TPS holding 'food defense' drill today
by: ANDREA EGER World Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
11/8/2011 10:59:54 AM
Tulsa Public Schools and local emergency responders will be conducting a "food defense" drill Tuesday.
Officials said evaluations of potential terrorist threats revealed that the school district's food production and distribution system could be vulnerable to attack from an individual or group wanting to cause public panic or harm to children and their families through the intentional contamination of food.
In addition to TPS officials, Tuesday's drill will involve the Tulsa Area Emergency Management Agency, the Tulsa Health Department, emergency response and law enforcement agencies and local healthcare providers.
"Our job is to evaluate potential threats to our schools, and there is always the possibility that schools could become a target," said Bob Roberts, emergency management coordinator for TPS. "It's important that we act proactively to prevent the tampering of foods that are used in schools. We need to be prepared for emergency situations, to respond quickly and effectively if a crisis occurs and to have recovery plans in place.
The practice exercise will test our battle readiness and ensure that we are in the best possible shape to act should an event occur."
The exercise will be a discussion-based drill based on a Department of Agriculture toolkit that will guide participants through a mock scenario of an intentional food contamination in the schools. Read More
A couple of things crossed my mind when I read this. First was about how things have changed over the years. We've gone from nuclear attack drills now to food defense drills. And the second thought I had was that this should remind everyone how important a home-grown food supply really is. The quickest way that our country could lose it's sovereignty is by relying on other countries to produce the food and fiber we depend on. So when we see anti-agriculture groups trying to regulate farmers and ranchers out of business in this country they are really damaging our country's ability to survive. -Troy
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Let's Advocate for Eating a Balanced Diet
Katy Perry struggles to stay vegetarian
By Vicky Allison Aug 22, 2011, 12:40 GMT
Pop star Katy Perry is finding it hard to stick to her pledge to stay vegetarian and has been secretly eating chicken and turkey, according to a friend.
The 26-year-old, who is currently on the US leg of her California Dreams tour, has failed her challenge to go vegetarian like husband Russell Brand.
British funnyman Brand, 36, was crowned sexiest vegetarian last year by PETA, but the Teenage Dream hitmaker likes meat too much to stick to his diet.
A source told British newspaper the Daily Mail: 'Russell has been a veggie for 22 years, but Katy adores meat.
'She did give it up for a while for Russell's sake but is finding it a struggle.' Link
I will be excited for the day when we stop seeing celebrities urging people to be on this fad diet or that one. We should all be able to agree that eating a well balanced diet that includes eating meat and dairy products is still the best bet. Especially for children, we should never be advocating they eat an unbalanced diet even for a single day. We continue to see people that struggle with their diet and health. Regular exercise and a balanced diet would eliminate many of the problems that are occurring.
Monday, February 14, 2011
A Spokesman for Agriculture
So many people have said we need to have some sort of official spokesman for agriculture. On the surface this sounds like a good idea. That's what most anti-agriculture groups do to distort the truth of food production. They cart out some celebrity who has never given agriculture a second thought and try to convince the public that they are somehow an expert.
We are fortunate enough to get to share our story with other producers quite often and we always emphasize to them that we are the true experts. That's why it's so important that we are out telling the real story as often as we can. And that's also why I don't want some celebrity trying to be a spokesman for me!
We've seen how difficult it can be to get the real story of ag out to consumers. The last thing I want is a paid celebrity trying to tell my story for me. Some people will say that celebrities can reach a broader audience than we can. That's not true. If every farmer and rancher told their story to one new person every day just think how many people we would reach with the truth. Even Mike Rowe said that farmers and ranchers are their own best spokesmen.
It may seem difficult for us to reach a new person every day but through things like social media and programs like Farm American we can do it. Social media lets us talk to people all over the world without ever leaving home. Many conversations about agriculture are taking place on social media so it's important that we are there to be part of them.
The Farm American program is an incredible opportunity for us to use the resources of Furniture Row to spread the message. Between their NASCAR team and their retail locations, we can reach 160 million people a week. The main goal of the Farm American program is to highlight the farmers and ranchers themselves so they can share their story. The folks at Furniture Row don't pretend to be experts in agriculture, they just want to provide platforms for the real experts to talk to consumers.
Family farmers and ranchers don't need a spokesman, we are the spokesman. Nobody will tell our story with the same accuracy and passion as we will. That's one of the main reasons why we continue to give our fellow producers the tools to tell their story. Its also why we are avid supporters of the Farm American program.
We are fortunate enough to get to share our story with other producers quite often and we always emphasize to them that we are the true experts. That's why it's so important that we are out telling the real story as often as we can. And that's also why I don't want some celebrity trying to be a spokesman for me!
We've seen how difficult it can be to get the real story of ag out to consumers. The last thing I want is a paid celebrity trying to tell my story for me. Some people will say that celebrities can reach a broader audience than we can. That's not true. If every farmer and rancher told their story to one new person every day just think how many people we would reach with the truth. Even Mike Rowe said that farmers and ranchers are their own best spokesmen.
It may seem difficult for us to reach a new person every day but through things like social media and programs like Farm American we can do it. Social media lets us talk to people all over the world without ever leaving home. Many conversations about agriculture are taking place on social media so it's important that we are there to be part of them.
The Farm American program is an incredible opportunity for us to use the resources of Furniture Row to spread the message. Between their NASCAR team and their retail locations, we can reach 160 million people a week. The main goal of the Farm American program is to highlight the farmers and ranchers themselves so they can share their story. The folks at Furniture Row don't pretend to be experts in agriculture, they just want to provide platforms for the real experts to talk to consumers.
Family farmers and ranchers don't need a spokesman, we are the spokesman. Nobody will tell our story with the same accuracy and passion as we will. That's one of the main reasons why we continue to give our fellow producers the tools to tell their story. Its also why we are avid supporters of the Farm American program.
Monday, January 31, 2011
SDSU Students Study Unwanted Horse Issues
SDSU students outline unwanted horse problem
Steve Miller Journal correspondent | Posted: Sunday, January 30, 2011 9:00 am | (2) Comments
The number of unwanted horses in the United States is growing by nearly 150,000 a year since the closing of the last U.S. slaughter plants, and no single, easy solution is in sight.
