Lately there has been a huge movement to label genetically modified plant and animal products (GMO’s). Let me say one thing, right off the bat. I don’t care if GMO’s are labeled or not- I will still buy them. I’m not necessarily against labeling these products. I do think, however, that many Americans believe that labeling GMO’s is simply a matter of putting a sticker on the box- it’s not that easy.

First things first. It’s hard to say which foods should be labeled. Many purchasers are are very undecided about which processes need to be designated as genetically modified. For example, should a modified soybean be labeled if it has been combined with genes from a different soybean? What if a product is exactly the same, genetically and nutritionally, as the original, such as soybean oil? Should it still be labeled? And what if a product like pizza contains numerous conventionally grown and processed ingredients, and 1 GM ingredient, is it now a genetically modified pizza? Pizza, which usually contains cheese, has included genetically engineered chymosin for years, as it is an alternative to rennet, a group of enzymes found in a mammal’s stomach to coagulate cheese. This brings up yet another point. Should things like oils and animal meat that was fed GMO feed be labeled as GM? Technically they weren’t modified, but came from modified products. See the confusion already? Sorry if I lost you.. I’ll move on.

So what does the current labeling system consist of? It’s product-based. It’s objective. Any product can be tested to find the contents, allergens, and safety. The label must list the ingredients as an end product; for example, the label must say sugar, but not necessarily whether it came from sugar beets or sugar cane. Cheese must be listed but it doesn’t require that it say if it came from an engineered bacterium or rennet.

The new policy would be process-based. The label would have to reflect the different processes that it took to make each ingredient. Unfortunately, it’s very subjective, it is very hard to enforce. It’s very hard to prove GMO or non-GMO status. When you look at a product, you might be able find it contains strawberries, but there is no way to tell if those strawberries are modified or not. There are new technologies available to test for genetic modification, but the conventional method, referred to as a PCR system (polymerase chain reaction), has disadvantages. It requires complex DNA extraction procedures, relatively expensive equipment, and must be carried out in a lab. It has also proven difficult to design cost-effective portable devices for PCR. A new system called Lumora has been developed, which can test crops for modification. I am a little worried for organic producers. If the system does in fact detect modification to a point of 0.1%, and organic buyers can’t accept any modification in crops, it might be bad news bears for some who are located in close proximity of conventional farmers.

Now, the issue that is often debated: what is the true cost of labeling GMO’s? As I said earlier, paying for labeling isn’t a matter of purchasing a bunch of “this product contains GMO’s” stickers and slapping them on various items. We would be paying for a system. It would mean paying for the physical tracking of all ingredients in all products, because there is no simple way to test all products. (Did you know that the average supermarket carries 38,718 items on its shelves?) The manpower, the employees, that it would take to enforce such a system is astronomical. Considering the struggles we have to inspect current products, and the introduction of HAACP, essentially giving more responsibility to growers and processors rather than government inspection, I can’t see it being funded well enough to be effective.

So what is the best solution? Because The U.S. Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, The American Dietetic Association, and the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization have found that GMO’s are safe for Americans, non-GM products are a niche item, something that is unnecessary yet desired. Similar to organic, free-range, even kosher or halal products, there is a cost that goes with the process and the labeling. If you choose to buy those products, do so! They are available, part of those 38+ thousand items in your grocery store. Find the items without GMO’s and buy them; that is your choice and I encourage it as a fellow consumer. As for myself, I could care less, I still hold tremendous faith in the U.S. food system and count the abundant and affordable food among my blessings- I’ll continue to buy products produced with biotechnology.

If you want to pay for this label, that's your right as a food buyer!

Whether genetically modified foods are labeled or not, I just think that we should realize that if food prices go up, it’s because we’re paying for a whole new system, not just a sticker.

I’d love to hear any thoughts about GMO labeling- leave a comment!

