Watching CommonGround Colorado volunteers Danell Kalcevic and Cindy Frasier during a live television interview broadcast on Denver’s News9 last week, I remembered this metaphor, which the nuns who ran the high school I attended often used during my tenure.

These two women, facing the cameras for the first time, met remarks which may have ruffled other’s feathers with calm, patient, open understanding.  In return, they gained the trust and respect of the station staff and, most probably, many viewers as well.

Adding a bit of sweetness to their already pleasant personalities, they brought cookies.  Meat cookies to be exact.  So, immediately, they drew interest that, when coupled with the way in which they told their story, helped start a real conversation about food rather than a battle.

The lesson applies to everyone who dedicates time and effort to helping further the public discourse on farming.  Had Danell or Cindy become combative or defensive, the conversation would have stopped.  If we allow ourselves to put up that wall, it shuts out the people who most need to hear the real story of today’s family farmer.

Agvocates need to cultivate their interactions with the same care given to their land.  Imagine how it feels to have someone bluntly call a statement wrong.  Now, imagine a smiling face offering their perspective from what they have seen.  Which agvocate would more likely build a real, productive conversation?

Take a moment to evaluate how implication, tone and non-verbal cues affect a conversation.  Bring honey with you to agvocacy instead of vinegar.

Notably, it never hurts to bring a plate of Beef Cookie Recipe too.

Oprah’s power as a media mogul has not diminished since her self-titled program ran its final episode.  Instead, her legions of followers now flock to her magazine, website, cable channel and the programs of her protégés, actively seeking out her wisdom on subjects ranging from the best fiction to nutrition advice.

Sadly, sometimes the references she points to on food issues contain enough fallacies that a particularly witty librarian might file them in the fiction section.  With an entire section of her website dedicated to Michael Pollan’s “Food 101,” she lends the halo-effect of her considerable influence to works which have many unfounded statements and some which have been disproven by a variety of reputable sources.

Now, Tim Burrack, an Iowa farmer who actively participates in the advancement of his industry through service to the National Corn Growers Association and several other ag-focused groups, has issued a challenge in the form of an invitation.  In a letter published on the Truth about Trade and Biotechnology’s website, Burrack invites Winfrey to visit his farm for “a firsthand look at how an Iowa farmer produces healthy food in an economically and environmentally sustainable way.”

Burrack felt the need to act after reading an article in the May issue of O: The Oprah Magazine that asserts no one actually knows the real effect of crops produced using biotechnology.  Understanding the impact Oprah’s statements have upon her vast legions of followers, he issued the offer to help better inform the media maven and, in doing so, help provide a deeper, more informed understanding of modern agriculture to someone who wields almost unmatched influence on the American public.

Like Burrack, farmers and their allies know all too well how even a simple uninformed statement can harm public understanding of agriculture for years to come.  Given the influence of the source in this case, it is crucial that America’s farmers stand up for the incredible work that they do and products they provide.

Take a stand for farmers and for truth today.  Click here to post a comment to the original article calling on Oprah to take Burrack up on his invitation. Then, wield some social media influence by sharing the letter through Twitter or Facebook.

Together, the people who grow food for our country can take on those who would insult or mischaracterize their work while enjoying the variety of safe, affordable choices they produce.  Burrack took a stand for what he knows is right. Now, let Oprah know just how many of America’s farmer families and their friends stand behind him.

Clinging to worn-out rhetoric shrouded in a mindless, trendy façade, these protesters stand against a fundamental principle upon which the nation is based.  The ownership of private property has been held as a fundamental value of American society since the revolution.  The nation’s forefathers enshrined it in the Constitution, and, in doing so, created a country to which many have fled in order to gain this protection.  Placing their judgment above that of the university governing board, state government and of the people which those legislators represent, this fringe group forcibly chose to repurpose land to suit its own agenda.

What did the people who support this university lose?

They lost a valuable asset that provided the university with an outdoor laboratory.  Agricultural research often culminates in necessary field trials that allow scientists to test how new varieties or products will react in circumstances similar to those in which they may ultimately grow.  This land was not a common area without a stated purpose.  These protestors stole a valuable resource.

They lost the valuable time.  Right now, the future food security of the world depends upon agricultural research.   In next 40 years, farmers will need to produce more food than was produced in the last 10,000 years combined to ensure the food supply keeps up with population growth.  In light of this challenge, taking fields used for research into the products which will make this possible is tantamount to taking food from the mouths of those who will need it within our lifetime.

