Posted By Cathryn March 13, 2014
Today, Corn Commentary features a guest post from blogger, CommonGround volunteer, farmer and dietitian Jennie Schmidt. Schmidt testified March 11 in opposition to a state bill which would require labeling of certain products containing GMOs. As similar battles rev up across the country, she offers not only her perspective as a farmer but also as a registered dietitian who earned an advanced degree in science.
I Grow GMO: Not Ashamed or Embarrassed
Yesterday, I testified before the Maryland State Senate Committee on Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee. I was speaking against SB778 “Genetically Engineered Foods – Labeling Requirements”
My interview with WBOC on GMO labeling.
Introduced by Senator Karen Montgomery, of Montgomery County, the bill synopsis states:
“Requiring specified raw foods and packaged foods that are entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering to display a specified label beginning on July 1, 2015; requiring a manufacturer to include a specified label on specified foods; requiring a supplier to include a specified label on a container used for packaging, holding, or transporting specified foods; requiring a retailer to place a specified label on a shelf or bin containing specified foods; etc.”
She introduced the hearing legislation by asking why people acted “ashamed or embarrassed” about GMO. She claimed she was a supporter of biotechnology and wasn’t afraid of it but that consumers have the right to know.
But many of the groups who claim that consumers have the “right to know” are actually working toward a ban of the technology.
Organic consumers Association: “Once GMOs foods are labeled, informed consumers will move to protect themselves and their families by not buying them. Once enough consumers shun GMO-tainted and labeled foods, stores will stop selling them and food manufacturers will stop putting GMO food ingredients in their products.”
Center for Food Safety: “Labeling #GMO food is not enough. We must keep new GE crops out of food supply to begin with take action @TrueFoodNow”
March Against Monsanto: “Many presume the March Against Monsanto is a protest about GMO. While food plays a very big role in the global protest, there are many insidious tentacles to the biotech giant. MAM seeks to destroy the root.”
Truth-Out: “GMO labeling laws are the cornerstone of the anti-GMO movement. But consumers are also expanding the fight by demanding outright bans on the growing of GMO crops.”
In fact, two consumers who testified at the same hearing in favor of labeling voiced the very same thing, that labeling didn’t go far enough, that biotechnology needed to be banned.
The Consumers Union, Food and Water Watch, and Union of Concerned Scientists had their legal team of suits presenting. I’m not going to restate their position because if you google Michael Hansen or Doug Gurian-Sherman, you will find pages of testimony nearly word for word identical to what they told the senate hearing yesterday, including continuing to claim the validity of the retracted Seralini study.
In response to Senator Montgomery’s comment: I am an unashamed and unembarrassed supporter of biotechnology. On my Maryland farm it has resulted in higher yields and lower pesticide applications, year after year, wet season, dry season, normal season. Even when Hurricane Irene knocked our corn flat, biotech held its ears better than non-GMO corn by 26 bushels per acre, which in a very crappy year, makes a world of difference to our family farm’s ability to stay afloat.
Our corn yield comparison data
Our soybean yield comparison data
Biotech outperform our specialty seeds: non-GMO & Identity Preserved. Yes, we grow and segregate a variety of different types of grains and seeds, all of which are tested and verified as pure to the variety they are supposed to be. This year, we will have 900 acres of grains and seeds under some protocol for identity preservation. The seed must be genetically consistent and true to its traits, uniform in shape, size and color, and free from weed seed and contamination. They are tested and verified to meet those standards. So co-existence of conventional, biotech, and organic/Identity Preserved/nonGMO grains and seeds is possible. We do it every day on our family farm and have for many years now. Biotech threatens none of our niche or specialty markets. These farming systems are not and should not be considered mutually exclusive.
When you combine higher yields consistently, with less man hours on a tractor, burning less diesel fuel, and saving pesticide sprays, you have a far more sustainable family farm on the environment: less greenhouse gases, less fuel consumption, less pesticide use = protecting and preserving more resources.
But to the larger picture, biotechnology has brought us Humulin, Epogen, Herceptin and many, many other excellent lifesaving medical therapies.
Biotechnology means we don’t harvest insulin from hogs or cattle pancreas anymore.
