Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

Terry Etherton

Fix it.

That is what the dairy industry should do. The “stealing your milk money” ploy engineered by some in the cohort of dairy cooperatives, dairy processors and retailers to gouge consumers and cheat dairy producers by creating an organic-lite milk niche, rbST-free milk, continues.

There are two components to this. Since it is more costly to segregate two sources of milk - conventional and rbST-free - collected on the farm, some cooperatives have taken the tactic of persuading or pressuring producers who use rbST to give up the technology. The obvious intent is to manage one source of milk, which makes economic sense since this is cheaper. Once this achieved, the same milk can be sold as either conventional OR rbST-free for two distinctly different prices. The same milk being marketed as though it is different! And, based on national data, the rbST-free milk is being sold for about 60 to 90 cents a gallon more versus conventional milk.

Remarkable: sell the same milk for a whole lot more! It is clear that corporate social responsibility is nowhere to be seen. I have come to conclude that companies engaged in this “marketing” effort have increasing their profits as their first priority.

Another piece of this ploy is that a small premium is paid to a producer to “encourage” them give up the technology. Based on a survey done by Voices for Choices, 52% of producer respondents were offered a premium of up to 50 cents per hundred weight (cwt). In this survey, no premium was offered to 34% of the producers and 9% were charged a higher hauling charge or “deduct” if they didn’t give up rbST! What a deal for the folks “upstream” of the dairy farmer who process and sell the milk!

To frame this another way, let’s assume a premium of 50 cents per cwt of milk is paid to the producer to stop using rbST. This translates into an additional 4 cents per gallon being paid to the producer who is “strong-armed” into ditching the technology. If the markup at retail is 90 cents per gallon for rbST-free milk, an additional $10.44 per cwt is generated, of which the producer gets less than 50 cents!

There is another element to this reality. In some regions, milk marketers have converged the market. That is, conventional milk is no longer available in the store. They claim consumers want this….we know better. In this scenario, consumers have two rather than three milk choices, rbST-free or organic. More corporate social responsibility is tossed under the bus. The commodity milk becomes rbST-free. The difficult question to sort out at the retail level is: just what is the markup? If the comparator milk (i.e. conventional) is not even available in the store or on the regional market, this is difficult to determine. However, based on the national dataset, the markup is likely to be in the 60 to 90 cent/gallon ballpark.

What a stroke of genius - make milk more costly and, for some, unaffordable, effectively widening the health disparity gap. Oh yeah, guess what happens to the premium and sharing of profits with dairy farmers? That will be up in smoke.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Dale E Bauman
Liberty Hyde Bailey Professor
262 Morrison Hall
Department of Animal Science
Cornell University
Ithaca NY 14853-4801

Recently, there have been a number of comments on Dairy-L and occasionally a popular press article, which have proclaimed that Cornell University has developed a test for bST use in dairy cows; the articles have sometimes quoted Dr. R.C. Gorewit, the originator of the “test”, and referred to a 1997 patent he obtained for the test. These articles have led to a large amount of confusion: the following addresses some of the most frequently asked questions.

1. Gorewit’s claim for a “test” is based on associated changes in a protein referred to as FABP (fatty acid binding protein). However, Gorewit’s ideas represent speculation based on limited work. Neither he nor anyone else has demonstrated an actual correlative relationship between FABP in milk and use of bST.

2. Gorewit’s “test” is based on comparing rates phosphorylation of FABP. This involves isolating globular membranes that surround the milk fat droplets (MFGM) and purifying them by column chromatography techniques. The FABP fraction is then collected and concentrated by ultra-filtration. The entire procedure for isolation and purification of FABP from MFGM has to be repeated three times. Finally, samples of the resulting FABP preparation are incubated with radioactive phosphate, specifically adenosine triphosphate (gamma P32-ATP), and the extent of radioactive P32 incorporation is determined. The amount of radioactivity represents the basis for comparisons between samples in the “Gorewit test”.

