I urge you to read through this news story. It details a comparison between the armed raid of a local food buying club and local farmers that have never had a single issue with illness or problems, to a multinational corporation that has dead victims from eating it's processed food products. The contrast is amazing and points out the unfair harassment that small farmers are under in america today. It has gotten to the point that small farmers doing things in a supposedly legal manner are being shut down and actually jailed, and as the story points out, treated as worse criminals than rapist and thieves.
Here is the article, but a word of warning.. it is upsetting to read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/08/the-latest-raw-milk-raid-an-attack-on-food-freedom/243635/
Follow along our adventure as we make the transition from corporate city life to the world of natural farming. Each day brings a new experience and brings us to a deeper understanding about the life and spirit that made America great. At our farm we do our best to give the animals we raise a natural, free, happy, stressfree lifestyle. Our mission is to learn and share how to manage a farming operation that is both profitable and humane.
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Monday, August 15, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
Tell the truth in Iowa, go to Jail!
Amazingly... Iowa state legislatures are actually in the process of making it illegal, a felony no less, to record what goes in inside a factory farm. Yes, I know its amazing to be saying this, but it is apparently true.
First I ran across this editorial : In Iowa, Exposing animal cruelty could be a crime
The thought of this truly happening is so appalling that I had to look up the actual bill to see for myself. Read the House version HF589 here (it is expected to pass the senate soon also)
SO, as you can read, Iowa wants to make it illegal to expose wrong doings inside of a food factory. Now lets think about this... If the inside of the food factory was truly the serene and peaceful images of chickens and cows grazing on wide open pastures of green grass and sunshine... would this even be considered? The images of farms where most people "think" their food comes from are some of the most positive and peaceful images in America. Why else would the packages in the store proudly portray these images as advertising? But the reality behind the packages is one of misery, disease, death, prison confinement, and cruelty. So.. the factory food industry shows you images of small family farms and manages to pass laws making it illegal to expose the truth behind your food.
If this was a story about some non tangible luxury product, that would be one thing... but this is your family's food. The companies producing your food inside closed factories so strongly need to prevent you from seeing the truth that laws like this are coming into existence. That is beyond sad, that is appalling. Everyone needs food. It is undoubtedly the core of human existence. Your family's health directly depends on the quality of food and methods of production, and yet the factories making your food close their doors to you, and want to throw you in jail for exposing what goes on behind those doors. This is YOUR FOOD and HEALTH! They have no right to hide from you how what you consume is made.
This story is so outrageous I can not think of a parallel.
The mission of the small family farmer everywhere is actually doing what the factory farms advertise. We open our doors and invite the public in to explore, learn, inspect. We live the images you see in the store that are nothing but untruths and lies. The factories sell you product based on images of our establishments while hiding their own. That is beyond false advertising! If they were proud of how they raise food, as we are and all the small family farms are, they would invite the public in to see, learn and explore.
I give a personal challenge to any factory farming operation (anything other than a sustainable family farm) to open your doors. Let your customers see what they are paying for. Let the light of day shine inside your establishment and make you proud to explain every detail of how animals are treated, processed, and raised. Put actual pictures of your process and places on your packages.
I also give a personal challenge to you, the reader of this blog and a consumer, to ask to visit the place where your food is created. Ask to see how hte animals are raised and treated, ask to take a few pictures for your family and friends. Ask to see where on their land the picture on the label was shot. Go visit that serene and peaceful hillside and sit with the cows and chickens for a picnic.
Some factory farms will use the excuse of preventing "biological contamination". (translation, you carry too many germs and could spread disease to the animals). Do NOT accept that. There are only two ways to see that claim:
- It is true - but if it is true and if their animals are so weak and feeble that a human visitor would spread disease, do you want to consume that meat or eggs? How did their "farm" get into such bad shape that a common visitor can kill it?
- It is false - and if it is false why are they lying to you, their customer? Why do they want to keep you from seeing how your own food is produced?
I urge you to take those challenges, and see where it takes you. IF you are barred from visiting your egg farm, meat plant, or meat farm, then I URGE YOU to vow to never purchase their products for your family again. Why take that chance on your health? Why pay them for hiding secrets by buying their products. The time to act and stop the hidden atrocities is today. Our grandchildren depend on it!
If you can not find satisfaction at a factory farm, then seek out a local, sustainable family farm. They will welcome you with open arms and proudly display how your food is raised. They will not put you in jail for snapping a picture or shooting a video. They will treat you as not only a customer, but a friend.
The gap between factory farming, supported by the government and your tax dollars, and the small sustainable family farmer is widening. The power to say which method wins is completely in your hands. The choices you make today determine what choices you will or will not have tomorrow.
If this blog post seems overly passionate and direct, its because it is! This is a topic I am deeply passionate about. What is going on behind those closed doors is wrong both in man's eyes and God's eyes. Those pictures on the labels that lull you into inaction and complacency are wrong. Forcing me to pay tax dollars that end up supporting the factory farming model is wrong. The lack of attention of the health of the next generation is WRONG. So yea, I am passionate. This lies at the core of the issue. I maintain that if the average person really knew what was going on in factory food production, the evils would stop, because the average person would not put up with it. The power, is in your hands.
NOTE: If there are any factory farms that will invite visitors, then please please let me know. Leave a comment here or email us. We truly want to applaud them for being open and honest with your customers.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
The battle over extinction of Organic Foods
I ran across this great read about the battle raging behind the scenes over organic vs genetically modified foods. The battle lines are drawn, not specifically around safety, but rather around the future existence of organic crops. As this article explains, the fear is that with continued use and expansion of genetically modified crops, and nature's persistent spread of genetic material across the globe, organic crops (natural genetics) will in fact become extinct. We are seeing evidence of this already in America after only a few short years of genetic engineering. So the question is simple... if you want to be able to buy organic produce, and meats raised on organic feed, you should take a stand against genetic engineering now. Every day that goes by, brings organics a day closer to extinction. One of the Little Sprouts farm rules is this: "NEVER CHANGE what you don't yet fully understand". I think its a perfect fit in this war. HERE IS THE FULL ARTICLE EXPLAINING THE BATTLE IN MORE DETAIL
Farmers Sue Monsanto over unfair practices!
Finally people are striking back against the ridiculously unfair practices of Monsanto, condoned by the current government. Only time will tell if this initial effort will have any effect, but its definitely a step in the right direction.
Here is the news release about the lawsuit being filed against Monsanto. I found this through the new movement "Millions against Monsanto" which is a quickly growing grass roots effort to stop the madness in America.
It's so sad that this lawsuit is even necessary. Why do small struggling farms have to go to court to prevent this corporation from attacking them? Why is it possible for a large corporation to attack a small farmer, accusing him of doing something that he is fighting against ?
Let me explain... the basis of the Monsanto lawsuits is patent infringement. Monsanto owns the patent on genetically modified seeds. When these seeds are used in the real world, they spread just like all seeds do, to neighboring fields through wind, birds, etc. The genetic modification spread with them. All Monsanto has to do is to find traces of the genetic modification in the fields of a farmer who didn't buy the seeds and Monsanto can sue that farmer for patten infringement. Monsanto doesn't have to prove that the farmer stole the seeds, nor that the farmer even wanted the seeds. In fact most farmers sued actually fought hard to keep the seeds OUT of their fields. The problem is , it is inevitable that the seeds will spread despite the best efforts to stop it. Still, the government lets Monsanto have this patent, release these uncontrollable changed to life, and then sue those that fall victim to natures whims. Madness!
I like the analogy given. This is much like if you neighbor had a car in their driveway. A tornado came through, picked up the car and dropped in into your yard. The neighbor than accuses you of grand theft auto and wins. You go to jail. Madness? Many farmers have had this happen to them by Monsanto. It is all public record, as unbelievable as it is.
Keep in mind here.. bad things often exist and simply because they are so bad that common good natured people can't believe that something that bad exists. This... seems one of those cases. It is just too crazy for most people to grasp.
There is a facebook page for "Millions against Monsanto" that is quickly filling with story after story of the actions in the world of genetic modifications. Its a great resource to learn about what is going on behind the scenes that was kept quiet for so long.
Little Sprouts does our best to stay away from GMO in every sense. In fact we don't even support the use of Hybrid seeds. We only use heirloom, traditional, naturally produced seeds for everything, and only buy certified organic nonGMO feed. As long as there is non-GMO available, we will find and use it, that is our promise to you.
Here is the news release about the lawsuit being filed against Monsanto. I found this through the new movement "Millions against Monsanto" which is a quickly growing grass roots effort to stop the madness in America.
It's so sad that this lawsuit is even necessary. Why do small struggling farms have to go to court to prevent this corporation from attacking them? Why is it possible for a large corporation to attack a small farmer, accusing him of doing something that he is fighting against ?
Let me explain... the basis of the Monsanto lawsuits is patent infringement. Monsanto owns the patent on genetically modified seeds. When these seeds are used in the real world, they spread just like all seeds do, to neighboring fields through wind, birds, etc. The genetic modification spread with them. All Monsanto has to do is to find traces of the genetic modification in the fields of a farmer who didn't buy the seeds and Monsanto can sue that farmer for patten infringement. Monsanto doesn't have to prove that the farmer stole the seeds, nor that the farmer even wanted the seeds. In fact most farmers sued actually fought hard to keep the seeds OUT of their fields. The problem is , it is inevitable that the seeds will spread despite the best efforts to stop it. Still, the government lets Monsanto have this patent, release these uncontrollable changed to life, and then sue those that fall victim to natures whims. Madness!
I like the analogy given. This is much like if you neighbor had a car in their driveway. A tornado came through, picked up the car and dropped in into your yard. The neighbor than accuses you of grand theft auto and wins. You go to jail. Madness? Many farmers have had this happen to them by Monsanto. It is all public record, as unbelievable as it is.
Keep in mind here.. bad things often exist and simply because they are so bad that common good natured people can't believe that something that bad exists. This... seems one of those cases. It is just too crazy for most people to grasp.
There is a facebook page for "Millions against Monsanto" that is quickly filling with story after story of the actions in the world of genetic modifications. Its a great resource to learn about what is going on behind the scenes that was kept quiet for so long.
Little Sprouts does our best to stay away from GMO in every sense. In fact we don't even support the use of Hybrid seeds. We only use heirloom, traditional, naturally produced seeds for everything, and only buy certified organic nonGMO feed. As long as there is non-GMO available, we will find and use it, that is our promise to you.
Eggs produced in 67 square inches?
Most people have no idea just how sad the life of animals used to produce food in factories instead of farms truly is. How could you know? The doors to food factories are locked, off limits to even the customers that purchase the factory produced foods. That in itself is always a bad sign.
Today I offer another example to demonstrate just how inhumanely sad the life of factory animals is: The egg producing chicken. Do you purchase eggs from a grocery store? If you do, then this very likely applies to you, as virtually all eggs sold in grocery stores today come from factory imprisoned chickens, regardless of what the label says. ( you can search this blog for a previous post on the falsehoods of chicken eggs labels like "free range, organic, etc")
In this news post you find the story of a bill introduced in Oregon, in an attempt to make chicken egg production a little less inhumane. Lets take a quick look at the details:
Current lay requires that factory egg production give chickens a minimum of 67 square inches of space. Do the math.. that's less room than a piece of notebook paper. The poor chickens spend their entire life in this tiny square of existence barely able to turn around, let alone stretch out and be a chicken. If that is not prison, I don't know what is!
The new bill introduced proposed moving that minimum size up to 116 square inches... so just a tad larger than a sheet of paper. WOO HOO! The chickens can now turn around in place! No walking, no running, no wings stretched out, but they can turn around! What would we do without government??! (before we get too excited, keep in mind it doesn't go into effect for 5 more years)
It's appalling to think that these factories are treating chickens this way, and then putting bright happy colorful labels on the egg cartons with pictures showing the equivalent of a family farm. They should be forced to put pictures of the inside of egg factories, showing the overcrowded disease ridden conditions that the eggs come from! Why do factories get to use pictures of OUR farm when they are in no way similar to any real farm. It's a factory, a prison, a sweatshop where the ones doing the work (the chicken) is treated with less respect than a factory robot. (sorry, i get passionately emotional about this).
Even more appalling is the comment from a very popular egg factory that you see on the grocery stores in Oregon daily (read the news article to find the name). The original bill required free ranging of chickens, but there was so much push back form factories that a compromise was done to only 116 sq inches. The co owner of this local egg factory explained "He said free-range chickens are more prone to hen-to-hen aggression, pathogen exposure, and movement-related injuries." that statement is so full of wrongness that I don't know where to begin! Bottom line is that this shows that factory production of food is so far from farm production of food that there is no common ground, no similarities, absolutely none. What he is saying is essentially that you can't free range chickens because they will just hurt each other, caging them is better for their own safety. I can't use the language that properly explains that comment! Farms all across America are filled with happy, healthy, free range chickens who do NOT need their beaks removed to prevent cannibalism, who do NOT suffer from disease, who do NOT attack each other under any reasonable management system. The fact that the co owner of this egg factory either does not know that, or denies that, shows that perhaps he doesn't understand the basics of chickens.
