anyone read this article in Time

Help Support CattleToday:

upfrombottom

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
1
Location
Northeast Arkansas
GETTING REAL ABOUT THE HIGH PRICE OF CHEAP FOOD
By Brian Walsh
Correction Appended: Aug. 20, 2009

Somewhere in Iowa, a pig is being raised in a confined pen, packed in so tightly with other swine that their curly tails have been chopped off so they won't bite one another. To prevent him from getting sick in such close quarters, he is dosed with antibiotics. The waste produced by the pig and his thousands of pen mates on the factory farm where they live goes into manure lagoons that blanket neighboring communities with air pollution and a stomach-churning stench. He's fed on American corn that was grown with the help of government subsidies and millions of tons of chemical fertilizer. When the pig is slaughtered, at about 5 months of age, he'll become sausage or bacon that will sell cheap, feeding an American addiction to meat that has contributed to an obesity epidemic currently afflicting more than two-thirds of the population. And when the rains come, the excess fertilizer that coaxed so much corn from the ground will be washed into the Mississippi River and down into the Gulf of Mexico, where it will help kill fish for miles and miles around. That's the state of your bacon — circa 2009.

Horror stories about the food industry have long been with us — ever since 1906, when Upton Sinclair's landmark novel The Jungle told some ugly truths about how America produces its meat. In the century that followed, things got much better, and in some ways much worse. The U.S. agricultural industry can now produce unlimited quantities of meat and grains at remarkably cheap prices. But it does so at a high cost to the environment, animals and humans. Those hidden prices are the creeping erosion of our fertile farmland, cages for egg-laying chickens so packed that the birds can't even raise their wings and the scary rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria among farm animals. Add to the price tag the acceleration of global warming — our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels, more than any other sector of the economy.

And perhaps worst of all, our food is increasingly bad for us, even dangerous. A series of recalls involving contaminated foods this year — including an outbreak of salmonella from tainted peanuts that killed at least eight people and sickened 600 — has consumers rightly worried about the safety of their meals. A food system — from seed to 7‑Eleven — that generates cheap, filling food at the literal expense of healthier produce is also a principal cause of America's obesity epidemic. At a time when the nation is close to a civil war over health-care reform, obesity adds $147 billion a year to our doctor bills. "The way we farm now is destructive of the soil, the environment and us," says Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

Some Americans are heeding such warnings and working to transform the way the country eats — ranchers and farmers who are raising sustainable food in ways that don't bankrupt the earth. Documentaries like the scathing Food Inc. and the work of investigative journalists like Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan are reprising Sinclair's work, awakening a sleeping public to the uncomfortable realities of how we eat. Change is also coming from the very top. First Lady Michelle Obama's White House garden has so far yielded more than 225 lb. of organic produce — and tons of powerful symbolism. But hers is still a losing battle. Despite increasing public awareness, sustainable agriculture, while the fastest-growing sector of the food industry, remains a tiny enterprise: according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), less than 1% of American cropland is farmed organically. Sustainable food is also pricier than conventional food and harder to find. And while large companies like General Mills have opened organic divisions, purists worry that the very definition of sustainability will be co-opted as a result.

But we don't have the luxury of philosophizing about food. With the exhaustion of the soil, the impact of global warming and the inevitably rising price of oil — which will affect everything from fertilizer to supermarket electricity bills — our industrial style of food production will end sooner or later. As the developing world grows richer, hundreds of millions of people will want to shift to the same calorie-heavy, protein-rich diet that has made Americans so unhealthy — demand for meat and poultry worldwide is set to rise 25% by 2015 — but the earth can no longer deliver. Unless Americans radically rethink the way they grow and consume food, they face a future of eroded farmland, hollowed-out countryside, scarier germs, higher health costs — and bland taste. Sustainable food has an élitist reputation, but each of us depends on the soil, animals and plants — and as every farmer knows, if you don't take care of your land, it can't take care of you.
 
Doom and gloom sells Time magazine just like sex sells Cosmopolitan. No real facts in that article, no quotes or input from a producer's point of view for balance, just the typical fear mongering. The sky has to be falling to get people to buy their rag or tune into the tv news broadcast I guess. Wouldn't it be nice to see someone from Time magazine, 60 minutes, etc., do a story about a multi-generational family farm or ranch and tell the world how much they have improved their land management along with their production??
 
energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels, more than any other sector of the economy.
The first problem I have with this statement is where did this number come from? Secondly, what "food system" is not energy intensive? Third, where is the other 81% used? Personally I think 19% is an efficient amount, less than a fifth of our energy goes to food production!! Finally, isn't it the consumer that is demanding more food for less cost to them? All I hear is complaining about how expensive milk, hamburger, steak, bread, etc etc is in the grocery store. We have the cheapest food supply in the world. We have the safest food supply. Farming practices are constantly improving to become more efficient and more environmentally friendly all while becoming more productive. I'll give this guy some credit. The country is getting obese but it's becoming obvious to me that the main reason isn't this "unhealthy food" as much as it is a bunch of lazy people who get everything handed to them yet still have the audacity to bite the hand that feeds them. Give me a break.
 
I do not know about some of the things in the article but I do know that if a pig farmer, chicken farmer, or feed lot lets the manure wash into a river he will be fined heavily. I believe there are more restrictions on what a farmers can do than what has ever been placed on major industry. Secondly, organic fertilizer is in big demand.
Most farm people watch very closely as to how much fertilizer is put on crops. To much is a waste of money. Have you ever wondered how much fertilizer and herbicide run off from major metropolitan areas ends up in estuaries? The city folk have to have the prettiest lawn in the neighborhood and then have the gall to complain about the farmer.
With all the restrictions placed on the farmers in this country we still import a very high percentage of product from other countries that have little or no restrictions. It makes me wonder if the government should just put up a big sign BUY FOREIGN.
 
MO_cows":u0gzvnua said:
Doom and gloom sells Time magazine just like sex sells Cosmopolitan. No real facts in that article, no quotes or input from a producer's point of view for balance, just the typical fear mongering. The sky has to be falling to get people to buy their rag or tune into the tv news broadcast I guess. Wouldn't it be nice to see someone from Time magazine, 60 minutes, etc., do a story about a multi-generational family farm or ranch and tell the world how much they have improved their land management along with their production??
Every one has to justify their existence. The guy that wrote the article had to write something or he looses his job. Some PETA guy or whoever probably sent him a letter about this so he decided it may make a good article, so he could keep his job. The author does not think about the ramifications. Some politician may read the article, and because he wants to justify his existence, proposes a bill to place more restrictions on the farmer. Again he never thinks about the ramifications. So then the farmer goes broke a the food brokers are forced to buy from foreign markets where there may are may not be any control.
 
To me plain and simply, They don't want to give the real farmer a chance. Because if they did. They would be poor. Have you ever heard a story about a farmer that is rich. I'm not a farmer. I have 2 herifers for pets and chickens for eggs. And with that only it's hard to make sure they stay safe, health,and there area is clean. I can't even start to put myself in a real farmer place. It's hard just having it as a hooby. And yes it cost too! So if U.S.A just help out the farmer's here. We properly won't have those thing happening. While not as much. Always one bruised apple in the bunch :roll:
 
Drastic times call for drastic measures. If you will look at the subscription numbers for Time and Newsweek, you'll see why they print such stories.

As subscriptions continue to drop, you'll see more "shock" type stories to try to get people to buy them.
 

Latest posts

Top