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.

While the epic creativity of the ever-rotating crop of insightful local reporters attempting such crazy feats allows us to giggle at the heat, or at least their tired antics, for many, the heat brought about a level of panic, suffering and problems more likely to make a sane person cry.  From illness to electric bills that trigger a special sort of nausea, the heat wave wreaked havoc on what could otherwise have been a productive, enjoyable summer.

Children trapped indoors and sidelined runners aren’t the only groups stopped dead in their tracks by the blistering bubble.  Corn farmers have watched as the crop they worked late into the night to plant following this spring’s unrelenting monsoon season begins to show signs of heat stress.

While the farmers themselves can escape to the icy, dark confines of the closest movie house, corn plants must find ways to endure the heat and preserve precious moisture.  As corn plants are past the pollination stage at this point in the season, each individual plant makes a variety of small adaptations that best allow it to produce the maximum amount of viable seed possible.

As for each of us who has eschewed a morning jog or skipped an outdoor barbeque to cope with the insipid temperatures, corn plants make sacrifices to survive in these conditions.  These sacrifices, although vital to preserving the corn and to the inherent objective of spreading its own genetic material, negatively impact the crop in a number of ways that can subsequently impinge on each individual farmer’s profitability at harvest.

Just walking through a corn field, the toll heat stress takes on a plant becomes obvious.  The normally green, flat leaves that jet from the stalk have rolled in around the edges to reduce surface area, therefore preserving moisture.  Near the ground, leaves have been fired from the stalk completely and now lie in brown, crumpled piles.  The once lush, green field no longer resembles the perfect stands picturesquely surrounding the baseball diamond in “Field of Dreams.”

Heat damage affects more than the cosmetic in corn.  As the nights stay hot and days reach record highs, the plant must further shut down to preserve the seeds encasing its valuable genetic material. The small kernels from the top of the ear abort to save the more desirable brethren at the base.  Even the kernels for which much of the plant was sacrificed may not reach their maximum potential.

At harvest, these ears of corn will still be useful.  The crop will still provide food, feed or fuel depending upon its destination.  Yet, the farmer will again suffer as low test weights and diminished yields chip away at the profitability of the year’s corn crop.  With high fertilizer prices and increasingly expensive land, farmers may find the heat burning them in the pocketbook long after a chilly fall breeze begins to blow in the evenings.

Farmers know from a very young age, most often by observing as their parents and grandparents worked that same land, that every year, every day their livelihood is at the mercy of the weather.  Long after the average person’s electric bill is paid, farmers feel the impact of a long, hot summer.

So, next time a peppy freshman reporter cracks an egg onto a white hot sidewalk remember that the heat dome of 2011 will continue to loom large in the memories of many long after the holidays.  America’s family farmers toil on despite the risk because they realize the importance of producing enough corn to supply the world’s growing demand.

Say thank you by becoming more informed.  Take a moment to read a simple, short brief on how farm programs, such as those coming before Congress next year, help protect farmers from the heat and ensure a vibrant future for this key industry.  If the television station can invest in the same tired heat story year-after-year, the country should invest in the men and women who provide the food that actually ends up on a plate.

Guess what Martha Stewart also embraces?  Corn Sugar.  In a recent edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Stewart responded to a reader’s question on high fructose corn syrup not with baseless food snobbery but instead with scientifically-based evidence that corn sugar is just that – sugar.

Citing the American Medical Association, Stewart succinctly explained that, “high fructose corn syrup does not appear to contribute more to obesity than other sweeteners.”  This statement flies in the case of baseless anti-corn sugar campaigns blaming the obesity epidemic on demon corn sugar instead of overeating and a sedentary lifestyle.

If Martha Stewart can eschew the propaganda, so can all reasonable Americans.  Anti-HFCS rhetoric is agenda-driven hype in designer clothes.  Don’t buy into the slick smear campaign.  Add Martha Stewart to the growing list of foodies who know that sound science never goes out of style.