Sigh.
Back to the point, if you are buying eggs in the grocery store, and you see the images of peaceful green acres with chickens running around green grass and sunny skies, close you eyes and see reality: thousands of chickens in disease infested closed houses with limited or no fresh air or sunshine, so overcrowded that the chickens can not turn around in place, beaks removed to prevent cannibalism, dead chickens laying around here and there, and owners that think that is the best thing for the chicken. that is more likely the real scenario behind that label and those eggs.
At little sprouts you can come visit any time and see how our animals, your food, is raised. Our chickens have free range of our entire 10 acres, no limits. The actually live on green grass and sunshine. Yes there is the occasional scuffle between roosters or competitive hens over a scrap of food, but no injuries, no deaths, no battles to speak of. Our chickens live like chickens, as nature intended. The eggs they produce are full of nutrition and love.
I strongly encourage you to stop buying factory produced food. Make the switch to real farms producing real food. Even if you don't choose Little Sprouts, choose to give your family real food from a local farm. Your children, and your world, will thank you.
Today I offer another example to demonstrate just how inhumanely sad the life of factory animals is: The egg producing chicken. Do you purchase eggs from a grocery store? If you do, then this very likely applies to you, as virtually all eggs sold in grocery stores today come from factory imprisoned chickens, regardless of what the label says. ( you can search this blog for a previous post on the falsehoods of chicken eggs labels like "free range, organic, etc")
In this news post you find the story of a bill introduced in Oregon, in an attempt to make chicken egg production a little less inhumane. Lets take a quick look at the details:
Current lay requires that factory egg production give chickens a minimum of 67 square inches of space. Do the math.. that's less room than a piece of notebook paper. The poor chickens spend their entire life in this tiny square of existence barely able to turn around, let alone stretch out and be a chicken. If that is not prison, I don't know what is!
The new bill introduced proposed moving that minimum size up to 116 square inches... so just a tad larger than a sheet of paper. WOO HOO! The chickens can now turn around in place! No walking, no running, no wings stretched out, but they can turn around! What would we do without government??! (before we get too excited, keep in mind it doesn't go into effect for 5 more years)
It's appalling to think that these factories are treating chickens this way, and then putting bright happy colorful labels on the egg cartons with pictures showing the equivalent of a family farm. They should be forced to put pictures of the inside of egg factories, showing the overcrowded disease ridden conditions that the eggs come from! Why do factories get to use pictures of OUR farm when they are in no way similar to any real farm. It's a factory, a prison, a sweatshop where the ones doing the work (the chicken) is treated with less respect than a factory robot. (sorry, i get passionately emotional about this).
Even more appalling is the comment from a very popular egg factory that you see on the grocery stores in Oregon daily (read the news article to find the name). The original bill required free ranging of chickens, but there was so much push back form factories that a compromise was done to only 116 sq inches. The co owner of this local egg factory explained "He said free-range chickens are more prone to hen-to-hen aggression, pathogen exposure, and movement-related injuries." that statement is so full of wrongness that I don't know where to begin! Bottom line is that this shows that factory production of food is so far from farm production of food that there is no common ground, no similarities, absolutely none. What he is saying is essentially that you can't free range chickens because they will just hurt each other, caging them is better for their own safety. I can't use the language that properly explains that comment! Farms all across America are filled with happy, healthy, free range chickens who do NOT need their beaks removed to prevent cannibalism, who do NOT suffer from disease, who do NOT attack each other under any reasonable management system. The fact that the co owner of this egg factory either does not know that, or denies that, shows that perhaps he doesn't understand the basics of chickens.
Sigh.
Back to the point, if you are buying eggs in the grocery store, and you see the images of peaceful green acres with chickens running around green grass and sunny skies, close you eyes and see reality: thousands of chickens in disease infested closed houses with limited or no fresh air or sunshine, so overcrowded that the chickens can not turn around in place, beaks removed to prevent cannibalism, dead chickens laying around here and there, and owners that think that is the best thing for the chicken. that is more likely the real scenario behind that label and those eggs.
At little sprouts you can come visit any time and see how our animals, your food, is raised. Our chickens have free range of our entire 10 acres, no limits. The actually live on green grass and sunshine. Yes there is the occasional scuffle between roosters or competitive hens over a scrap of food, but no injuries, no deaths, no battles to speak of. Our chickens live like chickens, as nature intended. The eggs they produce are full of nutrition and love.
I strongly encourage you to stop buying factory produced food. Make the switch to real farms producing real food. Even if you don't choose Little Sprouts, choose to give your family real food from a local farm. Your children, and your world, will thank you.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Finally! Freedom for Local Farmers?!?
News that can be described as ASTOUNDING! This is "stop the presses" serious!
A very small part of America has finally done a bold and proper thing, and lifted that heavy restrictions on small farms that were intended to protect people from factory farming practices.
This is truly amazing and welcome news. Let's hope and pray that it starts a trend to return freedom, competition, and diversity to America's food system! I do know that, Oregon, is proposing similar legal changes, but with caps on total production quantities.
This is definitely a historic day!
A very small part of America has finally done a bold and proper thing, and lifted that heavy restrictions on small farms that were intended to protect people from factory farming practices.
This is truly amazing and welcome news. Let's hope and pray that it starts a trend to return freedom, competition, and diversity to America's food system! I do know that, Oregon, is proposing similar legal changes, but with caps on total production quantities.
This is definitely a historic day!
Antibiotics and the Meat Industry
I ran across an interesting blog posting that contains a very interesting and revealing quote from "the meat industry". Who is the meat industry? In this sense I am referring to the collective group that uses industrial factory methods to produce the vast majority of meat in America today and distribute it through your local grocery store. In this case, the spokesman is Dave Warner of the National Pork Council.
Here's the link to the blog post.
The quote of interest is this:
“Show us the science that use of antibiotics in animal production is causing this antibiotic resistance,” Dave Warner of the National Pork Council told the Washington Post back in June 2010, responding to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance document advising against the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock.
Assuming that this is a true quote (I have no way to verify fully), this is a sad state of affairs for our nation and our children. Let's look behind the words and translate. What Dave is actually saying is: "We are going to continue the practice of routine feeding of antibiotics to animals in spite of the overwhelming evidence that this causes problems and suffering which science has no answer for, because no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is a true problem."
But wait.. When is it moral to say you will continue practices that there is a good chance is causing society physical harm, until it is proven definitely bad? There was another industry that took this approach which you may remember.. the tobacco industry. How many years did it take until they gave in to government pressure and admitted that their product harmed people. Is there a parallel here? In both cases, the motivation is the same.. greed, money, profits.
Morally it is only right to stop a practice that has a decent chance of causing harm. The practice should stop until it can be proven safe. Ironically, this is even true for medicines. Antibiotics themselves can not be administered to people until they are proven to have a low chance of serious side effects, and if side effects do arise, the medicine is quickly pulled form the market. However, with our food supply, it is reversed... antibiotics (the exact same ones used sparingly on humans) are administered on a daily basis to animals we consume. How does that make sense?
If science knows that antibiotic use creates resistant bacteria, and therefore use of antibiotics is reserved for truly needy cases in humans, why are the same bacteria exposed to the same antibiotics daily for no reason except increased profits for the corporation? This isn't even about farmers... it is about large corporate entities.
Personally I think the constant use of antibiotics is simple immoral, inhumane, and inexcusable in light of the evidence for permanent harm to our children's generation. At Little Sprouts Farm we will never administer routine antibiotics, in fact we do not have or use antibiotics on any animal for any reason.
I urge you to take a stand, for the sake of our next generation, and refuse to buy any meat that you do not know for sure is free of antibiotics. Find a local organic responsible farm and spend your food dollars there, support them, work with them, and be part of the solution. It is really that easy, and it is effective!
Here's the link to the blog post.
The quote of interest is this:
“Show us the science that use of antibiotics in animal production is causing this antibiotic resistance,” Dave Warner of the National Pork Council told the Washington Post back in June 2010, responding to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance document advising against the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock.
Assuming that this is a true quote (I have no way to verify fully), this is a sad state of affairs for our nation and our children. Let's look behind the words and translate. What Dave is actually saying is: "We are going to continue the practice of routine feeding of antibiotics to animals in spite of the overwhelming evidence that this causes problems and suffering which science has no answer for, because no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is a true problem."
But wait.. When is it moral to say you will continue practices that there is a good chance is causing society physical harm, until it is proven definitely bad? There was another industry that took this approach which you may remember.. the tobacco industry. How many years did it take until they gave in to government pressure and admitted that their product harmed people. Is there a parallel here? In both cases, the motivation is the same.. greed, money, profits.
Morally it is only right to stop a practice that has a decent chance of causing harm. The practice should stop until it can be proven safe. Ironically, this is even true for medicines. Antibiotics themselves can not be administered to people until they are proven to have a low chance of serious side effects, and if side effects do arise, the medicine is quickly pulled form the market. However, with our food supply, it is reversed... antibiotics (the exact same ones used sparingly on humans) are administered on a daily basis to animals we consume. How does that make sense?
If science knows that antibiotic use creates resistant bacteria, and therefore use of antibiotics is reserved for truly needy cases in humans, why are the same bacteria exposed to the same antibiotics daily for no reason except increased profits for the corporation? This isn't even about farmers... it is about large corporate entities.
Personally I think the constant use of antibiotics is simple immoral, inhumane, and inexcusable in light of the evidence for permanent harm to our children's generation. At Little Sprouts Farm we will never administer routine antibiotics, in fact we do not have or use antibiotics on any animal for any reason.
I urge you to take a stand, for the sake of our next generation, and refuse to buy any meat that you do not know for sure is free of antibiotics. Find a local organic responsible farm and spend your food dollars there, support them, work with them, and be part of the solution. It is really that easy, and it is effective!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
A Golden Opportunity to Right some Wrongs via Government!
The entire nation seems enbattled in debates and even outright fights over the national budget once again. Its all over the newspapers and radio, and in most people's conversations. Will the temporary spending bills pass? Will their pet program get cut? Will anything ever change?
A little closer to home ... I ran across the following article pleading for help to keep the sustainable farming government program from being cut:
http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/grassroots-groups-oppose-hr1/
Reading this ... brought me to a realization. This is NOT a time to be worried about loosing funding for government programs that could actually do some good... no... this is actually a golden and rare opportunity to actually change things! Let me explain...
The secret is in this paragraph:
In addition, no cuts were proposed for two of biggest line items in the agriculture budget – commodity payments or crop insurance – while conservation, renewable energy, loans for beginning and minority farmers, and feeding programs for low income families took big hits. The letter states: “In a year of relatively high farm income, the House has focused its cuts instead upon programs that protect the environment, increase economic opportunity, serve beginning and minority farmers, and ensure proper nutrition for low-income families.”
Lets think about this. Sure.. I can admit that perhaps the programs proposed to be cut are some of the few worthwhile programs in government today. But the news here is NOT that these good programs are about to be cut.. the news is that the "bad" government programs which actually cost much more money and cause a lot of damage are NOT going to be cut! What we should be demanding is not "Don't cut my program" .. no.. We should stand up and demand " lets cut ALL farm spending equally, including commodity crop payments".
What exactly are commodity crop payments? They are the root of many of the evils in our food system today. This is where the government takes tax money from you and I, and redirects that cash in huge amounts to a particular industry that uses unsafe and unsustainable methods. Since that industry can not survive on its own, the government has to pay our tax money to the producers to keep it going. Quite literally it is the government using our hard earned cash to support business that can not exist on its own because it simply doesn't make sense, doesn't work, and can't make a profit.
Why are commodity crops so important to be supported by tax money? Well.. because they are cheap due to the support of tax money! If the cost had to be based on actual production costs, the excessive quantities of this bad "food" would disappear, and the importance of having it would disappear, shifting to proper good foods! For instance.. corn subsidies. Corn subsidies keep the monocrop corn growers in existence as they are today, slowly destroying our growing land. It is only because this "food" is so cheap that we use it to feed animals that should never eat corn, and use it in most of the foods as chemically produced substances that are unhealthy. If corn was left alone to be grown as it should (without subsidized methods) then we wouldn't use it everywhere it shouldn't be, and food would become healthier, feed animals would be healthier, health care costs would go down, farming as it should be would become more important, and the government would spend much less!
So ultimately, instead of begging for money to support "alternative farming approaches" lets simply agree to loose those programs if and only if all farm subsidies are cut the same percentage. That way sustainable farming increases dramatically in importance and market value, food gets healthier, our lands become more fertile, and the government saves much more money. Who looses in that? Only a few corporations that control the farming operations that are subsidized. The actual farmers will be fine.. they are smart and resourceful. They can produce MORE food if we removed the tax supported subsidies.