Biotechnology means we don’t harvest the enzyme chymosin from young calves to extract rennet from their stomachs which is then used to coagulate milk in the cheese making process.
To me, this is progress. To me, these are reasons to oppose mandatory labeling of “GMO”. It is both safe and efficacious in medicine and in food.
Science and research concurs. Published last year, An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research reviewed 1783 studies, 312 of which were GE food & feed consumption studies finding “no scientific evidence of toxic or allergenic effects”. The researchers concluded that “that genetic engineering and GE crops should be considered important options in the efforts toward sustainable agricultural production.”
1783 studies… 312 of them on consumption of GE food and feed. That’s a safety track record.
Nicolia, et al, 2013. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology
The technology is valuable in both medicine and food. The technology has many benefits to mankind. No one but the activists are saying biotech was supposed to be a “silver bullet”. Farmers know it’s one of many tools in the tool box to improve sustainability and produce more food on less land. Efforts to undermine the technology through mandatory GMO labeling that falsely implies there are safety concerns where none exist is misleading and a disservice to consumers.
I oppose Maryland SB778.
Interested? Read more posts authored by Schmidt on her blog, The Foodie Farmer, or follow her on Twitter @FarmGirlJen.
Posted By Cathryn January 23, 2014
The following blog post was authored by Minnesota family farmer and CommonGround volunteer Kristie Swenson. Swenson participates in CommonGround, which is a joint project of the National Corn Growers Association, the United Soybean Board and their state affiliates, to help moms off the farm know how the moms on America’s farms grow and raise their food. By sharing her stories, she hopes to help consumers enjoy their food without fear.
The topic of GMOs is complex, challenging, and emotional, regardless of your stance. I have yet to have a straightforward conversation where we simply talk about one aspect of the GMOs because it’s so hard to talk about just one aspect when there are so many sides to the issue. If one starts talking about the science itself, or the methodology used to genetically modify an organism, the conversation often goes on tangents like research, ethics, side effects, chemical use, labeling, corporations and so on. It is so hard to separate each individual issue because they are connected and they are all valid issues that should be addressed.
Straight away, you should know that I am pro-GMO. I do not believe that GMOs are the silver bullet or the solution for everything, but I do believe that GMOs have merits that should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Do I think every single organism needs to be genetically modified? No, I don’t. But I do believe that genetically modifying some organisms can provide us with benefits, and I think those modifications should be researched.
Take papayas, for example. In the 1990s, Hawaii’s papaya crop was devastated by the ringspot virus. A Hawaiian scientist, Dr. Dennis Gonsalves, developed a virus-resistant variety of papaya through genetic modification and found a way to help the papaya industry. In Hawaii today, both GMO and non-GMO papayas are produced. (Read this article for an interview with Dr. Gonsalves.)
Am I saying that since I see GM papayas as a good thing, that all GMOs are a good thing? I’m not going to use one positive situation to blanket the entire topic of GMOs. I am just saying that there are other industries that could benefit from genetic modification. The citrus industry comes to mind as it has been hit by citrus greening (the scientific name is Huanglongbing, or HLB). In this particular case, biotechnology could save our citrus. Here are two articles that further explore the citrus greening issue: Article 1 and Article 2.
To me, genetic modification and biotechnology are tools. Having multiple tools to pick from enables us to determine which tool fits the best for the situation at hand. People will choose tools based not only on the situation, but also on their personal preference. You and I may be faced with the same situation, yet we may choose different tools to achieve similar outcomes. And that’s ok – it is ok to have different opinions, different beliefs, different comfort levels.
I understand people have questions and concerns. It’s so easy for us to look to sources of information with which we are familiar, or which share our perspective. In today’s society, with the constant barrage of information and the vast amount of information available, it is so hard to sort out what’s fact from opinion; what’s twisted from what’s true. What one person finds credible may not be a credible source for someone else. I encourage you to seek out sources of information that provide facts rather than perpetuating myths, to have respectful conversations with people who work with biotechnology, and to think critically about what you find. I encourage you to continue asking questions until you are satisfied with the answers, and to know not just what you believe but why you believe it.
Posted By Cathryn December 9, 2013
Today, Corn Commentary shares a guest post that originally ran on The Farmers Life. This blog, authored by Indiana farmer Brian, provides a window into ag and thoughtful, open conversation about the issues impacting farmers today.