Some people may not have expected this segment because they buy into the myth that corporations somehow run farms.  Some people may not have expected to hear that farming, an integral part of America’s culture since inception, constantly evolves to become even more robust and inclusive.  Those in agriculture may not have expected this piece because it hardly seems like news at all.

Last year, the National Corn Growers Association and United Soybean Board joined forces to give female farmers the tools to successfully take the story of modern American agriculture to mothers much like themselves outside of rural America.  Today, the CommonGround program is thriving in a handful of states and is poised to expand.  As these farmers tell their story in-person or through media such as radio, television and blogs, Americans are exposed to the rich tapestry of farmers working to bring them the affordable, abundant harvest on which they rely.

Take a moment to meet these industry leaders yourself by visiting the CommonGround website and look at the story as the women tell it themselves.  Then, spread the word and help friends outside of agriculture learn about compelling, inspiring story of modern farming.

Shocking, I know. The article headline proclaims “Experts say energy, weather, unrest more likely responsible for higher food costs than farmers,” something the industry has been saying for years now.

The experts they cite include Iowa State University agricultural economist Chad Hart. “When you look at the cost of our food, it is related to the cost of corn, soybeans and wheat and cattle but also the cost of oil, gas, diesel and unrest in other parts of the world,” he is quoted as saying.

The article also pointed out the recent USDA report that estimates farmers now receive an average of just 11.6 cents of the food dollar. “While the commodity and food prices have been going up, the share going back to the farmer has been going down,” Hart said.

The original story, which also quotes National Corn Growers CEO Rick Tolman and Matt Hartwig with the Renewable Fuels Association, was written by reporter Michael J. Crumb. He should be thanked for giving the farmers’ side of the story for a change. What is even more amazing is that there are virtually no negative comments (at least yet) on the Forbes and Washington Post versions of the story, so go make some positive ones!

Clearly, the quiz designer fervidly believes that biotechnology is a terrible thing.  From the use of the term “Frankenfish” in the headline to images that make the fish appear more frightening than those in Piranha 3D, the slides roll through asking simple questions while creating panic and dread through artfully selected language and menacing images.

The quiz fails to explain, even once, how biotechnology harms humans.  Instead, it relies on readers to become worked-up to a point that they throw reason aside and buy into agenda-driven propaganda.  In explaining that 75 percent of our food includes a biotech ingredient of some sort, it aims to shock the reader through the use of a large number.  What it does not do is explain why anyone should feel a moment of anxiety over this statistic. Without any data, it manufactures unnecessary stress using smoky words and distorted mirrors.

Moreover, as it is placed in the nutrition section, it promotes the idea that biotech foods are detrimental to human health.  Insinuating that the fish might cause an allergic reaction in those with a here unnamed allergy according to unidentified “experts,” the quiz deviates from citing sources to take its only near stab at using data to demonstrate a negative impact people may experience from the fish.  Unfortunately, it does not take into account that many people already suffer from salmon allergies and cannot eat salmon ever, even wild.

So, stop trying to fill in the blanks for them. Ask for hard, scientific evidence proving that biotechnology is somehow detrimental to human health.  Until the anti’s can produce credible data, consider that this carefully researched, scientific ability allows us to feed a growing population in an affordable manner with safe food.  Instead of falling prey to the propaganda, thank the scientists working tirelessly to ensure the safety of our planet and security of our food.

American Meat Institute (AMI) President J. Patrick Boyle was the main dish on comedian Stephen Colbert’s “Know Your Lobby” segment, which profiles lobbying organizations.

“Although I’ve had a lot of tough interviews in my day, that was definitely the toughest and most unique interview experience of my career,” Boyle said. “I was honored to play straight man to the hilarious Stephen Colbert and to demonstrate that while meat processing is serious business, we can be good sports.” AMI reports that Boyle’s interview with the comedian was two hours long, edited down to a four minute segment for the show.