Will food costs increase? Perhaps a little, BUT that will be quickly offset by reduced health care costs. This is the big trade off we aren't getting in America.. cheap food does not nourish us as a nation, it destroys health. That is paid for by raising health care costs. Who hasn't heard of the spiraling health care costs? It is easily solvable... not through better health coverage.. but through more nutritious food, as nature intended.
So lets take this Golden opportunity to say " go ahead and cut the good programs we love... just be sure to also cut those bad ones that are doing harm every day to the world our children will inherit".
A little closer to home ... I ran across the following article pleading for help to keep the sustainable farming government program from being cut:
http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/grassroots-groups-oppose-hr1/
Reading this ... brought me to a realization. This is NOT a time to be worried about loosing funding for government programs that could actually do some good... no... this is actually a golden and rare opportunity to actually change things! Let me explain...
The secret is in this paragraph:
In addition, no cuts were proposed for two of biggest line items in the agriculture budget – commodity payments or crop insurance – while conservation, renewable energy, loans for beginning and minority farmers, and feeding programs for low income families took big hits. The letter states: “In a year of relatively high farm income, the House has focused its cuts instead upon programs that protect the environment, increase economic opportunity, serve beginning and minority farmers, and ensure proper nutrition for low-income families.”
Lets think about this. Sure.. I can admit that perhaps the programs proposed to be cut are some of the few worthwhile programs in government today. But the news here is NOT that these good programs are about to be cut.. the news is that the "bad" government programs which actually cost much more money and cause a lot of damage are NOT going to be cut! What we should be demanding is not "Don't cut my program" .. no.. We should stand up and demand " lets cut ALL farm spending equally, including commodity crop payments".
What exactly are commodity crop payments? They are the root of many of the evils in our food system today. This is where the government takes tax money from you and I, and redirects that cash in huge amounts to a particular industry that uses unsafe and unsustainable methods. Since that industry can not survive on its own, the government has to pay our tax money to the producers to keep it going. Quite literally it is the government using our hard earned cash to support business that can not exist on its own because it simply doesn't make sense, doesn't work, and can't make a profit.
Why are commodity crops so important to be supported by tax money? Well.. because they are cheap due to the support of tax money! If the cost had to be based on actual production costs, the excessive quantities of this bad "food" would disappear, and the importance of having it would disappear, shifting to proper good foods! For instance.. corn subsidies. Corn subsidies keep the monocrop corn growers in existence as they are today, slowly destroying our growing land. It is only because this "food" is so cheap that we use it to feed animals that should never eat corn, and use it in most of the foods as chemically produced substances that are unhealthy. If corn was left alone to be grown as it should (without subsidized methods) then we wouldn't use it everywhere it shouldn't be, and food would become healthier, feed animals would be healthier, health care costs would go down, farming as it should be would become more important, and the government would spend much less!
So ultimately, instead of begging for money to support "alternative farming approaches" lets simply agree to loose those programs if and only if all farm subsidies are cut the same percentage. That way sustainable farming increases dramatically in importance and market value, food gets healthier, our lands become more fertile, and the government saves much more money. Who looses in that? Only a few corporations that control the farming operations that are subsidized. The actual farmers will be fine.. they are smart and resourceful. They can produce MORE food if we removed the tax supported subsidies.
Will food costs increase? Perhaps a little, BUT that will be quickly offset by reduced health care costs. This is the big trade off we aren't getting in America.. cheap food does not nourish us as a nation, it destroys health. That is paid for by raising health care costs. Who hasn't heard of the spiraling health care costs? It is easily solvable... not through better health coverage.. but through more nutritious food, as nature intended.
So lets take this Golden opportunity to say " go ahead and cut the good programs we love... just be sure to also cut those bad ones that are doing harm every day to the world our children will inherit".
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Roundup use linked to Spontaneous Abortion?
Many scientists and farmers have long pointed out that genetic alteration of crops specifically for the ability to use massive amounts of herbicides is a dangerous game with unknown outcomes. Recently the government has decided that this very cycle is safe enough to be completely deregulated and expanded to other crops without reservation. But, now we have a group of scientists with some very disturbing news.
Apparently there is a new pathogen, a fungus-virus like thing that infects the genetically altered croups that are roundup ready. This new pathogen may be linked to a various plant and animal problems. The worst of which is that it seems capable of disturbing both plants and animals in severely negative ways. Read this excerpt of an emergency letter sent to the secretary of the FDA to get a feel for the gravity of the situation:
Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure
Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.
The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.
For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.
What this is saying is that there is a link between high spontaneous abortion rates of mammals and the newly discovered pathogen that seem to only infect roundup ready plants. The scariest part of this new finding is that the pathogen is present in plants, and then in the mammals that eat the plants! We (you and I) are mammals. That seems to mean there is a decent possibility that people are prone to the same problems as other mammals, spontaneous abortion. Can you imagine ... think for a sec... if this pathogen climbs up the food chain to humans who eat the infected animals (it is only 1 step away now) and humans are prone to a 45% chance of spontaneous abortion? That.. is a staggering thought!
There are other worries, both economic and biological. The amazing point in all this is that there is only 1 reason to use roundup in the first place... to avoid proper farming practices! If we simply used proper farming practices of building soil fertility and biolife, roundup would not be necessary and this pathogen would not exist. One might say "but wait.. without roundup farmers cant grow crops!" I counter that with the question.. how did we grow crops before roundup, which is a new invention? What roundup does (and all chemical fertilizers) is to allow crops to grow, although empty of nutrients, in soil that is damaged and barren specifically from use of roundup and chemical fertilizers that kill the biolife in the soil which nature uses to build fertility. If a farmer uses roundup, he guarantees that in the future he will need to use more roundup to gain the same results. This can of course only last for so long. Soon the soil is so barren that it can not grow anything worth eating. Genetic engineering is not about making plants or food better, it is about making plants able to live with an excessive amount of roundup used on them due to increasingly barren soils from the continued use of roundup! The only one who benefits from this cycle is.. you guessed it... the makers of roundup and chemical fertilizers, and who knows.. perhaps some government officials that allow and encourage it.
I encourage you to read through the source of this information and judge for yourself. Did the government make the right choice in saying that genetically engineered crops and the increasing use of chemical herbicides is safe enough to be completely deregulated? If not, call your representatives and let them know you object!
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/newPathogenInRoundupReadyGMCrops.php?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4d626f6ab2cac894%2C0
At Little Sprouts we are very glad to have never used genetically altered feed, so our animals are not prone to this new pathogen. I would hate to think that the meat we produce for our children has this pathogen that can cause a 45% spontaneous abortion rate! This could now be the most compelling reasons to buy meat from a small local farmer who does not use any genetically engineered feed sources.
Apparently there is a new pathogen, a fungus-virus like thing that infects the genetically altered croups that are roundup ready. This new pathogen may be linked to a various plant and animal problems. The worst of which is that it seems capable of disturbing both plants and animals in severely negative ways. Read this excerpt of an emergency letter sent to the secretary of the FDA to get a feel for the gravity of the situation:
Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure
Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.
The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.
For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.
What this is saying is that there is a link between high spontaneous abortion rates of mammals and the newly discovered pathogen that seem to only infect roundup ready plants. The scariest part of this new finding is that the pathogen is present in plants, and then in the mammals that eat the plants! We (you and I) are mammals. That seems to mean there is a decent possibility that people are prone to the same problems as other mammals, spontaneous abortion. Can you imagine ... think for a sec... if this pathogen climbs up the food chain to humans who eat the infected animals (it is only 1 step away now) and humans are prone to a 45% chance of spontaneous abortion? That.. is a staggering thought!
There are other worries, both economic and biological. The amazing point in all this is that there is only 1 reason to use roundup in the first place... to avoid proper farming practices! If we simply used proper farming practices of building soil fertility and biolife, roundup would not be necessary and this pathogen would not exist. One might say "but wait.. without roundup farmers cant grow crops!" I counter that with the question.. how did we grow crops before roundup, which is a new invention? What roundup does (and all chemical fertilizers) is to allow crops to grow, although empty of nutrients, in soil that is damaged and barren specifically from use of roundup and chemical fertilizers that kill the biolife in the soil which nature uses to build fertility. If a farmer uses roundup, he guarantees that in the future he will need to use more roundup to gain the same results. This can of course only last for so long. Soon the soil is so barren that it can not grow anything worth eating. Genetic engineering is not about making plants or food better, it is about making plants able to live with an excessive amount of roundup used on them due to increasingly barren soils from the continued use of roundup! The only one who benefits from this cycle is.. you guessed it... the makers of roundup and chemical fertilizers, and who knows.. perhaps some government officials that allow and encourage it.
I encourage you to read through the source of this information and judge for yourself. Did the government make the right choice in saying that genetically engineered crops and the increasing use of chemical herbicides is safe enough to be completely deregulated? If not, call your representatives and let them know you object!
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/newPathogenInRoundupReadyGMCrops.php?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4d626f6ab2cac894%2C0
At Little Sprouts we are very glad to have never used genetically altered feed, so our animals are not prone to this new pathogen. I would hate to think that the meat we produce for our children has this pathogen that can cause a 45% spontaneous abortion rate! This could now be the most compelling reasons to buy meat from a small local farmer who does not use any genetically engineered feed sources.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Thomas Jefferson Speaks on Government and Food Safety
If people let the government decide what foods and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
Enough Said.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Food Safety - the untold story
This post began as a post about the unfair treatment of the raw cheese industry as told in this article, but my thinking has shifted to point out an example of what is untold about our food safety.
The story about raw cheese has the former FDA commissioner making a bold statement referring to the raw cheese making process:
"Then, obviously, the next step is making pasteurization an absolute requirement," Acheson says.
That statement is extremely interesting to me because I think it shows the mentality behind our current food safety system. What he is really saying here is that "because of 40 cases of suspected illness from raw cheese, we will have to remove that food form the American diet completely by requiring pasteurization to protect the public". And thus killing an entire industry (small farm cheese makers) and causing yet another long consumed food to go extinct in our country.
So, I got to wondering.. how does 40 cases warrant shutting down an industry and a historic food? To answer that I took a quick trip to the CDC website and their online database of food borne illness. Pulling numbers for 2008 only (the most recent available), and only confirmed cases (to leave no doubt), and removing all unspecified origins (again to remove doubt) produced a spreadsheet showing relative cases of food born illness and the food that caused them. The results are a bit surprising:
Did you know that watermelon and peppers and peanut butter were the most dangerous foods to consume in 2008?
Peanut butter had over 600 confirmed reports, peppers over 1500, and watermelon 600
Did you know that properly processed (USDA) ground beef accounts 10 times more illness than raw cheese and gravy is very close to this?
Did you know that sandwiches are much more dangerous than raw cheese?
Now, one might argue that to rate the relative danger of food you must take into account its popularity, for instance, if a food is consumed 100 times more, than you would expect 100 times more food born illness form it. But before we go there.. lets consider the government's job is to protect us. If there are little consumed food causes - 100 cases per year, and a much consumed food causes - 1000 cases per year, which one should the government look at? Surely the 1000 cases warrant more attention than 100? Seems to me the important for consideration is in the number of illnesses, not the popularity.
The thought that the government would consider this one food, raw cheese, for extinction while turning a blind eye to foods affecting hundreds to thousands of people per year, is shocking to say the least. Why would they concentrate on 40 cases, ignoring the cries of hundreds of parents about their children sickened or killed by USDA processed meat? Something is horribly wrong here.
Unfortunately I can't upload the chart I produced to the blog. If you would like to see it just drop us an email or You can easily produce it yourself by going to the CDC website.
The story about raw cheese has the former FDA commissioner making a bold statement referring to the raw cheese making process:
"Then, obviously, the next step is making pasteurization an absolute requirement," Acheson says.
That statement is extremely interesting to me because I think it shows the mentality behind our current food safety system. What he is really saying here is that "because of 40 cases of suspected illness from raw cheese, we will have to remove that food form the American diet completely by requiring pasteurization to protect the public". And thus killing an entire industry (small farm cheese makers) and causing yet another long consumed food to go extinct in our country.
So, I got to wondering.. how does 40 cases warrant shutting down an industry and a historic food? To answer that I took a quick trip to the CDC website and their online database of food borne illness. Pulling numbers for 2008 only (the most recent available), and only confirmed cases (to leave no doubt), and removing all unspecified origins (again to remove doubt) produced a spreadsheet showing relative cases of food born illness and the food that caused them. The results are a bit surprising:
Did you know that watermelon and peppers and peanut butter were the most dangerous foods to consume in 2008?
Peanut butter had over 600 confirmed reports, peppers over 1500, and watermelon 600
Did you know that properly processed (USDA) ground beef accounts 10 times more illness than raw cheese and gravy is very close to this?
Did you know that sandwiches are much more dangerous than raw cheese?
