Commission gives green light to genetically-modified potato
Published: 03 March 2010
Euractiv.com
In a controversial move, the European Commission yesterday (2 March) gave the green light for the first genetically-modified potato to be cultivated in the European Union.
At present, EU member states are able to restrict GM crop cultivation only under strict conditions as authorisation licences are valid across the 27-country bloc, in accordance with the principles of the single EU internal market.
José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, has voiced support for any plan that would allow the Commission to maintain EU-wide authority over GMO safety assessment and approval, while allowing countries the freedom to decide whether to cultivate GM crops.
Yesterday's decision was taken with this principle in mind, as outlined in the political guidelines for the new European Commission.
The EU executive authorised the cultivation in the EU of Amflora, a genetically-modified potato developed by German chemical company BASF.
"Responsible innovation will be my guiding principle when dealing with innovative technologies," said Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner John Dalli.
The decision was based on a series of favourable safety assessments carried out over the years by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
After an extensive and thorough review of five pending GM files, it had become clear that there were no new scientific issues that merited further assessment, as those concerning safety had been fully addressed, the commissioner added. Read More
It’s nice to see the EU actually recognizing sound science as a good resource for their decision making process. That’s normally not the case across the pond. When it comes to genetic modification, the truth is that humans have been doing this for 10,000 years. It’s a good thing we have or we probably wouldn’t be here today.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Giving Human Rights to Animals In Court
National Review: Easy Boy, Your Dog Might Sue
by Wesley J. Smith
March 3, 2010
Should animals, like indigent criminal defendants, be provided with legal representation by the state? It could happen. As Time has reported, on March 7, voters in Switzerland will decide whether to give “domestic creatures . . . the constitutional right to be represented by (human) lawyers in court.”
What? Treating animals at law as if they were human? Don’t laugh. Lest we be tempted to dismiss the referendum as just the latest European post-modernistic folly, the effort to open our own courtrooms to animals is quietly advancing. Indeed, “animal standing,” as the issue is usually called, is at the very top of the animal-rights movement’s policy wish list.
But animals suing? For most people, the very idea is a surreal fantasy out of a Far Side cartoon. But from the viewpoint of animal-rights ideologues, nothing could be more logical. The dogma of animal liberation demands the obliteration of all animal industries and, eventually, the eradication by attrition of all domesticated animals. As Wayne Pacelle stated in 1993 before being appointed to his current post as head of the Humane Society of the United States, “One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are the product of human selective breeding.”
What could further the eradication goal more dramatically than allowing domesticated animals to sue their owners in court? The real litigants, of course, would be animal-rights activists — committed true believers who would use the raw power of litigation to force animal industries to their knees. Imagine the chaos: hundreds of animal lawyers, filing thousands of lawsuits, leading to hundreds of thousands of depositions, forcing industries to spend tens of millions of dollars on lawyers and legal costs defending their husbandry. No animal industry would be safe, and many would not survive. Read More
Giving animals legal standing in our courts is laughable and very scary. No one knows what an animal is thinking. For humans to represent animals in a court of law, which is based on rights granted to us by our creator, and claim to know what it wants is making a mockery of an incredible institution. With rights comes responsibility as well. So if human rights are going to be granted to animals, they must also bear human responsibility.
by Wesley J. Smith
March 3, 2010
Should animals, like indigent criminal defendants, be provided with legal representation by the state? It could happen. As Time has reported, on March 7, voters in Switzerland will decide whether to give “domestic creatures . . . the constitutional right to be represented by (human) lawyers in court.”
What? Treating animals at law as if they were human? Don’t laugh. Lest we be tempted to dismiss the referendum as just the latest European post-modernistic folly, the effort to open our own courtrooms to animals is quietly advancing. Indeed, “animal standing,” as the issue is usually called, is at the very top of the animal-rights movement’s policy wish list.
But animals suing? For most people, the very idea is a surreal fantasy out of a Far Side cartoon. But from the viewpoint of animal-rights ideologues, nothing could be more logical. The dogma of animal liberation demands the obliteration of all animal industries and, eventually, the eradication by attrition of all domesticated animals. As Wayne Pacelle stated in 1993 before being appointed to his current post as head of the Humane Society of the United States, “One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are the product of human selective breeding.”