3. FABP is related to maintenance of mammary cells and, thus, it will vary widely. Factors such as milk yield, persistency of lactation, stage of lactation, pregnancy, parity, breed, diet, season,environmental temperature and animal health all affect the maintenance of mammary cells. All of these factors would give expected changes in FABP similar to those speculated to occur with bST. Recent research has shown that the mammary gland contains several different FABPs and they may also function in the intercellular transport of fatty acids, accretion of lipid droplets in the cell cytoplasm and control of lipid metabolism. Further details on the different FABPs, their sequence and post-translational modifications can be found in the review by Dr. I. Mather (J. Dairy Science, 2000 83:203-247).

4. Gorewit’s claims about the effect of bST on FABP can be best described as speculation based on a small number of observations. His data involving comparisons of individual cows includes a single milk sample from a cow that had not received bST and a single milk sample from each of 5 cows reported to be receiving bST. Gorewit’s “herd comparisons” involves only two milk samples – one from a herd using bST and one from a herd that does not use bST. Obviously, these limited observations do not represent a scientific study, and are not adequate to allow for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, Gorewit did publish these observations in first issue of a Pakistani journal. This same issue of the Pakistan Journal of Nutrition (Vol. 1, Number 1; 2002) includes three other papers by Gorewit that are unrelated in scientific content but similar in that they also represent limited observational data that would be unlikely to meet the standards required for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

5. Any test for bST that is used in food labeling would have to be approved by the FDA, which requires validation using accepted scientific practices, just as they require for other tests currently used to verify label claims for food and feed products. Validation will include demonstrations of repeatability, sensitivity, variability and accuracy. None of these has been reported with FABP, and it is doubtful whether the actual methods used for FABP could ever meet such rigorous standards. In fact, Gorewit has not reported any additional designed studies on FABP since his original observations.”

6. On several occasions over the last 20 years, individuals have claimed to have “discovered” a test for bST use. All of these claims have proven to be inaccurate, and one of these was an earlier claim by Gorewit which involved a different test. In addition to Gorewit’s patent on using FABP as a test for the use of bST, he has other patents involving milk proteins and in some instances the discoveries and claims in these have also been shown to be incorrect.

Conclusion: There is no validated test for bST use in dairy cows. Milk from bST-treated cows does not differ in nutrient content or in the content of any of the trace constituents including bST and IGF-1.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Daniel Brandt
Lebanon County Dairy Farmer

I got a bombshell dropped on me this past week when my milk inspector stopped by and said they had a meeting at our dairy (Swiss Premium Dairy, formerly Wengerts Dairy in Lebanon, PA), and have made a final decision to go 100% rBST free. As you may know, our dairy is owned by Dean Foods. They have targeted October 1st as the latest cutoff date to have no producers using rBST. Upon further questioning I was informed that 3 of their largest retailers are requesting rBST-free milk and threatening to pull their product if they don’t comply. At the same time our processor has developed a fine reputation in this area for the great product they supply from local well-kept and run dairy farms. They also said they will not compensate farmers in any way for giving up their right to use this safe, approved product. They admitted the public hasn’t given much pressure yet but this is business and you have to stay ahead of the ball.

Upon talking to the General Manager at the plant the next day, he said he doesn’t want to do this but his arm is being twisted by the retailers and he had to show now some sort of decision or lose his markets. He did say this is a real headache and he would back me 100% in anyway to possibly get this resolved.