Actions have real consequences.  The “Occupy the Farm” movement has shown how disregard for the basic ground rules governing our society, no matter how supposedly well-intentioned, results in real harm.  Their lack of foresight and careful scrutiny of the possibly consequences of their actions shows the irresponsibility inherent in policies they espouse.

If climate change occurs at a rate predicted by some in areas predicted by others accompanied by a rash of severe 

Does the above sound like a run-on sentence culminating in a premise based on a lot of supposition? It may be, but so-called experts who extract their living by sensationalizing strung-together worst-case scenarios would actually strike down the laws decreasing our dependence on foreign oil using that very same logic.

Worrying over potential situations that might occur down the line if a variety of circumstances come together to create a perfect storm is one of the fastest ways to ensure progress halts.  True, policy and regulation should consider the likely consequences of implementation, but these consequences should be likely, imminent and balanced against the problems the policy addresses.

In this case, arguing against implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard because price volatility possible under a very specific vision of the future throws out the baby with the bathwater.

The RFS helps keep gas prices down for consumers, decreases dependence on foreign oil and reduces the environmental impact of transportation. It does this today. It does this well.

Bleak future forecasts fail to factor in the constant improvements in agriculture which consistently allow farmers to grow more, under more difficult circumstances, using fewer inputs.  In the last 20 years alone, ethanol yields have increased by 10 percent, thus requiring less corn to make the same amount of fuel. At the same time, corn yield have risen by 39 percent, thus requiring much less land to produce the same amount of corn.  Assuming that today’s crop will not continue to improve, thus looking the same another 20 years down the line, is foolish at best and disingenuous at worst.

Furthermore, ignoring the fact that these presumptions assume the ability to predict the weather 20 years out when most news channels would thrill at an accurate forecast for the weekend, the naysayers ignore the new, dynamic corn traits farmers are planting this year.  With the first drought-tolerant traits already preserving yields under tough conditions, it makes sense that the scientists developing the next generation will improve seed technology enabling growers to meet demand under a variety of scenarios.

Right now, American consumers need ethanol.  Right now, it is improving our national security, our air, our rural economies and our fuel prices.  Do not let prophets of doom cloak their predictions in science, thus repealing the progress toward a cleaner, safer, more energy independent America.

American ethanol works constantly to improve, as do America’s farmers.  Allow them to continue their progress while the country continues to benefit.  Situations change, but the only way to make progress is to take a step forward without constantly shuffling back.

The questions ignored are myriad.  Do antibiotics have a role to play in animal agriculture? How are they actually used on a normal American farm? Why do the current regulations remain in place?

The author, through crafty copy, attempts to sway the reader from asking these basic, simple questions through a subtext appealing to the idea that all readers with common sense would make the same assumptions he does.  If using antibiotics can be bad, it cannot ever be beneficial.  If the interest groups and niche marketers seem like good, conscientious people, then the family farmers who day in and out produce safe, nutritious, affordable food choices in abundance for the country must be the party at fault.  The more modern technology, here in the form of medication, used to produce that food, the higher the chance that it will not be as wholesome as what our forefathers and mothers ate.

Useless nostalgia for a past seen through rose-tinted glasses aside, Americans today benefit from the safest food supply in recorded history.  They have a much wider array of healthy, safe choices than could have been conceived in a pre-penicillin past.

How can the average person find information, both facts and firsthand accounts, from knowledgeable sources willing to explain what they say?  In the case of food questions, CommonGround volunteers across the country share true accounts of how they grow and raise food on their own farms.  Plus, their stories are supported by credible, complete information from actual experts.

If you want to know more about antibiotics than the mainstream media is able to provide, take a moment to meet Teresa Brandenberg, a cattle rancher from Kansas.  A young mother who cares deeply for both her family and her cattle, Teresa understands the government regulations for antibiotic use, the reasoning behind those rules and how it affects families, both hers and yours.

Maybe, it could more accurately be said that common sense still plays an important role in the life of most Americans.  With so many urban and suburbanites far removed from the farm, asking questions about what feeds their families both natural and responsible. Talking to the people who live that story makes a lot of sense.

Listening to over-hyped, sensationalized accounts of farming written by Washington media? Maybe that is what doesn’t make sense after all.

In today’s tough economy, this attack has resulted in the closing of plants and has put hundreds of people out of work. Iowa Governor Terry Branstad minced no words when he called the media reports about a perfectly safe product “poisonous.”

