertilizer, said Cooper, a crop agronomist. Read More

In this country, we continue to hear from anti-agriculture groups and food elitists that modern farming practices are a horrible, evil thing. Of course they say this with a full stomach, which can’t be said for many of the residents in Africa. Without American farmers and ranchers investing in and embracing new technology for the last 100 years, we would look like Africa. This also highlights how ridiculous Michael Pollan’s theories are. He would like us to abandon our modern farming techniques in favor of farming how we did four generations ago. If you would like to see how well that would work for us, just look at Africa.

Hungry Americans

One in Eight Americans Used Food Banks in 2009
By SCOTT KILMAN

CHICAGO—A charitable organization estimated Tuesday that 37 million Americans—or one in eight people—turned to food pantries and soup kitchens during the 2009 recession, forcing some sites to cut meal portions and turn away people.

Feeding America, a Chicago-based network of 200 food banks, said in its quadrennial hunger study that 46% more people visited a hunger-relief charity at least once in 2009 than did in 2005. The estimate was based on a survey of officials at 37,000 local feeding agencies nationwide.

President Barack Obama has a stated goal of ending childhood hunger in the U.S. by 2015. But the Feeding America study indicated that high unemployment and growing health-care costs were undermining increases in federal spending on nutrition programs.

As part of the hunger study, the group also interviewed 61,000 patrons at emergency feeding sites from February through June of last year. Among other things, the Feeding America study estimated that 13.9 million children were served by an emergency feeding center in 2009 compared with 9.23 million children in 2005.

Feeding America, which changed its name in 2008 from America's Second Harvest, said its survey showed that 76% of the adults who used a food pantry in 2009 were unemployed, including 3.2 million who had lost their jobs within the past 12 months. Read More

At the same time we are seeing an increase of people who are struggling to afford food for their families, we have food elitists who continue to advocate for a higher priced food supply. I can guarantee you that hungry people aren’t concerned about “food miles” or the technology used to grow it. The people that are worried about those types of things are the ones with full stomachs. So who should we be catering to in this country? Should we use the Pollan plan and turn our backs on the last century of progress in food production and have no regard for how many people we can feed? Or should we concentrate on making food more accessible by keeping it as affordable as possible? I, for one, am much more concerned about the empty stomachs than the full ones.

More Anti-Pollans Telling Their Story

Anti-Pollan eager to speak
Rancher provides view to people who are far from the land
Analysis
By CARL SAMPSON
Capital Press

Agriculture is engaged in a battle to fill a void.

The void is a lack of understanding about agriculture among many members of the public. Farming and ranching is so far removed from most people that they don't seem to know one end of a cow from the other.

Into that void walks folks like Michael Pollan, a best-selling author who has made a name for himself as an "expert" on farming and ranching. In his presentations, for which he is paid $20,000 to $45,000, he offers all sorts of ideas about how to "improve" agriculture and, consequently, the world.

He says he wants to get the public to think about food and where it comes from, which is a good thing. The problem is that, because the public knows so little about agriculture, they tend to take his opinions at face value.

He gave a presentation earlier this month at Washington State University. Last fall, he spoke at Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo. No doubt the audiences at those agricultural schools were able to assimilate Pollan's remarks along with what they already knew about agriculture and gain added perspective.

Other audiences that Pollan speaks to, like those at his appearance this week on the Oprah Winfrey Show, do not have an agricultural background. When he speaks, he is starting with a blank slate, or close to it. Whatever he says about growing genetically modified crops, using pesticides or anything else, the audience has no background to serve as a reality check.

Enter Bill Hoyt. He's the new president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association. The Cottage Grove, Ore., rancher's goal is talking with as many people as he can about ranching and agriculture.

Call him the anti-Pollan.

He plans to speak to any and every civic group and club -- anyone who will let him talk about ranching and its successes and challenges. Read More


One of the things that we focus on in our presentations to producer groups is the importance of starting local in your efforts to promote and educate about agriculture. Many times people think that they need to get to the “big city folks” in order to have an impact. Nothing could be further from the truth. We take for granted that our friends and neighbors know about production agriculture but that’s probably not the case. Congratulations to Bill Hoyt for seeing this local need and filling that role. I know it’s not easy and it takes precious time from your day, but it’s important work. The things we do off the farm and ranch can and will have just as big of an impact on our ability to grow food as the things we do on the farm and ranch.

