Monday, February 28, 2011

My Take on Genetically-Modified Crops

I saw a link to a survey about Genetically-Modified foods today, asking whether they should be labeled or not. The vast majority of folks who voted believed that GM foods should be labled so consumers can make a choice to purchase them or not.

I belong to the camp that believes genetically modified foods are safe. They have been tested time and time again. I also believe in the benefits of these crops: reduced pesticide use, drought resistance, enhanced nutrition. All of these will become increasingly important as the population grows and fewer farmers are producing food.

I had a few laughs reading the comments regarding the cons of GMOs. I don't claim to know all of the facts, but I do know that many people have been misled or are making incorrect assumptions.

One comment in particular struck me as interesting, "Why mess with nature." Ha! I think it is safe to say that there is very little food today that is exactly the way "nature" intended it. Gardens and grocery stores are filled with plants that are nothing like their relatives before them.

Since farming began, we "selected" the foods that looked and tasted the best, and only planted those seeds. Once Mendel discovered how genetics worked, we began "breeding" certain traits in plants and animals to meet our needs. To me, that is far from natural, or the way God intended them to be.

Genetically modified organisms do have genes from another species introduced into their DNA, but this also occurs in regularly in nature. Viruses alter DNA on a regular basis.

Playing the "not natural" card does not do it for me. But, if I run across cases of people developing extra limbs or strange diseases from solely eating GMOs, I'll let you know.

Something else to think about: Stewart Brand, scientist, author and the father of Earth Day, has gone on record recently saying that he was wrong about genetically modified crops and believes they are a good solution to feeding the world's growing population. View the video.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

The Bright Side of Farm Subsidies

“Agriculture is one of the last successful manufacturing industries that the United States has, and our agricultural products are something the whole world wants,” said Preston. “For an economy to do well, you must produce or build something. Agriculture does just that and it creates lasting value. Most all farm profits go straight back into the local community. We continue to invest in our futures and the futures of our children and grandchildren by building infrastructure. It seems very silly to attack the one economical segment that lets us compete in the global economy.”

With everyone wanting to reduce the budget deficit and come out of the recession, much attention has lately been focused on subsidies, especially farm subsidies. The arguments I have heard against supplementing farm income is that farmers are getting too rich and keeping commodity prices low contribute to obesity.

Working for the agricultural industry for several years, my canned answer on subsidies has always been, “we need to make sure farmers stay in business.” If a farmer cannot survive natural disasters from weather or pests, or prices that do not pay their bills, they will go out of business. That farm land and food production will likely be gone forever. Our growing population cannot afford to have fewer farmers producing our food.

I will be honest, while that answer seemed simple enough I admit I don’t know a whole lot about farm subsidy programs. I do know, however, that sending my hard earned tax dollars to farmer is something I can feel really good about, compared to the many other federal budget items.

My curiosity led me to some pretty interesting facts which made me even more confused about why some politicians in Washington think eliminating farm subsidies will help the budget deficit.

Did you know that the total United States Department of Agriculture budget for 2010 was 1.48% of the total federal budget? Only a fifth of that currently goes to farm support payments. Our farmers receive less than a third of a percent of the total budget. How will eliminating those programs make a dent in our spending?

I also talked with agricultural economists and one of my favorite farmers on this subject to perfect my new answer on why farm subsidies are important. Here are some things that Richard Preston, a first-generation grain farmer from Glendale, Ky., says about farm assistance. By the way, he left a career in science to pursue a love of farming. He has a PhD in theoretical chemistry, attended Berkley and Yale, and worked as a laser physicist at Los Alamos. So you could say he is a pretty smart guy.

“Direct payments have a positive effect on the value of land,” said Preston. “If they are eliminated, not only will it lower enterprise assets, but will affect the local government which relies on value-based property taxes to operate. Lowering asset values does not sound like a good thing if you want to come out of a recession.”

More important to farmers is crop insurance programs.

“If those risk management programs were reduced or eliminated, I believe it would send our food production system into chaos,” said Preston. “Lending organizations would not be willing to provide capital to farmers without crop insurance, and modern farming requires incredible input costs.