A lot more poisonous than Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) – the correct term for the product that has been included to lower the fat content in ground beef for over 30 years. It is the epitome of yellow journalism, which is characterized by the use of “misleading headlines, pseudo-science, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts.”

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilack, Branstad and other governors of beef-producing states are making a valiant effort to get the correct information out about the product. “The time for bad-mouthing and distortion is over, the time for the truth to prevail and combat this ugly situation is here,” said Governor Branstad. “This is something that will definitely hurt all of agriculture because corn and soybeans also go into what the cattle eat. So it has a ripple effect.”

Despite the fact that the governors led major national news organizations on a tour of Beef Products Incorporation (BPI) to show how the product was made and consume some on camera, the damage that the term “pink slime” has done may already be out of control. “If you called it finely textured lean beef, would we be here?” asked Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback during the media tour.

The National Meat Association says if the product is ultimately eliminated entirely from ground beef, prices will go up and lean beef trimmings will have to be imported to replace it. LFTB helps increase the yield of meat from each animal by as much as 12 to 15 pounds.

It is almost amazing how many legs this story grew after the initial report coining the term “pink slime” was aired by ABC News on March 7. We can all thank a former USDA “whistle-blower” and ABC News for job losses, higher meat costs, and less lean ground beef to contribute to more obesity – not to mention a gross new term for our vocabulary. Certainly not the first time and probably not the last that agriculture gets slimed by the media.

State and national communications staff appreciate that, for farmer volunteers, leaving busy operations involves a major investment by farmer and family alike.  In light of such, it is essential that those helping organize these programs evaluate the effectiveness of every opportunity, carefully weighing the potential benefit against the possible impact upon the volunteers.

Let’s face it- it takes a lot to walk out the farm gate, onto the stage and showcase such an integral part of every grower’s life, his or her farm.  Volunteers face public scrutiny and, at times, even criticism based in misunderstanding of either farming practices or of the specific operation itself.

Watching a lovely grain farmer who grew up around cattle gracefully handle sharp criticism of poultry-raising techniques, despite the fact she herself had never set foot into a broiler operation, can spur the thought, “I really hope that something positive comes of this- because she deserves results.”

CommonGround volunteers across the country are seeing positive results as the bloggers, reporters and other food thought-leaders they interact with come to understand and respect the achievements and character of the American family farmer.

On St. Patrick’s day, CommonGround hosted a dinner, upon which the National Corn Growers Association reported immediately following the event.  The initial story provided a peak into the thoughtful, creative events many state programs are hosting.

Yet, one question remained.  Would the attendees relay their experiences that evening?  Did the volunteers manage to make a real connection?

As in many prior instances, the answer appears to be a resounding “yes!” Just yesterday, an influential Kentucky food blogger, who uses the name “foodie girl,” recounted her encounter for her readership.  Peppered throughout her step-by-step how-to on preparing the cheese grits served at the event were her thoughts about the farmers she met and her impressions.

Impressed she was too.  Foodie girl praised the women for their cheerful, warm demeanor when answering questions, noting that she was struck by their genuine passion for what they grow.

“I look forward to getting to know the ladies of CommonGround better and to discovering the wonderful food they produce with their own, trusted hands,” she said.  “Now that is something I can feel good about.”

Opening a positive, constructive dialogue about modern farming is something that we can all feel good about too.  While building the connections that elevate the public discourse and create trust takes effort, it is worth it when volunteers, and everyone involved in grassroots agvocacy, can see the how the discussions that will impact the future of farming changing their tone.

At the Grammy Awards this year, Chipotle cashed in on this trend releasing a two-minute commercial decrying the evil of modern animal agriculture.  Willie Nelson, long known to be a fan of a different type of farmer, strummed and sang to a Coldplay tune as cartoon images of a farmer and sweet little cartoon piggies drifted across the screen.

Personal repulsion to the insufferably self-aggrandizing, overly-produced, pseudo-intellectual impersonation of actual pain that underlies Coldplay’s music aside, the commercial plays upon the tendency of people to project what they want onto what they see.

Without a word, the ad strums along with melancholy nostalgia.  The pictures show that many animals now, yes, live in barns.  The sweet little cartoon pigs are shown actually locked behind a jail cell door like criminals. The farmer debates medicating himself, as shown through a thought bubble with a pill inside, or releasing his pigs back into pastures and blue sky with chickens running about too.

