It’s the Cheesiest

This week an “expose” was written by the New York Times in which it was revealed that the government was taking both sides of the dairy industry debate; on the one hand asking people to cut their cheese/dairy consumption for better health while on the other hand subsidizing restaurants to add more cheese and dairy to their menu items. (The biggest example being Domino’s pizza in which 40% more cheese was added to each pizza, resulting in one slice far exceeding the RDA requirements of saturated fat.)

The reason I put “expose” in quotes is because it surprised me to find that people were surprised about this revelation. It seems to me that the government has showed a concrete and substantial history of toggling between health and illness, such that this seems to be par for the course.

In the case of the New Your Times article, the author describes how a surplus of whole milk and extracted milk fat required the government to step in and create subsidies for the industry so that those products don’t go to waste. This is the exact same scenario and what happened in the 1970’s with the corn industry, resulting in the creation and excess use of High Fructose Corn Syrup in American food products.

In both cases, multiple studies have been performed to show that both sugar and cheese are two of the top reasons Americans have increased obesity and heart disease compared to other countries, yet, we keep subsidizing them, perpetuating industries that are making us sick and fat.

There is a third industry at play, here, however. The medical industry. They are just as much to blame for our health problems as the food industry. Having worked for a biotech/pharmaceutical company for a very long time, I feel confident that I can say most of these businesses are not in the business of curing anything. They are only in the business of creating a quality of life. To put it bluntly, there is no revenue when something is cured. They need to create a lifetime of patients, so they have a lifetime of money.

So here we have Big Agriculture Industry (corn, dairy, meat) and the medical industry with the government dancing between the two partners… like a woman accepting two dates to prom and not wanting either partner to know of the other. Add to that the fact that we live in a capitalistic society where everyone wants more and more money for themselves and the shareholders. In our current climate the government has no choice but to tout good health on the one hand while putting money into the pockets of the dairy farmer and the doctor in the other.

And why do I feel so confident this is true and will stay in existence? It comes down to this simple logical argument: if the government cared so much about our health, instead of creating a universal health plan, they would have stopped the subsidies. In doing so, they also would have saved close to $200 Billion dollars. But they didn’t. Every industry at play in this game is getting our money. The only people not getting our money is us. What we are getting is a lifetime of disease and shorter life span.. and being miserable and fat in the process.

The government pays close to $100 Billion in Big Ag subsidies. The nationwide Health Care plan is expected to cost $60 Billion dollars. The Big Ag subsidies are making us sick so we need the healthcare. Get rid of the one (subsidies) and you don’t need the other (healthcare). The citizenry has a surplus of income on the magnitude of $160 Billion dollars nationwide, which we can then put back into the system by supporting small farmers, agriculture and healthful food. Since we are healthier we will also be spending our money on activities outside of the home, stimulating growth of the economy and consumer confidence.

I will leave it up to you to decide what the government, Big Ag, and the Medical Industry have at stake to keep us dependent on our current way of life. I have my opinions, but that is irrelevant to the overall conversation and ultimate solution. Regardless of your beliefs of why they are doing it, why don’t we let that go, and start doing something to change it.

food imports

Unapproved genetically modified (GMO) food may find its way into the country due to a weak import control policy, finds the USDA in an internal audit, according to Reuters UK.

The audit found that the USDA needs to develop screening measures to weed out undeclared GMO crops and livestock. The department currently has no measures in place to identify a shipment of unapproved GMO imports unknown to the U.S. regulatory system, the report said.

Sadly, the USDA is more concerned with how it will affect commerce than how it will affect consumers. This has not been a concern in the past, as the U.S. has been the leader in GMO food, until now. However, countries have decided to invest millions into their own development programs. For example, China just dedicated $500 million to its GMO program, and has already developed a new form of rice.

The USDA has given itself until November 30th to finalize a policy for approval of imported GMO agriculture and meat.

news in food

Here are a handful of interesting links in food news for this week

Growing More Corn for Ethanol Makes Pest Control Harder, via the NY Times

Critics say turning more acreage over to corn to make fuel can lead to higher prices for other crops, increased soil erosion and other negative effects.

In a report in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Douglas A. Landis of Michigan State University and colleagues show that increasing the corn acreage can reduce the abundance of insect predators that control aphids, the most significant soybean pest in the United States.

Let’s Ask Marion Nestle: Are The USDA’s Organic Standards A Sham?, via Huffington Post

Cheating is the Achilles’ heel of organics. The entire organic certification system is based on trust. If trust goes, the organic industry collapses like a house of cards. Organics means two quite different things. To people who care about the food system, organics is about growing crops and raising animals using methods that are good (for the health of people and animals), clean (for the environment), fair (to the people who produce the food), and sustainable (meaning renewing–not wasting or destroying–the earth’s natural resources).

