The economy is still suffering, unemployment is still high – but Americans can still afford to eat and eat well.
According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, retail food prices at the supermarket decreased for the fifth consecutive quarter and are significantly lower than one year ago.
The informal “marketbasket” survey shows the total cost of 16 food items that can be used to prepare a meal was $42.90, down $3.13 from the third quarter of 2009 and $7.31 lower or about 15 percent less compared to one year ago.
Fifteen percent less than a year ago. Why are there no big news stories about LOWER food prices like the ones we saw when they were HIGHER? Is it just because good news is boring? This is GREAT news! We should be shouting it from the rooftops. According to USDA, Americans spend just under 10 percent of their disposable annual income on food, the lowest average of any country in the world. Why doesn’t anyone care about that? This is the greatest achievement of this great nation. And the people who are responsible for that, America’s farmers and ranchers, get no credit for it and instead are criticized.
It should also be duly noted that this great decline in food prices during 2009 came at the same time that ethanol production hit yet another record level. It seems there is no food versus fuel issue after all. But, as soon as food prices go back up again due to increased energy prices or some other problem, you can expect to see that argument resurrected.
Good thing that farmers are not in this business for the glory of it.
Blake Hurst, the plain speaking and thought provoking farmer from Missouri, is back in The American today providing us all with ample reason to say thanks to farmers as we prepare to load on the turkey tomorrow.
Hurst pulls back the invisible curtain that separates today’s consumers from the real workings of a family farm in a fun and meaningful way that is worth a read and worth sharing with your friends.
“I had to laugh at a recent Nicholas Kristof column in the New York Times, in which he had traveled back to his family’s farm in Oregon and was remembering how it was when he was a boy. But that idyllic time is lost, all lost, and Kristof concluded that farms have lost their soul. Or at least “industrial” farms operate at a soul deficit. I don’t know exactly what Kristof meant by the loss of soul. Reading what others write about agriculture, I sometimes think that what others see as “soul,” we farmers remember as grinding poverty and isolation. Does the fact that I follow the grain markets on my iPhone imply a loss of soul? If so, then this “soul” business is all cabbage, and the hell with it. Kristof and others constantly romanticize the life they imagine we live, or used to live, and I wouldn’t trade it for any other. But it can be as sharp as a serpent’s tooth. But if he means a family, working together from dawn till dusk to bring the harvest in, a place where love and affection and forbearance bind the workers together, then soul still exists, and we’ve got plenty of it.”
Yes, the old scenic barns still dot the countryside. But they often stand in the shadow of large metal buildings. They may lack the warm fuzzy-feelings of Americana but are far better adapted to house the large, technology-laden machines that still allow family farms to produce our food, feed and fuel that we rely on but often take for granted.
The aforementioned large equipment, satellite technology, computerized grain monitors, and modern grain dryers are all part of the tool box that allows family operations to survive and occasionally prosper. And make no mistake, American consumers recognize the value of these operations and plainly state this is a food production system worth valuing and protecting.
“If the movie “Food, Inc.” can be said to have a theme, it is that corn is too cheap. Cheap corn has led to industrial uses, cheap fast food, and, horror of horrors, corn fed to cows. This year’s harvest is bad news for documentary makers, because we’re bringing in a tremendous crop. Corn prices are at two-year lows. Author of Fast Food Nation Eric Schlosser’s pain is palpable, but a big harvest should be a cause for celebration for everyone else. Farmers make the news when weather causes low yields and high prices, but plentiful and reasonably priced food is such a given that nobody but we farmers celebrates a great crop like this one. The rest of America should celebrate, and be grateful for the abundance that agriculture provides.”
So this Thanksgiving as you push you chair away from the table with a full belly be grateful for hard working American family farmers. And be careful about swallowing the load of bull that some agenda-driven elitists are trying to feed the public. Happy Thanksgiving!
Oh, Anthony Bourdain. The “Bad Boy” of food, the one who has eaten fresh seal slain by Inuit and laid out on a kitchen floor that looked like a bloody crime scene. You’re such a rebel with your cigarettes and booze; you’ve turned the world of celebrity chefs upside down with your wacky adventures into far flung places.