Journal to Retract Seralini Rat Study
Last year French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini made news when a paper by his team was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology. Data concerning long-term feeding of genetically modified Monsanto corn and the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) in the Seralini study suggested the rats being studied developed cancerous tumors. Of course this news spread around the internet like wildfire among those who detest biotech crops. Finally they had a really high profile study published proving their point.
Criticism of Seralini Study
The scientific community widely criticized the study’s statistical methods. The number of rats used was questionable, and the data drawn from test and control groups seemed incomplete at best. Test groups of Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats used in the feeding study were given various amounts of NK603 corn over a two-year period. Test subjects were also given varying amounts of glyphosate in drinking water. Control rats received non-GM corn and regular drinking water. Rats fed GMO corn and glyphosate developed tumors during their two-year life span, and pictures of tumor riddled rats plagued the internet.
Seralini rats as described by scientist Kevin Folta. “Sometimes the way data are presented can expose the relative objectivity and hidden intent of a study. Left-rat that ate GMO corn. Center- rat eating GMO corn and roundup. Right- rat fed roundup. Their associated tumors shown on the right. Wait! What about the control rats, the ones that also got tumors? How convenient to leave them out!”
But what about the control rats? They developed tumors as well. Sprague-Dawley rats are known to develop tumors during their lifespan. In fact a majority of them are known to do so within two years. Further analysis of Seralini’s data shows rats fed NK603 corn and Roundup-laced water sometimes had less incidence of tumors than the control group. Shouldn’t that bit of information thrown up some red flags possibly before the study was originally published inFood and Chemical Toxicology? Flags were thrown for and by many scientists, and now the tables are turning as the editor of the journal, A. Wallace Hayes, stated this week he would retract the paper from the journal if Seralini did not withdraw it himself.
When I first heard news of Seralini’s study in 2012 I was skeptical as you might imagine. Livestock have been fed GM corn and soybeans for almost 20 years now. If it was so awful as to cause all the ailments claimed by those who seem to pander to anti-GMO sentiment I think it stands to reason that farmers would have backed off the stuff long ago. But that kind of logic doesn’t fit the narrative of GMO = Bad. The Seralini paper was, and likely still is, validation for those who were predisposed to interpret it as definitive proof that biotechnology should be outlawed.
Seralini Going Forward
Although I am glad to see this fear mongering study being pulled from publication I’m afraid the damage has already been done. And if you’re a GMO hater you can still easily feel like you’ve won. I’ve already seen the internet gearing up to portray the retraction as a result of great pressure applied to the journal by Big Ag and the politicians supposedly paid off by industry money. People who believe such narratives don’t have to change their minds when new information comes to light. Even if the old information was questionable to begin. All they need do is move the goal post. Kevin Folta agrees “we’ll see the wagons circle“ while suggesting steps for Seralini to take since he is standing behind his team’s research.
Science is a process, and I’m happy the process is working.
To view the original post, click here.
Posted By Cathryn October 21, 2013
Today, Corn Commentary features a guest post from CommonGround Wisconsin volunteer and blogger Kim Bremmer.
What a fun morning in Alma Center, Wisconsin with two buses full of high school students, teachers and the school nutritionist for an informal discussion about food! Pfaffway Farm was our wonderful host and is home to over 200 milking cows and youngstock. Kristin Pfaff wanted to host an event about modern food production, showcase an actual farm, and be able to answer any questions the students might have about modern farming today.
The students were given donated milk, cheese curds and Craisins as they were seated on straw bale benches. A questionaire was handed out earlier in the week at school and our discussion was focused accordingly around their answers.
We answered questions about the overall safety of food today and how technology has changed over time. We spent a lot of time discussing GMO’s and handed out the Common Ground info-graph to everyone. Many of the kids had concerns about the safety of GMO’s today and it was quite apparent the influence that main stream media has. We had examples of different foods and talked at length about food labels and what they mean. “Organic”, “All Natural”, “Hormone Free”, “Antibiotic Free” were all covered as well as r-BST, animal care concerns, and salmonella.