-Megan

It’s an age-old question that has been debated for years. We all know that there was an agricultural revolution that converted humans from hunter-gatherers to land-owners and grain cultivators. (Referring to the Neolithic Revolution; there have been many ‘revolutions’ such as the Arab, British, Scottish, and the Green revolutions, among others). The book of Genesis suggests that the first hunter-gatherer was Cain, for after he murdered his brother, he became a “wandering vagrant in the earth” (Genesis 4:12). The Bible also says he established the first city, and his “descendants” evolved into farmers and skilled workers.

But what made those first human beans want to ‘settle down’and grow cereal grains like emmer and einkorn wheat and barley? The Hilly Flanks hypothesis, Carl Saues’s Demographic Theory, and Ronald Wright’s book, A Short History of Progress all suggest that. along with amenable climate changes, as the population grew, humans realized that domesticating grains would held feed the masses (sound familiar bio tech advocates?) The feasting model by Brian Hayden suggests that agriculture was jump started because of large feasts used to display dominance and power. At these feasts, an ancient brew was drunk; cloudy and unfiltered, “drinking straws” were used to avoid the bitter brewing residue which I’m assuming floated on top. They probably would NOT have eaten what was known as the first bread at feasts. Also known as bappir, it was similar to sailors’ hardtack, or a baked grain paste. It was made for convenience during travel and only eaten in times where there was a shortage of food. It was also crumbled into water and fermented to make beer. So that is the question: which started the agricultural revolution- beer or bread?

Earliest bread, or "bappir"

The logical answer is that the cultivation of grains was started to make bread. It’s a basic food that everyone still eats. Early Sumerian seals show pictures of what is clearly barley being made into loaves; drawings carved into stone. Ancient bread lasted a long time (it was more like a dry toast or cracker) and it was perfect food for traveling on hunting trips. These chip-like portions were portable, easy to divide, and could be used as dippers or spoons. But, bread was also a good way to hold all of the ingredients needed for beer production.

Dr. Patrick Hayes, a Food Science professor from Oregon State says that “there is no doubt barley was domesticated to make beer”. Some say evidence of brewing predates bread by 3,000 years, as humans had to soak the grains in efforts to make them more palatable. One thing that is undisputed is: beer was discovered on accident. At some point, either grain or dough was either soaked on purpose or accident (left outside during a rain shower) and a brave soul tried the liquid that had fermented. They either like the taste, or the after effects of drinking it, and it became a staple in their diets.

Early carving depicting Egyptians making beer.

Ancient Egyptian bones have been found to contain tetracycline antibiotic, found in beer. This may be because early civilizations, not having clean water to drink, could drink beer, who’s fermentation process rendered it safe to drink. A fermented rice and fruit drink was made in China around 7000 BC, proving that other domesticated grains were used as well, according to climate and location. Beer was used as a bartering tool; a day’s work on the Egyptian pyramids was a jug of brew, about 1 gallon. It took over 231 million gallons of beer to build the Pyramid of Giza. According to ancient cuneiform writing on clay tablets, they have discovered 160  different words that were used for beer. It was  a vital source of nutrition, experts say, adding that even school boys would  consume it for breakfast. The beer at the time was only 3 percent alcohol and packed with minerals and  vitamins. It was much thicker than the drink we know today, more like a milkshake.

So alas, I never did find enough evidence to support either side unaminously. The question of whether beer or bread was first seems to be like the question of the chicken and the egg. It could go in circles forever! However, we still reap the benefits of the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution today. In cultivating and transporting grains, they invented the plow, wheel, irrigation systems, surveying, and numerous other tools and processes that we couldn’t survive without today. Whether it was the bread, or the beer, I am glad that we realized how cultivating grains can feed a growing population. And I’m also thankful for beer, although I’m more of a Budweiser fan, since I don’t like to drink my brewsky with a spoon.

Today I read a really great ag blog from Dairy Carrie, where she disects an animal rights video. She does a great job of showing where lack of knowledge about modern agriculture and the sensationalism of animal rights propaganda can lead to a very misleading idea of dairy production.