What could further the eradication goal more dramatically than allowing domesticated animals to sue their owners in court? The real litigants, of course, would be animal-rights activists — committed true believers who would use the raw power of litigation to force animal industries to their knees. Imagine the chaos: hundreds of animal lawyers, filing thousands of lawsuits, leading to hundreds of thousands of depositions, forcing industries to spend tens of millions of dollars on lawyers and legal costs defending their husbandry. No animal industry would be safe, and many would not survive. Read More
Giving animals legal standing in our courts is laughable and very scary. No one knows what an animal is thinking. For humans to represent animals in a court of law, which is based on rights granted to us by our creator, and claim to know what it wants is making a mockery of an incredible institution. With rights comes responsibility as well. So if human rights are going to be granted to animals, they must also bear human responsibility.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Most People Confused About What HSUS Is
Americans Wrongly Believe the Humane Society of the United States is a Pet-Shelter "Umbrella Group"
Consumer Group Reminds Americans that Less than One Percent of Donations to HSUS Benefit Local Pet Shelters
WASHINGTON, March 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Seventy-one percent of Americans questioned in a new opinion poll wrongly believe the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is an "umbrella group" for America's local humane societies. Sixty-three percent incorrectly think their local "humane society" is affiliated with HSUS. And fifty-nine percent falsely believe HSUS "contributes most of its money" to local organizations that care for cats and dogs.
The poll, which sampled the opinions of 1,008 Americans, was commissioned by the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) and conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) of Princeton, New Jersey.
"These numbers indicate that Americans don't really know what the Humane Society of the United States is all about," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "HSUS intentionally uses those sad dogs and cats in its TV infomercials as props in an animal rights fundraising shell game. Meanwhile, thousands of American pet shelters are underfunded and struggling." Martosko blogs about HSUS at http://www.humanewatch.org/.
According to the federal income tax return filed by HSUS for the tax year 2008, less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the organization's budget consisted of grants to hands-on pet shelters. HSUS does not run a single shelter for dogs or cats anywhere, and it is not affiliated with any local "humane society" organizations.
Martosko continued: "This poll indicates that most Americans think HSUS is a worthy charity. But very few Americans understand what HSUS really is—a super-rich lobbying group that puts more money into its executive pensions than in the hands of local humane societies."
Survey Methodology
The survey of 1,008 adults nationwide was conducted by telephone between February 25 and February 28, 2010 by Opinion Research Corporation. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.
Questions:
I'm going to read you the names of several nonprofit organizations. For each one, please tell me if you are very familiar, somewhat familiar or totally unfamiliar with the organization.
The Humane Society of the United States: 79% familiar ("very"/"somewhat" net)
I'm going to read you several statements. For each one, please tell me if you think the statement is true or false.
71% "TRUE": The Humane Society of the United States is an umbrella group that represents thousands of local humane societies all across America.
63% "TRUE": My local humane society or pet shelter is AFFILIATED with the Humane Society of the United States.
59% "TRUE": The Humane Society of the United States contributes most of its money to local organizations that care for dogs and cats.
48% "TRUE": My local humane society or pet shelter receives financial support from the Humane Society of the United States.
(Tax records filed by HSUS show that all four statements are false.)
Link
Just as Yellow Tail and Pilot Travel Centers were fooled into thinking that the HSUS was something they aren’t, so are most folks living in this country. This survey shows exactly how they have become so wealthy. It’s been accomplished on the backs of our hard-working local pet shelters. Because of the great work they do the HSUS profits. Wayne Pacelle will probably roll out the same old song about the Center for Consumer Freedom, but they didn’t do the survey. Along with that, the questions asked in the survey were very direct rather than misleading in way that could have affected the results. We’ve got a long way to go in educating the public about the HSUS, but this past month has shown that we can accomplish great things when we work together.
Consumer Group Reminds Americans that Less than One Percent of Donations to HSUS Benefit Local Pet Shelters
WASHINGTON, March 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Seventy-one percent of Americans questioned in a new opinion poll wrongly believe the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is an "umbrella group" for America's local humane societies. Sixty-three percent incorrectly think their local "humane society" is affiliated with HSUS. And fifty-nine percent falsely believe HSUS "contributes most of its money" to local organizations that care for cats and dogs.
The poll, which sampled the opinions of 1,008 Americans, was commissioned by the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) and conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) of Princeton, New Jersey.
"These numbers indicate that Americans don't really know what the Humane Society of the United States is all about," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "HSUS intentionally uses those sad dogs and cats in its TV infomercials as props in an animal rights fundraising shell game. Meanwhile, thousands of American pet shelters are underfunded and struggling." Martosko blogs about HSUS at http://www.humanewatch.org/.
