Dave Stockdale
Sustainability Honcho
Cattle call
SFGate.com
I was enjoying a meat-centric meal at a local restaurant a few days ago with some friends when someone brought up the film Food, Inc. So we ended up discussing the dark side of meat production while...
I was enjoying a meat-centric meal at a local restaurant a few days ago with some friends when someone brought up the film Food, Inc. So we ended up discussing the dark side of meat production while enjoying our nicely prepared pastured beef short ribs. If you also saw this film, then what follows will not be new. And yet, it never hurts to remind ourselves of some of the issues and concerns.
As the aforementioned movie revealed for many previously unaware folks, the idyllic vision we have of cows grazing on open fields under blue skies is not a very realistic picture of cattle production today. While many cattle in the United States do begin their lives on relatively small, family-owned ranches with ample amounts of pasture or rangeland, the vast majority of cattle end their lives in large, overcrowded feedlots. In many feedlots, their diet switches to grains and other products such as flesh, bones, hooves, and feathers of other animals, chicken or cattle manure, stale pastry, ground cardboard, and even plastic hay.
Cattle are a ruminant (or cud-chewing) species, as are goats, sheep, and bison. Their specialized digestive system has evolved over millennia to digest the biodiversity of grasses found on pastureland. When ruminant animals such as cattle are fed a grain-based diet, it can cause them a range of health problems, so they are often administered antibiotics to fend off the diseases they might contract under these conditions. The cattle are also often given growth hormones to make them grow bigger faster.
Not all grain-fed cattle are subject to the worst feedlot conditions. Some feedlots are less crowded and are managed without the use of antibiotics or hormones. Some facilities feed their cattle only grain and other foodstuffs (a typical diet might include barley, corn, wheat, soy meal, sugar beet pulp, cane molasses and hay) without all the fillers and questionable by-products. Feedlots producing certified organic dairy products or beef must follow guidelines that include feeding the animals certified organic grain, avoiding antibiotics and hormones, and providing some access to pasture.
In addition to the effects on animal health, the feedlot system also has some serious environmental impacts. Overcrowding of animals produces excessive amounts of manure that cannot be recycled on site. Runoff from this manure creates an excess of nitrogen in watersheds. Methane gas produced by cattle contributes to global warming. The large-scale industrial production of grain to feed the animals includes high usage of pesticides and herbicides and the widespread use of genetically engineered seed.
The feedlot system also has social consequences. As commodity prices for beef and dairy products are driven down, small family-owned ranches are often driven out of business. Those that do manage to stay afloat generally work on contract with a few large corporations, greatly limiting their autonomy, financial security, and opportunities for growth. Feedlots themselves can be toxic environments for the workers who operate them and smelly eyesores for the communities that house them. Slaughterhouses can be dangerous for workers when speed and production are considered more important than safety.
Keeping cattle on open rangeland or pasture from birth until death is an alternative to the feedlot system. Because cattle eat the diet that is biologically appropriate for them and their digestive systems, the health problems outlined above are eliminated. The negative environmental and social consequences are lessened too. Research is also showing that there are also significant health advantages to eating dairy products or beef from pasture-raised animals.
I don't eat animal protein every day, but when I do, I buy ingredients or seek out menu items that feature pastured animals whenever possible. It's my way of supporting a production system that I believe is better for me, the animals, and the planet. That fact that these products also taste better and have a more interesting texture to me is an added bonus!
This blogger from San Francisco learned everything about modern livestock production from watching the movie Food Inc. and is eager to share it. Line by line you can go through this article and see how this mockery of a film has misinformed consumers. For example, according to this guy every feedlot is overcrowded. On more than one occassion he refers to overcrowded feedlots. He also mentions that most family farmers and ranchers that raise beef are doing it for a large corporation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The next time you don't feel like sharing your story consider the idea that this guy is eager to share your story for you and it's apparent that he's not concerned about the truth.
Showing posts with label Food Inc.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Food Inc.. Show all posts
Friday, August 13, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Agri-Women Share Truth About Food Inc.
American Agri-Women challenge message of movie Food, Inc.