It reminds me of the time about 15 years ago that our dairy sold their milk as a AA class dairy and most other milk was sold as single A milk. At that time a number of processors got together and had a ruling passed that their milk was no different and our dairy was informed that they were using “Super-Labeling” and it would no longer be allowed. Update to today - and, we have a much worse and blatant form of this “Super-Labeling” as the FDA put it. With the AA over A, we as farmers had to adhere to stricter bacteria count levels in our milk, but with rBST their is NO difference in the milk. Study after study by both sides of the issue have never been able to show a negative effect of rBST on cow or human. Plus, unlike say antibiotics, it is undetectable in the milk because rBST is the recombinant version of BST and is identical to what the cow produces naturally. This said, a dishonest person can sign a letter saying they are not using the product and continue to! Use it and nobody will ever know but the honest farmer takes the shaft. I have contacted some of the largest producers at our dairy and they all use rBST and have commented how it has made their cows healthier, extended the life of problem breeders, improved their bottom line, etc. At the same time they said they will NOT quit using it.

I personally feel the next step is not to educate the consumer or processor. I think this is great and we should keep doing it but it will not resolve this issue. As you know with the world today, the consumer continues to hear from the few loud extremists out there pushing this issue with no hard evidence to back up any of their claims. Also, we have learned that you cannot educate or negotiate with an extremist because they have their mind made up and also have to have an agenda to continue their funding.

I have talked on the phone with our State Ag Secretary Dennis Wolff, and he is backing me fully and looking into what he can do. I also have the backing of every farm organization I have talked to including the PA Farm Bureau, PA Center for Dairy Excellence, The Professional Dairy Managers of Pennsylvania, Dr Terry Etherton, Distinguished Professor of Animal Nutrition at Penn State, etc. I am in the process of talking with my State Senator and Representative, and am talking to my U.S. Representative Tim Holden who is also Vice Chairman of the US House Ag Committee. I am also seeking legal counsel from one of the top ag lawyers in PA. We as Dairy Farmers need to move fast on this issue. I would like each of you to contact your government officials and inform them what this issue is doing to the dairy industry and the public perception of our products.

I know some of you have signed letters pledging to not use this in hopes of a big payback. You can see that this payback will not come as now our dairy says no compensation, and no one else has gotten more then a few additional cents per hundredweight. Also, this issue goes far beyond just rBST. With this sort of “Super-Labeling”, they will continue to hammer USDA and FDA-approved products that many of us use everyday. In the state of Washington some dairies are now including rumensin-free on milk labels; next will be labels proclaiming the milk was produced without the use of reproductive hormones or oxytocin. We could possibly face a full outlaw of antibiotics. Of course many of these folks, as soon as they or their child gets a sniffle they run to the doctor for an antibiotic.

What we need is something passed by the State Government, Federal Government, and/or the FDA to go above these processors and retailers. This ruling must not allow any form of “Super-Labeling” on dairy products making mention of management tools or products used by dairy farmers that have gone through all the rigors of years of testing and field trials to get USDA and/or FDA approval, is proven safe and effective, and does not change the composition of the product in any way.

I would also encourage the processors and retailers to do a better job of promoting on their products the numerous good things that you get when consuming dairy products. Value added is wonderful, honorable, and beneficial; fear added is not. Proverbs 11:1 reads “A false balance is abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight.” Feel free to e-mail me with any suggestions and/or for updates at brandtfive@comcast.net

Tom Krall
Lebanon County Dairy Promotion Chairperson, and Dairy Farmer
Ok, here we are in Dairy month 07 and all is not well. We in the Dairy industry are fast asleep. The retailers are running away with our product, butchering milk’s pristine image. [Which by the way we tiredly try to maintain] Dairymen, get awake or get run over. Stand up for truth. Do not allow the retailers to take away our proven safe, animal health, production and efficiency tools. Do not allow retailers to add activist trigger words to advertisements and containers such as hormones, pesticides, antibiotics, injection etc., and confusing information like BST-free and rumensin-free to milk labels. There are laws protecting the consumer from weight and measure fraud. We need laws protecting the consumer and dairymen from fear and deception. We sat by long enough hoping that what is right and honorable and just will surface. Daniel Brandt and myself have talked to the FDA, the FTC, Dairy leaders, Dairy promoters, and dairymen; everyone sees the problem. Butits frustrating because to date there’s been little effective action, but lots of finger pointing. We dairymen and consumers are being taken advantage of. We must [if we have any backbone at all] stand up and demand justice now.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

Fix it.