According to the federal income tax return filed by HSUS for the tax year 2008, less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the organization's budget consisted of grants to hands-on pet shelters. HSUS does not run a single shelter for dogs or cats anywhere, and it is not affiliated with any local "humane society" organizations.
Martosko continued: "This poll indicates that most Americans think HSUS is a worthy charity. But very few Americans understand what HSUS really is—a super-rich lobbying group that puts more money into its executive pensions than in the hands of local humane societies."
Survey Methodology
The survey of 1,008 adults nationwide was conducted by telephone between February 25 and February 28, 2010 by Opinion Research Corporation. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.
Questions:
I'm going to read you the names of several nonprofit organizations. For each one, please tell me if you are very familiar, somewhat familiar or totally unfamiliar with the organization.
The Humane Society of the United States: 79% familiar ("very"/"somewhat" net)
I'm going to read you several statements. For each one, please tell me if you think the statement is true or false.
71% "TRUE": The Humane Society of the United States is an umbrella group that represents thousands of local humane societies all across America.
63% "TRUE": My local humane society or pet shelter is AFFILIATED with the Humane Society of the United States.
59% "TRUE": The Humane Society of the United States contributes most of its money to local organizations that care for dogs and cats.
48% "TRUE": My local humane society or pet shelter receives financial support from the Humane Society of the United States.
(Tax records filed by HSUS show that all four statements are false.)
Link
Just as Yellow Tail and Pilot Travel Centers were fooled into thinking that the HSUS was something they aren’t, so are most folks living in this country. This survey shows exactly how they have become so wealthy. It’s been accomplished on the backs of our hard-working local pet shelters. Because of the great work they do the HSUS profits. Wayne Pacelle will probably roll out the same old song about the Center for Consumer Freedom, but they didn’t do the survey. Along with that, the questions asked in the survey were very direct rather than misleading in way that could have affected the results. We’ve got a long way to go in educating the public about the HSUS, but this past month has shown that we can accomplish great things when we work together.
Adequate Food Production Requires Technology Use
Biotech, Nanotech and Synthetic Biology Roles in Future Food Supply Explored
ScienceDaily (Feb. 25, 2010) — Some say the world's population will swell to 9 billion people by 2030 and that will present significant challenges for agriculture to provide enough food to meet demand, says University of Idaho animal scientist Rod Hill.
Hill and Larry Branen, a University of Idaho food scientist, organized a symposium during the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting February 17 to explore ways biotechnology could provide healthy and plentiful animal-based foods to meet future demands.
Synthetic biology, nanotechnology, genetic engineering and other applications of biotechnology -- and the public's role in determining their acceptable uses -- were all addressed by panelists during the session.
The goal for the session, which was part of the nation's largest general science meeting held annually, was to encourage a dialogue among scientists and the public, said Hill, a Moscow-based molecular physiologist who studies muscle growth in cattle.
"There will be a significant challenge for agriculture and the science that will be required to provide a healthy, nutritious and adequate food supply in coming decades for a rapidly growing population," Hill said.
A key question, he said, is whether the Earth can continue to provide enough food without technological support. The history of civilization and agriculture during the last 10,000 years suggests otherwise.
"Unaided food production is an unattainable ideal -- current society is irrevocably grounded in the technological interventions underpinning the agricultural revolution that now strives to feed the world," Hill said. Read More
I have no doubts that technology will continue providing with the answers to feeding a growing world. In contrast, obtaining the social license to use that technology could be the biggest challenge. Unfortunately, it may come down to a simple question that everyone will have to answer. Do we abandon technology and concede that millions, if not billions, of people will starve to death? Or do we utilize safe, proven technology to ensure we can feed as many people as possible? How you answer that question will probably depend on how full your stomach is at the time you are being asked.
ScienceDaily (Feb. 25, 2010) — Some say the world's population will swell to 9 billion people by 2030 and that will present significant challenges for agriculture to provide enough food to meet demand, says University of Idaho animal scientist Rod Hill.
Hill and Larry Branen, a University of Idaho food scientist, organized a symposium during the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting February 17 to explore ways biotechnology could provide healthy and plentiful animal-based foods to meet future demands.
Synthetic biology, nanotechnology, genetic engineering and other applications of biotechnology -- and the public's role in determining their acceptable uses -- were all addressed by panelists during the session.
The goal for the session, which was part of the nation's largest general science meeting held annually, was to encourage a dialogue among scientists and the public, said Hill, a Moscow-based molecular physiologist who studies muscle growth in cattle.
"There will be a significant challenge for agriculture and the science that will be required to provide a healthy, nutritious and adequate food supply in coming decades for a rapidly growing population," Hill said.