Those were some conclusions of a study conducted by students in South Dakota State University’s animal and range sciences department.
Ten students presented their study Friday to a small audience at Rushmore Plaza Civic Center during the Black Hills Stock Show & Rodeo.
In 2006, the year before the last three horse slaughtering plants closed in the United States, about 105,000 horses were killed, said first-year graduate student Kathy Koch of Crofton, Neb.
The plants were forced to close after Congress eliminated funding for federal inspection of horse meat for human consumption.
Since then, thousands of unwanted U.S. horses have been going to slaughter plants in Mexico and Canada.
An outright ban on the sale or transportation of horses for slaughter is pending in Congress.
Koch said there are now about 170,000 unwanted horses each year.
She said that even if all 432 adoption facilities in the country could take 50 horses each, only 21,600 horses could be adopted, leaving a net of 148,400 unwanted horses. Read More
The issue of unwanted horses continues to grow. While many of the animal rights activists think everything is fine and refuse to engage in real discussions of how to handle so many unwanted horses, there plenty of people in agriculture that are looking at a real problem and offering real solutions. There seems to be plenty of people that think we live in a world where nothing ever dies and life is always happy and easy. The real story is this, the only way life can continue to exist on this planet is if something dies every day. The success of life depends on death. We have the ability to use these livestock as a resource that not only assists us in their life but also in their death. There's nothing wrong with using horses to feed people. For thousands of years we have relied on livestock to benefit our lives and that still holds true today. The cruelest thing we can do for these horses, to mother nature and to ourselves is waste this natural resource.
Friday, October 1, 2010
How Pig Parts Make the World Turn
How Pig Parts Make the World Turn
September 30, 2010 in Agriculture, Business
EatDrinkBetter.com
Christien Meindertsma wondered what happened to the pig parts that don’t make it into the grocer’s freezer as pork. Long ago, people used all the parts of the animals they raised for food. She asked herself, “Do they still use all the parts?” And then she tracked one pig from the farm to the processor and through all the products he ended up in.
She wrote a book about her research, called Pig 05049, and divided the chapters by skin, bones, meat, internal organs, blood, fat, and miscellaneous. She lists the products derived from each body part.
It surprised me how many of these are in everyday products. Before the day even starts, she says, we use shampoo, conditioner, soap, face cream, lotion, toothpaste. Read More
September 30, 2010 in Agriculture, Business
EatDrinkBetter.com
Christien Meindertsma wondered what happened to the pig parts that don’t make it into the grocer’s freezer as pork. Long ago, people used all the parts of the animals they raised for food. She asked herself, “Do they still use all the parts?” And then she tracked one pig from the farm to the processor and through all the products he ended up in.
She wrote a book about her research, called Pig 05049, and divided the chapters by skin, bones, meat, internal organs, blood, fat, and miscellaneous. She lists the products derived from each body part.
It surprised me how many of these are in everyday products. Before the day even starts, she says, we use shampoo, conditioner, soap, face cream, lotion, toothpaste. Read More
Most of the critics of animal agriculture have no idea as to how important livestock are in our daily lives. Besides the obvious of providing us with physical nutrition, we use the co-products in everything from crayons to jet fuel. If we want to continue supporting our growing population on this planet then livestock will a pivotal role. There are those that think we should all become vegans. This is at best foolish and at worst dangerous to suggest.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Media Overhyping Organics
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
STUDY FINDS MEDIA MAY BE OVERHYPING BENEFITS OF ORGANIC FOOD, AGRICULTURE
Kansas State University
MANHATTAN -- News accounts of organic agriculture and organic food are more likely to be positive than negative and inaccurately claim organic food is safer, according to Kansas State University's Doug Powell.
Powell, an associate professor of food safety, is the co-author of "Coverage of organic agriculture in North American newspapers: Media -- linking food safety, the environment, human health and organic agriculture," just published in the British Food Journal.
The paper is based on a study Powell conducted from 1999-2004 with two colleagues at the University of Guelph in Canada, Stacey Cahill and Katija Morley. Cahill was one of Powell's students at the time.
The team explored how topics of organic food and agriculture were discussed in five North American newspapers. Using the content analysis technique, the 618 articles collected were analyzed for topic, tone and theme regarding food safety, environmental concerns and human health.
The prominent topics of the articles were genetic engineering, pesticides and organic farming, Powell said.
The analysis found 41.4 percent of the articles had a neutral tone toward organic agriculture and food, 36.9 percent had a positive tone, 15.5 percent were mixed and 6.1 percent were negative, Powell said.
"We concluded that articles about organic production in the selected time period were seldom negative," he said. "Organic agriculture was often portrayed in the media as an alternative to allegedly unsafe and environmentally damaging modern agriculture practices. That means organic was being defined by what it isn't, rather than what it is." Read More
This is an interesting look at how the media rarely uses objectivity in their reporting any more. They have been more than happy to just jump on a bandwagon of untruths about modern agriculture. There is no doubt that all production systems have a place in agriculture, that’s not the point of this discussion. The point is that the media is failing their clientele with their preference to unobjectively follow trends rather than inform their readers. ~Troy
STUDY FINDS MEDIA MAY BE OVERHYPING BENEFITS OF ORGANIC FOOD, AGRICULTURE
Kansas State University
MANHATTAN -- News accounts of organic agriculture and organic food are more likely to be positive than negative and inaccurately claim organic food is safer, according to Kansas State University's Doug Powell.
Powell, an associate professor of food safety, is the co-author of "Coverage of organic agriculture in North American newspapers: Media -- linking food safety, the environment, human health and organic agriculture," just published in the British Food Journal.
The paper is based on a study Powell conducted from 1999-2004 with two colleagues at the University of Guelph in Canada, Stacey Cahill and Katija Morley. Cahill was one of Powell's students at the time.
The team explored how topics of organic food and agriculture were discussed in five North American newspapers. Using the content analysis technique, the 618 articles collected were analyzed for topic, tone and theme regarding food safety, environmental concerns and human health.