Carrie walks through a video produced by Animal Angels, an animal rights group that focuses on spreading videos of farms accompanied by false information. It’s a great explanation for anyone who wants to know more about why dairy farmers do some of the things that they do! As John (a frequent contributor of EatPrayFarm) has often explained, the dairy industry is often misunderstood in their everyday care for their animals and the reasoning behind what the best course of action for the herd.

Carrie explains the truth about cows’ milk production:

She also talks about dairy calf care and links to a great post about newborn dairy calf info:

Carrie also talks about the destination of bull calves born at a dairy- many people think they are all sold for veal production, but that is not the case!

Take a look and learn more about the videos that you see everyday on YouTube and TV- this is the stuff that pulls on viewers’ heartstrings- they don’t want to see animals in pain. But what LOOKS like abuse sometimes is the best care a cow can receive. Lifting a cow with a skidloader, as Carrie explains, can look like torture, but it is actually a painstaking effort to save an animal’s life. The thing about a farmer’s work is that a cow can get injured, (and usually does) at inopportune times- on the way to church, before you’re leaving for vacation, in a blizzard. But farming is a 24/7/365 job. Just when you think you’re in charge, a sick or injured animal can prove you wrong.

Thanks for posting a great blog Carrie!

I found this prayer on www.catholicdoors.com and thought it was appropriate for the season.

In April, The Humane Society of the United States launched a new campaign called “We are Nebraska, We are the HSUS” at the Humane Lobby Luncheon in Lincoln. It includes TV ads, mailings, and telemarketing (yay..) to reach animal advocates throughout the state. This is yet another Nebraska-based push-back in response to a large anti-HSUS following in the state, often led by Dave Heinemann who famously told the organization in March of this year “we’re going to kick your [butt] and send you out of the state!”

They want to fight the idea that “Nebraska residents don’t support animal welfare”, and to “show support for the farmers and ranchers who are good stewards of their farm animals”. The members that the HSUS is working to recruit will also work to stop puppy mills, dog fighting, poaching, and cock fighting, which is obviously a wildly rampant problem on the rolling plains of Nebraska.

This is why I agree with Wayne Pacelle, the 2.6 million dollar man who puts more money in his back pocket than in your local animal shelter: because there, he speaks the truth- Nebraskans DO care about animal welfare. Nebraskans ARE good stewards of the land and resources. We would love for the world to know the passion we put into our operations, from daily chores to the painful emotions we feel when a cow slips and breaks a hip and we have to make a tough decision. Nebraskans DO understand the needs of our animals, many devote their lives to it. Mr. Pacelle says “Nebraskans oppose cruelty to animals, and that includes animals raised for food.” This is true, we do! I agree! He goes further, saying “..we will enhance our capacity to protect animals and to see that farmers have an actual connection to the animals they raise” If there was no connection to the animals we raised, we wouldn’t bother feeding them twice a day, 7 days a week, 12 months a year. If there was no connection our livestock, they wouldn’t be the thing that we think of in a hail or snow storm. In fact, I think our “connection” with our animals is something Mr. Pacelle will never know.

That is where my agreeance with HSUS comes to an end. Their business is financially unethical, their motives mostly unnecessary, and their marketing is inappropriate. They only give 1% of their proceeds to actual animal shelters and repeatedly get D grades or worse when reviewed by charity evaluating organizations. Their pension and marketing plans are huge, but their overhead costs are bigger- usually a dead give-away of a poor non-profit group (see Kony 2012, Charity Asia Institute, etc). The problem is that 70% of Americans think that HSUS is giving money to local shelters. The duty falls on us to shed the light on their group.