A key question, he said, is whether the Earth can continue to provide enough food without technological support. The history of civilization and agriculture during the last 10,000 years suggests otherwise.
"Unaided food production is an unattainable ideal -- current society is irrevocably grounded in the technological interventions underpinning the agricultural revolution that now strives to feed the world," Hill said. Read More
I have no doubts that technology will continue providing with the answers to feeding a growing world. In contrast, obtaining the social license to use that technology could be the biggest challenge. Unfortunately, it may come down to a simple question that everyone will have to answer. Do we abandon technology and concede that millions, if not billions, of people will starve to death? Or do we utilize safe, proven technology to ensure we can feed as many people as possible? How you answer that question will probably depend on how full your stomach is at the time you are being asked.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Rep. Zack Space's Lettter to Wayne Pacelle
Ohioans have spoken about animal care
Congressman Zack Space • 18th District • February 28, 2010
An open letter to Wayne Pacelle, president of Humane Society of the United States:
Dear Mr. Pacelle,
I was disappointed and troubled to hear of the recent decision by the Humane Society of the United States to move forward with attempts to further their political agenda and force it on the people of Ohio. This news proves that clearly you and your organization have not been listening.
HSUS was obviously not listening when residents across the state of Ohio spoke in one voice -- overwhelmingly supporting Issue 2 and ensuring that Ohioans regulate our own standards for animal care. HSUS was obviously not listening when a majority of Ohio's federal and state delegation endorsed the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board -- overwhelmingly denouncing the HSUS' efforts to undermine it. And HSUS was obviously not listening when farmers across the state of Ohio weighed in on this disastrous policy -- overwhelmingly opposing it.
In addition to a majority of Ohioans, Issue 2 also had great support among Ohio's legislators, Governor Strickland and groups representing animal interests, including The American Humane Association and the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association. It is unconscionable to me that an outside group would come into our state and claim that they know better.
The OLCSB was created just four months ago with a strong mandate by the people of Ohio, and it would be wrong for it to be hijacked by overzealous special interests based out of Washington, D.C. Our board will ensure that livestock and animals in Ohio are treated humanely and that our agricultural producers -- a major sector of Ohio's economy -- are not unfairly penalized with unacceptable regulations.
The experts that will make up the OLCSB are the best sources for determining Ohio's minimum standards of care for our animals, and not a liberal group whose real intentions are less about animal care and more about control over what we in Ohio eat.
Your attempts to dictate our state policies regarding animal care are misguided, and I will not stand for them. Ohio's standards of animal care should be determined by those who know the issue best and have a vested interest in the outcome -- Ohioans.
I joined the farmers of my district to support the passage of Issue 2, which passed with almost 64 percent of the vote on Nov. 3. Ohioans statewide have spoken. It is clear exactly where they stand on this issue.
Mr. Pacelle, Ohio has spoken. Why haven't you been listening?
Regardless of party or position, Ohio's elected officials have adamantly against Wayne Pacelle and the HSUS coming to Ohio trying to hijack the very popular Livestock Care Standards Board before it's even been formed. Thank you Congressman Space for defending rural America and farmers and ranchers against this vegan animal rights group.
Congressman Zack Space • 18th District • February 28, 2010
An open letter to Wayne Pacelle, president of Humane Society of the United States:
Dear Mr. Pacelle,
I was disappointed and troubled to hear of the recent decision by the Humane Society of the United States to move forward with attempts to further their political agenda and force it on the people of Ohio. This news proves that clearly you and your organization have not been listening.
HSUS was obviously not listening when residents across the state of Ohio spoke in one voice -- overwhelmingly supporting Issue 2 and ensuring that Ohioans regulate our own standards for animal care. HSUS was obviously not listening when a majority of Ohio's federal and state delegation endorsed the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board -- overwhelmingly denouncing the HSUS' efforts to undermine it. And HSUS was obviously not listening when farmers across the state of Ohio weighed in on this disastrous policy -- overwhelmingly opposing it.
In addition to a majority of Ohioans, Issue 2 also had great support among Ohio's legislators, Governor Strickland and groups representing animal interests, including The American Humane Association and the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association. It is unconscionable to me that an outside group would come into our state and claim that they know better.
The OLCSB was created just four months ago with a strong mandate by the people of Ohio, and it would be wrong for it to be hijacked by overzealous special interests based out of Washington, D.C. Our board will ensure that livestock and animals in Ohio are treated humanely and that our agricultural producers -- a major sector of Ohio's economy -- are not unfairly penalized with unacceptable regulations.