“I have a mid-sized farm, about 2,000 acres, and it costs me about $1 million to operate each year. Last year, I had a bad crop, but my neighbor 5 miles away had a good crop. Without insurance, I would not have been able to continue doing business.”

“There is a huge amount of volatility and risk in farming. Making sure that the costs of food production are more stable leads to more stable food prices.

“Agriculture is one of the last successful manufacturing industries that the United States has, and our agricultural products are something the whole world wants,” said Preston. “For an economy to do well, you must produce or build something. Agriculture does just that and it creates lasting value. Most all farm profits go straight back into the local community. We continue to invest in our futures and the futures of our children and grandchildren by building infrastructure. It seems very silly to attack the one economical segment that lets us compete in the global economy.”

Thank you, Richard!

I know there are many opposing viewpoints to subsidies (not just farm subsidies) and if you are interested in getting another viewpoint, feel free to go find it. Again, this is probably one of the few places where I can feel good about sending my hard-earned tax dollars go.

So, the new, more educated, answer to why we subsidize our farmers is this:

“Farm support programs not only keep farmers in business, but also help maintain land values, stabilize food prices, and improve local, rural economies. Removing these programs will not only affect our food supply, but society as a whole.”

“Support payments to farmers represent less than one half of a percent of the total federal budget, yet agriculture is responsible for one-sixth of our nation’s economy While wanting to get rid of ‘subsidies’ may be the popular thing to do in Washington right now, I don’t see how reducing farm programs will have a big impact on the overall budget.”

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Meatless Mondays - What experts and consumers really think

I ran across this interesting blog from the Center of Food Integrity regarding Meatless Mondays. It refers to a survey where consumers and dietary experts were asked about the newest food trend.

Out of the 274 responses received, nearly 20 percent of the respondents fully support the concept while nearly half said they support a balance of all types of food, including meat. One-third of the respondents indicated meat should be a regular feature in their diet. View the blog for a list of comments.

I usually hear promoters say that reducing meat consumption reduces carbon footprint, but my feeling is that it starts with groups like PETA and HSUS trying to find a better way to reduce animal consumption all together. I can think of a number of reasons why it is more eco-friendly to include meat in your diet every day, but I will leave it up to the experts.

Here is a great resource regarding the environmental benefits of meat consumption: http://www.kylivestock.org/steakoutthefacts

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Homomes, Steriods and Antiobiotics. OH MY!

I just saw a commercial from Perdue saying their chickens are not given homones and steroids. I am sure this "new," more healthy alternative will cost you a bit more at the grocery, if food prices weren't high enough already.

Well, guess what? All the chicken at the grocery store is produced without hormones and steroids. My good friend who works for the Kentucky Poultry Federation told me that hormone use in chickens has been illegal since 1952. So, leave it to good old-fashioned marketing to make you believe you are getting a better product.

Now, if someone tells you that your food is full of homones, they are correct. Any living thing produces hormones naturally. Even plants.

Let's talk about a hotter topic, antibiotics. I am not one to pay more for animal products produced without antibiotics. One, there are strict guidelines that require the animal to be free of antiobiotics before harvest, and the products are tested, especially milk. If antibiotics are found in a truck load of milk, it is destroyed and the dairy farmer is not paid. I have heard that milk is more heavily tested than your drinking water.

My second line of reasoning is for the well-being of the animal. If an animal has an infection, I want it to be given medicine to be healthy. We do the same for ourselves and our children. The simple logic for me is, "why would I want to eat an animal that has been sick?"

That said, I am a regular consumer of all natural venison... free range and grass/bark/dirt fed. But I am very careful to make sure the meat is cooked properly... who knows what kind of diseases the local deer might have. I am much much more confident about the safety of meat I get from farms.

I heard an interesting story not too long ago. A chicken company that I won't name told me that they also started a "more natural" brand of product touting no antibiotics, which was obviously done to meet a marketing niche. He said that the chickens became infected with e coli within a week of being placed in the facility, yet they had never had a health issue with the conventionally-raised chickens.

Hmmm.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...