Kenner Comments on Food Inc

The Food Industry Helped Me Make 'Food, Inc.'
By Robert Kenner
Published: January 17, 2010

"Food, Inc." became a different film than the one I intended to make.

I thought it would be fascinating to look at how our food gets to the table -- from different points of view. On the one hand, we spend less on food today than at any other time in history. We can eat what we want, when we want it, regardless of seasons. On the other hand, this food has hidden costs that we’re all going to pay for down the line.

Industrial food production pollutes the water, robs nutrients from the soil, exploits the workers who grow and process the food, exploits the animals, and ultimately, it makes people sick. Seemed like fertile ground for a film.

As I started filming, I was not prepared for the stonewalling I’d get from the food industry. I wanted them to argue the benefits of the industrial system. I wanted to understand their point of view, but for the most part, the industry said no. In doing so, the film started to move in a different direction.

I became intrigued by why the industry would not speak to me about something as seemingly innocuous as food. What I discovered is that a handful of companies essentially control the food supply. They exert tremendous power over what we eat and how much – or how little -- we know about it.

I was stunned by the lack of transparency, the intimidation of critics, the influence over government. It felt like we were onto something bigger than food.

But would anyone care?

Apparently, yes. "Food, Inc." hit at just the right moment when people were interested and ready to listen. It benefitted from the groundbreaking work of authors Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, and from food activists who have worked for years to raise awareness. And the press took great interest in the film, which helped spread the word. Read More

When I was in Seattle last week, our group visited the Space Needle. While waiting to catch a ride on the elevator to the bottom, a conversation started with a young couple that lived in Seattle. They had seen the movie Food Inc. and when they found out we were all farmers and ranchers, they started asking questions. The biggest issue they were concerned with was why we were being forced to plant Monsanto seed. I’m sure we all gave them a funny look when they asked it. After asking why they thought that, they said that’s what they had learned from watching Food Inc. At the end of the conversation, they realized they’d been duped by this movie.

I think it’s almost comical to read Kenner’s version on how this movie started out so innocent. Do you really think a Hollywood movie, trying to disguise itself as a documentary, is going to do anything other than try to scare people? In order for these types of movies to stand a chance of making money they have to sensationalize and paint an unrealistic picture in the minds of the viewers.

Kenner might think we are fighting against him, but actually we are just fighting for the truth to be told about agriculture. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be something him or Michael Pollan are very worried about. If you want an great example of where the bottom line is the most important thing, don’t look at farmers and ranchers, just look at these two characters. Pollan won’t go speak unless he gets his $40,000-$50,000 fee. Just imagine what would happen if farmers didn’t plant a crop unless they were guaranteed daily salaries like this.

America's Agricultural Angst

America's Agricultural Angst
Joel Kotkin, 01.19.10, 12:01 AM ET
Forbes.com

In this high-tech information age few look to the most basic industries as sources of national economic power. Yet no sector in America is better positioned for the future than agriculture--if we allow it to reach its potential.

Like manufacturers and homebuilders before them, farmers have found themselves in the crosshairs of urban aesthetes and green activists who hope to impose their own Utopian vision of agriculture. This vision includes shutting down large-scale scientifically run farms and replacing them with small organic homesteads and urban gardens.

Troublingly, the assault on mainstream farmers is moving into the policy arena. It extends to cut-offs on water, stricter rules on the use of pesticides, prohibitions on the caging of chickens and a growing movement to ban the use of genetic engineering in crops. And it could undermine a sector that has performed well over the past decade and has excellent long-term prospects.
Over the next 40 years the world will be adding some 3 billion people. These people will not only want to eat, they will want to improve their intake of proteins, grains, fresh vegetables and fruits. The U.S., with the most arable land and developed agricultural production, stands to gain from these growing markets. Last year the U.S.' export surplus in agriculture grew to nearly $35 billion, compared with roughly $5 billion in 2005.

Yet none of this seems to be slowing the mounting criticisms of "corporate agriculture." A typical article in Time, called "Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food," assailed the "U.S. agricultural industry" for precipitating an ecological disaster. "With the exhaustion of the soil, the impact of global warming and the inevitably rising price of oil--which will affect everything from fertilizer to supermarket electricity bills--our industrial style of food production," the article predicts, "will end sooner or later."