It was a lively group of young consumers with a lot of great questions and great discussion. Even the adults in the group all commented on how much they learned. Our final message was about keeping an open mind and always asking an expert when it comes to where your food comes from…the farmers and ranchers who are producing food for their own families and yours. And more information can always be found at findourcommonground.com!
Posted By Cathryn September 24, 2013
Looking at the myriad of activities NCGA and so many other organizations conduct to help share the story of farming with consumers, one might wonder about the impact on public opinion. Today, a blog post by Rajean Blomquist provided clear, concise evidence that open, real conversations between the women who grow food and those who purchase it make a difference.
Blomquist attended a dinner organized by CommonGround Colorado last month. While there, she had a chance to meet the farm women who volunteer their time and share their stories to help consumers understand how their food is grown and raised.
Speaking of that night, Blomquist recounts the impression of America’s farmers she has following her conversations.
“These farm women spoke passionately about their jobs, their families, the history of their farms – most are third and fourth generation farmers. To me, that speaks volumes of their dedication to bring us the freshest, safest food. They spoke of feeding their families what they and their fellow farming friends grow, the best proof I need to know they won’t sell it if they don’t eat it. Their clear skin, bright eyes, nice teeth, and hair told me they appear to be healthy from the inside out. There are an enormous amount of regulations in the farm industry. No doubt, farmers work harder than most people before many of us raise our heads off our pillows in the mornings.”
To read the full post, click here.
This may only seem like one person, but Blomquist shares her story too. Through her blog, the volunteers reach women not only across Colorado but also around the world.
The world grows more connected by the day as bloggers and social media users reach a global community on the web. The conversations about food and farming in this space have a ripple effect. One person’s impression can touch many more people in further flung places than anyone could have imagined only a few decades ago.
Someone is telling your story – the story of farming in America. Working together, we can make sure that more thoughtful, concerned voices, voices like Blomquist, hear it first from a farmer.
Posted By Cathryn September 5, 2013
Today, Corn Commentary features a post authored by Minnesota Corn Growers Association President Tom Haag that originally ran on MinnesotaFarmingGuide.com.
Corn Views: Back off the Renewable Fuels Standard, it’s working
If I told you there was a piece of legislation that has reduced America’s dependence on foreign oil by 20 percent, supports 400,000 jobs, adds $43 billion to our gross domestic product, reduces greenhouse gas emissions by at least 34 percent and saves the typical motorist $1,200 per year, would you call for that legislation to be scaled back or repealed?
It sounds like a silly question, doesn’t it? Why would anyone want to repeal a piece of legislation that is doing all of those things?
But that’s exactly what Big Oil companies and their highly paid executives, lobbyists and public relations teams are trying to do to a piece of legislation called the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS).
The RFS was enacted in 2005, updated in 2007, and is one of our country’s most successful energy policies ever. Thanks to the RFS — legislation that sets market-based goals for blending renewable fuels with gasoline – Big Oil’s monopoly on transportation fuels is loosening, which allows alternatives like ethanol to compete fairly in the marketplace.
Unfortunately, Big Oil isn’t a fan of the free market and competition. It’s attacking the RFS and ethanol so it can continue gouging Americans at the pump and limit fuel choices.
I believe that America was founded on free-market principles. Businesses should compete fairly in the marketplace and consumers should be protected against monopolies like Big Oil that unfairly manipulate prices.
Consider this: A barrel of oil cost $23 in 2001. Today, oil is over $100 per barrel — a 335 percent increase – despite the fact that demand for gasoline is down and we’re drilling for more oil in places like North Dakota.
In Minnesota, the price of a gallon of gas has gone from under $1.50 to around $4 (sometimes more) over the last 11 years.
These unexplainable and unjustified price increases are not sustainable. We need legislation like the RFS to ensure fairness in the marketplace and give alternatives like ethanol a shot to compete. Because the price of ethanol is less than gasoline, it’s already saving Americans about $1.09 per gallon.
Of course, Big Oil hasn’t let the facts get in the way of its attacks on renewable fuels. It’s gotten so bad that Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) recently urged the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate possibly anti-competitive practices (such as intimidating franchisees) by oil companies that may block market access for renewable fuels.
Minnesota’s corn farmers appreciate the bi-partisan efforts of both senators to protect consumers and build a transportation fuels market that is competitive. Now it’s time for other leaders in Washington to follow suit and defend the RFS.