Colbert’s intro to the interview features him “pledging allegiance” to a bacon flag: “I pledge allegiance to the meat of the United Steaks of America. And to the ribeye for which it broils, one bacon under God, with liver and onions for all!”

Chomping down on a huge turkey leg, Colbert confounds Boyle with questions like, “At what point will the AMI say ‘stop America, that’s the perfect amount of meat’?” and “Who’s pooping on our meat?” Colbert’s pièce de résistance comes when he asks (hypothetically, of course) if AMI would endorse the eating of people if there were no more animals. “The American Meat Institute would not support a policy of cannibalism,” says Boyle with a straight face. “We would not recommend humans for human consumption.”

Tongue planted firmly in cheek, it is pretty darn funny.

Watch it here on line.

Tami Dennis, health and science editor of the Los Angeles Times wrote the article about the recent UCLA study linking HFCS to the spread of pancreatic cancer contending that it could be an “overstatement.”

But the best line from the piece is a cutline under a lab photo accompanying her blog which said: “The road between a lab experiment and public policy is long. Or it should be.”

 Wow! Words to live by. The UCLA hype is just the latest effort to take a free-standing nugget of information and attempt to pawn it off as scientific gospel akin to Galileo’s observation that gravity works.

Dennis cites the blog Respectful Insolence in her argument.   “I hate science press releases that hype a study beyond its importance. I hate it even more when the investigators who published the study make statements not justified by the study and use the study as a jumping off point to speculate wildly.”

She is right on in her assessment. However,  the problem is the UCLA news release got huge national exposure, fructose got another undeserved whack, and a small percentage of people who read the original news story will ever see the much lower profile condemnations of this shoddy approach to research.

Gilbert Ross, M.D., Executive Director and Medical Director of the American Council on Science and Health had a similar reaction to the UCLA gambit saying, “Both the authors and the press need to retract these alarmist and unsupported claims — especially the authors, since such gross over-interpretation of a lab study is inexcusable among academic scientists. They seem to be grasping for headlines and promoting some anti-fructose political agenda.”

For more background on this issue you might want to check out a much more thoughtful piece here.

The sensationalized headlines are all many people will actually read about this study. “Fructose: The Sugar of Choice for Cancer Cells” and “Cancer Cells Slurp Up Fructose, Study Finds” are two of the examples – one from AOL News and one from Reuters. The more medical among the media get a little more detailed, noting that the study involved pancreatic cells in particular – which is an important detail because not all cancer cells are created equal.

You can’t entirely blame the media, since stories tend to come from press releases, which are written to get publicity. If they happen to be about a high profile social issue, like high fructose corn syrup, they tend to get more attention. As part of the press release on the study, author Dr. Anthony Heaney says that because of his research, a federal effort should be launched to reduce refined fructose intake. “I think this paper has a lot of public health implications,” Heaney said. “Hopefully, at the federal level there will be some effort to step back on the amount of HFCS in our diets.”

As a voice crying out in the wilderness, the Corn Refiners Association issued its own press release in response to the study to point out some of the premature and potentially misleading conclusions made by both the researchers and the media. One major point they make is that it is a big leap to “extrapolate the results of laboratory research on pure fructose to real-world conditions.”

This study does not look at the way fructose is actually consumed by humans, as it was conducted in a laboratory, not inside the human body. The study also narrowly compared pure fructose to pure glucose, neither of which is consumed in isolation in the human diet. Humans consume a wide array of foods that contain both fructose and glucose in combination along with many other sugars and nutrients. Most notably, both sugar (sucrose) and high fructose corn syrup contain roughly 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose.

It is also significant to note that it is difficult to pinpoint any one cause for any cancer – even smoking, since some people can smoke two packs a day for 50 years and die of old age while some who have never smoked a single cigarette get lung cancer. As the Corn Refiners put it, “To blame one component of the diet is highly speculative based on one, small study done in a Petri dish.”