The prominent topics of the articles were genetic engineering, pesticides and organic farming, Powell said.
The analysis found 41.4 percent of the articles had a neutral tone toward organic agriculture and food, 36.9 percent had a positive tone, 15.5 percent were mixed and 6.1 percent were negative, Powell said.
"We concluded that articles about organic production in the selected time period were seldom negative," he said. "Organic agriculture was often portrayed in the media as an alternative to allegedly unsafe and environmentally damaging modern agriculture practices. That means organic was being defined by what it isn't, rather than what it is." Read More
This is an interesting look at how the media rarely uses objectivity in their reporting any more. They have been more than happy to just jump on a bandwagon of untruths about modern agriculture. There is no doubt that all production systems have a place in agriculture, that’s not the point of this discussion. The point is that the media is failing their clientele with their preference to unobjectively follow trends rather than inform their readers. ~Troy
Monday, July 12, 2010
Too Much Milk?
Too much milk?
By Chris Woolston Special to the Los Angeles Times
July 12, 2010
Few things in life look as pure and simple as a glass of milk. The ingredient list on the carton is refreshingly short too. All it says is "milk," perhaps along with some added vitamin A and vitamin D. No preservatives, no artificial colors, no high-fructose anything. Just milk.
But like many things that appear simple from the outside, there's a lot going on beneath milk's surface. That glass is swirling with natural cow hormones, which isn't surprising considering the source. Milk contains sugars found nowhere else in nature, and it offers a particular blend of nutrients — including protein, calcium, magnesium and potassium — that you can't get anywhere else.
Yet, almost 8,000 years after nomadic herders realized they could tug at the udders of slow-moving livestock, we still aren't sure how much of the stuff we should be drinking. The USDA recommends three cups of dairy a day for all adults, but the science behind milk hasn't been settled. "This is one of the most complicated and interesting areas of nutrition," says Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, "and we don't have all of the answers."
Many high-profile nutritionists — often working with large research grants from the dairy industry — say that milk in great quantities is an essential part of the daily diet that can help prevent osteoporosis, heart disease, cancer and other illnesses. "Anything less than three glasses a day, and you won't get all of the nutrients that you need," says Connie Weaver, head of food and nutrition at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. Most of Weaver's funding comes from the National Institutes of Health, but she's also supported by the National Dairy Council.
On the other side, groups promoting animal rights and veganism — including PETA and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine — say that cow's milk is a nutritional nightmare that doesn't belong in the human diet. "It's gross," says Dr. Neil Barnard, author and founder of the PCRM. "Milk is nutritionally perfect for one purpose: feeding a calf," he says. "The idea that we should be drinking milk from a cow is just bizarre."
Willett, one of the world's most prominent nutrition experts, doesn't belong to either camp. From his viewpoint, one or two cups of milk each day is a safe, reasonable and nutritious goal. "But beyond that," he says, "the benefits are unclear, and there may be some risk."
The PCRM website says that milk raises the risk of breast cancer, but even Barnard isn't convinced. " Breast cancer is unclear," he says, adding that he doesn't often look at the organization's website. A 2005 report from a researcher with the Australian equivalent of the Dairy Council combined results of 52 previous studies examining the issue. When put together, the studies didn't show any connection between dairy and breast cancer.
Read More
With all of the studies mentioned in this article that may suggest this or that, we do know that no single food has ever been proven to cause cancer. That is undeniable fact. So with that in mind we need to go back to common sense. When it comes to food it’s important that we eat a balanced diet that includes meat and diary products. And just to show you how radical groups like the PCRM are, Dr. Barnard (founder of the PCRM) even admits that he doesn’t agree with everything they are saying about milk on their website. You would think that they’d at least try to get their story straight while trying to mislead the public.
By Chris Woolston Special to the Los Angeles Times
July 12, 2010
Few things in life look as pure and simple as a glass of milk. The ingredient list on the carton is refreshingly short too. All it says is "milk," perhaps along with some added vitamin A and vitamin D. No preservatives, no artificial colors, no high-fructose anything. Just milk.
But like many things that appear simple from the outside, there's a lot going on beneath milk's surface. That glass is swirling with natural cow hormones, which isn't surprising considering the source. Milk contains sugars found nowhere else in nature, and it offers a particular blend of nutrients — including protein, calcium, magnesium and potassium — that you can't get anywhere else.
Yet, almost 8,000 years after nomadic herders realized they could tug at the udders of slow-moving livestock, we still aren't sure how much of the stuff we should be drinking. The USDA recommends three cups of dairy a day for all adults, but the science behind milk hasn't been settled. "This is one of the most complicated and interesting areas of nutrition," says Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, "and we don't have all of the answers."
Many high-profile nutritionists — often working with large research grants from the dairy industry — say that milk in great quantities is an essential part of the daily diet that can help prevent osteoporosis, heart disease, cancer and other illnesses. "Anything less than three glasses a day, and you won't get all of the nutrients that you need," says Connie Weaver, head of food and nutrition at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. Most of Weaver's funding comes from the National Institutes of Health, but she's also supported by the National Dairy Council.
On the other side, groups promoting animal rights and veganism — including PETA and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine — say that cow's milk is a nutritional nightmare that doesn't belong in the human diet. "It's gross," says Dr. Neil Barnard, author and founder of the PCRM. "Milk is nutritionally perfect for one purpose: feeding a calf," he says. "The idea that we should be drinking milk from a cow is just bizarre."
Willett, one of the world's most prominent nutrition experts, doesn't belong to either camp. From his viewpoint, one or two cups of milk each day is a safe, reasonable and nutritious goal. "But beyond that," he says, "the benefits are unclear, and there may be some risk."
The PCRM website says that milk raises the risk of breast cancer, but even Barnard isn't convinced. " Breast cancer is unclear," he says, adding that he doesn't often look at the organization's website. A 2005 report from a researcher with the Australian equivalent of the Dairy Council combined results of 52 previous studies examining the issue. When put together, the studies didn't show any connection between dairy and breast cancer.