Luckily, it isn’t an actual depiction of how tender piglets might fare in a cold Iowa winter or how chickens do interact when left to their own devices.  Instead, it is the same sort of wishy-washy, rose-tinted vision that most people would like to be true, despite the many difficulties with the realities of such a situation. If you are already projecting an actual message for Chipotle, it isn’t a stretch to willfully block out the fiction underpinning the situation.

Instead of buying into the portrayal of agriculture in the commercial, Nebraska farmers and ranchers fought back by showing the amazing story of the livestock industry in a commercial of their own.  With solid information presented by actual human beings, the ad stands in stark contrast to Chipotle’s.  Unlike its counterpart it offers a forthright message too – Farming is ethical. Learn about it and become a fan.

As a public, we should applaud this effort.  Unlike the fast food giant, the farmers and ranchers of Nebraska trust that an informed public will see how amazing agriculture actually is today.  They stand behind their production practices and invite those outside of the industry to learn more.  They do not create a dream world with sappy music and emotionally evocative drawings.  They treat thinking adults as such rather than signing them a lullaby.

So become a fan.  Farmers work hard every day to produce a wide-variety of healthy, quality food options for us to enjoy.  So many in fact, that it would be easy to avoid Chipotle, demonstrating an unwillingness to accept their uninspired brainwashing, in favor of a those other options until they hit a less condescending note.

BTW: If you want to know about the actual Chipotle, the one that they obscure through this kind of advertising, check out past reporting from Corn Commentary here.

Guess what? A lot of people are upset about a lot of things.  But, as the many causes associated with the demonstrations multiply, some food elitists have started joining the “99%” while pushing an agenda that is not supported by the masses.  Delivering misconstrued messaging that purportedly promotes democracy and touting dubitable sources, these fear mongers hype a plight that does not exist.

A recent blog post on Civil Eats outlines what the food-motivated occupiers actually want.  The outcome of their desires would effectively squelch the freedom of average Americans to select the diet they prefer in favor of dictating a “healthier” America.  By painting a seriously skewed picture of American agriculture, the elitist radicals deny the basic tenets of capitalism, an idea most Americans closely link with freedom.  They condescend, offering only scant information provided by sources which either speak out of their field of expertise or have been debunked time and time again.  Relying on a conception that Americans will embrace this emotionally charged propaganda without meaningful consideration, they aim to dictate both the choices of consumers and the ability of farmers to produce an abundant supply of healthy food choices.

Since an early age, children learn that they can “vote with their pocketbooks” as, in a free society the laws of supply and demand provide a tool with which they affect corporate America directly through their purchasing decisions.  Yet, these protesters instead pose the idea that “75 percent of the population are obese or overweight and many are chronically ill with diet-related diseases” because of a corporate-controlled food supply.  In doing so, they offer the easy out to anyone who makes poor choices by denying the long-valued ideal of personal responsibility.

Americans are not spoon-fed or force-fed the oversized portions of high-calorie foods that lead to weight gain.  Instead, they choose a diet that they enjoy. Average Americans may not make the same choices as these activists, or even base them upon the same values, but that does not discount their opinions.

That argument sounds strangely familiar…

Many people take the easy academic out and blame corporations for producing the choices that they secretly favor.  So, the protesters validate them.  By blaming obesity on the corporations, these master debaters place the blame on faceless, callous mental images of corporations.  These arguments further disguise an elitist agenda under the blanket of anger against corporations spun with the threads of discontent with financial entities whose corporate irresponsibility pushed our nation toward recession.

While these protestors claim to stand up to corporate farming, they rage against a corporate machine that doesn’t exist in the way they portray it. g.  In all reality, 95 percent of all farms in America are still family owned.  These growers, most often the descendants of a proud tradition of the rugged individualists who first made farming flourish here, make informed decisions every year on what to put in their fields.  Farmers understand what types of climates and soil produce certain crops. They know first-hand that selecting seeds that can resist stressors common in their area will increase the chance of a successful harvest.  They study their land, growing the most abundant crop possible in a way that preserves the environment- the single greatest resource as growers.

Pushing this reality aside, the blog post in particular jumps to the idea many espouse: somehow, big companies are behind what farmers produce.  While a variety of companies do sell seeds, as consumers farmers select what they see as the product that will grow the best crop given their particular circumstances. If they did not see value in biotech, they wouldn’t pay for it.