Partisan gridlock already makes it difficult for our elected officials to pass meaningful legislation these days. The last thing Americans need is for Congress to repeal the RFS – a piece of legislation that’s saving us money, increasing competition and preserving our environment.
Corn views is a monthly column from Minnesota Corn Growers Association president Tom Haag, who farms near Eden Valley.
Posted By Cathryn May 14, 2013
Recently, CommonGround Colorado volunteer Danell Kalcevic, who farms and raises cattle outside of Denver, penned an op-ed on why consumers may see higher beef prices this grilling season. While some may say farmers and ranchers must be profiting from this rise, Kalcevic explains how last year’s drought is still impacting ranchers.
May Snow Showers Bring Spring Crops for Farmers
As we gear up for grilling season, many shoppers may notice higher beef prices at the grocery store. Beef prices are triggered by supply and demand, and this year, the supply is low. “How low?” you ask. The last time cattle numbers in the U.S. were this low was it was 1952.
Moisture—or the lack thereof—is the culprit for supply issues in the beef industry. I know it might seem like it’s been snowing and raining nearly every day the last couple of weeks, but the lack of moisture in our region over the past ten years has caused strain on the feed supply, and ultimately our cattle supply. For cattle farmers like me, the price of beef depends on the commodity prices for wheat, corn and soybeans—all of the big commodities used in feeding cattle.
A low supply and high demand normally means the person selling the goods in demand will make a large profit. This theory does not hold true in agriculture. In reality, it costs more to produce our low supply of cattle, and we are by no means getting rich off of the profits. Farmers actually see less than 12 cents for every dollar spent on food in America. The rest of the money goes to processing, transportation and marketing.
Call us crazy, but my family considers the recent snowy weather a blessing. Sure blizzard conditions make getting in the field or feeding cattle difficult, but with this type of moisture farmers will be able to plant a much greater supply of crops like corn or soybeans. And we are hopeful that being able to plant more spring crops will help bring those cattle numbers back up and your beef prices down!
Danell Kalcevic, farmer, Bennett, Colo.
Posted By Cathryn March 11, 2013
Today, Corn Commentary joins with the Corn Refiners Association in celebrating their 100th anniversary. In doing so, CRA offers this guest post to America’s corn farmers. A post authored the National Corn Growers Association will be featured on their blog also. Click here to view NCGA’s thoughts offered in celebration of this momentous event.
Without You, There Would Be No Us
As the Corn Refiners Association celebrates its 100th anniversary we wanted to take a moment to reflect on the legacy of a prosperous partnership between corn wet millers and corn growers, a partnership that we very much enjoy and couldn’t survive without. Although the CRA is celebrating 100 years, this partnership actually exceeds that and goes back more than 150 years when corn starch was first manufactured in Jersey City, N.J., by Thomas Kingsford, who most consider to be the founder of the corn refining industry.
Thanks to productivity of corn growers with technological advances in machinery, farming techniques and breeding, and the innovative visionaries in the corn wet milling industry and their commitment to research and development of new products and technologies, the beneficial effect of this partnership is something we wish we could embed in the mind of every American. The corn that producers grow and that corn wet millers refine is used in millions of households in the form of ingredients, plastics, oils, toothpaste, batteries, carpet and numerous other quality products that provide convenience and choice and are so very embedded in our current way of life.
The success of our partnership shows itself in the economic impact corn has had, as thousands upon thousands have been employed as a producer or a refiner, with our shared commitment to enriching not only the lives of those who have been employed, but also in helping to build stronger communities.
For a glimpse of our accomplishments, we can look back to 1906, when approximately 2.9 billion bushels of corn were produced in the U.S. and of that, corn refiners used 36.4 million bushels. Now, in 2012 nearly 11 billion bushels of corn were produced in the United States, and the USDA estimates that more than 1.8 billion bushels of corn will be used for corn wet milling over the next year.
Who could have imagined we would be able to achieve productivity gains of this magnitude? Maybe pioneer Thomas Kingsford knew it all along; from his tiny mill producing only corn starch to a thriving and growing partnership between corn growers and corn wet millers, we have vastly extended the uses of refined corn products. Looking back 150 years, it seems to be an understatement to note that our partnership and the benefits that have come with it have been priceless for all of us.