Unfortunately for the HSUS, this campaign isn’t going so well at all. In fact, they’ve only received about 60 photos, compared to the numerous photos that flooded into Humane-Watch’s FB page, showing real-life scenes of animal care.  Maybe if it had a better tagline. “We are Nebraska, We Care About Animals”, or “We are Nebraska, and We Believe in Humane Treatment for Livestock”. But I think where the HSUS fails, is where they assume that Nebraska wants to be associated with HSUS. Because we are not, don’t want to be, and we probably never will be. We are Nebraska, we are passionate about agriculture and proper livestock handling, and we are not HSUS.

Here are a few of the pictures submitted on the previously mentioned website by more Nebraskans who are not HSUS:

When we were younger, we were always encouraged to imagine, build, and explore outside. My siblings and I could often be found in grove building forts, in the junk pile looking for treasure, and of course checking out the animals. It wasn’t unusual that one or all of us looked something like this:

That’s David, if you can recognize him under the layer of dirt. I’m sure some mothers look at that and cringe, but recent studies are finding evidence that letting kids get dirty may improve their health in the long run!

An article written by Sharyn Clough of Oregon State University, cites many studies following “the hygiene hypothesis”, a correlation between industrialized areas and higher levels of asthma and allergies. It’s not breaking news that the number of children with allergies and asthma has risen, in some areas amounting to one third of children. The hygeiene hypothesis has been around for a long time, but this paper delves into the cognitive association that children (specifically girls) are taught that being clean is appropriate behavior, when it may lead to hyper-sensitive immune systems.

In a British Medical Journal from 1989, this rising trend was observed with hay fever and explained by Strachen (pg 1260). Declining family size, household improvements, and higher standards of cleanliness reduced opportunity for cross-contamination in young families. They believed this resulted in a sort of [allergic hyper-sensitivity], emerging earlier in wealthy people, for hay fever.

Experiments with mice indicate that exposure to particular strains of bacteria reduce allergic responses, and interaction with 2 or more household dogs or cats in the first year of life showed a lower instance of allergic reaction around the age of 6-7. In 2009, a study in the Philippines found that increased exposure to certain microbes in childhood led to better immune health in adulthood (McDade, Rutherford, Adair, and Kuzawa).

In M. Jackson’s Allergy: The History of a Modern Malady, a link is made between industrial nations in the North and the West and rising allergies and asthma, citing numerous explanations such as ragweed pollen dispersal, recent rises in environmental toxins in urban areas, and two interesting ideas: the rise in dust mites caused by increases in wall-to-wall carpeting and the more energy-efficient windows, decreasing fresh air circulation.

In PBS’s The Evolutionary Arms Race, the work of Erika Von Mutius is shown. She hypothesized in the late 90′s that children growing up in the poorer, more rural East Germany would have more allergies and asthma than those in the more industrialized West Germany. Her findings were exactly the opposite. Following the ”hygiene hypothesis,” he research confirms that the human immune system evolves to one of two types of biological defenses. When one defensive system lacks “practice” fighting bacteria and viruses, perhaps from an overly sanitary lifestyle, the other system becomes too powerful and overreacts — as an allergic reaction — to harmless substances like pollen.

There are a huge number of studies that have pointed to the correlation between cleanliness and health. Take a minute and check it out- Kilpelainen’s study from 2000 even talks about the decreased rate of allergic rhinitis and conjuctivitus in kids on farms due to exposure to “immune modulating agents” (microbacteria).

I’m not saying you should give your kids spoons and send them out to eat a bowlful of dirt- that is not healthy. I’m just saying there is no reason to keep them in a plastic bubble. Kids are going to get cuts, they may occasionally eat a leaf or two. Keep kids’ play areas free of chemicals and dangerous equipment, and send them outside- their imaginations will grow and it sounds like they will be healthier in the long run!

My neice, Claire the chicken wrangler.

They love to dig for worms and fish!

Lately I have been thinking and hearing a lot about the benefits of youth working hands-on with agriculture. Early in April I chatted with Melissa Slagle of Nebraska Farm Bureau about young Americans raising food for consumption (see the interview here), and recently there has been a movement called “Let Me Get My Hands Dirty”, a year-long campaign also by Farm Bureau to ensure that youth in Ag get a chance to fulfill the FFA motto “Learning To Do, Doing To Learn, Earning To Live, Living To Serve”.

