A Page From the Industry Playbook

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 15:49:35 PM PDT

1. Step one: Lobby the government to allow the pesticides (and the levels of pesticides) you want to use. Have your scientists say the pesticides are safe. Try to discredit other scientists who say they are not safe. Use uncertainty as your weapon (i.e. "There is NO PROOF that this chemical causes cancer." Cuz, you know, if there's been no tests to find out if it causes cancer, of course there's no proof.).

2. Step two: Tell the public (or have your front group tell the public) that your pesticides are safe because they underwent a stringent federal approval process and they are only present on the food in what the U.S. government believes are "safe" amounts - or less!

3. Step three: See if you can get government officials to say that too! And maybe health professionals. Because people trust them. After all, the government and health professionals aren't out to sell a product. They care about your well-being. (This is easiest if your former employees are now federal officials. It's also nice if some of your employees have fancy university degrees and titles, like Registered Dietitian or Masters in Public Health.)

Junk Science Study Says Factory Farming is Better

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT

Contrary to the negative image often associated with large farm operations, the U.S. population's requirements for dairy products is best fulfilled and most sustainable through the application of modern agricultural techniques, a just-released study has shown.

The study, conducted by Drs. Jude Capper and Dale Bauman of Cornell University and Roger Cady, formerly of Monsanto and now with Elanco Animal Health, compared the environmental impact of modern (2007) U.S. dairy production with that of dairy systems in 1944...

Among the findings were that modern dairy practices require considerably fewer resources than dairying in 1944 with 21% of animals, 23% of feedstuffs, 35% of the water and only 10% of the land required to produce the same 1 billion kg of milk.

Waste outputs were similarly reduced, with modern dairy systems producing 24% of the manure, 43% of CH4 and 56% of N2O per billion kg of milk, compared with equivalent milk from historical dairying.

What's wrong with this picture? There's another factor that has also led to increased dairy output (per cow) since 1944: breeding. In the past 60+ years, we have been aggressively breeding our cows to produce more and more milk. Therefore, the amount of resources required by a 1944 dairy cow to produce a gallon of milk would almost certainly exceed the resources required by a 2009 cow to produce that same gallon of milk today, even if they were raised in the same way.

UPDATE: According to a recent USDA report, organic cows produced an average of 13,601 lbs of milk per cow in 2005, compared with 18,983 for conventional cows. Approximately 2/3 of organic cows were raised on pasture. Comparatively, the cows of 1944 cited in the study produced an average of 4,555 lbs of milk per year.

Yet, according to the study:

In 1944, the U.S. dairy population totaled 25.6 million cows producing a total of 53.0 billion kg of milk annually. It was a system characterized by pasture-based systems with rations reliant on home-grown forages with few purchased concentrate feeds. Draft horses powered the majority of agronomical operations, with only 1.2 tractors employed per farm. Inorganic fertilizer use was not yet widespread; instead, animal manure was used to fulfill crop nutrient requirements.

The researchers noted that many of the characteristics of 1944 dairy farming (low-yielding, pasture-based, no antibiotics, inorganic fertilizers, or chemical pesticides) are similar to those of today's modern organic systems.

Again, they are comparing today's modern organic farming to outdated practices of yesteryear. Even in the practices specified here, obviously the vast majority of organic farmers use tractors instead of horses today. What a slap in the face to today's organic dairy farmers who - like Iowa dairy farmer Francis Thicke - hold PhD's in modern scientific fields and run their organic operations according to the latest scientific & technological innovations. Also, I'd love to see a comparison of the nutrition of 1944 milk compared to the milk of today. Productivity isn't the be-all and end-all goal when you are sacrificing nutrition at the same time.

The Food Inc Backlash

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 23:40:50 PM PDT

"Food Inc." contains an astonishing number of half-truths, errors and omissions. By clicking on the topics below you can learn more about issues raised by the film that concern you.

Anti-EFCA Front Groups

by: Jill Richardson

Sun May 31, 2009 at 18:36:58 PM PDT

U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Coalition for a Democratic Workplace
Americans for Prosperity
Workforce Fairness Institute (which got millions from the Food Marketing Institute)
Center for Union Facts (Berman's group)
Save Our Secret Ballot

From the names of these groups, you'd think they represent truth, justice, freedom, and democracy. But it's all a lie. Here's why.

If the Employee Free Choice Act passes, employees will be able to form a union in one of two ways. Either, they can have 50% plus one of their members sign cards saying they want a union ("card check") OR they can have an election with a secret ballot. It's their free choice. If they want a secret ballot, they can have it. No problem. But if they don't want the secret ballot - if that is acceptable to them - they can use card check to form a union.

Is any freedom or liberty being lost? No. Any democracy going away? No. Want a secret ballot? Great, you've got it. Don't want a secret ballot? Fine, use card check. It's that easy.

These front groups are claiming that EFCA will require unions to form using card check and thus will prevent employees from using a secret ballot. Thus all of the rhetoric about "democracy" and "fairness." But that is a lie. A flimsy lie. Yet they are perpetuating that lie as their only argument against EFCA - mainly because there are no good arguments against EFCA.