By Drovers news source Monday, June 07, 2010
American Agri-Women is attempting to bridge the gap in the debate over food production. Food, Inc. is a documentary that aims to change the way America eats and the way American food is produced, but many in the agriculture world say the movie did not get it right. American Agri-Women wants to clear up misconceptions from the movie and continue the dialogue about America's food.
"Movies like Food, Inc. demonstrate how important it is that farmers share with consumers how food is produced. And as producers, we are interested in providing that information,” said American Agri-Women President, Chris Wilson. “Women in agriculture have a unique perspective because we are both producers and consumers. We help grow the food, and we also prepare it for our families to eat.”
Unfortunately, the film does not portray agriculture accurately. It suggests the food supply is dominated by corporate farms. However, the 2007 edition of USDA Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report, found that 98% of farms in the U.S. - more than 2.1 million - are family owned and operated. The truth is, according to Wilson, millions of family farmers work hard every day on their farms and ranches to bring us the food on our tables. Wilson and her family live on a farm of their own near Manhattan, Kansas. Read More
The absolute best way to correct the misinformation being spread about agriculture is for farmers and ranchers to personally set the record straight. Hollywood movies like Food Inc. are more concerned about the money they can generate rather than sharing the truth. People want to know the truth and they want to hear it from the people that grow their food. If you don’t want Michael Pollan or Wayne Pacelle telling your story for you then you better stand up and do it yourself.
By Drovers news source Monday, June 07, 2010
American Agri-Women is attempting to bridge the gap in the debate over food production. Food, Inc. is a documentary that aims to change the way America eats and the way American food is produced, but many in the agriculture world say the movie did not get it right. American Agri-Women wants to clear up misconceptions from the movie and continue the dialogue about America's food.
"Movies like Food, Inc. demonstrate how important it is that farmers share with consumers how food is produced. And as producers, we are interested in providing that information,” said American Agri-Women President, Chris Wilson. “Women in agriculture have a unique perspective because we are both producers and consumers. We help grow the food, and we also prepare it for our families to eat.”
Unfortunately, the film does not portray agriculture accurately. It suggests the food supply is dominated by corporate farms. However, the 2007 edition of USDA Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report, found that 98% of farms in the U.S. - more than 2.1 million - are family owned and operated. The truth is, according to Wilson, millions of family farmers work hard every day on their farms and ranches to bring us the food on our tables. Wilson and her family live on a farm of their own near Manhattan, Kansas. Read More
The absolute best way to correct the misinformation being spread about agriculture is for farmers and ranchers to personally set the record straight. Hollywood movies like Food Inc. are more concerned about the money they can generate rather than sharing the truth. People want to know the truth and they want to hear it from the people that grow their food. If you don’t want Michael Pollan or Wayne Pacelle telling your story for you then you better stand up and do it yourself.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Modern Ag Can Feed The World
Attention Whole Foods Shoppers
Stop obsessing about arugula. Your "sustainable" mantra -- organic, local, and slow -- is no recipe for saving the world's hungry millions.
BY ROBERT PAARLBERG MAY/JUNE 2010
From Whole Foods recyclable cloth bags to Michelle Obama's organic White House garden, modern eco-foodies are full of good intentions. We want to save the planet. Help local farmers. Fight climate change -- and childhood obesity, too. But though it's certainly a good thing to be thinking about global welfare while chopping our certified organic onions, the hope that we can help others by changing our shopping and eating habits is being wildly oversold to Western consumers. Food has become an elite preoccupation in the West, ironically, just as the most effective ways to address hunger in poor countries have fallen out of fashion.
Helping the world's poor feed themselves is no longer the rallying cry it once was. Food may be today's cause célèbre, but in the pampered West, that means trendy causes like making food "sustainable" -- in other words, organic, local, and slow. Appealing as that might sound, it is the wrong recipe for helping those who need it the most. Even our understanding of the global food problem is wrong these days, driven too much by the single issue of international prices. In April 2008, when the cost of rice for export had tripled in just six months and wheat reached its highest price in 28 years, a New York Times editorial branded this a "World Food Crisis." World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned that high food prices would be particularly damaging in poor countries, where "there is no margin for survival." Now that international rice prices are down 40 percent from their peak and wheat prices have fallen by more than half, we too quickly conclude that the crisis is over. Yet 850 million people in poor countries were chronically undernourished before the 2008 price spike, and the number is even larger now, thanks in part to last year's global recession. This is the real food crisis we face.
