Food Dialogues
Comment on Question
-
I notice many of the farmers and ranchers saying that they care as much about their animals and crops as do consumers. While this may be true on a family farm, it is demonstrably untrue for large factory farms and the manufacturers of chemical fertilizers and GMO seeds, as has been brought home by numerous studies showing how these substances are not only harming our natural environment, but the health and well being of people all over the world. Why, if this organization says it wants to be a part of the solution, are there NO organizations devoted to growing organically or cleaning up toxins in our environment?
Author: Keyspoet
:
Topic: Food Safety
:
81
Vote
So, what is a family farm? Is it a farm that has been in the same family more than 100 years? Is it a farm where a father and son perform every operation themselves and the only hired labor is a retired school teacher during harvest? What is a factory farm? Is it a corporation? Are its sales, or number of acres farmed in the top 10% of all U.S. farms? Well, my farm is all of those. In almost every case in America, we are all family farms. I care deeply about making sure my farm will be healthy and productive for generations to come. Most farmers I know feel the same way.
I agree with myfarm. Most farms are family farms, whether they are named as such or not. Every farmer I know will be out with his animals whether it is 100+ degrees or -20 and snowing. When I have been with my cattle and the weather is terrible, I have never once looked up and saw someone from PETA or HSUS out there helping to care for the animals.
The problem is the definitions of "factory farm" and "family farm". Almost every farm is family owned, regardless of size. The concern seems to be about the size of the farm involved. Just because a farm is bigger does not mean the family that owns it cares any less. Sometimes having a larger farm removes limitations in animal care that small farms have -- for example, a large farm may be able to have their own vet on site instead of having to wait an hour for a vet to arrive in an emergency.
A Ranchers' Perspective-- as a land and livestock owner, good management practices are part of being a good steward of the land and the animals in our care. You can bet they are both taken care of.
Ranchers deal with a wider scope of issues related to the environment as we are not just a single-faceted system, what some refer to as a "mono-culture".
In order to have a production cow/calf operation, one must have a firm grasp of soils, forages, plant biology, nutrition, genetics, reproduction, economics, herbicide residuals, clean water, riparian zones, wildlife, timber and everything else that makes up our individual micro-climates. Very multi-faceted.
One of the problems, I see, with many livestock operations and farms are those that heed advice from our many extension specialists who provide their advice based on agri-business solutions rather than producer based solutions.
Extension advocates Agri-business more --- when they should be assisting farmers and ranchers at the production level.
For example, our State Extension service many years ago, now, pushed no-till farming-- who has that helped the most? Agri-business.
Real change would take insisting that our state-run extension services are actually working for the people that produce your food instead of Agri-business.
You know that the system has broken down when the extension service can gather 100 cattlemen for a cattle program then feed them a turkey dinner -- Sponsored by Agri-business.
The organic movement began as an effort to help "small farms" become sustainable and to push the eat local movement. I am not organic and dont want to be, but I do advocate eat local - therefore supporting your local farmers and ranchers rather than the middle-men of Agri-business.
I consulted a large organic farm, in VA; some years ago, that had some non-compliance issues. I witnessed a farm wide annual inspection (by a well known compliance organization based out of Oregon), where no issues of non-compliance were even addressed. The inspector drove around the farm and never got out of his vehicle and wrote them a pass. My understanding was that as long as you had the money to pay them -- you got an A-OK.
I think organic has its' place, for sure, and most operations are probably good ones, but no system is perfect.
I find that folks don't realize the broad range of ideas and solutions in agriculture today. There are not two ways of growing crops, i.e. chemicals/GMO seed vs organic. Even within the sponsoring organizations of this site, you'll find the range of solutions. I use chemicals when necessary. I've grown GMO and non-GMO seed depending on the situation. What concerns me is that as a society we have lost the ability to judge if a "scientific study" is truely scientific. We need to regain the knowledge of theory and hypothesis, peer reviewed research, double blind tests, statistical sampling and other concepts of research.
This is a comment from a layperson, I am not a member of PETA etc, just a mother/grandmother. Let it be said, I am from the Midwest, and I eat meat. To an extent. I will not eat meat that I do not know where it came from and if it is raised in a humane manner. And my adult daughters try to follow this line of thought as well. Most meat at our local Kroger is labeled, "Product of US or Canada". Canada?? How long do you think it has been since this animal was on the hoof? Do you honestly believe this meat is not from agribusiness? And there is the whole inhumane slaughter business. I rarely eat meat any more, but would be very interested in paying more for humanely slaughtered and organic meat. This product is impossible to purchase in my town. I did ask about organic meat and where meat was raised at a local farmers market, you would have thought I asked the man to cut off his head. Just some thoughts from a consumer.