Pointing to the rapid growth of sales for corn seeds with the Roundup Ready trait, the blog implies that, in order to achieve this type of success, the seed provider must be exercising some sort of secret power.  In a way, successful seed providers are exercising a power that may be mysterious to the protestors.  They make effective, proven, safe products that farmers like.  Most average citizens understand that, when you make something that people like instead of just empty rhetoric, it tends to become popular quickly.  Mystery solved.

The activists cite self-proclaimed “experts.” Again relying on the inaccurate assumption that the average Americans they claim to represent will be too lazy to examine these experts credibility, their arguments rely heavily on the claims made in the Oscar-nominated documentary Food, Inc.  (To read up on the problems of the documentary, read American Agri-Women’s Food Inc Analysis.)

The aforementioned blog post in particular also cites a doctorate.  Instead of the logical selection of citing a medical doctor for information on human health, or even a biologist, nutritionist or dietician, the information sourced are the opinions of a physicist.  While a doctorate requires mental aptitude and dedication, it seems like a large leap to place trust in someone speaking so far outside of their area of expertise.  If a physicist is in no way licensed to practice medicine or dispense dietary advice, it might appear more credible if the expert cited in these areas were thus raising the question of how the author made such a selection.  The word “desperation” comes to mind…

Opponents rely on inaccurate data and select seemingly odd sources only when no better choices exist.  This proves true yet again with the implication that Americans chose processed foods because they are cheaper.  Looking at the research shows, cooking homemade meals from the ingredients that they deem healthy, albeit produced using more modern practices, actually saves money.  Again, food choice has not been obliterated by a corporate plot.  The average American simply does not chose the foods that the protestors’ agenda would dictate.

Instead of occupying a park only to spout propaganda, those seeking to occupy our nation’s fields and stomachs should face reality.  The food system, while as much of a work-in-progress as any other human endeavor, is functional. Every year, farmers provide an abundant supply of quality food.  They do so at prices lower than anywhere else in the developed world.  They do so despite challenges both from the weather and from the very people eating the food they grow.

Do not let the occupiers win.  The monopoly they seek to create would take away choice, push up prices and kill the efficiency that allows farmers to feed the actually impoverished, hungry masses they pretend to represent.

The coupling of this healthy respect with a desire to return to what many view as a simpler, more thoughtful lifestyle has heavily influenced many foodies to recreate small portions of their lives.  From city dwellers keeping chickens in backyards to urbanites building community gardens, a growing number of Americans want to explore farming in a real, tactile manner.

As these trends receive increasing attention, it becomes increasingly important that these noble, well-intentioned desires also become more informed.  Fresh laid eggs on subdivision breakfast tables and shopping bags of fresh basil aside, the business of farming is serious work.

So, what would it really take to feed the average family of four intent upon growing and raising every scrap of food to hit the table? It would take about two acres.

This idea seems somewhat hard to imagine.  Luckily, a group called One Block Off the Grid developed this infographic to show exactly what this family would have to raise and the amount of land these crops and livestock would require.

Notably, said family would have to adopt some dietary changes that the majority if Americans might not consider acceptable.  Beef and traditional milk would not be an option.  Instead, they would need to adhere to a diet that allows only limited portions of pork and poultry with dairy products created using goat’s milk.  For many months of the year depending upon the climate, even on this hypothetical farm based in a nearly ideal climate, vegetables would only come from the supply they spent many hours carefully canning and stocking on pantry shelves.  Fruit would actually have to be viewed as a treat and not what mom substituted for real dessert.  Incredible hard work and significant land ownership aside, this family would hardly be living the locally produced dream that is so easy to envision in the fine dining restaurants that tout the movement’s virtues.

Examining this scenario can turn up many ideas and feelings as unique as their creators.  What it should turn up almost universally though is a healthy respect for American agriculture.

Our society enjoys an abundance and variety of food heretofore unimaginable.  We have access to nutritious, affordable food that the vast majority of the world envies.  Despite rising rates of obesity, the prevalence of calorie-laden options and a general propensity toward the often deliciously decadent, the vast majority of Americans have the luxury of pondering their food issues with a full stomach.

Maybe, we should thank our farmers.  They do work tirelessly cultivating the vast tracts of land needed to feed a growing population.  They keep abreast of the newest technology and practices to constantly improve their operations.  While most of us sleep peacefully, farmers are already awake and in their fields making sure that we have something on our breakfast plates.

Tending a plot of tomatoes is an excellent way to explore our heritage while cultivating something to proudly serve guests.  At the same time, it is imperative that we continue to embrace our respect for the farmers who make life as we know it possible.