Now, one might argue that to rate the relative danger of food you must take into account its popularity, for instance, if a food is consumed 100 times more, than you would expect 100 times more food born illness form it. But before we go there.. lets consider the government's job is to protect us. If there are little consumed food causes - 100 cases per year, and a much consumed food causes - 1000 cases per year, which one should the government look at? Surely the 1000 cases warrant more attention than 100? Seems to me the important for consideration is in the number of illnesses, not the popularity.
The thought that the government would consider this one food, raw cheese, for extinction while turning a blind eye to foods affecting hundreds to thousands of people per year, is shocking to say the least. Why would they concentrate on 40 cases, ignoring the cries of hundreds of parents about their children sickened or killed by USDA processed meat? Something is horribly wrong here.
Unfortunately I can't upload the chart I produced to the blog. If you would like to see it just drop us an email or You can easily produce it yourself by going to the CDC website.
Raw milk - when did it become dangerous?
When society enjoys a certain food for thousands of years that today is considered "too dangerous to be available to the public," common sense makes one stop and asks why? Something had to happen between our ancestors and us to make common foods dangerous.
What I am referring to is milk. People have been drinking milk of various sources since the beginning of civilization. Obviously they didn't all die off from disease, and they didn't consider it dangerous enough to even to be unusually careful with it. In fact, it's not just man, all mammals drink milk in the wild. It is still the best, safest food for young mammals. So something surely seems odd that today our government deemed milk one of the most dangerous foods available in America. So dangerous it is banned in most states and illegal to carry across state lines.
This paranoia about milk is recent, because before the 20th century milk was a common food, available in virtually every home, and consumed daily with little incident. So the question is... is this truly a government "conspiracy"? Is it unfounded paranoia? OR... is it a legitimate concern because... dare I say it.. milk itself has changed?
My research points to the latter as the primary answer. I am not one to personally believe in conspiracy theories. I don't see evil intent behind every government move. It seems much more practical to see the normal evolution of things, although misguided. Milk and milk production is another example of many of the evolutions of wrong thinking. No evil intent is required to arrive at where we are today, just misguided and uninformed thinking.
So here it is.. quite simply. Until the 20th century milk was produced primarily by herbivores living on grass form wide open pastures in the fresh air and sunshine. The milk produced was delivered quickly to those consuming it. Cleanliness and decent sanitary condition were enforced by the customers local to the farm, and the farm people themselves consuming the milk. Free and private enterprise at its best!
Today, things have changed, dramatically. The animals now live in feedlots, where way too many cows are pressed into a tiny place, living in their own manure and mud, with aromas that drive away any intelligent creature. They are fed diets unnatural to them, which encourage the proliferation of disease and weakening of their own immune system. They are fed a steady diet of antibiotics in an attempt to keep down the overwhelming bacteria count that thrives in those conditions. They are bred specifically to produce more milk than ever, regardless of the nutritional quality of that milk. The focus is entirely on cost savings and higher production with as little labor as possible, to make more profit. It is assumed that most people don't really care about quality and those that would don't have any idea what is going on behind the scenes.
Does that paint a different picture from the lazy hardy cow foraging quietly on the hillside of a family farm? It should! Here is another article explaining hte history of milk pasturization in america.
I propose that if you buy milk produced in today's "normal" condition as described here.. you had better make sure its pasteurized! Milk produced under these conditions is, in fact, hazardous and dangerous to your health. So in that respect the government is doing their job by restricting raw milk sales.
The problem is that this factory produced milk is nothing at all like fresh naturally raised farm produced milk. when milk is produced properly there is little to no danger in consuming it. If it were dangerous, baby animals would surely be at huge risk, but they aren't. Therefore I present to you that is is the manner in which milk is produced that makes it necessary to pasteurize, not the milk itself. It is the push to change nature into factory feedlots in the search of higher profits that creates the need for pasteurization. Here again the government has taken regulations necessary for public protection from factory food production and applied it where it isn't needed and doesn't belong. The end result is that the safe alternative (raw farm raised milk) is limited and the sterilized and dead factory produce milk substance is seen as "normal" but can't be sold in truly normal form because it is inherently unsafe.
So I see no conspiracy here, only the quest for profit by a few being necessarily regulated but misguided and uninformed thought taking things way too far. I also see no paranoia, because factory produced milk is in fact a very dangerous substance and should be treated to kill off the bad things inherently within it. What I see is the move to factory farming which is, in itself, very dangerous to human and animal health, requiring careful regulation and control. The answer though, is to move away from factory food production and return to the farms that have fed people for centuries without risk. Raw milk is safe if it is produced the way nature intended.
What I am referring to is milk. People have been drinking milk of various sources since the beginning of civilization. Obviously they didn't all die off from disease, and they didn't consider it dangerous enough to even to be unusually careful with it. In fact, it's not just man, all mammals drink milk in the wild. It is still the best, safest food for young mammals. So something surely seems odd that today our government deemed milk one of the most dangerous foods available in America. So dangerous it is banned in most states and illegal to carry across state lines.
This paranoia about milk is recent, because before the 20th century milk was a common food, available in virtually every home, and consumed daily with little incident. So the question is... is this truly a government "conspiracy"? Is it unfounded paranoia? OR... is it a legitimate concern because... dare I say it.. milk itself has changed?
My research points to the latter as the primary answer. I am not one to personally believe in conspiracy theories. I don't see evil intent behind every government move. It seems much more practical to see the normal evolution of things, although misguided. Milk and milk production is another example of many of the evolutions of wrong thinking. No evil intent is required to arrive at where we are today, just misguided and uninformed thinking.
So here it is.. quite simply. Until the 20th century milk was produced primarily by herbivores living on grass form wide open pastures in the fresh air and sunshine. The milk produced was delivered quickly to those consuming it. Cleanliness and decent sanitary condition were enforced by the customers local to the farm, and the farm people themselves consuming the milk. Free and private enterprise at its best!
Today, things have changed, dramatically. The animals now live in feedlots, where way too many cows are pressed into a tiny place, living in their own manure and mud, with aromas that drive away any intelligent creature. They are fed diets unnatural to them, which encourage the proliferation of disease and weakening of their own immune system. They are fed a steady diet of antibiotics in an attempt to keep down the overwhelming bacteria count that thrives in those conditions. They are bred specifically to produce more milk than ever, regardless of the nutritional quality of that milk. The focus is entirely on cost savings and higher production with as little labor as possible, to make more profit. It is assumed that most people don't really care about quality and those that would don't have any idea what is going on behind the scenes.
Does that paint a different picture from the lazy hardy cow foraging quietly on the hillside of a family farm? It should! Here is another article explaining hte history of milk pasturization in america.
I propose that if you buy milk produced in today's "normal" condition as described here.. you had better make sure its pasteurized! Milk produced under these conditions is, in fact, hazardous and dangerous to your health. So in that respect the government is doing their job by restricting raw milk sales.
The problem is that this factory produced milk is nothing at all like fresh naturally raised farm produced milk. when milk is produced properly there is little to no danger in consuming it. If it were dangerous, baby animals would surely be at huge risk, but they aren't. Therefore I present to you that is is the manner in which milk is produced that makes it necessary to pasteurize, not the milk itself. It is the push to change nature into factory feedlots in the search of higher profits that creates the need for pasteurization. Here again the government has taken regulations necessary for public protection from factory food production and applied it where it isn't needed and doesn't belong. The end result is that the safe alternative (raw farm raised milk) is limited and the sterilized and dead factory produce milk substance is seen as "normal" but can't be sold in truly normal form because it is inherently unsafe.
So I see no conspiracy here, only the quest for profit by a few being necessarily regulated but misguided and uninformed thought taking things way too far. I also see no paranoia, because factory produced milk is in fact a very dangerous substance and should be treated to kill off the bad things inherently within it. What I see is the move to factory farming which is, in itself, very dangerous to human and animal health, requiring careful regulation and control. The answer though, is to move away from factory food production and return to the farms that have fed people for centuries without risk. Raw milk is safe if it is produced the way nature intended.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
USDA official position on Genetically modified crops
If you are following the battle over genetic engineering of food crops, here is an interesting review of recent happenings.
First, the Secretary of USDA issues a softened statement stating the offricial position supporting of "co-existence" of genetic altered and natural crops. In this letter alone is some very concerning and misguided statements that we could discuss at length. But, before we get the privilege of digging into that...
Only days later the USDA does an about face and completely deregulates genetically altered alfalfa, with other crops soon to follow. This deregulation means completely unrestricted, unsupervised, unconditional approval to plant genetically altered alfalfa at will.
Why the change in policy? This article gives a few clues, pointing directly to the white house and the Obama Administration. Apparently this is an example of Obama desiring to appear big business friendly by removing "burdensome regulation". While I am all for deregulation, there are some aspects of society that the government have an interest in regulating, because the actions of few can affect the lives of many in irreparable ways.
If Obama truly wanted to remove burdensome regulation, he could start with the food safety laws that are designed only to protect the public from unnatural factory food production, but in reality remove competition through unnecessarily restricting small family farms from selling healthy product. In that sense, the regulations increase danger to the public through limitation of competition and local inspections and choices.
In contract, genetically altered crops do absolutely nothing to help the public, nor increase the food supply. The only purpose in the genetic alterations of alfalfa and soybeans and most other crops, is simply to allow increased use of dangerous herbicides and thereby increase profits of a single corporation. The reality is that the increased use of herbicide can easily be shown to endanger the food supply, and the health of those eating it. So in the food safety laws, the regulation decreases benefit to the consumer, while in genetic alterations deregulation puts the public at direct risk.
The bottom line here is.. plants depend not on the chemicals in the soil as much as they do the LIFE in the soil, the microscopic life that thrives in decaying organic material creating humus through compost. the chemicals sprayed on the plants and ground to yield short term cosmetic benefits, destroy the life in the soil itself. This in turn leaves the crops suffering from decreased fertility of soil. The modern response is to apply even more chemicals. this depletes the LIFE further, and a vicious cycle is created. This downward spiral continues until the soil is so dead that it can not grow anything worthwhile, at which point the ground is abandoned as food producing.
Isn't it amazing that "dead" unproductive fields are a problem after only a hundred years or so of agriculture, when the earth and nature has sustained itself for thousands of years without degrading? Doesn't that tell us that we are going down the wrong path? Do we really truly believe that we would have no food without the chemist inside Monsanto to keep the earth alive? sigh...
Here again we see the legacy we are leaving for our grandchildren. If each 10 years is marked by a need to spray higher and higher concentrations of chemicals to get plants to grow, where will our grandchildren be? Its obvious that this is the case because the ONLY genetic modifications to these crops is to make them more immune to Roundup.. the herbicide. Food plants being immune to this poison allows for spraying higher concentrations of the chemical than ever before. There you have the circle described above.
This move by the Obama administration is perhaps one of the worst moves he has made yet. It is one that has severe, lasting, irreversible implications for our grandchildren. For you and I, the consumer, this is not about money, convenience, "feeding the world" its about the ability of our grandchildren to grow food. Its more fundamental than health care, financial models, taxes, etc. This is food, one of the truly core things none of us can live without.
At Little Sprouts we are doing what we can to preserve the food that has kept us healthy for generations through heritage seed preservation. As the proliferation of genetically altered crops spreads, farms such as ours will be forced to move to more and more remote areas to prevent the spread of genetic alterations to our heritage plants.
First, the Secretary of USDA issues a softened statement stating the offricial position supporting of "co-existence" of genetic altered and natural crops. In this letter alone is some very concerning and misguided statements that we could discuss at length. But, before we get the privilege of digging into that...
Only days later the USDA does an about face and completely deregulates genetically altered alfalfa, with other crops soon to follow. This deregulation means completely unrestricted, unsupervised, unconditional approval to plant genetically altered alfalfa at will.
Why the change in policy? This article gives a few clues, pointing directly to the white house and the Obama Administration. Apparently this is an example of Obama desiring to appear big business friendly by removing "burdensome regulation". While I am all for deregulation, there are some aspects of society that the government have an interest in regulating, because the actions of few can affect the lives of many in irreparable ways.
If Obama truly wanted to remove burdensome regulation, he could start with the food safety laws that are designed only to protect the public from unnatural factory food production, but in reality remove competition through unnecessarily restricting small family farms from selling healthy product. In that sense, the regulations increase danger to the public through limitation of competition and local inspections and choices.
In contract, genetically altered crops do absolutely nothing to help the public, nor increase the food supply. The only purpose in the genetic alterations of alfalfa and soybeans and most other crops, is simply to allow increased use of dangerous herbicides and thereby increase profits of a single corporation. The reality is that the increased use of herbicide can easily be shown to endanger the food supply, and the health of those eating it. So in the food safety laws, the regulation decreases benefit to the consumer, while in genetic alterations deregulation puts the public at direct risk.