I get so sick of the negativity about gmo seeds! I have lived on a farm my entire life and the majority of the seeds we have always used are GMO. GMO can offer a lot of pluses. It's not just about adding chemicals to the seeds, the point of GMO is to choose which characters of the plant you want to keep/enhance and which you want to get rid of. By doing this you can help it become more drought resistant, disease resistant, any number of things. There's nothing wrong with heirlooms, but they generally are harder to grow and don't do as well as the others.
Not eating will also effect the health and well being of people all over the world. Comments here seem to be focusing on stopping farmers from what they do - feeding the world.
It's a sad state of affairs that farming has actually come to this. What happened to the day when we new where our meats came from because you knew the farmer and you could see all his animals out on his farm. Not locked up in a huge barn all crammed together never getting to be outside and how has this become the standard for farming? What happened to all the real farmers who knew their land and what was best for working their land, now it's all about technology and letting chemicals do the work for you. While we have super weeds as a result from monsanto and gmo seeds. And we haven't even gotten in to the pharmacrops yet. Yes healthy sustainable earthbased pastured farming can and does work. It works everywhere else but here. We need to stop believing the sales pitch from big Ag and get back to real farming. It's being done all over the country and farmers are actually making money.
The question was what is the difference between a factory farm and a family farm. Well what is the difference between a babysitter and a parent, both do the same things - they care for and nurture the child, or, in this case the farm and they do their best to make sure they grow up right and stay chemical free. Oops, stop right there. That's the difference. We don't want our food full of chemicals and GMOs thats why we grow them ourselves FAMILY FARMS.
American agriculture and the technologies we use to produce the most abundant, affordable and safe supply of food in the world have passed the most rigorous safety inspections in the world. I feed my family with the utmost confidence in the food that I produce.
Some clarification is clearly in order.
When I refer to factory farms, I am specifically referring to huge commercial farms, typically involved in chemically-based monocropping, and usually owned by huge, multinational corporations. These farms have put untold thousands of family farms - of ALL sizes - out of business in this country in the past 50 years, all while degrading the land, destroying the soil food web, producing crops of inferior quality and nutritional value, lessening crop diversity, and giving NOTHING back to the earth from which they take.
I am NOT referring to family farms, regardless of size, as they typically farm in a more responsible manner, since they usually live on the land on which they farm.
There are a large number of family farms that are also dependent upon chemicals, degrading rather than building up the land, losing topsoil at a rapid rate, destroying the soil food web and making their land progressively less fertile as a result, and producing crops which are chemically contaminated and of lesser nutritional value than their organically grown counterparts.
The evidence is clear that chemically-based farming is harmful to humans and animals as well as plants and soil and is not sustainable in the long run.
Education is key, and I do not believe it is likely to come from the very corporations, such as Monsanto and DuPont, most directly responsible for the current chemical and GMO contaminations of our nation's food supply, as well as the systemic destruction and/or privatization of heritage and open-pollinated food crops around the world.
Farmers don't stay in business if they are degrading the soil. What evidence are you referencing?
Keyspoet-
Donnie is correct. What evidence are you basing your statements off of? I cannot speak for the livestock industry as I am only a grain producer, but when someone says "factory farm" referring to a grain operation, I immediately dismiss what they have to say. There is no such thing as a "factory farm." I cannot think of one operation in the midwest that fits the picture you paint of a "corporate farmer." In fact, the bigger farmers usually do a better job taking care of the soil and producing food than the smaller ones - that's reason they are big! What a lot of outside observers don't understand is that most farmers rent their land from absentee owners - therefore, to stay in business, they must do the best job possible. In addition, they are more efficient, they have a smaller environmental footprint, provide more jobs for their community and provide better for their family.
Secondly, the evidence is NOT clear that GMO seeds and the chemicals used today are harmful to the environment and to humans. In fact, in many cases the "organic" versions of those chemicals are more harmful to humans. And if you are suggesting that we grow crops without chemicals, you had better have a solution to present as well because the already growing food problem will be twice what it is now without modern technology.
So before you start throwing around words like "factory farm," organic, and the like, please do your own research or go out and talk to an actual farmer. Also, maybe you should consider ways to help the people that grow your food instead of trying to find ways to make their already difficult job even harder.
It appears that there is a lot of confusion about the types of farms and ranching operations in the US. Everyone should do their homework before making a judgment concerning production agriculture operations. The US is able to provide meat, milk, eggs, and grains for bread and cereal from all types of operations. Just remember each farmer feeds a lot of people each day. The food industry is highly regulated by various agencies and safe wholesome food is everyone's goal. We all should admire the small operation for their tenacity. We all should admire the large operation for their efficiency. Everyone contributes to the large demand for low cost food in this country and around the world. Let's be thankful!