That is what the dairy industry should do. The “stealing your milk money” ploy engineered by some in the cohort of dairy cooperatives, dairy processors and retailers to gouge consumers and cheat dairy producers by creating an organic-lite milk niche, rbST-free milk, continues.

There are two components to this. Since it is more costly to segregate two sources of milk - conventional and rbST-free - collected on the farm, some cooperatives have taken the tactic of persuading or pressuring producers who use rbST to give up the technology. The obvious intent is to manage one source of milk, which makes economic sense since this is cheaper. Once this achieved, the same milk can be sold as either conventional OR rbST-free for two distinctly different prices. The same milk being marketed as though it is different! And, based on national data, the rbST-free milk is being sold for about 60 to 90 cents a gallon more versus conventional milk.

Remarkable: sell the same milk for a whole lot more! It is clear that corporate social responsibility is nowhere to be seen. I have come to conclude that companies engaged in this “marketing”effort have increasing their profits as their first priority.

Another piece of this ploy is that a small premium is paid to a producer to “encourage” them give up the technology. Based on a survey done by Voices for Choices, 52% of producer respondents were offered a premium of up to 50 cents per hundred weight (cwt). In this survey, no premium was offered to 34% of the producers and 9% were charged a higher hauling charge or “deduct” if they didn’t give up rbST! What a deal for the folks “upstream” of the dairy farmer who process and sell the milk!

To frame this another way, let’s assume a premium of 50 cents per cwt of milk is paid to the producer to stop using rbST. This translates into an additional 4 cents per gallon being paid to the producer who is “strong-armed” into ditching the technology. If the markup at retail is 90 cents per gallon for rbST-free milk, an additional $10.44 per cwt is generated, of which the producer gets less than 50 cents!

There is another element to this reality. In some regions, milk marketers have converged the market. That is, conventional milk is no longer available in the store. They claim consumers want this….we know better. In this scenario, consumers have two rather than three milk choices, rbST-free or organic. More corporate social responsibility is tossed under the bus. The commodity milk becomes rbST-free. The difficult question to sort out at the retail level is: just what is the markup? If the comparator milk (i.e. conventional) is not even available in the store or on the regional market, this is difficult to determine. However, based on the national dataset, the markup is likely to be in the 60 to 90 cent/gallon ballpark.

What a stroke of genius - make milk more costly and, for some, unaffordable, effectively widening the health disparity gap. Oh yeah, guess what happens to the premium and sharing of profits with dairy farmers? That will be up in smoke.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Dale E Bauman
Liberty Hyde Bailey Professor
262 Morrison Hall
Department of Animal Science
Cornell University
Ithaca NY 14853-4801

Recently, there have been a number of comments on Dairy-L and occasionally a popular press article, which have proclaimed that Cornell University has developed a test for bST use in dairy cows; the articles have sometimes quoted Dr. R.C. Gorewit, the originator of the “test”, and referred to a 1997 patent he obtained for the test. These articles have led to a large amount of confusion: the following addresses some of the most frequently asked questions.

1. Gorewit’s claim for a “test” is based on associated changes in a protein referred to as FABP (fatty acid binding protein). However, Gorewit’s ideas represent speculation based on limited work. Neither he nor anyone else has demonstrated an actual correlative relationship between FABP in milk and use of bST.

2. Gorewit’s “test” is based on comparing rates phosphorylation of FABP. This involves isolating globular membranes that surround the milk fat droplets (MFGM) and purifying them by column chromatography techniques. The FABP fraction is then collected and concentrated by ultra-filtration. The entire procedure for isolation and purification of FABP from MFGM has to be repeated three times. Finally, samples of the resulting FABP preparation are incubated with radioactive phosphate, specifically adenosine triphosphate (gamma P32-ATP), and the extent of radioactive P32 incorporation is determined. The amount of radioactivity represents the basis for comparisons between samples in the “Gorewit test”.