The bottom line here is.. plants depend not on the chemicals in the soil as much as they do the LIFE in the soil, the microscopic life that thrives in decaying organic material creating humus through compost. the chemicals sprayed on the plants and ground to yield short term cosmetic benefits, destroy the life in the soil itself. This in turn leaves the crops suffering from decreased fertility of soil. The modern response is to apply even more chemicals. this depletes the LIFE further, and a vicious cycle is created. This downward spiral continues until the soil is so dead that it can not grow anything worthwhile, at which point the ground is abandoned as food producing.
Isn't it amazing that "dead" unproductive fields are a problem after only a hundred years or so of agriculture, when the earth and nature has sustained itself for thousands of years without degrading? Doesn't that tell us that we are going down the wrong path? Do we really truly believe that we would have no food without the chemist inside Monsanto to keep the earth alive? sigh...
Here again we see the legacy we are leaving for our grandchildren. If each 10 years is marked by a need to spray higher and higher concentrations of chemicals to get plants to grow, where will our grandchildren be? Its obvious that this is the case because the ONLY genetic modifications to these crops is to make them more immune to Roundup.. the herbicide. Food plants being immune to this poison allows for spraying higher concentrations of the chemical than ever before. There you have the circle described above.
This move by the Obama administration is perhaps one of the worst moves he has made yet. It is one that has severe, lasting, irreversible implications for our grandchildren. For you and I, the consumer, this is not about money, convenience, "feeding the world" its about the ability of our grandchildren to grow food. Its more fundamental than health care, financial models, taxes, etc. This is food, one of the truly core things none of us can live without.
At Little Sprouts we are doing what we can to preserve the food that has kept us healthy for generations through heritage seed preservation. As the proliferation of genetically altered crops spreads, farms such as ours will be forced to move to more and more remote areas to prevent the spread of genetic alterations to our heritage plants.
Friday, February 4, 2011
An Example of the Evils of GMO
Just days after it became known that the government has accepted a policy of supporting genetically modified foods, and not informing the public through labeling, comes another news story that shows the direct effects of GMO crops. This story exemplifies the dangers ahead as the genetically engineered approach becomes the norm.
Monsanto Vs Australian Organic Farmer Steve Marsh
The bottom line here is that GMOs, unlike hybrid plants, can reproduce naturally. The genetic alterations freely spread to neighboring plants whether desired or not.
Why is this a problem? Well, just as in this news story, the spread of genetic alterations corrupts organic or natural plants. The organic farmer is no longer an organic farmer, because of actions of his neighbors under no control of his.
Then the company behind the genetic alteration throws their vast financial resources behind the non-organic, non-natural farmer to protect him and their future business from lawsuit. There is no way a single individual farmer can stand up to the legal resources of a multi billion dollar corporation like Monsanto.
Next the unthinkable happens. The organic farmer that was hurt by the spread genetic alterations to his land and crops, who is now suffering from significant loss of revenue as a direct result, is sued. Since genetic alteration are patentable, and sold under license, having the genetic alterations on his previously organic farm without a license is a violation of Monsanto's license and patent. So Monsanto can successfully sue the previously organic farmer. It has been done dozens of times successfully.
So, aside from the health problems associated with genetic alterations that we don't understand, and the subsequent use of heavier and heavier dangerous pesticides and herbicides killing the land even further, the other evil behind GMO is that they are viral. Just like the computer virus that would infect your computer, or the real virus that spread disease and death through a population, the genetic alterations spread freely through nature and with the help of legitimate court cases upholding sad but existing law, non-GMO natural plants are removed from the earth.
We remember the campaigns of the past to "save the whales", "save the trees", etc. A new banner call is forming to "save the seeds". This call is the closest to home, touching each and every one of us in one way or another. If you eat food, you have a stake in the protection of our food from corporate interests that would kill the earth itself to make a profit.
What can you do?
Will it work? Well, that remains to be seen. One thing is for sure.. if you do nothing, nothing will stand in the way of the damage.
Monsanto Vs Australian Organic Farmer Steve Marsh
Why is this a problem? Well, just as in this news story, the spread of genetic alterations corrupts organic or natural plants. The organic farmer is no longer an organic farmer, because of actions of his neighbors under no control of his.
Then the company behind the genetic alteration throws their vast financial resources behind the non-organic, non-natural farmer to protect him and their future business from lawsuit. There is no way a single individual farmer can stand up to the legal resources of a multi billion dollar corporation like Monsanto.
Next the unthinkable happens. The organic farmer that was hurt by the spread genetic alterations to his land and crops, who is now suffering from significant loss of revenue as a direct result, is sued. Since genetic alteration are patentable, and sold under license, having the genetic alterations on his previously organic farm without a license is a violation of Monsanto's license and patent. So Monsanto can successfully sue the previously organic farmer. It has been done dozens of times successfully.
So, aside from the health problems associated with genetic alterations that we don't understand, and the subsequent use of heavier and heavier dangerous pesticides and herbicides killing the land even further, the other evil behind GMO is that they are viral. Just like the computer virus that would infect your computer, or the real virus that spread disease and death through a population, the genetic alterations spread freely through nature and with the help of legitimate court cases upholding sad but existing law, non-GMO natural plants are removed from the earth.
We remember the campaigns of the past to "save the whales", "save the trees", etc. A new banner call is forming to "save the seeds". This call is the closest to home, touching each and every one of us in one way or another. If you eat food, you have a stake in the protection of our food from corporate interests that would kill the earth itself to make a profit.
What can you do?
- First learn. Learn all you can about what is going on behind the scenes.
- Second spread the word. Talk to people you know and meet. Tell them what you learned.
- Third find a local sustainable farm in your area and commit to supporting them by buying your family's food from them. Helping the local farmer that is "doing it right" empowers them to fight the fight.
- Fourth stay active politically when necessary. Watch for polls, petitions, and chances to let your congressmen know how you feel.
Will it work? Well, that remains to be seen. One thing is for sure.. if you do nothing, nothing will stand in the way of the damage.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
NEWSFLASH: Monsanto wins the Genetically Altered battle, You and I loose.
I just ran across this newsflash and wanted to share. It is very concerning, especially to farmers such as myself who are trying our best to protect the food suply and the ground used to produce it for the next generation. I have not personally doublechecked the validity of this article, but I do trust the source from which I discovered it, and unfortunately it is totally believable.
The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?
Whats the one paragraph summary of this? Well, it says that hte largest supporters of "organic foods" ... the people that gave us mainstream organics... have given up fighting agasint genetically altered foods being included into organic food. They have also given up in pushing for you and I to have a right to know when food contains genetically altered components. They have settled for being paid hush money to go away, stop fighting "progress" and accept hte inevitable. This means that in the near future genetically modified foods will be included into organic foods. Further in the future the presence of non genetically altered crops will disappear just as has almost happened in soybeans already. You and I will hav no option but to purchase and consume genetically alttered foods in the long run. Our children or grandchildren may never know what non genetically altered foods are.
Why does Monsanto want genetically altered food? Simply, more profit for them. Monsanto is altering our common food sources genetically so that the foundational foods inside can withstand Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. This allows factory operations to use roundup in increasing quantities without disturbing the plants becasue te plants are altered to be immune to the herbicide's effects. No testing, nor consideraton is given to the consequences for the soil, the bugs, or the consumers of the food of using more Roundup. Monsanto just wants to clear hte way legally to do the previously unthinkable, and not even have to inform the public.
Some people think organic modification is about "feeding the world", well it isnt. It is about more profits for hte companies like Monsanto producing chemicals and attempting to make hte world dependent on thier chemicals. These chemicals never existed until the last hundred years, and were never necessary. It ks the use of chemicals that makes hte use of chemicals necessary. We dont need chemicals to feed the world, in fact, the reliance on chemicals is what makes feeding hte world so difficult and so reliant on oil.
So once again.... profits takes precedence over common sense and morals. Those that defined organic food to most of america have given up so that a few can make more profit. The sad thing is.. we will not pay the price for this, our children and grandchildren will, and those that made the profit will be long gone.
If there ever was a time to find a local organic, humane, natural, heritage farm near you, today is the day. Find one, support them by buying their products, and stand by the ones tha produce food for you and yoru family. These folks (like us) are quickly becoming the last man standing in this battle to preserve foods and nature.
The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?
Whats the one paragraph summary of this? Well, it says that hte largest supporters of "organic foods" ... the people that gave us mainstream organics... have given up fighting agasint genetically altered foods being included into organic food. They have also given up in pushing for you and I to have a right to know when food contains genetically altered components. They have settled for being paid hush money to go away, stop fighting "progress" and accept hte inevitable. This means that in the near future genetically modified foods will be included into organic foods. Further in the future the presence of non genetically altered crops will disappear just as has almost happened in soybeans already. You and I will hav no option but to purchase and consume genetically alttered foods in the long run. Our children or grandchildren may never know what non genetically altered foods are.
Why does Monsanto want genetically altered food? Simply, more profit for them. Monsanto is altering our common food sources genetically so that the foundational foods inside can withstand Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. This allows factory operations to use roundup in increasing quantities without disturbing the plants becasue te plants are altered to be immune to the herbicide's effects. No testing, nor consideraton is given to the consequences for the soil, the bugs, or the consumers of the food of using more Roundup. Monsanto just wants to clear hte way legally to do the previously unthinkable, and not even have to inform the public.
Some people think organic modification is about "feeding the world", well it isnt. It is about more profits for hte companies like Monsanto producing chemicals and attempting to make hte world dependent on thier chemicals. These chemicals never existed until the last hundred years, and were never necessary. It ks the use of chemicals that makes hte use of chemicals necessary. We dont need chemicals to feed the world, in fact, the reliance on chemicals is what makes feeding hte world so difficult and so reliant on oil.
So once again.... profits takes precedence over common sense and morals. Those that defined organic food to most of america have given up so that a few can make more profit. The sad thing is.. we will not pay the price for this, our children and grandchildren will, and those that made the profit will be long gone.
If there ever was a time to find a local organic, humane, natural, heritage farm near you, today is the day. Find one, support them by buying their products, and stand by the ones tha produce food for you and yoru family. These folks (like us) are quickly becoming the last man standing in this battle to preserve foods and nature.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
USDA processing of meats vs local butchering?
There are two competing methods of delivering meats raised on a farm to the end consumers... through USDA processing, and through local butchering. Each method has pros and cons, and are fundamentally different in approach, while both bring the same end product to your table. We have struggled with the choice of which method we should use for our primary delivery method. Here I'd like to share our thinking between the two and our decision for now.
How each is done:
Local butchering involves 3 basic steps. The first step is done on farm, without the animal leaving where it lived. This involves kill and basic "cleaning" of the animal to remove uneatable portions. Then the full carcass is transported quickly to the local butchering facility. The second step is called "cut and wrap" where it is cut into usable pieces of meat, sausage, etc. Then for a third step some portions like ham or bacon are sent to a smokehouse to be cured and smoked. The facilities in the local butcher shop are inspected regularly by the USDA to ensure safe practices but there is not daily supervision.
USDA processing involves 2 steps only, or rather it combines a modified step 1 and step 2. The animals are loaded and transported live to the processing facility, often hours away from the farm. There they go through a more factory style kill process sometimes involving waiting for periods of time in a holding area. The second step of cut and wrap are similar except that the volumes are much larger so the process is less like an artisan and more like a factory. The last step of cure and smoke is the same, since most USDA facilities do not do their own curing. This entire process up to cure and smoke is supervised by a trained USDA government inspector on premises.
At face value, both methods are similar. Nevertheless, a few differences emerge with some thought.
1. Stress - It is a known fact that stress in the animal immediately before butchering causes changes in the final product. Read this link for a more indepth discussion of stress on meat quality. Considering the two methods, the farm kill and local butchering creates much less stress than USDA processing, because USDA requires that the animals arrive live at the facility. This involves one of hte most stressful events in a farm animals life - loading into an unfamiliar trailer, cramped compared to their wide open pasture lifestyle. They often can not see out of the trailer while transporting, which often takes hours. Imagine spending your life in a open green pasture where you are free to roam and explore with our family and friends, then one day are captured and led into a small trailer with several of your companions. Standing shoulder to shoulder for a few hours you are bounced around in a noisy windy trailer with no food, water, or bathroom facilities. When you arrive there are strangers there herding you into small pens with stranger who have undergone the same process. Now, does that sound stressful? In contrast, what happens in a farm kill is the animals are separated into a clean familiar pen, and when it's time they are "put down" quickly and humanely.
So you can see here that, aside from anything else, USDA processing by design requires stress to be introduced in the animals life, thereby lowering the quality of the meat according to Purdue University and every over study I have ever read.
This leaves 2 strikes against USDA processing in our opinion, #1 - it lowers meat quality due to stress and #2 - it is less humane.
2. Safety - One might at first glance think that USDA is safer because "the government inspector is there to ensure everything goes right". Before we jump to that conclusion, lets consider it closer. The oversight in a local butcher is you as the customer, and your friend the butcher. Who do you inherently trust more... your own instincts and the butcher who is now your friend and neighbor, or the government inspector who you have never met? Personally I lean on the side of trusting myself over a government employee.
