Time to ‘Eat Real’?

Have you heard of Food Day? Coming up October 24, it’s the left’s attempt to do for food what Earth Day did for the planet. Which is, exactly … what? The organizers are expecting thousands of observances around the country, including major events in Washington, New York and other cities. The goal is to encourage Americans to “eat real,” whatever that means.

Food Day is supported by a long list of anti-meat advocates, including HSUS President Wayne Pacelle and author Michael Pollan. One of its six guiding principles is to “protect the environment and animals by reforming factory farms,” which it says are “degrading our quality of life.”

The Food Day Website also repeats the liberal line that livestock production represents a “huge carbon footprint.” How huge? For the record, U.S. animal feeding operations account for about 5 percent of greenhouse gases worldwide—much less than livestock production elsewhere. Why the difference? U.S. confinement operations are more efficient, and the worldwide figure includes emissions from deforestation to support grass-fed cattle.

Grass-fed cattle, of course, are something Food Day organizers like. But, as the saying goes, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Call It the Anti-HSUS Amendment

Here’s a switch: The North Dakota Farm Bureau is pushing a state constitutional amendment that would ban laws restricting the use of modern agriculture practices, including gestation stalls and battery cages.

The amendment is a clear reaction to efforts by the Humane Society of the United States to enact laws banning specific industry practices. For example, two years ago California enacted Assembly Bill 1437, ending the sale of eggs from facilities using battery cages. A year earlier, HSUS was successful in passing California Proposition 2, which makes it a criminal offense to confine hens in cages, pigs in gestation stalls and calves in veal crates.

The North Dakota Farm Bureau’s amendment would add two sentences to the state constitution: “The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.”

Said NDFB President Eric Aasmundstad, “We are looking to prevent damage from being done to the industry to prevent it from thriving … It’s that simple … There are groups that would have it otherwise.” NDFB has been cleared by the state to begin gathering the needed 27,000 signatures to put its amendment on the ballot in 2012.

NPPC agrees with the American Veterinary Medical Association on sow housing. The AVMA supports housing that minimizes aggression between sows, protects them from environmental extremes, reduces exposure to hazards, provides access to food and water and facilitates observation by caretakers. The AVMA notes that gestation stalls meet all these criteria.

Surprise! Larger Farms are ‘Better’

A University of Wisconsin study has concluded that large dairy farms—that is, CAFOs—produce higher quality milk than smaller ones.

Researcher Steve Ingham said he wanted to test the common belief that smaller farms are “better” than larger ones. So he looked at data from more than 15,000 Wisconsin dairy farms, divided into three categories by size. He used two measurements—standard plate counts and somatic cell counts—to rate milk quality. The first measures bacteria and the second infection in cows.

Milk from the CAFOs, Ingham found, had the lowest scores for both bacteria and infection levels. Large farms came in second and the small farms ranked third, or highest in both bacteria and infections.

“It could be that (CAFOs) have more money to spend on good equipment,” said Ingham, who is now with the state agriculture department. “It could be that they have the ability to cull out cows with mastitis more quickly.” Regardless, he said, “the numbers speak for themselves. They give a good snapshot of the industry right now.”

The study was published in the August issue of the Journal of Dairy Science.

Genetically Inferior Thinking

With the first genetically engineered (GE) crops planted 15 years ago, and with from 65 to 94 percent of the corn, cotton and soybeans being GE, you’d think safety concerns would have been put to rest.

Not so, of course. Starting Oct. 1 and continuing for 16 days, something called the GMO Right2Know March will snake its way from New York City to Washington, D.C. According to the organizers, GMOs -- genetically modified organisms -- “endanger our health, the environment, and our farmers’ livelihoods.” Their goal? “GMO Labeling Now!”

The march will feature daily events along the route, with a finale at the White House. The anti-GMO Website claims that “80 percent of the packaged foods in America contain Genetically Engineered Ingredients that have not been proven safe …” If these foods are so dangerous, wouldn’t someone somewhere have gotten sick by now? Just asking.

Conventional Farming: The Green Alternative!

A thoughtful blog post on the Scientific American Website destroys the argument that organic farming is better for the environment than conventional farming. Ecologist and grad student Christie Wilcox first calls organic advocates hypocrites for refusing to endorse GMOs that could reduce the use of synthetic chemicals. Then she turns to what she calls the “real reason” organic farming is less green than conventional: drastically reduced crop yields.

“Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition …,” writes Wilcox. “If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the number of people suffering would jump by 1.3 billion, assuming we use the same amount of land that we’re using now. Unfortunately, what’s far more likely is that switches to organic farming will result in the creation of new farms via the destruction of currently untouched habitats, thus plowing over the little wild habitat left for many threatened and endangered species.”

Wilcox adds: “The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world’s waterways from conventional agriculture are, it’s a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats altogether.”

In her 3,200-word, footnoted post, Wilcox also debunks “myths” that organic farms don’t use pesticides and that organic food is healthier than conventionally produced food.

[Editor's Note: Biochemist and molecular biologist Bruce N. Ames, of the University of California, Berkeley, says, "99.9 percent of the toxic chemicals we're exposed to are completely natural -- you consume about 50 toxic chemicals whenever you eat a plant."]

Modern Ag Needs Love, Too!

Veteran farm policy observer William Lesher has spent most of a long Washington career dealing with agricultural surpluses and the need to idle farm land. So it was hard, he admits, to convince him the era of oversupply has ended and the future is more likely to be defined by the need to ramp up production.

But now, says the former USDA official under President Ronald Reagan, “The undeniable fact is that we are going to have to double output. You are going to be constrained in bringing in land and water.”

Lesher added that modern farming techniques will produce most of what’s needed to feed a global population expected to hit 9 billion by 2050 -- it's nearly 7 billion now. While some in developing countries favor less scientific methods, Lesher said, “You’ve got to give modern agriculture some love and attention, too.”

An economist, Lesher now addresses the challenge of feeding an expanding world as head of the Global Harvest Initiative. He made his comments in a mid-July speech to the American Soybean Association.

Dubious Distinction

Last week’s grain supply and demand forecast from the U.S. Department of Agriculture included a dubious distinction: This year, for the first time, more corn will be used for fuel than for livestock feed. That can only mean one thing for pork producers and consumers: even higher feed costs contributing to even greater increases in food costs.

The July 12 World Agricultural Supply Demand Estimates report estimated that 5 billion bushels of corn will used for animal feed in 2010-2011, while 5.05 billion bushels will be devoted to ethanol. In projections for 2011-2012, the gap widens to a full 100 million bushels.

Animal agriculture groups have long argued that, by diverting corn to fuel, government support for ethanol is largely to blame for today’s rising prices for feed and food. And, while Congress finally is talking about repealing ethanol subsidies, there's also talk that the "savings" will be diverted to ethanol infrastructure such as pumps and pipelines. And so far Congress hasn’t even discussed the idea of repealing the all-important Renewable Fuels Standard, which mandates the annual amount of ethanol -- and other biofuels -- that must be produced.

Testifying before Congress earlier this year, NPPC President Doug Wolf said support for renewable fuels is laudable but should not “come at the expense of the U.S. livestock industry.”