What's so tragic about this is that we know from experience how to fix the problem. Wherever the rural poor have gained access to improved roads, modern seeds, less expensive fertilizer, electrical power, and better schools and clinics, their productivity and their income have increased. But recent efforts to deliver such essentials have been undercut by deeply misguided (if sometimes well-meaning) advocacy against agricultural modernization and foreign aid.
In Europe and the United States, a new line of thinking has emerged in elite circles that opposes bringing improved seeds and fertilizers to traditional farmers and opposes linking those farmers more closely to international markets. Influential food writers, advocates, and celebrity restaurant owners are repeating the mantra that "sustainable food" in the future must be organic, local, and slow. But guess what: Rural Africa already has such a system, and it doesn't work. Few smallholder farmers in Africa use any synthetic chemicals, so their food is de facto organic. High transportation costs force them to purchase and sell almost all of their food locally. And food preparation is painfully slow. The result is nothing to celebrate: average income levels of only $1 a day and a one-in-three chance of being malnourished.
If we are going to get serious about solving global hunger, we need to de-romanticize our view of preindustrial food and farming. And that means learning to appreciate the modern, science-intensive, and highly capitalized agricultural system we've developed in the West. Without it, our food would be more expensive and less safe. In other words, a lot like the hunger-plagued rest of the world. Read More
This article does a nice job of highlighting how modern agriculture has the ability to wipe out hunger on this planet. While most of us take our everyday meals for granted, many people on this planet have never enjoyed that luxury. They are still farming the way we did in this country 100 years ago. The scary thing is that we have several people who have made themselves famous by advocating that the best thing the US could do is go back to farming that way. We are fortunate to provide so many choices for our consumers but the mentality that eliminating our technological advances in agriculture is the only way to go will only lead to more hungry people. ~Troy
Stop obsessing about arugula. Your "sustainable" mantra -- organic, local, and slow -- is no recipe for saving the world's hungry millions.
BY ROBERT PAARLBERG MAY/JUNE 2010
From Whole Foods recyclable cloth bags to Michelle Obama's organic White House garden, modern eco-foodies are full of good intentions. We want to save the planet. Help local farmers. Fight climate change -- and childhood obesity, too. But though it's certainly a good thing to be thinking about global welfare while chopping our certified organic onions, the hope that we can help others by changing our shopping and eating habits is being wildly oversold to Western consumers. Food has become an elite preoccupation in the West, ironically, just as the most effective ways to address hunger in poor countries have fallen out of fashion.
Helping the world's poor feed themselves is no longer the rallying cry it once was. Food may be today's cause célèbre, but in the pampered West, that means trendy causes like making food "sustainable" -- in other words, organic, local, and slow. Appealing as that might sound, it is the wrong recipe for helping those who need it the most. Even our understanding of the global food problem is wrong these days, driven too much by the single issue of international prices. In April 2008, when the cost of rice for export had tripled in just six months and wheat reached its highest price in 28 years, a New York Times editorial branded this a "World Food Crisis." World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned that high food prices would be particularly damaging in poor countries, where "there is no margin for survival." Now that international rice prices are down 40 percent from their peak and wheat prices have fallen by more than half, we too quickly conclude that the crisis is over. Yet 850 million people in poor countries were chronically undernourished before the 2008 price spike, and the number is even larger now, thanks in part to last year's global recession. This is the real food crisis we face.
What's so tragic about this is that we know from experience how to fix the problem. Wherever the rural poor have gained access to improved roads, modern seeds, less expensive fertilizer, electrical power, and better schools and clinics, their productivity and their income have increased. But recent efforts to deliver such essentials have been undercut by deeply misguided (if sometimes well-meaning) advocacy against agricultural modernization and foreign aid.