It appears there is a lot of confusion about the types of agricultural operations in the US. There are small operations and large operations that all contribute to the the production of low cost food in the US and worldwide. Each of us should do our homework before making judgement on how our food is produced. The food industry is highly regulated by various agencies. Producing safe nutritious food is the goal of this industry. We should all be thankful for the contribution from each and every producer for feeding the US and the world.
How do we reconcile the accusation that chemical fertilizers are harmful with the fact that without mineral fertilizers, 3 billion of the current 7 billion people on Earth would not be alive today?
I support organic farming but get frustrated whenever someone suggests that the world would be a better place if this is all we did. We cannot produce enough food for today's population if we do not utilize mineral fertilizers. There are environmental risks, of course, but it is up to the farmer to utilize these nutrients in the most efficent and sustainable way to prevent negative environmental effects.
The issue is money and control. Did I say "politics". When FDA was staffed with management of former management of BIG agribusiness the consumer suffered a huge loss of choice, quality and nutrition. For more accurate documentation of same, Google FARMAGEDDON.
There's actually the Organic Consumers Association. They speak to how both small and large family farmers can produce their product (vegetables, fruit & livestock) without chemicals, without harming the environment, without harming their product, without harming humans.
There's also the Cornicopia Institute which actually lobbies congress with the money that you contribute to have laws less favorable for national and multi-national agribusinesses, such as Monsanto, Dean Foods and other toxic companies.
If those companies weren't afraid of the words 'pastured', 'organic', and they've already bastardized 'natural', they would actually provide food the way our forefather produced and ate food.
Right now, we have a former Monsanto consultant as the head of the FDA. He's the one behind all of the raw milk raids and food coops around the country!
@Donnie - There are numerous studies over the past fifty years; independent, funded by government, universities and/or agricultural concerns, and nearly all show that the quality of our topsoil, and the nutrients contained therein, have been substantially degraded over the decades. Not only is the soil less fertile than it was, but there is less of it, and we are well on our way to another Dust Bowl if the addition of substantial amounts of organic material are not made a systematic part of replenishing the soil.
Chemical based fertilizers and pesticides destroy the soil food web. The soil food web is crucial to the success of crops, and farmers who continue to ignore it and pretend that it doesnâ
@Jason - The bottom line about GMO crops is that they have not been proven harmful, which by the way is completely inaccurate in several cases, but that they were NEVER proven safe to begin with, as they should have been long before introducing them into our food supply.
They were released into open fields without ANYONE doing adequate research to ensure that they would do no harm, increasing evidence is being uncovered about those results which were obtained having been falsified, and THAT is what most of us who oppose GMOs in our foods are against: they were inflicted upon us without anyone giving us a choice in the matter.
I for one will continue to demand the clear labeling of any food containing ANY genetically modified ingredients, and to continue to choose NOT to buy them for myself, my family or my pets.
As for talking to real farmers, I do so on a regular basis, and am in the process of starting my own small organic farm. I have been growing organically and studying different aspects of the field for well over thirty years.
As for long term solutions, there are a lot of them, and none of them involve petrochemically-based fertilizers. In these days of so-called "peak oil", any farms using agricultural chemicals and fertilizers derived from petroleum are going to face ever-spiralling costs, to the point where it will ultimately be economically unfeasible to continue their use.
One viable solution, which has worked for hundreds if not thousands of years, is simply to grow a variety of crops, and interplant with plants which host beneficial insects, thus naturally reducing the number of pests which will be attracted to the crops in the first place. It also helps the soil food web and maintains the natural fertility of the soil.
I thought the question was "Why, if this organization says it wants to be a part of the solution, are there NO organizations devoted to growing organically or cleaning up toxins in our environment?" The land where I live was used by a farmer who used Roundup. Now, nothing but weeds will grow here. I don't suppose there's any way of cleansing the soil besides having it all dug up and replaced so in the meantime I grow my food in raised beds and use rabbit manure for fertilizer. I, too, wonder why very little is being done to keep chemicals out of our food supply.
I think this discussion needs to stop conflating too many issues together and discuss each component one by one. Dirty big business practices are a separate issue from the science/technology being researched and applied. Chemicals in the food are separate from GMO issues, especially considering that many GMO's are made in order to not have to use certain chemicals in the first place.