The experts that will make up the OLCSB are the best sources for determining Ohio's minimum standards of care for our animals, and not a liberal group whose real intentions are less about animal care and more about control over what we in Ohio eat.
Your attempts to dictate our state policies regarding animal care are misguided, and I will not stand for them. Ohio's standards of animal care should be determined by those who know the issue best and have a vested interest in the outcome -- Ohioans.
I joined the farmers of my district to support the passage of Issue 2, which passed with almost 64 percent of the vote on Nov. 3. Ohioans statewide have spoken. It is clear exactly where they stand on this issue.
Mr. Pacelle, Ohio has spoken. Why haven't you been listening?
Regardless of party or position, Ohio's elected officials have adamantly against Wayne Pacelle and the HSUS coming to Ohio trying to hijack the very popular Livestock Care Standards Board before it's even been formed. Thank you Congressman Space for defending rural America and farmers and ranchers against this vegan animal rights group.
HSUS Loses Another Corporate Sponsor
The Tale of Yellow Tail Gets Longer
02/28/2010
By Gary Truitt
Two weeks ago I wrote a column about Yellow Tail wine, the Australian wine that became public enemy No. 1 overnight after donating $100,000.00 to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). After a few lame efforts to defend themselves and to ignore the overwhelming criticism the company was receiving, it finally did the right thing and admitted its mistake. The company promised not to make future donations to the radical animal rights organization. What was especially interesting is that much of the condemnation came from the public and from people outside of agriculture. While farmers and farm groups were a part of the chorus, the depth of dislike for HSUS to - say nothing of the sheer numbers of people enraged by the action - was a major factor in the decision by Yellow Tail to tuck its tail between its legs and run. As I write, history looks to be repeating itself as yet another corporation seems to be committing suicide by donating to HSUS.
For the second time in as many weeks, shining the spotlight of publicity on who gives money to HSUS has resulted in a change in policy by supporters of this anti-animal agriculture group. Again, the rapid dissemination of information via the social media networks has played a role.
These small victories are not going to put HSUS out of business, but it has shown how HSUS can be hurt and how individuals can have an imnpact. I truly hope this becomes a trend and that people, both inside and outside of agriculture, will take an interest in who supports radical activist groups. I cannot say it enough: stay informed and get involved. You can make a difference. Read More
In case you haven’t heard, February was a pretty good month for American agriculture and quite embarrassing for Wayne Pacelle and the Humane Society of the United States. The HSUS lost two corporate sponsors because individual farmers, ranchers, pet owners, outdoorsmen and others informed Pilot and Casella Wines that they would not support companies who support animal rights groups that inaccurately portray, and try to eliminate animal agriculture. As much as HSUS has tried to counter this movement by falsely claiming the Center for Consumer Freedom is responsible for starting this movement, it’s been a failure. They claim to have 11 million members, yet they couldn’t even get a handful of them to publicly support HSUS on Facebook. Many of those leaving pro-HSUS comments online have actually been HSUS employees who are paid to do it.
If you didn’t believe in the power of grassroots efforts before, you certainly should now.
02/28/2010
By Gary Truitt
Two weeks ago I wrote a column about Yellow Tail wine, the Australian wine that became public enemy No. 1 overnight after donating $100,000.00 to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). After a few lame efforts to defend themselves and to ignore the overwhelming criticism the company was receiving, it finally did the right thing and admitted its mistake. The company promised not to make future donations to the radical animal rights organization. What was especially interesting is that much of the condemnation came from the public and from people outside of agriculture. While farmers and farm groups were a part of the chorus, the depth of dislike for HSUS to - say nothing of the sheer numbers of people enraged by the action - was a major factor in the decision by Yellow Tail to tuck its tail between its legs and run. As I write, history looks to be repeating itself as yet another corporation seems to be committing suicide by donating to HSUS.
For the second time in as many weeks, shining the spotlight of publicity on who gives money to HSUS has resulted in a change in policy by supporters of this anti-animal agriculture group. Again, the rapid dissemination of information via the social media networks has played a role.