In Europe and the United States, a new line of thinking has emerged in elite circles that opposes bringing improved seeds and fertilizers to traditional farmers and opposes linking those farmers more closely to international markets. Influential food writers, advocates, and celebrity restaurant owners are repeating the mantra that "sustainable food" in the future must be organic, local, and slow. But guess what: Rural Africa already has such a system, and it doesn't work. Few smallholder farmers in Africa use any synthetic chemicals, so their food is de facto organic. High transportation costs force them to purchase and sell almost all of their food locally. And food preparation is painfully slow. The result is nothing to celebrate: average income levels of only $1 a day and a one-in-three chance of being malnourished.
If we are going to get serious about solving global hunger, we need to de-romanticize our view of preindustrial food and farming. And that means learning to appreciate the modern, science-intensive, and highly capitalized agricultural system we've developed in the West. Without it, our food would be more expensive and less safe. In other words, a lot like the hunger-plagued rest of the world. Read More
This article does a nice job of highlighting how modern agriculture has the ability to wipe out hunger on this planet. While most of us take our everyday meals for granted, many people on this planet have never enjoyed that luxury. They are still farming the way we did in this country 100 years ago. The scary thing is that we have several people who have made themselves famous by advocating that the best thing the US could do is go back to farming that way. We are fortunate to provide so many choices for our consumers but the mentality that eliminating our technological advances in agriculture is the only way to go will only lead to more hungry people. ~Troy
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Food Inc. Follow-Up in KS
KLA President Defends Conventional Ag In Follow-Up To “Food, Inc.”
05/05/2010 08:58AM
CattleNetwork.com
Article Link
Public broadcasting affiliate KTWU- Topeka has produced a one-hour television program to air tonight at 9:00 as a follow-up to the controversial “Food, Inc.” KLA President Mark Smith served as a member of the diverse six-member agriculture panel discussing food issues on “Taking Stock: Perspectives on Food Production in Kansas.” The program was moderated by WIBW Radio Farm Director Kelly Lenz. Other panelists included Kansas Farm Bureau President Steve Baccus, Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Josh Svaty, Kansas Rural Center Executive Director Dan Nagengast, natural foods supplier Diana Endicott and former Kansas Gov. John Carlin.Smith, a Wallace County rancher, criticized “Food, Inc.” for presenting an inaccurate picture of American agriculture.
In response to the movie disparaging hard-working farmers and ranchers, Smith explained how today’s conventional ag producers deliver more safe, nutritious food using fewer natural resources due to advanced technology. Smith deflected the movie's criticism of confined animal feeding operations by talking about the quality care cattle receive in a feedyard. He said cattle spend most of their lives on grass, followed by a short 130- to 150-day period eating a balanced feed ration that produces flavorful beef demanded by consumers.
“Taking Stock” will air on all Kansas public television stations tonight following the system’s national airing of “Food, Inc.” at 7:00 p.m. In addition to providing industry sources to present the accurate story of modern beef production, NCBA, KLA and other affiliate groups are driving consumers to www.explorebeef.org, where many of the common misperceptions in “Food, Inc.” are corrected with accurate information. For more information visit www.kla.org.
As we travel around the country speaking to groups, we show them who is out telling their story and ask the question “Is this who want doing that?” If you don’t like who is speaking for you or what they are saying then you have to do it yourself. The Hollywood movie “Food Inc.” has opened the door to many discussions about agriculture. Unfortunately those involved with this movie were more interested in scaring people about their food than they were in sharing the truth. This means we need to. It’s great to see these Kansas producers taking back their story. Even more importantly though is the need for us to not let the truth get hijacked in the first place. It’s not easy but if all of us do something everyday to share the truth about ag we can do it.
05/05/2010 08:58AM
CattleNetwork.com
Article Link
Public broadcasting affiliate KTWU- Topeka has produced a one-hour television program to air tonight at 9:00 as a follow-up to the controversial “Food, Inc.” KLA President Mark Smith served as a member of the diverse six-member agriculture panel discussing food issues on “Taking Stock: Perspectives on Food Production in Kansas.” The program was moderated by WIBW Radio Farm Director Kelly Lenz. Other panelists included Kansas Farm Bureau President Steve Baccus, Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Josh Svaty, Kansas Rural Center Executive Director Dan Nagengast, natural foods supplier Diana Endicott and former Kansas Gov. John Carlin.Smith, a Wallace County rancher, criticized “Food, Inc.” for presenting an inaccurate picture of American agriculture.
