Antibiotics in Our Food Can Kill Us

by: teacherken

Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 13:16:35 PM PST

A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that in the United States, 70 percent of antibiotics are used to feed healthy livestock, with 14 percent more used to treat sick livestock. Only about 16 percent are used to treat humans and their pets, the study found.

I am not a scientist.  I already am limited in drugs I can use by allergies, for example, I cannot use penicillin (one of many).  Overuse of antibiotics creates resistant strains of bacteria, super bugs if you will.  My allergies perhaps make me more at risk than most people, since I am limited in alternatives

But it does not matter if the strain is resistant to all known antibiotics

MRSA, a kind of staph infection - kills about 18,000 Americans annually. That's more than die of AIDS.

Which is why you should read Nicholas Kristof this morning.

Can X Feed the World? Wrong Question.

by: Brad Wilson

Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 06:49:15 AM PST

It's easy to want to compete on these questions when small farms produce more per acre, (as Andrew Kimbell argued in Fresh) and organic farms produce more bushels (as the Rodale Institute has found in their long term studies).

Surely though, this is the wrong question.

I'm posting this as a separate diary, (rather than on Jill's diary here http://www.lavidalocavore.org/... since it is fundamental, a change of paradigm, and longer than most comments.  I make other specific comments over there on Jill's article.

Do you support the "Farm Coalition Group"

by: Brad Wilson

Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 10:55:09 AM PST

Did you support the Senate Bill?  House?  Kind/Flake?  Grassley/Dorgan?  Ok, what you supported, did it include supply management (production controls) for wheat and other grains?  None of the bills above included supply management for grain.  

Did you support farm bill principles from one group or another?  Did you write any letters?  Make any phone calls?  Was there anything about supply management?  

No?  Well, that's great, says the "Farm Coalition Group."  (You're for farms, right?)

Here's a vintage letter (also footnoted in Al Krebs book, The Corporate Reapers.

"*Farm Coalition Group
1750 K Street, NW #700, [oooops, they moved, probably to Crystal city?]

                                                                    October 24, 1985
Dear Senator:

For many months now, the organizations listed below have been working with Congress to develop a viable, long-term food and agriculture program for this Nation.

Given the current economic and credit situation within the farm community and its related industries, we recognize the necessity and importance of government involvement in the 1985 Farm Bill.  However,
we believe that a gradual transition toward a long-term market-
oriented agriculture program is in the best interests of all -- producers, suppliers, processors, consumers, and taxpayers.

It is for these reasons we urge your support in removing the mandatory wheat referendum provision in S. 1714, the Agriculture, Food, Trade and Conservation Act of 1985.  We are opposed to this provision because:

1) mandatory production controls weaken U.S. agriculture's ability to effectively compete for export markets while it encourages our competitors to increase their world market share; and,

2) higher domestic costs will exacerbate the current farm
income situation as the other segments in the food distribution chain (farm input industry, processors, livestock feeders, etc. all the way through to the consumer) modify their domestic purchases as a result.

We urge that you support the amendment to strike the referendum provision for mandatory government production controls.  We would also appreciate your opposition to any other amendments establishing such a referendum.

Sincerely,

American Bakers Association, National-American Wholesale Grocers Association, American Cotton Shippers Association, American Meat Institute, National Broiler Council, Biscuit & Cracker Manufacturers' Association of America, National Confectioners Association, Chamber of Commerce of the U. S., National Fertilizer Solutions Association, Chocolate Manufacturers Association, Farm & Industrial Equipment  Institute, National Food Processors Association
Florida Phosphate Council, National Pasta Association, Food marketing Institute, Potato Chip/Snack Food Association, Independent Bakers Association, Millers' National Federation, Ralston Purina Company, The Fertilizer Institute"

Which side were you on?  Did you advocate for supply management?

Fortunately for the "Farm Coalition Group," they don't have to worry about such things these days.  Supply management hasn't been in the farm bill since the 1990 farm bill!  Everybody is all worked up about farm subsidies instead.  No need to worry.

Ok, that was 1985. Krebs listed "Most Profitable US Consumer Food Companies, 1988," (chart p. 41, The Corporate Reapers, from Wall Street Journal, 11/7/88):   Kellogg, H.J Heinz, Hershey Foods, RJR Nabisco, Quaker Oats, General Mills, Borden, Pillsbury, Kraft, General Foods, Sara Lee.  More recently the National Farmers Union of Canada published "The Farm Crisis and Corporate Profits," http://www.nfu.ca/new/corporat...  Lots of record profits in 2004!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, yes!  "*Farm" Subsidies!