You have been developing a following from real America because you openly criticize these elitist chefs on the Food Channel. You have written in your own blog about the sanctimoniousness of chefs such as Alice Waters and the granola hippies in San Francisco.
Before you arrived in Columbus to speak this weekend you did an interview with Alive magazine spouting off about the audaciousness of the word “foodie” and openly disagreeing with the likes of Michael Pollan and Alice Waters—or, as you’ve called her, Saint Alice.
But then you just turned out to be another wimp who bailed on your conviction and on family farmers when it got too hot in the kitchen.
At your show, when I asked you what you think of self proclaimed experts like Pollan and Waters, you pandered to your audience of about 400 people and criticized modern farming practices.
When asked about the dynamic duo of the foodie movement you changed the subject to putting down the food industry for using High Fructose Corn Syrup (farmers don’t delegate where their crops go). The crowd booed … it was like the Maury Povich Show for food snobs.
I defended the corn industry, saying corn sweeteners are the same as sugar, everything in moderation. And I got more boos than a visiting football team at Ohio Stadium (minus the large crowd).
What a hypocrite. In a recent blog you publically state there is plenty to sneer about in San Francisco because the Bay is “pretty much the epicenter of so many of my most cherished aversions: political correctness, veganism, rich hippies, sanctimoniousness about food, food fetishism, animal rights terrorists, gastro-dogma, and loud locavores who actually get their produce flown in from Chino Farms in San Diego.”
In closing, I have this to say to the so-called Bad Boy: if you say something, stick to it. Don’t pander to the audience and become the sell out that you claim Rachel Ray is now.
By setting out on a tour of the United States and speaking to crowds for about, oh, 20 minutes for $50.00 to $100.00 dollars a seat makes me think that you’re a sellout.
As for the blogger who attended Bourdain’s show and later called me a “dolt from the corn industry.” I represent family farmers, the same folks who feed you with little regard for you ignorance and arrogance.
A new report out this week from USDA shows that over 85 percent of American households have enough – or more than enough – to eat. As a nation, we are food secure.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that almost 15 percent are reportedly some level of “food insecure” – which sounds like some type of psychological condition, but according to USDA means families that “had difficulty putting enough food on the table at times during the year.”
There is frankly no excuse for anyone in this country to go hungry, ever – much less 17 million households with children. That’s some 49 million people. That’s the most since 1995, when the USDA conducted its first survey on food insecurity and 29 percent higher than the previous record in 2004. USDA says, “The fundamental cause of food insecurity and hunger in the United States is poverty – marked by a lack of adequate resources to address basic needs such as food, shelter and health care.”
I don’t believe that. We have more than abundant resources in this nation to feed those who are without the means to feed themselves. The resources are there, if people are “food insecure” it is because they are not taking advantage of those resources.
We produce more than enough food for everyone to eat. Any child who attends a public school in this country should never be hungry. And the fact of the matter is that even the 15 percent who are classified as “food insecure” in our nation have more to eat than the poor in other nations.
As Thanksgiving approaches, we should be thankful for the food security of our nation and reach out to those who may be “insecure” to make sure they take advantage of the resources available to help them. No one should ever go hungry in this country. It is our job as citizens and fellow human beings to feed those in need. Give to a local homeless shelter or Samaritan center or soup kitchen. There are people who are experiencing loss of jobs and income and we should help them as individuals, companies, organizations and governments.
We should also be thankful that this year’s Thanksgiving dinner is even more affordable than last year, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. AFBF’s 24th annual informal price survey of classic items found on the Thanksgiving Day dinner table found the average cost of this year’s feast for 10 is $42.91, a $1.70 price decrease from last year’s average of $44.61. That’s four percent less than a year ago.
There is no excuse for anyone going hungry in the United States but we should be very thankful for the great abundance of affordable food brought to us by our farmers and ranchers. Spread the word by using the Give Thanks signature on your email this month, or just by giving Thanks every time you eat a meal. We are indeed blessed.
