Scratch beneath the surface, though, and the local food movement isn’t always what it seems.  A complete cultural shift to a paradigm in which local foods reign supreme would yield some ugly results for the economy and for our health.

Simply, local food proponents do not account for basic economic realities in their public policy platform.  From the economic advantages of specialization and trade to the realities of scale of economy, the shift toward a government-favored status for local foods, already well underway, would both make food more expensive and increase pollution.

On top of that, the foods which would become the most expensive in a local food world would be those needed for a healthy, balanced diet.  Obesity already plagues the United States.  If locavores get their way, the poor would be condemned to a sentence of junk food options for the crime of being unable to afford their nutrient-rich, lower-calorie counterparts.

So speak up.   Trends and fads come and go.  Fashions and crazes like leisure suits and pet rocks pass naturally through the cycle of cool.  Don’t let this trend, and all of its harmful repercussions, be written into our laws and regulations.  Tell the government to keep our options open instead of basing public policy in popularity.

According to a report released by a nonprofit research organization on the findings of the Military Advisory Board, reducing our oil consumption by 30 percent through the use of biofuels “would significantly improve security and economics by decreasing deficits, preserving capital for job creation and increase energy reserves.”

This finding, and the report in general, provide solid support for an idea that already seems logical to most Americans.  Over the past decades, it has become painfully obvious that the U.S. addiction to cheap foreign oil creates problems.  From the need to continually interact with unstable, even hostile, regimes to an untenable vulnerability to the whims of a cartel-controlled market, everyday people here suffer because they do not have simple, readily available ways to fuel their cars on something besides oil.

In the report, released in October, this panel concludes that the obvious would be effective.  If imported oil exposes the United States to myriad risks, grow a reliable, sustainable alternative at home.  U.S. farmers, working with a robust biofuels industry, could actually harvest security.

Given that ethanol production has already tripled since 2005, our nation’s corn growers have demonstrated their ability to supply a growing market.  Actually, the report itself even notes the efficiency gains in biotechnology, coupled with yield gains, could continually increase the amount of oil biofuels could displace.

Regulators, bureaucrats and politicians may not be the best sources for unbiased information, but retired military leaders certainly understand national security and can be relied upon to put the national interest ahead of their own.  Sometimes a solution is simple.  Harness the power of our land. Harness the power of our people.  Grow a country that is self-reliant and secure.

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.

2011 has been a devastating year for farmers along the rivers.  In May, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers blew up three levees in southeast Missouri, flooding 200 square miles of homes, fields and businesses along the banks of the Mississippi River. Shortly thereafter, they released historic amounts of water from the Missouri River Reservoir System, flooding an estimated 400,000 acres of prime farmland for four months. Stress, frustration and a sense of hopeless rolled in with the water.

The Missouri Corn Growers Association and Missouri Corn Merchandising Council are working along these growers that the government does not turn its back on the farms that they chose to flood.  Through a new documentary, Underwater and Overlooked: Crisis on the Missouri River, the groups bring the facts  to the forefront, holding the Corps accountable for the 2011 flood along the Missouri River banks and pushing them to take steps to ensure this never happens again.

The Army Corps of Engineers made the decisions that changed the lives of Missouri farmers. Now is the time to hear their stories, understand this tragedy and join with those supporting the victims as they rebuild.  Click here to see what actually happened in Missouri’s farmlands as they sat flooded for 16 weeks.  When the water goes down, the cameras go away and the spotlight dims, keep this story in the public eye until the levees are repaired and flood management is recognized as the top priority by the Corps.

Two congressmen from the state of Illinois visited the big show in Decatur. Freshman Congressman House Agriculture Committee member Bobby Schilling (R-IL) participated in a press conference with the National Corn Growers Association on Tuesday. “I think as most people are aware, it’s been quite a storm in Washington, D.C., the last seven months,” Schilling said. “Coming out of the business sector right into Congress, it’s been quite frustrating for me to see what’s happening in our nation’s capitol.”

As far as the farm bill is concerned, Schilling says the “super committee” on reducing the deficit may make decisions that will impact farm programs so the agriculture committee needs to make recommendations on how spending could be cut. “Because if we don’t they will just go after dollar amounts without looking at where appropriate cuts could be made,” he said.