Then we look at the process itself... USDA facilities are VERY expansive. Expensive facilities have to be justified through high profit, high volume business practices. High volume requires efficiencies such as in factories. The focus changes from quality to profit. High volume also introduces more product moving through, which in the case of biological systems brings more chance for infection. If any one animal carries with it bacteria , that bacteria can quickly spread to the others. Ever wonder why a meat based food recall involves thousands or million of pounds of meat? Simply because the more volume there is, the more end product is affected by problems. Contrast this to local butchering where volume is inherently lower, and therefore chance for contamination is also lower.
(rumor warning !) I have not verified this, but have been told that part of hte USDA process requires decontamination with various chemical at various steps along the processing cycle. If this is true, it leaves two doubts.. it would only be through the more frequent presence of pathogens that decontamination is necessary, and the chemicals used in decontamination are themselves suspect. (end of rumor warning)
A related point is that the very process of transporting and holding the animals in the conditions described above increases the chances for contamination. Simply put the more animals you place in a small space for periods of time, the more pathogens are generated and spread.
Don't get me wrong.. I am not saying that USDA facilities produce dangerous or bad product, I am only suggesting that by the numbers if something went wrong in a USDA facility it would affect hundreds of times more people than if something went wrong in a local butcher shop. I am also suggesting that the chance of contamination is higher in USDA facilities than local butcher shops. I am also suggesting that some people (myself included) give more trust to people I know and places I have seen than unknown government employees and facilities closed to visiting.
This leaves another strike against USDA processing - the safety factor.
3. locality (the green aspect) - Transporting and shipping takes time, money, and fuel. It is much "greener" to do everything locally than to be transporting and shipping outside the area. The cost of transporting the live animals must be included in the selling price. It is not practical to place USDA facilities closer to farms because the volume required to turn a profit in USDA facility requires a larger area of farms to service. Again, it's the model itself that is at fault. The bigger things get, the less it is like farming and the more it is like a factory.
So another strike against USDA for the Green factor and cost of transporting.
So WHY DO USDA processing? There is one really good reason. The law says that only USDA processed meats can be made available through retail sales of individual cuts. Local butchering only allows for selling of live animals, butchered as a separate process.
4. But, alas, there are pros and cons here too. In the grocery store is is the competition of labels and names. There is no person to explain the benefits of a certain choice. In the end, retail sales is all about "sales" not quality and production. In order to market a higher quality product effectively it takes money and advertising that a small farm usually can't provide. Down this road of thinking one must ask the question is it beneficial for the small farm to sell through retail establishments? This sales model lowers the income to the farm through wholesale vs retail sales, and it requires more advertising and brand building cash investment. This is not the model Little Sprouts wants to use -- so one more strike.
So what is the bottom line?
Little Sprouts have chosen to not use USDA processing for now. In the future we may choose to do some processing USDA to offer in alternative markets, but that is undecided. For now we will continue working on creative ways to offer only the highest quality of meats to the consumer, highest quality of life for our animals, and closest relationships with our end consumers.
A bottom line here is the value in a mission statement. USDA processing goes against the principles in our mission as a farm, so being true to ourselves, we will avoid it as the primary business model. What is a mission, if it is too easily violated? Something in business must be constant, even in farming, and we believe that we must either abide by our mission statement, or change it. For now, it stands :)
How each is done:
Local butchering involves 3 basic steps. The first step is done on farm, without the animal leaving where it lived. This involves kill and basic "cleaning" of the animal to remove uneatable portions. Then the full carcass is transported quickly to the local butchering facility. The second step is called "cut and wrap" where it is cut into usable pieces of meat, sausage, etc. Then for a third step some portions like ham or bacon are sent to a smokehouse to be cured and smoked. The facilities in the local butcher shop are inspected regularly by the USDA to ensure safe practices but there is not daily supervision.
USDA processing involves 2 steps only, or rather it combines a modified step 1 and step 2. The animals are loaded and transported live to the processing facility, often hours away from the farm. There they go through a more factory style kill process sometimes involving waiting for periods of time in a holding area. The second step of cut and wrap are similar except that the volumes are much larger so the process is less like an artisan and more like a factory. The last step of cure and smoke is the same, since most USDA facilities do not do their own curing. This entire process up to cure and smoke is supervised by a trained USDA government inspector on premises.
At face value, both methods are similar. Nevertheless, a few differences emerge with some thought.
1. Stress - It is a known fact that stress in the animal immediately before butchering causes changes in the final product. Read this link for a more indepth discussion of stress on meat quality. Considering the two methods, the farm kill and local butchering creates much less stress than USDA processing, because USDA requires that the animals arrive live at the facility. This involves one of hte most stressful events in a farm animals life - loading into an unfamiliar trailer, cramped compared to their wide open pasture lifestyle. They often can not see out of the trailer while transporting, which often takes hours. Imagine spending your life in a open green pasture where you are free to roam and explore with our family and friends, then one day are captured and led into a small trailer with several of your companions. Standing shoulder to shoulder for a few hours you are bounced around in a noisy windy trailer with no food, water, or bathroom facilities. When you arrive there are strangers there herding you into small pens with stranger who have undergone the same process. Now, does that sound stressful? In contrast, what happens in a farm kill is the animals are separated into a clean familiar pen, and when it's time they are "put down" quickly and humanely.
So you can see here that, aside from anything else, USDA processing by design requires stress to be introduced in the animals life, thereby lowering the quality of the meat according to Purdue University and every over study I have ever read.
This leaves 2 strikes against USDA processing in our opinion, #1 - it lowers meat quality due to stress and #2 - it is less humane.
2. Safety - One might at first glance think that USDA is safer because "the government inspector is there to ensure everything goes right". Before we jump to that conclusion, lets consider it closer. The oversight in a local butcher is you as the customer, and your friend the butcher. Who do you inherently trust more... your own instincts and the butcher who is now your friend and neighbor, or the government inspector who you have never met? Personally I lean on the side of trusting myself over a government employee.
Then we look at the process itself... USDA facilities are VERY expansive. Expensive facilities have to be justified through high profit, high volume business practices. High volume requires efficiencies such as in factories. The focus changes from quality to profit. High volume also introduces more product moving through, which in the case of biological systems brings more chance for infection. If any one animal carries with it bacteria , that bacteria can quickly spread to the others. Ever wonder why a meat based food recall involves thousands or million of pounds of meat? Simply because the more volume there is, the more end product is affected by problems. Contrast this to local butchering where volume is inherently lower, and therefore chance for contamination is also lower.
(rumor warning !) I have not verified this, but have been told that part of hte USDA process requires decontamination with various chemical at various steps along the processing cycle. If this is true, it leaves two doubts.. it would only be through the more frequent presence of pathogens that decontamination is necessary, and the chemicals used in decontamination are themselves suspect. (end of rumor warning)
A related point is that the very process of transporting and holding the animals in the conditions described above increases the chances for contamination. Simply put the more animals you place in a small space for periods of time, the more pathogens are generated and spread.
Don't get me wrong.. I am not saying that USDA facilities produce dangerous or bad product, I am only suggesting that by the numbers if something went wrong in a USDA facility it would affect hundreds of times more people than if something went wrong in a local butcher shop. I am also suggesting that the chance of contamination is higher in USDA facilities than local butcher shops. I am also suggesting that some people (myself included) give more trust to people I know and places I have seen than unknown government employees and facilities closed to visiting.
This leaves another strike against USDA processing - the safety factor.
3. locality (the green aspect) - Transporting and shipping takes time, money, and fuel. It is much "greener" to do everything locally than to be transporting and shipping outside the area. The cost of transporting the live animals must be included in the selling price. It is not practical to place USDA facilities closer to farms because the volume required to turn a profit in USDA facility requires a larger area of farms to service. Again, it's the model itself that is at fault. The bigger things get, the less it is like farming and the more it is like a factory.
So another strike against USDA for the Green factor and cost of transporting.
So WHY DO USDA processing? There is one really good reason. The law says that only USDA processed meats can be made available through retail sales of individual cuts. Local butchering only allows for selling of live animals, butchered as a separate process.
4. But, alas, there are pros and cons here too. In the grocery store is is the competition of labels and names. There is no person to explain the benefits of a certain choice. In the end, retail sales is all about "sales" not quality and production. In order to market a higher quality product effectively it takes money and advertising that a small farm usually can't provide. Down this road of thinking one must ask the question is it beneficial for the small farm to sell through retail establishments? This sales model lowers the income to the farm through wholesale vs retail sales, and it requires more advertising and brand building cash investment. This is not the model Little Sprouts wants to use -- so one more strike.
So what is the bottom line?
Little Sprouts have chosen to not use USDA processing for now. In the future we may choose to do some processing USDA to offer in alternative markets, but that is undecided. For now we will continue working on creative ways to offer only the highest quality of meats to the consumer, highest quality of life for our animals, and closest relationships with our end consumers.
A bottom line here is the value in a mission statement. USDA processing goes against the principles in our mission as a farm, so being true to ourselves, we will avoid it as the primary business model. What is a mission, if it is too easily violated? Something in business must be constant, even in farming, and we believe that we must either abide by our mission statement, or change it. For now, it stands :)
Friday, December 31, 2010
Ending 2010 with another week of continual food recalls
Sadly, on the last day of 2010, yet another reminder why our food system has failed us pops into the news. In fact, the last week of the year 2010 is filled with almost daily food recalls.
First it was cilantro and parsley.
Then it included alfalfa sprouts.
Then the list expanded to 18 other vegetables capable of making you sick.
And today it's ground beef again.
And yes, sadly, that is just for this week, and yes it is pretty normal. America has achieved almost a food recall per day, usually each originating with a set of individuals made sick or killed by one bacteria or another in the clean, packaged, healthy looking food. Most often these individuals are our children and our grandparents.
Even more amazing to me is the response we get when mentioning this to people. In general the view of most Americans we talk to is "wow, isn't it great we are now catching so many of these occurrences and doing recalls." That type of response shows me one thing... we have fallen so far in this country that we as a society have accepted that we cannot raise healthy safe food and must rely on catching the necessary bad food before too many people suffer. This is an assumption either that we have given up on food production, or that we don't even know food can be safe. This argument is much like saying our "nation is more moral because the prisons are full." It does not address the cause of the problem nor recognize that it is getting progressively worse, instead it praises the ability to catch the growing number of failures of the system.
This isn't a debate about the health content of food, whether organic is better for us than chemical... no... this is a debate whether food is poisonous or not. How far has our country fallen when the topic leaves "which approach makes people healthier" and becomes "how many people can we prevent from dieing this week".
sigh
Why is it so bad? Virtually all food production experts agree its simple.
What the point of all this? This is not a pointless ranting about the evils of society. Instead I present to you a call to action. The problem is actually amazingly easy to implement. To fix the system all we must do is, one at a time, change our buying habits. That's it. I propose that if you, as a reader of this blog, commit today to make 2011 the year you become part of the solution instead of part of the problem, the tide will change within 1 generation. How can I be so sure?
Remember the 70's and 80-"s? How many organic options did you see in the supermarket? I recall my own Dad as one of the only organic gardeners around. I recall people laughing at his attempts to use manure, compost, natural pest control, etc instead of chemical poisons and fertilizers. Organic in those days was the buzzword for crackpot, extremist, backwards, uneducated. Today walk the isles in the grocery store. The word "organic" appears everywhere. Why? because people started buying it.
What you buy today determines what you can buy tomorrow.
It is that simple. If you commit for 2011 to visit farmers markets for produce, buy meat from a local farmer processed in the local butcher shop, and buy only organically produced canned foods, the system will change for your children. It has to start with you, not your neighbor, not the government, just you. How much easier can it be?
2011 is just around the corner... Will you be part of the problem, or part of the solution? Today is the day to choose.
First it was cilantro and parsley.
Then it included alfalfa sprouts.
Then the list expanded to 18 other vegetables capable of making you sick.
And today it's ground beef again.
And yes, sadly, that is just for this week, and yes it is pretty normal. America has achieved almost a food recall per day, usually each originating with a set of individuals made sick or killed by one bacteria or another in the clean, packaged, healthy looking food. Most often these individuals are our children and our grandparents.
Even more amazing to me is the response we get when mentioning this to people. In general the view of most Americans we talk to is "wow, isn't it great we are now catching so many of these occurrences and doing recalls." That type of response shows me one thing... we have fallen so far in this country that we as a society have accepted that we cannot raise healthy safe food and must rely on catching the necessary bad food before too many people suffer. This is an assumption either that we have given up on food production, or that we don't even know food can be safe. This argument is much like saying our "nation is more moral because the prisons are full." It does not address the cause of the problem nor recognize that it is getting progressively worse, instead it praises the ability to catch the growing number of failures of the system.