The romantic model being promoted by Time and agri-intellectuals like Michael Pollan hearkens back to European and Tolstoyan notions of small family farms run by generations of happy peasants. But this really has little to do with the essential ethos of American agriculture.

Read More

It’s great to see common sense in the media these days. This columnist realizes that our goal should be to utilize technology, like we have for generations in agriculture, to improve our food supply and stop attacking family farmers and ranchers. The anti-agriculture crowd likes to pretend that they support families that farm but their actions show otherwise. Agriculture can supply the wealthy with their specialized food requests, but it’s unconscionable for them to force this upon everyone else.

Eating Local Not Always Healthy

MIT: Eating Local Food Is the Key to Solving Our Obesity Epidemic
Posted by Tara Lohan at 7:45 AM on November 11, 2009.
Alternet.org

Sometimes it takes more than Michael Pollan to get through to people. New research from MIT about how locally grown foods can reduce our obesity problem is welcome news. Right now Americans are getting bigger and bigger -- between 1980 and 2006 obesity among teenagers grew from 5 to 18 percent; and 7 to 17 percent for pre-teens. These gains are contributing more to the onset of diseases like type 2 diabetes, strokes and heart problems, writes Peter Dizikes of MIT News Office.

A group of MIT researchers found that what's driving our obesity epidemic is "our national-scale system of food production and distribution, which surrounds children -- especially lower-income children -- with high-calorie products." Precisely what folks in the pro-food/local foods movement have been saying for years. And it makes sense considering the shocking figure that 90 percent of American food is processed according to the USDA, Dizikes highlights.

Thankfully the researchers didn't just stop at pointing out the obvious, they offered a solution:

America should increase its regional food consumption. Each metropolitan area, the researchers say, should obtain most of its nutrition from its own "foodshed," a term akin to "watershed" meaning the area that naturally supplies its kitchens. Moreover, in a novel suggestion, the MIT and Columbia team says these local efforts should form a larger "Integrated Regional Foodshed" system, intended to lower the price and caloric content of food by lowering distances food must travel, from the farm to the dinner table. Read More

I think there are many people out there, including Michael Pollan, that think every “foodshed” can produce enough food and a variety of foods for the people that live there. But what this article advocates would translate into my family living on a mostly all beef diet. As much as I love eating beef, I don’t want it to be the only thing I eat at every meal. I want my children to have access to fresh fruits and vegetables, many of which won’t grow in our climate and soil. To advocate for eating a local-only diet is to advocate for some people to eat an unbalanced, unhealthy diet.

The Pollan Bandwagon

Jolley: “Fadism” Strikes Jonathon Foer & Other Anti-Ag Writers
11/09/2009 07:20AM

There is a serious case of ‘fadism’ attacking the brain cells of too many writers who presume to know something about our food supply and how it gets to market. They’re quick to pick up on the tired attacks mounted by the likes of Michael Pollan and, without doing the necessary research to validate those thoughts, quickly reword ‘boilerplate’ phrases without truly understanding the facts behind the food business.

The list of sinners is long, undistinguished and disingenuous. There is a chattering cabal of rarely-been-west-of-the-Hudson River or east-of-the-Cal-Berkeley-campus pseudo-experts who travel on the same midnight train to an eco-purgatory where all food is suspect, meat and poultry is particularly deadly, and the evils of factory farming will force us into an unsustainable, doomed lifestyle that will eventually kill our planet.

Jonathon Safran Foer is the latest to join the Pollan school of ill-literary research. He is the Brooklyn born vegetarian who first popped up on the Larry King show about ground beef. Supposedly a critically acclaimed author of several books of fiction, he’s been beating the P.R. drums to promote his new book, “Eating Animals,” which will be poorly placed in the non-fiction department of your local Barnes & Nobel.

If you see the book in the non-fiction section, please feel free to move it over to the fiction side of the aisle, no need to ask permission from the B&N clerks. Read More

I’ve talked about Foer in previous entries on this blog. He insists on repeatedly using indefinable terms that conjure up negative images to describe family farms and ranches. As easy as it would be to write this guy off since he has no real grasp of food production in this country, we still must work on teaching people that his version isn’t accurate. I’ve already had people using him as a source while discussing issues with me. He isn’t a source about food production. Farmers and ranchers are the real source. Why ask a reporter about farming when you can ask farmer? That is the message we need to be sharing with our consumers. ~TH