The concept of taxing sodas seems to have hit a sweet spot with some as a means to pay for health care.
Always the leader in ideas like this, California plans to hold hearings in the state legislature next month that may lead to taxes or fees on soda as a way of addressing obesity and healthcare problems in the state. A hearing of the Select Committee on Obesity and Diabetes will “hear from experts regarding the growing scientific evidence of links between soda consumption and obesity.” Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) says they need “to do more to educate the public about the health effects of drinking too much soda and consider options for reducing soda consumption among children.”
That sounds all well and good. From the federal level all the way down to the local level there is increasing emphasis on educating people to make healthier food choices, which would includes drinking more water or milk and less sugary drinks. But, whether taxes on soda would be used for better education or to pay for health care costs associated with obesity, the losers will be consumers – especially those with the lowest incomes. An additional tax on beverages would most heavily impact the people who are struggling the most in the current economy. A tax of a penny an ounce would add 12 to 20 cents on the average soda.
You may have seen the ads that Americans Against Food Taxes (AAFT) has been running opposing the concept of taxing food or beverages. AAFT notes that the food and beverage industry has already been working to reduce childhood obesity through innovation, nutrition education, and encouraging physical activity. Many, if not most, schools have removed soda machines and have limited the amount of high sugar, high fat foods and beverages in school lunch programs.
The biggest problem with the whole taxing concept is that it will probably not do anything to deter consumption, which is allegedly the goal, especially among the lower income groups. Proof of this is cigarette taxes. The prevalence of smoking is higher in those who have spent less time in school (9-11 years – incidence 38%) and those who are living on the poverty line (33%). It is very likely that a soda tax would have little impact – probably none at all – on the people who are most at risk for obesity-related illnesses.
You can join the fight and support AAFT’s efforts by going to www.nofoodtaxes.com.
Michael Pollen, author of such widely read but hotly debated books as “In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto,: and “Omnivore’s Dilemma” got a nice dose of farmer activism when he spoke at the University of Wisconsin last night. A group of about 200 Wisconsin farmers, Ag supporters, and UW Ag students and faculty also showed up to the lecture wearing green t-shirts printed with the slogan, “In Defense of Farming: Eat Food. Be Healthy. Thank Farmers.”
The appearance seems to have proven a point for those in agriculture who feel they are getting pounded on every side on multiple issues and they have no control, no way to make a difference. If you were ready to throw your hands in the air and give up you might want to read this story.
Although political and social activism goes against the grain for most farmers, it may be time to reassess this aversion based on the impact WI Aggies had on Journalist Pollen’s normal presentation. The result appears to have been a more subdued if not more sensitive Michael Pollen. (more…)
This is the time of year when many agricultural groups provide some subtle education on our profession in the form of feeding the public. While many environmental groups, animal rights groups, global petroleum interests and others spread misinformation about family farmers, maybe the best answer is to simply “spread the table.”
Just this morning one of these breakfasts was held and the intent is to charge the attendees only the amount of money the farmer receives for producing the bounty on their plate. This year a hefty plate of eggs, bacon (both corn-fed no doubt), pancakes and milk cost a whopping .45 cents.
A dollar on the table covered this unbelievable breakfast for two people. Keep the tip! Given the high quality, safety, selection, and abundance of food in this nation it makes one wonder what critics of agriculture really want, when a thank you and perhaps an antacid would seem the appropriate response.
Today, it takes 25 cents of corn to produce a pound of beef; 32 cents to produce a pound of pork, and 36 cents for a dozen eggs.
In the case of American corn farmers, we are five-times more productive today than we were in the 1930s (on 20% less land), and worldwide farmers are producing enough crops to feed twice as many people as they did in 1950 on the same amount of land. All this is being done thanks to an environmentally friendly combination of technology and innovation.
Agriculture may be the greatest story never told. Ok, some people are trying to tell it, but good luck bringing a good news story to the attention of the American public. Cutting through the information clutter and getting the attention of a public worried by the economy and health care seems nearly insurmountable, especially when the vast majority of citizens are still seeing full shelves and paychecks sufficient to put food on the table.