So what does the future hold? I would argue that there is no limit to what we can accomplish together. American corn farmers will continue to be the most productive in the world, growing 20 percent more corn per acre than any other nation. They will continue to focus on stewardship of the land and advancements in biotechnology, which has revolutionized agriculture, increasing yields and creating a sustainable crop for generations to come.
On the corn wet milling side, sweeteners and starch will still be fundamental to our industry, but the products that hold promise for creating a carbohydrate-based economy will continue to grow. The opportunity to replace petroleum-based products with corn-based ones has the potential to be very large. Advancements continue in the area of corn-based plastics, fibers, acetates and other products that continue to chip away at our dependency on non-renewable feedstocks. With that said, there is no doubt that innovation and productivity will continue to drive all the gains we produce and undoubtedly there will be more game changers to come, as was the case with the introduction of HFCS in the 70s and ethanol in the 80s.
I think this note from the previous Corn Refiners Association President, Chuck Conner, says it best: “There is something remarkable about an industry that has found thousands of applications for a plant we take for granted. For more than 150 years, corn refiners have been developing and perfecting products made from corn – transforming it into starches, sweeteners, fuel alcohol, oil and chemical feedstocks with a growing range of end uses. Relying on science and imagination, corn refiners have built an impressive line of products all stemming from the demand for starch.”
We thank the NCGA for inviting us to speak to this partnership on their blog.
Posted By Cathryn February 22, 2013
Most consumers associate the cold, wintery weather that swept the country this week with staying indoors and keeping warm. Envisioning farming as a sunny day, warm weather gig, they often forget that farmers work to care for their land and livestock 365 days a year.
As snow and ice reign down on the roads, keeping kids home from school and adults stuck in traffic, many farmers are also vigilantly protecting their farms and their animals from the dangerous conditions.
Today, Corn Commentary features a guest blog post and a letter to the editor penned by CommonGround volunteers about how they care for cattle when the temperatures drop. Consumers worried about animal welfare can take heart. These farm women are taking action out of concern for their cattle, just like farmers across the country.
First, Sara Ross, a CommonGround Iowa volunteer, walks blog readers through what her and her husband do to prepare for a winter storm.
Preparing the Cattle for the Big Snowstorm
Sara and her husband, Kevin, prepare their cattle for an oncoming snow.
Everyone’s been talking about it all week…the big snow storm. First it was suppose to start Wednesday night then it got pushed back to Thursday morning then Thursday around noon. I’ve heard anywhere from 6-18 inches of snow forecasted. Normally it would be all fun and games to be snowed in, but since we have cattle, we had to get them prepared for the storm.
Kevin wanted to move the cows from across the road, where they were out on cornstalks, to our side of the road where they would have more protection and be easier to feed and water. We are a few weeks away from calving, but you never know when a big snow storm hits what will happen!
So, first thing this morning Kevin and I headed outside to get the cows moved to our side of the road.
To read the full post, click here.
CommonGround Nebraska volunteer Joan Ruskamp, who is well familiar with many of the questions consumers have about farming in the winter. She penned the editorial piece below To help answer questions she had seen in local papers.
Baby, it’s cold outside…but there’s still plenty to do on the farm
About this time every year, I begin to get surprised looks from people when I talk about all the activities happening on my family’s farm near Dodge, Neb. Together with my husband, we feed cattle and raise corn, soybeans and alfalfa. While the crops may not require a great deal of attention in the winter months, animal care on our farm is a top priority 365 days a year.
One of my many responsibilities includes walking through the cattle every morning, no matter the weather conditions, to make sure each animal is healthy. If an animal is sick and needs to be treated with antibiotics, we always adhere to label use under the supervision of our veterinarian. We also adhere to strict withdrawal times, or a set number of days that must pass between the last antibiotic treatment and the animal entering the food supply. And even though cattle have hair coats designed to handle living outdoors, in the cold winter months, we take extra care to make sure they are as comfortable as possible.
We provide extra bedding and windbreaks to help block the extreme cold. And in addition to shoveling our driveway during a snowstorm, we must remove or pile snow in the pens so that the cattle have dry places to lie down. We also must make sure that even during a snowstorm; the cattle are fed at their normal times with continuous access to water.