Read More
With all of the studies mentioned in this article that may suggest this or that, we do know that no single food has ever been proven to cause cancer. That is undeniable fact. So with that in mind we need to go back to common sense. When it comes to food it’s important that we eat a balanced diet that includes meat and diary products. And just to show you how radical groups like the PCRM are, Dr. Barnard (founder of the PCRM) even admits that he doesn’t agree with everything they are saying about milk on their website. You would think that they’d at least try to get their story straight while trying to mislead the public.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Consumers Will Support GM Food
Food Technology: 'What's in it for Me?'
by International Food Information Council Foundation Jun 04, 2010
Many of us can probably recall a time when we waited in a long line just to purchase the latest mobile or electronic technology. But, do we have the same reaction when it comes to technology used in food production? Granted, it may not seem as exciting as that new MP3 player or cell phone, but does food technology deserve a bad rap? What do Americans really think about food technology, and what types of messages resonate with them?
To gain insight into these very issues, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) recently conducted our 14 "Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology" Survey (formerly the "IFIC Survey of Consumer Attitudinal Trends toward Food Biotechnology"), which explores U.S. consumers' perceptions of various aspects of plant and animal biotechnology, as well as sustainability and new and emerging technologies such as nanotechnology.
Key Takeaways
While we gained several interesting insights from this year's Survey, one of the most important takeaways was that Americans' support of the use of food biotechnology is strongest when they consider its potential benefits for impacting issues of importance to them, such as reducing the impact of food and food production on the environment, and improving sustainability. Read More
The things that consumers want genetically enhanced foods to accomplish is exactly what they are doing. They were designed so less pesticides and herbicides would need to be used. We are producing more with less and feeding the world. Unfortunately there are many consumers out there who are basing their opinions about this technology off scary headlines and rumors. If consumers can look through the emotion and take an objective look at it, we’d all be better off.
by International Food Information Council Foundation Jun 04, 2010
Many of us can probably recall a time when we waited in a long line just to purchase the latest mobile or electronic technology. But, do we have the same reaction when it comes to technology used in food production? Granted, it may not seem as exciting as that new MP3 player or cell phone, but does food technology deserve a bad rap? What do Americans really think about food technology, and what types of messages resonate with them?
To gain insight into these very issues, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) recently conducted our 14 "Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology" Survey (formerly the "IFIC Survey of Consumer Attitudinal Trends toward Food Biotechnology"), which explores U.S. consumers' perceptions of various aspects of plant and animal biotechnology, as well as sustainability and new and emerging technologies such as nanotechnology.
Key Takeaways
While we gained several interesting insights from this year's Survey, one of the most important takeaways was that Americans' support of the use of food biotechnology is strongest when they consider its potential benefits for impacting issues of importance to them, such as reducing the impact of food and food production on the environment, and improving sustainability. Read More
The things that consumers want genetically enhanced foods to accomplish is exactly what they are doing. They were designed so less pesticides and herbicides would need to be used. We are producing more with less and feeding the world. Unfortunately there are many consumers out there who are basing their opinions about this technology off scary headlines and rumors. If consumers can look through the emotion and take an objective look at it, we’d all be better off.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Study Shows Grain Fed Beef Healthier Than Grass Fed
Study Shows Ground Beef From Grain-Fed Cattle Healthier Than Grass-Fed
05/27/2010 10:49AM
COLLEGE STATION – Grass-fed beef may not have as many healthful traits as some perceive, according to results from a recent Texas AgriLife Research study.
Dr. Stephen Smith, an AgriLife Research meat scientist, and a team of researchers have found that contrary to popular perception, ground beef from pasture-fed cattle had no beneficial effects on plasma lipid.
However, high monounsaturated fat ground beef from grain-fed cattle increased HDL cholesterol, increased LDL particle diameters, and decreased insulin, suggesting that ground beef produced by intensive production practices provides “a healthful, high-quality source of protein.”
"We wanted to see from this study if product from pasture-fed and corn-fed cattle had different effects on LDL or HDL cholesterol," Smith said. "We looked at the scientific literature and could not find any justifications for the statement that pasture-fed beef is better for you. All we found were rat studies in which they were fed omega-3 fatty acids, so we wanted to know if this applied to beef from grass-fed cattle."
"There really were no negative effects of feeding ground beef from the pasture-fed cattle," Smith said. "We did see many positive effects in men that consumed ground beef from corn-fed cattle. The ground beef from the USDA Prime cattle increased HDL cholesterol and LDL particle diameter. Both effects are protective against cardiovascular disease. The Prime ground beef also decreased insulin, so it may have some protective effect against type II diabetes." Read More
The biggest thing this study should provide for us is the fact that all beef is healthy for us. It doesn’t do anyone any good to vilify the type of beef our neighbor raises. It doesn’t matter what type of food you are raising, if you have to make up scary stories and spew misinformation about other products in order to promote your own, then you have a problem. All of us have preferences about what we like and don’t like but in the end we have a huge responsibility to provide food and fiber for the planet.
05/27/2010 10:49AM
COLLEGE STATION – Grass-fed beef may not have as many healthful traits as some perceive, according to results from a recent Texas AgriLife Research study.
Dr. Stephen Smith, an AgriLife Research meat scientist, and a team of researchers have found that contrary to popular perception, ground beef from pasture-fed cattle had no beneficial effects on plasma lipid.
However, high monounsaturated fat ground beef from grain-fed cattle increased HDL cholesterol, increased LDL particle diameters, and decreased insulin, suggesting that ground beef produced by intensive production practices provides “a healthful, high-quality source of protein.”
"We wanted to see from this study if product from pasture-fed and corn-fed cattle had different effects on LDL or HDL cholesterol," Smith said. "We looked at the scientific literature and could not find any justifications for the statement that pasture-fed beef is better for you. All we found were rat studies in which they were fed omega-3 fatty acids, so we wanted to know if this applied to beef from grass-fed cattle."