At least today, in a small corner of the world dozens of well fed citizens in one city started their day knowing more about farmer’s true contribution to our food supply and quality of life. Let’s hope the message sticks and they become evangelists who take the time to educate their urban cousins.
America has the safest, most abundant, and most affordable food supply in the entire world. That would be a good thing, right? For some people, however, this is somehow a bad thing.
Basically, it was an endorsement of the movie “Food, Inc.” with its own glaring fact errors and one-sided “reporting.”
Let’s just start with the most obvious. According to the IT, “Only the tiniest fraction (less than a bushel per person) of the 1 billion bushels of corn grown annually comes to consumers as corn — on the cob or as chips, tortillas, cornmeal, etc.” Actually, our corn production in this country last year was 12 billion bushels. And that’s only corn for grain, some of which may be counted as food grade for chips, tortillas, corn meal, etc. Sweet corn production is not measured in bushels, although this article attempts to clump it together with field corn as if it were the same thing.
But, that’s just being picky. I’m sure that was an innocent typo and really has nothing to do with the reporter’s main point, which is that somehow having affordable, abundant and safe food year round is bad. She points out, (correctly) “In 1960, the average family spent 18 percent of its income on food; today that figure has plummeted to nine percent. That’s less than was ever spent on food throughout history, and less than is spent currently anywhere else worldwide.” We have a “staggering array of choices” and produce available year round even when it’s not in season.
However, the reporter says, “If that sounds almost too good to be true, in many ways it is.” Actually, it is not only true, but it is good as well.
She then goes on to blame the federal government for subsidizing “lazy” farmers who are addicted to government payments “like cocaine.” She also says that the fact that 95 percent of U.S. farms are family owned is true, but misleading, because really it’s companies like ADM, Cargill, Tyson and Monsanto who control agriculture in the country, not the family farmers.
And we use too much fertilizer and fossil fuel and slave labor, etc. So, what we need to do as a nation is switch “from conventional to sustainable farming, defined as farm practices that don’t deplete the land and natural resources and that provide living wages to farmers and farm workers.” And she tries to convince us that somehow this is not going to result in a less abundant or more expensive food supply:
Many remain convinced that industrial agriculture is the only way enough food can be grown to feed a hungry world. They’re skeptical — even disbelieving — when told that sustainable farming, using methods both old and new, can actually produce more food per acre than conventional farming. But numbers provide the proof. An acre of conventionally raised corn at today’s prices would fetch $602, although by the end of the year, it’s projected to cost $716.55 — and takes 50-plus gallons of fossil fuel to produce. In contrast, a local Springfield produce farmer using sustainable practices says he earns as much as $16,000 per acre.
Note that this is literally like comparing apples to oranges – or probably in this case, corn to strawberries. Growing an acre of produce to sell at a local farmers market is not in any way comparable to growing 4,000 acres of corn.
The article begins with a scene at a local farmers market where an old man is asking the price of strawberries. They are $3.50 at the farmers market, compared to $1.99 at the grocery store, where the reporter tells him they are “shipped in from California and grown with toxic chemicals. They don’t have much flavor ’cause they’re picked before they’re ripe — probably by illegal immigrants who’re paid slave wages.” The old man replies, “They taste fine to me.”
It is great and wonderful for us to have strawberries from California before they are in season in Illinois – and it is equally great and wonderful that we can have fresh, locally grown produce in the summertime. What is really great and wonderful in this nation is that we have that choice. Not having the choice will lead to a less abundant, less affordable and less safe food supply.
A note to food marketers: Consumers who say they want healthy options are unlikely to actually order off the healthy menu.
Many restaurants are bending over backwards to offer lower-calorie options including KFC, which launched a grilled-chicken platform this spring, according to an article in today’s Advertising Age byEmily Bryson York, but apparently price and taste trump all.