Listen to some of Congressman Schilling’s comments during the press conference here. Cong. Bobby Schilling

Congressman Tim Johnson (R-IL), who also serves on the House Agriculture Committee, visited Farm Progress Show on Wednesday to meet with farmers like Illinois Corn Growers President Jim Reed (R) pictured here with him. Johnson says he is optimistic that they can come up with a farm bill that’s “workable and still meets the confines of what we have to deal with in terms of limited dollars.”

He wants to make sure there continues to be a safety net for farmers. “And we need to make sure the House Agriculture Committee and people who know American agriculture are the people framing policy,” Johnson said.

Johnson also shares the concerns that farmers in the state have about government regulations making it more difficult to farm. “USDA, USDOT and most particularly EPA tying our left hand is a real burden,” he said. “This administration more than any other administration in history has done more to damage the ability of farmers to make a living.”

Listen to Meghan Grebner of Brownfield Ag News and me interview Cong. Johnson here. Cong. Tim Johnson

2011 Farm Progress Show Photo Album

Last week, I had the opportunity to accompany a group of farmers as they met with two House members and one Senator from their home state.  The experience left me hopeful that our government might actually work for us if only we made the effort to tell them what we think is best for the country.

While most often we met with staffers, who appeared to be quite young, two of the three representatives that we visited took the time to greet the delegation and briefly discuss a few key issues.  One particularly interested House member even asked a grower speaking with him on farm policy to walk with him as he headed to the floor to cast a vote.

He did this because he was interested. The staffers were just as interested and, in most cases, already knew about our concerns over ethanol, trade agreements and transportation issues from National Corn Growers Association staff if DC.   After the second visit, it began to set in that these people are in DC, devoting countless hours to their work, because they honestly believe that government can improve the lives of both Americans and the world as a whole. It also became obvious that an organization like NCGA merely sets the stage on an issue but it is the individual constituents that turn up the volume and make the message stick.

Maybe what sets them on fire, that same deep seated conviction, is what they saw in the farmers.  These two men were not paid to be there.  They had traveled a long way, during a busy season, because they too believe that government impacts their life and, with information and dialogue, they too could create change for their families, their farms and their fellow corn growers

As I tiredly descended the stairs that day, I felt like we had truly accomplished something.  Unlike when politicians hold partisan battles with one another for the cameras, when ordinary Americans enter their legislators’ offices they can be open and receptive without the fear of being vulnerable.  They can take the time to try and understand what impacts the lives of their constituents without worrying about the next sound bite.  They can listen.

So, the impetus is on us.  We must let them hear what we need as an agricultural community.  The first step toward actively informing your legislators on farm issues may take time and effort, but it will be worth it.  Someone will make the visit to the Hill to speak with  legislators personally.  Let’s make sure that they see the same passion from us and get a personal update on how legislation  is effecting what is arguably our most important industry.

Right now, arguments against corn-based ethanol, corn sugar and production agriculture have gained a significant amount of public attention.  What we must do is question the information the nay-sayers build their arguments upon because, as high school also taught, popularity does not equal substance.

But it seems legislators forgot these valuable lessons as the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment decided to invite chicken lobbyists, environmentalists and Big Oil to testify during a hearing examining the science behind E15.  While each of these groups most certainly has an opinion, albeit a self-serving one, on ethanol, none can claim to have conducted the unbiased, scientific research that would lend their arguments credibility.

If the subcommittee had truly intended to take a hard look at the scientific knowledge on E15, there were many groups who could have offered more pertinent, reliable data.  Institutions that publish actual research that holds weight in scientific circles, including the Rochester Institute of Technology and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, have conducted extensive research on the matter.   Yet, somehow, our elected officials chose to listen to groups with obvious agendas and little expertise in the matter.

Food elitists have taken the same route as the armchair activists who perpetuate the idea that corn sugar, also known as high fructose corn syrup, somehow adds to the obesity epidemic, predisposes persons toward diabetes or is just generally bad.  A majority of the HFCS-bashing public cannot accurately explain why they believe it to be worse beyond knowing that they heard something about some study.

Performing a routine Facebook search for the term yields telling results immediately.  The very first result offered is a page advocating a complete ban of HFCS.  Put together by a high school graduate with no discernible other credentials, the page explains that corn sugar differs from other sweeteners as the body metabolizes fructose and glucose differently.  He even cites scientific evidence.