"There really were no negative effects of feeding ground beef from the pasture-fed cattle," Smith said. "We did see many positive effects in men that consumed ground beef from corn-fed cattle. The ground beef from the USDA Prime cattle increased HDL cholesterol and LDL particle diameter. Both effects are protective against cardiovascular disease. The Prime ground beef also decreased insulin, so it may have some protective effect against type II diabetes." Read More
The biggest thing this study should provide for us is the fact that all beef is healthy for us. It doesn’t do anyone any good to vilify the type of beef our neighbor raises. It doesn’t matter what type of food you are raising, if you have to make up scary stories and spew misinformation about other products in order to promote your own, then you have a problem. All of us have preferences about what we like and don’t like but in the end we have a huge responsibility to provide food and fiber for the planet.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
HSUS, PETA Attack Food Donation Program
Animal groups' criticism bounces off hunters who feed hungry
By Courtland Milloy
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
During a recent deer hunt in Southern Maryland, Blaise Higgs killed a doe and then took it to a butcher shop for dressing. After setting aside several pounds of venison for his family, he donated the rest to an organization that helps feed the hungry.
"A lot of people are having a difficult time putting food on the table, so if you can help them, why not?" said Higgs, 38, a resident of Mechanicsville and a hunter since he was 6.
In the long-running dispute with animal rights advocates over the ethics of deer hunting, Higgs and other sportsmen have found what they believe to be the moral high ground: stocking food banks and soup kitchens with their kills.
One day last week, about 50 people dined on venison chili at the Loaves & Fishes Soup Kitchen, which operates out of St. Paul's United Methodist Church in Leonardtown.
"We call it 'Bambi chili,' " said Shirley Morton, a volunteer cook.
Higgs's bounty was distributed through Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry, a national outreach ministry headquartered in Williamsport, Md. Steve White, a coordinator for the group, said participants in Maryland provided enough food for 497,800 meals between June 2008 and this past July.
Animal rights activists are not impressed.
"I find it offensive that people would try to justify immoral behavior by claiming that something good comes out of it," said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "They can't defend ruthlessly blowing away animals for fun, so they come up with these ancillary benefits."
The controversy over deer hunting has heated up in the Washington area in recent months, with several jurisdictions approving deer hunts in public parks as a way to control the herds.
But groups including PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have expressed strong opposition to the hunts, calling them cruel to animals and dangerous for human beings.
Read More
How sad is it that PETA and the Humane Society of the United States, who have combined resources in the neighborhood of one-quarter of a billion dollars, would rather complain about deer hunting than help out hungry families. While farmers, ranchers and hunters work to help feed the families in their communities, PETA and HSUS work to stop their efforts. Why Bruce Friedrich and Wayne Pacelle would let their organizations actively work towards causing more people to go hungry is beyond me.
By Courtland Milloy
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
During a recent deer hunt in Southern Maryland, Blaise Higgs killed a doe and then took it to a butcher shop for dressing. After setting aside several pounds of venison for his family, he donated the rest to an organization that helps feed the hungry.
"A lot of people are having a difficult time putting food on the table, so if you can help them, why not?" said Higgs, 38, a resident of Mechanicsville and a hunter since he was 6.
In the long-running dispute with animal rights advocates over the ethics of deer hunting, Higgs and other sportsmen have found what they believe to be the moral high ground: stocking food banks and soup kitchens with their kills.
One day last week, about 50 people dined on venison chili at the Loaves & Fishes Soup Kitchen, which operates out of St. Paul's United Methodist Church in Leonardtown.
"We call it 'Bambi chili,' " said Shirley Morton, a volunteer cook.
Higgs's bounty was distributed through Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry, a national outreach ministry headquartered in Williamsport, Md. Steve White, a coordinator for the group, said participants in Maryland provided enough food for 497,800 meals between June 2008 and this past July.
Animal rights activists are not impressed.
"I find it offensive that people would try to justify immoral behavior by claiming that something good comes out of it," said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "They can't defend ruthlessly blowing away animals for fun, so they come up with these ancillary benefits."
The controversy over deer hunting has heated up in the Washington area in recent months, with several jurisdictions approving deer hunts in public parks as a way to control the herds.
But groups including PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have expressed strong opposition to the hunts, calling them cruel to animals and dangerous for human beings.
Read More
How sad is it that PETA and the Humane Society of the United States, who have combined resources in the neighborhood of one-quarter of a billion dollars, would rather complain about deer hunting than help out hungry families. While farmers, ranchers and hunters work to help feed the families in their communities, PETA and HSUS work to stop their efforts. Why Bruce Friedrich and Wayne Pacelle would let their organizations actively work towards causing more people to go hungry is beyond me.
Monday, December 14, 2009
A Food Police Review
Food activists are all jeer, no cheer
Published: 01:00 a.m., Friday, December 11, 2009
By J. Justin Wilson
'Tis the season -- for eating. But while the holiday season offers us an excuse to indulge in our favorite culinary fantasies, some activist groups are killing the joy with doomsday proclamations about our food. It's time to carve up their myth-making and set the record straight about which dietary do-gooders deserve to be on Santa's "Naughty" list.
Just in time for holiday feasts, a new report spotlights spinach, eggs, cheese, tuna and even tomatoes as some of the supposed top 10 "riskiest" foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. The report's author is the notorious Center for Science in the Public Interest, commonly known as the self-anointed "food police" for its overzealous prosecution of any food, drink, or ingredient that might possibly be bad for us.
Interestingly, some of the foods CSPI now deems "risky" were previously featured by CSPI in a top 10 list of "Super Foods for Better Health." So a food is good for us until CSPI decides it's actually bad for us and can breathlessly fuel a media scare campaign saying so. Flip-flopping CSPI surely will find coal in its stockings.
It's not the first time CSPI has been a dietary Scrooge. In the mid-1980s, CSPI launched an all-out assault on fast-food restaurants and encouraged them to drop saturated fat-laden oil and replace it with partially hydrogenated oil containing trans fats. Not long after, however, CSPI's executive director, Michael Jacobson, was calling for restaurants to dump them.
PCRM shares the vegan agenda with PETA, meaning no cheese, no dairy and definitely no hot dogs or grilled chicken.