In response to the movie disparaging hard-working farmers and ranchers, Smith explained how today’s conventional ag producers deliver more safe, nutritious food using fewer natural resources due to advanced technology. Smith deflected the movie's criticism of confined animal feeding operations by talking about the quality care cattle receive in a feedyard. He said cattle spend most of their lives on grass, followed by a short 130- to 150-day period eating a balanced feed ration that produces flavorful beef demanded by consumers.
“Taking Stock” will air on all Kansas public television stations tonight following the system’s national airing of “Food, Inc.” at 7:00 p.m. In addition to providing industry sources to present the accurate story of modern beef production, NCBA, KLA and other affiliate groups are driving consumers to www.explorebeef.org, where many of the common misperceptions in “Food, Inc.” are corrected with accurate information. For more information visit www.kla.org.
As we travel around the country speaking to groups, we show them who is out telling their story and ask the question “Is this who want doing that?” If you don’t like who is speaking for you or what they are saying then you have to do it yourself. The Hollywood movie “Food Inc.” has opened the door to many discussions about agriculture. Unfortunately those involved with this movie were more interested in scaring people about their food than they were in sharing the truth. This means we need to. It’s great to see these Kansas producers taking back their story. Even more importantly though is the need for us to not let the truth get hijacked in the first place. It’s not easy but if all of us do something everyday to share the truth about ag we can do it.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Pollan Tells Students to Go Vegan to Reduce Climate Change
Author Michael Pollan to speak on the 'drama on your plate'
Kelly Folkers
Issue date: 4/6/10
Humans need over 100 food compounds to be healthy, yet three crops dominate the American diet. Corn, wheat and soy comprise approximately 80 percent of Americans' diet, and author Michael Pollan has some problems with that.
"Humans are omnivores and need to eat a variety of different things," said Pollan, a food expert and the author of the bestselling books In Defense of Food and The Omnivore's Dilemma. Pollan, who considers himself a nature writer, will speak in Swasey Chapel on April 14 at 8 p.m. as the closing speaker for this year's campus theme of consumption.
Pollan's interest in studying food and where it comes from originated during childhood. He cultivated a vegetable garden at a young age, and his professional interest in food seemed to naturally follow his personal love for growing food.
"I focus on the messy places where the human and the natural intersect," Pollan said. "It was almost a matter of time when I would write about food. Our eating is how we change the world the most, everything from the landscape to how we grow food."
"Meat is the biggest food issue in terms of climate change," Pollan said. "If you are a meat eater, removing meat from your diet you would cut your carbon footprint by 25 percent."
Pollan also described the various ways that college students can make a difference in being greener with food consumption. Read More
Here is Pollan on his vegan push again. Remember that this is the same guy that made up the statistic that going vegan would do more to reduce climate change than dumping your SUV. He got called out on that make-believe statistic yet he continues to spew more misinformation. The livestock industry is only responsible for less than 3% of greenhouse gas emissions in this country. So how could going vegan cut your carbon footprint by 25%.
Here’s the issue. Pollan has built his empire on scaring people about their food. He did this by ignoring science and ignoring most people’s desire to grow enough food to feed everyone. Unfortunately for him, you can’t fool everyone all of the time. With his plan, more than half the planet would go hungry. Do you think hungry people really care about their carbon footprint at that point? The good news is that we can accomplish both goals. We can feed everyone AND continue to be more efficient. It just means that we need to listen to the experts in food production rather than journalism teachers.
Kelly Folkers
Issue date: 4/6/10
Humans need over 100 food compounds to be healthy, yet three crops dominate the American diet. Corn, wheat and soy comprise approximately 80 percent of Americans' diet, and author Michael Pollan has some problems with that.
"Humans are omnivores and need to eat a variety of different things," said Pollan, a food expert and the author of the bestselling books In Defense of Food and The Omnivore's Dilemma. Pollan, who considers himself a nature writer, will speak in Swasey Chapel on April 14 at 8 p.m. as the closing speaker for this year's campus theme of consumption.