So, even though the winter weather might make you want to stay bundled up inside, know that farmers are braving the elements to make sure the animals are well cared for – because healthy animals equal healthy food for our families.
Joan Ruskamp, farmer, Dodge, Neb.
Posted By Cathryn February 14, 2013
Today, Corn Commentary offers a guest post from blogger Sara Ross, a CommonGround Iowa volunteer. Ross, along with 85 volunteers in 15 states, is participating in a movement that looks to open a conversation between the women who grow food and those why purchase it.
CommonGround was formed by the National Corn Growers Association, the United Soybean Board and their state affiliates to provide our nation’s female farmers with opportunities to connect with their urban and suburban counterparts on an issue important to all of them – the food they feed their families.
It’s Valentine’s Day. It’s a day of love, flowers, presents, candy and high fructose corn syrup….
Yes, high fructose corn syrup will be present on Valentine’s Day in many of your candies and soft drinks. Not to worry though! In this post I’m going to clear up some common myths and misconceptions about this hot topic. Misconception 1: High fructose corn syrup is bad for you.
Answer: High fructose corn syrup has almost the same composition as table sugar, honey and fruit juices like grape and apple. “When high fructose corn syrup and sugar are absorbed into our bloodstream, the two are indistinguishable by the body,” Joan Salge Blake, M.S., R.D., L.D.N. Sugar is sugar and all of it should be consumed in moderation.
Misconception 2: High fructose corn syrup is not natural.
Answer: This is not true. HFCS is made from corn, a naturally occurring food. It contains no artificial or synthetic ingredients or color additives. It also meets the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s requirements for use of the term “natural.”
Misconception 3: High fructose corn syrup is causing wide-spread obesity in the United States.
Answer: In 2008 the American Medical Association (AMA) concluded that HFCS does not appear to contribute more to obesity than any other caloric sweeteners. “At this time there is insufficient evidence to restrict the use of high fructose syrup or label products that contain it with a warning,” said AMA Board Member William Dolan, MD. “We do recommend consumers limit the amount of all added caloric sweeteners to no more than 32 grams of sugar daily based on a 2,000 calorie diet in accordance with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.”
“The real issue is not high fructose corn syrup. It’s that we’ve forgotten what a real serving size is. We have to eat less of everything,”stated David Klurfeld, Ph.D, from the Agricultural Research Service at the USDA.
Misconception 4: High fructose corn syrup is used only as a sweetener in food and beverages.
Answer: HFCS is a popular ingredient for many manufacturers. Here are some of the ways it is used:
- As a liquid, it is easily incorporated into beverages and also stays in solution better— making a higher quality product.
- As a form of invert sugar, fructose combines with protein in the presence of heat to give browning—toasted bread is an example. Because it has a higher amount of fructose, HFCS provides better browning in baked products.
- Using HFCS instead of granular sugar helps lock in moisture in baked products. This extends shelf life by keeping the baked product fresher for a longer time period. This same moistness also gives cookies and snack bars a softer texture.
- Because it is a syrup (rather than granules), the fructose and glucose molecules do not form undesired crystals in candies and ice cream—giving those foods a smoother mouth feel and a more desirable product.
- HFCS contributes thickness, or viscosity, to condiments and salad dressings.
When doing some research on candy companies and what their stances are about HFCS, I found thatThe Hershey Company says this, “The Hershey Company uses a variety of sweeteners to deliver products with well-known tastes and textures while maintaining our high quality standards. Different types of sweeteners are better suited for different types of products. High fructose corn syrup, although used sparingly, provides better functional properties in selected products.”
When I looked to Pepsi Co to see what their stance is on HFCS I found that they say, “HFCS and table sugar have the same calories and sweetness so the decision to use one or the other is based on a variety of other factors. For example, HFCS is an easier ingredient to work with because it is a liquid. It also costs less than table sugar which helps us keep the cost of our products down for consumers. However, since some consumers prefer beverages sweetened with table sugar, we give people choices in the different products we make.”
With all this information about HFCS, just remember that sugar is sugar and while eating candy on Valentine’s Day, moderation is the key!
This post originally ran on the blog Sara’s House HD.
To learn more about the CommonGround program or connect with it through social media, click here.