I operate a family farm, with one full time employee, me, and am also a corporation. It saves me taxes if I am fortunate enough to have a good crop and price at the same time. I raised round up ready corn seed for Monsanto last year, and am amazed at how much applied chemical it saves. Glyphosate is much safer than traditional corn herbicides, which can leach into groundwater, and is neturalized by soil contact. Table salt is roughly equivalent to round up for toxicity. Monsanto's goal is to double the corn yield by 2050, to feed the 4 billion more of us who will be here. To return to Organic only farming, I will need more ground, more diesel, more labor, and your food price is going to quadruple. I encourage everyone to plant a garden, (yes, mine is organic), and buy organic if you can afford to. I thank God that we are in the US have the money and freedom to make that choice. I don't believe they have that choice in Somalia.
The original poster asked a legitimate question and has been met with a lot of hostile responses. I think everyone knows perfectly well what kind of farming operation the OP is talking about. I was going to ask a question and be a part of the "dialogue" but I'm not interested in having 27 people jump down my throat. Too bad...this might have been a useful forum. Just keep in mind that people have a right to question the circumstances under which their food is grown or raised and if they need to be educated, then educate them. Being rude, hostile and defensive doesn't help anyone.
97% of farms are family-owned. And extensive research goes into making environmentally wise decisions all the time, and for multiple reasons, one being that it is expensive to use too many chemicals, not to mention we don't want to do anything to risk our family's health either. We live and breathe on our farms! Be informed on both sides of the issue; it's important for you, and all of us, to do this. Farmers make up about 2% of the population, too, and we're doing more with less. There is no easy way to do this, and there is no perfect way either. We must (and do) try our best to be wise and to use safe practices.
There are ways to grow organic foods and crops, however, is the public ready to pay what it would cost to grow these foods? Organic food is not "pretty", it is more labor intensive, and does not produce as much. So therfore, less harvest, more labor needed, means higher cost to the consumer.
Keyspoet,
You are bolder in your claims than Kathleen Merrigan who should know far more about organic than you since she wrote the book for all pracitical purposes.
She state (much to her chagrin that what she believes should be is not proved) THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE STUDIES THAT PROVE ORGANIC FOODS ARE HEALTHIER, MORE NUTRITIOUS OR SAFER.
And a look at the research grants from USDA shows that no one is trying to prove that either.
Good luck with you organic farm, but please backoff on the slander as a marketing tool.
I am a family farmer raising turkeys. In the 60's it took 20 weeks to produce a 20 lb. turkey using over 200 lbs. of feed. Now we can produce a 40-45 lb. turkey in 20 weeks with 100 lbs. of feed. This was not accomplished by feeding only growth promotants and antibiotics, but by careful genetic selection (GMO) for yield and feed efficiency. Historically low prices, high debt load, high interest rates, retirement and high capital investment have been more responsible for the demise of the smaller farms than the larger scale company-owned farms. One could argue that the management of a smaller farm might be better than company-owned, the the larger scale operations are better able to handle low prices/higher costs than a small scale producer. The 2 billion starving people in the world are more concerned about where their next meal will come from rather than organic vs. conventional or GMO vs. non-GMO.
The bottom line comes down to this. If you want to only eat organic, then do so. If you're worried about the farms that conventional products are produced, then visit them. Talk with your local and state Farm Bureaus about traveling and doing some farm visits. Organic farming isn't bad nor is conventional. GMO capability has allowed us to grow products that ARE better for the malnourished.
On another note, farmers must make a profit in order to survive. Therefore, they treat their animals/crops to ensure this. Adding "large amounts of chemicals" is not profitable and therefore not done. Also, abusing animals would cause ranchers to lose money. Why would they do that?? I've been involved in agriculture in numerous ways and on both sides. The world simply cannot exist and sustain without today's technology. That's the simple fact.
In ag today, 97% of farms in the U.S. are family owned. So seeing how people say that larger corporate farms dominate, just havent done any research. As a 5th generation farmer, and as a sophomore studying Agriculture Education at our local agricultural university, I think that we live in an amazing world of evolving technology. GMO's have created a way for "out with the old, in with the new" varieties. Like others have said, the main point in GMO's is to make the crop more efficient with using less fertilizer, less chemicals, and less water. I also see the other side in that it is not "natural". But I think that if we didnt have them, the 7 billion people in this world would probably be more like 5. I support local, organic, and conventional. Emphasizing on Local. It helps the local economy, it lets you socialize with your local farmers and see how and what they are producing, and then we can start to have real discussions about ag!
my biggest concern is gmo, i DO NOT want any genetically modified food in the chain at all, it is invasive and being fed to livestock as well. a lot of countries won't even take our exports anymore because of this. Monsato is nothing short of criminal.