Pollan's interest in studying food and where it comes from originated during childhood. He cultivated a vegetable garden at a young age, and his professional interest in food seemed to naturally follow his personal love for growing food.
"I focus on the messy places where the human and the natural intersect," Pollan said. "It was almost a matter of time when I would write about food. Our eating is how we change the world the most, everything from the landscape to how we grow food."
"Meat is the biggest food issue in terms of climate change," Pollan said. "If you are a meat eater, removing meat from your diet you would cut your carbon footprint by 25 percent."
Pollan also described the various ways that college students can make a difference in being greener with food consumption. Read More
Here is Pollan on his vegan push again. Remember that this is the same guy that made up the statistic that going vegan would do more to reduce climate change than dumping your SUV. He got called out on that make-believe statistic yet he continues to spew more misinformation. The livestock industry is only responsible for less than 3% of greenhouse gas emissions in this country. So how could going vegan cut your carbon footprint by 25%.
Here’s the issue. Pollan has built his empire on scaring people about their food. He did this by ignoring science and ignoring most people’s desire to grow enough food to feed everyone. Unfortunately for him, you can’t fool everyone all of the time. With his plan, more than half the planet would go hungry. Do you think hungry people really care about their carbon footprint at that point? The good news is that we can accomplish both goals. We can feed everyone AND continue to be more efficient. It just means that we need to listen to the experts in food production rather than journalism teachers.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Food Inc. Is More Fantasy Than Documentary
What If Food Inc. Takes Home An Oscar?
03/02/2010 02:02PM
CattleNetwork.com
You may not care much about the Academy Awards, but this Sunday (Mar. 7) may be worth a bit of your time; at least pay attention to the “Best Documentary “ category.
Nominated for an Oscar is Food Inc.-- The film that “lifts the veil on our nation’s food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that has been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government’s regulatory agencies USDA and FDA.” That’s a promotional line from the film that appeared in theaters for most of last summer.
While you’re not fooled by Food Inc. carrying the label “documentary”, most of the viewing public takes it more literally. The common logic is-- in order for a film to be set apart as a documentary, it has to be truthful—Food Inc. is a documentary, therefore Food Inc. must be truthful.
Between the theater release and DVDs, millions of people have already seen this movie. Too often they walk away believing American farmers are greedy, reckless with food safety and the environment and are forcing unhealthy products upon the public—and U.S. regulators are supporting all of it.
The film is filled with mistruths and misrepresentations. “Our nation’s food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, and the safety of workers and our environment.” Organic is the only sure choice, is one of the messages drilled home. Another tells consumers that they are the only hope to drive change, because the regulators and corporations are in control and don’t care. Read More
It’s troubling that we have so many high-profile people in the many different types of media that are more concerned about personal wealth through activism rather than journalism. Real journalists provide all of the information and allow people to form their own opinions. Wealthy activists like Pollan provide only what he wants his audience to know about and then tells them what to do with it. If Food Inc wins an award this weekend, we will need to view this as an opportunity and motivation to do a better job of sharing the real story of production agriculture.
03/02/2010 02:02PM
CattleNetwork.com
You may not care much about the Academy Awards, but this Sunday (Mar. 7) may be worth a bit of your time; at least pay attention to the “Best Documentary “ category.
Nominated for an Oscar is Food Inc.-- The film that “lifts the veil on our nation’s food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that has been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government’s regulatory agencies USDA and FDA.” That’s a promotional line from the film that appeared in theaters for most of last summer.
While you’re not fooled by Food Inc. carrying the label “documentary”, most of the viewing public takes it more literally. The common logic is-- in order for a film to be set apart as a documentary, it has to be truthful—Food Inc. is a documentary, therefore Food Inc. must be truthful.
Between the theater release and DVDs, millions of people have already seen this movie. Too often they walk away believing American farmers are greedy, reckless with food safety and the environment and are forcing unhealthy products upon the public—and U.S. regulators are supporting all of it.