3. FABP is related to maintenance of mammary cells and, thus, it will vary widely. Factors such as milk yield, persistency of lactation, stage of lactation, pregnancy, parity, breed, diet, season,environmental temperature and animal health all affect the maintenance of mammary cells. All of these factors would give expected changes in FABP similar to those speculated to occur with bST. Recent research has shown that the mammary gland contains several different FABPs and they may also function in the intercellular transport of fatty acids, accretion of lipid droplets in the cell cytoplasm and control of lipid metabolism. Further details on the different FABPs, their sequence and post-translational modifications can be found in the review by Dr. I. Mather (J. Dairy Science, 2000 83:203-247).

4. Gorewit’s claims about the effect of bST on FABP can be best described as speculation based on a small number of observations. His data involving comparisons of individual cows includes a single milk sample from a cow that had not received bST and a single milk sample from each of 5 cows reported to be receiving bST. Gorewit’s “herd comparisons” involves only two milk samples – one from a herd using bST and one from a herd that does not use bST. Obviously, these limited observations do not represent a scientific study, and are not adequate to allow for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, Gorewit did publish these observations in first issue of a Pakistani journal. This same issue of the Pakistan Journal of Nutrition (Vol. 1, Number 1; 2002) includes three other papers by Gorewit that are unrelated in scientific content but similar in that they also represent limited observational data that would be unlikely to meet the standards required for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

5. Any test for bST that is used in food labeling would have to be approved by the FDA, which requires validation using accepted scientific practices, just as they require for other tests currently used to verify label claims for food and feed products. Validation will include demonstrations of repeatability, sensitivity, variability and accuracy. None of these has been reported with FABP, and it is doubtful whether the actual methods used for FABP could ever meet such rigorous standards. In fact, Gorewit has not reported any additional designed studies on FABP since his original observations.”

6. On several occasions over the last 20 years, individuals have claimed to have “discovered” a test for bST use. All of these claims have proven to be inaccurate, and one of these was an earlier claim by Gorewit which involved a different test. In addition to Gorewit’s patent on using FABP as a test for the use of bST, he has other patents involving milk proteins and in some instances the discoveries and claims in these have also been shown to be incorrect.

Conclusion: There is no validated test for bST use in dairy cows. Milk from bST-treated cows does not differ in nutrient content or in the content of any of the trace constituents including bST and IGF-1.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Daniel Brandt
Lebanon County Dairy Farmer

I got a bombshell dropped on me this past week when my milk inspector stopped by and said they had a meeting at our dairy (Swiss Premium Dairy, formerly Wengerts Dairy in Lebanon, PA), and have made a final decision to go 100% rBST free. As you may know, our dairy is owned by Dean Foods. They have targeted October 1st as the latest cutoff date to have no producers using rBST. Upon further questioning I was informed that 3 of their largest retailers are requesting rBST-free milk and threatening to pull their product if they don’t comply. At the same time our processor has developed a fine reputation in this area for the great product they supply from local well-kept and run dairy farms. They also said they will not compensate farmers in any way for giving up their right to use this safe, approved product. They admitted the public hasn’t given much pressure yet but this is business and you have to stay ahead of the ball.

Upon talking to the General Manager at the plant the next day, he said he doesn’t want to do this but his arm is being twisted by the retailers and he had to show now some sort of decision or lose his markets. He did say this is a real headache and he would back me 100% in anyway to possibly get this resolved.