As I said in the interview, young kids and adults receive huge benefits from working with their hands. How can you help? Follow the link for the campaign and submit your story to the Department of Labor. When Secretary Vilsack was visiting the place where I work, he breezed over the topic of child labor revisions, which makes me assume that they haven’t reached a decision that is best for rural youth. For more information about the proposed regulations, read here.

This Easter maybe some of you were traveling like me- I flew home to Nebraska for the weekend. I will admit to you, openly, that I am not a “chatter” on flights. I bring a book or work with me, and I spend the time usefully. I understand that flying is a good time to meet new people or network with others leaving the same place, but I just really prefer to keep to myself.

This past weekend, as I was flying home, I was not awarded that opportunity. I sat next to a talkative individual, with whom I made polite conversation, but failed to agree with. The person was from a metropolis, and after he asked about my scribbles, I told him that I like to write about agriculture and the current food system, he told me that he agreed, that the food system in America was horrible…which I never said.

What this person assumed was that he could start a conversation about the horrible quality of the food in America with me. But that’s not going to happen. As the plane made its way to the terminal, he told me I needed to “do my research”. I loved that part. Since I “did my research” before advocating as a youth ambassador for Farm Bureau in high school, I have known the state of the food system in America. Food prices in America are far below average. In Italy, it’s about 14%, 33% in China, as opposed to only 10% in the USA. On average, an American throws away about 1.5 lbs of edible food per day.

The food system is not only abundant, but it is safe. In my most recent posts, I have touched on the topic of inspection and processing. The ammonium hydroxide (which, my airplane buddy IS found naturally in proteins, just as I said to you (It’s N and H) is used to make our food SAFER. It lasts longer and eliminates many types of foodborne illness, and causes no harm.

It is sometimes embarrassing how uninformed Americans are about the food system. The older man sitting next to me said how hard it was to find bread made without enriched flour. First of all, I don’t know where you’re shopping, but the average store will carry at least 4-5 different brands of whole wheat breads, not to mention the different varieties under those brands. Second, I pity the person who is forced to eat plain old toxic white bread….really? It’s bread. Yes, the flour has been milled, and the whole kernel is not used, unlike whole grain flours. But it doesn’t make it unhealthy, it’s just not as healthy as whole grains. The main difference is in fiber and protein levels. The process makes flour last longer and gives it a distinct smooth texture that Americans have learned to like over many years.

I think sometimes people assume that to be interested in the food system means you have to scrutinize its flaws, but often, you just sound misinformed to the ones who grow the food, fiber, fuel, etc. that you use. The TRUE facts are out there. As I like to say, find out for yourself, don’t follow the hype!

I’ve had some plane time lately, which provided me some time to finish a book that’s been on my nightstand for a while. The book, Acts of Faith, took me longer to read than other books I’ve read lately, but it gave me more to think about. Set at the height of the Sudanese civil war, the book depicted the turbulent lives of several aid workers living in Africa.

I won’t go into the details of the book, but I will divulge a consistent theme: the people were hungry. Despite the United Nation’s work and various other aid workers’ best attempts, war and weather caused starvation that took the lives of thousands of children and adults.

The book was a good reminder of how truly lucky I am. I am able to go to the grocery store whenever I want and purchase almost whatever I please. Many people in Africa, and even here at home in the United States, can only dream of that luxury. The statistics on hunger in the United States, especially for children, are staggering.  According to Feeding America, a national conglomerate of food banks, more than one out of six children lives in a household with food insecurity, which means they do not always know where they will find their next meal.

In 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),  said 16.2 million children under 18 in the United States live in this condition – unable to consistently access nutritious and adequate amounts of food necessary for a healthy life. The stats like this could go on and on – hunger continues to be an epidemic.

Continue reading →