Why are (some) farmers afraid of Michael Pollan?

by: jgoodman

Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 19:34:31 PM PDT

Advocates of large scale agriculture see Pollan as the enemy, they believe he stands against everything they see as the future of agriculture. Pollan however is not an absolutist, his basic premise is that people need to think more about their food; where it was grown, how it was grown, was the farmer paid fairly, is it good for you?

Pollan wants people to think about cooking, about food freshness and flavor, about the dinner table as more than a "filling station".

Department of odd omissions

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 23:30:21 PM PST

I wasn't surprised in December when the newspaper omitted the same perspective from its piece on reaction to the news that President-elect Barack Obama was picking Vilsack for the job.

But I find this January 12 Des Moines Register article by Chase Davis quite odd.  

Corporate ag increases giving to Democrats

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 02:33:10 AM PST

The gist is that corporate ag interests that have strongly tilted Republican in the past are dividing their giving more evenly between the parties, or in some cases giving more to Democrats than to Republicans this year.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association endorsed George Bush four years ago but has not endorsed a presidential candidate this year.

Even more surprising,

Organizations and individuals with agribusiness ties have contributed $19 million to Democratic candidates for the 2008 election, up from $15 million in 2004, according to OpenSecrets.org, which tracks campaign funding. Contributions to Republicans have dropped from nearly $40 million in 2004 to under $30 million this year.

Agribusiness interests haven't steered this big a share of their money to Democrats, about 40 percent, since the 1994 campaign. That happens to be the last time Democrats controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Groups and individuals representing sugar, corn, wheat and other crops gave 61 percent of their money to Republicans in 2004. This time around, the split was close to even. Some $7.2 million has gone to Republicans, compared with $6.8 million to Democrats.

Sugar growers, who successfully fought this year to preserve their price-support program in the farm bill, were the biggest contributors. Minnesota-based American Crystal Sugar contributed $1.6 million, primarily through its political action committee, and 68 percent of that went to Democrats. An additional $456,750 in contributions came from individuals or the PAC associated with Flo-Sun Inc., a Florida-based sugar producer. Eighty-three percent of Flo-Sun money went to Democrats.

The National Corn Growers Association has contributed $69,375 during this election cycle. Nearly eight in every 10 dollars has gone to Democrats.

The article also credits Barack Obama with reaching out to agribusiness:

Among other things, Obama hasn't been bashing big farms, said former Democratic Rep. Charles Stenholm, a lobbyist for livestock and oil interests who is supporting Obama. And Obama advisers have been telling groups that his administration would base decisions on "sound science" rather than ideology. That is encouraging to livestock groups worried about environmental regulations and the animal-welfare movement.

Obama's campaign has "been very masterful in appealing to a centrist position," Stenholm said.

Notice how the Des Moines Register reporter puts industry on the side of "sound science" while potraying environmentalists and animal welfare activists as ideological. Sigh. If only our system of subsidies and regulations for agriculture were based on sound science! But that's a topic for a different post.

Like I wrote over the weekend, sustainable ag advocates have our work cut out for us even if there's a big Democratic landslide on Tuesday.

Corporate ag increases giving to Democrats

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 02:33:10 AM PST

The gist is that corporate ag interests that have strongly tilted Republican in the past are dividing their giving more evenly between the parties, or in some cases giving more to Democrats than to Republicans this year.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association endorsed George Bush four years ago but has not endorsed a presidential candidate this year.

Even more surprising,

Organizations and individuals with agribusiness ties have contributed $19 million to Democratic candidates for the 2008 election, up from $15 million in 2004, according to OpenSecrets.org, which tracks campaign funding. Contributions to Republicans have dropped from nearly $40 million in 2004 to under $30 million this year.

Agribusiness interests haven't steered this big a share of their money to Democrats, about 40 percent, since the 1994 campaign. That happens to be the last time Democrats controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Groups and individuals representing sugar, corn, wheat and other crops gave 61 percent of their money to Republicans in 2004. This time around, the split was close to even. Some $7.2 million has gone to Republicans, compared with $6.8 million to Democrats.

Sugar growers, who successfully fought this year to preserve their price-support program in the farm bill, were the biggest contributors. Minnesota-based American Crystal Sugar contributed $1.6 million, primarily through its political action committee, and 68 percent of that went to Democrats. An additional $456,750 in contributions came from individuals or the PAC associated with Flo-Sun Inc., a Florida-based sugar producer. Eighty-three percent of Flo-Sun money went to Democrats.