It reminds me of the time about 15 years ago that our dairy sold their milk as a AA class dairy and most other milk was sold as single A milk. At that time a number of processors got together and had a ruling passed that their milk was no different and our dairy was informed that they were using “Super-Labeling” and it would no longer be allowed. Update to today - and, we have a much worse and blatant form of this “Super-Labeling” as the FDA put it. With the AA over A, we as farmers had to adhere to stricter bacteria count levels in our milk, but with rBST their is NO difference in the milk. Study after study by both sides of the issue have never been able to show a negative effect of rBST on cow or human. Plus, unlike say antibiotics, it is undetectable in the milk because rBST is the recombinant version of BST and is identical to what the cow produces naturally. This said, a dishonest person can sign a letter saying they are not using the product and continue to! Use it and nobody will ever know but the honest farmer takes the shaft. I have contacted some of the largest producers at our dairy and they all use rBST and have commented how it has made their cows healthier, extended the life of problem breeders, improved their bottom line, etc. At the same time they said they will NOT quit using it.

I personally feel the next step is not to educate the consumer or processor. I think this is great and we should keep doing it but it will not resolve this issue. As you know with the world today, the consumer continues to hear from the few loud extremists out there pushing this issue with no hard evidence to back up any of their claims. Also, we have learned that you cannot educate or negotiate with an extremist because they have their mind made up and also have to have an agenda to continue their funding.

I have talked on the phone with our State Ag Secretary Dennis Wolff, and he is backing me fully and looking into what he can do. I also have the backing of every farm organization I have talked to including the PA Farm Bureau, PA Center for Dairy Excellence, The Professional Dairy Managers of Pennsylvania, Dr Terry Etherton, Distinguished Professor of Animal Nutrition at Penn State, etc. I am in the process of talking with my State Senator and Representative, and am talking to my U.S. Representative Tim Holden who is also Vice Chairman of the US House Ag Committee. I am also seeking legal counsel from one of the top ag lawyers in PA. We as Dairy Farmers need to move fast on this issue. I would like each of you to contact your government officials and inform them what this issue is doing to the dairy industry and the public perception of our products.

I know some of you have signed letters pledging to not use this in hopes of a big payback. You can see that this payback will not come as now our dairy says no compensation, and no one else has gotten more then a few additional cents per hundredweight. Also, this issue goes far beyond just rBST. With this sort of “Super-Labeling”, they will continue to hammer USDA and FDA-approved products that many of us use everyday. In the state of Washington some dairies are now including rumensin-free on milk labels; next will be labels proclaiming the milk was produced without the use of reproductive hormones or oxytocin. We could possibly face a full outlaw of antibiotics. Of course many of these folks, as soon as they or their child gets a sniffle they run to the doctor for an antibiotic.

What we need is something passed by the State Government, Federal Government, and/or the FDA to go above these processors and retailers. This ruling must not allow any form of “Super-Labeling” on dairy products making mention of management tools or products used by dairy farmers that have gone through all the rigors of years of testing and field trials to get USDA and/or FDA approval, is proven safe and effective, and does not change the composition of the product in any way.

I would also encourage the processors and retailers to do a better job of promoting on their products the numerous good things that you get when consuming dairy products. Value added is wonderful, honorable, and beneficial; fear added is not. Proverbs 11:1 reads “A false balance is abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight.” Feel free to e-mail me with any suggestions and/or for updates at brandtfive@comcast.net

Tom Krall
Lebanon County Dairy Promotion Chairperson, and Dairy Farmer
Ok, here we are in Dairy month 07 and all is not well. We in the Dairy industry are fast asleep. The retailers are running away with our product, butchering milk’s pristine image. [Which by the way we tiredly try to maintain] Dairymen, get awake or get run over. Stand up for truth. Do not allow the retailers to take away our proven safe, animal health, production and efficiency tools. Do not allow retailers to add activist trigger words to advertisements and containers such as hormones, pesticides, antibiotics, injection etc., and confusing information like BST-free and rumensin-free to milk labels. There are laws protecting the consumer from weight and measure fraud. We need laws protecting the consumer and dairymen from fear and deception. We sat by long enough hoping that what is right and honorable and just will surface. Daniel Brandt and myself have talked to the FDA, the FTC, Dairy leaders, Dairy promoters, and dairymen; everyone sees the problem. Butits frustrating because to date there’s been little effective action, but lots of finger pointing. We dairymen and consumers are being taken advantage of. We must [if we have any backbone at all] stand up and demand justice now.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

The following was excerpted from the April 11, 2007 issue of The Biotech Advantage.