These small victories are not going to put HSUS out of business, but it has shown how HSUS can be hurt and how individuals can have an imnpact. I truly hope this becomes a trend and that people, both inside and outside of agriculture, will take an interest in who supports radical activist groups. I cannot say it enough: stay informed and get involved. You can make a difference. Read More
In case you haven’t heard, February was a pretty good month for American agriculture and quite embarrassing for Wayne Pacelle and the Humane Society of the United States. The HSUS lost two corporate sponsors because individual farmers, ranchers, pet owners, outdoorsmen and others informed Pilot and Casella Wines that they would not support companies who support animal rights groups that inaccurately portray, and try to eliminate animal agriculture. As much as HSUS has tried to counter this movement by falsely claiming the Center for Consumer Freedom is responsible for starting this movement, it’s been a failure. They claim to have 11 million members, yet they couldn’t even get a handful of them to publicly support HSUS on Facebook. Many of those leaving pro-HSUS comments online have actually been HSUS employees who are paid to do it.
If you didn’t believe in the power of grassroots efforts before, you certainly should now.
Young Farmers & Ranchers Donate 5.3 Million Meals in 2009
Farm Bureau Families Raise Record Funds for America’s Hungry
WASHINGTON, D.C, February 26, 2010 – The farm and ranch families of Farm Bureau last year raised more than $213,000 and donated more than 4.8 million pounds of food to hungry Americans as part of Farm Bureau’s “Harvest for All” program. Combined, the monetary and food donations provided the equivalent of nearly 5.3 million meals through Feeding America-affiliated food banks.
The money raised last year was a record and broke the prior record of $160,000 in 2008. Farm Bureau’s Harvest for All program began in 2004, and the program has continued to build momentum since then.
Members of Farm Bureau’s Young Farmers & Ranchers program spearhead the Harvest for All program across the nation, but all facets of Farm Bureau contribute to the effort. The joint effort between Farm Bureau and Feeding America is a national community-action program through which farmers can help ensure that every American can enjoy the bounty produced by the nation’s farm and ranch families.
“In these difficult economic times, Harvest for All is all the more important,” said Will Gilmer, AFBF YF&R chairman and a dairy producer from Lamar County, Ala. “As farmers and ranchers, we are blessed to work every day, feeding America and the world. Harvest for All is a great way to share our many blessings with those less fortunate than we are.”
Since Harvest for All was launched seven years ago, Farm Bureau families have gathered more than 20 million pounds of food, logged more than 35,000 volunteer hours and raised nearly $1 million in donations. Combined, the food and monetary donations amount to nearly 24 million meals.
Read More
Most of us take for granted having food on our plate everyday and not worrying about the next day’s meals. But for many that is not the case. One in eight Americans used a food bank in 2009. Farmers and ranchers are well-known for their efforts to make their communities a better place to live. Part of doing that is making sure that our neighbors have a place to get food when they are struggling to do so on their own. The efforts by these young farmers and ranchers from across the country have made a difference in the lives of hungry people. Since 2004, more than 24 million meals have been provided by these young farmers and ranchers.
WASHINGTON, D.C, February 26, 2010 – The farm and ranch families of Farm Bureau last year raised more than $213,000 and donated more than 4.8 million pounds of food to hungry Americans as part of Farm Bureau’s “Harvest for All” program. Combined, the monetary and food donations provided the equivalent of nearly 5.3 million meals through Feeding America-affiliated food banks.
The money raised last year was a record and broke the prior record of $160,000 in 2008. Farm Bureau’s Harvest for All program began in 2004, and the program has continued to build momentum since then.
Members of Farm Bureau’s Young Farmers & Ranchers program spearhead the Harvest for All program across the nation, but all facets of Farm Bureau contribute to the effort. The joint effort between Farm Bureau and Feeding America is a national community-action program through which farmers can help ensure that every American can enjoy the bounty produced by the nation’s farm and ranch families.
“In these difficult economic times, Harvest for All is all the more important,” said Will Gilmer, AFBF YF&R chairman and a dairy producer from Lamar County, Ala. “As farmers and ranchers, we are blessed to work every day, feeding America and the world. Harvest for All is a great way to share our many blessings with those less fortunate than we are.”
Since Harvest for All was launched seven years ago, Farm Bureau families have gathered more than 20 million pounds of food, logged more than 35,000 volunteer hours and raised nearly $1 million in donations. Combined, the food and monetary donations amount to nearly 24 million meals.
Read More
Most of us take for granted having food on our plate everyday and not worrying about the next day’s meals. But for many that is not the case. One in eight Americans used a food bank in 2009. Farmers and ranchers are well-known for their efforts to make their communities a better place to live. Part of doing that is making sure that our neighbors have a place to get food when they are struggling to do so on their own. The efforts by these young farmers and ranchers from across the country have made a difference in the lives of hungry people. Since 2004, more than 24 million meals have been provided by these young farmers and ranchers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)