These front groups and the companies they represent want to save their oh-so-important secret ballots because when elections are held to form unions, the employers currently can intimidate employees from forming a union. There's an entire union-busting industry, in fact. They want to preserve their right to intimidate workers, they don't want to preserve democracy in the workplace. Because the truth is that democracy isn't going away.

NYT Fails to Substantially Cover Meat's Impact on the Climate

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 14:16:59 PM PDT

In this episode, it's a he-said-she-said match between a Professor of Nutrition at UNC (Barry M. Popkin) and David Marosko of Big Food front group CCF.

Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is "stretching the truth beyond recognition."

"Eating less meat isn't going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It's not gonna make a difference," he said.

Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom's assertions, said he stood by his claims.

"This is what the food industry always does - just like the tobacco industry," he said. "They obfuscate without ever looking at facts."

So who's right? I know the answer, but not because the New York Times provided it along with any information backing up the conclusion. This is a lot like election coverage that focuses on polls without ever educating the public about either candidate's platform. NYT, you can do better.

Center for Consumer Freedom Sends Michael Pollan Their Rules

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

Recently, Michael Pollan asked readers for their food rules. I can give you my #1 rule easily: I won't eat anything if I can't identify a plant or an animal (preferably a plant) that it came from. And high fructose corn syrup doesn't count even though I know it came from corn. But CCF decided they would have a laugh and send THEIR food rules in to Michael Pollan. I've included them below, along with 9 other food rules of my own.

Is the Chicago Tribune the New Corporate Mouthpiece?

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 14:15:18 PM PST

There are two important things a reader of this op end should know. One is the background of the Center for Consumer Freedom. Once you know that, the "facts" cited in the op ed are almost secondary, but just for the sake of setting the record straight, the second are the real facts and how they stack up against the fake ones that CCF likes to use.

Oh My God, Who Let a VEGETARIAN in the WHITE HOUSE!!!

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 11:50:40 AM PST

Sunstein is best known for his balanced views between government regulations and cost-benefit analysis and for his theory of behavioral economics and he is widely considered to be a great choice for the office.

Oh, and Sunstein is a vegetarian. What??? I am sorry but disqualifying somebody for public office because they are veggie is about as stupid as disqualifying them because they are black! And in our new "post-racial" America, I don't think we're interested in doing that anymore. May the best man (or woman) for the office get the job. Besides, the country is much better off with this veggie in power than it was with the group of vegetables who are leaving office this week.

Center for Consumer Freedom: Not a Valid Source

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 14:00:00 PM PDT

From The Boston Herald: Newburyport Bans Junk Food In Schools

The crackdown on sweets has left a sour taste in some mouths.

"It's irresponsible for government to attempt to legislate us into being thinner and healthier," said J. Justin Wilson, senior research analyst at the Center for Consumer Freedom.

Below: More CCF bullshit and my letters to the editor requesting that CCF no longer be quoted. If you want to express a corporate viewpoint, please go straight to McDonald's so everyone understands that it's a corporate viewpoint.

Rick Berman on The Colbert Report (Not New, But Funny)

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

With Their $30 Million, This is the Best the Pro-HFCS Goons Can Do?

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:36:57 AM PDT

High fructose corn syrup, sugar, and several fruit juices all contain the same simple sugars.

New research continues to confirm that high fructose corn syrup is no different from other sweeteners. It has the same number of calories as sugar and is handled similarly by the body.

Consumers can see the latest research and learn more about high fructose corn syrup at www.HFCSfacts.com and www.SweetSurprise.com.

Audrae Erickson
President
Corn Refiners Association

The Corn Refiners Association is currently in the middle of an 18-mo $20-$30m pro-HFCS campaign. THIS is the best they can do????

Assholes You Should Know: Terry Etherton

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 18:01:30 PM PDT

• Monsanto funded the study
• Monsanto staff collected the samples
• The study was mostly written by Monsanto employees, with the help of Terry Etherton and his wife.
• Terry Etherton has been funded by Monsanto.
• The analysis of IGF-1 was conducted by Monsanto.

Small surprise then that they found no meaningful differences in the 3 kinds of milk. I'm a little bit shocked they didn't decide that the rBGH milk was healthier than the others, actually. After all, another asshole on my list (Dale Bauman) has already concluded that rBGH is more eco-friendly.

Etherton pops up in my world every so often because he likes to blog. A whole lot. In fact, when I attended the BIO 2008 convention, the pro-GMO presenters there talked about Etherton and advised their audience to get online and start blogging, just like him. I don't think Etherton's a very good role model, though, because his tactics are very easy to see through. (For example, check out this post by Shirah from Unbossed about where Etherton gets his talking points.)

My very favorite Etherton blog post was one that claimed that only freegans opposed GMOs. Freegans? Oh please. More about the rBGH study below...

Assholes You Should Know: Rick Berman

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

I'd like to do this as a diary series, and I invite everyone here to join me in writing about other bigtime assholes whose names we should know - Terry Etherton (pro-rBGH blogger extraordinaire) and Dale Bauman (pro-rBGH scientific prostitute for Monsanto), etc. For some gooood info, check out the site Sourcewatch.