Dr. A. M. “Tony” Shelton, who is a Professor of Entomology at Cornell University and a visiting scientist at Lincoln University, recently wrote an opinion piece in The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand) that the debate on biotech crops is misleading New Zealand’s public.

This article is a great example of the ongoing misinformation campaigns run by opponents of biotech crops in New Zealand, and throughout the World.

Shelton addresses the issue that organic agriculture farming practices are safer than those used by farmers of biotech crops. The benefits of biotech crops have been clear to agricultural scientists and many working within agricultural sectors, but may be less clear to the public, he says. Over the last 10 years the use of biotech crops has resulted in the reduction of 224 million kilograms of active pesticide ingredients being sprayed.

Organic standards require farmers to apply only pesticides that are “natural” and not synthetic, but being “natural” does not ensure safety. For example, sulphur, a major fungicide used in organic agriculture, is toxic to a broad range of organisms and is a longer-term soil and environmental contaminant than most of its synthetic counterparts.

Another claim, according to Shelton is that the use of Bt crops will lead to the development of insects resistant to Bt, eliminating one of the tools organic growers have to control caterpillar pests. After 11 years, there has not been a case of insects developing resistance to Bt plants in the field. When Bt plants were developed, scientists knew about the potential for resistance and developed strategies that have proven effective in preventing resistance to Bt plants.

Shelton says that many conventional farmers now employ some organic practices to add to soil health on their farms. He also says that many organic farmers he knows have expressed interest in using some biotech plants to help control pests in a more environmentally sustainable fashion, but the organic lobby will not allow it for philosophical, not scientific, reasons.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Mark Armfelt, DVM, DAVBP

By choosing technologies that increase productivity, the American Farmer has consistently provided an ever increasing number of American consumers with an abundant, economical, safe food supply. They have also been able to produce that food in a sustainable manner.

Abundant Food – Today’s farmer produces enough food to feed 143 people, which is five times as many people as each one fed in 1950. Some examples of how they did it:

• American dairy farmers have led the way by increasing the total production of milk by over 50% since 1950. They have done this with 62% fewer cows!

• Since 1950, total world production of all major cereal grains has tripled. That extra food was produced off approximately the same amount of land.

• U.S. beef cattle producers have increased their production per cow by 80% since 1955.

Economical Food – The average American consumer spends 6% of their disposable income on food prepared at home. In the European Union that number is 11%, in Mexico it is 24%, and in the Philippines it is 48%.

Safe Food – The following scientific organizations have acknowledged that today’s food supply is safe: World Health Organization, Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, National Academy of Sciences, American Medical Association, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Society of Toxicology, Institute of Food Technologists, American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Surgeon General’s Office, and the American Dietetics Association.

Sustainable – By having the freedom to choose technologies, farmers today can increase productivity while minimizing the footprint agriculture leaves on the environment. Here are a few examples of that:

• In the dairy industry, the decrease in cow numbers from almost 24 million in 1950 to just over 9 million cows today has decreased the amount of water, feed, land and fuel it takes to produce dairy products for today’s consumer. Decreasing cow numbers has also decreased manure and greenhouse gas production.

• Without new technologies in crop production we’d have had to cut down approximately three times as much forest or plowed up three times as much grazing land…to produce a harvest equivalent to 2000. That’s how much land high-yield technology saved for Mother Nature.

• In 2004 the use of biotech crops in the United States provided for a reduction in pesticide use by 64.6 million pounds, saved millions of tons of topsoil, and millions of gallons of fuel.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Permalink

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Permalink

You must be logged in to post a comment.