In reality, however, PCRM is only dressed up as a respectable group of doctors: Less than 4 percent of the "Physicians Committee" members graduated from medical school. PCRM president Neal Barnard ridiculously writes that "to give a child animal products is a form of child abuse" and has hysterically argued that cheese is tantamount to "morphine on a cracker." (If these vegans had a little eggnog, they might not be such Grinches.) Read More
There is no doubt that the groups mentioned in this article have a goal to change the way we produce and eat food in our society. The article correctly points out how these food police regularly flip-flop on their recommendations. That’s why the most simple nutritional advice is still the best. If you eat a balanced diet that includes meat and dairy products in the proper amounts, you will be just fine. Every fad in eating that comes along tells us we should shun certain food groups. That lasts for a few years and then the next fad comes along. Eating a balanced diet is not a fad. That’s the lesson all of us need to learn and teach to our children.
Published: 01:00 a.m., Friday, December 11, 2009
By J. Justin Wilson
'Tis the season -- for eating. But while the holiday season offers us an excuse to indulge in our favorite culinary fantasies, some activist groups are killing the joy with doomsday proclamations about our food. It's time to carve up their myth-making and set the record straight about which dietary do-gooders deserve to be on Santa's "Naughty" list.
Just in time for holiday feasts, a new report spotlights spinach, eggs, cheese, tuna and even tomatoes as some of the supposed top 10 "riskiest" foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. The report's author is the notorious Center for Science in the Public Interest, commonly known as the self-anointed "food police" for its overzealous prosecution of any food, drink, or ingredient that might possibly be bad for us.
Interestingly, some of the foods CSPI now deems "risky" were previously featured by CSPI in a top 10 list of "Super Foods for Better Health." So a food is good for us until CSPI decides it's actually bad for us and can breathlessly fuel a media scare campaign saying so. Flip-flopping CSPI surely will find coal in its stockings.
It's not the first time CSPI has been a dietary Scrooge. In the mid-1980s, CSPI launched an all-out assault on fast-food restaurants and encouraged them to drop saturated fat-laden oil and replace it with partially hydrogenated oil containing trans fats. Not long after, however, CSPI's executive director, Michael Jacobson, was calling for restaurants to dump them.
PCRM shares the vegan agenda with PETA, meaning no cheese, no dairy and definitely no hot dogs or grilled chicken.
In reality, however, PCRM is only dressed up as a respectable group of doctors: Less than 4 percent of the "Physicians Committee" members graduated from medical school. PCRM president Neal Barnard ridiculously writes that "to give a child animal products is a form of child abuse" and has hysterically argued that cheese is tantamount to "morphine on a cracker." (If these vegans had a little eggnog, they might not be such Grinches.) Read More
There is no doubt that the groups mentioned in this article have a goal to change the way we produce and eat food in our society. The article correctly points out how these food police regularly flip-flop on their recommendations. That’s why the most simple nutritional advice is still the best. If you eat a balanced diet that includes meat and dairy products in the proper amounts, you will be just fine. Every fad in eating that comes along tells us we should shun certain food groups. That lasts for a few years and then the next fad comes along. Eating a balanced diet is not a fad. That’s the lesson all of us need to learn and teach to our children.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Thank A Farmer
On Tuesday night's AgChat on Twitter a great idea was shared about how we can thank farmer and ranchers for the hard work they do growing our food. And with Thanksgiving this week, it couldn't come at a better time.
If you have a twitter account, please use the hashtag #thankafarmer on Wednesday morning and share what you are thankful for. The big effort to begin at 9am MST, but please feel free to thank a farmer all day long. Not only will this give everyone a chance to reflect on what great things farmers and ranchers produce that we should be thankful for everyday, but it will also help remind everyone else where their food comes from.
If you don't have a twitter account, please do the same thing on Facebook, or a blog if you have one. The point is we need to take the day before Thanksgiving to give thanks for all of our blessings, especially the safe, affordable, abundant food supply we enjoy in this country. It doesn't happen by accident, it happens because of the world's greatest farmers and ranchers that live in this country.
Thanks everyone and have a wonderful Thanksgiving! ~Troy
Wednesday Morning update:
WOW!! Thank a farmer is really catching on. Here is a long list of blogs that are already talking about it. Check them out! And please get in on the action if you can. I can't think of a better way to kick off our Thanksgiving holiday.
Love Thanksgiving? Thank a Farmer - Busy Women's Guide to Eating Better http://bit.ly/8lvACg
Giving Thanks - Cut to the Paste http://bit.ly/8w1Bvz
Be Thankful for a Lot of Things, and Don't Forget the Farmers - Texas Agriculture Talks http://bit.ly/7vcClc
America’s Family Farmers – Food for thought from Monsanto http://bit.ly/8HXNux
Farmers make foodie aspirations possible - Farm Bureau Blog http://bit.ly/4svklJ
Don't Be a Turkey This Thanksgiving, Thank a Farmer - Beyond the Rows http://bit.ly/6Y8WgQ
Food a Plenty, Thanks to family farmers - NCGA http://bit.ly/2plNrK
Giving Thanks - Marketing Newbie http://bit.ly/8nhJCs
A place to post your thanks - Beef from Pasture to Plate http://bit.ly/5nuPL9
A Farmer in Northwest Iowa - Faith, Fiction, Friends http://bit.ly/5EdzJl
Thanking a Farmer for Introducing Me to the World of Beef Cattle - Beef from Pasture to Plate http://bit.ly/5DpkxC
Fun Facts about the Food We Eat - Ag Day http://bit.ly/70rAgI
Thank a Farmer - Beef From Pasture to Plate http://bit.ly/8oEQni
#thank a Farmer - JB Chicago http://bit.ly/5rfMzp
It's Thank a Farmer Week - Tyson Foods Hunger Aid http://bit.ly/8nF2xg
#ThankaFarmer - Ray-Lin Dairy http://bit.ly/5OgYgC
Reflections on Your Thanksgiving Plate http://bit.ly/7Kz2r0
If you have a twitter account, please use the hashtag #thankafarmer on Wednesday morning and share what you are thankful for. The big effort to begin at 9am MST, but please feel free to thank a farmer all day long. Not only will this give everyone a chance to reflect on what great things farmers and ranchers produce that we should be thankful for everyday, but it will also help remind everyone else where their food comes from.