This isn't a debate about the health content of food, whether organic is better for us than chemical... no... this is a debate whether food is poisonous or not. How far has our country fallen when the topic leaves "which approach makes people healthier" and becomes "how many people can we prevent from dieing this week".
sigh
Why is it so bad? Virtually all food production experts agree its simple.
- We as a nation value convenience over health
- We as a nation value profit over health
- We as a nation strive to save a dollar on our food so we can spend it on pleasure
- In order to achieve 1 - 3, we have applied industrialization factory based consolidation to food production.
What the point of all this? This is not a pointless ranting about the evils of society. Instead I present to you a call to action. The problem is actually amazingly easy to implement. To fix the system all we must do is, one at a time, change our buying habits. That's it. I propose that if you, as a reader of this blog, commit today to make 2011 the year you become part of the solution instead of part of the problem, the tide will change within 1 generation. How can I be so sure?
Remember the 70's and 80-"s? How many organic options did you see in the supermarket? I recall my own Dad as one of the only organic gardeners around. I recall people laughing at his attempts to use manure, compost, natural pest control, etc instead of chemical poisons and fertilizers. Organic in those days was the buzzword for crackpot, extremist, backwards, uneducated. Today walk the isles in the grocery store. The word "organic" appears everywhere. Why? because people started buying it.
What you buy today determines what you can buy tomorrow.
It is that simple. If you commit for 2011 to visit farmers markets for produce, buy meat from a local farmer processed in the local butcher shop, and buy only organically produced canned foods, the system will change for your children. It has to start with you, not your neighbor, not the government, just you. How much easier can it be?
2011 is just around the corner... Will you be part of the problem, or part of the solution? Today is the day to choose.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Update: Farm Animals Get 80 Percent of Antibiotics Sold in U.S.
Those of us who have been parents for a while have witnessed the shift away from using antibiotics until absolutely necessary. In days gone by, antibiotics would be prescribed for virtually any illness or pain. Even if the source of the problem could not be helped by antibiotics (such as a virus infection) doctors would often prescribe antibiotics to prevent "a secondary infection". Today, antibiotics are reserved for use only in cases where it has been proven to help. Even childhood earaches do not get antibiotics routinely as they once did. Why this severe shift in policy? Because of resistance.
We now know that frequent use of antibiotics for decades has and is creating resistant strains of the bacteria that are immune to antibiotics. Simply put, expose bacteria to antibiotics and a few isolated bacteria have the capacity to survive. If you do this frequently enough, the effect is that of "killing off the weak but leaving the strongest". over time those strongest multiply and cause the same disease, but can not be stopped by antibiotics. I suspect we have all heard this warning in the doctor's office lately, as the explanation of why they hesitate to use antibiotics unless they know it is required and helpful.
But wait. The first thing that bothered me about this explanation is... if before the antibiotics were prescribed in a large enough does to kill off the bad bugs, resistance is highly unlikely. Only smaller doses would allow the strongest bugs to live and multiply while killing of the weak ones. Now sure, this could be caused by people not taking all of the pills in a full week dose, allowing the stronger bugs that can live through a few days to make return once the pills are stopped early, BUT this doesn't seem a likely source of resistance. Even in this case, the bugs are killed off by the persons immune system, or the person would have a relapse. I suspect not many people have suffered from a continual infection for weeks or months while breeding these little bugs for resistance. Perhaps it does happen, but it doesn't seem likely.
So lets explore the question...How would one purposefully create a resistant strain of bacteria easily if one wanted to? Here is one scenario :
The shocking and sobering news here is that... we in America do this every day and have been doing this for decades. The model described above is EXACTLY what happens in factory farms day in and day out. AND it happens on such a scale that the activities of the doctors in human health really seem ridiculous as an effort to stop the trend of resistance. This article clearly show why this is the case :
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/news-update-farm-animals-get-80-of-antibiotics-sold-in-us/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29
You see in this article that the use of antibiotics in humans is only 20% of the total. Therefore, if we cut antibiotics use in humans through the policy change of doctors by 10%, that only affects overall antibiotics usage by 10% of 20% which of course is 2% of the total. Not enough to make a difference in the actual problem. If in fact 80% of the antibiotics use in America goes to factory farm animals in the model described above, the problem can not be relieved through any policy use of doctors. Even if humans quit using antibiotics completely, if the government banned their use in humans entirely, 80% of the problem still exists and is therefore unaffected.
Perhaps you wonder.. but these are animals, we are talking about resistance in humans. The truth is the bacteria that frequent feedlots and factory farms are also the ones that are becoming most resistant in humans. A Small amount of research will show this fact.There is a direct connection between resistance within feedlots and humans, in fact, those that work in factory farms are at highest risk for antibiotic resistant infections. Ever see the protective clothing required when entering a factory farm today? These places have become virtual bacteria factories and hazardous waste factories, unfit for human presence without careful procedures and protective clothing.
So now we might ask, WHY would owners of factory farms and feedlots do this to America, to us?
We were often told when entering the farm occupation that "antibiotics increase health and weight gain". That is given as the primary reason to encourage farmers to spend money on antibiotics. "BUT WAIT" a small voice in side me says... "WHY is that?". Why would antibiotics encourage weight gain and improve health in animals when that does NOT happen in humans? The answer lies in how you look at it.
IF you take animals and place them in single species overcrowded facilities
AND IF you neglect to keep those facilities clean and sterile through nature's methods
AND IF you feed them artificial food built for growth, not health
AND IF you breed them for growth genetics instead of health genetics
AND IF you ignore all the warning signs of nature
THEN animals loose weight, get sick, and often die
SO IN THAT CASE antibiotics encourage weight gain and health.
You see, antibiotics allow factory farms to use inhumane, unhealthy, and appalling approaching to animal treatment without as much death and disease. Antibiotics allow for factory farms and feedlots to exists, because without antibiotics it would be hopeless to raise animals in this manner. Nature itself fights against what we are doing in our food supply and antibiotics allow us to break the rules anyway... for a while...
Even in factory farms it is becoming evident that the whole approach used is not working. It is not sustainable. Disease is rampant, genetics are deteriorating, people, especially children, are dieing as a result.
So, I propose three fixes to antibiotic resistance:
So, I plead with you, starting today, do what you can. Refuse to buy anything produced with antibiotics. Just say no and choose an alternative. Your body, your children, and your grandchildren will thank you for being part of the solution instead of part of the problem. The sad truth is, when you buy meat that is raised with antibiotics, YOU become part of the reason that our grandchildren will suffer. It is a very easy fix to start the new trend.
Find a preferably local family farm that does not use chemicals, does not follow factory farming methods, and buy meat from them and only them. If you eat out, reject fast food and always ask of the source of the meat in restaurants. It may cost a few pennies more today, but save much more money and even save lives of your offspring. Don't wait for the government to do something, make the choice to be the solution today yourself. Where we spend our money every day has more affect on the future than any government policy or law. In fact, the government will NOT address this problem until enough people are already refusing to pay for factory meats.
Which side will you be on today?
We now know that frequent use of antibiotics for decades has and is creating resistant strains of the bacteria that are immune to antibiotics. Simply put, expose bacteria to antibiotics and a few isolated bacteria have the capacity to survive. If you do this frequently enough, the effect is that of "killing off the weak but leaving the strongest". over time those strongest multiply and cause the same disease, but can not be stopped by antibiotics. I suspect we have all heard this warning in the doctor's office lately, as the explanation of why they hesitate to use antibiotics unless they know it is required and helpful.
But wait. The first thing that bothered me about this explanation is... if before the antibiotics were prescribed in a large enough does to kill off the bad bugs, resistance is highly unlikely. Only smaller doses would allow the strongest bugs to live and multiply while killing of the weak ones. Now sure, this could be caused by people not taking all of the pills in a full week dose, allowing the stronger bugs that can live through a few days to make return once the pills are stopped early, BUT this doesn't seem a likely source of resistance. Even in this case, the bugs are killed off by the persons immune system, or the person would have a relapse. I suspect not many people have suffered from a continual infection for weeks or months while breeding these little bugs for resistance. Perhaps it does happen, but it doesn't seem likely.
So lets explore the question...How would one purposefully create a resistant strain of bacteria easily if one wanted to? Here is one scenario :
- Choose a single species or breed of host
- Place high concentrations of this host in very close living conditions
- Allow the living condition to be conducive to bacterial proliferation through unsanitary practices
- Control the nutrition of the host in such a way that lowers the natural immune system
- Expose the host to a constant life long dose of antibiotics at a low enough level to not kill bacteria but only inhibit them
- Follow this model for several generations of host in the exact same physical area to allow bacteria to grow in the environment as well as the host, passing the increasing resistance from generation to generation
The shocking and sobering news here is that... we in America do this every day and have been doing this for decades. The model described above is EXACTLY what happens in factory farms day in and day out. AND it happens on such a scale that the activities of the doctors in human health really seem ridiculous as an effort to stop the trend of resistance. This article clearly show why this is the case :
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/news-update-farm-animals-get-80-of-antibiotics-sold-in-us/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29
You see in this article that the use of antibiotics in humans is only 20% of the total. Therefore, if we cut antibiotics use in humans through the policy change of doctors by 10%, that only affects overall antibiotics usage by 10% of 20% which of course is 2% of the total. Not enough to make a difference in the actual problem. If in fact 80% of the antibiotics use in America goes to factory farm animals in the model described above, the problem can not be relieved through any policy use of doctors. Even if humans quit using antibiotics completely, if the government banned their use in humans entirely, 80% of the problem still exists and is therefore unaffected.
Perhaps you wonder.. but these are animals, we are talking about resistance in humans. The truth is the bacteria that frequent feedlots and factory farms are also the ones that are becoming most resistant in humans. A Small amount of research will show this fact.There is a direct connection between resistance within feedlots and humans, in fact, those that work in factory farms are at highest risk for antibiotic resistant infections. Ever see the protective clothing required when entering a factory farm today? These places have become virtual bacteria factories and hazardous waste factories, unfit for human presence without careful procedures and protective clothing.
So now we might ask, WHY would owners of factory farms and feedlots do this to America, to us?
We were often told when entering the farm occupation that "antibiotics increase health and weight gain". That is given as the primary reason to encourage farmers to spend money on antibiotics. "BUT WAIT" a small voice in side me says... "WHY is that?". Why would antibiotics encourage weight gain and improve health in animals when that does NOT happen in humans? The answer lies in how you look at it.
IF you take animals and place them in single species overcrowded facilities
AND IF you neglect to keep those facilities clean and sterile through nature's methods
AND IF you feed them artificial food built for growth, not health
AND IF you breed them for growth genetics instead of health genetics
AND IF you ignore all the warning signs of nature
THEN animals loose weight, get sick, and often die
SO IN THAT CASE antibiotics encourage weight gain and health.
You see, antibiotics allow factory farms to use inhumane, unhealthy, and appalling approaching to animal treatment without as much death and disease. Antibiotics allow for factory farms and feedlots to exists, because without antibiotics it would be hopeless to raise animals in this manner. Nature itself fights against what we are doing in our food supply and antibiotics allow us to break the rules anyway... for a while...
Even in factory farms it is becoming evident that the whole approach used is not working. It is not sustainable. Disease is rampant, genetics are deteriorating, people, especially children, are dieing as a result.
So, I propose three fixes to antibiotic resistance:
- The government outlaws factory farming
- The public refuses to buy food produced in factory farms
- The owners and workers on factory farms go on strike and refuse to continue killing Americans
So, I plead with you, starting today, do what you can. Refuse to buy anything produced with antibiotics. Just say no and choose an alternative. Your body, your children, and your grandchildren will thank you for being part of the solution instead of part of the problem. The sad truth is, when you buy meat that is raised with antibiotics, YOU become part of the reason that our grandchildren will suffer. It is a very easy fix to start the new trend.
Find a preferably local family farm that does not use chemicals, does not follow factory farming methods, and buy meat from them and only them. If you eat out, reject fast food and always ask of the source of the meat in restaurants. It may cost a few pennies more today, but save much more money and even save lives of your offspring. Don't wait for the government to do something, make the choice to be the solution today yourself. Where we spend our money every day has more affect on the future than any government policy or law. In fact, the government will NOT address this problem until enough people are already refusing to pay for factory meats.
Which side will you be on today?
Sunday, December 12, 2010
What exactly is "Antibiotic Free" meat?
Browsing through the isles of any supermarket that sells other than the standard factory produced food products, you will see a variety of labels and terms. There is organic, free range, grass fed, vegetarian fed, antibiotic free, hormone free, etc. The list goes on and on. What do all these labels mean? We want to start taking a look at each of these and give a little background into what you are buying and feeding your family.
Today, lets explore the label "antibiotic free". It can be worded a number of ways, but all have a similar meaning. To have this label, the meat inside the package can not have been fed any antibiotics while the animal was alive. That sounds good, right? but wait.. lets ask a simple question... why would you need to put that on a label? everyone today knows that you don't take antibiotics unless absolutely necessary, and only take them under a doctor's supervision, right?