The film is filled with mistruths and misrepresentations. “Our nation’s food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, and the safety of workers and our environment.” Organic is the only sure choice, is one of the messages drilled home. Another tells consumers that they are the only hope to drive change, because the regulators and corporations are in control and don’t care. Read More
It’s troubling that we have so many high-profile people in the many different types of media that are more concerned about personal wealth through activism rather than journalism. Real journalists provide all of the information and allow people to form their own opinions. Wealthy activists like Pollan provide only what he wants his audience to know about and then tells them what to do with it. If Food Inc wins an award this weekend, we will need to view this as an opportunity and motivation to do a better job of sharing the real story of production agriculture.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Kenner Comments on Food Inc
The Food Industry Helped Me Make 'Food, Inc.'
By Robert Kenner
Published: January 17, 2010
"Food, Inc." became a different film than the one I intended to make.
I thought it would be fascinating to look at how our food gets to the table -- from different points of view. On the one hand, we spend less on food today than at any other time in history. We can eat what we want, when we want it, regardless of seasons. On the other hand, this food has hidden costs that we’re all going to pay for down the line.
Industrial food production pollutes the water, robs nutrients from the soil, exploits the workers who grow and process the food, exploits the animals, and ultimately, it makes people sick. Seemed like fertile ground for a film.
As I started filming, I was not prepared for the stonewalling I’d get from the food industry. I wanted them to argue the benefits of the industrial system. I wanted to understand their point of view, but for the most part, the industry said no. In doing so, the film started to move in a different direction.
I became intrigued by why the industry would not speak to me about something as seemingly innocuous as food. What I discovered is that a handful of companies essentially control the food supply. They exert tremendous power over what we eat and how much – or how little -- we know about it.
I was stunned by the lack of transparency, the intimidation of critics, the influence over government. It felt like we were onto something bigger than food.
But would anyone care?
Apparently, yes. "Food, Inc." hit at just the right moment when people were interested and ready to listen. It benefitted from the groundbreaking work of authors Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, and from food activists who have worked for years to raise awareness. And the press took great interest in the film, which helped spread the word. Read More
When I was in Seattle last week, our group visited the Space Needle. While waiting to catch a ride on the elevator to the bottom, a conversation started with a young couple that lived in Seattle. They had seen the movie Food Inc. and when they found out we were all farmers and ranchers, they started asking questions. The biggest issue they were concerned with was why we were being forced to plant Monsanto seed. I’m sure we all gave them a funny look when they asked it. After asking why they thought that, they said that’s what they had learned from watching Food Inc. At the end of the conversation, they realized they’d been duped by this movie.
I think it’s almost comical to read Kenner’s version on how this movie started out so innocent. Do you really think a Hollywood movie, trying to disguise itself as a documentary, is going to do anything other than try to scare people? In order for these types of movies to stand a chance of making money they have to sensationalize and paint an unrealistic picture in the minds of the viewers.
Kenner might think we are fighting against him, but actually we are just fighting for the truth to be told about agriculture. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be something him or Michael Pollan are very worried about. If you want an great example of where the bottom line is the most important thing, don’t look at farmers and ranchers, just look at these two characters. Pollan won’t go speak unless he gets his $40,000-$50,000 fee. Just imagine what would happen if farmers didn’t plant a crop unless they were guaranteed daily salaries like this.
By Robert Kenner
Published: January 17, 2010
"Food, Inc." became a different film than the one I intended to make.
I thought it would be fascinating to look at how our food gets to the table -- from different points of view. On the one hand, we spend less on food today than at any other time in history. We can eat what we want, when we want it, regardless of seasons. On the other hand, this food has hidden costs that we’re all going to pay for down the line.
Industrial food production pollutes the water, robs nutrients from the soil, exploits the workers who grow and process the food, exploits the animals, and ultimately, it makes people sick. Seemed like fertile ground for a film.
As I started filming, I was not prepared for the stonewalling I’d get from the food industry. I wanted them to argue the benefits of the industrial system. I wanted to understand their point of view, but for the most part, the industry said no. In doing so, the film started to move in a different direction.
I became intrigued by why the industry would not speak to me about something as seemingly innocuous as food. What I discovered is that a handful of companies essentially control the food supply. They exert tremendous power over what we eat and how much – or how little -- we know about it.