To everyone involved in raising and selling organic foods, organics is a business. This business commands higher prices if–and only if–buyers believe that the food is produced according to those criteria and is better for their health and that of the planet.

(edit. note: really good article)

Will Obama Integrate Food, Farming & Health Policies?, via ENN

Diet-related diseases continue to escalate – specifically in our children. Researchers predict that as a result of the continued rise in overweight, the children of today will have a shorter lifespan than their parents. Overweight and obesity alone have translated into skyrocketing health care costs which are bankrupting families and the health care system.

Likewise, the number of family farms and acres used for growing food is falling, while the cost of farm inputs are increasing. Subsidized crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat have flooded supermarkets with more processed, packaged “food-like” substances. Often, these foods are of low nutritional value and high in sugar, fat and salt.

A dichotomy exists between agriculture policies and Dietary Guidelines for Americans – yet, ironically, both are overseen by the USDA. Current food and farm policies stand in the way of making healthy food the easiest choice.

weekend roundup

A listing of interesting articles, then I did not give expanded coverage.

GMO, article 1:
GMO Job: Will the Obama administration be the first to seriously regulate genetically modified food?, via Grist.org

On the heels of a report out of Germany, emphatically concludes that awidely used strain of GM corn appears to decrease both birthrates and the size of offspring in mice — and the problems seem to grow with each generation, Grist investigates if Obama will stop the GMO legacy. Given whom he just appointed to Secretary of Agriculture, and the fact that he has the hands of some Monsanto executives in his pockets, I am going to say: probably not.

GMO article #2:
Seeds of doubt: Rules for bioengineered crops need close monitoring

To create genetically modified crops, scientists swap the genes from one microorganism or plant to another plant, in combinations that could never occur naturally. The result might be corn immune to weedkillers; cotton that automatically fends off pests; even “pharma-plants” that are tiny, green laboratories for cultivating powerful medicines.

It’s easy to see how genetically modified crops might solve a range of ancient problems.

 

The problem is not that genetically modified crops are in some way “unnatural” — few plants are as unnatural as domesticated corn or wheat, which require intensive human effort to grow at all.

GMO article #3:
Monsanto Funds Groups to Improve Mississippi River Water

With a $5 million contribution from the St. Louis-based Monsanto corporation, The Nature Conservancy, the Iowa Soybean Association and Delta Wildlife will work with farmers to remove nutrients and sediment from agricultural runoff in the Mississippi River Basin.

“Our goal is to use science – research and data – to systematically develop and implement a suite of management techniques that help production agriculture measurably improve stewardship while maintaining or increasing profitability,” Wolf said.

another food one:
Multitasking canola: A California miracle crop?

Farmers, water managers and agriculture researchers are closely watching an experiment using canola plants to absorb the salt from soil and water. The seeds are then crushed to extract oil for blending into environmentally friendly biodiesel.

“It’s all part of what we have to try to do here to turn a profit,” said Diener, who also grows almonds, tomatoes, grapes and corn on 5,000 acres.

save this date

Huh. President-elect Obama made a pick for Agriculture Secretary, marking his first bad decision.

 

Former Gov. Tom Vilsack has been picked to head the USDA as the Agriculture Secretary. Many, including myself, had hoped that Obama would pick a more agriculture friendly representative. I guess he had to please some corporate sponsor.

What is being reported is that Vilsack is a proponent of alternative energies. And, while that may be true, he is a big supporter of corn based ethanol and is very biotech, genetic engineering, big agribiz friendly.

As a state senator, he voted for the infamous House File 519 in 1995, which stripped counties of the right to impose restrictions on CAFOs. In 2005, as governor, he signed into law House File 642, which barred local governments from regulating the planting of genetically modified seed.

I mean if high positioned people at Monsanto like him, then I smell something fishy. Sorry, but I do.

You can read more about the appointment HERE, via the New York Times. As well as, HERE, via Grist.org

since no data is coming in yet…

Here is some great news from the USDA.

They are closing loopholes in grazing requirements for organic dairy cows. Apparently there was some fuzziness around what “access to pasture” meant. Huh.

So… the new rules are that the cow must be allowed to graze for 120 days per year and 30% of its food intake must be from that grazing.

And in case this made you think… yes… If you had been buying organic dairy products thinking that the animal was free range, I am letting you know that you were misled. The USDA still has issues with their allowance of labels. If an animal had “access”, whether it used it or not, it could be labeled “free-range”

HERE is the article