While this appears credible on the surface, it isn’t.  What this vocal activist, who has been written about in publications as lofty as the New York Times, fails to understand is that corn sugar, cane sugar and beet sugar are nearly identical in their ratio of glucose to fructose, approximately 50 percent of each.  Dieticians, physicians and reputable voices throughout the industry already know that corn sugar does not differ from other sweeteners.  So why are more than 20,000 people fans of this inaccurate, bitter propaganda?  The only logical conclusion is that they too decided to lazily accept whatever information they were handfed rather than critically evaluate the source.

It is time that we ask as much of ourselves as was required in high school – that we act as critical thinkers.  The assignments today include developing sensible policies that serve the public good and are based in science and not propaganda-driven hysteria.  Much more is at stake than an A this time so follow your English teacher’s instructions and make sure that the information you share comes from a source deserving of your trust.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that passage of all three FTAs would result in 22,500 new jobs in that sector alone.  While this would not return unemployment levels to their pre-crisis lows, it would drastically, immediately change the lives of both the 22,500 hired as well as the approximately 67,500 people who depend upon them.  By opening these markets, Congress would directly improve the financial, physical and emotional well-being of 90,000 Americans.

Albeit in a less dramatic manner, the passage of these trade agreements benefits the entire nation.  The American Farm Bureau estimates passage of these agreements would generate an additional 2.5 billion dollars in the U.S. economy through agricultural trade alone. If Congress is willing to fight tooth and nail over cutting a few billion dollars from current spending, actually growing the national economy should be a high priority.

But at the same time here in Missouri, Proposition B, the so-called “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act,” which passed by a narrow margin in last year’s election, is under review by a state legislature anxious to take a fresh look and lawmakers are being attacked in the local media. While animal rights activists are calling foul, they are ignoring a simple fact most voters were unaware of … shelters like the one raided are exempt from the new law.

If Proposition B was just simple language all about the welfare of dogs, why did those forces pushing for it last year exempt themselves?  If the Missouri legislature cannot dilute or delete Proposition B, perhaps lawmakers should take the opposite approach — try to remove the exemptions and force the shelters to explain why they should not be held to the same scrutiny they impose on others.

Thanks to this morning’s paper, I can think of 195 silent witnesses for the prosecution.

Since he is considering a run for president in 2012, Newt is news, so his address was covered and caught the attention of many in the national media, including the Wall Street Journal. He has been called lots of nasty names, like “Professor Cornpone” and “Newt the Prostitute”. You can always count on the anti-ethanol crowd for ad hominum attacks in lieu of actual facts.

The fact is that Newt made lots of sense, especially when it came to the need for all new vehicles to be Flex Fuel capable. “There is ZERO reason for the auto manufacturers not to produce flex fuel cars and there is zero reason to tolerate their resistance and I think that ought to be the minimum demand for national security reasons, but also for consumer choice,” he said. “Why shouldn’t the consumer have the right to choose the fuel they want to use in a car that can use any kind of fuel?”

The Wall Street Journal, offended by Newt picking on one of its numerous editorials attacking ethanol, proved total ignorance on the issue of FFVs.

In his Iowa speak-power-to-truth lecture, he even suggested that the government should mandate that all new cars in the U.S. be flex-fuel vehicles—meaning those that can run on an ethanol-gas mix as high as 85%—as if King Corn were in any danger of being deposed.

Yet there are currently dozens of flex-fuel models on the market, and auto makers already get a benefit if they sell them, via the prior fuel-economy mandates that did so much to devastate Detroit. The problem is consumers rarely want to pay more for flex-fuel cars when they get 25% to 30% fewer miles per gallon with E85, according to Energy Department data.

The problem is, the WSJ apparently doesn’t understand that making a vehicle flex fuel capable costs $100 or less (far less than most other federally mandated vehicle changes) and – more importantly – consumers can still use regular gasoline in them if they so choose. “Choose” being the operative word here.

After taking heat over his comments for a week, Newt responded to his critics in a letter to the WSJ editor. “I have supported measures to increase domestic energy production throughout my career in public life,” he writes, as he noted in the Iowa address right off the bat. “When (he and Gov. Branstad) first worked on this, hard to believe, 27 years ago – they were talking about it as gasohol.”

Newt also noted in his letter that he is for “increased domestic energy production of all forms” – which he also noted in his Iowa speech. Listen to it for yourself – it is not just brilliant, but common sense as well.

Listen to or download Newt’s entire speech at IRFA here: Newt Gingrich at Iowa RFA Summit