Not so in factory farms. That tidbit of basic understanding is completely ignored within the confines of factory food production. It is in fact necessary to feed the factory food animals a constant diet of low dose antibiotics their entire lives. The politically correct reason for this is "to keep them from getting sick". But wait.... lets ask another simple question... why would they get sick? Didn't these same animals exist for thousands of years before man invented antibiotics a few decades ago? How is it possible that animals today cant live without constant antibiotics yet the same animals did fine for all of recorded history?
There are two answers to that. First, these are not always the same animals. The factory farms use machines to do much of the meat processing, so it is to their advantage to ensure that all the animals have identical growth rates and body shape. The natural variety that occurs within genetics is unacceptable to a corporation wanting to produce meat on an assembly line. So, these animals have been altered... carefully bred to produce carbon copies of themselves only. They have also been bred to cause faster growth on less feed, to increase the profits of the corporations. Unfortunately these genetic alterations do not come without a price. The animals become genetically more fragile and disease prone. The breeding has become so advanced today, that the problem is magnified. It is somewhat true that the animals used for food in America can not always exist without antibiotics any longer. Genetically speaking, the animals we eat are "freaks of nature" that could not exist in the wild, because nature itself removes such genetically inferior animals to protect the species. That in itself should make us all take pause... we are genetically altering the animals so that they can no longer exist in the real world.
The second answer is even worse. The reality of confinement based factory food plants is that the animals are in such deplorable unsanitary conditions that bacteria is rampant, and even good healthy genetically superior animals would become ill in those conditions. Oddly, in many situation, the government recognizes that the conditions in which the animals live are hazardous to the point that humans are not allowed to enter the facility without protective clothing to protect themselves, not the animals. It would be "illegal" to place a unprotected person in the environment that these animals live in day to day. That, my friends, is the main reason animals in factory food production need antibiotics, to fight off the daily onslaught of bacteria they live in.
There is a third answer in some species is in the unnatural food fed to the animals. In order to increase profits in one way or another, food is provided to the animals that nature never intended for them to eat. A prime example of this is feeding grain diets to cows. When this is done, the only way to keep the cows alive seems to be antibiotics. The cows themselves do not have the ability to fight off the effects of this unnatural food in the quantities provided.
Here is an interesting quote from Stanford University on the effects of antibiotics use in factory food production:
Shopping for meat and dairy products that contain no antibiotics or growth hormones is a winner for your health and the environment. Because of crowding, stress-inducing conditions, and unnatural diets that often occur in the conventional meat and dairy industries, antibiotics are needed to fend off disease. In addition to antibiotics, animals are also given growth hormones— to stimulate year-round high production of milk, for instance. It is estimated that as much as 80-90% of all antibiotics given to humans and animals are not fully digested or broken down and eventually pass through the body and enter the environment intact through wastewater and runoff. When bacteria in the environment interact with these antibiotics, they may transform into more resistant strains that pose a greater risk to both animals and humans. By choosing hormone-free and antibiotic-free meat and dairy products, you can help keep the environment clean and healthy.
source: http://sustainablechoices.stanford.edu/actions/at_the_store/antibiotichormonefree.html
So... an interesting thing happens... when the farm is producing "antibiotic free" meat, suddenly everything changes. The animals pens actually have to be cleaned. The food has to be right for the animal. The animals have to be provided healthy living conditions to eliminate a bacteria laden environment. The breeds have to be capable of having their own immune system. So, in essence, "antibiotic free" means that a fairly decent life was provided to the animal. Antibiotic fed meat (anything without that label) virtually guarantees a life for the animal that is sad, unhealthy, and against the laws of nature.
For the record, the animals at Little Sprouts Farm are never fed routine chemicals or antibiotics. We even discourage use of medicines for illness unless all natural methods have failed. We use nature, instead of fighting her. The irony here is that ultimately, profitability increases when this is done, over the long run. This is one of the proofs Little Sprouts is trying to show. Most farmers that have converted from the accepted knowledge of chemically sustained poor quality of life to natural healthy environments have lowered labor costs, increased product quality, and increased profits.
So, when your shopping labels and you see "antibiotic free", you know what the history of that is. When you don't see that.. you also know the history. The choice... is in your hands alone.
Today, lets explore the label "antibiotic free". It can be worded a number of ways, but all have a similar meaning. To have this label, the meat inside the package can not have been fed any antibiotics while the animal was alive. That sounds good, right? but wait.. lets ask a simple question... why would you need to put that on a label? everyone today knows that you don't take antibiotics unless absolutely necessary, and only take them under a doctor's supervision, right?
Not so in factory farms. That tidbit of basic understanding is completely ignored within the confines of factory food production. It is in fact necessary to feed the factory food animals a constant diet of low dose antibiotics their entire lives. The politically correct reason for this is "to keep them from getting sick". But wait.... lets ask another simple question... why would they get sick? Didn't these same animals exist for thousands of years before man invented antibiotics a few decades ago? How is it possible that animals today cant live without constant antibiotics yet the same animals did fine for all of recorded history?
There are two answers to that. First, these are not always the same animals. The factory farms use machines to do much of the meat processing, so it is to their advantage to ensure that all the animals have identical growth rates and body shape. The natural variety that occurs within genetics is unacceptable to a corporation wanting to produce meat on an assembly line. So, these animals have been altered... carefully bred to produce carbon copies of themselves only. They have also been bred to cause faster growth on less feed, to increase the profits of the corporations. Unfortunately these genetic alterations do not come without a price. The animals become genetically more fragile and disease prone. The breeding has become so advanced today, that the problem is magnified. It is somewhat true that the animals used for food in America can not always exist without antibiotics any longer. Genetically speaking, the animals we eat are "freaks of nature" that could not exist in the wild, because nature itself removes such genetically inferior animals to protect the species. That in itself should make us all take pause... we are genetically altering the animals so that they can no longer exist in the real world.
The second answer is even worse. The reality of confinement based factory food plants is that the animals are in such deplorable unsanitary conditions that bacteria is rampant, and even good healthy genetically superior animals would become ill in those conditions. Oddly, in many situation, the government recognizes that the conditions in which the animals live are hazardous to the point that humans are not allowed to enter the facility without protective clothing to protect themselves, not the animals. It would be "illegal" to place a unprotected person in the environment that these animals live in day to day. That, my friends, is the main reason animals in factory food production need antibiotics, to fight off the daily onslaught of bacteria they live in.
There is a third answer in some species is in the unnatural food fed to the animals. In order to increase profits in one way or another, food is provided to the animals that nature never intended for them to eat. A prime example of this is feeding grain diets to cows. When this is done, the only way to keep the cows alive seems to be antibiotics. The cows themselves do not have the ability to fight off the effects of this unnatural food in the quantities provided.
Here is an interesting quote from Stanford University on the effects of antibiotics use in factory food production:
Shopping for meat and dairy products that contain no antibiotics or growth hormones is a winner for your health and the environment. Because of crowding, stress-inducing conditions, and unnatural diets that often occur in the conventional meat and dairy industries, antibiotics are needed to fend off disease. In addition to antibiotics, animals are also given growth hormones— to stimulate year-round high production of milk, for instance. It is estimated that as much as 80-90% of all antibiotics given to humans and animals are not fully digested or broken down and eventually pass through the body and enter the environment intact through wastewater and runoff. When bacteria in the environment interact with these antibiotics, they may transform into more resistant strains that pose a greater risk to both animals and humans. By choosing hormone-free and antibiotic-free meat and dairy products, you can help keep the environment clean and healthy.
source: http://sustainablechoices.stanford.edu/actions/at_the_store/antibiotichormonefree.html
So... an interesting thing happens... when the farm is producing "antibiotic free" meat, suddenly everything changes. The animals pens actually have to be cleaned. The food has to be right for the animal. The animals have to be provided healthy living conditions to eliminate a bacteria laden environment. The breeds have to be capable of having their own immune system. So, in essence, "antibiotic free" means that a fairly decent life was provided to the animal. Antibiotic fed meat (anything without that label) virtually guarantees a life for the animal that is sad, unhealthy, and against the laws of nature.
For the record, the animals at Little Sprouts Farm are never fed routine chemicals or antibiotics. We even discourage use of medicines for illness unless all natural methods have failed. We use nature, instead of fighting her. The irony here is that ultimately, profitability increases when this is done, over the long run. This is one of the proofs Little Sprouts is trying to show. Most farmers that have converted from the accepted knowledge of chemically sustained poor quality of life to natural healthy environments have lowered labor costs, increased product quality, and increased profits.
So, when your shopping labels and you see "antibiotic free", you know what the history of that is. When you don't see that.. you also know the history. The choice... is in your hands alone.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Iowa State chooses cash over truth?
One of the realities within the sustainable agriculture movement is that higher education has turned against truth in favor of profit. I know that sounds harsh and extremist, but before you disregard this as "extreme radicalism" take a few moments to consider the arguments. the story below is a good example of a case where, from all appearances, the obvious conclusion is that Iowa state prefers to say what supports big money in big agriculture even when it conflicts with the truth.
I'll leave the details of the story to your reading of the original article, but here are a few interesting clips;
When the dean of the agriculture school in Iowa State was asked "have cows evolved to eat grass?" her answer was a very politically correct "I don't have an opinion on that statement". So apparently a basic understanding of agriculture is not required to be dean of agriculture? Or is that she does not wish to loose her job over speaking the truth. Oddly enough, all of the images about agriculture in Iowa State that the public sees show cows eating grass, although virtually every cow within the state of Iowa actually is fed Grain, and then antibiotics to keep it from getting ill from the grain. (yes, that is the way it is done, grain followed by necessary antibiotics, because without antibiotics, the grain could kill the cows from disease).
The story speaks for itself, and you must draw your own conclusion, but I am firmly on the side of concluding that Iowa State is choosing to ignore truth, teach a lie, and keep receiving money from the big business that need the lie to be accepted to succeed. and yea, that is harsh, but can you honestly say its not true?
Sadly, this is NOT unique to Iowa State. check with the agriculture departments in your state universities, colleges, and even high schools. You will see that the vast majority of them teach that is it necessary to continue doing what big business is doing, involving heavy use of deadly chemicals at all stages of food production, artificial fertilizers to keep things growing on dead ground, and antibiotics fed to animals to allow for feeding of wrong or inferior food and unsanitary living conditions. In a nutshell, that is what our children are being taught about agriculture. Oh, you will probably also run into ... you must use lots and lots of petroleum to create food and in the process you wont make any money.
I am sad that so many people in authority have chosen to follow the path of "repeating what they heard" without thinking for themselves. How hard is it, truly, to admit that cows eat grass? How hard is it to see that the images required to sell meat show completely opposite scenes than those uses to produce it? Apparently today, in higher education, that type of truth is very hard.. that type of truth gets you thrown out.
Here's the original article, what do you think?:
http://chronicle.com/article/At-Public-Colleges/66044
I'll leave the details of the story to your reading of the original article, but here are a few interesting clips;
When the dean of the agriculture school in Iowa State was asked "have cows evolved to eat grass?" her answer was a very politically correct "I don't have an opinion on that statement". So apparently a basic understanding of agriculture is not required to be dean of agriculture? Or is that she does not wish to loose her job over speaking the truth. Oddly enough, all of the images about agriculture in Iowa State that the public sees show cows eating grass, although virtually every cow within the state of Iowa actually is fed Grain, and then antibiotics to keep it from getting ill from the grain. (yes, that is the way it is done, grain followed by necessary antibiotics, because without antibiotics, the grain could kill the cows from disease).
The story speaks for itself, and you must draw your own conclusion, but I am firmly on the side of concluding that Iowa State is choosing to ignore truth, teach a lie, and keep receiving money from the big business that need the lie to be accepted to succeed. and yea, that is harsh, but can you honestly say its not true?
Sadly, this is NOT unique to Iowa State. check with the agriculture departments in your state universities, colleges, and even high schools. You will see that the vast majority of them teach that is it necessary to continue doing what big business is doing, involving heavy use of deadly chemicals at all stages of food production, artificial fertilizers to keep things growing on dead ground, and antibiotics fed to animals to allow for feeding of wrong or inferior food and unsanitary living conditions. In a nutshell, that is what our children are being taught about agriculture. Oh, you will probably also run into ... you must use lots and lots of petroleum to create food and in the process you wont make any money.
I am sad that so many people in authority have chosen to follow the path of "repeating what they heard" without thinking for themselves. How hard is it, truly, to admit that cows eat grass? How hard is it to see that the images required to sell meat show completely opposite scenes than those uses to produce it? Apparently today, in higher education, that type of truth is very hard.. that type of truth gets you thrown out.
Here's the original article, what do you think?:
http://chronicle.com/article/At-Public-Colleges/66044
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)