If you don't have a twitter account, please do the same thing on Facebook, or a blog if you have one. The point is we need to take the day before Thanksgiving to give thanks for all of our blessings, especially the safe, affordable, abundant food supply we enjoy in this country. It doesn't happen by accident, it happens because of the world's greatest farmers and ranchers that live in this country.
Thanks everyone and have a wonderful Thanksgiving! ~Troy
Wednesday Morning update:
WOW!! Thank a farmer is really catching on. Here is a long list of blogs that are already talking about it. Check them out! And please get in on the action if you can. I can't think of a better way to kick off our Thanksgiving holiday.
Love Thanksgiving? Thank a Farmer - Busy Women's Guide to Eating Better http://bit.ly/8lvACg
Giving Thanks - Cut to the Paste http://bit.ly/8w1Bvz
Be Thankful for a Lot of Things, and Don't Forget the Farmers - Texas Agriculture Talks http://bit.ly/7vcClc
America’s Family Farmers – Food for thought from Monsanto http://bit.ly/8HXNux
Farmers make foodie aspirations possible - Farm Bureau Blog http://bit.ly/4svklJ
Don't Be a Turkey This Thanksgiving, Thank a Farmer - Beyond the Rows http://bit.ly/6Y8WgQ
Food a Plenty, Thanks to family farmers - NCGA http://bit.ly/2plNrK
Giving Thanks - Marketing Newbie http://bit.ly/8nhJCs
A place to post your thanks - Beef from Pasture to Plate http://bit.ly/5nuPL9
A Farmer in Northwest Iowa - Faith, Fiction, Friends http://bit.ly/5EdzJl
Thanking a Farmer for Introducing Me to the World of Beef Cattle - Beef from Pasture to Plate http://bit.ly/5DpkxC
Fun Facts about the Food We Eat - Ag Day http://bit.ly/70rAgI
Thank a Farmer - Beef From Pasture to Plate http://bit.ly/8oEQni
#thank a Farmer - JB Chicago http://bit.ly/5rfMzp
It's Thank a Farmer Week - Tyson Foods Hunger Aid http://bit.ly/8nF2xg
#ThankaFarmer - Ray-Lin Dairy http://bit.ly/5OgYgC
Reflections on Your Thanksgiving Plate http://bit.ly/7Kz2r0
Monday, November 16, 2009
Ex-Vegetarian Dancing Better With Balanced Diet
'Dancing's Mya 'no longer a vegetarian'
November 13 2009, 3:29pm EST
By Oli Simpson
Mya has revealed that she has turned her back on vegetarianism in a bid to stay on top form for Dancing With The Stars.
The singer claimed that a meat-free diet left her exhausted when she started rehearsing for the talent show.
She told OK: "I am eating more protein now - I used to be a vegetarian!
"So I'm eating lots of chicken and beef. I splurge on carbs like mac and cheese, mashed potatoes, rice and gravy, bagels - the list goes on!" Link
Doesn’t it seem odd that myself and others get attacked by vegan/vegetarians for advocating a diet that is balanced to contain the proper amounts of food from every food group? Yet here is someone that found out just how important that is. If you want to have a strong body and mind, you need to properly fuel it.
November 13 2009, 3:29pm EST
By Oli Simpson
Mya has revealed that she has turned her back on vegetarianism in a bid to stay on top form for Dancing With The Stars.
The singer claimed that a meat-free diet left her exhausted when she started rehearsing for the talent show.
She told OK: "I am eating more protein now - I used to be a vegetarian!
"So I'm eating lots of chicken and beef. I splurge on carbs like mac and cheese, mashed potatoes, rice and gravy, bagels - the list goes on!" Link
Doesn’t it seem odd that myself and others get attacked by vegan/vegetarians for advocating a diet that is balanced to contain the proper amounts of food from every food group? Yet here is someone that found out just how important that is. If you want to have a strong body and mind, you need to properly fuel it.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What Will Feed The World
SPECIAL REPORT-The fight over the future of food
Mon Nov 9, 2009 8:24pm EST
By Claudia Parsons, Russell Blinch and Svetlana Kovalyova
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON/MILAN, Nov 10 (Reuters) - At first glance, Giuseppe Oglio's farm near Milan looks like it's suffering from neglect. Weeds run rampant amid the rice fields and clover grows unchecked around his millet crop.
Oglio, a third generation farmer eschews modern farming techniques -- chemicals, fertilizers, heavy machinery -- in favor of a purely natural approach. It is not just ecological, he says, but profitable, and he believes his system can be replicated in starving regions of the globe.
Nearly 5,000 miles (8,000 km) away, in laboratories in St. Louis, Missouri, hundreds of scientists at the world's biggest seed company, Monsanto, also want to feed the world, only their tools of choice are laser beams and petri dishes.
Monsanto, a leader in agricultural biotechnology, spends about $2 million a day on scientific research that aims to improve on Mother Nature, and is positioning itself as a key player in the fight against hunger.
The Italian farmer and the U.S. multinational represent the two extremes in an increasingly acrimonious debate over the future of food.
Everybody wants to end hunger, but just how to do so is a divisive question that pits environmentalists against anti-poverty campaigners, big business against consumers and rich countries against poor.
The food fight takes place at a time when experts on both sides agree on one thing -- the number of empty bellies around the world will only grow unless there is major intervention now.