I was stunned by the lack of transparency, the intimidation of critics, the influence over government. It felt like we were onto something bigger than food.
But would anyone care?
Apparently, yes. "Food, Inc." hit at just the right moment when people were interested and ready to listen. It benefitted from the groundbreaking work of authors Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, and from food activists who have worked for years to raise awareness. And the press took great interest in the film, which helped spread the word. Read More
When I was in Seattle last week, our group visited the Space Needle. While waiting to catch a ride on the elevator to the bottom, a conversation started with a young couple that lived in Seattle. They had seen the movie Food Inc. and when they found out we were all farmers and ranchers, they started asking questions. The biggest issue they were concerned with was why we were being forced to plant Monsanto seed. I’m sure we all gave them a funny look when they asked it. After asking why they thought that, they said that’s what they had learned from watching Food Inc. At the end of the conversation, they realized they’d been duped by this movie.
I think it’s almost comical to read Kenner’s version on how this movie started out so innocent. Do you really think a Hollywood movie, trying to disguise itself as a documentary, is going to do anything other than try to scare people? In order for these types of movies to stand a chance of making money they have to sensationalize and paint an unrealistic picture in the minds of the viewers.
Kenner might think we are fighting against him, but actually we are just fighting for the truth to be told about agriculture. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be something him or Michael Pollan are very worried about. If you want an great example of where the bottom line is the most important thing, don’t look at farmers and ranchers, just look at these two characters. Pollan won’t go speak unless he gets his $40,000-$50,000 fee. Just imagine what would happen if farmers didn’t plant a crop unless they were guaranteed daily salaries like this.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Young Farmer Tells His Story
Young farmer works to tell the other side of the story
August 25, 2009 by Ken Anderson
Agriculture and the U.S. food production system seem to be under constant attack these days, with the movie Food Inc. and the recent Time magazine cover story on food being the latest examples.
So what do young farmers think of the constant criticism of what they do?
“It’s hard to take it sitting down,” says Jason Kvols, a 35-year old farmer from Laurel, Nebraska. “You know, we get automatically defensive of our industry, and I think what needs to be done is more opportunities for farmers and ranchers to get into situations where they have a voice-where they can speak out and say ‘this is what I do and this is why I do it’.”
Kvols, who serves on the Nebraska Farm Bureau board of directors, was recently part of a panel discussion following the showing of the Food Inc. movie in Lincoln. He says it was a good experience and an excellent opportunity to present the other side of the story. Kvols says social networking, such as Twitter and Facebook, is also a great tool. Read More
Being at the table for these discussions is so important. Congratulations to Jason for being willing to represent agriculture at a showing of Food Inc. Not only do we need to be willing to do things like this, but we should be actively seeking these opportunities to do so. Many consumers never have the chance to visit with a farmer or rancher. Making those personal connections are a great way to drive home the fact that this country is still being fed by family farms and ranches.
August 25, 2009 by Ken Anderson
Agriculture and the U.S. food production system seem to be under constant attack these days, with the movie Food Inc. and the recent Time magazine cover story on food being the latest examples.
So what do young farmers think of the constant criticism of what they do?
“It’s hard to take it sitting down,” says Jason Kvols, a 35-year old farmer from Laurel, Nebraska. “You know, we get automatically defensive of our industry, and I think what needs to be done is more opportunities for farmers and ranchers to get into situations where they have a voice-where they can speak out and say ‘this is what I do and this is why I do it’.”
Kvols, who serves on the Nebraska Farm Bureau board of directors, was recently part of a panel discussion following the showing of the Food Inc. movie in Lincoln. He says it was a good experience and an excellent opportunity to present the other side of the story. Kvols says social networking, such as Twitter and Facebook, is also a great tool. Read More
Being at the table for these discussions is so important. Congratulations to Jason for being willing to represent agriculture at a showing of Food Inc. Not only do we need to be willing to do things like this, but we should be actively seeking these opportunities to do so. Many consumers never have the chance to visit with a farmer or rancher. Making those personal connections are a great way to drive home the fact that this country is still being fed by family farms and ranches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)