The National Corn Growers Association has contributed $69,375 during this election cycle. Nearly eight in every 10 dollars has gone to Democrats.

The article also credits Barack Obama with reaching out to agribusiness:

Among other things, Obama hasn't been bashing big farms, said former Democratic Rep. Charles Stenholm, a lobbyist for livestock and oil interests who is supporting Obama. And Obama advisers have been telling groups that his administration would base decisions on "sound science" rather than ideology. That is encouraging to livestock groups worried about environmental regulations and the animal-welfare movement.

Obama's campaign has "been very masterful in appealing to a centrist position," Stenholm said.

Notice how the Des Moines Register reporter puts industry on the side of "sound science" while potraying environmentalists and animal welfare activists as ideological. Sigh. If only our system of subsidies and regulations for agriculture were based on sound science! But that's a topic for a different post.

Like I wrote over the weekend, sustainable ag advocates have our work cut out for us even if there's a big Democratic landslide on Tuesday.

USDA's 2009 Agricultural (Agribusiness) Outlook Forum

by: kacie

Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 14:16:15 PM PDT

Note the invited speakers on the "Distinguished Plenary Panel":
Agri-Pulse Communications
Syngenta International AG
Land O' Lakes, Inc.
Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Inc.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

This is just my two cents, but to me, it seems as though agribusiness (and yes, the B&M Foundation, too) are enabling and contributing to some of the worst problems facing rural America and rural populations around the world. CAFOs, flooding foreign markets with cheap subsidized grain, forcing genetically engineered seeds and petro-chemicals on small farmers in Africa (and South America and India), foreign aid that undercuts local food with imported (and again, subsidized) products, dams that displace local populations and flood farmland - the list goes on.

Seems as though if the USDA genuinely wanted to addresses the root causes of many of the issues people living in rural areas have to deal with, they'd try to broaden that conversation a bit. I don't see any more schedule information about the rest of the conference, so this is a judgement based upon what information is posted on the website now. Though I'm not holding my breath that any of the organizations listed on the right hand side of this blog are going to be invited to speak on this panel.

"The Best Organic Sesame Oil in the World"

by: DebtorsPrison

Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 16:37:38 PM PDT

That was one thought I had as I read the article in Sunday's New York Times entitled "Darfur Withers as Sudan Sells Food."  The main subject of the article is about how the Sudan has in recent years been developing an agro-export industry even as it has been receiving billions of dollars in food assistance, but studded throughout are tidbits of interest those interested in many different aspects of food policy.

Join me over the fold for a look at a few of them...

Progressive food policies

by: Ca-48 Steve Young

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM PDT

A fundamental responsibility of our government is to protect the common good.  We take for granted, clean drinking water, protection of our national parks, and drug safety.  While the government falls short in all these areas, Americans have real expectations of their government.

Why don't our expectations extend to food?  I don't mean food safety (such as preventing the conditions described in "The Jungle" that prompted creation of the FDA), I am talking about government support of bad food.  An example -- government subsidies for "commodity corn."  Commodity Corn is inedible but is the raw material in processed foods.  The corn is turned into a variety of products like High-fructose corn syrup, or fed to livestock in manufacturing line slaughterhouses.  

Add the negative impacts of agribusiness -- pesticide runoff in our water systems, the epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and other food sourced diseases, fertilizer contamination of our air, water and food, and the problems come into sharp focus.

I advocate a "Healthy Food Initiative" that will change the paradigm in America.  Imagine creating an infrastructure for a healthy, affordable food system by shifting massive subsidies from the pockets of Agribusiness to a system that rewards America's farmers, ranchers, fisherman, and others who feed us, for growing healthy food while protecting our environment.  We can do this with tax credits for farmers who reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides.  We can promote family farm ownership.  We can invest in community garden areas in urban areas.  These are some possibilities to change our food future.

Imagine a food future where food contributes to America's greatness, rather than just our GNP.  Imagine a food future that promotes healthy life styles and a clean environment.  Imagine a food future where environmental footprints is more important than shelf space foot prints for packaged food.  Imagine a food future where children learn to select foods for their value, not their sugary cartoon images.  It is time to stop imagining.  It is time to make this imagination of a food future a present reality.  It is time to be the change we want to be.  I feel that food is our future -- healthy food is our birthright.  Won't you join me in supporting my "Healthy Food Initiative"?  It is time for a fresh start.  It is time for healthy food.

Steve Young, Democrat for Congress, [Ca-48]
"For a fresh start"

Contribute to the Healthy Food Initiative.