A combination of the food crisis and the global economic downturn has catapulted the number of hungry people in the world to more than 1 billion. The United Nations says world food output must grow by 70 percent over the next four decades to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people by 2050. Read More
It’s nice to see a somewhat balanced article in the media these days. I thought Reuters did a pretty good job here of just reporting the situation and letting their readers decide how they feel about the issue. What a novel concept for a large media company! Here is what we know for sure about this issue, we need to grow a lot more food in the future. The question is how do we get there. Some people think we need to use farming techniques from a century ago regardless of the amount of food produced. Others believe that the answers lie in using technology to grow enough food for everyone, i.e. another green revolution. ~TH
Mon Nov 9, 2009 8:24pm EST
By Claudia Parsons, Russell Blinch and Svetlana Kovalyova
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON/MILAN, Nov 10 (Reuters) - At first glance, Giuseppe Oglio's farm near Milan looks like it's suffering from neglect. Weeds run rampant amid the rice fields and clover grows unchecked around his millet crop.
Oglio, a third generation farmer eschews modern farming techniques -- chemicals, fertilizers, heavy machinery -- in favor of a purely natural approach. It is not just ecological, he says, but profitable, and he believes his system can be replicated in starving regions of the globe.
Nearly 5,000 miles (8,000 km) away, in laboratories in St. Louis, Missouri, hundreds of scientists at the world's biggest seed company, Monsanto, also want to feed the world, only their tools of choice are laser beams and petri dishes.
Monsanto, a leader in agricultural biotechnology, spends about $2 million a day on scientific research that aims to improve on Mother Nature, and is positioning itself as a key player in the fight against hunger.
The Italian farmer and the U.S. multinational represent the two extremes in an increasingly acrimonious debate over the future of food.
Everybody wants to end hunger, but just how to do so is a divisive question that pits environmentalists against anti-poverty campaigners, big business against consumers and rich countries against poor.
The food fight takes place at a time when experts on both sides agree on one thing -- the number of empty bellies around the world will only grow unless there is major intervention now.
A combination of the food crisis and the global economic downturn has catapulted the number of hungry people in the world to more than 1 billion. The United Nations says world food output must grow by 70 percent over the next four decades to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people by 2050. Read More
It’s nice to see a somewhat balanced article in the media these days. I thought Reuters did a pretty good job here of just reporting the situation and letting their readers decide how they feel about the issue. What a novel concept for a large media company! Here is what we know for sure about this issue, we need to grow a lot more food in the future. The question is how do we get there. Some people think we need to use farming techniques from a century ago regardless of the amount of food produced. Others believe that the answers lie in using technology to grow enough food for everyone, i.e. another green revolution. ~TH
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
More Fear Tactics That Hurt Family Farmers
Food Is Power and the Powerful Are Poisoning Us
Posted on Sep 6, 2009
By Chris Hedges
Our most potent political weapon is food. If we take back our agriculture, if we buy and raise produce locally, we can begin to break the grip of corporations that control a food system as fragile, unsafe and destined for collapse as our financial system. If we continue to allow corporations to determine what we eat, as well as how food is harvested and distributed, then we will become captive to rising prices and shortages and increasingly dependent on cheap, mass-produced food filled with sugar and fat. Food, along with energy, will be the most pressing issue of our age. And if we do not build alternative food networks soon, the social and political ramifications of shortages and hunger will be devastating.
Food shortages have been tinder for social upheaval throughout history. But this time around, because we have lost the skills to feed and clothe ourselves, it will be much harder for most of us to become self-sustaining. The large agro-businesses have largely wiped out small farmers. They have poisoned our soil with pesticides and contaminated animals in filthy and overcrowded stockyards with high doses of antibiotics and steroids. They have pumped nutrients and phosphorus into water systems, causing algae bloom and fish die-off in our rivers and streams. Crop yields, under the onslaught of changing weather patterns and chemical pollution, are declining in the Northeast, where a blight has nearly wiped out the tomato crop. The draconian Food Modernization Safety Act, another gift from our governing elite to corporations, means small farms will only continue to dwindle in number. Sites such as La Via Campesina do a good job of tracking these disturbing global trends. Read More
Here’s another article trying to use fear to convince consumers that family farmers have disappeared and large corporations are forcing people to eat junk food. This article simultaneously talks of the dangers of rising food prices yet advocates for a less efficient system of producing food. Every grocery store I have ever been in, other than a Whole Foods store, has fresh meats and produce available at the most affordable prices on the planet. The biggest fallacy with this tired argument that’s been put forth again is that anything can be grown or raised anywhere and that there are people lined up to engage in subsistence farming. Neither of which is the case.
Posted on Sep 6, 2009
By Chris Hedges
Our most potent political weapon is food. If we take back our agriculture, if we buy and raise produce locally, we can begin to break the grip of corporations that control a food system as fragile, unsafe and destined for collapse as our financial system. If we continue to allow corporations to determine what we eat, as well as how food is harvested and distributed, then we will become captive to rising prices and shortages and increasingly dependent on cheap, mass-produced food filled with sugar and fat. Food, along with energy, will be the most pressing issue of our age. And if we do not build alternative food networks soon, the social and political ramifications of shortages and hunger will be devastating.
Food shortages have been tinder for social upheaval throughout history. But this time around, because we have lost the skills to feed and clothe ourselves, it will be much harder for most of us to become self-sustaining. The large agro-businesses have largely wiped out small farmers. They have poisoned our soil with pesticides and contaminated animals in filthy and overcrowded stockyards with high doses of antibiotics and steroids. They have pumped nutrients and phosphorus into water systems, causing algae bloom and fish die-off in our rivers and streams. Crop yields, under the onslaught of changing weather patterns and chemical pollution, are declining in the Northeast, where a blight has nearly wiped out the tomato crop. The draconian Food Modernization Safety Act, another gift from our governing elite to corporations, means small farms will only continue to dwindle in number. Sites such as La Via Campesina do a good job of tracking these disturbing global trends. Read More
Here’s another article trying to use fear to convince consumers that family farmers have disappeared and large corporations are forcing people to eat junk food. This article simultaneously talks of the dangers of rising food prices yet advocates for a less efficient system of producing food. Every grocery store I have ever been in, other than a Whole Foods store, has fresh meats and produce available at the most affordable prices on the planet. The biggest fallacy with this tired argument that’s been put forth again is that anything can be grown or raised anywhere and that there are people lined up to engage in subsistence farming. Neither of which is the case.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)