“There’s definitely a dichotomy between what people say they want and what they actually do when it comes to healthy restaurant eating,” Maria Caranfa, a registered dietitian and director at Mintel Menu Insights, said in a statement. “Over eight in 10 adults told us it’s very or somewhat important to them to eat healthy, but when it comes to dining out, most people are really looking for taste, texture and experience.”
According to Mintel, price was also a deterrent in selecting better-for-you meals. As cash-strapped consumers tighten their belts, they’re choosing cheap and tasty comfort food.
Mintel found that only one in five consumers rank a food’s health attributes as an important factor when choosing dinner. But 77% of them thought about “taste,” and 44% considered “hunger satisfaction.” And a particular problem for restaurants: While roughly 75% of those surveyed said they would like to see more healthy options, only 51% order from those selections.
No matter what your opinion of the Food Inc. documentary might be, my opinion of the latest social media tool – Twitter – took a huge leap to the positive side today. Twitter was atwitter today with one of the liveliest discussions on the Food. Inc. movie or agriculture in general that I have seen in a long time.
Some of the online comments were rude, many were funny or insightful, some were hopelessly naive, and all made you think at some level. And interestingly enough many from the agriculture community from the crop and livestock side were in the thick of the discussion….slow phone line speed and all. You are to be commended. It you aren’t on Twitter, get their quick…. www.twitter.com
Robert Kenner, Food Inc. Director, was featured and online to answer questions. (Long after Mr. Kenner left the discussion tweets continued…for 4 hours before I stopped keeping track) He may have created a questionable documentary and as one participant in the Twitter chat said today…”food and politics should never be served on the same plate,” but he deserves credit for putting himself out there in such a public forum. And at least this forum, unlike Good Morning America or the upcoming Nightline segment on his project, allowed both sides to be heard. For a movie reviewer’s perspective go to: http://bit.ly/14IocQ
If you don’t have time here it is in a nutshell:
“The side effect of a well-executed horror film is lack of sleep. The side effect of a well-executed documentary on corruption of our food supply is lack of appetite. Personally? I left “Food, Inc.,” went straight to lunch and had a big ole’ fried-chicken salad. Unfortunately for this film, one of the most valuable elements of education is learning to separate fact from bias and to seek proof in the form of evidence. “Food, Inc.” seems to cloud the presentation with a whole lot of bias and little proof.”
Now on to some jewels from today’s Twitter discussion:
I loved Variety’s review of Food Inc…it did for supermarkets what Jaws did for the beach.
How do you answer the need to feed a doubling or global population without utilizing any technology? Seems selfish to not look beyond the U.S.
Farmers are growing what they are paid for. We need to create a system where they can make money growing healthier foods.
Going back to how cattle used to be raised would require an added 16.5 million acres of land.
Gotta point this out moviemakers, Roundup soybeans are not insect resistant but herbicide tolerant.
I think we need diversity is Ag which means men and women, big and small, modern and old school. Room for all in Ag
Ag employs 21 million or 15% of the total U.S. workforce. The only entity employing more is government.
According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, retail food prices at the supermarket decreased for the fifth consecutive quarter and are significantly lower than one year ago.
A 
We produce more than enough food for everyone to eat. Any child who attends a public school in this country should never be hungry. And the fact of the matter is that even the 15 percent who are classified as “food insecure” in our nation have more to eat than the poor in other nations. 
Always the leader in ideas like this, California plans to hold hearings in the state legislature next month that may lead to taxes or fees on soda as a way of addressing obesity and healthcare problems in the state. A hearing of the Select Committee on Obesity and Diabetes will “hear from experts regarding the growing scientific evidence of links between soda consumption and obesity.” Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) says they need “to do more to educate the public about the health effects of drinking too much soda and consider options for reducing soda consumption among children.”
You may have seen the ads that 
Michael Pollen, author of such widely read but hotly debated books as “In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto,: and “Omnivore’s Dilemma” got a nice dose of 
This is the time of year when many agricultural groups provide some subtle education on our profession in the form of feeding the public. While many environmental groups, animal rights groups, global petroleum interests and others spread misinformation about family farmers, maybe the best answer is to simply “spread the table.”